There is NOTHING that the government does effciently. NOTHING.
I dunno, a package i sent USPS got there pretty quickly, and it didn't cost that much.
When I moved to VT, I walked into the DMV with a PA driver's license, and walked out with a VT one. Same with the plates (although I kept the PA plates, VT didn't want them).
Look at how long a trial takes to complete.
I thought it took a long time b/c there may or may not be mitigating circumstances, lots of complex evidence and witness testimony. Thanks for pointing out the gov't just sucks!
Work hard. Help yourself. I have done it, people I know have done it. I am no better than anyone else, therefore if I could do it, anyone can. There are no excuses.
You mean like bill gates right? Oh wait, he just got where he was b/c he suckered some people and used harse contracts. As a programmer, he was 3rd rate at best. Surely you mean like our president? Oh wait no, he was given some oil companies to run, and quickly bankrupted them. He then got elected by using his daddy's and republican money.
You mean possibly like CEO's and managers? Oh wait, they don't actually produce anything, its the people under them, who usually could do a better job without so much oversight.
Seems to me that its not working hard, but who you are and who you know that matter.
Thanks for trying to answer my questions and getting me to read the law.
Sure..and now that you're the expert;-)
the only requirement for "broadband" is 1.544Mbps downstream, 129kbps upstream. If VZ can provide that service, then the community can't provide better service.
I thought it was just to give VZ a first stab at providing broadband. Does it really perclude the community ever offering service? Is it ANY broadband, or just wifi, or just wired?
I read the law, all 98 pages... It's a really great example of why we shouldn't let rich old white men write technology laws.
Ugh. 98 pages seems a bit much. I chalk this up to 'why we shouldn't let rich old white men write laws.' Personally I think the solution to this and many other problems is to invert the level of power...so that your local gov't has most of it, and the feds have the least. I believe that's how it was supposed to be anyway.
I agree, I don't like the law either. As far as punishments should the telco not live up to its promise, I have no idea. I haven't read the law in question b/c I no longer live in Philly (or PA). So it doesn't really affect me. I suggest you read the law to answer your questions.
It is insulting i think though that we should have to ask a corporation for permission to do something. I totally agree that a community, if it wants to, should be able to provide something to its citizens, regardless of the fact that its a lost investment oppertunity. Some things we have companies to provide to us, and some things we have cities or townships that do. the choice should be the people's though.
I cannot believe how this isn't seen as anticompetitive.
Ironically, thats what VZ argued; that they DO want to provide the same service, and how could they possiblly compete with local municipalities offering the same thing for free (well, funded by taxpayers).
Most people that support VZ though don't have a leg to stand on though. They claim that 'why should everyone have to pay for something only a few might use.' But no one said that the service couldn't fund itself, by billing an amount that can cover operating costs etc. Just like the water and electic companies do now in some places.
But at what speeds? And at what cost? If a community wants to roll out 10Mb symmetric fiber with static IP to every home for $15/month, asks Verizon for permission, and they say "Oh yeah, we'll give them 512/128kbps ADSL with a dynamic IP and bandwidth caps and harsh user agreement for $50/month" how is that fair?
I believe the law says 'same service'...so whatever the community proposed, I'd say that VZ would be bound to provide at least that same level of service...but IANAL nor an expert on the law in question.
And what determines "provide service" does that mean "start installing the service" does it mean "have one paying customer"???
Again, I'm not an expert on the law, but I'd assume that the phrase would mean 'customers can sign up for it within 14 months.' Whether or not anyone does i don't think would matter, as long as people can if they choose.
This whole thing is disgusting.
Agreed; I never said i supported the law, but its not as horrible as you were making it out to be either.
write a letter saying they're planning on providing service (with no timeframe)
Are you from PA? If so, you may want to actually read the law. If the telco (this excludes comcast, btw) says no to the community, they MUST (by that same law) provide the service within 14 months. That sounds like a time frame to me.
While i agree the telco shouldn't have veto power over something the community wants to do, maybe you should also get all your facts straight.
1. I don't think so. IIRC, even P. Pilot didn't really want to execute Jesus. Likely by this point he had enough exposure that, while a person might not be a follower, they may be sympathetic. Or maybe they were high (drug usage I believe was prevolent in many ancient civiliazations I believe). In this case, they could have been high, thought they saw Jesus b/c they were deeply sorrowed and, not knowing that the drug was so powerful, they believe they saw something. What I'm trying to see is that there are far more simpler explainations then someone rising from the dead. People on acid sometimes think they can fly, but it doesn't mean they can.
