It's kind of sad, really.. it would be more fun if the opposition was even a little bit competent.
I mean, I actually agree with them on some points - GTA has a few things in it that I'd rather it didn't. But, guess what? I also know that they are being extremely satirical in that game. And of course, the box already had an M on it anyway.. so who realy cares if it jumps from 17+ to 18+?
So anyway, like I said, it would be more fun if the opponents actualy made any sense when they talked:)
Actually you're right.. after reading it again I think I should have been a little more obvious about what I was trying to say.
>but you seem extremely short on the compassion and tolerance part.
Really? I think you need to read the post again.
>Then what right do you have (other than an interfering, homophobic, predjudiced one) to deny them the right to a civil ceremony?
I don't. It's not about me. It's about what God already said; he said no gay marriages (or gay unions for that matter). Don't ask me.. ask Him.
>"I think the USA is better than Canada because it's more homophobic and less liberal."
More like less bad. But I meant in the sense of their laws; I don't agree with the whole loudly pointing out that gays ought to burn in hell thing. Because that is what you said was one of my problems; the lack of compassion. Yes, I do believe that gays deserve to burn in hell. I also believe that every other person who was ever born deserves the same thing. But that's not where it stops; which I already said. It's not like "yeah, we all deserve to die, the end." which is how such demonstrations make it sound. They make it sound like, if you're gay, it's already too late; there's no hope or chance of anything better. But there's always a second chance as long as you're alive.
>"I'm not homophobic, but I don't think gay couples should be granted any protection or recognition in law."
No, it should be illegal to be gay, just like it's illegal to steal or murder or whatever else. Why? Because God said so, period. If you don't believe in God, or don't believe that he said so, then I understand your position (not caring if it's legal); but you ought to be able to understand my point of view if you realize that I *do* believe in God and I *do* believe that he said it's wrong to be gay. So, if I believe it's okay as long as the government says it is, then what am I? Yeah, that's right, a hypocrite.
>"I appear to be edging towards fundamentalism."
I think the right place to be is somewhere in between a fundamentalist and tolerationist. I believe there are absolutes. I believe there are fundamental truths, and until you can show that something I though was a fundamental truth isn't, I'll stick to it. I believe in God, I believe the Bible is his word, and the Bible says no gays.
So, if you can convince me there is no God, or that the Bible is not his word, or that it doesn't actually say "no gays", I'm ready to accept gays. Until then I consider it to be sinful and something which should be illegal.
If I was the President of the US/Prime Minister of Canada, I would be doing everything in my power to make it illegal.
In fact I am doing everything in my power to make it so, but unfortunately my power is limited to signing petitions, and those don't seem to be helping much here in Canada (wanna guess why they refuse to have a referendum on the question of gay marriage in Canada? Because they're afraid the vote would be "no".)
>That was competely incoherent, and did nothing but make you look like a fundamentalist gay-basher.
Oh I dunno, I thought the first sentence or so was pretty coherent...:) Seriously though, I should have read that over again before posting it because, even besides the fact that it's rather poorly formatted, that didn't exactly come out the way I wanted it to. So, again, sorry for rambling. I hope this post makes more sense.
And the USA was widely regarded as the shining example of representative democracy and civil liberties to the entire world.
Interestingly enough, they were regarded that way before World War 2, as well, and I believe that the German system actually borrowed quite a lot fom the US before Hitler came along. The fact that Hitler did what he did *after* the German system had adopted a lot of ideas from the US is... disturbing, as well.
Oh, that's why I hear so many people always agreeing with the government in the US..
and so few ever speaking out against it...
HA!
Sorry, I couldn't keep a straight face. I'm Canadian and I hear more about americans protesting american decisions than I do about Canadians protesting Canadian decisions.
And ours often suck even more than the american ones do.
Like, we have this stupid gay marriage thing going on right now, for instance, and as soon as I say I have a problem with homosexuals someone is going to flame me for being a hate mongerer.
I'm not a hate mongerer, and if someone decided to make theft legal in Canada I'd be mad about that too.
