I agree with your sentiment completely with the exception of your last sentence. Christians in the region were actually safer before the U.S. government showed up.
address "freedom of expression" which clearly disregards public order
As a fellow religionist, let me give you my opinion about that: fuck that. Public order means somebody controlling somebody else, and I don't believe in it. Public order can go screw itself.
Why should anybody else get a vote in how I live my life? I can understand why people would want to prohibit me from violating their right to life, liberty, or property, and I support people in taking steps to protect themselves from this and punish those who commit such crimes. Certainly (whether a majority votes on it or not, educated or not) I should be permitted to live my life in such a way that I violate these rights of others.
But why should I be subject to a vote in anything besides this? Why should a majority (educated or not) get to violate my right to life, liberty, or property? Why should they be permitted to take my property to serve their ends? Why should they be permitted to force me into service of any sort? Why should they be permitted to prevent me from doing what I want to do with what is my own? Why should they be permitted to use lethal force against me if I resist these things?
No answers about how it's somehow for my own good. If I agreed that it were for my good, I would voluntarily support the things the majority wants to force on me. The greater good is just a secular version of the same tyranny we are reading about in Greece: people want to make you do "right" (their opinion) and prevent you from doing "wrong" (their opinion) and take away your liberty to live by your own standards.
How? How do I tolerate this evil deed any more than you do? I have spoken out of it, and I am not a part of what these people are doing, and I will denounce it at every turn as evil and unChristian, and in fact evil by any coherent standards of morality.
What am I doing or not doing that makes you say I tolerate this?
Making fun of him would be like picking on Mother Teresa or someone like that. Nevertheless, I think an arrest is uncalled for.
Exactly.
I would also like to point out that the over-reaction to the page is coming from political quarters. To my knowledge, the Church is not behind this.
Christians are responsible for doing right all of the time, not just when they are representing the church. They cannot put on dark hoods and form a club and then lay the blame for their misdeeds at the feet of the club. Even if the club is political. Christians are always the Body of Christ, and I hope that the Orthodox Church teaches this.
First of all, this is a non-ecclesiastical entity calling for prosecution (evidently as a cheap means of drawing attention to itself), not the Church itself prosecuting the fellow.
The people within that non-ecclesiastical entity are probably not non-church people. They are obligated to behave correctly all the time, not just when they are acting in an official church capacity.
I am a Christian. I am not Orthodox, but I have enjoyed reading about their church and traditions online, and I have a lot of respect for them as compared to a lot of Protestantism.
But this is intolerable. Requiring anybody to respect anything is slavery and is an unChristian violation of liberties. The Bible says in the New Testament in 1 Corinthians 15 that the church's judgment is to be enforced only within the church. Even St. Paul the Apostle expressly denied that he had any authority to judge those who are outside of the church.
Dellow felegates! In response to this direct threat to the Republic, mesa propose that the Senate give immediately emergency powers to the Supreme Chancellor!
Sorry, my point wasn't that the costs escalate. My point is that while the government might owe money to the original people it stole it from, it's not justified in stealing from the next person to pay it back.
Medicare and Social Security are not the government's money. It's our money we specifically paid in for those programs. They're mandated savings accounts.
I stole $100 from you and spent it. Now I owe you $100. But it's no problem; I'll just steal $100 from some other guy, give it to you, and call it even! Now I'm in the clear! I'll even take an extra $10 in the process, for my trouble.
Oh, wait, now I owe the next guy $110. No problem! I'll just steal $110 from some other guy, give it to the second guy, and call it even! Now I'm in the clear! I'll even take an extra $11 in the process, for my trouble.
What's that, you say? I owe the third guy $121? I'll be; you're right! Do you see now why these programs must never be stopped? Don't dare tell me to stop these programs. I owe it to people to continue stealing from other people. After all, it's their money. Quite frankly, you deserve it.
a video that... has been blamed for sparking violence at U.S. embassies in Cairo and Benghazi
Personally, I would've laid the blame for violence at the feet of the violent people, not at the feet of people giving their personal opinions in a video. But I have this weird idea that people are responsible for their own actions. My idea may fade, though, as "your speech caused violence" gets proved by repeated assertion.
So that means yeah, you are going to pay for some things you think are shit, and you are going to deal, because the alternative is sucking ass somewhere, living to work, working to live, hoping to god you don't get hurt, or killed before you even turn 30.
