I know you are cracking a joke, but the whole 'potatoe is not spelled with an e' is a scary example of revisionist history. The scary part is how quickly it took hold, and the entire population accepted a revision to history as fact. Before the whole Quayle incident, teachers, dictionaries and potato farmers (not all of them, but many) spelled potato with an 'e' at the end. It is scary that someone made a spelling mistake by saying that Quayle spelled the word wrong, and it was repeated by a bunch of reporters that also did not know how to spell, and withing hours history was rewritten. What Quayle did do wrong was not know that there was more than one accepted spelling. So, when he told the student that they misspelled potato, THAT was wrong.
Saying that racism is bad is certainly not 'ignorant'. I know that it is politically correct to say that it is ok for black people to be racist, but that doesn't make it ok. Anyone that feels the color of a persons skin should matter is simply a Klan style racist. Calling someone a dick because a person thinks racism is wrong, and wrong for everyone, no matter the color of their skin, shows just where you stand on the issue of racism. The fact is, there are very few groups of people in the world that have not been oppressed at one time or another. You are suggesting that people be segregated based on their 'shared experience'. That is contrary to the ideal of a great melting pot.
The Irish were discriminated against in America during their big migration here. Do you think that all of the Irish should be sticking together and insisting that it is ok to teach Irish children to be racists because they have a shared cultural experiance? To quote Martin Luther King Jr.:
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
I hope for the same thing. I would point to King as a role model for my child. Of course, there are many, including yourself, that have a different view on race in this country. A view that says:
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where only black people are allowed to be racist, and that they will be judged by the color of their skin, THEN by the content of their character."
Promoting role models based on skin color is a page right out of a Klan handbook. It does a disservice to those who gave up so much in the civil rights movement, and it only changes who the oppressor is, instead of removing an oppressor all together.
If you think that MLK was way off base in his civil rights movement, it is your right to believe that. I only hope that you are in the minority, because I would like to live in a world were the people we hate, we hate for being bad people, not because of the color of their skin. And I will continue to identify people as racist based on their actions (including speech) and not by the color of their skin.
No, it is not 'just stupid'. Teaching your kids to admire people because of the color of their skin is simply racist and there is NO excuse for it. If anyone should understand why racism is bad, it is those that just came off the heels of Brown v. Board of Ed and the Civil Rights Act. For those people to turn around teach their kids to be racist is not ok. The people that do it are no better than a Klan member. They don't care about equality. What they care about is being the racist in power.
There is a big difference between ignore, and take part in. So far, I have never seen anything to indicate that children are naturally racist. I don't believe it to be the case, and if it was, all the better to push your kids to see people of other races as role models. If they are naturally racist, better to nip it in the bud as soon as possible. So, no I did not say ignore it. I say shun it. I also say that being black and racist is just as bad as being white and racist, and that taking the stance that a child can only have role models, or even should prefer to have role models of the same race as them is encouraging racism. That makes you no different than a run of the mill Klan member.
That's why I always open install the 'open with IE' Add-On. Then when Grandma says that the site doesn't work, I can tell her that the site is broken, and might not be secured. I explain that she can get to it by clicking the open with ie button, but she should know that it might break her computer if she does. I explain the IE doesn't tell you when the site is broken or insecure. I then make a face, and tell her that...Well... Walmart MIIGGGHHHT be safe, but that I'm surprised such a big store would have an insecure broken site. This has the following effects:
She doesn't immediately switch back to IE.
She places the blame for the broken site on the proper entity
She avoids sites that are IE only, as she perceives them as dangerous and broken
She can still go to the sites that are IE only if it is really important to her.
If it is a site that she is going to go to anyway, you can set the plug in to automatically load in IE, and grandma care for that site.
I don't think you understand what being paid 'by the hour means'. It mean you are being paid in time increments. If that increment was 1 minute increments, arguing that your not paid by the hour is no valid. Likewise, when someone is paid a 'Salary', the time increment is paid by the year. While you might have misunderstood the original posters comment about being paid by the hour, it is still valid. So, yes, almost every single employee in the Fortune 500 is paid 'by the hour'.
