That said, Scientology's accused of: "extortion, fraud, unfair trading, violation of privacy laws, and unlawfully practicing medicine." I'm not sure that you can accuse Roman Catholicism (as a whole, discounting fringe groups that aren't practicing core doctrine) of most of those.
This is really the crux of the matter. No matter how bizarre or wacky you find a particular religious group (or philosophical group for that matter), you should only be able to sue for particular acts that the group, or individuals within the group, perform. I have no particular liking for Scientology, but one should focus on the bad and illegal things they have done, not the parts of their religion that are deemed absurd. I mean, American Atheists has claimed that the human race would have gone to the moon by the 3rd century (yes, the 3rd century C.E.) if it hadn't been for those "evil Christians" (this is in "Atheists: The Last Minority"). This is patently absurd, but I don't think anyone should sue them for it. However, if the head of American Atheists commits wire fraud (just for example, I'm not saying he/she has ever done anything unethical or illegal), then drop the legal hammer on the bastard.
but I decided I would comment on how I think most Canadian beer is better than most American beer(piss)
If you are talking about "beers" like Budweiser and Michelob, then I heartily agree with you. However, there are some good American beers, like Sam Adams. There are also a lot of local microbreweries in the States that have their own special, and quite good, taste.
East Timor? Since when was China invading East Timor. Or are you confusing Indonesia with China?
[American mode] All them thar' funny lookin' Asian people's the same. [/American mode]
Or, [King of the Hill mode] So, are you Chinese or Japanese? [/King of the Hill mode]
I have run into this sort of problem. There are so many people in the US who don't even know the difference between Indonesian and Filipino. Just a bunch of brown-skinned island dwellers, as far as they are concerned.
It's not just Walmart. Lots of stores have tons of Chinese made goods. Trying shopping for baby stuff. About the only thing I found not made in China was an English made pushchair. It is possible to go China-free (and probably healthier, considering all the issues with Chinese goods that have come up lately), but is hardly a simple proposition.
Only someone who has never had any trouble finding work would have an attitude like yours.
And heartless. Has he never known anyone that had trouble finding work? Or perhaps, if a friend or family member is having trouble, he says "Screw you! I've got mine, you weakling scum!"
Actually what happens is that the employer making unreasonable requests loses their best employees who simply go to a competitor, taking their knowledge, experience, contacts with them.
It appears that you never studied the history of the late 19th century. Or, perhaps you are fine with supervisors "sampling" your wife and daughter? Hey, if you don't like it, you can go somewhere else, right? Except everyone is doing it and you can only be a factor worker, no matter how smart you are, just because you were born into a poor family. Also, the economy is bad, so you all need any job you can get. I guess your wife and daughter will be having to go down on and get knocked up by their employers while you all make starvation wages. As another poster in this thread mentioned, in a decent society an employer would not even have the option of treating their employees that way.
Finally, read up on this and try to learn about some of the scummy things people like Carnegie did when they were running things. Also, one thing that still exists today in Pittsburgh, for example, is that everyone who owns a house is advised to buy mine subsidence insurance in case their house subsides due to all the old mine shafts that Carnegie was allowed to dig. Just an early instance of corporations fucking over entire communities and leaving them high and dry, while a few (or in this case, one) people get massively rich and impoverish everyone else.
Thats right, no one owns any property. It is all owned by the governments. You can however purchase the rightst to pay the government rents on a piece of property. If you think you own some property just neglect to pay the rents (taxes) on it for a while and you will get that error of thought corrected. Look up some old definitions for taxes, you will find the word rents used.
Um, the government doesn't own your property any more than home improvement companies do. You are assessed property taxes to pay for local improvements and things like schools (whether this is a good idea or not is another matter). If you do not pay your taxes, the government can put a lien on your property. If you ultimately fail to pay your taxes, the government, after proceeding against you via a trial, can order your property sold to pay for back taxes. You do actually retain any excess from a forced auction sale since the property is still considered yours. This is simply a means to force you to pay a debt, and of course an auction would not net you what your house would be worth if you sold it yourself normally.
