The problem with these counter-arguments is this: Theists aren't TRYING to disprove those things.
No, they're assuming the god hypothesis is true and then going on from a false initial assumption. There is no evidence at all for any god ever, so believing that it must therefore be true anyhow is both stupid and insane. That is the starting position of *all* religious people. All of the responsibility for proving absolutely beyond any doubt that *your particular* god is real is entirely on you. Until you can do that, you're laughable. That's the difference. Without committing the fundamental logical fallacy of begging the question as all of you always do, you have nothing at all. Please learn to think and quit spouting crap like that which has been completely debunked as nothing but piss poor reasoning skills so absolutely and so many times as to make you a laughable yet disgusting idiot for repeating the same old lies which you know damned well are lies.
I actually have a friend who believes in Thor, since you bring it up. I think its silly as heck, but who am I to judge?
Supposedly you're a human being with some shreds of sanity and rationality. That's all that's required to accurately judge an adult who still has imaginary friends as being severely mentally deficient and most likely a dangerous threat to the decent people around them.
Given the massive damage currently being done to the world and to society by the type of sick deluded loons who insist on the reality of their imaginary friends, it's your responsibility to judge any person so lacking in basic sanity and critical thinking skills as being beneath contempt. It's the only way we'll ever be able to pull ourselves out of the hole these sick fucking monsters are digging for us.
You post is hilarious. It is obvious you don't know the Constitution and definitely don't know the history of the drug laws.
Yet I do understand both the constitution and the history of drug laws. I guess your unsupported assertion must be nothing but the ignorant nonsense it looks like? I notice you were entirely unable to actually address any of my points. Should I just assume you know that you're wrong but you're trying to cover that up behind baseless nonsense and unsupported denial, or are you going to enlighten us as to what part of the constitution or the history of drug laws contradicts me and supports your assertions?
You REALLY need to get your information from some where other than pro-drug abuse sites.
I'm not aware of the existence of such a thing as a pro-drug abuse site. I haven't a clue what it is you're on about, but it does certainly demonstrate your lack of a grip on reality if you think that such things are common or that I get my information from them. You sound pretty far out on the lunatic finge...you might want to look into that.
Something needs to be reasonable before it is doable.
What is it that you see at being at all unreasonable in the idea that if you want to murder other people's children for your personal benefit that yours go first?
I'm having a very hard time seeing that as anything but perfectly reasonable. It would make our "leaders" much less likely to kill a bunch of people because they were too stupid and lazy to pay attention. We obviously have a very serious problem with idiotic, ignorant, lazy leaders murdering a lot of innocent people, and this does address that serious problem in a pretty simple, honest, and straightforward manner. It's not at all obvious that there's anything at all wrong with the idea. It's hardly obviously unreasonable as you seem to think. Keep in mind, the alternative which is all that you are defending is that election to public office allows you to murder other people's children on a whim with no consequences. The fact that that utterly failed policy has led us here is proof enough that your position is completely unreasonable, so you're obviously not a good judge of those things.
And, I just want people to obey the law and, if they don't agree with the law, work to change the law.
I just want laws that are not put in place with the intended purpose of harming society for the profit of a very few. You know, just, sane rational laws. It's too bad the your overriding concern is that the law be obeyed whatever that law might be. It's too bad that you have chosen to shirk your responsibilities as a citizen and to declare yourself a subject instead.
There is nothing wrong at all with breaking bad laws. In fact it's a sign of a good citizen that they quite often will. It's really too bad that you believe only in doing what you're told because you have a magical faith that the government can and will do no wrong ever, but any sane person will tell you that your attitude is crap and unworthy of a citizen.
Perhaps you should spend some time thinking as opposed to spending all of your time believing that laws are morals?
As far as working to change the laws? They were never permitted in the first place. Drug laws are completely unconstitutional and have no moral or ethical justification. You must be a deeply disturbed person if you think you can take the moral high ground while supporting such disgustingly inhuman laws which have caused so much damage to our society without providing any benefit. Either you're a deeply evil monster, or you're getting paid by the prison industry. Well.... or you're really freaking stupid.... There really is no other place you could be and hold such an evil/idiotic attitude.
What I believe is that you're seeing malice in what can simply be ascribed to incompetence
No, not at all. It doesn't take a special malicious intent, all it takes is self interest and a lack of regulation preventing that self interest from corrupting the system. Once you have those two pieces, then it is inevitable that things will slide downhill.
I fail to see why people involved in law are held to a different standard,
Because failure leads to an entirely different standard of disaster.
whereby any failure to produce something that makes sense to you has to be the product of self-interest and malice, rather than plain old incompetence, blind acceptance of procedure and tradition, or many other such issues.
I never said it had to be malice. The other things you list are irrelevant. It really doesn't matter in a specific case by case basis what extenuating circumstances led to a particularly stupid/sleazy/obtuse etc ruling to be put into place. It's the fact that it will inevitably happen *because* so many people like yourself refuse to hold lawyers and lawmakers to the higher standard that the damage they regularly cause makes essential.
It's not me who's being specious for assuming that a complex system that evolved over centuries was designed specifically to screw people over
I'm not assuming anything of the sort. I'm noticing the fact that in many cases, there were specific malicious decisions made with no consequences. Take the entirely malicious misinterpretation of the interstate commerce clause for a canonical example. There was nothing at all confusing about it, the court decided to grant the government massive new powers which were explicitly denied to it by the constitution. There has never existed a single good argument for doing this. It was purely malicious self-interest. That was one single event.
