Apparently the parent was too subtle. He's suggesting you actually READ the book referenced to see that it is, in fact, discussing global warming and predates 1990 and therefore nullifies your claims. Now, can we move past the arrogant sophistry and get to discussing the actual science now?
This is evidently a side-effect of the way the amygdala records emotional-stimulus responses. If you look at child porn and have a positive (arousing) experience, you are more likely to be aroused next time you are exposed to similar stimulus (a naked child). This has obvious detrimental effects on society.
Yeah, I get that. My point was, simply: does increased availability result in increased production? It seems to me that there's X number of people in the world producing kiddie porn for Y number of people. If Y doubles, does X double? If X does double, then you have more children being molested for profit. As the War on Drugs has shown, going after the consumers of the product does not lessen its consumption. I would argue that the damage being done to the children is greater than the harm being done to "society" by more pedophiles viewing kiddie porn. There is a certain percentage that can be pacified by passively viewing the porn and won't necessarily escalate to actual molestation, just as there's a certain percentage of people that will watch regular porn and escalate to rape. The overwhelming majority, media claims to the contrary, will just continue to watch the porn.
and I'm not sure we have any documented proof that He has violated them
Really? Have you not read the Old Testament? Are human sacrifice, genocide and mass infanticide then not extensions of "Thou shall not murder"? I hate to justify Godwin's Law...but if genocide's ok, then what did Hitler do that was wrong? He did what he did in the name of Christianity, thus in the name of his god...
So, does the Internet increase the amount of kiddie porn, or the access to it? If it increases the number of kids who are molested on film, I can stand behind trying to invoke extra measures to stop the growth. If, however, it just makes it easier for more pedophiles to view the same images, then the problem isn't the Internet. The problem is the kiddie porn and "fixing" the Internet isn't going to change anything. Of course, the real solution of finding a "cure" for pedophilia would be a better alternative, but that's just me...
I quoted the word "cure" because I know there's no "cure", but treatments could be developed that would minimilize a pedophiles impulses and thus allow them to lead a normal and productive life. Putting them in prison or on Dateline is not the solution.
since there are a fair number of left-wing liberals in the slashdot mix
Perhaps they wouldn't vote for him because they're generally a little more intelligent and knowledgeable than your typical left-wing liberal? Ron Paul talks a good talk, but I would vote for Huckabee before I'd vote for Paul. At least with Huckabee, he's up-front about turning the US into god's dominion on Earth. Paul's a bit more subtle. He's also clueless. He believes the Constitution is "replete" with references to god*. Considering the first sentence he's supposed to utter as President is that he will defend the Constitution, I would think the moron would at least bother to READ the thing first, rather than the Reader's Digest condensed version given to him by his god-fearin' followers.
* Sorry, this had originally been posted at his official blog, but my search turned up this one first and I don't feel like putting that much effort finding the exact URL.
Bull. Every good administrator I know is also a good programmer. Most good programmers I know are also good administrators (the exceptions tend to be academic types).
Bull. I would contend that you're not skilled enough to know the difference.
But then, my experience is on the Unix side where scripting and programming are the norm, as opposed to the Windows side where point and click is the norm.
Actually, pretty much every Windows admin I know knows a little bit of scripting and programming as well. Just because an admin can hack together a bash or perl script does not make them a programmer. Could they jump over to the development side of the house and hit the ground running? I generally work with both sides of the house, and I haven't seen significant crossover on either side.
Interesting reply, but I work in the financial industry, and I find the exact opposite to be true. Most in-house developers are clueless dimwits who've fallen behind the times because they've been isolated from real programming techniques and newer technologies. They end up doing things the same old way for years at a time and nothing really changes.
You get smarter, more resourceful people when they are not MSCE drones, but actually programmers that are able to solve a problem
This would make more sense if you hadn't mixed the two. An MCSE is a person who's taken tests to indicate technical ability administering Windows-based systems. An MCSD is a developer who has certified on MS products. The two disciplines are completely separate from each other. Administrators make terrible developers and developers make terrible administrators. Yes, in the last 21 years, I've met about 5 anecdotal people who managed to be fantastic at both, but they were an extreme exception, not the norm.
That being said, those are simply certifications. They serve a singular purpose: to provide HR drones with checklists that they can compare resumes against. They do not, in any way, indicate a person's ability to do a particular job. It merely shows they were able to memorize answers to a test and spew them out. Generally, it's pretty easy to tell the clueless from the clued-in. The clueless have their certs hanging on a wall, the clued-in don't know where theirs are.
