right, but not so that they will upload pictures of it to the internet. that's why the website is different. and they're NOT taking pictures of the damn site anyway.
So should someone print on the outside of their house: NOINDEX, NOFOLLOW
if he's made millions of dollars, can't he just move to a small island off the coast of Mexico and have young women make him ceviche, bring him beer, and blow him for the rest of his life?
I gained 30 lbs once, and I've since dropped the weight, but I have nothing to show for it. I wonder if we'll get an article here soon about how executives making millions of dollars are stressed out.
The majority of Windows PCs advertise displaying millions of colors just like Apple does.
Another poster had a reference (Dell XPS), but noted that wasn't a) advertised as a graphic design workstation that was supposed to be identical to a sister product, b) touted as superior to other companies' products, or c) an later revision of a system with a superior screen.
Ah, so this is the only reason you're taking your anti-Apple position--nerd rage directed at people who are different from you.
First off, I get all the pussy I want, so I don't think that classic nerd rage applies. And it's not a matter of being different; it's a matter of being an image-conscious douchebag that thinks that Apple components are better than PC components just because. Idiots who tell me horseshit about Intel Macs running faster than Intel PCs, and when you try to explain to them that "PC" != Vista, they change the subject, or tell you that Linux sucks. When you tell them about Apple not honoring warranties on known manufacturing errors, they ignore you. When you explain that the components are now all but identical, they come up with some theory about how even though you've been in the IT field for 8 fucking years, and they work at a coffee shop, they STILL know more about computer hardware than you do.
It's not about people being different from me. I have no earth-shattering problem with Mexicans, Russians, black people, women, rednecks, Jews, monkeys, mechanics, uneducated people, homosexuals, homophobes, children, dog-lovers, cat-lovers, pornographers, or geologists. I just hate trendy trust fund hipster fuckwads who think they know something because they ate a heap of shit from a marketing firm.
I also have a problem with the fucking college girls whose daddies get them Macs and suddenly think they're all that.
Piracy is ethically no different from a mob looting a store whose locks were broken.
What does this mean? Are you referring to being a pirate or copyright infringement? Are you aware that when you copy digital media, the original is undamaged, and as such it is not theft? Ergo, it IS ethically different. I'm not saying the copyright infringement is a moral thing to do. I'm just saying that you're an idiot.
I don't know if that's misleading enough to sue them, but that incomplete comparison is fuckin' annoying.
I'll agree with that. Thanks for doing some legwork for me. My point still does stand, however, that there's a certain amount of deception on the part of Apple that leads lawyers to believe they can win lawsuits, which ends up getting Apple sued.
If Apple didn't consistently create false reputation for itself, it would slide under the radar, as does Dell. Don't know why I got modded flamebait, though.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of Windows PCs (including pretty much every laptop ever made) also use these "inferior" screens, and nobody's tried to sue Dell yet.
The majority of Windows PCs are non-specific about the superiority or inferiority of their screens. Dell doesn't lie about it. No fraud, no suit.
The fact is that most people can't tell the difference, and aren't interested in paying four times as much to get a product that isn't noticably better unless you make your living working with colour.
Try telling that to a bespectacled emo-haired skinny starbucks drinking douchebag that knows shit about computers, but somehow thinks he can explain the superiority of Apple's hardware to me?
This is a storm in a teacup.
OOOhhh! That's a great slogan for Apple: iFraud: Just a storm in a teacup
I do recording under Linux, and I like Ardour, et al better than I like anything else I've ever used. I haven't owned a Mac, though, and I've SEEN some stuff on Mac that I'd like to use. That being said, the Linux solutions lack a great deal of polish that most people would require, such as graphical plugins (which I think are on their way with LADSPA2; LADSPA being the equivalent to VST). The only thing keeping Ardour from being as flexible as these other applications, IMO, is MIDI support, which is also on its way.
Again, I really like the feel of Ardour over Protools or Nuendo3, but asking someone to go from Reason, a virtual rack (that actually LOOKS like a rack), to Pd, a sound processing application into which you can program anything (but only has visual representation of signal flow, IIRC), is a tough argument to make.
In any case, the decision between Windows and Linux as a recording environment is a no-brainer for ME. The audio subsystem in Windows is shit, Vista is shit, and Microsoft wants me to call and ask permission to upgrade my box. So *I* agree with you. But asking someone else whose brain works differently to make the leap may not be reasonable.
As for visual apps, I think the same applies, despite the amount of applications such as the GIMP, Cinelerra, etc. I would recommend trying Linux. If you have a Mac, Ardour has a native OS X installer, so try it out. Also, to check out the rest of these apps, try Fink (no 10.5 support). And if you decide to make the leap, UbuntuStudio is a great place to start for the uninitiated. It comes with a real-time kernel and system adjustments and a billion multimedia creation apps.
Truth = Faith. Faith = Divine Trust. Divine Trust *requires* NO proof, therefore Truth = No proof.