2. Flawed made me think of another problem with the bible. The fact that there is a King James version, and known other 'versions.' James rewrote alot of it to suite his own political agendas. Do you think that people may not have done this even earlier down the line? Especially considering that reading wasn't a univeral thing at all then. Who would know that some scribe changed something drastically, either knowingly or not?
3. My proof that it didn't happen is the fact that we have never had a recorded case of it ever happening outside the bible. Everyone who lives and has lived that has NOT just turned to salt is my proof. I think you missed my point.
Regarding the threats that god seems to make; do you not find it odd that an all powerful being would create another being that he knew was flawed and would likely not believe without some kind of proof (something we require b/c he put it in us to begin with), would say 'love me or suffer forever'?
Especially a good that is all merciful and good. Why would he create a person that he KNEW he'd be sending to hell to experience pain and suffering forever? Would you have a baby and then threaten it death or torture and when it disobeyed you inflict that punishment? Would you expect such a child raised like that to even know what love is, or would you expect the next serial killer?
4. So you say that Genesis is not literal, but the resurrection is? You never addressed that concern of mine. How do you really know whats meant to be taken literally or not? True, science can't disprove god. Nor can it totally disprove that there is life on other planets, or that said lifeforms are on their way to kill us all. Should we begin preparing for that event? If so, why not, when the bible tells us to prepare for the former?
Science as a rule doesn't seem to assume something exists and then try to prove that it doesn't, it seems to work the other way around. We assume things don't exist until we have evidence otherwise.
I also don't think God could leave us with incontravertable evidence of his existance without taking away our choice to have faith in Him, which is what he put us here for in the first place.
This is interesting. So if we have a video tape of someone raping a woman, we clearly see his face and he shows his ID to the camera, we no longer have free will on deciding a verdict? Hmmm.
Which brings me back to something I brought up in #3. God, believing that solid proof of his existance, and who is all loving etc, would rather a large portion of his creations to suffer and burn in hell forever then supposedly take thier free will? I know i'm sitting in my chair, but that doesn't mean i have no free will, does it? Or am i missing something?
Also, how does god not giving us the evidence taking away free will anymore then him giving us hints (the bible), which state he's there, watching and will punish us if we don't listen? The threat of punishment is very effect behavior control if people believe they will be caught and punished. Doesn't that take away our will?
Agreed, its not just limited to Christians, however in this particular article that was the scope.
I do disagree with some of the lumping of different groups though; some groups, like the PTC are trying to restrict what others may do.
Others, like the NRA, NOW, and Planned Parenthood, are trying to keep the choice up to the individual.
For me it boils down to freedom, and that humans have rights. I think I should be able to do things that don't harm others. The PTC wants to limit what I can watch on TV, because they (wrongly) think that whats on TV actually hurts children (and families). They ignore the evidence and discount the very large number of people that hear cursing in Raymond and yet don't turn out to be killers and rapists.
1. I read 2 of the 3 articles and stopped when i noticed something. His disiples claim they saw him, therefore he must have risen. Well, convinced me. Please. It couldn't be that Paul et. al. were plotting to take what was an otherwise good man's life and use him as an icon for control. Did that every cross your mind? By this reasoning i could get 10 friends together, get our stories straight, and write a new book of the bible that said Jesus said to kill all non believers. Please, try applying Occams Razor.
2. The PTC seems to disagree, as do many christians. I appologize for lumping you in there, however my experience tells me that the assumption is usually accurate.
3. Ah, these two tricks. I say prove it happened, you dare me to prove it didn't. Fine.
Are there any other documented instances of this happening? No? I'd say the burden of proof lies on you, not me.
The second trick is the 'oh, well that part is not meant literally.' That seems to be the cope out when something outlandish happens that non-believers call believers on. Fine...so maybe Jesus' resurection is not literal either. Its a metaphor. The truely good live on forever in our hearts, or something like that.
