liberals actually try to fix human problems, rather than simplying claiming the magical free market will do so (despite the evidence that it hasn't and never will)
You implied that since i didn't go into detail that detail didn't exist, that's completely different than burdeon of proof in a logical debate. Don't backtrack and claim that your backtracking was your initial position.
and the wikipedia rules are a abused to no end - i stopped editing wikipedia because a group of religiously-motivated individuals managed to use the wikipedia rules to bludgeon every editor who came in an tried to increase the accuracy a certain article. they make sure a bunch of dubious-pro-that-thing research gets cited but almost no anti-that-thing evidence gets cited (there being more of the later, especially since the article doesn't give the body part in question the assumption of innate value every other body part right down to your earlobe gets, and this part is a erogenious zone!).
no, wikipedia is not about accuracy, it's about consensus. Consensus in a community of genital mutilators would be that genital mutilation is good and justified, consensus in a fascism regime is that fascism is good, consensus in a cult is that there was a space ship following hale-bop. Consensus and reality are OFTEN two different things.
great another one of these idiot-magnet "social networking sites" that are all the crazy among the unwashed newbitry for me to receive spam to and links from my non-technical friends. Yet another stupid site filled with 13-year-old camwhores and 14-year-old-pimps for me to avoid.
first off - being a private organization doesn't excuse bigotry. second that private organization receives public funding - it is illegal for them to do so due to their bigotry against non-religious individuals
"the idea that others who do not believe are infoerior is not impressed at all"
no, they're just excluded - that doesn't instill a belief that they're inferior at all [/sarcasm]
A scout is curteous and a scout is kind
then your own oath is in contradiction of itself - you cannot both be a bigot and be curteous
It would not be curteous or kind of me to treat you with disrespect because I disagree with your views.
then stop doing so - stop being a bigot, stop excluding people because they're not religious and because they are born different (the latter being homosexuals if you don't know about the Xq28 mutation)
Scouts are not bigots and they are not taught to be bigots
Scouts are apparently also not liars [/sarcasm] - you are lying right now, you are engaged knowingly in intellectually dishonest discourse. You exclude people who do not believe the same things as you, and who are not born as you. Consult the dictionary definition of bigot.
I have friends that fall into both of these categories, and yet I have been involved with the BAS since CubScouts
and racists used to protest "i'm not racist! i have black friends!". You are guilty by participation
For an organization that teachs young men so many useful things, and exposes them to things that they would not have the chance to expierence otherwise, the BSA is picked on quite a bit.
appropriately so - they are actively engaged in promoting bigotry. They deserve not only ridicule, but to have the entire organization razed to the ground.
You are not alone in your beliefs you're right - i'm not. 16% of americans are atheist/agnostic (which is a LACK of belief btw). However, your implication that my statement that the BSA is bigoted is "merely a belief" is entirely intellectually dishonest - it is a FACT that the BSA is bigoted. Reference the dictionary definition of the word bigot.
I became interested in scouting after reading a paper passed out to all students of scouting age at my elementary school, which happened to also be my troops host.
that's irrelevant. and if any school distributes such material to my children they will find themselves in the receiving end of an establishment clause lawsuit for providing material support to an organization that discriminates on the basis of religion
The current principal of that school refuses to permit us to distribute papers because she believes we are bigots and we do not except gays or atheists.
good for her - and it's not a belief - It's a fact that the organization is bigoted. Go grab a copy of the Oxford's English Dictionary and read the definition of bigot.
unfortunetly due to the decreasing number of incoming scouts, my troop's size is dwindling, and may not exist a few years from now.
do you expect me to somehow not be elated by the fact that an organization that actively promotes bigotry is being rejected?
To sum it up: Please don't consider scouts bigots
I will do so until they stop being bigots.
or completely disregard anything said by a scout for that reason, as by doing so you are only showing your ignorance for other peoples ideas, and values
No, I show a complete and total understanding of your values - infact I even said that if you PERSONALLY demonstrate to me that you are not a bigot I will listen to that person. However your previous statements in your post preclude that as you engaged
and like every other immature adult I know, are refusing to take the advice of your elders because they are just that.
Don't project your passed immaturity on me. I'm refusing to accept peoples statements as valid merely because they're older than me - that's different from refusing to take their advice because they're older than me. If they can establish that they're correct, and I'm not, rationally - without resorting to ageism and insults then I will listen to them.
