DiabloFans

Butt-fucking should be hyphenated, imo.

This one always pisses off the reps.

The problem with the current system is... the current system.

Also, Salv has an exellent point that a lot of libertarians miss: How does a libertarian executive tackle the issue that his agenda will die in a legislature that doesn't have a super-majority of libertarian-minded politicians too, not to mention the courts who are going to be snubbed hard (having hundreds of their previous rulings on the constitution called into question). And all that comes BEFORE you consider the latent undercurrent of special interest lobbies, donations, and soft politics in general.

I've said this to libertarians and socialists alike for decades: one branch of the government won't win you sweeping changes and the first step is ALWAYS going to be the congress. Currently I don't think there are enough libertarians in congress to fill a thimbal, but perhaps i'm under-estimating the teaparty's ability to compromise their republican social agenda for economic policy gains.

Quote from Sabvre

... you are apparently ALOT older than I thought. However, I'm now getting worried since I know that you are a professor and your comment in the one thread about fooling around with frat boys .

What is this, I don't even.

Quote from Umpa

I just feel so fortunate that my career path has nothing to do with a degree.

Dinosaurs will never be out of work.

Quote from Graphite

Noone is treated fairly.

But I assume that should be our goal, yes?

Quote from Graphite

Your lifestyle is outside of the norm of society and therfore you are shunned.

Being seven feet tall puts you outside societal norms too, but the tall arent' shunned. Why should anyone predispoed to being gay be shunned?

Quote from Graphite

Do i think you are treated in the correct manner? No, but legal issues are legal issues.

Actually, they are not legal issues. They are religious issues that are polluting our legally secular system and they will be over-turned eventually. I just don't see why more people aren't fighting against them, it would be the christian thing to do as far as you've described it.

Quote from Graphite

I could hold dearly the life of a close friend that is not related to me and I would not be able to visit them in the hospital either if they were in a family only area.

Yes, but you could visit your wife. I cannot visit my husband. That is discrimination for no reason except religious bigotry. You can make all the obnoxious excuses you want, but the relationship I have with another man is the same as the one you share with your wife. We just don't have bilogical children.

Quote from Graphite

To call murder a mental problem is to say it is beyond the control of the individual. This would make them innocent of teh crime they committed. That is why I disagree that people are born to make certain choices, if that were the case then anyone could say it is not really their fault for their actions. This would(if it does not come to this eventually) destroy the world. Also if we as a people go to that level I think the annihilation of the race would be for the best.

You know we do have ways of telling which people are insane and we put them in diffirent places than the rest of the criminals? Are we anhillating the human race by puting them in mental institutions intead of gas chambers? I don't think so. Anyhow, what does that have to do with the choice of adult and consenting sexual partner?

Quote from Graphite

Such gloom and doom how horrible of me to say. But I weep for those that do not understand that we all have choices and we should all have to deal with the consequences. Life is not fair and God weeps for us all in our struggles. May the Lord have mercy on our souls.

I can't say I weep for you, but I am not at all pleased that you've thus far compared me to a pedophile, an animal rapist, and now an insane murderer, all on the basis that I have the predisposition to homosexual love with another adult male.

Quote from Umpa

"Baseless" is incorrect when there is more in depth historically approved content than in any history book.

That is precisely baseless. I've been a student of history for nearly three of your lifetimes. I have worked with scholars who have made it their life's work to study the history surrounding the bible. Generations of scholars have made this their life's work and I assure you, without any doubt, that this is baseless. The bible has history within it's pages. There is no doubt about that. But if you are to submit to me that the Bible is more historically accurate than any other history book you are being purposefully ignorant of our human body of historical knowledge.

Quote from Umpa

The stories have as much basis as any other historical record from that time period.

Also false. We have MANY more and MUCH more accurate accounts from other cultures during that time period. Do you really think that the Roman empire or the Greeks were poor record keepers compared to a tribe of desert nomads? There were many more literate and prolific histories long before the age of Christianity and there were many more after. This is nonsense. Just go out there and read!

Quote from Umpa

I'm not saying they're not myths. But who are you to say they are?