4. The big bang is not the only theory. Fredrick Nietzsche has another. There are lots of them Stephen Hawking think one theory is highly improbable and then says 'therefore God must exist'? I'm not doubting he's a smart man, but religion seems to be one of those things that is taught so much and re-enforced so much that one has a hard time believing anything that contradicts what they were raised on. I think it was Plato that had the store of the people in the Cave. He was trying to describe his idea of Forms, but I think it shows that even back then, people understood that if you were raised in a certain belief, and never had exposure to opposing beliefs, that its very difficult to imagine anything else; you KNOW you're right.
We have evidence of the age of the earth, we have no evidence that it was god (in your christian sense) that created it. Yes, he created it with a certain age...but please, apply Occams Razor again. Carbon dating is flawed you might say. Well, if you're going to doubt the science, maybe David Hume would be a good read. Basically he says you can doubt your senses, but that doesn't really get you anywhere.
Fine, before civilization humans migrated here, I'll give you that.
So are attempting to argue that its ok for any nation or group of people to slaughter / forcible remove people living somewhere else, because everyone migrated from somewhere at some point in the past?
At any rate this whole part of the discussion is irrelevent to the point I was trying to make; that a group of Christians are trying to force their morals / values on others that do not believe as they do.
The comments I made regarding the killing of the American Indians were more to point out the long history of Christains trying to force thier will upon others than to debate where the people in the US originated. So if you have something to add about that, please feel free
That sex is bad (ie, a sin). The bible seems to confirm its not...have you read the psalms of david? They describe how enjoyable / fun sex can be. Of course thats often ignored by most 'christians.'
That turning around to look at a city being destroyed turned two people into salt.
That god exists at all.
Please, feel free to prove that any of those are true.
We used to have standards in society about how people acted. Now it's simply 'how much can I get away with?'
Odd, 'how much can i get away with' seems to be a business attitude as well. So i have no problem applying it back to them.
Let me guess, you pay close attention to EVERY ad on the TV and radio too, and if fact won't turn off either during a commercial break to leave / get out of your car. Right.
There's no such thing as an implicit contract. By their nature, all contracts must be explicit. I didn't click I agree to anything when i typed in the url.
The blocking problem is one the advertisers created themselves. People didn't mind it until we had popups and unders, huge ads that fill the screen and the stupid flash things that make you wait. It wasn't until then this blocking stuff started...so they can live with what they created; web servers that actively remove ads.
It says native american on her birth certificate. They're pretty much the same thing.
All peoples in the Western Hemisphere are migrants.
First, the Western Hemisphere != current day US. Europe is also included in the Western Hemisphere. I recently heard that scientists discovered evidence that says people were in the Americas far longer then previously though. What I don't recall is finding thier boats. Are you really sure you want to say no humans started out here?
sex is a gift from God, (although it is open to abuse) but violence is a direct result of sin and is from the Devil.
Ok, I think this is where you are going wrong. Not everyone believe in God or the Devil or Jesus, and the fact that they don't doesn't invalid anything they have to say. YOU believe sex is a gift from god, I do not. You have no right to force your views on me, and I would not do the same to you.
I find it offensive that alot of people assume everyone believes in Christmas. I don't, I've decided that the RC and its beliefs are bunk. My wife does too, being a native american. (Which by the way, after the Indians helped the starving christans out during their first winter, were repaid by being slaughtered and their lands being taken away..some christians).
It does influence our youth. It devalues life and respect. Then you get more divorce,
No, it couldn't be the Women's lib movement of the 70s could it? That women wanted to be freer and treated as equals, and alot of men couldn't adjust to that demand, could it? Or the fact that wife abuse was outted and now more women are leaving abusive men, could that be part of it too? No, it HAS to be TV. Idiot.
kids shooting/stabbing/beating other kids and violence in general, stealing too
Lets see, I'll ignore poverty / low income as contributing factors. Poor people can't afford to do anything but watch TV, so it must be TV making them misbehave! Yea, its not the lore of easy money or what they see as the only chance to get out. Because after all, there's crime everywhere there's TV, not just economically depressed areas.
hey are not trying to protect their kids as much as stop your idiot kids from killing and harming the rest of us.
Wow, I didn't know that my watching some TV was harming anyone. I must do what I see on TV!
Your probably the same idiot that would say we shouldn't put your kid to death after (s)he killed a dozen other people. "bad childhood" or some other shit like that.
Yes, lets ignore all the evidence that seems to indicate (very strongly) that a bad childhood does infact create 'bad' kids.