"Music and IP is a real debate, but the underlying debate is about profit, and limits to how one can build profit."
This statment indicates that you do not understand the debate at all. It is not an issue of you disagreeing, but that you don't understand the opposing position at all. The debate is as much about control of people as it is about profit, and in what ways one person can control another. It is also about slavery. We are quickly headed down the path where through eternal copyrights, certain groups will be able to own other people. Of course it will not be called slavary, because that is a bad word now, but calling it modern 'share cropping' is definitly fair. IP in it's various forms is quickly creating an enviornment that makes moving from one cast to another impossible. There are many other issues involved in the debate as well. It is obviosly not just about profit, and limits to how one can build profit. That is the least of peoples worries.
"Is it racism to acknowledge that children identify more with people who look like them?"
Your question is wrong. The correct questions is, "are you acknowledging racism when you acknowledge that children identify more with people who look like them?" The answer is yes. You argument basically boils down to "Racism is a natural state for humans, so we should just go with it." Do you feel the same way about the Klan as you do about the Black racists?
Um, if you keep paying a manufacturer for the same product they produced and sold to you already, you haven't bought it, you have rented it. If I buy a laptop, car, or hamburger, I can do as I wish with it and never pay the manufacturer again. If they want me to pay them again, they have to make me a new one. If I go home and manufacture my own burger, no matter how similar to a Big Mac it might be, I do not feel that I have deprived anyone of a way of making a living.
In fact, I believe that most media companies are committing fraud as a standard part of their business. They keep "Selling" products to customers, and then after the sale, they claim that you did not buy the Music/Movie/TV show, but instead only paid a licensing fee to view it under specific conditions. As far as I understand the term fraud, knowingly entering into a financial transaction that you intend not to fulfill the terms of is it.
Heck, just last night, I saw an ad that specifically said "Buy an episode of Battlestar Galactica". Now, I highly doubt that they are actually selling the episode. I believe that what they are doing is trying to trick the public into thinking they are buying something, but will tell them later that they don't REALLY own it. They only 'licensed' the right to view it. If that is not fraud, I don't know what is.
The fact that you use the sun expanding into a red giant as a frame of reference for time, makes the rest of the post completely believable. Very nicely done.
Java the technology is simply a really crappy emulator that had no production hardware to use as a reference for proper execution. Much like the x86 PC, Java started out crappy, but caught the corporate CTO's eye by being pushed by an enterprise technology supplier. It has finally gotten to the point that it is truly usable by having huge amounts of money pumped into it by the industry.
I'm not talking about finding it on a pirate's machine. I'm talking about them downloading it themselves to see what is in that file called 'hit me one more time.mp3'. At the time they would be downloading it, they would not have yet started a lawsuit. If saying that you committed piracy because you were planning to sue was a valid defense, I would think we would have heard it before.
That isn't the case here though. The RIAA would have commited copyright violation against me during their investigation of copyright violation by Mr. Partyof III. They would have then entered into evidence the file that contained my music, and thus admitted to the courts that they commited a copyright violation. So, contrary to your quote, they would in fact have 'stolen my bread'. Of course I would be more than happy to negotiate a settlement giving the RIAA the right to make internal copies of my music, but they should keep in mind that I work very hard to make up songs, and I place great value on them.
So the question becomes, "would the law against stealing bread and sleeping under bridges actually be enforced if the rich started doing it?"
I know that the answer is probably "The law only applies to the poor", but it makes me wonder, If I were to:
create a music file that I wrote, sang, and recorded,
found out that some unscrupulous pirate added it to the front of a audio file that was owned by an RIAA member,
found out that someone was being sued for downloading the combined file,
found out that the RIAA had downloaded the file themselves as evidence against this third party,
Would I have grounds to sue the RIAA, and insist on criminal prosecution?