You just set off an electron cloud in my brain, and I'm now wondering if people really consider the comment about it being harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven than a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. Because really, as Americans, we're some of the most ridiculously affluent sons of bitches EVER.
And yet all those people we're fighting are so poor...
Behaviors aren't purely biological, that's what I'm saying.
Yes, but when the item in question is a primary reinforcer of behavior (meaning it is necessary to the survival of the unit or the species), quantifying excess is difficult. Especially if you have to account for the variances in what is normal for the person. Not that I think that having sex with anyone who happens to fall down next to you is normal or could be construed as normal, but again, making a sane and True-with-a-capital-T judgment is often beyond our capacity as humans.
There's no 70% majority, ANYWAY. 70% of the people would defend the victims of a black KKK automatically. Not gonna fucking happen.
Those guys are problematic, and potentially on a personal level as evil as the KKK members, but the US government would wipe out a bunch of chanting niggers in hoods around a burning cross in a split second. Don't deny it. -Nathan
All of that doesn't matter now with the proliferation of gay hookup web sites.
Or straight hookup sites. aff.com or any of its affiliates, okcupid.com is primarily straight, lavalife.com, etc. You either patronize hookup sites, or you don't. Gayness has nothing to do with it. You need to adjust your seive on this.
I'm inclined to believe that "that which is natural" is the worst excuse for allowing a behavior, ever.
I said that judging normality of a biological process across a large number of subjects is problematic. This goes for internal chemical processes, nourishment, and other biological processes. It's not a justification, it's a statement of fact regarding biology and statistics.
Killing someone is not a specifically biological process, so your tangent is off-topic, and I'm too tired to give a shit about it, though it does seem like you descend a slippery slope there pretty quickly. All I've got to say is that in Roman times, people though that the body was composed of 4 elements and all diseases were caused by imbalances in those four elements. They believed that they could sacrifice things to homonids in the sky and get rain. I don't think than an appeal to antiquity justifies anything.
There's a clear line of violence towards blacks to this day. And a lot of the effect of all that other stuff still lingers. People still wave confedorate flags anywhere they choose, regardless of what it represents.
There IS no black corollary for the KKK. That's all I was saying.
I'm questioning whether that case actually exists. I've googled for Texas death penalties for retarded minors and all I can find is the case I mentioned, another guy who shot somebody trying to buy coke, a 40 year guy that strangled a 3 year old to death with his underwear... give me a name, let me google the case from both sides, and we'll see.
And here's another guy similar to the one you posted, and this guy has an IQ of 56. It just seems like we could be spending the same amount of money we spend on keeping this guy incarcerated until they kill him on programs to help educate and support severely mentally handicapped people, especially since they are unable to understand the consequences of their actions, which again, invalidates the primary argument for the existence of the death penalty. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=440&scid=
But I would still love him and I wouldn't disown him and his boyfriends could hang out at my house and I would make them feel welcome.
Good for you. I'm glad to hear it.
think homosexuality is a symptom of hypersexuality gone rampant, and not the other way around. So many gays I know are just consumed by sex. It was that which honestly disgusts me more than anything else. But then again, I don't like hypersexual heteros either. It's just the hyper part which is deviant, I think.
Right. It's only a part of the population that is hypersexual. I think that being at risk of getting your face bashed in by the person you're hitting on has got to have a profound psychological effect on these people. Remember Matthew Shepard? Did you see any of those websites with the counters counting how long he'd been in hell?
What a bunch of hateful fucks. These people are significantly MORE of a problem than any homos.
I know that homosexuality is not a symptom of hypersexuality. It would take someone you've known since a child to convince you of that, though. That's not to say that there aren't hypersexual people who engage in homosexual activity, but just because you can see one source of it clearly doesn't mean there aren't other sources.
Life should not be too excess, in anything, and excess is a sign of mental illness.
Excess is also subjective in cases of things that are naturally a part of our biological process. So it makes it more confusing
Which means you have gay friends and don't know it. Not really.
And now, was this an accident? Does this sound like manslaughter?
This is a different case. And therefore different. Also, he's an adult. We chose the arbitrary 18 years limit, and everybody knows about it. You consistently push two separate issues together. I think that executing mentally retarded people is another gray area, but I wouldn't fight the guy you mentioned being put to death.
I was talking about a retarded minor who accidentally killed another minor while playing. People die from smacking their heads on tables, and it's tragic, but it happens. To quote a wise, wise man:
No, I'm saying that if someone accidentally kills someone, there's a legal definition for it: manslaughter. And those who commit manslaughter don't get put to death. And again, we shouldn't try minors as adults. It perverts the legal system. --Nathan Curry
See how that doesn't apply to your example? As a friend once said to his son--who was going through rough times--"You need to adjust your sieve."
There's no malice at all. I just want to be with people like me.