Thanks for the lecture, Dad. Now, can I live like a grown up and make my own mistakes? Or do I still need your permission and still need to pay tithes to your institution for the privilege of your guidance and leadership?
You are wealthy due to the labor invested in making sure you are born wealthy enough to even contemplate bitching about having to contribute your share needed to keep it all rolling.
I don't want to keep it rolling, and I would like it to stop, even if you think it is not the best thing for me. How do you justify continuing to force me to support something I do not believe in? It continues to roll over dark people in the Middle East, dark and light people at home, marijuana smokers, tobacco smokers, homosexuals, and lots of other people. I would like to quit fueling it so it will stop rolling. How do you justify continuing to force me to support it?
I certainly (as an American) wouldn't have funded the Iraq war
That's exactly the kind of thing I am arguing for. Ten years ago I was a conservative idiot who supported that war. I supported it verbally, I supported it by voting for leaders who supported it. Today I realize what a horrible mistake that was. I realize that I literally have blood on my hands, not to mention the (lesser) crime of supporting forcing people like you to do what I thought was right. I realize that it is a mistake to ever give anybody that kind of say in the lives of others.
Democratic government operates on the concept of shared sacrifice
But it's a system where one group of people forces the others to sacrifice. It is legalized infringement of the rights of the minority by the majority.
I'm all for shared sacrifice when all the sacrificing parties agree voluntarily. For example, my wife and I might agree to curb our spending in order to put our kids through college. That's voluntary sacrifice on both our parts.
you pay into the coffers and trust that your leaders spend it wisely. You don't get to choose the definition of "wisely" by yourself.
Nobody should get to choose what is "wise" for other people.
FYI, I'd probably support NASA, too, but it would be far more accountable with what it does with its money if the people supporting it could choose not to support it and let their money go to something else they deem more worthy. Just as the U.S. military operations over the last decade would've had to be a lot more responsible and accountable if they didn't have the power to compel support.
When people take money from others, it's stealing, and doesn't become something else by calling it "taxing."
Neither of those things were cheap or easy, but society has greatly benefited from their discoveries
Still, that's my decision to make with my money, not yours or "society's." "Society" might benefit from me not taking marijuana, but that still should be my decision to make. "Society" might benefit from the increased birth rate of forcing me to have children, but that still should be my decision to make.
What if I decide that society benefits from forcing everybody to go to church? What if a majority of people agree with me and force everybody to go? Booze is damaging to society, so maybe those blue laws here in Texas that keep me from buying wine before noon on Sunday are good laws after all.
Plus, spending resources on science and adventure is a hell of a lot more palatable than blowing it on corporate bailouts and foreign conflicts, yes?
That's like asking if I'd prefer to be forced to pay child support for the children of my neighbor on the east as opposed to the children of my neighbor on the west. What I would prefer is to not be subject to forced servitude, rather than being given a choice of which kind I would like.
My country's successes weren't accomplished by the naysayers; step aside, sir.
I would love to step aside, but people keep trying to forcibly involve my money in such projects. I will gladly step aside, and to you I say, Go For It! Just do it on the dimes of people like you, and be principled and leave the naysayers out of it. Then you won't have to hear from us so much.
Sometime around 1986, when I was a very young and naive boy, I searched every store all over the place for Super Mario Brothers for Atari 2600. I just didn't get why it wasn't available.:) I don't know if I'll download and play it, but I am delighted at the news, and to see the video.:)
Yes I want standards for teaching children about science to be set by scientists, not by religious cranks. If that requires top down control, then that's a strong argument for top down control
wait, you have to have top down control because the alternative is religious cranks having top down control? Those are the only two options?
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with your sentiment completely with the exception of your last sentence. Christians in the region were actually safer before the U.S. government showed up.
address "freedom of expression" which clearly disregards public order
As a fellow religionist, let me give you my opinion about that: fuck that. Public order means somebody controlling somebody else, and I don't believe in it. Public order can go screw itself.
The short version is that you do tolerate "evil". We all do (with a miniscule number of exceptions, but I doubt they read /.)
You are right. Such people would never tolerate the layout here.
If he is a god, let him contend for himself, because his altar has been broken down.
Why should anybody else get a vote in how I live my life? I can understand why people would want to prohibit me from violating their right to life, liberty, or property, and I support people in taking steps to protect themselves from this and punish those who commit such crimes. Certainly (whether a majority votes on it or not, educated or not) I should be permitted to live my life in such a way that I violate these rights of others.