Actually, I would say that THEY committed an act of piracy. They seized control of another persons property without authorization, and claimed it as their own.
This is largely why the 'Check Cards' are so bad for consumers. I don't understand why people don't get it. With a traditional credit card, if someone commits fraud on your account, you simply deny the charges, and you don't worry about it until it is proven that you made the charges. With the check cards (or as I call them 'give my money away for free cards') when you find a fraudulent charge, you have to go around to all of the businesses that you have written checks to that are now going to bounce because someone drained your checking account. It becomes a real problem when your mortgage, car payment, health insurance, homeowners insurance, and health insurance checks bounce. I don't want to hear from people that say you need to show ID, need a signiture, or have to have a pin. You don't need any of these to take your money at a gas stations, or any store with self checkout.
The worst part is that Visa advertises how easy it is commit fraud with these cards.
What you describe is not free will. It is a threat. 'Do what I say, or I will make you regret it' is a threat. Free will is 'Do what you want and I won't interfere'. You description of having free will to choose to worship the Christian god is no different than saying that the Africans sold into slavery in the Americas had the free will to choose to be slaves. Faced with obey or be tortured cannot rightly be called free will.
I don't agree with the law either. I don't believe in any of the 'hate' laws. Prison time for ideas is a terrible slippery slope.
I do believe that by the standards applied to this guy, most, if not all Christian recruiters coming to my door have committed a crime.
"This is something that I dislike in many "Christians". That the intent of their "Evangelizing" is for their gain, and not to genuinely help others."
I do recognize that not everyone in a group as vaguely defined as "Christian" holds the same beliefs. So, can we agree then that this sub-group is making a threat and should be arrested?
"Ahh, you've found one of the flaws in the analogy. As I said, it's still imperfect. The imperfection you've found is that a train has the ability to stop."
I have yet to meet a Christian that does not believe God has the ability to stop the train, or without the analogy, keep you in the state that you currently are. Every Christian I have ever met and discussed religion with (That has been a LOT) has professed that God chose to create the system we live in, and has the right to submit you to eternal torture. Do you profess that the Christian god is incapable of stopping this train? That he could not keep humanity in it's current state for eternity? And if so, would you concede that any Christian recruiter that does believe their god could keep humanity in it's current state and still gives you the line of obey or be tortured, is in fact making a threat?
You are right. The reason we are all running PCs on our desktop instead of terminals hooked to the mainframe is because of this. People were finding that they could be far more productive with a crappy (in comparison to the mainframe) C64 or Apple II than they could with the million dollar mainframe. So, they just circumvented the corporate computers by dropping a PC on their desktop. Eventually corporations had to start supporting the PCs because when they were faced with the dramatic drop in productivity from removing the PC, or the cost of supporting PCs, the choice was obvious.
I would also caution against restricting the individuals PC desktop too much. This can very quickly lead to employees looking for ways to circumvent your security, and create threats that you don't know about. Sometimes this even means making sure the employees computers properly play CDs, and can access entertainments sites on the internet. The best and the brightest often look for the most enjoyable work environment. Being able to listen to their music while working, or taking a short break to see if there will be a new episode of BSG this week could mean the difference between getting someone that is adequate at their job, and getting someone that is great. It could also mean the difference between an employee that dreads coming to work, and someone that looks forward to it.
"but Christians don't have the power to damn someone to Hell. Usually it is said that God will damn you, or something like that."
That is a good point.
Let me modify your analogy, and tell me what you think. I would say that the recruiter coming to your door is an agent of the person that is driving that car. So, it is more like, "Do what I say, and obey my benefactor, or my benefactor is going to run you down with his car.
Now, I may or may not believe that the recruiters benefactor has the ability to run me down with their car, as I make a point to look both ways when I cross the street. Heck, I might not even know if the benefactor/car driver that the recruiter is talking about even exists. I would still call it a threat.
I would think that threatening a person with unimaginable torture for all of eternity if they did not deny the existence of their gods would be considered a threat. Shouldn't the police start arresting the door to door Christian recruiters?
