Spoken like a true idiot American. Not everyone here is rich. In fact most of us are having a pretty hard time economically because wages haven't gone up in quite a while and prices on nearly everything have skyrocketted. I don't think that's what other countries around the world really want as their model. Yet another example of why it sucks to live in America: the idiocy in the air is thick as pea soup and smelly as rotten eggs.
Oh wait, you have backups? Did your e-mails you deleted off your home system magically get deleted off of them, too?
I have backups. But the distinct difference between me and GMail is that *I* decide if the government gets my mail. They better have a search warrant (assuming they haven't totally taken away every right we have) when they come asking for my server. If they don't. I've got time to destroy the drives. Currently my backups only hold deleted mail for 24 hours. Since 'rsync' is my backup utility it deletes files from the backup disk that are deleted on the master disk. I'm not paranoid about the government taking an interest in me at all. I think the Bush administration is a bunch of fascisistic knob jockeys, but the day they're interested in me is the day EVERYONE better worry. And finally, it's NOT tremendously harder to run your own mail server compared to using e-mail hosted by anyone else. I've been bitten multiple times in the past by others hosting my e-mail. I've been hosting my own since 2000 and haven't lost ANY mail. Running a mail server is no harder than running a web server. (Which I also do)
I don't care what happens once the message is off my server. At that point it's not my concern. All I know is that if someone wants the whole conversation, they have to get through me first. With other people holding both sides of the conversation, I lose that ability. However, I agree with the AC below who said that no one cares about what's on my mail server. Other than the anti-Bush stuff that flies between my wife and my sister-in-law, myself and various friends, I don't think the government is going to be too interested in our e-mail.
I forgot to mention that I just don't like thinking about money at all. It holds little interest for me other than being a very boring tool. I know some people really get into the whole investment thing. I just don't get that. To me it's the most boring and unproductive thing in the world. But then I get excited about tweaking computer systems, compiling software and writing scripts which a lot of other people might find boring too. So I have to say, to each their own. In my case my DIY ethic saves me a lot of money that would otherwise go to buying prebuilt solutions (whether it's software, appliances, or contractors to work on my house) which wouldn't necessarily be optimal. In the case of someone who is really into investing, the time they spend doing that must provide them with something they get enjoyment from. I honestly don't get much enjoyment from amassing money. It's really dull for me. All I know is that I just want money to be there when I need it and to go away and wait for me when I don't.
You're right about us not having much money compared to you. I'm 36 and I could give a crap about my net worth. I make a little over $50K a year and don't invest other than the tax deferred stuff my employer offers and the college fund for my kid. I don't have a credit card because I think they're evil and I despise the credit card industry as a whole. But we're both good with money in that if we can't buy it with cash, we generally don't buy it at all. We also live modestly. Our home cost us $138,000 and that was the upper end of what we could afford. We're both college graduates. I've got a 4 year and she has a Masters. In general I try to do everything myself. Wiring the house. Plumbing. Plastering. Whatever it takes to make a nice place to live. If I spent money getting other people to do that I'd be in the hole really deep. Other than how I deal with my financial stuff, I'm basically a typical American (most other people in my income bracket try to live beyond their means and get screwed). You are a bit higher up the totem pole it sounds like. And it's likely you either came from money or from a family that made you focus on money to improve your life. I came from a factory worker and an immigrant nurse's assistant who did what they could to get me into college. But I fought them tooth and nail on things like becoming an accountant or doctor. I wasn't interested, so why should I force myself to do something I don't want to do? My degree was admittedly worthless (Telecommunications with and emphasis on Audio Production) but I think college is overrated anyway. I'm in IT purely due to luck and my innate ability to "get" this stuff.