I keep maintaining that you can hang out with whoever the hell you want. Gays tend to be liberal because of the bashing they get from the conservatives. It's just sound sense. But I hardly think you can say that "most" gays are militant leftists. I know a few gay republicans. And I know that Foley and Haggard and probably Craig were (and are) in the closet, and nobody could tell. Which means you have gay friends and don't know it.
What would your opinion be of your son if he turned out to be gay? Do you think he'd ever tell you? I think that the fact that gay people have to hide their sexuality from those they love contributes to their level of deviancy, since they can't have a real relationship without everyone finding out, and the next best thing is fuck buddies and one night stands.
What you are trying to do is oppress everyone by trying to degrade whatever culture you don't want to participate in.
Which is why I always think it's funny when I see gay guys that go to traditional church. I'm not trying to oppress anyone, and you're assigning a lot of your own trauma to me.
People refer to them as the aughts, which is pretty accurate and also doesn't sound completely stupid. The problem, however, is that you have to explain yourself to everybody you use the term to. But let's start figuring out the 10's NOW so we aren't still trying to figure it out in 2018.
If some gay guy runs around saying that Jesus sucks donkey dick and the virgin mary was a lesbian, I am within every right to say, well, all faggits will burn in hell, and I certainly don't have to hang out with one.
Jesus Fucking Christ, man. Being gay doesn't make you disrespectful of Jesus. And they don't, for the most part, say or think that Jesus sucks donkey dick and the virgen mary was a lesbian. You're fucking insane. And no, you don't have to hang out with faggots. And you CAN say they're going to hell. But unless you come with some sort of decent reason to hate them, you're just a bigot, n: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. From Dictionary.com
But hey, you seem to the be expert on what homosexuals do. I'll cede this point to your greater experience and knowledge.
And really, to bring this back to the whole moral relativism point, you argue that it is ok to kill an unborn child because it has a high probability of being defective due to being born into poor circumstances, and yet, here you have, what you claim, is a defective golemlike thing that isn't even human enough to know if it is murdering a child, and you want that thing to live?
No, I'm saying that if someone accidentally kills someone, there's a legal definition for it: manslaughter. And those who commit manslaughter don't get put to death. And again, we shouldn't try minors as adults. It perverts the legal system.
What do I tell my son? Stay away from retards because they might kill you?
Well, you already tell him to stay away from faggots and other genetically "inferior" people, I don't see why not.
I'm not even talking about every muslim nation suddenly embolded to try and get the bomb because of perceived American weakness.
We GAVE all the Taliban their weapons. In 1992, 3 out of 4 arms sales to developing nations were by the USA. I'm not blaming this on Republicans, because I don't know whose fault it is. However, Saddam never had WMD. The media's been screaming about Iran "developing nuclear weapons" when they're developing nuclear POWER. It's a big fucking difference.
AND, we pulled out of Viet Nam in defeat. The best we can do here is pull out in the closest possible situation to victory we can manage.
You say that Bush has destroyed the good will of the world towards the USA by his actions?
Actually, I didn't say that, but I agree. I've lived abroad, and I have friends all over the world. In fact, I have Muslim friends in several countries. Of the non-fanatical variety, not that you'd know the difference. But in any case, the consensus of people outside this country is that the administration that Bush represents is a bunch of assholes.
and he's already picking a trade war with Canada and Mexico.
A trade agreement that allows slave labor is bad, in my opinion.
When you look at it that way, its kinda hard to imagine why we are even having a presidential election. Can we amend the constitution and have Bush run for a third term!
You know this is a bad idea, right? Mexico had the same political party in power for something like 70 years, and it was pretty goddamn bad. I don't want Clinton back in office, because when you hear about some nation that ends in -stan where the members of two families have been the rulers for the past 20 years, you think, "what a fucked up place."
And I don't want that place to be America.
Also, I want to acknowledge briefly that we both have the best interest of our country and our people in mind, even though we disagree somewhat extremely. Cheers.:-)
I agree that using the white term smacks of racism. Children possess reason, but they are often unable to think of the ramifications of their actions. That's what I mean by childish but reasonable. Just because you use sound reasoning to arrive to a conclusion doesn't make it right, or the MOST right.
I asked this same question to someone else, but I'm still waiting for an answer. And it's an honest-to-goodness question: Was he referring to a specific group of white people when he called them white devils? It's still inflammatory, because people tend to go macro or micro with ambiguous statements, depending on their present frame of mind, but I do think it's significant.
What I'm saying is that when a preacher is using a foreign policy example to convey a metaphysical message, it's different than conveying the message on foreign policy. In other words, in what Wright said, foreign policy was the excipient for the medicine of his message. Which is not how you portray it.
Like, sometimes it is just simpler, and easier, and therefor, more intelligent, for a hetero male with a christian heritage to seek to associate with other hetero males of a christian heritage, just so you can say "merry christmas", and talk about families and other common things without the complications and discord caused by the consideration of behaviorial differences. In the end, biological differences do not matter.