You seem to be arguing against a strawman claiming the whole system was designed to screw people over when that isn't my point. It doesn't even make sense in the context of my point which is that self-interest will inevitably lead some people down the wrong path where they can cause massive damage. Preventative actions against said damage need to be proportional to the amount of damage that could be caused. Screwups in the legal system, for example the interstate commerce clause fiasco have had massively far reaching and massively damaging affects on our nation. Drug laws with the inevitable, predicted huge increase in violent crime, destruction of civil liberties, massive increase in prison population and zero benefits for society are only one of the problems that were caused by that one malicious self-interested event. No need to postulate some far out conspiracy theory as you have done, because the point stands perfectly well on its own without it.
In fact, when Ronald Reagan was running for President back in 1980 I remember him saying capitalism did not guarantee anyone the right to succeed, it guaranteed them the right to fail. I never forgot that.
Do you remember how he actually spent his terms in office making sure that scumbags were guaranteed massive profits off of the public tit? How he led the largest growth of the US government in history breaking FDR's record and being surpassed by Bush2? Please tell me that you remember the Central American death squad training camps he funded? Selling crack to buy guns for Osama bin Laden?
A quote is just a quote, and if you found it inspirational, great. As a citizen, it is your responsibility to know and understand that Reagan was lying through his teeth for the purpose of fucking us all, and he certainly didn't believe a word of that. It might be what "capitalism" means, but if so, then capitalism is not at all what Reagan ever supported.
So in fantasy land, your quote might have meaning. In reality, well, that's not how things work around here.
Dude, she lives in Chicago, IL. Have you been paying any attention to how we do things around here? No secret lair needed. Heck, I could point her lair out to you;-)
You need an expert to do expert work for you. Oh noes! It's a conspiracy created to promote [expert's class]'s own interests.
Your "argument" might work if we were talking about architecture, construction, engineering or any of a million other fields. That isn't the topic under discussion. We're talking about the basis of the legal system. You can not avoid involvement in that, and so the fact that lawyers rig it to their own benefit is different in a very critical way from any of the examples you gave and almost any other example you could possibly come up with.
Your objection is specious, ignorant, and completely irrelevant to...well, anything,really.
It doesn't have anything to do with a "conspiracy theory", it's a basic fact that barring specific restrictions in place to prevent it from occurring, people will act in what they see as their own best interests. You seem to feel that this would be a bizarre circumstance completely outside the normal realm of human experience. Given that this obviosuly isn't true, what would lead you to a conclusion so utterly divorced from reality?
d) What's the point of faith if he just proves to everyone he exists?
No, the question is what's the point of faith. The only point in it is for the benefit of the scumbags telling the idiots that there really are magical invisible fairies. That's the only reason religion requires faith. Were there actually a god, he'd never have been so fucking stupid as to utterly fail to ever provide a single scrap of evidence for his existence which he clearly has never done....well, unless it amuses him to see so many tortured and murdered by the weak willed cowards and fools who follow delusional people. If that's the case, then I'm still far too good for such a whiny little shitbag.
No, that's not d), that's just c)he likes to play mind games, so why bother worshiping him?
"tests of faith" are idiotic mind games. What sort of a worthwhile supreme beings gives us good brains with the ability to reason and only rewards the people who are complete failures?
ML is the Muggle League. It's the non-magical Quidditch league. It's not really as popular as the real one since it's just a bunch of people running around with brooms between their legs throwing balls at each other. Kind of a really sad form of LARPing, in fact.
I'm not quite sure why the OP would bring it up though. Martin Luther actually would have made more sense in context;-)
If by God suing, you mean smiting the shit out of them, I'm all for it
Well, if the book was accurate at all, he wouldn't be smiting them, he'd be smiting the shit out of us for disparaging them:-(. He's kind of a real douche, you know.
Of course, you are welcome to disagree that this will work because neither regulation nor free markets have a pristine track record, hence the continued debate,
Well, you're falling into a very serious error here by setting up a false dichotomy. "Regulation" and "Free Markets" aren't in any way opposites. Regulation is absolutely 100% necessary to the existence of anything even remotely approximating a free market. "Unregulated markets" and "Regulated markets" are actual opposites. Unregulated markets will never be anything like a free market. A properly regulated market can approximate a free market. An actual free market doesn't exist, has never existed, and can't possibly ever exist under any conceivable set of circumstances. It's an idealized hypothetical thing like the various frictionless planes, pulleys and such from high school physics.
As long as people keep pretending that the debate is how you framed it, then there will never be reasonable discussion of the issue in the public domain. This is especially true since the people who benefit from un or poorly regulated markets are the ones framing the debate since they're the ones who own all of the media outlets etc.
claiming that the "right" wants to be ruled by powerful corporations because of deregulation is like claiming that the "left" likes to kill babies because they want to allow the choice of abortion.
The right consists primarily of the people who own the powerful corporations and the idiots who have been duped into believing that "the Right" means "Liberalism" (Small government, fiscal responsibility, individual liberty etc) when the right is an inherently elitist philosophy. Heck, the right is called the right because the representatives of the church and aristocrats sat on the right in the French assembly. The right *is* theocracy, feudalism, fascism etc. The representatives of the people sat on the left, hence the term "left", and hence the association of the left with "the people" against the "elites".
Liberalism came later and was a rejection of *both* the left and the right. Left and right are both about using the power of the state to screw people for your benefit. Liberalism is the philosophy that nobody or group should be able to use the power of the state for the purpose of screwing individuals.
It is the philosophy that America was explicitly founded on. People today don't even know that. They think "Liberalism" means "whatever somebody calling themselves a 'Liberal' says" which is obviously a worthless definition. There doesn't exist another word in the English language apart from "Liberalism" to describe America's founding philosophy, so it makes it tough to discuss since the Left have coopted and the Right have demonized the term. This is because both the right and the left *despise* Liberalism and always have.
So, you, by pretending that the right stands for liberalism and the actual right doesn't even exist aren't helping to promote a more honest dialog, you're helping promote a redefinition which removes the terms necessary to accurately describe the political landscape.