Clinton didn't do anything about terrorist attacks while he was in office:
I realize "facts" are the antithesis of the 'pub agenda, but your spin is so weak...
1) the February 26, 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center
Four followers of the Egyptian cleric Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman were captured, convicted of the World Trade Center bombing in March 1994, and sentenced to 240 years in prison each. The purported mastermind of the plot, Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, was captured in 1995, convicted of the bombing in November 1997, and also sentenced to 240 years in prison. One additional suspect fled the U.S. and is believed to be living in Baghdad.
2) the Khobar Towers attack
the U.S. investigation was hampered by the refusal of Saudi officials to allow the FBI to question suspects. On 21 June 2001, just before the American statute of limitations would have expired, a federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, indicted thirteen Saudis and an unidentified Lebanese chemist for the Khobar Towers bombing. The suspects remain in Saudi custody, beyond the reach of the American justice system. (Saudi Arabia has no extradition treaty with the U.S.)
3) the August 7, 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania
Four participants with ties to Osama bin Laden were captured, convicted in U.S. federal court, and sentenced to life in prison without parole in October 2001. Fourteen other suspects indicted in the case remain at large, and three more are fighting extradition in London.
4) and the October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole.
No suspects have yet been arrested or indicted. The investigation has been hampered by the refusal of Yemini officials to allow FBI agents access to Yemeni nationals and other suspects in custody in Yemen.
But, let's be clear: By December 21 the CIA had made a "preliminary judgment" that "al Qaeda appeared to have supported the attack," with no "definitive conclusion."
In other words, with only days left in office, Clinton still didn't know who was responsible for the attack. It was left to the next bumbling president to follow through. And, as of yet, he has not. Also, under U.S. law, an attack against a military target does not meet the legal definition of terrorism.
Bush, on the other hand, did react.
Yes, he attacked a country that really wasn't involved and then attacked another country later that had even less to do with the attack. So, really, not the best points to be making. Oh, and where's Osama? Gee, Dubya made damn sure to clean up daddy's messes, but hasn't really done anything positive for his own country.
at least when civilians are killed by the US military it is by accident and not on purpose unlike the cowards who attack the US.
Oh, that's ok then. I'm sure all of those orphaned children over there will see it that way and maybe they WILL see us as liberators?!
Why attribute malice when overzealous software and a lack of proofreading will do?
Because he's American. Duh.
I've viewed the nation and people of Iraq as more of Saddam's victims for decades, not his willing accomplices.
And a fine and real view it is. Unfortunately, were that the entirety of the case, we would've only needed to pullout as soon as Saddam's head popped off. Alas, it appears he had a lot more supporters than officially reported.
I think if this conversation tells us anything about bias it is clearly telling us about yours, not mine.
What? That I believe the US should be held just as responsible for every Kurdish death by American gas given freely to a known dictator? I really wasn't trying to hide my bias.
Even if true they are off topic. The fact remains that the US invasion was not a random event. The potential threat existed.
Well, they are true, and 100% on-topic. The fact of the matter is the US put into place what they happily claim to be a tyrranical dictator, give him devastating weapons which he then uses, and then gives him a billion more dollars as well as more military hardware and support. Any "potential threat" was put there BY the US, but it's the Iraqi people who are/have been suffering because of it. As for the "threat", what threat? Saddam had a missle program in the works, but those are easy enough to take out in an air strike. Why are we still mired in it four years after the mission had been accomplished?
Even if one accepts your position one could argue that the US more morally obliged to clean up the mess it created. In any case, not random.
Agreed totally. Send GW, his daddy and Rumsie over and let them sort it out on their own. Bring our troops home, they had nothing to do with it.
I don't believe that what I'm about to say isn't voicing the opinion of many hereabouts: some of us Yanks know a lot of non-Americans and non-natively-born Americans and you all tend to get on our fucking nerves from time to time with your arrogance of language usage. Yes, most all of us are _so stupid_ that we only speak one language.
You're also too stupid to realize that someone could have a negative opinion of the US AND also be a citizen of said country. I realize we're almost at the mandatory provincialism stage, but not entirely yet. Americans are generally also too stupid to put up a good argument as to WHY they only speak one language (there is at least one good one, BTW)
The guy is guilty of a typo but you find it necessary to berate him personally before arguing your counterpoints.