Re:Thank you very much for Gnome Terminal improv.
on
Gnome 2.14 Review
·
· Score: 1
In general I prefer GNOME to KDE. But I've been using KDE's Konsole for a few weeks now and I have to say it is VERY WELL thought out. The killer feature for me is the option to send input from one tab to ALL sessions in all tabs. This makes it VERY easy for me to run a set of commands on multiple systems simultaneously. The "Watch for Activity" and "Watch for Inactivity" features are nice too when you're using multiple tabs. This puts Konsole WAY ahead of any of the other terminal apps I've seen anywhere else.
This sounds too much like Elucido. I'm going to assume the AC was smart enough to immitate his idiocy but is not him. You certainly hold an unpopular view. Diversity is what makes humanity stronger and ensures survival. There is no "master race" no matter how much you might believe that there is. What you propose is nothing more than the misuse of technology for genocide. I can't believe that anyone would actually think the way you do and I suspect you and Elucido are heavily trolling.
That might explain why my wife and I felt that other than pleasing our relatives, marriage was largely pointless and would have no effect on us. And it hasn't. For all those people who told us how different everything would be between us, nothing has changed at all.
Ahhh... a response from someone who doesn't "get" (as in; understand) women. There ARE a lot of screwed up women out there. I was back in the dating scene for a while a few years ago and I met nothing but screwed up women. Mostly they wanted to play head games. But not every woman is like that. I also think that a lot of guys are to blame due to their expectations and lack of patience. It takes a while to actually understand women, but it's not impossible. I takes even more time to sift through them and find the less crazy ones. One hint, if she's "one of the guys" then she's probably gold. My wife can say some things that would get a guy slapped if he said it to a woman. Like when she points out tall, super thing fake blondes with huge breast implants and calls them "tits on a stick". Don't go looking for the demure, quiet type. They're nothing but trouble.
OK. You are a bit whacked. Maybe you're a transhumanist or something. How insulting to think that people of one race would want to have babies that more closely fit the more dominant race. Just plain idiotic thinking there... You must have watched a bit too much Lathe of Heaven when you were a kid.
...the stupidest thing I've seen in decades. I think they must have resurrected some Zenith engineer from 1957 who thought that would be a "futuristic" idea. The claim is that it would reduce eye strain since the border between the monitor and the wall would be less harsh. I say BS, because being honest, how many people watch movies with the lights on? at my house we even turn the lights off to watch The Mighty Boosh on BBC America!
I like your response. It's reasonable. I know that marriage is a failing institution in the U.S. and abroad. And I think your accountant sounds like a really smart guy. I do find it a bit disturbing that people would marry for reasons other than love, but you do see it with "power marriages" where people are marrying for status. To me, that's not really marriage. It's a business partnership. And it's frightening that it's considered OK in our society. That says something about America and it's not good. I guess I'm probably just being "old fashioned" about the concept of marriage which is why I even support gay marriage since I do believe that in cases where two men or women want to marry each other, they are doing it as an expression of love. It's hard for me to relate to anyone who would marry for a reason other than love. I can't fathom doing it since it seems like it's a hollow and pointless gesture. One thing I will say though is that I firmly believe that marriage in your mid to late 30s is bound to work out better than marriage in your 20s these days. I think that's part of the problem. Too many people getting married because they think they need to and doing it at too young an age. I won't say that everyone who gets married in their 20s is doomed though. It's just that when you hit your mid-30s, in most cases you've gotten a lot out of your system and you're actually ready to settle down. I had a wild time in my late teens, all through my 20s and even in my early 30s. (Heh... I'm still having some wild times) But, I don't have the NEED for the wild times now that I did when I was younger. So if I don't have a wild weekend these days, it's not a huge disappointment like it was when I was 22. I think that is what makes 30-somethings a bit more ready to marry. Not across the board mind you. Just in quite a few cases. Wait until you really meet the right person who really won't care if you are actually married or not but just wants to be with you because you're great to be with and vice-versa.:)
Sort of... But that's why it's KEY that you have the trial marriage before you do the real thing. My first relationship in high school lasted 2.5 years. My second in college lasted 4 years and almost made it to marriage except neither of us got the timing right (wanted to get married at a time when the other wasn't sure). And the woman who I married, I dated for ten years before we actually got married. THAT was the "trial marriage". By the time we decided to get married we weren't really doing it for us, we did it so that everyone else would take it seriously. We were already dead serious before. And our realtionship survived some damn rocky times involving other people and major relationship disagreements. So it's not like we're in a "honeymoon phase" either. We are admittedly quite unconventional, but that's what makes relationships really work.