However the arrogance and presumption of your side of the argument is appauling, and yet you try to take the high ground and claim that I am the immature one. Nope, sorry - doesn't work that way. Knowledge can be acquired in many ways, don't presume to project your own limitations on others
More importantly however, you can argue that second hand knowledge is good enough till you're blue in the face, but come back when you've got a toddler, and you'll realize how ridiculous you seemed then.
Arrogance.
I will not listen to your arrogance. I don't care that you are only one year older than me - see my new signature.
I consider your behavior immature, and the behavior of others immature - to assume that since you didn't know that other people cannot know is the ultimate in arrogance. 25 years from now, when I have children and they're around 18 I will have the proof to show you that you are arrogant - but by then I'm sure I will have forgotton about you. Quite frankly I'm suprised I'm still replying - generally I dismiss arrogant individuals and ignore them - however this is one of the few subjects where persistent arrogance and and the belittling of other people as "immature" for pointing out your arrogance is seen as acceptable.
It has to do with maturity and the fact that you don't reach it until much later.
not everyone reaches maturity at the same rate - some people are faster, some are closer
the age of consent, and public drinking, is 16 in germany for example.
I know several people who started relationships in middle school and are togeather (10 years later for them.. they're 22 like me).
Your "time" restrain however doesn't qualify for the technical definition of "significant other" - both in pyschological terms, and in common terminology. I was using the common terminology - in that it is just a non-gender-specific term for (boy|girl)friend.
Using the word "God" does *NOT* promote one religion over another
not only are you incorrect, you are incorrect in several ways.
1st: the word "god" in both cases is known to be an implicit reference to the christian god 2nd: you forgot about non-religious individuals - even if 1 was not true, then you're promoting religion over non-religion
You consider this a violation of your rights?
According the the constitution, it is. I am an atheist, I supposed to have the freedom of religion, and my government is supposed to not favor religion A over religion B, religion over non-religion or non-religion over religion.
Why don't you talk to some people who have REALLY had their rights violated and see what they think about your "under god" problem
I talk to them everday - they're called atheists, agnostics, muslims, jews, hindus, buddhists, homosexuals, and the list goes on.
. ESPECIALLY considering that most people--our Congress and Court included--don't consider this to be 'supporting religion'
1st the court hasn't ruled on it, it's sidestepped it 2nd the court isn't falliable 3rd "most people" is argumentum ad populum 4th "our congress" is a fallicious argumentum ad verecundiam - congress are most certainly NOT experts on constitution law - infact most of them have no more functional knowledge of it than you have shown yourself to have.
oh btw - let me quote Article XI of the original Treaty with Tripoli - unanymously approved by the very same men who framed the constitution and the ammendments
"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion - as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquillity of Musselmen - and as the said states never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
PS: you want to be haughty about parenting, I get to be haughty about this - this is my territory know, and I know if very well - i have 8 years of debating this subject under my belt.
Then perhaps you should read the constitution again. Religious freedom includes the freedom to be non-religious. "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor the free exercise thereof"
Under the Lemon Test ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman ) "under god" in the pledge and "in god we trust" on the money violates this clause of the 1st ammendment to the US Constitution. It Fails atleast two of three clauses of the lemon test, and probably all three. Furthermore the official motto of the United States is "e pluribus unum" which goes perfectly well on the money, and is a much more accurate description of the spirit of the United States.
This country was founded by a mix of christians, deists, agnostics and atheists. 16% of americans today are atheists/agnostics. All of them, without exception, agreed that the seperation of church and state, as embodied in the 1st ammendment to the US constitution, was absolutely essential.
Your justification of "many countries have state churches, but we just do X" doesn't make X right. Furthermore the united states doesn't just have X - we have people who vote to insert their religion into government. "Under god" and "in god we trust" are defacto establishments of religion and under the Constitution are illegal. The court has only sidestepped these specific issues and not actually addressed them.
why can't you accept that some people see this subject different then you.
who said I didn't? you did accepting that they see the issue different doesn't involve defering to them as correct.
Under the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the Constitution of the United States of America the phrases "under god" and "in god we trust" on government documents are illegal.
PS: Infact the original author of the pledge feld that the insertion of "under god" was wholly inappropriate, and he was a pastor! PPS: Constitutional law related to religion is one of my specialities, kinda has to be considering how often my rights are violated in this country
You completely ignored the part where I pointed out they also descriminate against atheists and agnostics (my self, my soon-to-be wife, and any children we have) which DOES make it illegal for them to receive government funding.
