Re:conditions for entering heaven?
on
How Doctors Die
·
· Score: 1
I'm not saying I believe it, just taking a guess as to what the religious anti-euthanasia folks may be thinking.
Sorry, thought that was your viewpoint. In any case, we still had a nice little hypothetical going there.
Re:conditions for entering heaven?
on
How Doctors Die
·
· Score: 1
But how exactly is prolonging someone's suffering and inevitable death celebrating or respectful of life? Seems to cheapen it, to me.
Life for the sake of being technically alive isn't the be-all end-all; what about the *quality* of life? The only argument against this seems to be "Because God said so". (which I'm not at all sure is in the Bible or Torah.. in fact, in the Torah, He doesn't seem to value life all that much)
I'm not saying to kill someone because they're sick or hurt; but things like iron lungs and some forms of resuscitation are artificially extending a life that would've ended naturally. And how do they know they're not defying God's will? Maybe He was "calling them home".
Nah, I'm really not that big on Dr. Who. I mostly liked it when David Tenant was the Doc.
Speaking of- here's a scenario, no less likely than any other Moffat can cook up: remember the Time Lord/human hybrid Doctor (D. Tenant) living in an alternate universe with Rose, the one that grew out of his hand? Maybe Tenant could come back for a show or two, then somehow.. magically.. regenerate back into a full Time Lord, and viola'- new doctor, another 12 lives.
Re:Had a personal experience on this one
on
How Doctors Die
·
· Score: 1
Which is a bit ironic, really. If they are so religious, why prolong a quasi-life- are they afraid of death? You'd think religious people would be like, "Yeehah, Heaven, here I come!! I'm outta here, later suckers!"
My mom just passed last November. Despite a DNR, and a decent hospice for the last year, she still spent 10 years wasting away in a nursing home with Alzheimers, and the last few years were horrible, just full of misery -her mind had been long gone. I'd really want someone to smother me with my pillow if that were me, but then, I couldn't do it myself to another, so... I guess sometimes there's no escaping it.
hah...after the 12th regeneration they're toast.
Whoever succeeds Matt Smith someday will be the last doctor... unless they pull off some kind of deux ex machina, which wouldn't surprise me.
I don't like to see the typical Christian bashing that goes on here, I usually defend them, as the majority of Christians are neither "fundies" nor fanatics. (I myself am agnostic and follow no organized religion; it's not for me)
But here, cusco has a valid point. Christians, as a whole, can be very selective about what parts of the Bible they wish to adhere to and which parts they don't. Here's one example: Jesus told his apostles that a rich man has about as much chance of entering heaven as a camel has of passing through the eye of a needle. Well, I don't know one Christian person who isn't concerned and working hard to make more money, own a nice car, and a home, a big screen TV, and generally have some nice things. We're a very materialistic society. No one is giving anyone the shirt off their back. I'm not saying they're insane with greed or blind ambition, (although I bet a lot of wall street bankers consider themselves christian), but it does go against the teachings of the religion in general.
Useless fact: One of those Concerned Christians was the very first girl I kissed, way back in kindergarten, Anne Marie Biondo. I guess nobody expects their first crush to join a cult that tries to end the world...
And you can cite one example where their hysteria was based on a pagan "event"(misinterpretation), right?
As far as I can remember, they were all of their own making, or based on an astronomical event, like a comet.
I appreciate your attempt at clarification, but Dennis DeYoung was the keyboard player (and vocalist), not a guitarist.
James Young and Tommy Shaw were the guitar players during the "Grand Illusion" and "Pieces of Eight" era -Tommy Shaw had replaced John Curulewski)
James Young also sang on some of their tunes, such as Miss America and Great White Hope. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Young_(American_musician)
What are you on about? I have never heard anyone say that someone's a "real rocker" if they use active pickup/ESP/Charvel/Jackson combos. Most people are all about DiMarzio, insofar as pickups. Also, being a real rocker has nothing to do with gear. It's cliched, but tone is in your fingers.