But why should I be subject to a vote in anything besides this? Why should a majority (educated or not) get to violate my right to life, liberty, or property? Why should they be permitted to take my property to serve their ends? Why should they be permitted to force me into service of any sort? Why should they be permitted to prevent me from doing what I want to do with what is my own? Why should they be permitted to use lethal force against me if I resist these things?
No answers about how it's somehow for my own good. If I agreed that it were for my good, I would voluntarily support the things the majority wants to force on me. The greater good is just a secular version of the same tyranny we are reading about in Greece: people want to make you do "right" (their opinion) and prevent you from doing "wrong" (their opinion) and take away your liberty to live by your own standards.
Yet you tolerate it.
How? How do I tolerate this evil deed any more than you do? I have spoken out of it, and I am not a part of what these people are doing, and I will denounce it at every turn as evil and unChristian, and in fact evil by any coherent standards of morality.
What am I doing or not doing that makes you say I tolerate this?
Making fun of him would be like picking on Mother Teresa or someone like that. Nevertheless, I think an arrest is uncalled for.
Exactly.
I would also like to point out that the over-reaction to the page is coming from political quarters. To my knowledge, the Church is not behind this.
Christians are responsible for doing right all of the time, not just when they are representing the church. They cannot put on dark hoods and form a club and then lay the blame for their misdeeds at the feet of the club. Even if the club is political. Christians are always the Body of Christ, and I hope that the Orthodox Church teaches this.
You are right! I meant 1 Corinthians 5: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+5&version=NASB
He sounds like a nasty person to me, judging by Christian standards as I understand them!
First of all, this is a non-ecclesiastical entity calling for prosecution (evidently as a cheap means of drawing attention to itself), not the Church itself prosecuting the fellow.
The people within that non-ecclesiastical entity are probably not non-church people. They are obligated to behave correctly all the time, not just when they are acting in an official church capacity.
I am a Christian. I am not Orthodox, but I have enjoyed reading about their church and traditions online, and I have a lot of respect for them as compared to a lot of Protestantism.
But this is intolerable. Requiring anybody to respect anything is slavery and is an unChristian violation of liberties. The Bible says in the New Testament in 1 Corinthians 15 that the church's judgment is to be enforced only within the church. Even St. Paul the Apostle expressly denied that he had any authority to judge those who are outside of the church.
This is wrong, immoral, and unChristian.
I know. I mean, I paid $700 to my insurance company over the last year, and I didn't get a single cent of it back!
Beats me what that has to do with a debt owed to victims of theft by the perpetrator. You bought a service and got value in return.
You seem to be confusing "savings accounts" and "insurance policies", which is odd since they're not at all similar.
You seem to be confusing purchasing with being robbed.
Emergency? Planetary emergency, you say?
Dellow felegates! In response to this direct threat to the Republic, mesa propose that the Senate give immediately emergency powers to the Supreme Chancellor!
Sorry, my point wasn't that the costs escalate. My point is that while the government might owe money to the original people it stole it from, it's not justified in stealing from the next person to pay it back.
Medicare and Social Security are not the government's money. It's our money we specifically paid in for those programs. They're mandated savings accounts.
I stole $100 from you and spent it. Now I owe you $100. But it's no problem; I'll just steal $100 from some other guy, give it to you, and call it even! Now I'm in the clear! I'll even take an extra $10 in the process, for my trouble.
Oh, wait, now I owe the next guy $110. No problem! I'll just steal $110 from some other guy, give it to the second guy, and call it even! Now I'm in the clear! I'll even take an extra $11 in the process, for my trouble.
What's that, you say? I owe the third guy $121? I'll be; you're right! Do you see now why these programs must never be stopped? Don't dare tell me to stop these programs. I owe it to people to continue stealing from other people. After all, it's their money. Quite frankly, you deserve it.
a video that ... has been blamed for sparking violence at U.S. embassies in Cairo and Benghazi
Personally, I would've laid the blame for violence at the feet of the violent people, not at the feet of people giving their personal opinions in a video. But I have this weird idea that people are responsible for their own actions. My idea may fade, though, as "your speech caused violence" gets proved by repeated assertion.
You make the claim that sensation is the right of every sentient being. LOL. Seriously. Laughing hard here.