Oh and I know several scouts and scout leaders I also helped several of my friends who are scout leaders (mormon ones at that!) take their troup out on a rock climbing expedition.
Here's a newsflash: There is nothing taught in the BSA that is objectionable or illegal.
Nazi propaganda isn't illegal in america either? what's your point
Denouncing an organization that actively engages in bigotry is not
inept (n-pt) Pronunciation Key Audio pronunciation of "inept" [P] adj.
1. Not apt or fitting; inappropriate.
2.
1. Displaying a lack of judgment, sense, or reason; foolish: an inept remark.
2. Bungling or clumsy; incompetent: inept handling of the account.
Please know what the fuck the word you're using means before you use it.
Is getting to be an Eagle Scout hard work? yes, and hard work is to be respected, cheers to him - especially if he only learned the good and left the trash - and if your troup didn't follow national and didn't excluse people more power to them.
It's a pity that organization has to destroy all respect that they should get with their bigotry. No organization that actively promotes bigotry is acceptable - any good thing they do is destroyed by their encouraging bigotry.
Ask yourself this: would you vote against equal marriage rights for gays? would you vote against someone simply because they're an atheist? do you think atheists objection to "under god" in the pledge is nonsense?
now ask yourself these same questions about your son.
If you answer yes to any of them: you are a bigot, if you think your son would answer yes to any three of them then you need to have a conservation with him.
I was a US Marine, another orginzation that has problems with (openly) gay men.
a jarhead.... that explains a lot:D
you ever stay at camp lejeune in the late 90s/eary 00s? If so: I hope you liked getting your butt handed to you by my brother in war games over and over
and keeping the door open does nothing to those desires. If you cannot trust your child with their door closed in your own house, while you are there, then you cannot trust them at all.
Be realistic - They will go out and do it anyway somewhere that you cannot supervise.
all you can do is arm them with knowledge, beyond that you really cannot control what they do, so attempting to is overbearing
How would you feel if a 12 year old tried to educate you on the ways of the world? Would you tell him he's got some growing up to do? I think you would. Now put yourself in my shoes.
don't presume to project your arrogance onto me. I would not tell a 12 year old to simply "grow up" - I would atleast give them the respect of giving them a point by point refutation of why they're wrong instead of simply saying "i'm older than you therefore i'm right".
The fact that you're 42 means absolutely nothing. I know 50 year olds that I know more about good parenting and maturity than and they've raised children (who are all now fucked up in various ways).
No, your presumptious self-defensive arrogance of "you cannot possibly know anything about raising children without doing so" is nothing more than arrogance. Don't attempt to project it onto others, don't attempt to make it sound like anything else.
I was imprecise in my explaination before, and that is my fault and is what has created the apparent contraction in my statements you see. I have two basic categories of decisions: ones where emotion can properly play a role, and ones where emotion cannot properly play a role and should be excluded.
The former are things like getting married, dating, etc. The latter are things like "is this true?", "is this the best way to do X?", "do I trust this person", etc.
I put decisions about the best way to raise a child into category 2
I'm sorry, but I just refuse, on principle, to listen to the advice of anyone who participated in the Boy Scouts of America - unless that person demonstrates they have bucked that organizations bigotry in their own personal lives (IE taught their children to know better if their child was involved, or in your case didn't enforce the bigotry of the BSA)
That organization is actively engaged in encouraging bigotry - including against me, my wife, and any children we have (atheists/agnostics) as well as some of our acquaintances (homosexuals).
Slashdot Mirror
liberals actually try to fix human problems, rather than simplying claiming the magical free market will do so (despite the evidence that it hasn't and never will)
You implied that since i didn't go into detail that detail didn't exist, that's completely different than burdeon of proof in a logical debate. Don't backtrack and claim that your backtracking was your initial position.
yes, obviously since i didn't go into detail means that detail doesn't exist.
