The bill's intent is to keep adult-oriented (this criteria to be determined by a judge) games from getting into minor's hands, and fines any store responsible for selling said games to minors. This is not necessarily a bad thing; one of the biggest weaknesses of the ESRB is its lack of real power: it lacks any and all punitive ability. It can assign ratings all it wants, but when it comes down to it, individual store policy determines who can buy any given game. Clearly this has been ineffective in keeping inappropriate games from the hands of minors. We can argue all day long that: "this is the responsibility of the parents, zomg the government is evil, how dare they try to say that killing hookers is bad, zomg," but really the gaming industry lacks any coherent self-regulation and this needs to change.
Unfortunately, this bill is one step in the right direction (fining retailers who sell GTA3 to ten year olds) and three steps in the wrong (absolutely no specification as to what can be considered "inappropriate," granting sole discretion to the judge, and calling for any "inappropriate game" to be pulled from circulation.) The last wrong is the one that concerns me the most: since when does content "not suitable for minors" suddenly translate into "not suitable for sale?" That seems to me a gross overextension of what the bill should be trying to do, which is to keep minors from playing excessively violent or sexual games. It's no secret that idiots like Jack Thompson believe the world would be a better place without video games, period, but it shocks me that any legislature would buy into this. There are plenty of types of media (rape-pornography, for instance) that the courts currently do not have the ability to demand be removed from circulation. I'm supposed to believe that ANY game could be more harmful to society than the simulation of rape? That doesn't make any sense at all.
1 - You can be devoutly religious and also logical/rational/scientific.
No, you cant. Religion is the belief in in the supernatural.
Science only only concerns itself with demonstratable conjecture to describe a natural phenomenon.
Most people who construct the "Choose religion or science" frame do so (as I do) because I believe that once someone accepts that a supernatural world exists, they abandon their ability to pursue science. If your willing to accept the supernatural -- what purpose does reason and logic have in the pursuit of science (that which is natural)?
What a convenient statement. Suddenly someone who professes a belief in a higher power is no longer qualified to practice science? Congratulations, you just erased THE ENTIRETY of humanity's accomplishments. There is not ONE IMPORTANT WORK in our history that was not written by someone who was religious, or by someone who was influenced by someone religious.
Now that we've eliminiated your completely fucking moronic first statement, let's also examine "supernatural." Exactly what do you mean this to describe? Do you think that someone who believes God imparted a message to his Prophets is somehow corollary to the belief that I can shoot fireballs out of my ass? The expressed belief in the afterlife does not make someone less intelligent or less fit for science, and you're a goddamned lunatic to suggest it. Science and religion address different areas of intellectual pursuit. There is no "scientific" way of debating ethics, morality, music, art, architecture, dance, philosophy, or human emotion. Does that mean anyone who professes interest in these fields are excluded from science as well?
2 - Some "scientific" and anti-religious people are just as bigotted, and illogical as the religious nuts.
This is essentially the "science is a religion" argument, and I will have nothing to add beyond Richard Dawkins excellent article you can read here [thehumanist.org].
Wow, wrong again--how does it feel to be this dumb? Do you get candy? The argument above simply states that PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE. They will be ignorant, bigoted, and illogical, REGARDLESS of whatever the fuck they choose to believe. You can be a die-hard athiest and be a complete jackass, or you can be a die-hard Muslim and be a complete jackass. It has nothing to do with "science being a religion," and everything to do with: "people love to be jackasses," and apparently so do you.
As for the anti-religious being 'bigotted', yes, I can assume some are. I will admit to it myself. I will not apologize that I agree with Denis Diderot when he said "Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." Destroying religion as necessary to civilization as plumbing and not cohabitating with one's livestock.
And you're lecturing us on the dangers of religious thought? You're just as crazy and violent as the nutjobs who've perverted my religion. (I am Muslim, in case you wondered.) In fact, why stop with religion? Why not just destroy EVERYTHING that has no scientific basis? After all, if we can't prove it via double-blind experiment, it can't be true, because the scientific method tells me so! And you have the audacity to accuse religious people of being zealots?
Religion is (to put it mildly) a bother and a bore, and Im tired of a world populated by masses who believe their supernatural deity is The Most Great. Religion keeps us from taking ownership of Humanity's OUR OWN PROBLEMS. Keeps us from realizing that WE ALONE are responsible for the state of our community. Religion is a manner of absolving oneself of responsiblity ("I give myself to you oh lord").