Also, the government is not the only entity that can have a court order your property sold. If you have any home improvement or other kind of building contractor work done on your real estate property and you refuse to pay, they can also put a lien on your property and then sue you to have your house sold at auction. The proceeds from the auction are first used to pay your debts and the fees incurred through moving against you, just as the government can if you fail to pay your taxes.
So, would you say then that home improvement companies own all property since they can have yours sold? (and, of course, IANAL, but this is my best understanding of how real estate generally works in the US, though naturally not all states work exactly like this).
How do you even have property, especially real estate?
You get real estate by initial occupation or taking it (voluntarily or involuntarily) from someone else. Government, if it is even doing so today, only recently started mediating the majority of property transfers.
Um, real estate law in America has its roots in Medeival England. Governments have been involved in determining who owns what piece of property, and how that property is transfered, for thousands of years. Your idea is basically kill anyone you want and take their land.
how would you even be able to buy a gun if there is no government regulating how business is conducted?
You give something the gunsmith or previous owner would like more than they like the gun. (boy, these are pretty easy).
Again, this is another example of not really thinking through what you are saying. The reason you can go to a gunsmith (or anyone else for that matter) and conduct a business transaction is that there are laws in place governing how the transaction takes place. What is to prevent someone from simply killing you and taking what you have from you? The law and the enforcement of the law.
In a similar vein, I note that you did not respond to the part where I asked what is to keep you from simply inviting someone over and then shooting them. I guess you are either (1) incredibly naive about how people can get along without government ** or (2) you actually want to live in a world where anyone can do anything they want to anyone else, and all they have to worry about is pissing off someone who could kill them in retaliation. Now, obviously an excess of law is abhorent as well. But going to the other extreme is absurd.
** I am not saying people will always be going around trying to kill everyone else, but you do need some means of dealing with people who refuse to treat others decently.
You know that a libertarian would just shoot the thief as soon as he broke into the house, right?
Um, I think you are not really thinking this through. That's the problem with these short, supposedly insightful little comments.
How do you even have property, especially real estate? Hell, how would you even be able to buy a gun if there is no government regulating how business is conducted? If someone breaks into your house and you shoot him, what happens then? Do you go to jail? Or is it okay for anyone to shoot anyone else in their house? For example, who makes the determination that the person even broke into your place? Can you shoot someone you know and invited in and later claim that they were a thief? Clearly, the police have to get involved at some point. How does this whole infrastructure get paid for and maintained? If you think taxes are too high and/or government too wasteful, that's one thing. If you plan to get rid of taxes, then there is no way for there to be a government, especially in the modern technological world.
Yes because coercivly extracting assets and resources from people against their will(taxes) is completly moral and good...
Build your own roads (and buy all the land that you need to put them on). Oh, and if someone breaks into your house, don't call the tax payer funded police. Oh, and you don't actually own any property since it is the government (those darn taxes again!) that enforces property laws and property rights.
The question is not taxes or no taxes. The question is how much taxation and how exactly are those taxes to be put to use.
Moreover, it's basically the biggest fallacy ever that maintaining the celibacy of the priesthood perpetuates child sexual abuse. The decisions that those priests make are THEIRS, and theirs alone... not the Vatican's
Also, child sexual abuse is just as prevalent in other organizations. It's about the individuals, not the organization. The difference here is that, in America, the Catholic Church is still seen as a big, scary organization. On the whole, they think most Christians are Protestants and don't know that the Eastern Orthodox churches even exist. When individual pastors commit child sexual abuse, it doesn't get much more than local play (if even that). If a Catholic priest does it, there is this big organization that can be pointed at and that can be the subject of lurid articles. You don't hear about a Protestant sexual abuse scandal since there are so many denominations and sub-denominations, and many individual churches have a great deal of autonomy.
Record companies prosecuting people who take their products without paying are just defending their business. get some fucking perspective.
They are selectively prosecuting people who have the least means to defend themselves (such as college students), and are using tactics like ex parte prosecution, insisting on deposing ten year old girls face-to-face, and a host of other evils. Plus, copyright terms have gotten to be absolutely ridiculous.