I just love mis-attributions like this. Talk about whoosh. I was replying to Shinehead, who used the term "real rockers", (which is why I put it in quotes) with much the same sentiment as you're expressing here. Your beef is not with me. I even said "one could argue" but "not me". Next time read more carefully and don't be so quick to jump down someone's throat.
Heh, or Eric Clapton, or James Young (Styx) or Jeff Beck, or 300 other famous rock guys.
Thing is, especially with today's high gain amps, any guitar (or pickup) can get you a heavy sound.
One could argue that *real* rockers (whatever that is) use ESPs, Charvels and and Jacksons with EMG or other active pickups for a really huge monster sound that puts Gibson PAFs to shame (insofar as gain, not tone).. one *could* argue that, but I won't.
It's all good to me. But we digress.
I wish I was an engineer in the Star Trek universe. 95% of every friggin' technical problem is immediately solved by "rerouting power" somewhere or reversing polarity. The other 5% were fixed by "modulating the frequency".
This occurred to me too, but the caveats are overwhelming. At first, I thought, if they just ran power lines through the road rather than up on poles, with some modifications, this would be cool. But doing it on the scale necessary, like Interstate highways or state routes, would be insanely expensive, not to mention the issues of possible radiation and what typical road wear and tear would do to the lines. Plowing snow, forget it... Sounds good "on paper" though.
I'd like to see Number 1 more often, such as the so called self-winding watches that rely on the motions of your arm.
Then again, for those peculiar people who don't swing their arms when they walk (that sorta creeps me out) they won't work so well
I don't see number 2 happening.
Number 5? Never.
Number 3 is the most likely, IMO.
A little OT, but I have never understood why the body evolved such that in times of a severe calorie deficit, it will burn muscle before it burns it's fat stores, by default. That's not entirely accurate, it burns both, but muscle has the lower priority. It can be somewhat prevented by heavy exercise, but it would seem to me to make more sense to just go for the fat first, and then if things continue to be that bad, *then* start eating up muscle tissue.
Agreed about the potential for heart issues and/or tissue damage. Maybe it won't, but I don't wanna volunteer.
It's just that western religions tend to be. Christianity especially have been used for lots of bad, and has always been used to control other people and is manipulative and evil by design. It also tries to hinder people's thinking, and tries to tell people how everything is without anyone needing to think.
There's lots of bad with religions, but most of it comes from Christianity and western world.
While I don't disagree with most of your view of Christianity -it was manipulated from the onset by Constantine and the Council of Nicaea, perverted even more by Clovis, Charlemagne, etc. - it's been no worse than Islam, if you check your history. I'm not sure a more restrictive, anti-gay,manipulative major religion exists, and I'm not even talking about the modern extremists and jihadists. We just don't hear about it as much, being in the West.
I can't believe some of the crap chemistry sets they sell today, unless you're willing to pay $250 or more. There's almost nothing to the reasonably priced sets, there are hardly any chemicals included and the stuff is really cheaply made. I had a kit when I was 12, back in the '70s, and that had 15 or more chemicals, and I'm pretty sure my parents didn't spend oobgobs of money on it. I'm reasonably sure the constant modern threat of litigation has a lot to do with it.
Or even harder, recognizing that some accidents are really freak events. They couldn't have been foreseen, probably won't happen again, and suggest no particular preventive action.
Well said. However, no one (lawyers, politicians) makes any money or recognition off of that fact, so the laws just keep piling on. In 20 years, silverware (except spoons) will be outlawed in a home with children under 10.
So true. However, wouldn't it be even more simple to employ a dedicated limiter with a hard knee setting, like a Universal Audio 1176LN?
I really hope this new law works, but I'm skeptical that there isn't a loophole or two in it somewhere. The last big act I looked forward to, (other than payroll tax reductions) the Credit CARD Act of 2009, has some serious shortcomings, though it was a move in the right direction.
They should ban idiots who can't walk and chew gum at the same time from driving. Texting is altogether different however.. that's just stupid, it forces your eyes off the road.
Okay, I'd really like to know why this was marked "troll", that's not true. You can respond as AC.