This life is all we have. There is no second chance to get things right "next time", or reward in an afterlife. Please consign these fantasies to ancient history where they belong.
People are going to absolve themselves of their responsibilities regardless of what religion they follow. It is in our nature to avoid those
Ok, new plan. Whatever you majored in or want to study, I now declare bullshit. See how well that works? I don't care how long the history behind the field is, or how many people have lived and died to advance it, or whether it's helped millions of people. It's just bullshit? Why? Because I said so. And you can go fuck yourself for thinking any differently, because I am so clearly right.
Oh, get over yourself. It doesn't matter how much verbiage you pour out, theology is not and has never been anything more than guesswork. Your attempt to equate theology with philosophy is likewise nothing more than puffery.
Have you actually read any prominent thinkers in history? Who gave you the authority to pass decisive judgment on what does and does not constitute rational thought? Simply because something can't be tested via the scientific method, suddenly it's no longer intellectually relevant?
You need to grow up and get your head out of your ass. Theology is an extremely deep and intellectually taxing field, and it goes far, far beyond the childish assumptions you've made. Go back to worshipping the altar of evolution; you are no better than the people you condemn.
Look, this is all pointless. Bill Gates could give all of his money to charity and open-source Windows Vista and we still wouldn't be satisfied.
The truth of the matter is, computers have become easier to use as Microsoft has matured. I don't know how many of you amazing l33t experts actually had to support Windows NT (original flavor) or Windows 95, but they were a *nightmare.* With each iteration of Windows (barring ME, which I'm still convinced was just a really big virus) the OS has become more secure, more reliable, and certainly easier to support.
What is going to make or break Vista is whether it is easy to use, and whether it is easy to support. You can bitch and moan and scream at the new features that you think will suck (and hell, they might suck) but in the end none of this matters. Vista will be released and it won't be until one or two years afterwards that any of us will be able to make an informed opinion on its viability as a new OS. And frankly, if it is more user-friendly than Windows XP, less prone to kernel errors/security flaws, AND easier to support, then it is going to succeed. And until Linux gets to that stage (and it is starting to, but it's still some ways off) it is not a suitable alternative, no matter how badly you may want it to be.
How does AOL expect to regain market share by publicly announcing that they will let outside companies (for a small fee of course) flood AOL inboxes with spam? Didn't they JUST run an ad-campaign detailing how great their "Anti-everything including spam" software was?
Seriously, who do they have in charge over there? Is he drunk or something?
I am not equating the two. I am showing that under the previous poster's logic, there's no difference between Ahmadinejad and Bush. Both have called for the destruction of a political state (Bush for Iran, Ahmadi for Israel), and both publicly support the coming of their Messiah. Since those are apparently the only two things that qualify Ahmadinejad as crazy--after all, what kind of nutcase believes in a Messiah?--then by logical deduction Bush is crazy too. It is hypocritical to then denounce Iran's nuclear ambitions (which are speculation) without denouncing America's very real arsenal of weapons.
There are plenty of reasons why Ahmadinejad is batshit loco. I just don't happen to think the reasons listed qualify, and the general tone of the post suggests the sort of "WOW ISLAM SUXXORZ" attitude that makes me sick.
Oh yeah, and didn't Bush cite God as the reason behind the regime change in Iraq? So either stop being a hypocrite and start opposing the U.S.A.'s arsenal of nuclear weapons--because the Iranian President probably has LESS influence than the American president--or stick to attacking someone's politics in a realistic fashion, as opposed to saying: "ZOMG HE IS TEH MUSLIM, I.E. TEH CRAZEE."
First, that's a stupid summation of a belief of Shi'a Islam. Second, define "annihilation." He did not, at any point, call for the killing of Jews or their removal from the Middle East. He did, however, call for the dismantling of the Zionist state that currently occupies the area. Much like the US and Israel have repeatedly called for the same with Iran--except they've been doing that for twenty years. Personally, I think Ahmadinejad is a terrible politician, but he's right at home next to Bush. Third, I believe one of the fundamental tenets of Christianity is that Jesus will descend from the sky, where the righteous will meet him halfway on a cloud, AFTER the world has been ravaged by four crazy-ass horsemen. And last I checked, Bush was a devout Christian. Suddenly the well thing seems a bit, I dunno, equivalent?