I would say that we shouldn't restrict 16-18 year old drivers to one per car. Going out with your friends is a right of passage in our county. People consistently say that we don't have any 'culture', and we don't have the quaint 'rights of passage' that many other cultures have. I say that most of us just don't recognize our culture and rights of passage. If you want to reduce the damage that teen drivers do, don't stop them from driving, or dating (that's what a one teen per car does). How about licensing them sooner. Let them get a license at 14, but only for one of those Gem type cars. You know the road legal golf carts. They max out at ~35 mph, and are not allowed on the freeway. Not only will it get a majority of new drivers to spend 2 years driving slow instead of getting a muscle car for their first vehicle, but you can bet that a large percentage of them will not be trading in their slow small vehicle for a fast one on their 16th birthday. It would help in getting people to transition to more rational car choices.
As for drinking, don't reduce it to 14. Get rid of the drinking age all together. Remove the mystique of drinking all together. Don't tell your 13 year old that on their next birthday, they will be grown up enough to drink. Make it something that is not a prize at all. Of course getting rid of the drinking age would remove that right of passage. Maybe I could be convinced that there should be a drinking age. It would take some doing, but maybe.
I wasn't offended by the scene. I wasn't offended that kids would see the scene. I was offended that they marketed a movie to kids that had a speaking humanoid character licking his balls. It would be no different than having an episode of Star Trek where Worf drops his pants and starts licking his shaft. After all, he isn't human right? While I would find this funny, I certainly would have a problem with it showing up on my kindergardener's suggested movie list.
The reason your kids found this funny is because they knew it was 'dirty'. Would they have found it just as funny if the cat was licking it's paws? They see your real cat do that, right? Of course they wouldn't. Why? Because licking balls or ass in public is considered dirty by our society. We know we can't stop animals from doing it, but Shrek is a movie about humanoids. They may have some features of animals, but they have more of humans. Would you let your kids watch a remake of the "The Island of Dr. Moreau" where one of the man-animals drops his pants and starts licking his balls?
Let me get this straight. I have a dirty mind because I find a musketeer licking his balls to be inappropriate for a childrens show? If they didn't intend for it to be risque, they would had him licking his hand or back. No movie ever has a speaking character licking their own balls on accident. So, I would say that it has less to do with me having a dirty mind, and more to do with you being in denial. Let me guess, you don't think the orgy in Happy Feet was inappropriate either.
Sorry, but when the character talks like a man, walks like a man, and dresses like a man, you don't get to play the 'It was just a cat' card. Kids watching these movies see the characters as people, and that is how the makers of the movie intended it. If an anthropomorphized animal doesn't count, then to complain about showing Fritz the Cat to a child is just hypocritical. The vast majority of 'childrens' movies are loaded with inappropriate sexual content, and the excuse of 'they are animals, so it doesn't count' is simply bogus.
It is clear that the makers of Shrek 2 intended the scene to be sexually risque. That is the only point to the scene. It was supposed to be a joke. Nobody would have thought it was funny if the princess cought the frenchmen licking the back of his hand. To claim that it wasn't a sex joke is just an act of denial.
My only problem with Shrek, and specifically Shrek 2 was that it was totally inappropriate to advertise it to children. Now, I think that if you want to let your 8 year old watch porn, it is your right as a parent to choose what is and is not appropriate for your child, but trying to trick people into taking their kids to movies that are loaded with sex is just not right. Many people try to tell themselves that 'it goes over the kids heads'. That is just plain wrong. Pretty much every kid that watched Shrek 2 knew that Puss'n'Boots was giving himself a blowjob when the princess walked in and thought he was Shrek.
Shrek 2 is no more appropiate for children than Fritz the Cat was in 1972. That being said, I think I was 8 the first time I saw Fritz the cat. My problem isn't kids seeing it. The problem is that kids are seeing it without their parents knowing or understanding what their kids are seeing, and the producers of the movie are going out of their way to keep it that way.
