There's been a hell of a lot more then just one shot child in this clusterfuck of a war we are in. Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis have died and you think it's irrational for those who oppose Bush to compare what he's done to a single dead kid? I was sympathetic to you earlier in this thread, but seriously it's obvious now that you need to open your eyes.
And it was Bush who used revenge as an excuse for war. Who are these anti-Bush people you speak of who say we need to start another war to clean up the mess we're in? Oh yeah, they don't exist.
I would really like to agree with you, but the fact is that the American populace is generally pretty ignorant about stuff. At some point in the past maybe an argument could be made that it is our fault if corporations aren't acting in a socially beneficial manor or if politicians aren't enacting the will of the people, but in our current culture people are pacified to apathy by reality TV and the education system is getting worse and worse thanks to things like NCLB. The problem is that if people are ignorant they can be easily manipulated and any politician or media mogul who's read Fahrenheit 451 knows that and can take advantage of it. I don't think it's a coincidence that the Republican's are so fond of defunding our public education system.
And no, I won't deny my bias against the Republican's. Every time they attain power they've proven that despite all their talking points about big government, they run up debts and expand the role of government in our lives far more than any Democrat has ever attempted. Anyways, like it or not the Dems are too disorganized to play a part in any grand conspiracy theories.
Oh yeah, and I never buy from McDonalds or Walmart and I try my best to buy local. I know I'm in the minority, but some of us actually do give a shit about where we spend our money.
He will step down at that point provided he doesn't get himself assassinated while engaging in diplomacy in foreign lands. While he should be pretty damn safe then considering his affinity for diplomacy.
Now cell phone hinges, that's another story... I'll never buy another flip cell phone, those things snap all the time! I'm curious how you define "all the time". In 10 years I've never had a problem with the hinges on my cell phones.
I guess it's just a personal definition but I see morals as something independent of laws. I think murder is immoral, and I think it is still immoral when it is government sanctioned. Likewise I don't think that growing a natural plant such as cannabis is ever immoral (in fact the idea is laughable) and that doesn't change based on the whims of legislators.
Age of consent is tricky because there is a lot of gray area. I can see where you're coming from, but I think that the fact the someone before 18 doesn't have full rights is yet again just a legal distinction.
And before you get any wrong ideas, I actually am a particularly law abiding individual. I just can't possibly equate illegal with wrong since I've seen so much awful legislation passed.
No, it's a legal difference. All the examples you give are demonstrate only a legal difference. There is nothing fundamentally meaningful about the legal age of consent.
They certainly could and should be made easily countable by people. Of course I agree, it is much more expensive system with marginal benefit over just using paper ballots to begin with.
There is NOTHING wrong with a paper vote other than taking so long. Not that it even takes that long. Most results are in by the 11 O'clock news. In a close race you may need to wait till the morning to get your election results. Who cares?
Electronic voting machines are the solution to a problem that doesn't exist and only result in complicating things immensely and making the results less reliable. I don't see the benefits.
The point is that no one wants to spend their money to fund candidates they don't agree with, so the only way it works at all is to fund it through taxes. I'm all for people having an equal opportunity to speak. I just don't think I should have to pay for it. There's a huge difference between equal opportunity and enforcing equality. Good! The point of public funding is to end the ridiculous fund raising arms race which does nothing but harm to political discourse. If they don't want to raise any money that will get matched by their opponent then don't and spend the money you've been allocated on something productive instead of expensive and content-free TV ads.
A lot of liberals have problems with it when someone who doesn't agree start exercising their right to speak. Only liberals? Does your radio not have an AM tuner?
There is a lot I don't like about Tibetan Buddhism too. Too mystical for me. That said the Dalai Lama is a great guy. Interesting thing though about selecting of the Dalai Lama, when asked how they could be sure they person they selected was the actual reincarnation of the previous Dalai Lama a Tibetan leader answered that it didn't matter. If they believe they are the Dalai Lama and they are educated well then that is all that's important. Hearing that really made me appreciate their beliefs a lot more!
By far the most highly recommended book on Buddhism that I've heard of is "What the Buddha Taught" by Walpola Rahula . I haven't gotten around to reading it yet but all the Buddhists I know rave about it. The author comes from a Theravada tradition so there should be little of the mystical cruft that has been added to Buddhism over the ages. I'm going to read it soon, I'd recommend giving it a look too if you get a chance!