Welcome to bigotry, population: you. Islam is not the reason the Middle East is unstable, and you're a moron if you think "Muslims hate us because we're not Muslim." Study some history and get back to us on that. Islam has been a stabilizing force in the Middle East--it was European intervention that led them to the chaos that we're in today. (Much like the chaos in Africa, Latin and South America, SE Asia... hmm, could there be a pattern here?)
Your points are just uneducated tripe, fed to you by a Zionist propaganda machine that's been chugging along since the Holocaust. "Country under siege?" By whom? The Arab states that have virtually NO WAY of defeating the Israeli army? Israel has *always*--I repeat, *always*--had more troops, better training, and more money than the Arab armies that have tried to attack it. That's right, even in the 1948 wars, where I'm sure you think: "ZOMG THE ISRAELIS BEAT TEH ARABS ZOMG!", the Israelis had more troops in every battle fought than the Arabs. It's not a country under siege--it's a standing army conducting an occupation, end of story.
The majority of Israeli citizens would have no problem with a Palestinian state and withdrawing from all of the occupied areas if they could do so peacefully. This has been proven by recent elections and recent activities of the government. Problem is, the Palestinians don't want to live peacefully. They get a free election and what do they do? Elect a terrorist organization to lead their new country.
Wrong again. The only reason Israel has withdrawn where it has is because it is rapidly losing the population war with Palestinians. They do not want to control land where they are outnumbered by the Palestinians. They are still continuing to demolish Palestinian homes (WOW, there's a peaceful act!) in areas where they believe they can constitute a majority. Stop seeing the world through rose-colored glasses: the Israelis don't give a shit about the Palestinians, and they never will. I don't blame them; if I were seizing land illegally I probably wouldn't give a damn about the current occupants either. As for the election of Hamas, considering that their choices were 1.) the corrupt party that has accomplished nothing in power, or 2.) the militant party that loudly decries corruption, and has also violently resisted Israeli aggression, I am shocked anyone expected differently. You need to study Palestinian politics before you make stupid blanket statements. Hamas does quite a bit more than kill Israelis, and I imagine it's that other shit--which you and the rest of the world sees fit to ignore--that got them elected.
Maybe because the Palestinians blow themselves up.
I would not blindly defend the actions of the Israeli government and Israeli military any more than I would blindly defend the activities of any other government - especially the US. The Israelis have made mistakes and don't always do everything correctly, but if you don't understand why the US is allied with Israel and why we pump money into their economy you have a very twisted world view.
That is a stupid and ignorant thing to say. Suicide bombers constitute less than.01% of the entire Palestinian population. Israel has killed far more Palestinian women and children than any "combatant" Palestinians; hell, they've killed AMERICAN CITIZENS who were over there! I would say you've got the very twisted world view--Israel is not helping America in any way, shape, or form. Supporting a country for moral reasons would be great, except that would dictate we help the Palestinians. Learn2logic.
And why do we care about Israel again? Remind me why they matter in the slightest? It has been the biggest destabilizing factor in the Middle East since its inception. They are currently conducting a forced occupation that is nearing 60 years in length--that's THREE generations. The ratio of dead Israelis to dead Palestinians is HEAVILY skewed towards dead Palestinians.
We send Israel more foreign aid, per year, than the ENTIRETY of sub-saharan Africa. Keep in mind that Israel's economy is considered one of the strongest in the world--certainly the strongest in that area of the world.
But wait, Israel's our "ally." Because they've killed our citizens and sunk our battleships, and not even had the decency to apologize for it. Because they are in direct violation of every human rights' accord ever written, and developed nuclear energy and weapons as a rogue nation. We have purposely supported corrupt regimes elsewhere in the Middle East solely to make sure they kept their peace with Israel, which in turn has dramatically reduced public opinion of the US in the Muslim world. Ever since the Cold War ended, Israel has been a severe liability to US foreign policy (and out economy), and even their influence during the Cold War era is questionable, because it's very unlikely that communism could have taken hold in the Middle East, given its inherent conflict with religion. (Which we see, time and time again, is a much stronger social force in that region than in Western countries--barring, perhaps, the US.)
Yes, Iran's mullahs with nuclear weapons=very bad things. But not because of the threat to Israel. There is no pragmatic reason to support Israel; we do it anyway, and it continues to make things worse. There are plenty of valid reasons to not want Iran to have nuclear weapons, (US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is a great place to start), let's not fall back on the intellectually bankrupt "Israel is our friend!" argument, hmm?