Feel free to choose who to associate with. That's not my point. My point is that if you decided to judge albinos because they don't go to the beach like you do, you'd be stupid. Homosexuals are not specifically any less useful to you than a heterosexual. If you can explain to me what the actual real problem with someone being a homosexual is, and leave out logical fallacies, I'll let this issue sit.
You don't have to have tea with homosexuals to escape being a bigot. It's really easy, actually
Either you act the way I act, or you don't.
Right, and what you do based on this fact determines whether or not you're a bigot.
16 is not a child.
16 is not an adult. And I think that brain development is one of the key factors in adulthood, so that a mentally handicapped 16-year old is indeed a child. In any case, he should have been tried as a minor. Trying minors as adults and leaving it up to the discretion of the judge is wrong. It renders the argument that the death penalty is a deterrent null, because a child isn't being threatened with that punishment until he stands before the judge. Changing the laws regarding the prosecution of children is much better.
Also, since most judges are white, it makes it more likely for a black teen to be tried as an adult. And not for purely racist reasons, mind you. Black people's vocal chords mature earlier than white people's, which I assume goes along with other differences in the rate of adolescence. Which can be confusing for a completely fair person.
Well, that's like saying that you shot at someone and missed. The intent was certainly there, on your part.
Right, and I don't think it was the wrong decision to make. You do. Tell me straight up that you've never acted on something morally ambiguous.
What damage has Bush caused? Or rather, how would you reverse this so-called damage and call it an improvement?
We could have finished the job in Afghanistan before taking on a war we were unprepared for. We could have sent our young men to war with body armor. We could have sent our young men to war in humvees with better than canvas doors. We could have not sent Christian mercenaries who are unaccountable for their actions into a Muslim nation where they engender more hatred. We didn't have to pay those mercenaries TRIPLE what Patreus is getting paid. We could have not taken downtown Bagdad and turned it into an American mall. The USAPATRIOT act has stripped us of our civil liberties. We could still have habeus corpus. We could stand up against torture so that our young men and women and civilians abroad who get captured won't be tortured out of principle. We could have not lost 98 billion dollars in cash (or was that 87 billion?)
I don't think that everything that Bush has done is bad. I just think that he is without a doubt an evil man. His administration is committing corporate fraud. His friends are committing corporate fraud. I think the biggest two issues are me and every other tax paying citizen of the USA being swindled and the loss of civil liberties.
He could have allowed the investigation to continue against the Pope for obstruction of justice that spans 30 years protecting child molesters, moving child molesters to communities where they will be incognito, etc. You voted for someone who protects child molesters.
But hey, I'm not the one that doesn't believe in grey areas....
But yeah, I did notice after the fact that you believe in gray areas wherever you must admit you're somewhat wrong. That makes you a hypocrite, too.
I saw his church's web site long before this latest flap. He used the term "white devils", as racist a term as "jungle bunnies", maybe even more so.
This may seem nitpicky, but was he referring to specific group of white people? Because I know plenty of people I think it would be fairly reasonable for him to call white devils.
Not at all. An intellectual midget is someone who pretends there are no differences when they obviously exist.
OK, dumbshit. Judging a person based on their draw in a genetic lottery makes you an intellectual midget. Grok me?
The retards murdered people. They understood what they did. They should die and I am glad they did.
Actually, in several documented cases, they were retarded black children (16ish) that were play-fighting with children that were younger than them, and accidentally killed them.
Blah blah blah, the mother was horrible, the finances were all wrong. Could you have thought about that before you slept with her? See, at the end of the day, whether you cheered when the bombs fall on Baghdad, or pressured your girlfriend to have an abortion, the intent is the same. At some point, the consequences of someone living are too much and its easier to just kill them.
A. No baby existed, so apparently I didn't fuck up. B. I broke up with her as soon as I found out she was crazy. C. I'm not the one that doesn't believe in gray areas.
There is only ONE morally superior position. And that is, if you want to be morally superior, you have to be anti-sanctions, anti-war, and anti-abortion. That's it. If you are compromising on one of the three, then you are just as much of a slug as the rest of us.
This is horse shit. You don't get to define morality, either. Which I'm sure is very frustrating for you. Thanks for putting a guy in office that has caused more damage to this country than anyone in my lifetime. Thanks for putting someone into office that protects child molestors.
Power just fluctuated, and I'm retyping some of this. Forgive me for being curt.
And I think its reasonable to judge someone based on that kind of behavior. It's all a matter of choice and there are lifestyle implications to that.
Homosexuality is not a choice in most cases. Some homosexual relations are chosen, but being a homosexual is not. I spent a lot of time hating myself for being molested as a result of what the church told me. Actually, I know lots of people who were in religious communities that thought they were going to hell or God hated them. Way to help out the children.
Anyway, judging people for their genetic makeup makes you an intellectual midget.
I think you can judge people on whether or not they believe in god, as you should not be forced to associate with people that do not share your culture.