Yup, 'cause the typo itself was telling. But, unlike you, I didn't put a whole lot of effort into an ad hominem attack. I put more effort into the actual facts of the case, which I'm sure you don't understand, which is why you chose to ignore them. Of course, when have Americans allowed pesky facts to get in their way?
When you attack the man before you attack his ideas, you are simply attacking a man who has spoken - it is that simple.
Awww, isn't that cute, you have a mantra!
If you're man enough to believe your ideas stand on their own, I challenge you to apologize.
Nope, I think you should apologize. You're the one who obviously spent a good amount of time attacking what wasn't even the entirety of a sentence rather than an paying attention to what was really important. You're a fine example of the kind of pathetic, pedantic putz the citizens of other countries find to be representative of the US. So, YOU should apologize, and I expect it by end of day!
Irag II: Saddam had WMD (used it on Kurdish villagers in the 80s).
Like a true American, you not only spelled the name of the country wrong (and the Freudian subtlety of the misspelling is particularly telling), you forgot to mention a) why the US did nothing about that back in the 80s aside from affirming our "friendship" to Saddam and giving him another $1 billion in military aid right after and b) where Saddam had gotten the technology for that gas and its means of distribution. (I'll give you a hint: you were trying to defend that country's "honor")
The spread of communism was feared.
And, what happens when the spread of American-brand "democracy" is feared? It's only so long before everyone gets tired of having "freedom" bombed into them.
Uh, excuse me, those "thugs", as you call them, are American Heroes who put their lives on the line every single day to protect you from terrorists. As everyone knows, a terrorist kills indiscriminately, but an officer of the law occasionally makes a mistake whereby an "innocent" person will get clubbed to death. I quoted "innocent", because we all know everyone's guilt of SOMETHING, and so they got what they deserved, if not for the crime for which they deserved it. By denigrating their actions and calling them "thugs", you're raising a white flag of surrender to the terrorists. So, why don't you go back to Iraq, you commmie-pinko-muslim-hate-monger?!
I'm a republican candidate, and I approve this message.
"There is a part of me that says, 'Gee, doesn't the NFL have enough money already?'" said Steve Holley, Immanuel's executive pastor.
So, the church now advocates stealing, as long as it's only from people who have "too much money"? Kewl, I was getting tired of the strict moral code of being an atheist. I wanted something with a lot more moral flexibility...who would've thought it would come from a church?
Yeah, I hijacked the thread to protest churches. Suck it.
What we need to determine is whether it's right or moral to do something.
Who's guide do we use then? Every religion has a supreme being with his own slight slant on what's moral and right. Who has the right one? Some things are incompatible with others. For example, a large number of the middle-eastern religions (judaism, christianity, and islam) all have in their bibles entries saying it's okay to stone adulterers to death. Some people still believe highly in this practice, others do not. If there were a god, which one does he prefer? They both make rather persuasive arguments on either side of the debate. Until you can decide which religion is the right one, gotta tell you...religion doesn't give you these answers, either and I'd say they're both just as pressing. Right now, if I know there's a married person cheating on their spouse, am I to stone that person to death or ignore it? Do the laws of man (which in my country forbid such an act) supercede the laws of god (which say I must help my brother reclaim his honor)?
Is a single sperm considered a human life? I would say no. Is an egg? I would say no. What about a blastocyst? Fetus? It's easy to say that a baby's not a life until they're born, but what if my wife's going into labor, but outside the hospital some jackass punches her in the stomach until the baby dies? Is that assault or is it murder?
Depends, was he acting in the name of his god? Read the christian, jewish or muslim bible some time, there's plenty of entries of their gods ordering his chosen people to go and slay their enemies, rape their women and rip the babies from their bellies. Can those who aren't of god's chosen people get abortions, then? If god doesn't care about their unborn children's lives, why would he care? Failing your ability to answer those questions: where, specifically, in the bible does it say at what point life begins? According to Jesus, it's really when you're reborn unto him...or something like that. I also believe it says that life enters the fetus at the quickening (the first time the mother feels the baby kick). Why do we ignore that portion to support a case that's contrary to the bible's teachings?
Science doesn't have these answers.
Neither does religion.
If you look purely to science to see whether research should be done or not, you end up skinning Jews alive to see how long they live
Do you mean like the christian dictator, Adolf Hitler, who did it in the name of god? The christians try to blame him on the atheists, but sorry, he belongs squarely to them. Read Mein Kampf. The evil didn't stop spewing from them in the middle ages. It's within living memory...like slavery and institutionalized racism.
just as easily as you end up shooting beta particles at a thin gold sheet. Science can give us the information to make those decisions, but science can't make them for us.