Does that mean I think thieves should burn in hell? Actually yes.. I'm a christian so I believe we all (myself included) *SHOULD* burn in hell, because we deserve it (yes, myself included - everybody, "For *all* have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.")
Happily for us, there's an alternative, which is to let somebody else take the blame - He volunteered - and have Him take the punishment - which He did - so that we don't have to. It's a free offer, and anybody can accept it.
There was a guy named Saul who was actually persecuting christians, up until God invited him to join the church. Being homosexual seems to me to be less directly offensive than actually persecuting christians.
Umm so in conclusion.. I'm not sorry for preaching (It's my job, one that I'm happy to do, since I'm a christian - not catholic, btw) but I am sorry if I was rambling a bit:)
>Read The 14 Characteristics of Fascism by Dr. Lawrence Britt
A) I agree with cappadocius on this, and
B) at least 1/3 of those points have nothing at all to do with fascism.
# Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
Uhh yeah, many nations have had a strong sense of nationalism without being fascist.
# Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
While I agree with the first part of the main point this is found under, I don't think this bit has anything to do with fascism, and I also only half agree with it. It entirely depends on *how* they are glamorized - as being a role of protection of the country, or as being the valiant conquerors of lesser nations?
## Rampant Sexism
#The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated.
What government from before.. err.. like the last 50 years (if you wanna be optimistic) WASN'T?!... not many, and most of them weren't fascist.
#Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.
Opposing abortion has nothing to do with it either. Maybe Hitler opposed abortion, but he also killed anybody he didn't find useful. *His* reason for opposing abortion was because he wanted more soldiers. Any decent person who opposes abortion does so because it is taking a life. Hitler had no qualms about taking lives if they weren't useful to him.
Anti-gay legislation is fascist? Eww. Also, Eww. And finally.. yuck. This reminds me of just another case of calling anything you don't like "fascist" and anything you like "democratic" (note: the particular terms used can be changed depending on the audience)
# Religion and Government are Intertwined
Well, some of the subpoints are good on this one (like "Religious rhetoric... is common... even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions."), but again I fail to see how this has anything to do with it. I think he would better say "The government uses whatever language it feels will influence the masses to do its dirty work, even if the meaning of that language is actually oposite to how they use it")
All in all I find that a very poor starting point for a definition of fascism, since quite a few of those "defining points" are really quite *beside* the point.
>As far as pen and paper, that was all well and good >10 years ago, but there is no comparison any more >to modern tools and a sketchpad.
1) Accessibility: I always have some paper around somewhere that I can scratch on.
2) Maleability: This is the same for a whiteboard as for paper, but it allows me to do a quick and dirty sketch of something; something that will lay it out more clearly in my head without having to actually write the code (or even, necessarily, the pseudocode: maybe all I want is a conceptual idea of how I am going to lay out the data in memory or something)
Personally I do not use paper very much while coding, but I find that when I am doing a complex algorithm or especially something that has to do with any kind of structured data in memory, it's quite useful to have a piece of paper to lay out the ideas on. That way I can see an inconsistency more quickly.
Maybe when all computers come with drawing tablets and a scribble pad that's as quick and easy to use as a real scribble pad, that function will be filled by the computer.. but for now I see no reason to restrict myself from using something as "old" as good old paper:)
If you're interested in data structures.. a good book on the subject is "A Practical Introduction to Data Structures and Algorithms" by Clifford Shaffer. My copy is the Java version, I believe there's also a C version.
Only one problem; there's a really cool new thing I heard they're working on, called a multitasking operating system. Now, if it's a bootable CD, how can people multitask when playing a game?;)
Yeah, okay, I am being a little mocking but, really, if I wanted to use my whol entire computer just to play the game, I would get a Playstation or something. I don't want the game on a boot cd, and, in general, I do not like consoles either. Why? a) the game isn't as modifiable (especially on a console, even if you do use unsupported mod chips) b) I can't do anything *else* with my computer while I play the game (console = can't do a whole lot else withit period, although if you have a console + PC then you can use both if you are ambidextrous)
It's an interesting idea.. but personally I already highly dislike the idea of games that are fairly unfriendly to mulitasking (Army Ops on Linux, for instance, is a pain in the butt to switch out of in order to do something else while you wait for the next round... on windows it's just an "Alt-Tab" away... I still prefer playing it in Linux though)
I always have loved how that argument works.. how do you rob someone by not giving them something that isn't theirs yet, anyway? That's like saying growing your own food is the same as robbing the local grocery store...