The powerful corporations are perfectly happy to have massively oppressive regulation of the people for their benefit. The recent bailout is a right wing initiative. *I*, the individual, was robbed at the behest of said corporations for their benefit. When "the rich" are robbed for the benefit of "the people", that's the left. When nobody is robbed by anybody by the government, that is a distinctly different position from either of the above.
That very real and very critical distinction is entirely eliminated by the redefinitions you're going with.
That is one of if not the most critical thing standing in the way of honest, non-partisan debate in this country. We don't even have to words to have such debate.
They all American companies or have heavy interests on the American market so they are controllable.
I think you mean "In Control". Heck, Ike warned about that specific industry and it's continued to be the worst threat to America for nearly 50 years of huge private profits at the public expense.
No, you just acted like you were taking one step in the right direction and then failed to actually do it.
The only reason the trafficers have the ability to be bastards is America's idiotic immigration system. Fix that and you fix the problem.
We already are going with your approach, and that's why it's such a complete disaster.
Same exact problem with drug laws. There's nothing to be gained by our current policies on either of these issues, except for the scum who profit off of enforcement and have no morals or ethics whatsoever as they've chosen to profit off of causing nothing but massive damage to our nation.
So, no, creating a problem (trafficers of people or drugs) and then suggesting increasing enforcement of the problem you created can't ever be a good idea. Please think your thoughts all the way through in future. That sort reactionary ignorance is the problem, not the solution.
Alternatively, some people value control of their own private personal information at some value above $0.00 and so it wouldn't really have paid off for them at all.
Note: A posting in an internet forum cannot be construed as proof of existence. Theoretically, the above (and current) post could be the product of a random electronic disturbance.
Fair enough, as far as it goes, but there does not exist in the entirety of history any attestation of any supernatural entity with the reciprocal of your favorite very large number of any chance of existing.
I believe through the *determined* electrical fluctuations that good old Tom chose to create, that he exists in some form or another.
Maybe there is no real, actual person (and/or Canadian ) named Tom Hudson, but, worst case scenario there's a real person pretending to be such. That makes him far and away superior to any other god ever created in the history of humanity in almost* every possible way.
* Final resolution will be determined upon *my* determination that your best beer is superior to my best. "Your" and "my" will be arbitrary and nationalistic, your use of hockey sticks in the arbitration will likely be to my detriment.
"You" ain't "you" and some relatively "ok" facsimile of an actual Tom Hudson will be required for payment. Your hockey stick upside my head and subsequent problems there to associated will probably suck.
Final analysis: both Tom Hudson and ustolemyname owe me a fucking donut if I'm ever lost in Canada. Worst case, one of you motherfuckers will pay up. Worst case for you all? I know fuckers in Vancouver *and* Toronto That's like most of the ones with polar bears to ride, right?
Anyhow, you're not a Christian you're a liar. I can prove absolutely that you don't believe your bullshit:
Mark 16:18
Go drink poison, or admit you're a liar with no faith.
You forgot (yes, I'm being *very* charitable), to address that most overpoweringly important of all possible points a "Christian" (which you and I both know you aren't) could possibly have to offer.
That's the sign "He" gave you, you cowardly, whining, lying, little fuck.
If he exists *and* you truly believe then that is all that you (a believer..well if you were which we both know you aren't, liar) have to show to prove to me ( a sane person who doesn't believe idiotic nonsense because I'm a not a cowardly, evil, douche like you've chosen to be) to prove that "He" is real.
That is the one power that he has granted to you. Out of the entire fucking bible, that's it. Given how often your god has been proven not just wrong, but *stupid* and unethical, it's really far and away the most important point in the entire text. Drink a glass of poison, and live, and I'll believe both that you believe ( which your refusal *at any time* to do, it's not just once, will prove absolutely false ), and that your "god" actually is more than you being an idiot and refusing to think.
Seriously, no middle ground possible from the text unless you want your ass raped hard by priests. And even then, as a part of Canon,that really only makes you a Catholic.
Now, go drink a *big* glass of poison and die the painful death of an idiotic fool, or don't drink it and prove yourself 100% *faithless*. Jesus himself, went way the fuck out of his way, to make sure that your evil sinning ass, knew that that was your sign, yet when it's shoved in your face you deny it. Seriously, you weak willed, cowardly, lying straight into Jesus's face, satanic little fuck. Drink poison or admit you've forsaken him completely.
Or well, in the interest of honesty (you know, the thing you piss in the face of every time you talk about the "faith" you're too cowardly to represent), you could well, drink a big juicy glass of poison and live. As Jesus *promised* you. He never managed to come up with anything more compelling, so if you actually did believe in him as we all know you don't, you lying little bitch, you would be eager to demonstrate his power. As there never was such a person, and as you know that for a fact, you'll continue down your unfaithful, cowardly lying path of denying *your* savior while demanding that the good people of the world be murdered for not complying with the delusions you're too weak willed and cowardly to subscribe to.
In short, one glance at the history of the evil you're pimping on decent people in a society defined upon secular, Liberalism makes you a traitor, a douche and an evil idiot lacking in even the basis of a moral system. There is no morality possible from your evil genocidal god. You only have to read the bible *and* have a conscience to know that. It's really not complicated if you're a real human. If you're a subhuman monster as you're arguing that *you* are, then really, what's the argument that your sick, evil, ass should be allowed to live?
Heck, *I'd* argue you should be should be kept in a lab or something. "How is it that decent people can survive under the control of such sickening, unadulterated evil". That's an interesting question with ties to reality. "How is it that evil, given full control over decency, and with with free reign to torture and murder any person with the sense of ethics that *required* us to evolve above grubs is allowed to live? Now that question would be interesting if it weren't the struggle of humanity against you sickening monsters since *WE*,the fucking sane people, dragged your cowardly, evil. delusional dumbfuck asses out of the dark ages, into the enlightenment, past that into Liberalism and therefore the founding of America. That was a rejection of being deeply stupid ( Your pathetically and demonstra
You need to climb down from your high horse; A) If your beliefs conflict with the Bible, then either you are wrong or the Bible is wrong;
There is no high horse. The bible is wrong. In many particulars. That is a basic fact. There is no debate or ambiguity on that topic.
you know nothing about what I may or may not know about my faith
Actually, I do.