At least, when a scientist gives me an answer, I can be reasonably sure it's the right one. I understand that his answer comes with the qualification of "to the best of our ability to measure". I understand and accept it because I know he's got the ability to FIND the right answer, rather than just making one up. I also understand that if I ask a question he can't answer, he'll tell me he doesn't know, rather than just making shit up. There's also usually a bunch of other scientists on whose work he's built on. Finally, if I don't believe his answer, I can read what he did and duplicate it and see for myself. Absolutely none of this is possible with religion. You can't even put two christians or muslims in the same room together and get a completely 100% exactly the same pair of views on their religion. It's simply absurd to try to proclaim that religion can give you these answers.
Not a problem, it's also irrelevant to this particular thread which was about a student being suspended for putting up a "Bong hits for Jesus" sign while not in school or on school property.
That being said...the point of a protest is to raise the awareness of the mindless drones who just want to keep their heads down and not pay attention to what's going on in the world. By restricting freedom of speech to areas where the message can only be heard by those who want to hear it you effectively silence any and all "non-representative" groups. The downside to freedom of speech is you often have to hear things you don't want to.
I especially liked "You do not have the right to deny someone the education they paid for (their "property")". Are you suggesting someone could use the argument "I would've passed this class if I hadn't had to listen to that guy complain about the war while I was on my way to class!"?
While we're on the topic, I have a rock I can sell you that will protect you from tigers. Since I found this rock, I have not been attacked by a single tiger, so its effectiveness is 100%. You'd be a fool to pass it up.
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently the parent was too subtle. He's suggesting you actually READ the book referenced to see that it is, in fact, discussing global warming and predates 1990 and therefore nullifies your claims. Now, can we move past the arrogant sophistry and get to discussing the actual science now?
This is evidently a side-effect of the way the amygdala records emotional-stimulus responses. If you look at child porn and have a positive (arousing) experience, you are more likely to be aroused next time you are exposed to similar stimulus (a naked child). This has obvious detrimental effects on society.
Yeah, I get that. My point was, simply: does increased availability result in increased production? It seems to me that there's X number of people in the world producing kiddie porn for Y number of people. If Y doubles, does X double? If X does double, then you have more children being molested for profit. As the War on Drugs has shown, going after the consumers of the product does not lessen its consumption. I would argue that the damage being done to the children is greater than the harm being done to "society" by more pedophiles viewing kiddie porn. There is a certain percentage that can be pacified by passively viewing the porn and won't necessarily escalate to actual molestation, just as there's a certain percentage of people that will watch regular porn and escalate to rape. The overwhelming majority, media claims to the contrary, will just continue to watch the porn.
Ah, sorry, my bad. In that case...spooky action at a distance? :)
and I'm not sure we have any documented proof that He has violated them
Really? Have you not read the Old Testament? Are human sacrifice, genocide and mass infanticide then not extensions of "Thou shall not murder"? I hate to justify Godwin's Law...but if genocide's ok, then what did Hitler do that was wrong? He did what he did in the name of Christianity, thus in the name of his god...
So, does the Internet increase the amount of kiddie porn, or the access to it? If it increases the number of kids who are molested on film, I can stand behind trying to invoke extra measures to stop the growth. If, however, it just makes it easier for more pedophiles to view the same images, then the problem isn't the Internet. The problem is the kiddie porn and "fixing" the Internet isn't going to change anything. Of course, the real solution of finding a "cure" for pedophilia would be a better alternative, but that's just me...
I quoted the word "cure" because I know there's no "cure", but treatments could be developed that would minimilize a pedophiles impulses and thus allow them to lead a normal and productive life. Putting them in prison or on Dateline is not the solution.
since there are a fair number of left-wing liberals in the slashdot mix
Perhaps they wouldn't vote for him because they're generally a little more intelligent and knowledgeable than your typical left-wing liberal? Ron Paul talks a good talk, but I would vote for Huckabee before I'd vote for Paul. At least with Huckabee, he's up-front about turning the US into god's dominion on Earth. Paul's a bit more subtle. He's also clueless. He believes the Constitution is "replete" with references to god*. Considering the first sentence he's supposed to utter as President is that he will defend the Constitution, I would think the moron would at least bother to READ the thing first, rather than the Reader's Digest condensed version given to him by his god-fearin' followers.