So just so I have this straight... you are going to hold an entire religion accountable for the actions of people whom, upon news of their crime, were excommunicated from the church and their leader executed? How's logic class working out for you? Well, I hope?
I am responding for stormin as he is not currently able to do so himself. (30 posts in 4 hours has him locked.) I may post as myself in the thread later, but for all intensive purposes consider this post to be stormin's.
1 - Analogies don't have to be exact.
2 - I am talking about what marraige represents from the perspective of the government.
Wow. I mean, wow. You are truly an amazing creature. Not only does your statement profess a complete ignorance of what my "objection" was, but now what you thought I said somehow proves I'm a bigot, regardless of the definition of the word?
Ok, I can play this game. You are a werewolf. Don't bother arguing; only werewolves deny that they are werewolves. You goddamned shapechanger.
bigot n.
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
You lose again, asshole. I did not declare any group to be my own, nor a religion, nor a race, nor any particular class of politics. I did not define a personal stance on what causes homosexuality. I merely pointed out your asinine assumptions for what they were: complete and utter bullshit. If you're going to call me intolerant based on the idea that I rejected your patently false conjectures, you're welcome to do so, but you'd just continue being the dickhead that you are.
NEXT time PICK up a DICTIONARY you UNEDUCATED fuck. HOW'S that FOR capitalization? Idiot.
Hi. You're a complete fucking moron. I don't know if you went to college, but if you did, tear up your degree because you didn't learn shit. Slap your wife for marrying you--she has a PhD and you're the best she could do? I shudder for her welfare.
First of all, you don't even know what the fuck you're trying to say. (By the way, yes I am badgering you, if I was in person I would be hitting you in the fucking face because someone like you does not deserve to speak.) Without further ado, let's go over the train wreck that is your randomly-bunched together statements. (I won't dare call it an argument, to do so would be to undermine thousands of years of intelligent debate.
1.) Homosexuality is a genetic trait. DID YOU OR DID YOU NOT SAY THIS? Make a decision, you dumbass. If you're saying it is, you're wrong. If you're saying it isn't, you are again wrong. The data is inconclusive. (Do you even know what data is?)
2.) The bulk of psychologists agree that homosexuality is a genetic trait. Only marginally less pointless than the above statement, my response is: "And?" Your repeated claims of "it's a fact, go fuck yourself, stop badgering me my penis is small" don't do anything for you--and don't come here trying to say you're not attempting to convince someone of something, because otherwise you wouldn't keep posting like the waste of valuable water and oxygen that you are. A "fact" is not a "fact" by default, dipshit. It used to be a "fact" that blacks were inferior to whites. In order to a fact to actually BE a fact, it MUST be supported by FACTUAL EVIDENCE. As you have provided NONE, what you have stated is not YET a "fact." It may COINCIDE with a fact, but until YOU provide some form of proof, it's not a fact. This is called logic. (One of the many sciences you would have learned in college, were you not busily stuffing paint chips into your mouth in the back of the classroom.)
Furthermore, the ONLY "scientists" (and I use that term loosely for psychologists) that have formed a "consensus" (there's a scientific term) on the issue are the aforementioned psychologists. Guess what Einstein--THAT DOES NOT PROVE THAT HOMOSEXUALS ARE BORN GAY. From THEIR research THEY believe they have enough evidence to purport that homosexuality is genetic, but that is not anywhere near conclusive from a SCIENTIFIC standpoint, and ANY hard scientist you speak to--a biologist, a physicist, or a chemist--will tell you this. Your grasp of science is absolutely terrifying--a consensus is COMPLETELY USELESS. There is nothing remotely scientific about a consensus. Until geneticists ISOLATE the gay gene, and then find ways to insert it into another foetus, and THAT foetus turns out gay enough times to account for all statistical variation, it will NOT be a "fact" that homosexuality is a genetic trait. END OF FUCKING STORY. That's all she wrote, hombre. I don't give a damn what the psychologists say, it is IRRELEVANT to the discussion at hand. You COULD have offered it to say: "Well, a whole lot of respected people think that homosexuality is genetic, so I am inclined to agree with them," and THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A FINE STATEMENT. However, in your colossal and truly astounding idiocy, you instead claimed "SHRINKS THINK GAYS ARE THAT WAY BECAUSE OF GENES, YOU ARE WRONG, IT IS TEH FACT AND I AM RIGHT!!!!!!!1111" like the dumbass you are.