You may or may not like Dr. Phil, but the fact is that he gave advice to a family where the child was showing alot of signs of becoming a serial killer. They took his advice and his behavior began to improve significantly. Get your head out of your ass and accept that pyscology is a real science.
Yes, but why make it nearly impossible for parents who choose not to allow their children to be bombarded with the trash, to avoid the trash?
Only if you're really really lazy is it 'nearly impossible'.
Learn to use the vchip, its not really that hard. Pick a password, and pick the highest level people can watch w/o entering the password. How simpler can you get?
Lets not forget option two; get rid of your TV all together. There's no right to watch TV and not be offended, anymore then there's a right to watch TV that you actually enjoy.
hear this "parents need to take more responsibility" argument all the time, but while that is definitely true, it's NOT an excuse for media/consumers/etc taking responsibility for the pure garbage that is most media today.
I happen to like violence and sex on TV. This family crap that you seem to want put me to sleep, and good wholesome shows like Full house was are bland and predicable.
At any rate what I choose to watch is up to me. I want it, someone supplies it, you have no right to get upset about it. Block it or turn off the TV for good. Believe me, there's PLENTY of G stuff still left on TV.
and let any curious individual perform as a licensed electrician.
I've done quite a bit of electrical work around the house, and been fine.
It is infact legal to do all the wiring in your house, provided its inspected.
However, comparing electricity and the net seems pretty far fetched. Yes, uneducated users are causing problems. However banks and critical gov't networks should NOT be part of the internet at all, they should have thier own networks that only they rely on.
Brita provided me with a way to clean the water, but Cocacola doesn't sell a water filter, they sell purified water. By competing i believe we were talking about a gov't entity and private one selling the exact same product.
The gov't does realize more money, b/c I am charged per gallon for the amount that comes out of my tap. If i'm buying bottled water instead, less water comes out of my tap, and hence my water bill is lower.
The solution is to force them to pay overtime; then maybe they'd be more realistic w/deadlines b/c not going so suddenly got more costly. Right now they just make people work more hours for $0/hr after the inital 8.
If I had my way, salary would not be an option at all except for administration and management. ALL other workers would be hourly, and eligible for overtime over 40hrs in a week. And you could not be fired / punished for refusing to work more then 60hrs in a week.
Even if i make 90k (which i don't, btw), that doesn't mean someone should be able to force me away from my family and sleep without paying more.
Coca-cola sells reverse-osmosis filtered water in little bottles under the Dasani brand. Public works delivers somethat chlorinated, mineral-laden, marginally drinkable water through pipes to your house. I'd hardly say that's competition
I have one of those brita filter pitchers so yes, i drink tap water and it tastes fine. Is it now competition since the gov't is supplying water i'm drinking (after a little filtering)?
How is verizon (or any other carrier) supposed to compete against that?
I say, who cares if it can or not? The city wants to provide a service that Verizon is not willing to.
This bill may not be as bad as it sounds though; it gives the local telco a chance to scuttle any municiple wireless (and wired?) service, but should they choose that option, the techo is no obligated by this law to provide the same service within 14 months.
Of course I believe that if a community wants to provide a service it should be allowed to. The fact that it may hurt a business is of no consequence, since the business is only around to provide us a benifit anyway, and we don't HAVE to choose businesses to fulfill that role all the time.
In fact I do not believe the president or anyone in the gov't needs to get the peoples permission to inact war.
Actually ONLY congress can declare war. Unfortuantly the pres. can order troops to a region w/o their support (for a limited time, fortunatly), but I believe the reason congress has that right is that the founders didn't want one man starting a war b/c he was CiC. That check and balance seemsto have been eroded somewhat though.
What I DON'T want is a law that says I have to extend benefits to gay spouses, or even a law that says "if you're (voluntarily) extending benefits to heterosexual couples, then you also are required to extend those benefits to homosexual couples." Such a law would violate my First Amendment rights.
You absolutly do NOT have a right to extend benefits to only hetro couples and not homo ones. Currently you cannot extend benefits to white employees while denying those benefits to blacks.
As long as your employees are doing their jobs, what race they are or who they say they are in love with should not matter to you, otherwise you are violating thier rights.
Slashdot Mirror
There is NOTHING that the government does effciently. NOTHING.
I dunno, a package i sent USPS got there pretty quickly, and it didn't cost that much.
When I moved to VT, I walked into the DMV with a PA driver's license, and walked out with a VT one. Same with the plates (although I kept the PA plates, VT didn't want them).