You're not claiming to be a Scientologist or similar. Your beliefs are part of the public sphere. You claim to be a Christian, reality dictates that you are nothing more than a delusional fuck entirely divorced from reality. Claim copyright on your belief system and you're left with a prayer of defending them based on ignorance as you're trying to do as your last defense. As your bible is part of the public domain, you're fucked Bucko. Any mystical parts of it are known to be bullshit. Grow up. Imaginary friends are for idiotic children.
I really love this statement: "... your evil hate based retard faith... you fucking scum should all go die". You're a bigger hypocrite then most of the people you cut up;
No, that's again, just another delusional bit of nuttery with no basis in reality. Your scumbag brethren tortured and murdered anybody who wouldn't ut into their bullshit. Nobody anything like me has ever murdered anyone for the heresey of merely disagreeing. That's you evil shitbag's entire history. Please pull your head out of your ass and take one sing;e breath of free air divorced from the evil you've been raised on before you dare to question basic sanity once again. Keep in mind *you* are the one supporting burning people alive because they are "witches". I'm not a deeply stupid idiot. Your faith demands that you support such idiotic nonsense. If you deny that then you don't actually get it.
So hypocrisy is alien to my worldview, it is necessary to yours.
Do Christians now hate both gays and straights? Calling a sin a sin is not hatred, regardless of what you want to think.
No, arbitrary idiotic declarations of moral absolutism based entirely on what was deemed "right" by sick fuckers intent upon building up armies with which to commit genocide (which *your* god's chosen people (necessarily demanding that he hated some of the people he made and therefore made just so that he could hate them) upon do not constitute morals, or even anything upon which a moral or ethical system could be based.
Did you maybe ever think that what is wrong with the Bible is not the Bible, but your interpretation of it?
Sure, but what a stupid thing it would be to believe something that idiotic. It's called begging the question, and it's a logical fallacy.
You're saying that you have to believe that a book of ancient fairy tales is magically true (in spite of it being dead wrong in many places) and interpret it only in ways consistent with the conclusion you've already drawn...in order to reach the conclusion you've already drawn.
And another one of your errors: The "hatred" against gays, murders etc is not against them personally, but the lifestyle itself; big difference as can be seen in how Jesus responds to the murderer that is crucified with him.
The fact that you think it's possible to separate those things proves that you don't know shit about your religion, its history or its present incarnations. That's what happens when you insist on turning your critical thinking skills to mush by the demand that ancient fairy tales are true because you really really want them to be. There is nothing wrong with gay people or them living "a gay lifestyle". The fact that your evil hate based retard faith tells you there is just another reason you fucking scum should all go die. You are the principle enemy of moral progress, and your ignorant delusions cause real harm to real people.
Anyhow, you're not a Christian you're a liar. I can prove absolutely that you don't believe your bullshit:
Mark 16:18
Go drink poison, or admit you're a liar with no faith.
Fascism simply means "government control over private companies".
Idiot.
That would be a kind of sort of half ass description of Communism.
Fascism is where the corporations/ wealthy elite control the government. You know your example? Do "We the People" now own those corporations, or did we pay for them but they're still owned by the same fuckers who demanded and got the bailout money stolen form we the people?
Right, then it's fascism.
Do you actually know anything or do you just spout idiotic nonsense that a moment's thought could have helped you avoid. I mean wow. This was so stupid as to defy any sort of rational explanation.
If the govt. is in surplus, that means they have WAY too much of our money...yours and mine. they should only have just enough to get the limited number of things done that they are mandated to do constitutionally.
That doesn't include the massive debt. Your point would be arguable if that were paid off.
And I think it has been shown to be factual, that when taxes are lowered, federal revenues actually go up.
That statement makes no sense whatsoever. To even make it an actual logical statement with no regard to its truth or falsehood, you need to specify the current value of taxes from which you suggest reducing them as well as expenses and several other things.
You generally make more sense than this, but this comment puts you into the class of people described by the OPs assessment "...more interested in ideology than in facts."
Your statement has no form of validity whatsoever except as an ideological talking point without any relevance to reality.
Did you not have your coffee this morning or something?
This trend is going to be accelerated by the overthrow of the rule of law implied in the auto bailouts, etc. When the workers are running around seizing the means of production smart people start looking to get out while they can.
Wow, dude. It's the executives seizing *my* fucking money to pay themselves for their incompetence that's the major issue with the bailouts. Had we nationalized them (not the same thing as the workers seizing the means of production, mind you), then at least that would have made sense *since we already paid the fucking purchase price*.
Fascist nutjobs are so insane. I mean we pay to purchase all of these companies out of the public treasury, then instead of actually owning what we paid for, we let the elite scum who screwed everything up keep both our money *and* our ( admittedly illegally) purchased property and somehow something so purely fascist is magically communist?
Seriously, if it were a perfect world 99% of all current politicians would be burned, drowned, and decapitated in that order for the dishonest and evil shit they do.
Oh come now, by forcing it to happen in a particular order, you'll probably have bottlenecks and end up needing to buy more equipment for the various stations than strictly necessary.
With a proper queuing algorithm you should be able to get everyone through all the stations more quickly and efficiently if you don't impose a strict order.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with these counter-arguments is this: Theists aren't TRYING to disprove those things.