Really, in this case, all that is happening is that the printer manufacturers have backed themselves into a corner by not offering cheaper cartridges and/or ink refils of their own all along. And then they have the nerve to go and try to use the law to protect their own flawed way of trying to do business.
Which I suppose is also similar to the music 'industry', in that I think (although I don't know this for sure) that they generally charge quite a bit more than they need to for CDs, even considering a reasonable (as opposed to shamelessly large) profit margin. If they didn't charge so much maybe people would be less inclined to download music instead of buying it. Or like me, will be able to afford to buy music (I don't usually download music, but I don't often buy it either because my budget is fairly tight). Or maybe, if the publishing companies had been the first ones to offer music for download, nobody ever would have developed P2P networks in the first place:)
Here's one final thought... as far as I know (and again I may be wrong) it's the usual deal for an artist to make a relatively small percentage (as in less than 50%) of the profits from their own work, the rest of which goes to the publishing company. Now if people don't buy the music, who is it that's honestly 'taking money from the artist', the people who have not given what they never promised to give anyway, or the publishing company which siphoned off upwards of 50% of what actually *did* get spent?
Publishing companies have their uses, true, but really, I think they're far overgrown and in need of some taking down for everyone's good (including theirs.. we don't *need* so many people working for a publishing company now (since we have computers which simplify publishing), so why not have some of those people do other useful work like being a farmer or something?).
I'm exactly the same... err, well, except my dad is a computer tech and my mom is stuck on games (pac-man and that sort of thing, not *real* games like Battlefield, GTA, etc;) ).
I did manage to get one of my sisters to use linux, though, and so far she's had very few problems, all of which were with particular programs, not with the OS.
I'm sorry you find it so hard to notice in my posts.. maybe it has something to do with my writing these things too early in the morning or something.. but if you want it extremely short and simple:
>your minister, or whatever you call the person who spends part of the Sunday service teaching the congregation (even if that's not what you call it) about morals - have they responded to a recent event, where someone commited a sin in god's name, by teaching how that is wrong?
>has taught the congregation that killing an abortion doctor is sinful,
As I said, I think that if a doctor (or anybody else) kills unborn babies he is a murderer, i.e. he deserves the death penalty. Read on.
>sending the killer to hell (unless they truly and explicitly repent), in the wake of such a killing?
If the killer did this on his own, in a vigilante style, then yes I would agree, the killer was not bringing about justice, but rather seeking revenge, which is wrong, and I think it's just as bad of the person who shot the doctor, as it is for the doctor to kill babies (whatever stage of development they may be in).
In other words, yes, I think this would be a sin which would send somone to hell, just like any other sin will (if you break any part of the law you break it all, the bible says) if you don't repent of it.
And if you or anyone else doesn't understand how repentance can possibly clear the guilt of a sin, please feel free to ask and I'll be happy to explain.
However, if it was a lawful execution carried out after a due process of justice (just like with any other murderer, even the one who shot the abortion doctor on his own), then I do not think that anyone involved in sentencing or carrying out the sentence upon the doctor has sinned.
I hope that's a little more direct than the last time.
Also: >I didn't ask about moral relativism, the guilt of the abortion doctor. Or whether Christians are being persecuted. Or any of the other distractions you've used in response to my question.
No, but I thought it was a good idea to answer them anyway. I am assuming here that you're not the only person reading the message. Also, there was more to your post than just the one question, and I was trying to address a little more of that as well, so I'm sorry if it sounded like I was trying to avoid answering one question by bringing up others.
>Are you telling me that your priest
I don't have a preist, preists were part of the old testament institution. Or of the catholic church, which I prefer to let answer for themselves.