Look at how long a trial takes to complete.
I thought it took a long time b/c there may or may not be mitigating circumstances, lots of complex evidence and witness testimony. Thanks for pointing out the gov't just sucks!
Work hard. Help yourself. I have done it, people I know have done it. I am no better than anyone else, therefore if I could do it, anyone can. There are no excuses.
You mean like bill gates right? Oh wait, he just got where he was b/c he suckered some people and used harse contracts. As a programmer, he was 3rd rate at best. Surely you mean like our president? Oh wait no, he was given some oil companies to run, and quickly bankrupted them. He then got elected by using his daddy's and republican money.
You mean possibly like CEO's and managers? Oh wait, they don't actually produce anything, its the people under them, who usually could do a better job without so much oversight.
Seems to me that its not working hard, but who you are and who you know that matter.
Thanks for trying to answer my questions and getting me to read the law.
;-)
... It's a really great example of why we shouldn't let rich old white men write technology laws.
Sure..and now that you're the expert
the only requirement for "broadband" is 1.544Mbps downstream, 129kbps upstream. If VZ can provide that service, then the community can't provide better service.
I thought it was just to give VZ a first stab at providing broadband. Does it really perclude the community ever offering service? Is it ANY broadband, or just wifi, or just wired?
I read the law, all 98 pages
Ugh. 98 pages seems a bit much. I chalk this up to 'why we shouldn't let rich old white men write laws.' Personally I think the solution to this and many other problems is to invert the level of power...so that your local gov't has most of it, and the feds have the least. I believe that's how it was supposed to be anyway.
I agree, I don't like the law either. As far as punishments should the telco not live up to its promise, I have no idea. I haven't read the law in question b/c I no longer live in Philly (or PA). So it doesn't really affect me. I suggest you read the law to answer your questions.
It is insulting i think though that we should have to ask a corporation for permission to do something. I totally agree that a community, if it wants to, should be able to provide something to its citizens, regardless of the fact that its a lost investment oppertunity. Some things we have companies to provide to us, and some things we have cities or townships that do. the choice should be the people's though.
I cannot believe how this isn't seen as anticompetitive.
Ironically, thats what VZ argued; that they DO want to provide the same service, and how could they possiblly compete with local municipalities offering the same thing for free (well, funded by taxpayers).
Most people that support VZ though don't have a leg to stand on though. They claim that 'why should everyone have to pay for something only a few might use.' But no one said that the service couldn't fund itself, by billing an amount that can cover operating costs etc. Just like the water and electic companies do now in some places.
But at what speeds? And at what cost? If a community wants to roll out 10Mb symmetric fiber with static IP to every home for $15/month, asks Verizon for permission, and they say "Oh yeah, we'll give them 512/128kbps ADSL with a dynamic IP and bandwidth caps and harsh user agreement for $50/month" how is that fair?
I believe the law says 'same service'...so whatever the community proposed, I'd say that VZ would be bound to provide at least that same level of service...but IANAL nor an expert on the law in question.
And what determines "provide service" does that mean "start installing the service" does it mean "have one paying customer"???
Again, I'm not an expert on the law, but I'd assume that the phrase would mean 'customers can sign up for it within 14 months.' Whether or not anyone does i don't think would matter, as long as people can if they choose.
This whole thing is disgusting.
Agreed; I never said i supported the law, but its not as horrible as you were making it out to be either.
write a letter saying they're planning on providing service (with no timeframe)
Are you from PA? If so, you may want to actually read the law. If the telco (this excludes comcast, btw) says no to the community, they MUST (by that same law) provide the service within 14 months. That sounds like a time frame to me.
While i agree the telco shouldn't have veto power over something the community wants to do, maybe you should also get all your facts straight.
1. I don't think so. IIRC, even P. Pilot didn't really want to execute Jesus. Likely by this point he had enough exposure that, while a person might not be a follower, they may be sympathetic. Or maybe they were high (drug usage I believe was prevolent in many ancient civiliazations I believe). In this case, they could have been high, thought they saw Jesus b/c they were deeply sorrowed and, not knowing that the drug was so powerful, they believe they saw something. What I'm trying to see is that there are far more simpler explainations then someone rising from the dead. People on acid sometimes think they can fly, but it doesn't mean they can.