No, they're assuming the god hypothesis is true and then going on from a false initial assumption. There is no evidence at all for any god ever, so believing that it must therefore be true anyhow is both stupid and insane. That is the starting position of *all* religious people. All of the responsibility for proving absolutely beyond any doubt that *your particular* god is real is entirely on you. Until you can do that, you're laughable. That's the difference. Without committing the fundamental logical fallacy of begging the question as all of you always do, you have nothing at all. Please learn to think and quit spouting crap like that which has been completely debunked as nothing but piss poor reasoning skills so absolutely and so many times as to make you a laughable yet disgusting idiot for repeating the same old lies which you know damned well are lies.
I actually have a friend who believes in Thor, since you bring it up. I think its silly as heck, but who am I to judge?
Supposedly you're a human being with some shreds of sanity and rationality. That's all that's required to accurately judge an adult who still has imaginary friends as being severely mentally deficient and most likely a dangerous threat to the decent people around them.
Given the massive damage currently being done to the world and to society by the type of sick deluded loons who insist on the reality of their imaginary friends, it's your responsibility to judge any person so lacking in basic sanity and critical thinking skills as being beneath contempt. It's the only way we'll ever be able to pull ourselves out of the hole these sick fucking monsters are digging for us.
You post is hilarious. It is obvious you don't know the Constitution and definitely don't know the history of the drug laws.
Yet I do understand both the constitution and the history of drug laws. I guess your unsupported assertion must be nothing but the ignorant nonsense it looks like? I notice you were entirely unable to actually address any of my points. Should I just assume you know that you're wrong but you're trying to cover that up behind baseless nonsense and unsupported denial, or are you going to enlighten us as to what part of the constitution or the history of drug laws contradicts me and supports your assertions?
You REALLY need to get your information from some where other than pro-drug abuse sites.
I'm not aware of the existence of such a thing as a pro-drug abuse site. I haven't a clue what it is you're on about, but it does certainly demonstrate your lack of a grip on reality if you think that such things are common or that I get my information from them. You sound pretty far out on the lunatic finge...you might want to look into that.
Something needs to be reasonable before it is doable.
What is it that you see at being at all unreasonable in the idea that if you want to murder other people's children for your personal benefit that yours go first?
I'm having a very hard time seeing that as anything but perfectly reasonable. It would make our "leaders" much less likely to kill a bunch of people because they were too stupid and lazy to pay attention. We obviously have a very serious problem with idiotic, ignorant, lazy leaders murdering a lot of innocent people, and this does address that serious problem in a pretty simple, honest, and straightforward manner. It's not at all obvious that there's anything at all wrong with the idea. It's hardly obviously unreasonable as you seem to think. Keep in mind, the alternative which is all that you are defending is that election to public office allows you to murder other people's children on a whim with no consequences. The fact that that utterly failed policy has led us here is proof enough that your position is completely unreasonable, so you're obviously not a good judge of those things.
And, I just want people to obey the law and, if they don't agree with the law, work to change the law.
I just want laws that are not put in place with the intended purpose of harming society for the profit of a very few. You know, just, sane rational laws. It's too bad the your overriding concern is that the law be obeyed whatever that law might be. It's too bad that you have chosen to shirk your responsibilities as a citizen and to declare yourself a subject instead.
There is nothing wrong at all with breaking bad laws. In fact it's a sign of a good citizen that they quite often will. It's really too bad that you believe only in doing what you're told because you have a magical faith that the government can and will do no wrong ever, but any sane person will tell you that your attitude is crap and unworthy of a citizen.
Perhaps you should spend some time thinking as opposed to spending all of your time believing that laws are morals?
As far as working to change the laws? They were never permitted in the first place. Drug laws are completely unconstitutional and have no moral or ethical justification. You must be a deeply disturbed person if you think you can take the moral high ground while supporting such disgustingly inhuman laws which have caused so much damage to our society without providing any benefit. Either you're a deeply evil monster, or you're getting paid by the prison industry. Well.... or you're really freaking stupid.... There really is no other place you could be and hold such an evil/idiotic attitude.
What I believe is that you're seeing malice in what can simply be ascribed to incompetence
No, not at all. It doesn't take a special malicious intent, all it takes is self interest and a lack of regulation preventing that self interest from corrupting the system. Once you have those two pieces, then it is inevitable that things will slide downhill.
I fail to see why people involved in law are held to a different standard,
Because failure leads to an entirely different standard of disaster.
whereby any failure to produce something that makes sense to you has to be the product of self-interest and malice, rather than plain old incompetence, blind acceptance of procedure and tradition, or many other such issues.
I never said it had to be malice. The other things you list are irrelevant. It really doesn't matter in a specific case by case basis what extenuating circumstances led to a particularly stupid/sleazy/obtuse etc ruling to be put into place. It's the fact that it will inevitably happen *because* so many people like yourself refuse to hold lawyers and lawmakers to the higher standard that the damage they regularly cause makes essential.
It's not me who's being specious for assuming that a complex system that evolved over centuries was designed specifically to screw people over
I'm not assuming anything of the sort. I'm noticing the fact that in many cases, there were specific malicious decisions made with no consequences. Take the entirely malicious misinterpretation of the interstate commerce clause for a canonical example. There was nothing at all confusing about it, the court decided to grant the government massive new powers which were explicitly denied to it by the constitution. There has never existed a single good argument for doing this. It was purely malicious self-interest. That was one single event.
You seem to be arguing against a strawman claiming the whole system was designed to screw people over when that isn't my point. It doesn't even make sense in the context of my point which is that self-interest will inevitably lead some people down the wrong path where they can cause massive damage. Preventative actions against said damage need to be proportional to the amount of damage that could be caused. Screwups in the legal system, for example the interstate commerce clause fiasco have had massively far reaching and massively damaging affects on our nation. Drug laws with the inevitable, predicted huge increase in violent crime, destruction of civil liberties, massive increase in prison population and zero benefits for society are only one of the problems that were caused by that one malicious self-interested event. No need to postulate some far out conspiracy theory as you have done, because the point stands perfectly well on its own without it.