I'm a protestant, Presbyterian Reformed to be more precise, and in the past we had our own little share of persecution from the catholic church, so I'm sure you can understand my not being overly fond of them:)
>Like after someone shoots an abortion doctor in the name of "unborn children"
I know, because it's so awful when someone kills someone in order to liberate some group which happens to be oppressed and unable to do anything about it for themselves.
Does that mean I think people should go and shoot abortion doctors? No, I think it's nearly as bad as killing the babies. Because I think the judicial system should give the doctors a fair trial and *then* put them in the chair. Just like Nuremburg and all that.
>Because that kind of passive, tacit approval of the terrible acts being committed by Christians and others, especially in the name of religion, is certainly how it looks to me.
Open your eyes: http://www.persecution.org/newsite/index.php
I find it interesting that christians are not all that close to #1 in the position of people doing bad things in the name of a religion (althouh it's interesting to note that islam was started off with the help of an ex-catholic priest... btw, I do not consider true catholics to be christians - I don't think you can be honestly catholic and honestly christian at the same time)
Are christians innocent of any wrong doing? Of course not, because we're all human, and humans do stupid, bad, wrong, evil things.
Even if they don't believe in doing them.
I believe stealing is wrong, but I remember once when I was a kid, I stole a candy from the store.. because I thought it was okay? No.
Because I thought since I was going to do it, it must mean it was okay, because God would stop me if it wasn't? No.
I did it because I'm human, and humans do stupid things sometimes. But I still know it's wrong, and I'll still tell anyone else who does it that it's wrong (not because I'm arrogant, but because it *is* wrong).
Don't judge a philosophy by the people who say they believe it, and then act like they don't. That's like saying C is a terrible programming language because you see people writing code with buffer overrun vulnerabilities in it. It's a deficiency in the application, not in the theory itself.
I mean, I think Newton's hairdo looked stupid, but it doesn't stop me from thinking calculus is pretty cool.
Judge the philosophy for itself.
(And by the way, if anyone's wondering, I'm a Reformed Presbyterian - look up the second reformation (Scotland, 1600s) some time, it's where my church gets a lot of its ideas from)
So, having heard it from the mouth of the one who designed it all (and also the only witness of said design process, one who also can't lie), doesn't count as proof?
>it is inherently unprovable.
proof, n. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.
Anything that can enter your mind is either provable or disprovable. You just have to know how.
>Intelligent Design is not a science in any sense, >but a theology, and as such, its place is in the >church/mosque/synagogue/whatever, not in the >classroom.
Science, n. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
If it's truth, it's science.
In fact, to turn the other direction, it seems pretty interesting that evolutio is still being taught in schools; it has yet to come up with anything really plausible in explaining its own main points, and every time it's tried, it has been put down (and many of those times they didn't even admit it - they still have that horse evolution chart on display in museums, don't they, when they know it's wrong, and have for years?)
If it's incorrect to display the theory of origins which claims a creator, because of its 'unprovability', then it is also incorrect to display the theory of spontaneous generation of life; if it's alright to teach the spontaneous generation of life, then it's alright to teach about a creator too. They're both 'just theories', right? So why not teach both? Or else teach neither.. but stop discriminating:)
Honestly, I find it hard to believe that a kid won't ever hear about creationism anyway, and I also find it hard to believe that he won't hear about evolution, so if everyone's really as concerned about individual thought as they claim to be, why not tell the kid both sides of the story to begin with?
Oh no, how terrible.. we seem to be regressing to a form of natural communication (face to face, IM, phones, all realtime) rather than unnatural communication (mail, e-mail, not realtime)! This is terrible.. it must be another aspect of the whole ADD craze.
Seriously... I'm not sure why it should seem strange that people generally prefer communicating in realtime instead of having delays all the time, an I'm not sure why you think it's the same problem as that of a short attention span.
Slashdot Mirror
It's kind of sad, really.. it would be more fun if the opposition was even a little bit competent.