Why don't you go back to middle school where logic like that was acceptable.
it is not that aricle, but it was a good guess
and the wikipedia rules are a abused to no end - i stopped editing wikipedia because a group of religiously-motivated individuals managed to use the wikipedia rules to bludgeon every editor who came in an tried to increase the accuracy a certain article. they make sure a bunch of dubious-pro-that-thing research gets cited but almost no anti-that-thing evidence gets cited (there being more of the later, especially since the article doesn't give the body part in question the assumption of innate value every other body part right down to your earlobe gets, and this part is a erogenious zone!).
no, wikipedia is not about accuracy, it's about consensus. Consensus in a community of genital mutilators would be that genital mutilation is good and justified, consensus in a fascism regime is that fascism is good, consensus in a cult is that there was a space ship following hale-bop. Consensus and reality are OFTEN two different things.
that's brilliant :D
it has to do with stereotyping people that disagree with corporations pollutin... i mean profiting. :D
Exception: Argument from Ignorance
there is no *evidence* that these devices CAUSE problems...
great another one of these idiot-magnet "social networking sites" that are all the crazy among the unwashed newbitry for me to receive spam to and links from my non-technical friends. Yet another stupid site filled with 13-year-old camwhores and 14-year-old-pimps for me to avoid.
no, they're just excluded - that doesn't instill a belief that they're inferior at all [/sarcasm]
then your own oath is in contradiction of itself - you cannot both be a bigot and be curteous
then stop doing so - stop being a bigot, stop excluding people because they're not religious and because they are born different (the latter being homosexuals if you don't know about the Xq28 mutation)
Scouts are apparently also not liars [/sarcasm] - you are lying right now, you are engaged knowingly in intellectually dishonest discourse. You exclude people who do not believe the same things as you, and who are not born as you. Consult the dictionary definition of bigot.
and racists used to protest "i'm not racist! i have black friends!". You are guilty by participation
appropriately so - they are actively engaged in promoting bigotry. They deserve not only ridicule, but to have the entire organization razed to the ground.
Don't project your passed immaturity on me. I'm refusing to accept peoples statements as valid merely because they're older than me - that's different from refusing to take their advice because they're older than me. If they can establish that they're correct, and I'm not, rationally - without resorting to ageism and insults then I will listen to them.
However the arrogance and presumption of your side of the argument is appauling, and yet you try to take the high ground and claim that I am the immature one. Nope, sorry - doesn't work that way. Knowledge can be acquired in many ways, don't presume to project your own limitations on others
Arrogance.
I will not listen to your arrogance. I don't care that you are only one year older than me - see my new signature.
I consider your behavior immature, and the behavior of others immature - to assume that since you didn't know that other people cannot know is the ultimate in arrogance. 25 years from now, when I have children and they're around 18 I will have the proof to show you that you are arrogant - but by then I'm sure I will have forgotton about you. Quite frankly I'm suprised I'm still replying - generally I dismiss arrogant individuals and ignore them - however this is one of the few subjects where persistent arrogance and and the belittling of other people as "immature" for pointing out your arrogance is seen as acceptable.
It's not.
I said the organization is bigoted - as I stated elsewhere, i'll make exceptions for individuals when they demonstrate to me that they are not.
since the organization is bigoted I will oppose it's continued existance to the death, and challenge any government funding to it as uncosntitutional
I was safe my first time, fortunately
not everyone reaches maturity at the same rate - some people are faster, some are closer
the age of consent, and public drinking, is 16 in germany for example.
I know several people who started relationships in middle school and are togeather (10 years later for them.. they're 22 like me).
Your "time" restrain however doesn't qualify for the technical definition of "significant other" - both in pyschological terms, and in common terminology. I was using the common terminology - in that it is just a non-gender-specific term for (boy|girl)friend.
BAH need to proofread more
s/2nd the court isn't falliable/2nd the court is fallaible
not only are you incorrect, you are incorrect in several ways.
1st: the word "god" in both cases is known to be an implicit reference to the christian god
2nd: you forgot about non-religious individuals - even if 1 was not true, then you're promoting religion over non-religion
According the the constitution, it is. I am an atheist, I supposed to have the freedom of religion, and my government is supposed to not favor religion A over religion B, religion over non-religion or non-religion over religion.
I talk to them everday - they're called atheists, agnostics, muslims, jews, hindus, buddhists, homosexuals, and the list goes on.
1st the court hasn't ruled on it, it's sidestepped it
2nd the court isn't falliable
3rd "most people" is argumentum ad populum
4th "our congress" is a fallicious argumentum ad verecundiam - congress are most certainly NOT experts on constitution law - infact most of them have no more functional knowledge of it than you have shown yourself to have.
oh btw - let me quote Article XI of the original Treaty with Tripoli - unanymously approved by the very same men who framed the constitution and the ammendments
PS: you want to be haughty about parenting, I get to be haughty about this - this is my territory know, and I know if very well - i have 8 years of debating this subject under my belt.
um... don't know where you come from but 16-year-olds can have significant others very easily.