As a sidenote, I really don't care much about money. If the marriage did fall apart and I had to pay out for the kid and split belonings, it would be painful but not because of the money. Simply because of the emotional toll. NO money in the world can soothe a broken heart. The only thing that can break my heart is the loss of my family. The impact on any future relationships would be annoying, certainly. But I think that would be overcome if the new partner really loved me as I love someone: completely and without limit or fear. To actually get to that point, we'd have to seriously change in different directions. My wife would have to become a raving Republican (can't ever see that happening) and I'd have to do the same (no chance of that without severe brain damage;) ). Affairs wouldn't affect us, we were through that before we got married and learned how to survive (and even integrate) it. It's not a big deal to us. To put it plainly, if I were Bill Clinton, I would have simply said, "Yeah. I did it. So what? Hillary knew about it. Next question"?
For me a pre-nup is kind of a vulgar thing. You are counting on getting a divorce at some point. It's like the arms race between Russia and the US in the Cold War Era. You'd never sleep well at night. Unless... you really don't have a stronger emotional attachment to your spouse than to your money. I guess I should also say, that if a pre-nup works for two people and neither is offended by it, then I guess it's OK for them. But I really can't understand the kind of mind that actually feels good about that sort of thing.
This is true. A simple emotional grab that was calculated to bring the ire of parents to his side. Also ridiculous in thinking since I am a parent and although my daughter is not yet two years old, I don't expect to be hiding sexuality in our society from her once she's past 13 or 14. That's just ignorant thinking. I honestly hope my daughter explores sex when she's ready as I did. There's no reason for us to keep the fun all to ourselves. It always annoys me when I see someone I knew back in high school who was either a total "slut" or "love em and leave em jerk" who is now a conservative parent telling their kids, "sex is bad and will get you in trouble"!!!
1. If sex got THEM in trouble when they were young, it did only because they weren't smart enough to study what they were getting into and analyze the ramifications and society didn't provide them with enough visible resources to get educated properly. 2. If sex DIDN'T get them into trouble and they had a supercalifragilisticexpialidocious orgasmic hourney from ages 15-28, then they're just being selfish bastards.
But this seems to be all too common in our culture. The wildest folks (usually also the stupidest) do a total 180 and become super conservative on their views about sex. Hypocritical idiots. Every one of them.
Do not judge everyone by the same standards. I had a healthy interest in sex from a very young age. I was lucky enough to live in a very liberal city with a well stocked public library. When I was 11 and my curiostiy began getting too strong to control, I went there and began researching sex in a very serious way. I learned the mechanics of sex, the structure of the genitalia, the biological purpose of sex, the psychological effects of sex and the various positions and techniques. I spent about four years constantly studying this because I wanted to know what I was doing should I get an opportunity. When I was 16, I got that opportunity with a very nice 15 year old. We had a two and a half year relationship which was broken up mostly because of personality differences and going off to college. Thank goodness when her mother caught us, she was cool enough to take my girlfriend to Planned Parenthood so she could get on the pill. We'd been using rubbers until that point and actually planned on going to PP ourselves. The pills at the time ran $45 for a three month supply. I split the cost with her since I knew it was my responsibility as much as hers to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. After all, as so many people forget, sex ISN'T just for procreation.