Furthermore, you have the AUDACITY to claim that any research that does NOT support your OBVIOUSLY FALSE claim is "bigoted!" Who the fuck died and made you chair of the "legitimate research committee?" Go stuff your arrogant head back into your ass; NEITHER side of this debate has provided evidence anywhere NEAR conclusive. Simply because you decided to throw in with the "gay=genes" side does not magically make it more scientifically viable than its counterpart. God, you are stupid. I mean, REALLY fucking stupid.
Do us all a favor: go sterilize yourself. We are DOOMED as a species if your genetic material makes it past your toilet tissue.
Slashdot Mirror
The bill's intent is to keep adult-oriented (this criteria to be determined by a judge) games from getting into minor's hands, and fines any store responsible for selling said games to minors. This is not necessarily a bad thing; one of the biggest weaknesses of the ESRB is its lack of real power: it lacks any and all punitive ability. It can assign ratings all it wants, but when it comes down to it, individual store policy determines who can buy any given game. Clearly this has been ineffective in keeping inappropriate games from the hands of minors. We can argue all day long that: "this is the responsibility of the parents, zomg the government is evil, how dare they try to say that killing hookers is bad, zomg," but really the gaming industry lacks any coherent self-regulation and this needs to change.
Unfortunately, this bill is one step in the right direction (fining retailers who sell GTA3 to ten year olds) and three steps in the wrong (absolutely no specification as to what can be considered "inappropriate," granting sole discretion to the judge, and calling for any "inappropriate game" to be pulled from circulation.) The last wrong is the one that concerns me the most: since when does content "not suitable for minors" suddenly translate into "not suitable for sale?" That seems to me a gross overextension of what the bill should be trying to do, which is to keep minors from playing excessively violent or sexual games. It's no secret that idiots like Jack Thompson believe the world would be a better place without video games, period, but it shocks me that any legislature would buy into this. There are plenty of types of media (rape-pornography, for instance) that the courts currently do not have the ability to demand be removed from circulation. I'm supposed to believe that ANY game could be more harmful to society than the simulation of rape? That doesn't make any sense at all.
Most people who construct the "Choose religion or science" frame do so (as I do) because I believe that once someone accepts that a supernatural world exists, they abandon their ability to pursue science. If your willing to accept the supernatural -- what purpose does reason and logic have in the pursuit of science (that which is natural)?
What a convenient statement. Suddenly someone who professes a belief in a higher power is no longer qualified to practice science? Congratulations, you just erased THE ENTIRETY of humanity's accomplishments. There is not ONE IMPORTANT WORK in our history that was not written by someone who was religious, or by someone who was influenced by someone religious.
Now that we've eliminiated your completely fucking moronic first statement, let's also examine "supernatural." Exactly what do you mean this to describe? Do you think that someone who believes God imparted a message to his Prophets is somehow corollary to the belief that I can shoot fireballs out of my ass? The expressed belief in the afterlife does not make someone less intelligent or less fit for science, and you're a goddamned lunatic to suggest it. Science and religion address different areas of intellectual pursuit. There is no "scientific" way of debating ethics, morality, music, art, architecture, dance, philosophy, or human emotion. Does that mean anyone who professes interest in these fields are excluded from science as well?
2 - Some "scientific" and anti-religious people are just as bigotted, and illogical as the religious nuts.
This is essentially the "science is a religion" argument, and I will have nothing to add beyond Richard Dawkins excellent article you can read here [thehumanist.org].
Wow, wrong again--how does it feel to be this dumb? Do you get candy? The argument above simply states that PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE. They will be ignorant, bigoted, and illogical, REGARDLESS of whatever the fuck they choose to believe. You can be a die-hard athiest and be a complete jackass, or you can be a die-hard Muslim and be a complete jackass. It has nothing to do with "science being a religion," and everything to do with: "people love to be jackasses," and apparently so do you.
As for the anti-religious being 'bigotted', yes, I can assume some are. I will admit to it myself. I will not apologize that I agree with Denis Diderot when he said "Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." Destroying religion as necessary to civilization as plumbing and not cohabitating with one's livestock.
And you're lecturing us on the dangers of religious thought? You're just as crazy and violent as the nutjobs who've perverted my religion. (I am Muslim, in case you wondered.) In fact, why stop with religion? Why not just destroy EVERYTHING that has no scientific basis? After all, if we can't prove it via double-blind experiment, it can't be true, because the scientific method tells me so! And you have the audacity to accuse religious people of being zealots?