They are myths until we prove otherwise. As I said, I make no statements of certainty. I don't assume, by calling something a myth, that it is unequivocally false. I am saying that we have no basis on which to call it a fact, thus it is not, at present, a fact.

Quote from Umpa

Historians at one time rejected the existence of Nebuchadnezzar at one point. Until one day, archaeologists proved his existence. They found large slabs with his name on it somehwhere around where Babylon was located( Nebu was the king at one time).Without the bible, it would have been thousands of years without ever knowing he even existed in reality.

Archeologists have also found compelling evidence to suggest that Troy was a real city and the siege of Troy by a Greek armada was a real event. Does that mean that we have evidence for the demi-god status of Achillies or the existence of the Greek Pantheon? It does not.

I have a lot of other posts i'd like to get at today and maybe I will, but it's looking like another round of first-cause and "science will never know," assumptions and if anyone bothers to read a few of the first 17 pages they'll understand why I have already refuted those absolute claims and maintain that we cannot assume god or no god from them. Sufficed to say, if anyone wants to bring any new arguments to my attention, please let me know what they are so I can dig them out of the repeats and reply with care.

And Umpa, I honestly do not have a clue what you're talking about. If you genuinely want me to discuss something with you, quote what you have an issue with and tell me why you disagree. I am not capable of reading your mind and asessing what you feel isn't factual. That is beyond my power as a human being.

Quote from evilenginen9

Oh hey guys! Just dropping by to say this is a cool thread, but I guess the thread purpose is unachievable, because the whole concept of gods is they exist, watch upon us and all, but can't be seen or anything, and that "evidence" stuff doesn't even prove anything, so have fun talking

Hi. Thanks for the complements, but I disagree we're just talking. The concepts we are discussing are obvious, yes, but it seem to me a lot of people don't consider where they draw the line between the world where we demand empirical evidence and the belief system where we do not. I want people to think about this and I don't think we have to "prove," anything about "god," in order to do so.

I'm that guy who says that a presidential action is unconstitutional even though I haven't even read the constitution and don't ever intend to, just wearing it like a self-righteous cape because I'm just trying to be the new Mr. Tea because I'm the only guy that can wear 18th century garb and flaunt it with pretentious intent.

Fucking hate the Tea Party. I'm ashamed to even share the same air with these fuckers.

Quote from proletaria

Four stars?



Thinks this is great.

Nice...I can agree with that one.

That channel really went downhill. I can't remember how long they've been selling themselves short for ratings. It used to be decent television.

Quote from MrH

Something I'm eating is giving me the runs, that's 3 days in a row now.

Cook out of a cast iron skillet for the next 3 days, that will fix that.

I really don't get the hype behind Ron Paul. I don't get how people can say, "well, all politicians are bought," and then turn around and say, "THIS GUY IS SUPER SERIOUS and definitely NOT A PUPPET OF THE TOP 1%!"

As Link said, some of his policies just make me cringe. I would not want this guy in office pushing his agenda, no matter how "pure" he was as a person. The thing we have to realize, as citizens of the United States of America, is that our political participation (or lack thereof) is a major contributor to our current situation. If we had a public that was more in tune with the issues of today, we would have more effective government. Sometimes it's not just the leaders; we can't just sit back and expect that things get better just because there is that one person who we think will make it all better. Our system of government is complicated and it will be hard as hell to get it back on track. It's not as simple as voting out all the incumbents; it requires years of investigation and correction.

Benjamin Franklin said that we have a Republic "if we choose to keep it." We should be able to show this through our participation, but since we have very little participation, it almost seems like we don't even know what to do with it.

Do some research. Don't just assume things about people. Find the politician who you agree with the most and don't just judge a book by its cover. If you want to seriously fix this country, you need to seriously get involved. Sitting at home and posting videos will do little to stop this unless the people who are behind this forum take the incentive to actually get involved. You can bring a horse to water, but you can't make them drink.

Both the people and the politicians are to blame for the situation we're in. Take that into account before you go screaming Ron Paul's name from the rooftops. One man isn't going to magically fix every problem in our government and I doubt that one man can effectively get started. There are thousands of people in our government.

And before you go around saying that Ron Paul will spawn rainbow unicorns in the sky that shit skittles if he's elected, take into account the idea that some, if not many, of his ideas will probably die upon arrival in our House and Senate.