I know I'm not typical, but I'm also not alone in the way of being responsible and prepared for sex at a young age. (NOTE: I'm NOT advocating paedophilia. I believe that sexual relationships before the age of consent should be between individuals within two years of each other in order to prevent paedohiles from having an excuse for their perversion.) There are plenty of young people who ARE ready to handle sex in a mature fashion. Our arbitrary "moral" codes do them a disservice because they either fear that they will be punished for what they are doing and go about it without the proper precautions, or they don't want to talk to anyone about what they are feeling because they don't want to be labelled "immoral". I think people who think that ALL teens are unprepared for sex aren't firing on all cylinders. I think people who think that keeping kids from seeing ANY kind of sexual material is helpful are just stupid.
You sick fuck. You obviously have no idea why you should get married. HINT: It's ALL about love. Money should have nothing to do with it on either side. If it does, you have two sad and sorry victims of capitalist propaganda. I married my wife because I love her and she did the same with me. I don't make much money and she doesn't care. We live comfortably enough, have a great sex life and have made it to our late 30s and early 40s with only one kid (in 2004 and planned in advance) in 16 years of sex. But outside of the sex we love to actually BE with each other. I don't run screaming from the house to hang out with my male friends because she's just too much fun to hang out with no matter what we do. And she doesn't run screaming from me because she has a good time with me.
The fact that you value your posessions/wealth over your spouse makes you a lousy person to start off. The fact that your spouse agreed to a pre-nup indicates that she doesn't have any self-esteem, intelligence or both. Let me guess... she's just "the little woman" to you, right? And your the daddy surrogate for her. How fucking lame.
Thanks! A rational Christian! I wish there were more out there like you. The problem with forcing people who don't believe to go to church is that those people pretend to believe. Think about the number of musical celebrities who write songs called "I'm Gonna Beat my Hoe and Take My Money" who say, "I want to give thanks to the lord God for my Grammy award". It's nauseating.
It's not that black and white. I might have some liberal views, but I'm hardly a liberal.
Liberals are the party of handouts and special interests (Read: poor people and minorities).
Poor people need help. Minorities need help. If no one stands up for them, they might not survive.
Conservatives are giving tax cuts (Read: Allowing the rich to keep more of their money while making sure the poor get less of a break since they make less money) while the greedy big government liberals are raising taxes?
People who have more money SHOULD BE REQUIRED to help people who don't. People who make little money need help. It's simple really.
...promoting an efficient family oriented society (Read: Forcing religious dogma on those who don't want to be involved) is greedy
Some people don't believe in a family oriented society. Are they bad or evil because of that? Absolutely not. Take homosexuals for instance. Their definition of family might be extremely different from yours. Does that make them immoral? No. You cannot make that judgement. If you believe in some kind of god, then you leave that judgment up to that god. You let them do what they want and live with the satisfaction that they will be judged as they should. That is... if you are right.
I'd think that if society did this that it would make people less greedy because people would be able to choose exactly who they want to support (Read: Larger groups would be able to suppress the rights of smaller groups through financial warfare on social programs).
I don't give a damn if someone thinks that providing federal funding for people who can't afford to go to college is "stealing" from the people who earned the money. The point is that wealth should be shared, not hoarded and not given out in a discriminatory fashion. If that happened, then there would be lots of smaller groups of people who wouldn't get what they need. You really need to check your morals. You are completely wrong in every respect with what is good and moral.
I believe in helping the masses. To me all humans (grubby greedy bastard conservatives or sensitive but damaged alcoholics or drug addicts) deserve help and should be guaranteed that no matter if they are religious or not. That is what Jesus taught and what I learned growing up. It is the perfect philosophy for every human on the planet if you remove the religious connotations. Your view allows you to justify your own selfish nature as being "good".
However, you say people need the church and yet you hypocritically claim that the teachings of Jesus got him nowhere. You are conflicted. CHRISTianity is founded on the teaching of Jesus Christ. You would do well to stop professing that people need the church to get help if you are going to turn around and invalidate the teachings of the founder of the church.