Religion is (to put it mildly) a bother and a bore, and Im tired of a world populated by masses who believe their supernatural deity is The Most Great. Religion keeps us from taking ownership of Humanity's OUR OWN PROBLEMS. Keeps us from realizing that WE ALONE are responsible for the state of our community. Religion is a manner of absolving oneself of responsiblity ("I give myself to you oh lord").
This life is all we have. There is no second chance to get things right "next time", or reward in an afterlife. Please consign these fantasies to ancient history where they belong.
People are going to absolve themselves of their responsibilities regardless of what religion they follow. It is in our nature to avoid those
Ok, new plan. Whatever you majored in or want to study, I now declare bullshit. See how well that works? I don't care how long the history behind the field is, or how many people have lived and died to advance it, or whether it's helped millions of people. It's just bullshit? Why? Because I said so. And you can go fuck yourself for thinking any differently, because I am so clearly right.
Have you actually read any prominent thinkers in history? Who gave you the authority to pass decisive judgment on what does and does not constitute rational thought? Simply because something can't be tested via the scientific method, suddenly it's no longer intellectually relevant?
You need to grow up and get your head out of your ass. Theology is an extremely deep and intellectually taxing field, and it goes far, far beyond the childish assumptions you've made. Go back to worshipping the altar of evolution; you are no better than the people you condemn.
The truth of the matter is, computers have become easier to use as Microsoft has matured. I don't know how many of you amazing l33t experts actually had to support Windows NT (original flavor) or Windows 95, but they were a *nightmare.* With each iteration of Windows (barring ME, which I'm still convinced was just a really big virus) the OS has become more secure, more reliable, and certainly easier to support.
What is going to make or break Vista is whether it is easy to use, and whether it is easy to support. You can bitch and moan and scream at the new features that you think will suck (and hell, they might suck) but in the end none of this matters. Vista will be released and it won't be until one or two years afterwards that any of us will be able to make an informed opinion on its viability as a new OS. And frankly, if it is more user-friendly than Windows XP, less prone to kernel errors/security flaws, AND easier to support, then it is going to succeed. And until Linux gets to that stage (and it is starting to, but it's still some ways off) it is not a suitable alternative, no matter how badly you may want it to be.
Seriously, who do they have in charge over there? Is he drunk or something?
There are plenty of reasons why Ahmadinejad is batshit loco. I just don't happen to think the reasons listed qualify, and the general tone of the post suggests the sort of "WOW ISLAM SUXXORZ" attitude that makes me sick.
Oh yeah, and didn't Bush cite God as the reason behind the regime change in Iraq? So either stop being a hypocrite and start opposing the U.S.A.'s arsenal of nuclear weapons--because the Iranian President probably has LESS influence than the American president--or stick to attacking someone's politics in a realistic fashion, as opposed to saying: "ZOMG HE IS TEH MUSLIM, I.E. TEH CRAZEE."
First, that's a stupid summation of a belief of Shi'a Islam. Second, define "annihilation." He did not, at any point, call for the killing of Jews or their removal from the Middle East. He did, however, call for the dismantling of the Zionist state that currently occupies the area. Much like the US and Israel have repeatedly called for the same with Iran--except they've been doing that for twenty years. Personally, I think Ahmadinejad is a terrible politician, but he's right at home next to Bush. Third, I believe one of the fundamental tenets of Christianity is that Jesus will descend from the sky, where the righteous will meet him halfway on a cloud, AFTER the world has been ravaged by four crazy-ass horsemen. And last I checked, Bush was a devout Christian. Suddenly the well thing seems a bit, I dunno, equivalent?
Welcome to bigotry, population: you. Islam is not the reason the Middle East is unstable, and you're a moron if you think "Muslims hate us because we're not Muslim." Study some history and get back to us on that. Islam has been a stabilizing force in the Middle East--it was European intervention that led them to the chaos that we're in today. (Much like the chaos in Africa, Latin and South America, SE Asia... hmm, could there be a pattern here?)
Your points are just uneducated tripe, fed to you by a Zionist propaganda machine that's been chugging along since the Holocaust. "Country under siege?" By whom? The Arab states that have virtually NO WAY of defeating the Israeli army? Israel has *always*--I repeat, *always*--had more troops, better training, and more money than the Arab armies that have tried to attack it. That's right, even in the 1948 wars, where I'm sure you think: "ZOMG THE ISRAELIS BEAT TEH ARABS ZOMG!", the Israelis had more troops in every battle fought than the Arabs. It's not a country under siege--it's a standing army conducting an occupation, end of story.