2. Flawed made me think of another problem with the bible. The fact that there is a King James version, and known other 'versions.' James rewrote alot of it to suite his own political agendas. Do you think that people may not have done this even earlier down the line? Especially considering that reading wasn't a univeral thing at all then. Who would know that some scribe changed something drastically, either knowingly or not?
3. My proof that it didn't happen is the fact that we have never had a recorded case of it ever happening outside the bible. Everyone who lives and has lived that has NOT just turned to salt is my proof. I think you missed my point.
Regarding the threats that god seems to make; do you not find it odd that an all powerful being would create another being that he knew was flawed and would likely not believe without some kind of proof (something we require b/c he put it in us to begin with), would say 'love me or suffer forever'?
Especially a good that is all merciful and good. Why would he create a person that he KNEW he'd be sending to hell to experience pain and suffering forever? Would you have a baby and then threaten it death or torture and when it disobeyed you inflict that punishment? Would you expect such a child raised like that to even know what love is, or would you expect the next serial killer?
4. So you say that Genesis is not literal, but the resurrection is? You never addressed that concern of mine. How do you really know whats meant to be taken literally or not? True, science can't disprove god. Nor can it totally disprove that there is life on other planets, or that said lifeforms are on their way to kill us all. Should we begin preparing for that event? If so, why not, when the bible tells us to prepare for the former?
Science as a rule doesn't seem to assume something exists and then try to prove that it doesn't, it seems to work the other way around. We assume things don't exist until we have evidence otherwise.
I also don't think God could leave us with incontravertable evidence of his existance without taking away our choice to have faith in Him, which is what he put us here for in the first place.
This is interesting. So if we have a video tape of someone raping a woman, we clearly see his face and he shows his ID to the camera, we no longer have free will on deciding a verdict? Hmmm.
Which brings me back to something I brought up in #3. God, believing that solid proof of his existance, and who is all loving etc, would rather a large portion of his creations to suffer and burn in hell forever then supposedly take thier free will? I know i'm sitting in my chair, but that doesn't mean i have no free will, does it? Or am i missing something?
Also, how does god not giving us the evidence taking away free will anymore then him giving us hints (the bible), which state he's there, watching and will punish us if we don't listen? The threat of punishment is very effect behavior control if people believe they will be caught and punished. Doesn't that take away our will?
Agreed, its not just limited to Christians, however in this particular article that was the scope.
I do disagree with some of the lumping of different groups though; some groups, like the PTC are trying to restrict what others may do.
Others, like the NRA, NOW, and Planned Parenthood, are trying to keep the choice up to the individual.
For me it boils down to freedom, and that humans have rights. I think I should be able to do things that don't harm others. The PTC wants to limit what I can watch on TV, because they (wrongly) think that whats on TV actually hurts children (and families). They ignore the evidence and discount the very large number of people that hear cursing in Raymond and yet don't turn out to be killers and rapists.
1. I read 2 of the 3 articles and stopped when i noticed something. His disiples claim they saw him, therefore he must have risen. Well, convinced me. Please. It couldn't be that Paul et. al. were plotting to take what was an otherwise good man's life and use him as an icon for control. Did that every cross your mind? By this reasoning i could get 10 friends together, get our stories straight, and write a new book of the bible that said Jesus said to kill all non believers. Please, try applying Occams Razor.
a bility%2 0of%20EWT.htm2 0010516.htmle +witness+testi mony+reliability&btnG=Search&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF -8
Please see these:
http://www.colchsfc.ac.uk/psychology/reli
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/
http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=ey
2. The PTC seems to disagree, as do many christians. I appologize for lumping you in there, however my experience tells me that the assumption is usually accurate.
3. Ah, these two tricks. I say prove it happened, you dare me to prove it didn't. Fine.
Are there any other documented instances of this happening? No? I'd say the burden of proof lies on you, not me.
The second trick is the 'oh, well that part is not meant literally.' That seems to be the cope out when something outlandish happens that non-believers call believers on. Fine...so maybe Jesus' resurection is not literal either. Its a metaphor. The truely good live on forever in our hearts, or something like that.