:)
I mean, I actually agree with them on some points - GTA has a few things in it that I'd rather it didn't. But, guess what? I also know that they are being extremely satirical in that game. And of course, the box already had an M on it anyway.. so who realy cares if it jumps from 17+ to 18+?
So anyway, like I said, it would be more fun if the opponents actualy made any sense when they talked
>So your point is... what?
:)
Actually you're right.. after reading it again I think I should have been a little more obvious about what I was trying to say.
>but you seem extremely short on the compassion and tolerance part.
Really? I think you need to read the post again.
>Then what right do you have (other than an interfering, homophobic, predjudiced one) to deny them the right to a civil ceremony?
I don't. It's not about me. It's about what God already said; he said no gay marriages (or gay unions for that matter). Don't ask me.. ask Him.
>"I think the USA is better than Canada because it's more homophobic and less liberal."
More like less bad. But I meant in the sense of their laws; I don't agree with the whole loudly pointing out that gays ought to burn in hell thing. Because that is what you said was one of my problems; the lack of compassion.
Yes, I do believe that gays deserve to burn in hell. I also believe that every other person who was ever born deserves the same thing. But that's not where it stops; which I already said.
It's not like "yeah, we all deserve to die, the end." which is how such demonstrations make it sound. They make it sound like, if you're gay, it's already too late; there's no hope or chance of anything better. But there's always a second chance as long as you're alive.
>"I'm not homophobic, but I don't think gay couples should be granted any protection or recognition in law."
No, it should be illegal to be gay, just like it's illegal to steal or murder or whatever else.
Why? Because God said so, period. If you don't believe in God, or don't believe that he said so, then I understand your position (not caring if it's legal); but you ought to be able to understand my point of view if you realize that I *do* believe in God and I *do* believe that he said it's wrong to be gay. So, if I believe it's okay as long as the government says it is, then what am I?
Yeah, that's right, a hypocrite.
>"I appear to be edging towards fundamentalism."
I think the right place to be is somewhere in between a fundamentalist and tolerationist.
I believe there are absolutes. I believe there are fundamental truths, and until you can show that something I though was a fundamental truth isn't, I'll stick to it. I believe in God, I believe the Bible is his word, and the Bible says no gays.
So, if you can convince me there is no God, or that the Bible is not his word, or that it doesn't actually say "no gays", I'm ready to accept gays. Until then I consider it to be sinful and something which should be illegal.
If I was the President of the US/Prime Minister of Canada, I would be doing everything in my power to make it illegal.
In fact I am doing everything in my power to make it so, but unfortunately my power is limited to signing petitions, and those don't seem to be helping much here in Canada (wanna guess why they refuse to have a referendum on the question of gay marriage in Canada? Because they're afraid the vote would be "no".)
>That was competely incoherent, and did nothing but make you look like a fundamentalist gay-basher.
Oh I dunno, I thought the first sentence or so was pretty coherent...
Seriously though, I should have read that over again before posting it because, even besides the fact that it's rather poorly formatted, that didn't exactly come out the way I wanted it to.
So, again, sorry for rambling.
I hope this post makes more sense.
Blech.. I'm obviously a slashdot newbie. Sorry about the unformatted paragraph(s)...
And the USA was widely regarded as the shining example of representative democracy and civil liberties to the entire world. Interestingly enough, they were regarded that way before World War 2, as well, and I believe that the German system actually borrowed quite a lot fom the US before Hitler came along. The fact that Hitler did what he did *after* the German system had adopted a lot of ideas from the US is ... disturbing, as well.