Slashdot Mirror
I know you are cracking a joke, but the whole 'potatoe is not spelled with an e' is a scary example of revisionist history. The scary part is how quickly it took hold, and the entire population accepted a revision to history as fact. Before the whole Quayle incident, teachers, dictionaries and potato farmers (not all of them, but many) spelled potato with an 'e' at the end. It is scary that someone made a spelling mistake by saying that Quayle spelled the word wrong, and it was repeated by a bunch of reporters that also did not know how to spell, and withing hours history was rewritten. What Quayle did do wrong was not know that there was more than one accepted spelling. So, when he told the student that they misspelled potato, THAT was wrong.
Saying that racism is bad is certainly not 'ignorant'. I know that it is politically correct to say that it is ok for black people to be racist, but that doesn't make it ok. Anyone that feels the color of a persons skin should matter is simply a Klan style racist. Calling someone a dick because a person thinks racism is wrong, and wrong for everyone, no matter the color of their skin, shows just where you stand on the issue of racism. The fact is, there are very few groups of people in the world that have not been oppressed at one time or another. You are suggesting that people be segregated based on their 'shared experience'. That is contrary to the ideal of a great melting pot.
The Irish were discriminated against in America during their big migration here. Do you think that all of the Irish should be sticking together and insisting that it is ok to teach Irish children to be racists because they have a shared cultural experiance? To quote Martin Luther King Jr.:
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
I hope for the same thing. I would point to King as a role model for my child. Of course, there are many, including yourself, that have a different view on race in this country. A view that says:
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where only black people are allowed to be racist, and that they will be judged by the color of their skin, THEN by the content of their character."
Promoting role models based on skin color is a page right out of a Klan handbook. It does a disservice to those who gave up so much in the civil rights movement, and it only changes who the oppressor is, instead of removing an oppressor all together.
If you think that MLK was way off base in his civil rights movement, it is your right to believe that. I only hope that you are in the minority, because I would like to live in a world were the people we hate, we hate for being bad people, not because of the color of their skin. And I will continue to identify people as racist based on their actions (including speech) and not by the color of their skin.
No, it is not 'just stupid'. Teaching your kids to admire people because of the color of their skin is simply racist and there is NO excuse for it. If anyone should understand why racism is bad, it is those that just came off the heels of Brown v. Board of Ed and the Civil Rights Act. For those people to turn around teach their kids to be racist is not ok. The people that do it are no better than a Klan member. They don't care about equality. What they care about is being the racist in power.
There is a big difference between ignore, and take part in. So far, I have never seen anything to indicate that children are naturally racist. I don't believe it to be the case, and if it was, all the better to push your kids to see people of other races as role models. If they are naturally racist, better to nip it in the bud as soon as possible. So, no I did not say ignore it. I say shun it. I also say that being black and racist is just as bad as being white and racist, and that taking the stance that a child can only have role models, or even should prefer to have role models of the same race as them is encouraging racism. That makes you no different than a run of the mill Klan member.
That's why I always open install the 'open with IE' Add-On. Then when Grandma says that the site doesn't work, I can tell her that the site is broken, and might not be secured. I explain that she can get to it by clicking the open with ie button, but she should know that it might break her computer if she does. I explain the IE doesn't tell you when the site is broken or insecure. I then make a face, and tell her that ...Well... Walmart MIIGGGHHHT be safe, but that I'm surprised such a big store would have an insecure broken site. This has the following effects:
She doesn't immediately switch back to IE.
She places the blame for the broken site on the proper entity
She avoids sites that are IE only, as she perceives them as dangerous and broken
She can still go to the sites that are IE only if it is really important to her.
If it is a site that she is going to go to anyway, you can set the plug in to automatically load in IE, and grandma care for that site.
I don't think you understand what being paid 'by the hour means'. It mean you are being paid in time increments. If that increment was 1 minute increments, arguing that your not paid by the hour is no valid. Likewise, when someone is paid a 'Salary', the time increment is paid by the year. While you might have misunderstood the original posters comment about being paid by the hour, it is still valid. So, yes, almost every single employee in the Fortune 500 is paid 'by the hour'.