Slashdot Mirror
Spoken like a true idiot American. Not everyone here is rich. In fact most of us are having a pretty hard time economically because wages haven't gone up in quite a while and prices on nearly everything have skyrocketted. I don't think that's what other countries around the world really want as their model. Yet another example of why it sucks to live in America: the idiocy in the air is thick as pea soup and smelly as rotten eggs.
I have backups. But the distinct difference between me and GMail is that *I* decide if the government gets my mail. They better have a search warrant (assuming they haven't totally taken away every right we have) when they come asking for my server. If they don't. I've got time to destroy the drives. Currently my backups only hold deleted mail for 24 hours. Since 'rsync' is my backup utility it deletes files from the backup disk that are deleted on the master disk. I'm not paranoid about the government taking an interest in me at all. I think the Bush administration is a bunch of fascisistic knob jockeys, but the day they're interested in me is the day EVERYONE better worry. And finally, it's NOT tremendously harder to run your own mail server compared to using e-mail hosted by anyone else. I've been bitten multiple times in the past by others hosting my e-mail. I've been hosting my own since 2000 and haven't lost ANY mail. Running a mail server is no harder than running a web server. (Which I also do)
I'm specifically talking about physical security.
...early adopters. Yet another lead balloon that the sheeple bought into.
I don't care what happens once the message is off my server. At that point it's not my concern. All I know is that if someone wants the whole conversation, they have to get through me first. With other people holding both sides of the conversation, I lose that ability. However, I agree with the AC below who said that no one cares about what's on my mail server. Other than the anti-Bush stuff that flies between my wife and my sister-in-law, myself and various friends, I don't think the government is going to be too interested in our e-mail.
I forgot to mention that I just don't like thinking about money at all. It holds little interest for me other than being a very boring tool. I know some people really get into the whole investment thing. I just don't get that. To me it's the most boring and unproductive thing in the world. But then I get excited about tweaking computer systems, compiling software and writing scripts which a lot of other people might find boring too. So I have to say, to each their own. In my case my DIY ethic saves me a lot of money that would otherwise go to buying prebuilt solutions (whether it's software, appliances, or contractors to work on my house) which wouldn't necessarily be optimal. In the case of someone who is really into investing, the time they spend doing that must provide them with something they get enjoyment from. I honestly don't get much enjoyment from amassing money. It's really dull for me. All I know is that I just want money to be there when I need it and to go away and wait for me when I don't.
You're right about us not having much money compared to you. I'm 36 and I could give a crap about my net worth. I make a little over $50K a year and don't invest other than the tax deferred stuff my employer offers and the college fund for my kid. I don't have a credit card because I think they're evil and I despise the credit card industry as a whole. But we're both good with money in that if we can't buy it with cash, we generally don't buy it at all. We also live modestly. Our home cost us $138,000 and that was the upper end of what we could afford. We're both college graduates. I've got a 4 year and she has a Masters. In general I try to do everything myself. Wiring the house. Plumbing. Plastering. Whatever it takes to make a nice place to live. If I spent money getting other people to do that I'd be in the hole really deep. Other than how I deal with my financial stuff, I'm basically a typical American (most other people in my income bracket try to live beyond their means and get screwed). You are a bit higher up the totem pole it sounds like. And it's likely you either came from money or from a family that made you focus on money to improve your life. I came from a factory worker and an immigrant nurse's assistant who did what they could to get me into college. But I fought them tooth and nail on things like becoming an accountant or doctor. I wasn't interested, so why should I force myself to do something I don't want to do? My degree was admittedly worthless (Telecommunications with and emphasis on Audio Production) but I think college is overrated anyway. I'm in IT purely due to luck and my innate ability to "get" this stuff.