* Sorry, this had originally been posted at his official blog, but my search turned up this one first and I don't feel like putting that much effort finding the exact URL.
Yeah, like an announcement by our FearFUL Leader was needed, for us to know they are tapping our communications.
There, I corrected that for you. Bush, like anyone else still afraid of "terrorists", is a huge pussy.
Why do people keep insisting that Evolution, the act itself, isn't a fact?
Because only religion deals in absolute, irrefutable "facts". Scientists are a little more realistic.
And let's not forget the different shapes of the beaks of the birds that Darwin studied.
Gee, Dubya would simply claim god was showing off his creativity.
Bull. Every good administrator I know is also a good programmer. Most good programmers I know are also good administrators (the exceptions tend to be academic types).
Bull. I would contend that you're not skilled enough to know the difference.
But then, my experience is on the Unix side where scripting and programming are the norm, as opposed to the Windows side where point and click is the norm.
Actually, pretty much every Windows admin I know knows a little bit of scripting and programming as well. Just because an admin can hack together a bash or perl script does not make them a programmer. Could they jump over to the development side of the house and hit the ground running? I generally work with both sides of the house, and I haven't seen significant crossover on either side.
Interesting reply, but I work in the financial industry, and I find the exact opposite to be true. Most in-house developers are clueless dimwits who've fallen behind the times because they've been isolated from real programming techniques and newer technologies. They end up doing things the same old way for years at a time and nothing really changes.
You get smarter, more resourceful people when they are not MSCE drones, but actually programmers that are able to solve a problem
This would make more sense if you hadn't mixed the two. An MCSE is a person who's taken tests to indicate technical ability administering Windows-based systems. An MCSD is a developer who has certified on MS products. The two disciplines are completely separate from each other. Administrators make terrible developers and developers make terrible administrators. Yes, in the last 21 years, I've met about 5 anecdotal people who managed to be fantastic at both, but they were an extreme exception, not the norm.
That being said, those are simply certifications. They serve a singular purpose: to provide HR drones with checklists that they can compare resumes against. They do not, in any way, indicate a person's ability to do a particular job. It merely shows they were able to memorize answers to a test and spew them out. Generally, it's pretty easy to tell the clueless from the clued-in. The clueless have their certs hanging on a wall, the clued-in don't know where theirs are.
Without that card, you can still get in to see the Constitution
On behalf of Gee, Dubya, let me ask the question: "What the hell is the Consitution and why would I care about it?"
Spoken like a true 'pub.
Clinton didn't do anything about terrorist attacks while he was in office:
I realize "facts" are the antithesis of the 'pub agenda, but your spin is so weak...
1) the February 26, 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center
Four followers of the Egyptian cleric Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman were captured, convicted of the World Trade Center bombing in March 1994, and sentenced to 240 years in prison each. The purported mastermind of the plot, Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, was captured in 1995, convicted of the bombing in November 1997, and also sentenced to 240 years in prison. One additional suspect fled the U.S. and is believed to be living in Baghdad.
2) the Khobar Towers attack
the U.S. investigation was hampered by the refusal of Saudi officials to allow the FBI to question suspects. On 21 June 2001, just before the American statute of limitations would have expired, a federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, indicted thirteen Saudis and an unidentified Lebanese chemist for the Khobar Towers bombing. The suspects remain in Saudi custody, beyond the reach of the American justice system. (Saudi Arabia has no extradition treaty with the U.S.)
3) the August 7, 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania
Four participants with ties to Osama bin Laden were captured, convicted in U.S. federal court, and sentenced to life in prison without parole in October 2001. Fourteen other suspects indicted in the case remain at large, and three more are fighting extradition in London.
4) and the October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole.
No suspects have yet been arrested or indicted. The investigation has been hampered by the refusal of Yemini officials to allow FBI agents access to Yemeni nationals and other suspects in custody in Yemen.
But, let's be clear: By December 21 the CIA had made a "preliminary judgment" that "al Qaeda appeared to have supported the attack," with no "definitive conclusion."
In other words, with only days left in office, Clinton still didn't know who was responsible for the attack. It was left to the next bumbling president to follow through. And, as of yet, he has not. Also, under U.S. law, an attack against a military target does not meet the legal definition of terrorism.
Bush, on the other hand, did react.