4. The big bang is not the only theory. Fredrick Nietzsche has another. There are lots of them Stephen Hawking think one theory is highly improbable and then says 'therefore God must exist'? I'm not doubting he's a smart man, but religion seems to be one of those things that is taught so much and re-enforced so much that one has a hard time believing anything that contradicts what they were raised on. I think it was Plato that had the store of the people in the Cave. He was trying to describe his idea of Forms, but I think it shows that even back then, people understood that if you were raised in a certain belief, and never had exposure to opposing beliefs, that its very difficult to imagine anything else; you KNOW you're right.
We have evidence of the age of the earth, we have no evidence that it was god (in your christian sense) that created it. Yes, he created it with a certain age...but please, apply Occams Razor again. Carbon dating is flawed you might say. Well, if you're going to doubt the science, maybe David Hume would be a good read. Basically he says you can doubt your senses, but that doesn't really get you anywhere.
Fine, before civilization humans migrated here, I'll give you that.
So are attempting to argue that its ok for any nation or group of people to slaughter / forcible remove people living somewhere else, because everyone migrated from somewhere at some point in the past?
At any rate this whole part of the discussion is irrelevent to the point I was trying to make; that a group of Christians are trying to force their morals / values on others that do not believe as they do.
The comments I made regarding the killing of the American Indians were more to point out the long history of Christains trying to force thier will upon others than to debate where the people in the US originated. So if you have something to add about that, please feel free
Tell me one basic Christian belief which is bunk.
That Jesus rose from the dead.
That sex is bad (ie, a sin). The bible seems to confirm its not...have you read the psalms of david? They describe how enjoyable / fun sex can be. Of course thats often ignored by most 'christians.'
That turning around to look at a city being destroyed turned two people into salt.
That god exists at all.
Please, feel free to prove that any of those are true.
We used to have standards in society about how people acted. Now it's simply 'how much can I get away with?'
Odd, 'how much can i get away with' seems to be a business attitude as well. So i have no problem applying it back to them.
Let me guess, you pay close attention to EVERY ad on the TV and radio too, and if fact won't turn off either during a commercial break to leave / get out of your car. Right.
There's no such thing as an implicit contract. By their nature, all contracts must be explicit. I didn't click I agree to anything when i typed in the url.
The blocking problem is one the advertisers created themselves. People didn't mind it until we had popups and unders, huge ads that fill the screen and the stupid flash things that make you wait. It wasn't until then this blocking stuff started...so they can live with what they created; web servers that actively remove ads.
It says native american on her birth certificate. They're pretty much the same thing.
All peoples in the Western Hemisphere are migrants.
First, the Western Hemisphere != current day US. Europe is also included in the Western Hemisphere. I recently heard that scientists discovered evidence that says people were in the Americas far longer then previously though. What I don't recall is finding thier boats. Are you really sure you want to say no humans started out here?
sex is a gift from God, (although it is open to abuse) but violence is a direct result of sin and is from the Devil.
Ok, I think this is where you are going wrong. Not everyone believe in God or the Devil or Jesus, and the fact that they don't doesn't invalid anything they have to say. YOU believe sex is a gift from god, I do not. You have no right to force your views on me, and I would not do the same to you.
I find it offensive that alot of people assume everyone believes in Christmas. I don't, I've decided that the RC and its beliefs are bunk. My wife does too, being a native american. (Which by the way, after the Indians helped the starving christans out during their first winter, were repaid by being slaughtered and their lands being taken away..some christians).
It does influence our youth. It devalues life and respect. Then you get more divorce,
No, it couldn't be the Women's lib movement of the 70s could it? That women wanted to be freer and treated as equals, and alot of men couldn't adjust to that demand, could it? Or the fact that wife abuse was outted and now more women are leaving abusive men, could that be part of it too? No, it HAS to be TV. Idiot.
kids shooting/stabbing/beating other kids and violence in general, stealing too
Lets see, I'll ignore poverty / low income as contributing factors. Poor people can't afford to do anything but watch TV, so it must be TV making them misbehave! Yea, its not the lore of easy money or what they see as the only chance to get out. Because after all, there's crime everywhere there's TV, not just economically depressed areas.
hey are not trying to protect their kids as much as stop your idiot kids from killing and harming the rest of us.
Wow, I didn't know that my watching some TV was harming anyone. I must do what I see on TV!
Your probably the same idiot that would say we shouldn't put your kid to death after (s)he killed a dozen other people. "bad childhood" or some other shit like that.
Yes, lets ignore all the evidence that seems to indicate (very strongly) that a bad childhood does infact create 'bad' kids.