In general I prefer GNOME to KDE. But I've been using KDE's Konsole for a few weeks now and I have to say it is VERY WELL thought out. The killer feature for me is the option to send input from one tab to ALL sessions in all tabs. This makes it VERY easy for me to run a set of commands on multiple systems simultaneously. The "Watch for Activity" and "Watch for Inactivity" features are nice too when you're using multiple tabs. This puts Konsole WAY ahead of any of the other terminal apps I've seen anywhere else.
...it makes much more sense to run your own mail server. That's what I do. I don't trust ANYONE but myself with my mail.
Oh come on. Personal attacks are fun. Especially when people take them far too seriously.
This sounds too much like Elucido. I'm going to assume the AC was smart enough to immitate his idiocy but is not him. You certainly hold an unpopular view. Diversity is what makes humanity stronger and ensures survival. There is no "master race" no matter how much you might believe that there is. What you propose is nothing more than the misuse of technology for genocide. I can't believe that anyone would actually think the way you do and I suspect you and Elucido are heavily trolling.
That might explain why my wife and I felt that other than pleasing our relatives, marriage was largely pointless and would have no effect on us. And it hasn't. For all those people who told us how different everything would be between us, nothing has changed at all.
Ahhh... a response from someone who doesn't "get" (as in; understand) women. There ARE a lot of screwed up women out there. I was back in the dating scene for a while a few years ago and I met nothing but screwed up women. Mostly they wanted to play head games. But not every woman is like that. I also think that a lot of guys are to blame due to their expectations and lack of patience. It takes a while to actually understand women, but it's not impossible. I takes even more time to sift through them and find the less crazy ones. One hint, if she's "one of the guys" then she's probably gold. My wife can say some things that would get a guy slapped if he said it to a woman. Like when she points out tall, super thing fake blondes with huge breast implants and calls them "tits on a stick". Don't go looking for the demure, quiet type. They're nothing but trouble.
OK. You are a bit whacked. Maybe you're a transhumanist or something. How insulting to think that people of one race would want to have babies that more closely fit the more dominant race. Just plain idiotic thinking there... You must have watched a bit too much Lathe of Heaven when you were a kid.
...the stupidest thing I've seen in decades. I think they must have resurrected some Zenith engineer from 1957 who thought that would be a "futuristic" idea. The claim is that it would reduce eye strain since the border between the monitor and the wall would be less harsh. I say BS, because being honest, how many people watch movies with the lights on? at my house we even turn the lights off to watch The Mighty Boosh on BBC America!
I like your response. It's reasonable. I know that marriage is a failing institution in the U.S. and abroad. And I think your accountant sounds like a really smart guy. I do find it a bit disturbing that people would marry for reasons other than love, but you do see it with "power marriages" where people are marrying for status. To me, that's not really marriage. It's a business partnership. And it's frightening that it's considered OK in our society. That says something about America and it's not good. I guess I'm probably just being "old fashioned" about the concept of marriage which is why I even support gay marriage since I do believe that in cases where two men or women want to marry each other, they are doing it as an expression of love. It's hard for me to relate to anyone who would marry for a reason other than love. I can't fathom doing it since it seems like it's a hollow and pointless gesture. One thing I will say though is that I firmly believe that marriage in your mid to late 30s is bound to work out better than marriage in your 20s these days. I think that's part of the problem. Too many people getting married because they think they need to and doing it at too young an age. I won't say that everyone who gets married in their 20s is doomed though. It's just that when you hit your mid-30s, in most cases you've gotten a lot out of your system and you're actually ready to settle down. I had a wild time in my late teens, all through my 20s and even in my early 30s. (Heh... I'm still having some wild times) But, I don't have the NEED for the wild times now that I did when I was younger. So if I don't have a wild weekend these days, it's not a huge disappointment like it was when I was 22. I think that is what makes 30-somethings a bit more ready to marry. Not across the board mind you. Just in quite a few cases. Wait until you really meet the right person who really won't care if you are actually married or not but just wants to be with you because you're great to be with and vice-versa. :)
Sort of... But that's why it's KEY that you have the trial marriage before you do the real thing. My first relationship in high school lasted 2.5 years. My second in college lasted 4 years and almost made it to marriage except neither of us got the timing right (wanted to get married at a time when the other wasn't sure). And the woman who I married, I dated for ten years before we actually got married. THAT was the "trial marriage". By the time we decided to get married we weren't really doing it for us, we did it so that everyone else would take it seriously. We were already dead serious before. And our realtionship survived some damn rocky times involving other people and major relationship disagreements. So it's not like we're in a "honeymoon phase" either. We are admittedly quite unconventional, but that's what makes relationships really work.