Yes, he attacked a country that really wasn't involved and then attacked another country later that had even less to do with the attack. So, really, not the best points to be making. Oh, and where's Osama? Gee, Dubya made damn sure to clean up daddy's messes, but hasn't really done anything positive for his own country.
at least when civilians are killed by the US military it is by accident and not on purpose unlike the cowards who attack the US.
Oh, that's ok then. I'm sure all of those orphaned children over there will see it that way and maybe they WILL see us as liberators?!
Why attribute malice when overzealous software and a lack of proofreading will do?
Because he's American. Duh.
I've viewed the nation and people of Iraq as more of Saddam's victims for decades, not his willing accomplices.
And a fine and real view it is. Unfortunately, were that the entirety of the case, we would've only needed to pullout as soon as Saddam's head popped off. Alas, it appears he had a lot more supporters than officially reported.
I think if this conversation tells us anything about bias it is clearly telling us about yours, not mine.
What? That I believe the US should be held just as responsible for every Kurdish death by American gas given freely to a known dictator? I really wasn't trying to hide my bias.
Even if true they are off topic. The fact remains that the US invasion was not a random event. The potential threat existed.
Well, they are true, and 100% on-topic. The fact of the matter is the US put into place what they happily claim to be a tyrranical dictator, give him devastating weapons which he then uses, and then gives him a billion more dollars as well as more military hardware and support. Any "potential threat" was put there BY the US, but it's the Iraqi people who are/have been suffering because of it. As for the "threat", what threat? Saddam had a missle program in the works, but those are easy enough to take out in an air strike. Why are we still mired in it four years after the mission had been accomplished?
Even if one accepts your position one could argue that the US more morally obliged to clean up the mess it created. In any case, not random.
Agreed totally. Send GW, his daddy and Rumsie over and let them sort it out on their own. Bring our troops home, they had nothing to do with it.
I don't believe that what I'm about to say isn't voicing the opinion of many hereabouts: some of us Yanks know a lot of non-Americans and non-natively-born Americans and you all tend to get on our fucking nerves from time to time with your arrogance of language usage. Yes, most all of us are _so stupid_ that we only speak one language.
You're also too stupid to realize that someone could have a negative opinion of the US AND also be a citizen of said country. I realize we're almost at the mandatory provincialism stage, but not entirely yet. Americans are generally also too stupid to put up a good argument as to WHY they only speak one language (there is at least one good one, BTW)
The guy is guilty of a typo but you find it necessary to berate him personally before arguing your counterpoints.
Yup, 'cause the typo itself was telling. But, unlike you, I didn't put a whole lot of effort into an ad hominem attack. I put more effort into the actual facts of the case, which I'm sure you don't understand, which is why you chose to ignore them. Of course, when have Americans allowed pesky facts to get in their way?
When you attack the man before you attack his ideas, you are simply attacking a man who has spoken - it is that simple.
Awww, isn't that cute, you have a mantra!
If you're man enough to believe your ideas stand on their own, I challenge you to apologize.
Nope, I think you should apologize. You're the one who obviously spent a good amount of time attacking what wasn't even the entirety of a sentence rather than an paying attention to what was really important. You're a fine example of the kind of pathetic, pedantic putz the citizens of other countries find to be representative of the US. So, YOU should apologize, and I expect it by end of day!
Irag II: Saddam had WMD (used it on Kurdish villagers in the 80s).
Like a true American, you not only spelled the name of the country wrong (and the Freudian subtlety of the misspelling is particularly telling), you forgot to mention a) why the US did nothing about that back in the 80s aside from affirming our "friendship" to Saddam and giving him another $1 billion in military aid right after and b) where Saddam had gotten the technology for that gas and its means of distribution. (I'll give you a hint: you were trying to defend that country's "honor")
The spread of communism was feared.
And, what happens when the spread of American-brand "democracy" is feared? It's only so long before everyone gets tired of having "freedom" bombed into them.
No, it's where Prince Charles went for his first honeymoon. Ba-dum-boom!
Uh, excuse me, those "thugs", as you call them, are American Heroes who put their lives on the line every single day to protect you from terrorists. As everyone knows, a terrorist kills indiscriminately, but an officer of the law occasionally makes a mistake whereby an "innocent" person will get clubbed to death. I quoted "innocent", because we all know everyone's guilt of SOMETHING, and so they got what they deserved, if not for the crime for which they deserved it. By denigrating their actions and calling them "thugs", you're raising a white flag of surrender to the terrorists. So, why don't you go back to Iraq, you commmie-pinko-muslim-hate-monger?!