No, Buddhism doesn't teach that there is anything "wrong" with the human race. It just teaches that suffering is a part of being human. This is true, correct? And no one especially likes suffering so Buddhism offers techniques to try and minimize the suffering you experience in life.
I don't quite get you, are you denying the fact that people suffer? Do you think we all live perfect Utopian lives? What is it about the idea that people suffer and that their are things you can do to minimize suffering that you disagree with?
The Buddha also didn't teach that you need to follow his system. He taught that his system worked for him and you should consider trying it if it makes sense to you. Additionally no claims are made about his way being the only way.
I'm not a geologist or an evolutionary biologist, but I have read enough evolutionist writings to know that many evolutionary scientists assume the non-existence of God (or at least, the non-interference of God in natural processes) as one of the fundamental definitions of what they call science. I think that's just as intellectually dishonest as the "Bible-only" Creationist. No that's not intellectually dishonest, it's necessary. Without assuming that god does not interfere in nature science would be a non-starter. You wouldn't be able to even make the simplest rule such as objects fall towards the ground if you assumed that sometimes they don't because God can interfere if he chooses.
So your right, science does assume that God doesn't interfere in natural processes and that assumption is implicit in everything we have done using our scientific knowledge. You disagree that God doesn't interfere. If that is the case why is it that all our science which assumes he does not interfere works out so nicely? The fact is if God did interfere we would be able to detect it as a physical process and it would be in the realm of scientific investigation. We never do detect it however.
What school of Buddhism where you studying? You should have come across that fact that the idea of reincarnation in Buddhism is not used in the same way as it is in other religions. In fact, because Buddhism has no concept of a permanent soul, the common conception of reincarnation doesn't even make sense in the context of Buddhism.
Reincarnation is not a dogmatic belief you need to accept. Many Buddhists believe in it literally, but many (such as I) do not and see it as more of a metaphor. The same goes for the ideas of heaven and hell in Buddhism.
Buddhist beliefs vary a lot from one school to the next. Theravada and Chan/Zen are much less "religious" then many of the other schools. Remember it was the Buddha himself who said not to accept any ideas (including his own) unless they seem reasonable to you based on what you are able to observe.
FYI, the Buddhist conception of Karma is also much different from the common (Hindu) idea of it. Buddhism doesn't say that your bad deeds will automatically be returned to you in kind. Buddhist Karma is the idea that nothing happens without reason, cause and effect. If you do harm to someone it may not necessarily cause harm to be done to you, but your actions will have consequences.
Oh, come now. While what he's describing isn't the scientific ideal, scientists are only human, and this does certainly happen - the canonical example being of course Einstein and his refusal to acknowledge the validity of the probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics. He was reluctant, but eventually Einstein accepted it. No scientists aren't perfect, but over time science tends to overcome individual flaws.
Slashdot Mirror
There's been a hell of a lot more then just one shot child in this clusterfuck of a war we are in. Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis have died and you think it's irrational for those who oppose Bush to compare what he's done to a single dead kid? I was sympathetic to you earlier in this thread, but seriously it's obvious now that you need to open your eyes.
And it was Bush who used revenge as an excuse for war. Who are these anti-Bush people you speak of who say we need to start another war to clean up the mess we're in? Oh yeah, they don't exist.
I would really like to agree with you, but the fact is that the American populace is generally pretty ignorant about stuff. At some point in the past maybe an argument could be made that it is our fault if corporations aren't acting in a socially beneficial manor or if politicians aren't enacting the will of the people, but in our current culture people are pacified to apathy by reality TV and the education system is getting worse and worse thanks to things like NCLB. The problem is that if people are ignorant they can be easily manipulated and any politician or media mogul who's read Fahrenheit 451 knows that and can take advantage of it. I don't think it's a coincidence that the Republican's are so fond of defunding our public education system.
And no, I won't deny my bias against the Republican's. Every time they attain power they've proven that despite all their talking points about big government, they run up debts and expand the role of government in our lives far more than any Democrat has ever attempted. Anyways, like it or not the Dems are too disorganized to play a part in any grand conspiracy theories.
Oh yeah, and I never buy from McDonalds or Walmart and I try my best to buy local. I know I'm in the minority, but some of us actually do give a shit about where we spend our money.
Since when has Bush demonstrated any concern for the legality or constitutionality of his actions? No really, when?