You may or may not like Dr. Phil, but the fact is that he gave advice to a family where the child was showing alot of signs of becoming a serial killer. They took his advice and his behavior began to improve significantly. Get your head out of your ass and accept that pyscology is a real science.
Yes, but why make it nearly impossible for parents who choose not to allow their children to be bombarded with the trash, to avoid the trash?
Only if you're really really lazy is it 'nearly impossible'.
Learn to use the vchip, its not really that hard. Pick a password, and pick the highest level people can watch w/o entering the password. How simpler can you get?
Lets not forget option two; get rid of your TV all together. There's no right to watch TV and not be offended, anymore then there's a right to watch TV that you actually enjoy.
hear this "parents need to take more responsibility" argument all the time, but while that is definitely true, it's NOT an excuse for media/consumers/etc taking responsibility for the pure garbage that is most media today.
I happen to like violence and sex on TV. This family crap that you seem to want put me to sleep, and good wholesome shows like Full house was are bland and predicable.
At any rate what I choose to watch is up to me. I want it, someone supplies it, you have no right to get upset about it. Block it or turn off the TV for good. Believe me, there's PLENTY of G stuff still left on TV.
and let any curious individual perform as a licensed electrician.
I've done quite a bit of electrical work around the house, and been fine.
It is infact legal to do all the wiring in your house, provided its inspected.
However, comparing electricity and the net seems pretty far fetched. Yes, uneducated users are causing problems. However banks and critical gov't networks should NOT be part of the internet at all, they should have thier own networks that only they rely on.
Brita provided me with a way to clean the water, but Cocacola doesn't sell a water filter, they sell purified water. By competing i believe we were talking about a gov't entity and private one selling the exact same product.
The gov't does realize more money, b/c I am charged per gallon for the amount that comes out of my tap. If i'm buying bottled water instead, less water comes out of my tap, and hence my water bill is lower.
The solution is to force them to pay overtime; then maybe they'd be more realistic w/deadlines b/c not going so suddenly got more costly. Right now they just make people work more hours for $0/hr after the inital 8.
If I had my way, salary would not be an option at all except for administration and management. ALL other workers would be hourly, and eligible for overtime over 40hrs in a week. And you could not be fired / punished for refusing to work more then 60hrs in a week.
Even if i make 90k (which i don't, btw), that doesn't mean someone should be able to force me away from my family and sleep without paying more.
The law gives the local telco the chance to veto a municiple wifi network. Should the telco veto, they MUST provide that services within 14 months.
Verizon simply is waiving thier right to veto under that law.
Coca-cola sells reverse-osmosis filtered water in little bottles under the Dasani brand. Public works delivers somethat chlorinated, mineral-laden, marginally drinkable water through pipes to your house. I'd hardly say that's competition
I have one of those brita filter pitchers so yes, i drink tap water and it tastes fine. Is it now competition since the gov't is supplying water i'm drinking (after a little filtering)?
How is verizon (or any other carrier) supposed to compete against that?
I say, who cares if it can or not? The city wants to provide a service that Verizon is not willing to.
This bill may not be as bad as it sounds though; it gives the local telco a chance to scuttle any municiple wireless (and wired?) service, but should they choose that option, the techo is no obligated by this law to provide the same service within 14 months.
Of course I believe that if a community wants to provide a service it should be allowed to. The fact that it may hurt a business is of no consequence, since the business is only around to provide us a benifit anyway, and we don't HAVE to choose businesses to fulfill that role all the time.
In fact I do not believe the president or anyone in the gov't needs to get the peoples permission to inact war.
Actually ONLY congress can declare war. Unfortuantly the pres. can order troops to a region w/o their support (for a limited time, fortunatly), but I believe the reason congress has that right is that the founders didn't want one man starting a war b/c he was CiC. That check and balance seemsto have been eroded somewhat though.
What I DON'T want is a law that says I have to extend benefits to gay spouses, or even a law that says "if you're (voluntarily) extending benefits to heterosexual couples, then you also are required to extend those benefits to homosexual couples." Such a law would violate my First Amendment rights.
You absolutly do NOT have a right to extend benefits to only hetro couples and not homo ones. Currently you cannot extend benefits to white employees while denying those benefits to blacks.
As long as your employees are doing their jobs, what race they are or who they say they are in love with should not matter to you, otherwise you are violating thier rights.