The majority of Israeli citizens would have no problem with a Palestinian state and withdrawing from all of the occupied areas if they could do so peacefully. This has been proven by recent elections and recent activities of the government. Problem is, the Palestinians don't want to live peacefully. They get a free election and what do they do? Elect a terrorist organization to lead their new country.Wrong again. The only reason Israel has withdrawn where it has is because it is rapidly losing the population war with Palestinians. They do not want to control land where they are outnumbered by the Palestinians. They are still continuing to demolish Palestinian homes (WOW, there's a peaceful act!) in areas where they believe they can constitute a majority. Stop seeing the world through rose-colored glasses: the Israelis don't give a shit about the Palestinians, and they never will. I don't blame them; if I were seizing land illegally I probably wouldn't give a damn about the current occupants either. As for the election of Hamas, considering that their choices were 1.) the corrupt party that has accomplished nothing in power, or 2.) the militant party that loudly decries corruption, and has also violently resisted Israeli aggression, I am shocked anyone expected differently. You need to study Palestinian politics before you make stupid blanket statements. Hamas does quite a bit more than kill Israelis, and I imagine it's that other shit--which you and the rest of the world sees fit to ignore--that got them elected.
Maybe because the Palestinians blow themselves up. I would not blindly defend the actions of the Israeli government and Israeli military any more than I would blindly defend the activities of any other government - especially the US. The Israelis have made mistakes and don't always do everything correctly, but if you don't understand why the US is allied with Israel and why we pump money into their economy you have a very twisted world view.That is a stupid and ignorant thing to say. Suicide bombers constitute less than .01% of the entire Palestinian population. Israel has killed far more Palestinian women and children than any "combatant" Palestinians; hell, they've killed AMERICAN CITIZENS who were over there! I would say you've got the very twisted world view--Israel is not helping America in any way, shape, or form. Supporting a country for moral reasons would be great, except that would dictate we help the Palestinians. Learn2logic.
And why do we care about Israel again? Remind me why they matter in the slightest? It has been the biggest destabilizing factor in the Middle East since its inception. They are currently conducting a forced occupation that is nearing 60 years in length--that's THREE generations. The ratio of dead Israelis to dead Palestinians is HEAVILY skewed towards dead Palestinians.
We send Israel more foreign aid, per year, than the ENTIRETY of sub-saharan Africa. Keep in mind that Israel's economy is considered one of the strongest in the world--certainly the strongest in that area of the world.
But wait, Israel's our "ally." Because they've killed our citizens and sunk our battleships, and not even had the decency to apologize for it. Because they are in direct violation of every human rights' accord ever written, and developed nuclear energy and weapons as a rogue nation. We have purposely supported corrupt regimes elsewhere in the Middle East solely to make sure they kept their peace with Israel, which in turn has dramatically reduced public opinion of the US in the Muslim world. Ever since the Cold War ended, Israel has been a severe liability to US foreign policy (and out economy), and even their influence during the Cold War era is questionable, because it's very unlikely that communism could have taken hold in the Middle East, given its inherent conflict with religion. (Which we see, time and time again, is a much stronger social force in that region than in Western countries--barring, perhaps, the US.)
Yes, Iran's mullahs with nuclear weapons=very bad things. But not because of the threat to Israel. There is no pragmatic reason to support Israel; we do it anyway, and it continues to make things worse. There are plenty of valid reasons to not want Iran to have nuclear weapons, (US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is a great place to start), let's not fall back on the intellectually bankrupt "Israel is our friend!" argument, hmm?So just so I have this straight... you are going to hold an entire religion accountable for the actions of people whom, upon news of their crime, were excommunicated from the church and their leader executed? How's logic class working out for you? Well, I hope?
I am responding for stormin as he is not currently able to do so himself. (30 posts in 4 hours has him locked.) I may post as myself in the thread later, but for all intensive purposes consider this post to be stormin's.
1 - Analogies don't have to be exact.
2 - I am talking about what marraige represents from the perspective of the government.
I'm sorry; I don't associate with werewolves. I find them despicable.
Best Regards,
A cumulo-nimbus cloud
(See what I did there? It's fun ignoring a word's definition!)
Wow. I mean, wow. You are truly an amazing creature. Not only does your statement profess a complete ignorance of what my "objection" was, but now what you thought I said somehow proves I'm a bigot, regardless of the definition of the word?