You might need to reread that word. Might need a dictionary. Maybe not. But it isn't "sensation."
Bet you are somewhere in your 20's, right where I was when I said similar things
What the heck? Not even close.
Is the idea that it's okay to force your ideas on me because you think I'm young and need protection from myself?
So that means yeah, you are going to pay for some things you think are shit, and you are going to deal, because the alternative is sucking ass somewhere, living to work, working to live, hoping to god you don't get hurt, or killed before you even turn 30.
Thanks for the lecture, Dad. Now, can I live like a grown up and make my own mistakes? Or do I still need your permission and still need to pay tithes to your institution for the privilege of your guidance and leadership?
You are wealthy due to the labor invested in making sure you are born wealthy enough to even contemplate bitching about having to contribute your share needed to keep it all rolling.
I don't want to keep it rolling, and I would like it to stop, even if you think it is not the best thing for me. How do you justify continuing to force me to support something I do not believe in? It continues to roll over dark people in the Middle East, dark and light people at home, marijuana smokers, tobacco smokers, homosexuals, and lots of other people. I would like to quit fueling it so it will stop rolling. How do you justify continuing to force me to support it?
I certainly (as an American) wouldn't have funded the Iraq war
That's exactly the kind of thing I am arguing for. Ten years ago I was a conservative idiot who supported that war. I supported it verbally, I supported it by voting for leaders who supported it. Today I realize what a horrible mistake that was. I realize that I literally have blood on my hands, not to mention the (lesser) crime of supporting forcing people like you to do what I thought was right. I realize that it is a mistake to ever give anybody that kind of say in the lives of others.
Democratic government operates on the concept of shared sacrifice
But it's a system where one group of people forces the others to sacrifice. It is legalized infringement of the rights of the minority by the majority.
I'm all for shared sacrifice when all the sacrificing parties agree voluntarily. For example, my wife and I might agree to curb our spending in order to put our kids through college. That's voluntary sacrifice on both our parts.
you pay into the coffers and trust that your leaders spend it wisely. You don't get to choose the definition of "wisely" by yourself.
Nobody should get to choose what is "wise" for other people.
FYI, I'd probably support NASA, too, but it would be far more accountable with what it does with its money if the people supporting it could choose not to support it and let their money go to something else they deem more worthy. Just as the U.S. military operations over the last decade would've had to be a lot more responsible and accountable if they didn't have the power to compel support.
Basically what you are arguing is that people should be forced to live by your moral opinions, and fuck them if they disagree.
Truth is, your taxes are a steal, even with the abuses. Could be better, but you are still getting one hell of a deal.
This is the kind of thing that abusive men say to the women they beat.
When you pay taxes, it becomes 'our' money
When people take money from others, it's stealing, and doesn't become something else by calling it "taxing."
Neither of those things were cheap or easy, but society has greatly benefited from their discoveries
Still, that's my decision to make with my money, not yours or "society's." "Society" might benefit from me not taking marijuana, but that still should be my decision to make. "Society" might benefit from the increased birth rate of forcing me to have children, but that still should be my decision to make.
What if I decide that society benefits from forcing everybody to go to church? What if a majority of people agree with me and force everybody to go? Booze is damaging to society, so maybe those blue laws here in Texas that keep me from buying wine before noon on Sunday are good laws after all.
Plus, spending resources on science and adventure is a hell of a lot more palatable than blowing it on corporate bailouts and foreign conflicts, yes?
That's like asking if I'd prefer to be forced to pay child support for the children of my neighbor on the east as opposed to the children of my neighbor on the west. What I would prefer is to not be subject to forced servitude, rather than being given a choice of which kind I would like.
My country's successes weren't accomplished by the naysayers; step aside, sir.
I would love to step aside, but people keep trying to forcibly involve my money in such projects. I will gladly step aside, and to you I say, Go For It! Just do it on the dimes of people like you, and be principled and leave the naysayers out of it. Then you won't have to hear from us so much.
Sometime around 1986, when I was a very young and naive boy, I searched every store all over the place for Super Mario Brothers for Atari 2600. I just didn't get why it wasn't available. :) I don't know if I'll download and play it, but I am delighted at the news, and to see the video.:)
Yes I want standards for teaching children about science to be set by scientists, not by religious cranks. If that requires top down control, then that's a strong argument for top down control
wait, you have to have top down control because the alternative is religious cranks having top down control? Those are the only two options?