Nobody's talking about forcing anybody to do anything, but I think that the judgments that people make ("Judge not, lest ye be judged") are generally pretty flawed. And are you talking about Jehovah? Because you use the regular old noun "god", which refers to Allah (Arabic for "god"), or any of the other gods that most people who have ever lived believe in. Who gives you the right to define what "god" means, anyway?
In any case, judging someone based on whether or not they follow some code laid out for them 2000 years ago is pretty stupid. Confucianism? Flawed. Indian caste system? Flawed. Judaic code? Flawed.
Stephen Hawking making fun of religious people for not believing in the Big Bang is stupid. Belittling someone's entire being because they don't believe in the same origin for the universe--as if our tiny brains could ever come up with a satisfactory explanation--is ridiculous beyond belief.
There's no grey area in abortion. It's killing, by any sane stretch of the imagination.
Worst-case scenario, it's murder. Here are other things that are murder, best case: 1. Catholic crusades 2. Death penalty (Bush sent a bunch of retards to death. How honorable is that? Support away.) 3. Sponsoring Israel's terrorist action on the Palestinians (which is not to say the Palestinians are blameless) 4. The Iraq war 5. The nuking of Japan 6. The embargos on Cuba 7. Oh yeah, the embargos on Iraq in the 90s (Medication for children? Fuck that! Their leader won't do business with us!)
Do you think that if a baby is going to die in childbirth and kill the mother, abortion is the wrong decision? Do you think that when the baby is a bunch of cells that are a result of a rape of someone of a different color of the mother in a racist community that abortion is specifically wrong? Life begins on the cellular level, and we murder things all the time. I know they're not all humans, but abortion is a gray area because if the implications of making it illegal. Nobody thinks abortion is a fantastic thing to be doing.
It's kinda hard to walk around saying that you are morally superior when you just pressured your girlfriend into having an abortion so you could keep sleeping with other women rather than make a commitment and raise a family.
This is a terrible misrepresentation of what the abortion issue is about. The only time I ever (unsuccessfully) pressured a girl into getting abortion, I had broken up with her, she had become addicted to pharmaceuticals, and she was stalking me (for what ended up being 6 months, until I LEFT THE COUNTRY FOR A MONTH), and it turned out she wasn't pregnant anyway (which I sort of suspected, anyway). Now she has a baby with someone else, and that baby is going to grow up with a mother that treats him alternately like a toy and as a receptacle for her frustration.
It's a terrible decision, and people don't take it lightly 99% of the time. If they DO, then they are bad people. Should we make everything that has the potential of being abused (like guns. oh, and c
Slashdot Mirror
right, but not so that they will upload pictures of it to the internet. that's why the website is different. and they're NOT taking pictures of the damn site anyway.
So should someone print on the outside of their house:
NOINDEX, NOFOLLOW
if he's made millions of dollars, can't he just move to a small island off the coast of Mexico and have young women make him ceviche, bring him beer, and blow him for the rest of his life?
I gained 30 lbs once, and I've since dropped the weight, but I have nothing to show for it. I wonder if we'll get an article here soon about how executives making millions of dollars are stressed out.
It took me 15 seconds to realize that this wasn't portuguese.
I always have to pay that Arab guy at the gas sta... OH... MY... GOD!! What have I done?!
It's not about people being different from me. I have no earth-shattering problem with Mexicans, Russians, black people, women, rednecks, Jews, monkeys, mechanics, uneducated people, homosexuals, homophobes, children, dog-lovers, cat-lovers, pornographers, or geologists. I just hate trendy trust fund hipster fuckwads who think they know something because they ate a heap of shit from a marketing firm.
I also have a problem with the fucking college girls whose daddies get them Macs and suddenly think they're all that.What does this mean? Are you referring to being a pirate or copyright infringement? Are you aware that when you copy digital media, the original is undamaged, and as such it is not theft? Ergo, it IS ethically different. I'm not saying the copyright infringement is a moral thing to do. I'm just saying that you're an idiot.
I'll agree with that. Thanks for doing some legwork for me. My point still does stand, however, that there's a certain amount of deception on the part of Apple that leads lawyers to believe they can win lawsuits, which ends up getting Apple sued.
If Apple didn't consistently create false reputation for itself, it would slide under the radar, as does Dell.
Don't know why I got modded flamebait, though.
iFraud: Just a storm in a teacup
I do recording under Linux, and I like Ardour, et al better than I like anything else I've ever used. I haven't owned a Mac, though, and I've SEEN some stuff on Mac that I'd like to use. That being said, the Linux solutions lack a great deal of polish that most people would require, such as graphical plugins (which I think are on their way with LADSPA2; LADSPA being the equivalent to VST). The only thing keeping Ardour from being as flexible as these other applications, IMO, is MIDI support, which is also on its way.