Ok, I can play this game. You are a werewolf. Don't bother arguing; only werewolves deny that they are werewolves. You goddamned shapechanger.
bigot n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
You lose again, asshole. I did not declare any group to be my own, nor a religion, nor a race, nor any particular class of politics. I did not define a personal stance on what causes homosexuality. I merely pointed out your asinine assumptions for what they were: complete and utter bullshit. If you're going to call me intolerant based on the idea that I rejected your patently false conjectures, you're welcome to do so, but you'd just continue being the dickhead that you are.
NEXT time PICK up a DICTIONARY you UNEDUCATED fuck. HOW'S that FOR capitalization? Idiot.
Hi. You're a complete fucking moron. I don't know if you went to college, but if you did, tear up your degree because you didn't learn shit. Slap your wife for marrying you--she has a PhD and you're the best she could do? I shudder for her welfare.
First of all, you don't even know what the fuck you're trying to say. (By the way, yes I am badgering you, if I was in person I would be hitting you in the fucking face because someone like you does not deserve to speak.) Without further ado, let's go over the train wreck that is your randomly-bunched together statements. (I won't dare call it an argument, to do so would be to undermine thousands of years of intelligent debate.
1.) Homosexuality is a genetic trait. DID YOU OR DID YOU NOT SAY THIS? Make a decision, you dumbass. If you're saying it is, you're wrong. If you're saying it isn't, you are again wrong. The data is inconclusive. (Do you even know what data is?)
2.) The bulk of psychologists agree that homosexuality is a genetic trait. Only marginally less pointless than the above statement, my response is: "And?" Your repeated claims of "it's a fact, go fuck yourself, stop badgering me my penis is small" don't do anything for you--and don't come here trying to say you're not attempting to convince someone of something, because otherwise you wouldn't keep posting like the waste of valuable water and oxygen that you are. A "fact" is not a "fact" by default, dipshit. It used to be a "fact" that blacks were inferior to whites. In order to a fact to actually BE a fact, it MUST be supported by FACTUAL EVIDENCE. As you have provided NONE, what you have stated is not YET a "fact." It may COINCIDE with a fact, but until YOU provide some form of proof, it's not a fact. This is called logic. (One of the many sciences you would have learned in college, were you not busily stuffing paint chips into your mouth in the back of the classroom.)
Furthermore, the ONLY "scientists" (and I use that term loosely for psychologists) that have formed a "consensus" (there's a scientific term) on the issue are the aforementioned psychologists. Guess what Einstein--THAT DOES NOT PROVE THAT HOMOSEXUALS ARE BORN GAY. From THEIR research THEY believe they have enough evidence to purport that homosexuality is genetic, but that is not anywhere near conclusive from a SCIENTIFIC standpoint, and ANY hard scientist you speak to--a biologist, a physicist, or a chemist--will tell you this. Your grasp of science is absolutely terrifying--a consensus is COMPLETELY USELESS. There is nothing remotely scientific about a consensus. Until geneticists ISOLATE the gay gene, and then find ways to insert it into another foetus, and THAT foetus turns out gay enough times to account for all statistical variation, it will NOT be a "fact" that homosexuality is a genetic trait. END OF FUCKING STORY. That's all she wrote, hombre. I don't give a damn what the psychologists say, it is IRRELEVANT to the discussion at hand. You COULD have offered it to say: "Well, a whole lot of respected people think that homosexuality is genetic, so I am inclined to agree with them," and THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A FINE STATEMENT. However, in your colossal and truly astounding idiocy, you instead claimed "SHRINKS THINK GAYS ARE THAT WAY BECAUSE OF GENES, YOU ARE WRONG, IT IS TEH FACT AND I AM RIGHT!!!!!!!1111" like the dumbass you are.
Furthermore, you have the AUDACITY to claim that any research that does NOT support your OBVIOUSLY FALSE claim is "bigoted!" Who the fuck died and made you chair of the "legitimate research committee?" Go stuff your arrogant head back into your ass; NEITHER side of this debate has provided evidence anywhere NEAR conclusive. Simply because you decided to throw in with the "gay=genes" side does not magically make it more scientifically viable than its counterpart. God, you are stupid. I mean, REALLY fucking stupid.
Do us all a favor: go sterilize yourself. We are DOOMED as a species if your genetic material makes it past your toilet tissue.