Was it :
A) Mod thought I think all cell usage should be banned by everyone as per the NSTB and disagrees
B) Mod thinks everyone should be banned as per the NTSB, and disagrees
C) Mod thinks texting and driving is just fine and should be allowed.
The point was, rather than banning everyone from talking and driving, it's only some people who can't seem to manage this. It only takes a little self control to not zone out during a conversation and forget you're driving a vehicle. Naturally, such a partial pan is totally infeasible however, so it was a rhetorical rant, not to be taken seriously.
The other point was, mere talking does not (or should not) take your eyes off the road. Texting, however, does.
Conflicted? Not at all. I don't think these laws should pertain to everyone - only those people who drive badly when talking on a cell phone. Really, it was just a rhetorical kind of statement. Don't take it too seriously.
It's just that I can't understand people who, for whatever reason, seem to zone off into never-never land while talking on a cell phone. They don't seem to do it when talking to an actual passenger, it's just some weird thing that some people can't handle because the conversation is disembodied or something. They zone out of there whereabouts and "into" the conversation.
There's no need to take your eyes off the road just because you're talking, and yet the effect is as if they do. It's not even that having one hand off the wheel makes a difference, they don't even *notice* they're drifting into my lane or cutting me off. Personally, I have no problem whatsoever keeping my attention on the road while maintaining a conversation on a cell phone. Obviously however, some people do.
As to texting however, anything that takes your eyes off the road for any significant amount of time is risky driving, whether it's texting, or putting on makeup, or even twiddling with the GPS too much, if it means you're not paying attention. I think there's a world of difference between texting and talking.
They should ban idiots who can't walk and chew gum at the same time from driving. Texting is altogether different however.. that's just stupid, it forces your eyes off the road.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not saying I believe it, just taking a guess as to what the religious anti-euthanasia folks may be thinking.
Sorry, thought that was your viewpoint. In any case, we still had a nice little hypothetical going there.
But how exactly is prolonging someone's suffering and inevitable death celebrating or respectful of life? Seems to cheapen it, to me.
Life for the sake of being technically alive isn't the be-all end-all; what about the *quality* of life? The only argument against this seems to be "Because God said so". (which I'm not at all sure is in the Bible or Torah.. in fact, in the Torah, He doesn't seem to value life all that much)
I'm not saying to kill someone because they're sick or hurt; but things like iron lungs and some forms of resuscitation are artificially extending a life that would've ended naturally. And how do they know they're not defying God's will? Maybe He was "calling them home".
Nah, I'm really not that big on Dr. Who. I mostly liked it when David Tenant was the Doc.
Speaking of- here's a scenario, no less likely than any other Moffat can cook up: remember the Time Lord/human hybrid Doctor (D. Tenant) living in an alternate universe with Rose, the one that grew out of his hand? Maybe Tenant could come back for a show or two, then somehow.. magically.. regenerate back into a full Time Lord, and viola'- new doctor, another 12 lives.
Which is a bit ironic, really. If they are so religious, why prolong a quasi-life- are they afraid of death? You'd think religious people would be like, "Yeehah, Heaven, here I come!! I'm outta here, later suckers!"
My mom just passed last November. Despite a DNR, and a decent hospice for the last year, she still spent 10 years wasting away in a nursing home with Alzheimers, and the last few years were horrible, just full of misery -her mind had been long gone. I'd really want someone to smother me with my pillow if that were me, but then, I couldn't do it myself to another, so... I guess sometimes there's no escaping it.
hah...after the 12th regeneration they're toast.
Whoever succeeds Matt Smith someday will be the last doctor... unless they pull off some kind of deux ex machina, which wouldn't surprise me.