"Music and IP is a real debate, but the underlying debate is about profit, and limits to how one can build profit."
This statment indicates that you do not understand the debate at all. It is not an issue of you disagreeing, but that you don't understand the opposing position at all. The debate is as much about control of people as it is about profit, and in what ways one person can control another. It is also about slavery. We are quickly headed down the path where through eternal copyrights, certain groups will be able to own other people. Of course it will not be called slavary, because that is a bad word now, but calling it modern 'share cropping' is definitly fair. IP in it's various forms is quickly creating an enviornment that makes moving from one cast to another impossible. There are many other issues involved in the debate as well. It is obviosly not just about profit, and limits to how one can build profit. That is the least of peoples worries.
"Is it racism to acknowledge that children identify more with people who look like them?"
Your question is wrong. The correct questions is, "are you acknowledging racism when you acknowledge that children identify more with people who look like them?" The answer is yes. You argument basically boils down to "Racism is a natural state for humans, so we should just go with it." Do you feel the same way about the Klan as you do about the Black racists?
Um, if you keep paying a manufacturer for the same product they produced and sold to you already, you haven't bought it, you have rented it. If I buy a laptop, car, or hamburger, I can do as I wish with it and never pay the manufacturer again. If they want me to pay them again, they have to make me a new one. If I go home and manufacture my own burger, no matter how similar to a Big Mac it might be, I do not feel that I have deprived anyone of a way of making a living.
In fact, I believe that most media companies are committing fraud as a standard part of their business. They keep "Selling" products to customers, and then after the sale, they claim that you did not buy the Music/Movie/TV show, but instead only paid a licensing fee to view it under specific conditions. As far as I understand the term fraud, knowingly entering into a financial transaction that you intend not to fulfill the terms of is it.
Heck, just last night, I saw an ad that specifically said "Buy an episode of Battlestar Galactica". Now, I highly doubt that they are actually selling the episode. I believe that what they are doing is trying to trick the public into thinking they are buying something, but will tell them later that they don't REALLY own it. They only 'licensed' the right to view it. If that is not fraud, I don't know what is.
The fact that you use the sun expanding into a red giant as a frame of reference for time, makes the rest of the post completely believable. Very nicely done.
Java the technology is simply a really crappy emulator that had no production hardware to use as a reference for proper execution. Much like the x86 PC, Java started out crappy, but caught the corporate CTO's eye by being pushed by an enterprise technology supplier. It has finally gotten to the point that it is truly usable by having huge amounts of money pumped into it by the industry.
I'm not talking about finding it on a pirate's machine. I'm talking about them downloading it themselves to see what is in that file called 'hit me one more time.mp3'. At the time they would be downloading it, they would not have yet started a lawsuit. If saying that you committed piracy because you were planning to sue was a valid defense, I would think we would have heard it before.
That isn't the case here though. The RIAA would have commited copyright violation against me during their investigation of copyright violation by Mr. Partyof III. They would have then entered into evidence the file that contained my music, and thus admitted to the courts that they commited a copyright violation. So, contrary to your quote, they would in fact have 'stolen my bread'. Of course I would be more than happy to negotiate a settlement giving the RIAA the right to make internal copies of my music, but they should keep in mind that I work very hard to make up songs, and I place great value on them.
So the question becomes, "would the law against stealing bread and sleeping under bridges actually be enforced if the rich started doing it?"
I know that the answer is probably "The law only applies to the poor", but it makes me wonder, If I were to:
create a music file that I wrote, sang, and recorded,
found out that some unscrupulous pirate added it to the front of a audio file that was owned by an RIAA member,
found out that someone was being sued for downloading the combined file,
found out that the RIAA had downloaded the file themselves as evidence against this third party,
Would I have grounds to sue the RIAA, and insist on criminal prosecution?