Again, I really like the feel of Ardour over Protools or Nuendo3, but asking someone to go from Reason, a virtual rack (that actually LOOKS like a rack), to Pd, a sound processing application into which you can program anything (but only has visual representation of signal flow, IIRC), is a tough argument to make.
In any case, the decision between Windows and Linux as a recording environment is a no-brainer for ME. The audio subsystem in Windows is shit, Vista is shit, and Microsoft wants me to call and ask permission to upgrade my box. So *I* agree with you. But asking someone else whose brain works differently to make the leap may not be reasonable.
As for visual apps, I think the same applies, despite the amount of applications such as the GIMP, Cinelerra, etc. I would recommend trying Linux. If you have a Mac, Ardour has a native OS X installer, so try it out. Also, to check out the rest of these apps, try Fink (no 10.5 support). And if you decide to make the leap, UbuntuStudio is a great place to start for the uninitiated. It comes with a real-time kernel and system adjustments and a billion multimedia creation apps.
You just set off an electron cloud in my brain, and I'm now wondering if people really consider the comment about it being harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven than a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. Because really, as Americans, we're some of the most ridiculously affluent sons of bitches EVER.
And yet all those people we're fighting are so poor...
Yes, but when the item in question is a primary reinforcer of behavior (meaning it is necessary to the survival of the unit or the species), quantifying excess is difficult. Especially if you have to account for the variances in what is normal for the person. Not that I think that having sex with anyone who happens to fall down next to you is normal or could be construed as normal, but again, making a sane and True-with-a-capital-T judgment is often beyond our capacity as humans.
There's no 70% majority, ANYWAY. 70% of the people would defend the victims of a black KKK automatically. Not gonna fucking happen.
Those guys are problematic, and potentially on a personal level as evil as the KKK members, but the US government would wipe out a bunch of chanting niggers in hoods around a burning cross in a split second. Don't deny it.
-Nathan
Or straight hookup sites. aff.com or any of its affiliates, okcupid.com is primarily straight, lavalife.com, etc. You either patronize hookup sites, or you don't. Gayness has nothing to do with it. You need to adjust your seive on this.
I said that judging normality of a biological process across a large number of subjects is problematic. This goes for internal chemical processes, nourishment, and other biological processes. It's not a justification, it's a statement of fact regarding biology and statistics.
Killing someone is not a specifically biological process, so your tangent is off-topic, and I'm too tired to give a shit about it, though it does seem like you descend a slippery slope there pretty quickly. All I've got to say is that in Roman times, people though that the body was composed of 4 elements and all diseases were caused by imbalances in those four elements. They believed that they could sacrifice things to homonids in the sky and get rain. I don't think than an appeal to antiquity justifies anything.
There's a clear line of violence towards blacks to this day. And a lot of the effect of all that other stuff still lingers. People still wave confedorate flags anywhere they choose, regardless of what it represents.
There IS no black corollary for the KKK. That's all I was saying.
I can't find the specific case anymore. I didn't read it initially on the internet, it was in a magazine. Though these don't have anything specifically to do with Bush:
http://www.nodeathpenalty.org/newab020/index.html
http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/dpmr.html
And here's another guy similar to the one you posted, and this guy has an IQ of 56. It just seems like we could be spending the same amount of money we spend on keeping this guy incarcerated until they kill him on programs to help educate and support severely mentally handicapped people, especially since they are unable to understand the consequences of their actions, which again, invalidates the primary argument for the existence of the death penalty.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=440&scid=
Good for you. I'm glad to hear it.
Right. It's only a part of the population that is hypersexual. I think that being at risk of getting your face bashed in by the person you're hitting on has got to have a profound psychological effect on these people. Remember Matthew Shepard? Did you see any of those websites with the counters counting how long he'd been in hell?
What a bunch of hateful fucks. These people are significantly MORE of a problem than any homos.
I know that homosexuality is not a symptom of hypersexuality. It would take someone you've known since a child to convince you of that, though. That's not to say that there aren't hypersexual people who engage in homosexual activity, but just because you can see one source of it clearly doesn't mean there aren't other sources.
Excess is also subjective in cases of things that are naturally a part of our biological process. So it makes it more confusing
Gay in the hypersexual way, quite probably.
This is a different case. And therefore different. Also, he's an adult. We chose the arbitrary 18 years limit, and everybody knows about it. You consistently push two separate issues together. I think that executing mentally retarded people is another gray area, but I wouldn't fight the guy you mentioned being put to death.
I was talking about a retarded minor who accidentally killed another minor while playing. People die from smacking their heads on tables, and it's tragic, but it happens. To quote a wise, wise man:
No, I'm saying that if someone accidentally kills someone, there's a legal definition for it: manslaughter. And those who commit manslaughter don't get put to death. And again, we shouldn't try minors as adults. It perverts the legal system.
--Nathan Curry
See how that doesn't apply to your example? As a friend once said to his son--who was going through rough times--"You need to adjust your sieve."