In fact, when Ronald Reagan was running for President back in 1980 I remember him saying capitalism did not guarantee anyone the right to succeed, it guaranteed them the right to fail. I never forgot that.
Do you remember how he actually spent his terms in office making sure that scumbags were guaranteed massive profits off of the public tit? How he led the largest growth of the US government in history breaking FDR's record and being surpassed by Bush2? Please tell me that you remember the Central American death squad training camps he funded? Selling crack to buy guns for Osama bin Laden?
A quote is just a quote, and if you found it inspirational, great. As a citizen, it is your responsibility to know and understand that Reagan was lying through his teeth for the purpose of fucking us all, and he certainly didn't believe a word of that. It might be what "capitalism" means, but if so, then capitalism is not at all what Reagan ever supported.
So in fantasy land, your quote might have meaning. In reality, well, that's not how things work around here.
it'll be time to look for her secret lair
Dude, she lives in Chicago, IL. Have you been paying any attention to how we do things around here? No secret lair needed. Heck, I could point her lair out to you ;-)
You need an expert to do expert work for you. Oh noes! It's a conspiracy created to promote [expert's class]'s own interests.
Your "argument" might work if we were talking about architecture, construction, engineering or any of a million other fields. That isn't the topic under discussion. We're talking about the basis of the legal system. You can not avoid involvement in that, and so the fact that lawyers rig it to their own benefit is different in a very critical way from any of the examples you gave and almost any other example you could possibly come up with.
Your objection is specious, ignorant, and completely irrelevant to...well, anything ,really.
It doesn't have anything to do with a "conspiracy theory", it's a basic fact that barring specific restrictions in place to prevent it from occurring, people will act in what they see as their own best interests.
You seem to feel that this would be a bizarre circumstance completely outside the normal realm of human experience. Given that this obviosuly isn't true, what would lead you to a conclusion so utterly divorced from reality?
d) What's the point of faith if he just proves to everyone he exists?
No, the question is what's the point of faith. The only point in it is for the benefit of the scumbags telling the idiots that there really are magical invisible fairies. That's the only reason religion requires faith. Were there actually a god, he'd never have been so fucking stupid as to utterly fail to ever provide a single scrap of evidence for his existence which he clearly has never done....well, unless it amuses him to see so many tortured and murdered by the weak willed cowards and fools who follow delusional people. If that's the case, then I'm still far too good for such a whiny little shitbag.
d)it's a test of faith.
No, that's not d), that's just c)he likes to play mind games, so why bother worshiping him?
"tests of faith" are idiotic mind games. What sort of a worthwhile supreme beings gives us good brains with the ability to reason and only rewards the people who are complete failures?
Obviously a only sleazebag beneath our contempt.
The OP covered all possible possibilities.
Who/what is ML? (Martin Luther?)
No, not Martin Luther.
ML is the Muggle League. It's the non-magical Quidditch league. It's not really as popular as the real one since it's just a bunch of people running around with brooms between their legs throwing balls at each other. Kind of a really sad form of LARPing, in fact.
I'm not quite sure why the OP would bring it up though. Martin Luther actually would have made more sense in context ;-)
If by God suing, you mean smiting the shit out of them, I'm all for it
Well, if the book was accurate at all, he wouldn't be smiting them, he'd be smiting the shit out of us for disparaging them :-(. He's kind of a real douche, you know.
Of course, you are welcome to disagree that this will work because neither regulation nor free markets have a pristine track record, hence the continued debate,
Well, you're falling into a very serious error here by setting up a false dichotomy. "Regulation" and "Free Markets" aren't in any way opposites. Regulation is absolutely 100% necessary to the existence of anything even remotely approximating a free market. "Unregulated markets" and "Regulated markets" are actual opposites. Unregulated markets will never be anything like a free market. A properly regulated market can approximate a free market.
An actual free market doesn't exist, has never existed, and can't possibly ever exist under any conceivable set of circumstances. It's an idealized hypothetical thing like the various frictionless planes, pulleys and such from high school physics.
As long as people keep pretending that the debate is how you framed it, then there will never be reasonable discussion of the issue in the public domain. This is especially true since the people who benefit from un or poorly regulated markets are the ones framing the debate since they're the ones who own all of the media outlets etc.
claiming that the "right" wants to be ruled by powerful corporations because of deregulation is like claiming that the "left" likes to kill babies because they want to allow the choice of abortion.
The right consists primarily of the people who own the powerful corporations and the idiots who have been duped into believing that "the Right" means "Liberalism" (Small government, fiscal responsibility, individual liberty etc) when the right is an inherently elitist philosophy. Heck, the right is called the right because the representatives of the church and aristocrats sat on the right in the French assembly. The right *is* theocracy, feudalism, fascism etc. The representatives of the people sat on the left, hence the term "left", and hence the association of the left with "the people" against the "elites".
Liberalism came later and was a rejection of *both* the left and the right. Left and right are both about using the power of the state to screw people for your benefit. Liberalism is the philosophy that nobody or group should be able to use the power of the state for the purpose of screwing individuals.
It is the philosophy that America was explicitly founded on. People today don't even know that. They think "Liberalism" means "whatever somebody calling themselves a 'Liberal' says" which is obviously a worthless definition. There doesn't exist another word in the English language apart from "Liberalism" to describe America's founding philosophy, so it makes it tough to discuss since the Left have coopted and the Right have demonized the term. This is because both the right and the left *despise* Liberalism and always have.
So, you, by pretending that the right stands for liberalism and the actual right doesn't even exist aren't helping to promote a more honest dialog, you're helping promote a redefinition which removes the terms necessary to accurately describe the political landscape.