Oh, that's why I hear so many people always agreeing with the government in the US.. and so few ever speaking out against it... HA! Sorry, I couldn't keep a straight face. I'm Canadian and I hear more about americans protesting american decisions than I do about Canadians protesting Canadian decisions. And ours often suck even more than the american ones do. Like, we have this stupid gay marriage thing going on right now, for instance, and as soon as I say I have a problem with homosexuals someone is going to flame me for being a hate mongerer. I'm not a hate mongerer, and if someone decided to make theft legal in Canada I'd be mad about that too. Does that mean I think thieves should burn in hell? Actually yes.. I'm a christian so I believe we all (myself included) *SHOULD* burn in hell, because we deserve it (yes, myself included - everybody, "For *all* have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.") Happily for us, there's an alternative, which is to let somebody else take the blame - He volunteered - and have Him take the punishment - which He did - so that we don't have to. It's a free offer, and anybody can accept it. There was a guy named Saul who was actually persecuting christians, up until God invited him to join the church. Being homosexual seems to me to be less directly offensive than actually persecuting christians. Umm so in conclusion.. I'm not sorry for preaching (It's my job, one that I'm happy to do, since I'm a christian - not catholic, btw) but I am sorry if I was rambling a bit :)
>Read The 14 Characteristics of Fascism by Dr. Lawrence Britt A) I agree with cappadocius on this, and B) at least 1/3 of those points have nothing at all to do with fascism. # Powerful and Continuing Nationalism Uhh yeah, many nations have had a strong sense of nationalism without being fascist. # Soldiers and military service are glamorized. While I agree with the first part of the main point this is found under, I don't think this bit has anything to do with fascism, and I also only half agree with it. It entirely depends on *how* they are glamorized - as being a role of protection of the country, or as being the valiant conquerors of lesser nations? ## Rampant Sexism #The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. What government from before.. err.. like the last 50 years (if you wanna be optimistic) WASN'T?!... not many, and most of them weren't fascist. #Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy. Opposing abortion has nothing to do with it either. Maybe Hitler opposed abortion, but he also killed anybody he didn't find useful. *His* reason for opposing abortion was because he wanted more soldiers. Any decent person who opposes abortion does so because it is taking a life. Hitler had no qualms about taking lives if they weren't useful to him. Anti-gay legislation is fascist? Eww. Also, Eww. And finally.. yuck. This reminds me of just another case of calling anything you don't like "fascist" and anything you like "democratic" (note: the particular terms used can be changed depending on the audience) # Religion and Government are Intertwined Well, some of the subpoints are good on this one (like "Religious rhetoric ... is common ... even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions."), but again I fail to see how this has anything to do with it. I think he would better say "The government uses whatever language it feels will influence the masses to do its dirty work, even if the meaning of that language is actually oposite to how they use it")
All in all I find that a very poor starting point for a definition of fascism, since quite a few of those "defining points" are really quite *beside* the point.
>As far as pen and paper, that was all well and good
:)
>10 years ago, but there is no comparison any more
>to modern tools and a sketchpad.
1) Accessibility: I always have some paper around somewhere that I can scratch on.
2) Maleability: This is the same for a whiteboard as for paper, but it allows me to do a quick and dirty sketch of something; something that will lay it out more clearly in my head without having to actually write the code (or even, necessarily, the pseudocode: maybe all I want is a conceptual idea of how I am going to lay out the data in memory or something)
Personally I do not use paper very much while coding, but I find that when I am doing a complex algorithm or especially something that has to do with any kind of structured data in memory, it's quite useful to have a piece of paper to lay out the ideas on. That way I can see an inconsistency more quickly.
Maybe when all computers come with drawing tablets and a scribble pad that's as quick and easy to use as a real scribble pad, that function will be filled by the computer.. but for now I see no reason to restrict myself from using something as "old" as good old paper
If you're interested in data structures.. a good book on the subject is "A Practical Introduction to Data Structures and Algorithms" by Clifford Shaffer. My copy is the Java version, I believe there's also a C version.
Only one problem; there's a really cool new thing I heard they're working on, called a multitasking operating system. Now, if it's a bootable CD, how can people multitask when playing a game? ;)
Yeah, okay, I am being a little mocking but, really, if I wanted to use my whol entire computer just to play the game, I would get a Playstation or something. I don't want the game on a boot cd, and, in general, I do not like consoles either. Why?
a) the game isn't as modifiable (especially on a console, even if you do use unsupported mod chips)
b) I can't do anything *else* with my computer while I play the game (console = can't do a whole lot else withit period, although if you have a console + PC then you can use both if you are ambidextrous)
It's an interesting idea.. but personally I already highly dislike the idea of games that are fairly unfriendly to mulitasking (Army Ops on Linux, for instance, is a pain in the butt to switch out of in order to do something else while you wait for the next round... on windows it's just an "Alt-Tab" away... I still prefer playing it in Linux though)
I always have loved how that argument works.. how do you rob someone by not giving them something that isn't theirs yet, anyway? That's like saying growing your own food is the same as robbing the local grocery store...