;) ). Affairs wouldn't affect us, we were through that before we got married and learned how to survive (and even integrate) it. It's not a big deal to us. To put it plainly, if I were Bill Clinton, I would have simply said, "Yeah. I did it. So what? Hillary knew about it. Next question"?
As a sidenote, I really don't care much about money. If the marriage did fall apart and I had to pay out for the kid and split belonings, it would be painful but not because of the money. Simply because of the emotional toll. NO money in the world can soothe a broken heart. The only thing that can break my heart is the loss of my family. The impact on any future relationships would be annoying, certainly. But I think that would be overcome if the new partner really loved me as I love someone: completely and without limit or fear. To actually get to that point, we'd have to seriously change in different directions. My wife would have to become a raving Republican (can't ever see that happening) and I'd have to do the same (no chance of that without severe brain damage
For me a pre-nup is kind of a vulgar thing. You are counting on getting a divorce at some point. It's like the arms race between Russia and the US in the Cold War Era. You'd never sleep well at night. Unless... you really don't have a stronger emotional attachment to your spouse than to your money. I guess I should also say, that if a pre-nup works for two people and neither is offended by it, then I guess it's OK for them. But I really can't understand the kind of mind that actually feels good about that sort of thing.
This is true. A simple emotional grab that was calculated to bring the ire of parents to his side. Also ridiculous in thinking since I am a parent and although my daughter is not yet two years old, I don't expect to be hiding sexuality in our society from her once she's past 13 or 14. That's just ignorant thinking. I honestly hope my daughter explores sex when she's ready as I did. There's no reason for us to keep the fun all to ourselves. It always annoys me when I see someone I knew back in high school who was either a total "slut" or "love em and leave em jerk" who is now a conservative parent telling their kids, "sex is bad and will get you in trouble"!!!
1. If sex got THEM in trouble when they were young, it did only because they weren't smart enough to study what they were getting into and analyze the ramifications and society didn't provide them with enough visible resources to get educated properly.
2. If sex DIDN'T get them into trouble and they had a supercalifragilisticexpialidocious orgasmic hourney from ages 15-28, then they're just being selfish bastards.
But this seems to be all too common in our culture. The wildest folks (usually also the stupidest) do a total 180 and become super conservative on their views about sex. Hypocritical idiots. Every one of them.
Do not judge everyone by the same standards. I had a healthy interest in sex from a very young age. I was lucky enough to live in a very liberal city with a well stocked public library. When I was 11 and my curiostiy began getting too strong to control, I went there and began researching sex in a very serious way. I learned the mechanics of sex, the structure of the genitalia, the biological purpose of sex, the psychological effects of sex and the various positions and techniques. I spent about four years constantly studying this because I wanted to know what I was doing should I get an opportunity. When I was 16, I got that opportunity with a very nice 15 year old. We had a two and a half year relationship which was broken up mostly because of personality differences and going off to college. Thank goodness when her mother caught us, she was cool enough to take my girlfriend to Planned Parenthood so she could get on the pill. We'd been using rubbers until that point and actually planned on going to PP ourselves. The pills at the time ran $45 for a three month supply. I split the cost with her since I knew it was my responsibility as much as hers to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. After all, as so many people forget, sex ISN'T just for procreation.