/AP Government student rant

Quote from proletaria

Quote from Umpa

Who said Big Foot doesn't exist? I dono if I believe in Big Foot but I do believe in the Lock Ness monster. Why? There's evidence. However, evidence to me might not be evidence to you.

Belief has nothing to do with evidence, you're mincing terms again. Furthermore, you've got a diffirent definition of evidence than the rest of us. I have seen articles about loch ness being dredged, sonar'd, and drag netted for decades. If all we have to show for that are blurry (and some fake) photos and eye-witness accounts, I don't feel that qualifies as evidence. It is hear-say.

Quote from Umpa

Personally I like to think more like Dae here. It simply seems more likely that all of this was designed rather than randomly poofing into existence.

I've insisted several times now that "poofing," is not required, but if that's all you can come up with... I suppose I understand why you're making that decision.

Quote from Umpa

Let me pose a question to you:

You walk into a kitchen and see a cake has splattered all across the floor. Upon further analysis, you realize there are words spelled out from splattered cake, on the floor reading "I fell for you".

What is more likely; the cake fell with the perfect conditions to splatter in such a way that it spelled out those words? Or that someone came along, knocked over the cake, and proceeded to run their fingers through the cake on the floor, to spell out those words.

How is this analogous to the universe? What is it that you are claiming as evidence for a deliberate design insted of an evolved natrual explanation in the case of the universe. I would agree, in the case of the cake, you are describing human interaction with the cake, but I disagree that this is in any way analogous to the universe as we understand it today.

Quote from Umpa

What are the odds that my existence on this earth is completely by chance? Randomly, everything in the universe worked out so well that, by chance, I simply exist?

We don't know those odds. What we do know; however, is that nothing in the universe would exist as it does without the laws of physics being what they are. This is a zero-sum approach. We're either here or we are not. Evidently we are here and thus we know the universe is such that we can be here. We don't know how "well," it works because we have no point of comparison. There are no other universes we can see to tell us wether or not ours is fine-tuned for life or not.

Quote from Umpa

Out of all the billions of species on this planet, why is it that only humans were able to evolve to a point of removing ourselves from nature and effectively removing ourselves from anywhere but the top of the foodchain? Why is it just us?

Why is it just us? Because our brains evolved where other animals had not. You can study genetics and neurology to get a better grasp on what made the mammals and the apes diffirent. This isn't indicative of design, it is simply an expression of how evolution has turned out.

Quote from Umpa

Just got done reading about several near death experiences by blind people who are able to see during the period of death and recall details no blind person would ever know(There's a reasonable explanation, I know, I know!). The nde's are interesting. Dmt could be involved. But the recollection of detail is what gets me.

I'd love to read these, any chance at a link?

Backing up Proletaria:

Quote 1: There is no such evidence proving the existence of big foot or the lockness monster. Eye witness accounts and fake photographs do not count as evidence as these sources are not entirely accurate and divulge much information that affiliates with the term proof. First off - eye witness accounts differ, thus their is no reliability with them. Photographs are few in number resulting in loss of validity. Thus you have you 3 terms of what is evidence: accuracy, reliability and validity.

(BTW what does this have to do with the topic?)

Quote 2: If you research into quantum mechanics, specifically the applications of quantum chemistry and physics you will understand that atoms share certain forms of "attraction" with other specific atoms when certain amounts of energy accommodate for fusion between different elements, when subjugated between the weak and strong nuclear forces of differing nucleons. My point being that, our sun (stars being the producers of elements of the periodic table, heavier elements requiring higher temperatures), over the 4 billion years that the Earth has been around for, has provided its limited amount of energy to "excite" atoms in a way to produce the structure of our Earth and everything inside it, along with the exact specific amount of elements available from other stars within the universe. This means that this universe was not in fact randomly designed, but created with a set structure resulting from the laws of physics in reference to the Big Bang and the positioning of our solar system. It wasn't random, its known as a fond word scientists like to use called: coincidence.

Quote 3: WTF?

Quote 4: Refer to quote 2, also your existence in this universe is extremely likely due to the massive scale of the universe and what was said in quote 2.