If copyright terms were only, say, 20 years and the RIAA used normal legal means to prosecute file sharers for copyright violations, I would have absolutely no sympathy for file sharers. But, with life + 90 years copyright terms and RIAA's underhanded tactics, I say fuck 'em. They are the scum of the earth.
What risks? How is your freedom impaired? There's no freedom from being identified in public.
So, you are not going to call the police if I follow you everywhere you go in public, along with writing down and posting everything you do to the internet? After all, you are in a public space, and why should you worry if you have nothing to hide?
I think it started when Prometheus gave fire to the Greeks.
Yes, but Prometheus got sued by the Fire Industry Association of the Gods (FIAD) and was sentences to have his liver pecked at by a hungry eagle for all time. And you thought the RIAA was tough!
I can't believe the civilization as advanced as ours is full of people who can't even program a computer. It's just odd.
Well, you will find that a lot of people who can't program a computer have learned little things like Chemistry, Physics, Biology, History, Medicine, et cetera, et cetera. I guess what I am saying is, go fuck yourself stupid geek boy.
Slashdot Mirror
Or, [King of the Hill mode] So, are you Chinese or Japanese? [/King of the Hill mode]
I have run into this sort of problem. There are so many people in the US who don't even know the difference between Indonesian and Filipino. Just a bunch of brown-skinned island dwellers, as far as they are concerned.
Finally, read up on this and try to learn about some of the scummy things people like Carnegie did when they were running things. Also, one thing that still exists today in Pittsburgh, for example, is that everyone who owns a house is advised to buy mine subsidence insurance in case their house subsides due to all the old mine shafts that Carnegie was allowed to dig. Just an early instance of corporations fucking over entire communities and leaving them high and dry, while a few (or in this case, one) people get massively rich and impoverish everyone else.
Also, the government is not the only entity that can have a court order your property sold. If you have any home improvement or other kind of building contractor work done on your real estate property and you refuse to pay, they can also put a lien on your property and then sue you to have your house sold at auction. The proceeds from the auction are first used to pay your debts and the fees incurred through moving against you, just as the government can if you fail to pay your taxes.
So, would you say then that home improvement companies own all property since they can have yours sold? (and, of course, IANAL, but this is my best understanding of how real estate generally works in the US, though naturally not all states work exactly like this).
Again, this is another example of not really thinking through what you are saying. The reason you can go to a gunsmith (or anyone else for that matter) and conduct a business transaction is that there are laws in place governing how the transaction takes place. What is to prevent someone from simply killing you and taking what you have from you? The law and the enforcement of the law.In a similar vein, I note that you did not respond to the part where I asked what is to keep you from simply inviting someone over and then shooting them. I guess you are either (1) incredibly naive about how people can get along without government ** or (2) you actually want to live in a world where anyone can do anything they want to anyone else, and all they have to worry about is pissing off someone who could kill them in retaliation. Now, obviously an excess of law is abhorent as well. But going to the other extreme is absurd.
** I am not saying people will always be going around trying to kill everyone else, but you do need some means of dealing with people who refuse to treat others decently.
How do you even have property, especially real estate? Hell, how would you even be able to buy a gun if there is no government regulating how business is conducted? If someone breaks into your house and you shoot him, what happens then? Do you go to jail? Or is it okay for anyone to shoot anyone else in their house? For example, who makes the determination that the person even broke into your place? Can you shoot someone you know and invited in and later claim that they were a thief? Clearly, the police have to get involved at some point. How does this whole infrastructure get paid for and maintained? If you think taxes are too high and/or government too wasteful, that's one thing. If you plan to get rid of taxes, then there is no way for there to be a government, especially in the modern technological world.
Apart from the mustache, you've described Bush and Cheney quite well.The question is not taxes or no taxes. The question is how much taxation and how exactly are those taxes to be put to use.
If copyright terms were only, say, 20 years and the RIAA used normal legal means to prosecute file sharers for copyright violations, I would have absolutely no sympathy for file sharers. But, with life + 90 years copyright terms and RIAA's underhanded tactics, I say fuck 'em. They are the scum of the earth.