I know I'm not typical, but I'm also not alone in the way of being responsible and prepared for sex at a young age. (NOTE: I'm NOT advocating paedophilia. I believe that sexual relationships before the age of consent should be between individuals within two years of each other in order to prevent paedohiles from having an excuse for their perversion.) There are plenty of young people who ARE ready to handle sex in a mature fashion. Our arbitrary "moral" codes do them a disservice because they either fear that they will be punished for what they are doing and go about it without the proper precautions, or they don't want to talk to anyone about what they are feeling because they don't want to be labelled "immoral". I think people who think that ALL teens are unprepared for sex aren't firing on all cylinders. I think people who think that keeping kids from seeing ANY kind of sexual material is helpful are just stupid.
You sick fuck. You obviously have no idea why you should get married. HINT: It's ALL about love. Money should have nothing to do with it on either side. If it does, you have two sad and sorry victims of capitalist propaganda. I married my wife because I love her and she did the same with me. I don't make much money and she doesn't care. We live comfortably enough, have a great sex life and have made it to our late 30s and early 40s with only one kid (in 2004 and planned in advance) in 16 years of sex. But outside of the sex we love to actually BE with each other. I don't run screaming from the house to hang out with my male friends because she's just too much fun to hang out with no matter what we do. And she doesn't run screaming from me because she has a good time with me.
The fact that you value your posessions/wealth over your spouse makes you a lousy person to start off. The fact that your spouse agreed to a pre-nup indicates that she doesn't have any self-esteem, intelligence or both. Let me guess... she's just "the little woman" to you, right? And your the daddy surrogate for her. How fucking lame.
The next "John Holmes" to come down the pike and there will be all sorts of talk about "the next big thing". ;p
Thanks! A rational Christian! I wish there were more out there like you. The problem with forcing people who don't believe to go to church is that those people pretend to believe. Think about the number of musical celebrities who write songs called "I'm Gonna Beat my Hoe and Take My Money" who say, "I want to give thanks to the lord God for my Grammy award". It's nauseating.
Liberals are the party of handouts and special interests (Read: poor people and minorities).
Poor people need help. Minorities need help. If no one stands up for them, they might not survive.
Conservatives are giving tax cuts (Read: Allowing the rich to keep more of their money while making sure the poor get less of a break since they make less money) while the greedy big government liberals are raising taxes?
People who have more money SHOULD BE REQUIRED to help people who don't. People who make little money need help. It's simple really.
Some people don't believe in a family oriented society. Are they bad or evil because of that? Absolutely not. Take homosexuals for instance. Their definition of family might be extremely different from yours. Does that make them immoral? No. You cannot make that judgement. If you believe in some kind of god, then you leave that judgment up to that god. You let them do what they want and live with the satisfaction that they will be judged as they should. That is... if you are right.
I'd think that if society did this that it would make people less greedy because people would be able to choose exactly who they want to support (Read: Larger groups would be able to suppress the rights of smaller groups through financial warfare on social programs).
I don't give a damn if someone thinks that providing federal funding for people who can't afford to go to college is "stealing" from the people who earned the money. The point is that wealth should be shared, not hoarded and not given out in a discriminatory fashion. If that happened, then there would be lots of smaller groups of people who wouldn't get what they need. You really need to check your morals. You are completely wrong in every respect with what is good and moral.
I believe in helping the masses. To me all humans (grubby greedy bastard conservatives or sensitive but damaged alcoholics or drug addicts) deserve help and should be guaranteed that no matter if they are religious or not. That is what Jesus taught and what I learned growing up. It is the perfect philosophy for every human on the planet if you remove the religious connotations. Your view allows you to justify your own selfish nature as being "good".
However, you say people need the church and yet you hypocritically claim that the teachings of Jesus got him nowhere. You are conflicted. CHRISTianity is founded on the teaching of Jesus Christ. You would do well to stop professing that people need the church to get help if you are going to turn around and invalidate the teachings of the founder of the church.