Where's the rating for +1, fuckin' cool as shit.
I guess it's just a personal definition but I see morals as something independent of laws. I think murder is immoral, and I think it is still immoral when it is government sanctioned. Likewise I don't think that growing a natural plant such as cannabis is ever immoral (in fact the idea is laughable) and that doesn't change based on the whims of legislators.
Age of consent is tricky because there is a lot of gray area. I can see where you're coming from, but I think that the fact the someone before 18 doesn't have full rights is yet again just a legal distinction.
And before you get any wrong ideas, I actually am a particularly law abiding individual. I just can't possibly equate illegal with wrong since I've seen so much awful legislation passed.
No, it's a legal difference. All the examples you give are demonstrate only a legal difference. There is nothing fundamentally meaningful about the legal age of consent.
Have you seen Slim Cessna play live yet? I keep missing that sonofabitch whenever he comes around but I keep hearing it's a fantastic show!
;-)
Lots of other good stuff on your list there. I don't understand why more radio stations don't play GY!BE
They certainly could and should be made easily countable by people. Of course I agree, it is much more expensive system with marginal benefit over just using paper ballots to begin with.
The physical vote should be automatic. The instant electronic returns are nice, but only a count of the physical ballots should be official.
Electronic voting machines are the solution to a problem that doesn't exist and only result in complicating things immensely and making the results less reliable. I don't see the benefits.
It's perfectly fair since that was the GP's joke.
There is a lot I don't like about Tibetan Buddhism too. Too mystical for me. That said the Dalai Lama is a great guy. Interesting thing though about selecting of the Dalai Lama, when asked how they could be sure they person they selected was the actual reincarnation of the previous Dalai Lama a Tibetan leader answered that it didn't matter. If they believe they are the Dalai Lama and they are educated well then that is all that's important. Hearing that really made me appreciate their beliefs a lot more!
By far the most highly recommended book on Buddhism that I've heard of is "What the Buddha Taught" by Walpola Rahula . I haven't gotten around to reading it yet but all the Buddhists I know rave about it. The author comes from a Theravada tradition so there should be little of the mystical cruft that has been added to Buddhism over the ages. I'm going to read it soon, I'd recommend giving it a look too if you get a chance!
I don't know about you but I always interacted with paper using a digital interface.
No, Buddhism doesn't teach that there is anything "wrong" with the human race. It just teaches that suffering is a part of being human. This is true, correct? And no one especially likes suffering so Buddhism offers techniques to try and minimize the suffering you experience in life.
I don't quite get you, are you denying the fact that people suffer? Do you think we all live perfect Utopian lives? What is it about the idea that people suffer and that their are things you can do to minimize suffering that you disagree with?
The Buddha also didn't teach that you need to follow his system. He taught that his system worked for him and you should consider trying it if it makes sense to you. Additionally no claims are made about his way being the only way.
He can wash his hands all he wants, he still allowed the execution to take place and it was Roman soldiers, not Jews, who carried out the execution.
So your right, science does assume that God doesn't interfere in natural processes and that assumption is implicit in everything we have done using our scientific knowledge. You disagree that God doesn't interfere. If that is the case why is it that all our science which assumes he does not interfere works out so nicely? The fact is if God did interfere we would be able to detect it as a physical process and it would be in the realm of scientific investigation. We never do detect it however.
What school of Buddhism where you studying? You should have come across that fact that the idea of reincarnation in Buddhism is not used in the same way as it is in other religions. In fact, because Buddhism has no concept of a permanent soul, the common conception of reincarnation doesn't even make sense in the context of Buddhism.
Reincarnation is not a dogmatic belief you need to accept. Many Buddhists believe in it literally, but many (such as I) do not and see it as more of a metaphor. The same goes for the ideas of heaven and hell in Buddhism.
Buddhist beliefs vary a lot from one school to the next. Theravada and Chan/Zen are much less "religious" then many of the other schools. Remember it was the Buddha himself who said not to accept any ideas (including his own) unless they seem reasonable to you based on what you are able to observe.
FYI, the Buddhist conception of Karma is also much different from the common (Hindu) idea of it. Buddhism doesn't say that your bad deeds will automatically be returned to you in kind. Buddhist Karma is the idea that nothing happens without reason, cause and effect. If you do harm to someone it may not necessarily cause harm to be done to you, but your actions will have consequences.
FYI, Buddhism doesn't teach that at all.