Actually, I would say that THEY committed an act of piracy. They seized control of another persons property without authorization, and claimed it as their own.
This is largely why the 'Check Cards' are so bad for consumers. I don't understand why people don't get it. With a traditional credit card, if someone commits fraud on your account, you simply deny the charges, and you don't worry about it until it is proven that you made the charges. With the check cards (or as I call them 'give my money away for free cards') when you find a fraudulent charge, you have to go around to all of the businesses that you have written checks to that are now going to bounce because someone drained your checking account. It becomes a real problem when your mortgage, car payment, health insurance, homeowners insurance, and health insurance checks bounce. I don't want to hear from people that say you need to show ID, need a signiture, or have to have a pin. You don't need any of these to take your money at a gas stations, or any store with self checkout.
The worst part is that Visa advertises how easy it is commit fraud with these cards.
What you describe is not free will. It is a threat. 'Do what I say, or I will make you regret it' is a threat. Free will is 'Do what you want and I won't interfere'. You description of having free will to choose to worship the Christian god is no different than saying that the Africans sold into slavery in the Americas had the free will to choose to be slaves. Faced with obey or be tortured cannot rightly be called free will.
I don't agree with the law either. I don't believe in any of the 'hate' laws. Prison time for ideas is a terrible slippery slope.
I do believe that by the standards applied to this guy, most, if not all Christian recruiters coming to my door have committed a crime.
"This is something that I dislike in many "Christians". That the intent of their "Evangelizing" is for their gain, and not to genuinely help others."
I do recognize that not everyone in a group as vaguely defined as "Christian" holds the same beliefs. So, can we agree then that this sub-group is making a threat and should be arrested?
"Ahh, you've found one of the flaws in the analogy. As I said, it's still imperfect. The imperfection you've found is that a train has the ability to stop." I have yet to meet a Christian that does not believe God has the ability to stop the train, or without the analogy, keep you in the state that you currently are. Every Christian I have ever met and discussed religion with (That has been a LOT) has professed that God chose to create the system we live in, and has the right to submit you to eternal torture. Do you profess that the Christian god is incapable of stopping this train? That he could not keep humanity in it's current state for eternity? And if so, would you concede that any Christian recruiter that does believe their god could keep humanity in it's current state and still gives you the line of obey or be tortured, is in fact making a threat?
You are right. The reason we are all running PCs on our desktop instead of terminals hooked to the mainframe is because of this. People were finding that they could be far more productive with a crappy (in comparison to the mainframe) C64 or Apple II than they could with the million dollar mainframe. So, they just circumvented the corporate computers by dropping a PC on their desktop. Eventually corporations had to start supporting the PCs because when they were faced with the dramatic drop in productivity from removing the PC, or the cost of supporting PCs, the choice was obvious.
I would also caution against restricting the individuals PC desktop too much. This can very quickly lead to employees looking for ways to circumvent your security, and create threats that you don't know about. Sometimes this even means making sure the employees computers properly play CDs, and can access entertainments sites on the internet. The best and the brightest often look for the most enjoyable work environment. Being able to listen to their music while working, or taking a short break to see if there will be a new episode of BSG this week could mean the difference between getting someone that is adequate at their job, and getting someone that is great. It could also mean the difference between an employee that dreads coming to work, and someone that looks forward to it.
"but Christians don't have the power to damn someone to Hell. Usually it is said that God will damn you, or something like that."
That is a good point.
Let me modify your analogy, and tell me what you think. I would say that the recruiter coming to your door is an agent of the person that is driving that car. So, it is more like, "Do what I say, and obey my benefactor, or my benefactor is going to run you down with his car.
Now, I may or may not believe that the recruiters benefactor has the ability to run me down with their car, as I make a point to look both ways when I cross the street. Heck, I might not even know if the benefactor/car driver that the recruiter is talking about even exists. I would still call it a threat.
I would think that threatening a person with unimaginable torture for all of eternity if they did not deny the existence of their gods would be considered a threat. Shouldn't the police start arresting the door to door Christian recruiters?