Under the Lemon Test ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman ) "under god" in the pledge and "in god we trust" on the money violates this clause of the 1st ammendment to the US Constitution. It Fails atleast two of three clauses of the lemon test, and probably all three. Furthermore the official motto of the United States is "e pluribus unum" which goes perfectly well on the money, and is a much more accurate description of the spirit of the United States.
This country was founded by a mix of christians, deists, agnostics and atheists. 16% of americans today are atheists/agnostics. All of them, without exception, agreed that the seperation of church and state, as embodied in the 1st ammendment to the US constitution, was absolutely essential.
Your justification of "many countries have state churches, but we just do X" doesn't make X right. Furthermore the united states doesn't just have X - we have people who vote to insert their religion into government. "Under god" and "in god we trust" are defacto establishments of religion and under the Constitution are illegal. The court has only sidestepped these specific issues and not actually addressed them.
who said I didn't? you did
accepting that they see the issue different doesn't involve defering to them as correct.
Under the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the Constitution of the United States of America the phrases "under god" and "in god we trust" on government documents are illegal.
PS: Infact the original author of the pledge feld that the insertion of "under god" was wholly inappropriate, and he was a pastor!
PPS: Constitutional law related to religion is one of my specialities, kinda has to be considering how often my rights are violated in this country
Oh and I know several scouts and scout leaders
I also helped several of my friends who are scout leaders (mormon ones at that!) take their troup out on a rock climbing expedition.
Nazi propaganda isn't illegal in america either? what's your point
Please know what the fuck the word you're using means before you use it.
Is getting to be an Eagle Scout hard work? yes, and hard work is to be respected, cheers to him - especially if he only learned the good and left the trash - and if your troup didn't follow national and didn't excluse people more power to them.
It's a pity that organization has to destroy all respect that they should get with their bigotry. No organization that actively promotes bigotry is acceptable - any good thing they do is destroyed by their encouraging bigotry.
Ask yourself this: would you vote against equal marriage rights for gays? would you vote against someone simply because they're an atheist? do you think atheists objection to "under god" in the pledge is nonsense?
now ask yourself these same questions about your son.
If you answer yes to any of them: you are a bigot, if you think your son would answer yes to any three of them then you need to have a conservation with him.
a jarhead.... that explains a lot
you ever stay at camp lejeune in the late 90s/eary 00s? If so: I hope you liked getting your butt handed to you by my brother in war games over and over
(82nd Airborne>jar heads)
and keeping the door open does nothing to those desires. If you cannot trust your child with their door closed in your own house, while you are there, then you cannot trust them at all.
Be realistic - They will go out and do it anyway somewhere that you cannot supervise.
all you can do is arm them with knowledge, beyond that you really cannot control what they do, so attempting to is overbearing
don't presume to project your arrogance onto me. I would not tell a 12 year old to simply "grow up" - I would atleast give them the respect of giving them a point by point refutation of why they're wrong instead of simply saying "i'm older than you therefore i'm right".
The fact that you're 42 means absolutely nothing. I know 50 year olds that I know more about good parenting and maturity than and they've raised children (who are all now fucked up in various ways).
No, your presumptious self-defensive arrogance of "you cannot possibly know anything about raising children without doing so" is nothing more than arrogance. Don't attempt to project it onto others, don't attempt to make it sound like anything else.
You are arrogant. Live with it.
"zomg" is kinda like.. adding emphasis... a person who says "zomg!" is freaking out... not sure the source.. it's a net thing
I was imprecise in my explaination before, and that is my fault and is what has created the apparent contraction in my statements you see. I have two basic categories of decisions: ones where emotion can properly play a role, and ones where emotion cannot properly play a role and should be excluded.
The former are things like getting married, dating, etc. The latter are things like "is this true?", "is this the best way to do X?", "do I trust this person", etc.
I put decisions about the best way to raise a child into category 2
I'm sorry, but I just refuse, on principle, to listen to the advice of anyone who participated in the Boy Scouts of America - unless that person demonstrates they have bucked that organizations bigotry in their own personal lives (IE taught their children to know better if their child was involved, or in your case didn't enforce the bigotry of the BSA)
That organization is actively engaged in encouraging bigotry - including against me, my wife, and any children we have (atheists/agnostics) as well as some of our acquaintances (homosexuals).