:)
Really, in this case, all that is happening is that the printer manufacturers have backed themselves into a corner by not offering cheaper cartridges and/or ink refils of their own all along. And then they have the nerve to go and try to use the law to protect their own flawed way of trying to do business.
Which I suppose is also similar to the music 'industry', in that I think (although I don't know this for sure) that they generally charge quite a bit more than they need to for CDs, even considering a reasonable (as opposed to shamelessly large) profit margin. If they didn't charge so much maybe people would be less inclined to download music instead of buying it. Or like me, will be able to afford to buy music (I don't usually download music, but I don't often buy it either because my budget is fairly tight). Or maybe, if the publishing companies had been the first ones to offer music for download, nobody ever would have developed P2P networks in the first place
Here's one final thought... as far as I know (and again I may be wrong) it's the usual deal for an artist to make a relatively small percentage (as in less than 50%) of the profits from their own work, the rest of which goes to the publishing company. Now if people don't buy the music, who is it that's honestly 'taking money from the artist', the people who have not given what they never promised to give anyway, or the publishing company which siphoned off upwards of 50% of what actually *did* get spent?
Publishing companies have their uses, true, but really, I think they're far overgrown and in need of some taking down for everyone's good (including theirs.. we don't *need* so many people working for a publishing company now (since we have computers which simplify publishing), so why not have some of those people do other useful work like being a farmer or something?).
I'm exactly the same... err, well, except my dad is a computer tech and my mom is stuck on games (pac-man and that sort of thing, not *real* games like Battlefield, GTA, etc ;) ).
I did manage to get one of my sisters to use linux, though, and so far she's had very few problems, all of which were with particular programs, not with the OS.
>you're planning on turning the Bible Belt into a wild animal sanctuary?
The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.
"problem-solving, resilience, persistence and collaboration.' ".... hey, Zork! or.. a MUD?
I'm sorry you find it so hard to notice in my posts.. maybe it has something to do with my writing these things too early in the morning or something.. but if you want it extremely short and simple:
>your minister, or whatever you call the person who spends part of the Sunday service teaching the congregation (even if that's not what you call it) about morals - have they responded to a recent event, where someone commited a sin in god's name, by teaching how that is wrong?
Yes.
>has taught the congregation that killing an abortion doctor is sinful,
:)
As I said, I think that if a doctor (or anybody else) kills unborn babies he is a murderer, i.e. he deserves the death penalty. Read on.
>sending the killer to hell (unless they truly and explicitly repent), in the wake of such a killing?
If the killer did this on his own, in a vigilante style, then yes I would agree, the killer was not bringing about justice, but rather seeking revenge, which is wrong, and I think it's just as bad of the person who shot the doctor, as it is for the doctor to kill babies (whatever stage of development they may be in).
In other words, yes, I think this would be a sin which would send somone to hell, just like any other sin will (if you break any part of the law you break it all, the bible says) if you don't repent of it.
And if you or anyone else doesn't understand how repentance can possibly clear the guilt of a sin, please feel free to ask and I'll be happy to explain.
However, if it was a lawful execution carried out after a due process of justice (just like with any other murderer, even the one who shot the abortion doctor on his own), then I do not think that anyone involved in sentencing or carrying out the sentence upon the doctor has sinned.
I hope that's a little more direct than the last time.
Also:
>I didn't ask about moral relativism, the guilt of the abortion doctor. Or whether Christians are being persecuted. Or any of the other distractions you've used in response to my question.
No, but I thought it was a good idea to answer them anyway. I am assuming here that you're not the only person reading the message. Also, there was more to your post than just the one question, and I was trying to address a little more of that as well, so I'm sorry if it sounded like I was trying to avoid answering one question by bringing up others.