I don't like to see the typical Christian bashing that goes on here, I usually defend them, as the majority of Christians are neither "fundies" nor fanatics. (I myself am agnostic and follow no organized religion; it's not for me)
But here, cusco has a valid point. Christians, as a whole, can be very selective about what parts of the Bible they wish to adhere to and which parts they don't. Here's one example: Jesus told his apostles that a rich man has about as much chance of entering heaven as a camel has of passing through the eye of a needle. Well, I don't know one Christian person who isn't concerned and working hard to make more money, own a nice car, and a home, a big screen TV, and generally have some nice things. We're a very materialistic society. No one is giving anyone the shirt off their back. I'm not saying they're insane with greed or blind ambition, (although I bet a lot of wall street bankers consider themselves christian), but it does go against the teachings of the religion in general.
As to contradictions, all religious texts have those. But since all religious texts also claim they were narrated by God, or by divine inspiration, it's really inexcusable that said contradictions exist in the first place.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=bible+contradictions&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.infidels.org%2Flibrary%2Fmodern%2Fjim_meritt%2Fbible-contradictions.html&ei=DIv8TsiuMOPj0QGgsY2hAg&usg=AFQjCNFnuvWuBGU5uGWpsrptQbBxhDTRhg for starters..
Useless fact: One of those Concerned Christians was the very first girl I kissed, way back in kindergarten, Anne Marie Biondo. I guess nobody expects their first crush to join a cult that tries to end the world...
You must have been a terrible influence! :-D
And you can cite one example where their hysteria was based on a pagan "event"(misinterpretation), right?
As far as I can remember, they were all of their own making, or based on an astronomical event, like a comet.
I appreciate your attempt at clarification, but Dennis DeYoung was the keyboard player (and vocalist), not a guitarist.
James Young and Tommy Shaw were the guitar players during the "Grand Illusion" and "Pieces of Eight" era -Tommy Shaw had replaced John Curulewski)
James Young also sang on some of their tunes, such as Miss America and Great White Hope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Young_(American_musician)
Man, now I've really shown my age, haven't I?
What are you on about? I have never heard anyone say that someone's a "real rocker" if they use active pickup/ESP/Charvel/Jackson combos. Most people are all about DiMarzio, insofar as pickups. Also, being a real rocker has nothing to do with gear. It's cliched, but tone is in your fingers.
I just love mis-attributions like this. Talk about whoosh. I was replying to Shinehead, who used the term "real rockers", (which is why I put it in quotes) with much the same sentiment as you're expressing here. Your beef is not with me. I even said "one could argue" but "not me". Next time read more carefully and don't be so quick to jump down someone's throat.
Heh, or Eric Clapton, or James Young (Styx) or Jeff Beck, or 300 other famous rock guys.
Thing is, especially with today's high gain amps, any guitar (or pickup) can get you a heavy sound.
One could argue that *real* rockers (whatever that is) use ESPs, Charvels and and Jacksons with EMG or other active pickups for a really huge monster sound that puts Gibson PAFs to shame (insofar as gain, not tone).. one *could* argue that, but I won't.
It's all good to me. But we digress.
and ask it where it came from.
"Reply hazy, try again "
I wish I was an engineer in the Star Trek universe. 95% of every friggin' technical problem is immediately solved by "rerouting power" somewhere or reversing polarity. The other 5% were fixed by "modulating the frequency".
This occurred to me too, but the caveats are overwhelming. At first, I thought, if they just ran power lines through the road rather than up on poles, with some modifications, this would be cool. But doing it on the scale necessary, like Interstate highways or state routes, would be insanely expensive, not to mention the issues of possible radiation and what typical road wear and tear would do to the lines. Plowing snow, forget it... Sounds good "on paper" though.
The scientists dug too greedily and too deep.
I dub it "Balrogium"
I would just go with a General Products Hull #2.
You'd get a great view too.
I'd like to see Number 1 more often, such as the so called self-winding watches that rely on the motions of your arm.
Then again, for those peculiar people who don't swing their arms when they walk (that sorta creeps me out) they won't work so well
I don't see number 2 happening.
Number 5? Never.
Number 3 is the most likely, IMO.