I'm a republican candidate, and I approve this message.
"There is a part of me that says, 'Gee, doesn't the NFL have enough money already?'" said Steve Holley, Immanuel's executive pastor.
So, the church now advocates stealing, as long as it's only from people who have "too much money"? Kewl, I was getting tired of the strict moral code of being an atheist. I wanted something with a lot more moral flexibility...who would've thought it would come from a church?
Yeah, I hijacked the thread to protest churches. Suck it.
What we need to determine is whether it's right or moral to do something.
Who's guide do we use then? Every religion has a supreme being with his own slight slant on what's moral and right. Who has the right one? Some things are incompatible with others. For example, a large number of the middle-eastern religions (judaism, christianity, and islam) all have in their bibles entries saying it's okay to stone adulterers to death. Some people still believe highly in this practice, others do not. If there were a god, which one does he prefer? They both make rather persuasive arguments on either side of the debate. Until you can decide which religion is the right one, gotta tell you...religion doesn't give you these answers, either and I'd say they're both just as pressing. Right now, if I know there's a married person cheating on their spouse, am I to stone that person to death or ignore it? Do the laws of man (which in my country forbid such an act) supercede the laws of god (which say I must help my brother reclaim his honor)?
Is a single sperm considered a human life? I would say no. Is an egg? I would say no. What about a blastocyst? Fetus? It's easy to say that a baby's not a life until they're born, but what if my wife's going into labor, but outside the hospital some jackass punches her in the stomach until the baby dies? Is that assault or is it murder?
Depends, was he acting in the name of his god? Read the christian, jewish or muslim bible some time, there's plenty of entries of their gods ordering his chosen people to go and slay their enemies, rape their women and rip the babies from their bellies. Can those who aren't of god's chosen people get abortions, then? If god doesn't care about their unborn children's lives, why would he care? Failing your ability to answer those questions: where, specifically, in the bible does it say at what point life begins? According to Jesus, it's really when you're reborn unto him...or something like that. I also believe it says that life enters the fetus at the quickening (the first time the mother feels the baby kick). Why do we ignore that portion to support a case that's contrary to the bible's teachings?
Science doesn't have these answers.
Neither does religion.
If you look purely to science to see whether research should be done or not, you end up skinning Jews alive to see how long they live
Do you mean like the christian dictator, Adolf Hitler, who did it in the name of god? The christians try to blame him on the atheists, but sorry, he belongs squarely to them. Read Mein Kampf. The evil didn't stop spewing from them in the middle ages. It's within living memory...like slavery and institutionalized racism.
just as easily as you end up shooting beta particles at a thin gold sheet. Science can give us the information to make those decisions, but science can't make them for us.
At least, when a scientist gives me an answer, I can be reasonably sure it's the right one. I understand that his answer comes with the qualification of "to the best of our ability to measure". I understand and accept it because I know he's got the ability to FIND the right answer, rather than just making one up. I also understand that if I ask a question he can't answer, he'll tell me he doesn't know, rather than just making shit up. There's also usually a bunch of other scientists on whose work he's built on. Finally, if I don't believe his answer, I can read what he did and duplicate it and see for myself. Absolutely none of this is possible with religion. You can't even put two christians or muslims in the same room together and get a completely 100% exactly the same pair of views on their religion. It's simply absurd to try to proclaim that religion can give you these answers.
...and subscribe to my newsletter? :)
Not a problem, it's also irrelevant to this particular thread which was about a student being suspended for putting up a "Bong hits for Jesus" sign while not in school or on school property.
That being said...the point of a protest is to raise the awareness of the mindless drones who just want to keep their heads down and not pay attention to what's going on in the world. By restricting freedom of speech to areas where the message can only be heard by those who want to hear it you effectively silence any and all "non-representative" groups. The downside to freedom of speech is you often have to hear things you don't want to.
I especially liked "You do not have the right to deny someone the education they paid for (their "property")". Are you suggesting someone could use the argument "I would've passed this class if I hadn't had to listen to that guy complain about the war while I was on my way to class!"?
Such as a government agency (like a school) punishing me for exercising that right.
While we're on the topic, I have a rock I can sell you that will protect you from tigers. Since I found this rock, I have not been attacked by a single tiger, so its effectiveness is 100%. You'd be a fool to pass it up.
The twits who actually do it voluntarily (without being paid for it) end up being haggard and cranky.