>Are you telling me that your priest
I don't have a preist, preists were part of the old testament institution. Or of the catholic church, which I prefer to let answer for themselves.
I'm a protestant, Presbyterian Reformed to be more precise, and in the past we had our own little share of persecution from the catholic church, so I'm sure you can understand my not being overly fond of them
>Like after someone shoots an abortion doctor in the name of "unborn children" I know, because it's so awful when someone kills someone in order to liberate some group which happens to be oppressed and unable to do anything about it for themselves. Does that mean I think people should go and shoot abortion doctors? No, I think it's nearly as bad as killing the babies. Because I think the judicial system should give the doctors a fair trial and *then* put them in the chair. Just like Nuremburg and all that. >Because that kind of passive, tacit approval of the terrible acts being committed by Christians and others, especially in the name of religion, is certainly how it looks to me. Open your eyes: http://www.persecution.org/newsite/index.php I find it interesting that christians are not all that close to #1 in the position of people doing bad things in the name of a religion (althouh it's interesting to note that islam was started off with the help of an ex-catholic priest... btw, I do not consider true catholics to be christians - I don't think you can be honestly catholic and honestly christian at the same time) Are christians innocent of any wrong doing? Of course not, because we're all human, and humans do stupid, bad, wrong, evil things. Even if they don't believe in doing them. I believe stealing is wrong, but I remember once when I was a kid, I stole a candy from the store.. because I thought it was okay? No. Because I thought since I was going to do it, it must mean it was okay, because God would stop me if it wasn't? No. I did it because I'm human, and humans do stupid things sometimes. But I still know it's wrong, and I'll still tell anyone else who does it that it's wrong (not because I'm arrogant, but because it *is* wrong). Don't judge a philosophy by the people who say they believe it, and then act like they don't. That's like saying C is a terrible programming language because you see people writing code with buffer overrun vulnerabilities in it. It's a deficiency in the application, not in the theory itself. I mean, I think Newton's hairdo looked stupid, but it doesn't stop me from thinking calculus is pretty cool. Judge the philosophy for itself. (And by the way, if anyone's wondering, I'm a Reformed Presbyterian - look up the second reformation (Scotland, 1600s) some time, it's where my church gets a lot of its ideas from)
>Intelligent Design is not just unproven,
:)
So, having heard it from the mouth of the one who designed it all (and also the only witness of said design process, one who also can't lie), doesn't count as proof?
>it is inherently unprovable.
proof, n. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.
Anything that can enter your mind is either provable or disprovable. You just have to know how.
>Intelligent Design is not a science in any sense,
>but a theology, and as such, its place is in the
>church/mosque/synagogue/whatever, not in the
>classroom.
Science, n. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
If it's truth, it's science.
In fact, to turn the other direction, it seems pretty interesting that evolutio is still being taught in schools; it has yet to come up with anything really plausible in explaining its own main points, and every time it's tried, it has been put down (and many of those times they didn't even admit it - they still have that horse evolution chart on display in museums, don't they, when they know it's wrong, and have for years?)
If it's incorrect to display the theory of origins which claims a creator, because of its 'unprovability', then it is also incorrect to display the theory of spontaneous generation of life; if it's alright to teach the spontaneous generation of life, then it's alright to teach about a creator too. They're both 'just theories', right? So why not teach both? Or else teach neither.. but stop discriminating
Honestly, I find it hard to believe that a kid won't ever hear about creationism anyway, and I also find it hard to believe that he won't hear about evolution, so if everyone's really as concerned about individual thought as they claim to be, why not tell the kid both sides of the story to begin with?
Oh no, how terrible.. we seem to be regressing to a form of natural communication (face to face, IM, phones, all realtime) rather than unnatural communication (mail, e-mail, not realtime)! This is terrible.. it must be another aspect of the whole ADD craze.
Seriously... I'm not sure why it should seem strange that people generally prefer communicating in realtime instead of having delays all the time, an I'm not sure why you think it's the same problem as that of a short attention span.