I keep maintaining that you can hang out with whoever the hell you want. Gays tend to be liberal because of the bashing they get from the conservatives. It's just sound sense. But I hardly think you can say that "most" gays are militant leftists. I know a few gay republicans. And I know that Foley and Haggard and probably Craig were (and are) in the closet, and nobody could tell. Which means you have gay friends and don't know it.
What would your opinion be of your son if he turned out to be gay? Do you think he'd ever tell you? I think that the fact that gay people have to hide their sexuality from those they love contributes to their level of deviancy, since they can't have a real relationship without everyone finding out, and the next best thing is fuck buddies and one night stands.
Which is why I always think it's funny when I see gay guys that go to traditional church. I'm not trying to oppress anyone, and you're assigning a lot of your own trauma to me.
Good answer. I agree.
Cheers,
Nathan
People refer to them as the aughts, which is pretty accurate and also doesn't sound completely stupid. The problem, however, is that you have to explain yourself to everybody you use the term to. But let's start figuring out the 10's NOW so we aren't still trying to figure it out in 2018.
Tens? Teens? Ones?
Jesus Fucking Christ, man. Being gay doesn't make you disrespectful of Jesus. And they don't, for the most part, say or think that Jesus sucks donkey dick and the virgen mary was a lesbian. You're fucking insane. And no, you don't have to hang out with faggots. And you CAN say they're going to hell. But unless you come with some sort of decent reason to hate them, you're just a bigot, n:
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
From Dictionary.com
But hey, you seem to the be expert on what homosexuals do. I'll cede this point to your greater experience and knowledge.
No, I'm saying that if someone accidentally kills someone, there's a legal definition for it: manslaughter. And those who commit manslaughter don't get put to death. And again, we shouldn't try minors as adults. It perverts the legal system.
Well, you already tell him to stay away from faggots and other genetically "inferior" people, I don't see why not.
We GAVE all the Taliban their weapons. In 1992, 3 out of 4 arms sales to developing nations were by the USA. I'm not blaming this on Republicans, because I don't know whose fault it is. However, Saddam never had WMD. The media's been screaming about Iran "developing nuclear weapons" when they're developing nuclear POWER. It's a big fucking difference.
AND, we pulled out of Viet Nam in defeat. The best we can do here is pull out in the closest possible situation to victory we can manage.
Actually, I didn't say that, but I agree. I've lived abroad, and I have friends all over the world. In fact, I have Muslim friends in several countries. Of the non-fanatical variety, not that you'd know the difference. But in any case, the consensus of people outside this country is that the administration that Bush represents is a bunch of assholes.
A trade agreement that allows slave labor is bad, in my opinion.
You know this is a bad idea, right? Mexico had the same political party in power for something like 70 years, and it was pretty goddamn bad. I don't want Clinton back in office, because when you hear about some nation that ends in -stan where the members of two families have been the rulers for the past 20 years, you think, "what a fucked up place."
And I don't want that place to be America.
Also, I want to acknowledge briefly that we both have the best interest of our country and our people in mind, even though we disagree somewhat extremely. Cheers.
I agree that using the white term smacks of racism. Children possess reason, but they are often unable to think of the ramifications of their actions. That's what I mean by childish but reasonable. Just because you use sound reasoning to arrive to a conclusion doesn't make it right, or the MOST right.
I asked this same question to someone else, but I'm still waiting for an answer. And it's an honest-to-goodness question: Was he referring to a specific group of white people when he called them white devils? It's still inflammatory, because people tend to go macro or micro with ambiguous statements, depending on their present frame of mind, but I do think it's significant.
What I'm saying is that when a preacher is using a foreign policy example to convey a metaphysical message, it's different than conveying the message on foreign policy. In other words, in what Wright said, foreign policy was the excipient for the medicine of his message. Which is not how you portray it.
:-)
Again, fine line. Fiiiiiiiiine line.
Feel free to choose who to associate with. That's not my point. My point is that if you decided to judge albinos because they don't go to the beach like you do, you'd be stupid. Homosexuals are not specifically any less useful to you than a heterosexual. If you can explain to me what the actual real problem with someone being a homosexual is, and leave out logical fallacies, I'll let this issue sit.
You don't have to have tea with homosexuals to escape being a bigot. It's really easy, actually
Right, and what you do based on this fact determines whether or not you're a bigot.
16 is not an adult. And I think that brain development is one of the key factors in adulthood, so that a mentally handicapped 16-year old is indeed a child. In any case, he should have been tried as a minor. Trying minors as adults and leaving it up to the discretion of the judge is wrong. It renders the argument that the death penalty is a deterrent null, because a child isn't being threatened with that punishment until he stands before the judge. Changing the laws regarding the prosecution of children is much better.
Also, since most judges are white, it makes it more likely for a black teen to be tried as an adult. And not for purely racist reasons, mind you. Black people's vocal chords mature earlier than white people's, which I assume goes along with other differences in the rate of adolescence. Which can be confusing for a completely fair person.