The powerful corporations are perfectly happy to have massively oppressive regulation of the people for their benefit. The recent bailout is a right wing initiative. *I*, the individual, was robbed at the behest of said corporations for their benefit.
When "the rich" are robbed for the benefit of "the people", that's the left. When nobody is robbed by anybody by the government, that is a distinctly different position from either of the above.
That very real and very critical distinction is entirely eliminated by the redefinitions you're going with.
That is one of if not the most critical thing standing in the way of honest, non-partisan debate in this country. We don't even have to words to have such debate.
They all American companies or have heavy interests on the American market so they are controllable.
I think you mean "In Control". Heck, Ike warned about that specific industry and it's continued to be the worst threat to America for nearly 50 years of huge private profits at the public expense.
The trafficers are the bastards we need to stop.
No, you just acted like you were taking one step in the right direction and then failed to actually do it.
The only reason the trafficers have the ability to be bastards is America's idiotic immigration system. Fix that and you fix the problem.
We already are going with your approach, and that's why it's such a complete disaster.
Same exact problem with drug laws. There's nothing to be gained by our current policies on either of these issues, except for the scum who profit off of enforcement and have no morals or ethics whatsoever as they've chosen to profit off of causing nothing but massive damage to our nation.
So, no, creating a problem (trafficers of people or drugs) and then suggesting increasing enforcement of the problem you created can't ever be a good idea. Please think your thoughts all the way through in future. That sort reactionary ignorance is the problem, not the solution.
.People can be remarkably stupid.
Alternatively, some people value control of their own private personal information at some value above $0.00 and so it wouldn't really have paid off for them at all.
Note: A posting in an internet forum cannot be construed as proof of existence. Theoretically, the above (and current) post could be the product of a random electronic disturbance.
Fair enough, as far as it goes, but there does not exist in the entirety of history any attestation of any supernatural entity with the reciprocal of your favorite very large number of any chance of existing.
I believe through the *determined* electrical fluctuations that good old Tom chose to create, that he exists in some form or another.
Maybe there is no real, actual person (and/or Canadian ) named Tom Hudson, but, worst case scenario there's a real person pretending to be such. That makes him far and away superior to any other god ever created in the history of humanity in almost* every possible way.
* Final resolution will be determined upon *my* determination that your best beer is superior to my best. "Your" and "my" will be arbitrary and nationalistic, your use of hockey sticks in the arbitration will likely be to my detriment.
"You" ain't "you" and some relatively "ok" facsimile of an actual Tom Hudson will be required for payment.
Your hockey stick upside my head and subsequent problems there to associated will probably suck.
Final analysis: both Tom Hudson and ustolemyname owe me a fucking donut if I'm ever lost in Canada. Worst case, one of you motherfuckers will pay up. Worst case for you all? I know fuckers in Vancouver *and* Toronto That's like most of the ones with polar bears to ride, right?
Anyhow, you're not a Christian you're a liar. I can prove absolutely that you don't believe your bullshit:
Mark 16:18
Go drink poison, or admit you're a liar with no faith.
You forgot (yes, I'm being *very* charitable), to address that most overpoweringly important of all possible points a "Christian" (which you and I both know you aren't) could possibly have to offer.
That's the sign "He" gave you, you cowardly, whining, lying, little fuck.
If he exists *and* you truly believe then that is all that you (a believer..well if you were which we both know you aren't, liar) have to show to prove to me ( a sane person who doesn't believe idiotic nonsense because I'm a not a cowardly, evil, douche like you've chosen to be) to prove that "He" is real.
That is the one power that he has granted to you. Out of the entire fucking bible, that's it. Given how often your god has been proven not just wrong, but *stupid* and unethical, it's really far and away the most important point in the entire text. Drink a glass of poison, and live, and I'll believe both that you believe ( which your refusal *at any time* to do, it's not just once, will prove absolutely false ), and that your "god" actually is more than you being an idiot and refusing to think.
Seriously, no middle ground possible from the text unless you want your ass raped hard by priests. And even then, as a part of Canon ,that really only makes you a Catholic.
Now, go drink a *big* glass of poison and die the painful death of an idiotic fool, or don't drink it and prove yourself 100% *faithless*. Jesus himself, went way the fuck out of his way, to make sure that your evil sinning ass, knew that that was your sign, yet when it's shoved in your face you deny it. Seriously, you weak willed, cowardly, lying straight into Jesus's face, satanic little fuck. Drink poison or admit you've forsaken him completely.
Or well, in the interest of honesty (you know, the thing you piss in the face of every time you talk about the "faith" you're too cowardly to represent), you could well, drink a big juicy glass of poison and live. As Jesus *promised* you. He never managed to come up with anything more compelling, so if you actually did believe in him as we all know you don't, you lying little bitch, you would be eager to demonstrate his power.
As there never was such a person, and as you know that for a fact, you'll continue down your unfaithful, cowardly lying path of denying *your* savior while demanding that the good people of the world be murdered for not complying with the delusions you're too weak willed and cowardly to subscribe to.
In short, one glance at the history of the evil you're pimping on decent people in a society defined upon secular, Liberalism makes you a traitor, a douche and an evil idiot lacking in even the basis of a moral system. There is no morality possible from your evil genocidal god. You only have to read the bible *and* have a conscience to know that. It's really not complicated if you're a real human. If you're a subhuman monster as you're arguing that *you* are, then really, what's the argument that your sick, evil, ass should be allowed to live?
Heck, *I'd* argue you should be should be kept in a lab or something. "How is it that decent people can survive under the control of such sickening, unadulterated evil". That's an interesting question with ties to reality. "How is it that evil, given full control over decency, and with with free reign to torture and murder any person with the sense of ethics that *required* us to evolve above grubs is allowed to live? Now that question would be interesting if it weren't the struggle of humanity against you sickening monsters since *WE*,the fucking sane people, dragged your cowardly, evil. delusional dumbfuck asses out of the dark ages, into the enlightenment, past that into Liberalism and therefore the founding of America. That was a rejection of being deeply stupid ( Your pathetically and demonstra
You need to climb down from your high horse; A) If your beliefs conflict with the Bible, then either you are wrong or the Bible is wrong;
There is no high horse.