A little OT, but I have never understood why the body evolved such that in times of a severe calorie deficit, it will burn muscle before it burns it's fat stores, by default. That's not entirely accurate, it burns both, but muscle has the lower priority. It can be somewhat prevented by heavy exercise, but it would seem to me to make more sense to just go for the fat first, and then if things continue to be that bad, *then* start eating up muscle tissue.
Agreed about the potential for heart issues and/or tissue damage. Maybe it won't, but I don't wanna volunteer.
It's just that western religions tend to be. Christianity especially have been used for lots of bad, and has always been used to control other people and is manipulative and evil by design. It also tries to hinder people's thinking, and tries to tell people how everything is without anyone needing to think. There's lots of bad with religions, but most of it comes from Christianity and western world.
While I don't disagree with most of your view of Christianity -it was manipulated from the onset by Constantine and the Council of Nicaea, perverted even more by Clovis, Charlemagne, etc. - it's been no worse than Islam, if you check your history. I'm not sure a more restrictive, anti-gay,manipulative major religion exists, and I'm not even talking about the modern extremists and jihadists. We just don't hear about it as much, being in the West.
I can't believe some of the crap chemistry sets they sell today, unless you're willing to pay $250 or more. There's almost nothing to the reasonably priced sets, there are hardly any chemicals included and the stuff is really cheaply made. I had a kit when I was 12, back in the '70s, and that had 15 or more chemicals, and I'm pretty sure my parents didn't spend oobgobs of money on it. I'm reasonably sure the constant modern threat of litigation has a lot to do with it.
Or even harder, recognizing that some accidents are really freak events. They couldn't have been foreseen, probably won't happen again, and suggest no particular preventive action.
Well said. However, no one (lawyers, politicians) makes any money or recognition off of that fact, so the laws just keep piling on. In 20 years, silverware (except spoons) will be outlawed in a home with children under 10.
So true. However, wouldn't it be even more simple to employ a dedicated limiter with a hard knee setting, like a Universal Audio 1176LN?
I really hope this new law works, but I'm skeptical that there isn't a loophole or two in it somewhere. The last big act I looked forward to, (other than payroll tax reductions) the Credit CARD Act of 2009, has some serious shortcomings, though it was a move in the right direction.
They should ban idiots who can't walk and chew gum at the same time from driving. Texting is altogether different however.. that's just stupid, it forces your eyes off the road.
Okay, I'd really like to know why this was marked "troll", that's not true. You can respond as AC. Was it : A) Mod thought I think all cell usage should be banned by everyone as per the NSTB and disagrees B) Mod thinks everyone should be banned as per the NTSB, and disagrees C) Mod thinks texting and driving is just fine and should be allowed. The point was, rather than banning everyone from talking and driving, it's only some people who can't seem to manage this. It only takes a little self control to not zone out during a conversation and forget you're driving a vehicle. Naturally, such a partial pan is totally infeasible however, so it was a rhetorical rant, not to be taken seriously.
The other point was, mere talking does not (or should not) take your eyes off the road. Texting, however, does.
Conflicted? Not at all. I don't think these laws should pertain to everyone - only those people who drive badly when talking on a cell phone. Really, it was just a rhetorical kind of statement. Don't take it too seriously.
It's just that I can't understand people who, for whatever reason, seem to zone off into never-never land while talking on a cell phone. They don't seem to do it when talking to an actual passenger, it's just some weird thing that some people can't handle because the conversation is disembodied or something. They zone out of there whereabouts and "into" the conversation.
There's no need to take your eyes off the road just because you're talking, and yet the effect is as if they do. It's not even that having one hand off the wheel makes a difference, they don't even *notice* they're drifting into my lane or cutting me off. Personally, I have no problem whatsoever keeping my attention on the road while maintaining a conversation on a cell phone. Obviously however, some people do.
As to texting however, anything that takes your eyes off the road for any significant amount of time is risky driving, whether it's texting, or putting on makeup, or even twiddling with the GPS too much, if it means you're not paying attention. I think there's a world of difference between texting and talking.
They should ban idiots who can't walk and chew gum at the same time from driving. Texting is altogether different however.. that's just stupid, it forces your eyes off the road.