Right, and I don't think it was the wrong decision to make. You do. Tell me straight up that you've never acted on something morally ambiguous.
We could have finished the job in Afghanistan before taking on a war we were unprepared for. We could have sent our young men to war with body armor. We could have sent our young men to war in humvees with better than canvas doors. We could have not sent Christian mercenaries who are unaccountable for their actions into a Muslim nation where they engender more hatred. We didn't have to pay those mercenaries TRIPLE what Patreus is getting paid. We could have not taken downtown Bagdad and turned it into an American mall. The USAPATRIOT act has stripped us of our civil liberties. We could still have habeus corpus. We could stand up against torture so that our young men and women and civilians abroad who get captured won't be tortured out of principle. We could have not lost 98 billion dollars in cash (or was that 87 billion?)
I don't think that everything that Bush has done is bad. I just think that he is without a doubt an evil man. His administration is committing corporate fraud. His friends are committing corporate fraud. I think the biggest two issues are me and every other tax paying citizen of the USA being swindled and the loss of civil liberties.
He could have allowed the investigation to continue against the Pope for obstruction of justice that spans 30 years protecting child molesters, moving child molesters to communities where they will be incognito, etc. You voted for someone who protects child molesters.
But yeah, I did notice after the fact that you believe in gray areas wherever you must admit you're somewhat wrong. That makes you a hypocrite, too.
This may seem nitpicky, but was he referring to specific group of white people? Because I know plenty of people I think it would be fairly reasonable for him to call white devils.
Childish, but reasonable.
OK, dumbshit. Judging a person based on their draw in a genetic lottery makes you an intellectual midget. Grok me?
Actually, in several documented cases, they were retarded black children (16ish) that were play-fighting with children that were younger than them, and accidentally killed them.
A. No baby existed, so apparently I didn't fuck up.
B. I broke up with her as soon as I found out she was crazy.
C. I'm not the one that doesn't believe in gray areas.
This is horse shit. You don't get to define morality, either. Which I'm sure is very frustrating for you. Thanks for putting a guy in office that has caused more damage to this country than anyone in my lifetime. Thanks for putting someone into office that protects child molestors.
Good luck living up to your standards.
Homosexuality is not a choice in most cases. Some homosexual relations are chosen, but being a homosexual is not. I spent a lot of time hating myself for being molested as a result of what the church told me. Actually, I know lots of people who were in religious communities that thought they were going to hell or God hated them. Way to help out the children.
Anyway, judging people for their genetic makeup makes you an intellectual midget.
Nobody's talking about forcing anybody to do anything, but I think that the judgments that people make ("Judge not, lest ye be judged") are generally pretty flawed. And are you talking about Jehovah? Because you use the regular old noun "god", which refers to Allah (Arabic for "god"), or any of the other gods that most people who have ever lived believe in. Who gives you the right to define what "god" means, anyway?
In any case, judging someone based on whether or not they follow some code laid out for them 2000 years ago is pretty stupid. Confucianism? Flawed. Indian caste system? Flawed. Judaic code? Flawed.
Stephen Hawking making fun of religious people for not believing in the Big Bang is stupid. Belittling someone's entire being because they don't believe in the same origin for the universe--as if our tiny brains could ever come up with a satisfactory explanation--is ridiculous beyond belief.
Worst-case scenario, it's murder. Here are other things that are murder, best case:
1. Catholic crusades
2. Death penalty (Bush sent a bunch of retards to death. How honorable is that? Support away.)
3. Sponsoring Israel's terrorist action on the Palestinians (which is not to say the Palestinians are blameless)
4. The Iraq war
5. The nuking of Japan
6. The embargos on Cuba
7. Oh yeah, the embargos on Iraq in the 90s (Medication for children? Fuck that! Their leader won't do business with us!)
Do you think that if a baby is going to die in childbirth and kill the mother, abortion is the wrong decision? Do you think that when the baby is a bunch of cells that are a result of a rape of someone of a different color of the mother in a racist community that abortion is specifically wrong? Life begins on the cellular level, and we murder things all the time. I know they're not all humans, but abortion is a gray area because if the implications of making it illegal. Nobody thinks abortion is a fantastic thing to be doing.
This is a terrible misrepresentation of what the abortion issue is about. The only time I ever (unsuccessfully) pressured a girl into getting abortion, I had broken up with her, she had become addicted to pharmaceuticals, and she was stalking me (for what ended up being 6 months, until I LEFT THE COUNTRY FOR A MONTH), and it turned out she wasn't pregnant anyway (which I sort of suspected, anyway). Now she has a baby with someone else, and that baby is going to grow up with a mother that treats him alternately like a toy and as a receptacle for her frustration.
It's a terrible decision, and people don't take it lightly 99% of the time. If they DO, then they are bad people. Should we make everything that has the potential of being abused (like guns. oh, and c