The bible is wrong. In many particulars.
That is a basic fact. There is no debate or ambiguity on that topic.
you know nothing about what I may or may not know about my faith
Actually, I do.
You're not claiming to be a Scientologist or similar. Your beliefs are part of the public sphere. You claim to be a Christian, reality dictates that you are nothing more than a delusional fuck entirely divorced from reality.
Claim copyright on your belief system and you're left with a prayer of defending them based on ignorance as you're trying to do as your last defense. As your bible is part of the public domain, you're fucked Bucko. Any mystical parts of it are known to be bullshit. Grow up. Imaginary friends are for idiotic children.
I really love this statement: "... your evil hate based retard faith... you fucking scum should all go die". You're a bigger hypocrite then most of the people you cut up;
No, that's again, just another delusional bit of nuttery with no basis in reality. Your scumbag brethren tortured and murdered anybody who wouldn't ut into their bullshit. Nobody anything like me has ever murdered anyone for the heresey of merely disagreeing. That's you evil shitbag's entire history. Please pull your head out of your ass and take one sing;e breath of free air divorced from the evil you've been raised on before you dare to question basic sanity once again. Keep in mind *you* are the one supporting burning people alive because they are "witches". I'm not a deeply stupid idiot. Your faith demands that you support such idiotic nonsense. If you deny that then you don't actually get it.
So hypocrisy is alien to my worldview, it is necessary to yours.
Do Christians now hate both gays and straights? Calling a sin a sin is not hatred, regardless of what you want to think.
No, arbitrary idiotic declarations of moral absolutism based entirely on what was deemed "right" by sick fuckers intent upon building up armies with which to commit genocide (which *your* god's chosen people (necessarily demanding that he hated some of the people he made and therefore made just so that he could hate them) upon do not constitute morals, or even anything upon which a moral or ethical system could be based.
Did you maybe ever think that what is wrong with the Bible is not the Bible, but your interpretation of it?
Sure, but what a stupid thing it would be to believe something that idiotic. It's called begging the question, and it's a logical fallacy.
You're saying that you have to believe that a book of ancient fairy tales is magically true (in spite of it being dead wrong in many places) and interpret it only in ways consistent with the conclusion you've already drawn...in order to reach the conclusion you've already drawn.
And another one of your errors: The "hatred" against gays, murders etc is not against them personally, but the lifestyle itself; big difference as can be seen in how Jesus responds to the murderer that is crucified with him.
The fact that you think it's possible to separate those things proves that you don't know shit about your religion, its history or its present incarnations. That's what happens when you insist on turning your critical thinking skills to mush by the demand that ancient fairy tales are true because you really really want them to be. There is nothing wrong with gay people or them living "a gay lifestyle". The fact that your evil hate based retard faith tells you there is just another reason you fucking scum should all go die. You are the principle enemy of moral progress, and your ignorant delusions cause real harm to real people.
Anyhow, you're not a Christian you're a liar. I can prove absolutely that you don't believe your bullshit:
Mark 16:18
Go drink poison, or admit you're a liar with no faith.
A third interesting choice is "America's Tony Blair."
I'm not sure how this definition would even work....Are you saying Obama is his own poodle?
Fascism simply means "government control over private companies".
Idiot.
That would be a kind of sort of half ass description of Communism.
Fascism is where the corporations/ wealthy elite control the government. You know your example? Do "We the People" now own those corporations, or did we pay for them but they're still owned by the same fuckers who demanded and got the bailout money stolen form we the people?
Right, then it's fascism.
Do you actually know anything or do you just spout idiotic nonsense that a moment's thought could have helped you avoid. I mean wow. This was so stupid as to defy any sort of rational explanation.
If the govt. is in surplus, that means they have WAY too much of our money...yours and mine. they should only have just enough to get the limited number of things done that they are mandated to do constitutionally.
That doesn't include the massive debt. Your point would be arguable if that were paid off.
And I think it has been shown to be factual, that when taxes are lowered, federal revenues actually go up.
That statement makes no sense whatsoever.
To even make it an actual logical statement with no regard to its truth or falsehood, you need to specify the current value of taxes from which you suggest reducing them as well as expenses and several other things.
You generally make more sense than this, but this comment puts you into the class of people described by the OPs assessment "...more interested in ideology than in facts."
Your statement has no form of validity whatsoever except as an ideological talking point without any relevance to reality.
Did you not have your coffee this morning or something?
This trend is going to be accelerated by the overthrow of the rule of law implied in the auto bailouts, etc. When the workers are running around seizing the means of production smart people start looking to get out while they can.
Wow, dude. It's the executives seizing *my* fucking money to pay themselves for their incompetence that's the major issue with the bailouts. Had we nationalized them (not the same thing as the workers seizing the means of production, mind you), then at least that would have made sense *since we already paid the fucking purchase price*.
Fascist nutjobs are so insane. I mean we pay to purchase all of these companies out of the public treasury, then instead of actually owning what we paid for, we let the elite scum who screwed everything up keep both our money *and* our ( admittedly illegally) purchased property and somehow something so purely fascist is magically communist?
Truly amazing.
Seriously, if it were a perfect world 99% of all current politicians would be burned, drowned, and decapitated in that order for the dishonest and evil shit they do.
Oh come now, by forcing it to happen in a particular order, you'll probably have bottlenecks and end up needing to buy more equipment for the various stations than strictly necessary.
With a proper queuing algorithm you should be able to get everyone through all the stations more quickly and efficiently if you don't impose a strict order.