I would say that we shouldn't restrict 16-18 year old drivers to one per car. Going out with your friends is a right of passage in our county. People consistently say that we don't have any 'culture', and we don't have the quaint 'rights of passage' that many other cultures have. I say that most of us just don't recognize our culture and rights of passage. If you want to reduce the damage that teen drivers do, don't stop them from driving, or dating (that's what a one teen per car does). How about licensing them sooner. Let them get a license at 14, but only for one of those Gem type cars. You know the road legal golf carts. They max out at ~35 mph, and are not allowed on the freeway. Not only will it get a majority of new drivers to spend 2 years driving slow instead of getting a muscle car for their first vehicle, but you can bet that a large percentage of them will not be trading in their slow small vehicle for a fast one on their 16th birthday. It would help in getting people to transition to more rational car choices.
As for drinking, don't reduce it to 14. Get rid of the drinking age all together. Remove the mystique of drinking all together. Don't tell your 13 year old that on their next birthday, they will be grown up enough to drink. Make it something that is not a prize at all. Of course getting rid of the drinking age would remove that right of passage. Maybe I could be convinced that there should be a drinking age. It would take some doing, but maybe.
I wasn't offended by the scene. I wasn't offended that kids would see the scene. I was offended that they marketed a movie to kids that had a speaking humanoid character licking his balls. It would be no different than having an episode of Star Trek where Worf drops his pants and starts licking his shaft. After all, he isn't human right? While I would find this funny, I certainly would have a problem with it showing up on my kindergardener's suggested movie list.
The reason your kids found this funny is because they knew it was 'dirty'. Would they have found it just as funny if the cat was licking it's paws? They see your real cat do that, right? Of course they wouldn't. Why? Because licking balls or ass in public is considered dirty by our society. We know we can't stop animals from doing it, but Shrek is a movie about humanoids. They may have some features of animals, but they have more of humans. Would you let your kids watch a remake of the "The Island of Dr. Moreau" where one of the man-animals drops his pants and starts licking his balls?
Let me get this straight. I have a dirty mind because I find a musketeer licking his balls to be inappropriate for a childrens show? If they didn't intend for it to be risque, they would had him licking his hand or back. No movie ever has a speaking character licking their own balls on accident. So, I would say that it has less to do with me having a dirty mind, and more to do with you being in denial. Let me guess, you don't think the orgy in Happy Feet was inappropriate either.
Sorry, but when the character talks like a man, walks like a man, and dresses like a man, you don't get to play the 'It was just a cat' card. Kids watching these movies see the characters as people, and that is how the makers of the movie intended it. If an anthropomorphized animal doesn't count, then to complain about showing Fritz the Cat to a child is just hypocritical. The vast majority of 'childrens' movies are loaded with inappropriate sexual content, and the excuse of 'they are animals, so it doesn't count' is simply bogus.
It is clear that the makers of Shrek 2 intended the scene to be sexually risque. That is the only point to the scene. It was supposed to be a joke. Nobody would have thought it was funny if the princess cought the frenchmen licking the back of his hand. To claim that it wasn't a sex joke is just an act of denial.
My only problem with Shrek, and specifically Shrek 2 was that it was totally inappropriate to advertise it to children. Now, I think that if you want to let your 8 year old watch porn, it is your right as a parent to choose what is and is not appropriate for your child, but trying to trick people into taking their kids to movies that are loaded with sex is just not right. Many people try to tell themselves that 'it goes over the kids heads'. That is just plain wrong. Pretty much every kid that watched Shrek 2 knew that Puss'n'Boots was giving himself a blowjob when the princess walked in and thought he was Shrek.
Shrek 2 is no more appropiate for children than Fritz the Cat was in 1972. That being said, I think I was 8 the first time I saw Fritz the cat. My problem isn't kids seeing it. The problem is that kids are seeing it without their parents knowing or understanding what their kids are seeing, and the producers of the movie are going out of their way to keep it that way.