45 Forum Posts by "Sinthe"
I thought this was referred to as Asatru, or Norse Paganism.
At 3/9/07 08:39 PM, SomeNick wrote: Thing is, I fight in favor of Heterosexual Marriage!!!
Yeah, because that's something that you *really* need to fight for, isn't it? *rolls eyes*
my opinion is my opinion and nothing will change that howeveri can see that you didnt read my post fully you should work on that i said gays should be exterminated like vermin not any one whos different from me (exe blacks, jews or any one whos not of german descent) hitler and i actually do have a lot incommon im actually very close to hitler but thats besides the point (and dont blow that out of context, i am german thats what i ment) that is all my advice to you is to listen a little better
I believe Hitler was Austrian.
In any case, ethnicity is not the only thing that you have in common with Hitler. I hope we never meet.
While what she said was really inappropriate and insulting, c'mon... it's Ann Coutler. What do you expect? This woman doesn't exact have rainbows and sunshine coming out of her ass.
(note: Ted Turner has nothing to do with Ann Coutler.
Wow. Worst. Argument. Ever.
Just because most people are aware of the concept of the Judeo-Christian god (I don't know what you mean by "anglican") doesn't mean that he exists. Many people are also aware of the concept of the Hindu god Shiva, but that doesn't mean that he exists, either. Same goes for Ronald McDonald.
And evolution isn't an attempt to disprove any deity. It is simply a logical, scientific means of explaining creation. The bonus? It has evidence supporting it. I trust that much more than "God did it."
Sounds to me like you're just pissed because your child is deviating from your lifestyle. What it all comes down to is this: regardless of whether or not it exists, if a person believes in a diety, he will find his way to him/her/it and, chances are, will stay with it. Accept that.
At 2/7/07 09:24 PM, Tancrisism wrote: Clip 1
Clip 2
This isn't a religious debate. I bring this to your attention because as a moderate atheist (I don't believe in any form of diety, but I respect your right to and do not encourage atheism) this upsets me. I understand some radical atheists are complete douchebags. I don't like them any more than you do. But please, where's the love?
Agreed. Christians are supposed to abide by Jesus' teachings, right? It seems to me that whenever I'm bothered by Christians (I've never been bothered by someone who isn't Christian, like a Jewish person or a Muslim), I have done nothing to warrant it. That's not to say that I don't meet many Christians who are nice, non-pushy people. They just seem to be rare little gems. I'm just tired of people who say that they follow Christ and His teachings, and then go and treat other people like shit for believing something different.
At 12/9/06 11:43 PM, Kasualty wrote: Let me put it this way.
America = stolen, therefore I don't care which people come here.
but
Europe is a white land. That is were Africans evolved into white people first. So should their culture be destroyed? Shouldn't every culture have its own country? I mean, how many other cultures are plagued with this "multiculturalism" bullschanpps???
Yup, you should definitely check out those white supremacists.
Nobody is destroying your culture. Piss and moan all you want, it's not happening. You want to see cultures destroyed? Look at the native peoples of the United States or Hawai'i. People mix and blend. Only the isolated can stay "pure," and then your gene pool probably sucks and you may get inbreeding (so that's what's wrong with the South(ern United States)).
Many cultures that don't have their own country are doing fine. Just look at the Hmong (if you even know who they are). And, uhm, how is Europe a "white land" if African people evolved into white people there?
This is making about as much sense as my grandmother trying to tell me that Muslims aren't American. I keep trying to tell myself that she's a product of the forties and fifties, but it isn't helping much...
At 12/9/06 09:45 PM, tawb wrote:At 12/9/06 07:17 PM, Camarohusky wrote:yes in many circumstances there is!! The main ones which have been in the paper was an MPAt 12/9/06 07:06 PM, Cybex wrote: The ones who make a big fuss about their rights to wear veil's annoy me, but on the whol they're cool.Why does that annoy you? Is there any reason that they SHOULD take their veil off?
Askin to see there faces when talking to them, the other was when muslim teachers were being told to take them off when teaching. And they made massive fuss.
No1 It's scary for children isn't it, they dont like not being able to see whats behind the mask. Same reason masks an clowns are scary.
No2 Facial and body expression is an incredibly important tool of communication.
No3 To fight political correctness with polictical correctness what if there is a death person who mouth reads?
No4 One of the schools was a church of england school the other a catholic school for fucks sake.
1. Not all children fear clowns.
2. Which is why nobody communicates over the phone or e-mail. In fact, I demand you get the fuck off the internet and fly (watch out for them there Moooz-lims; they'll blow yer ass the fuck up!) to Saint Paul, Minnesota, United States of America to talk to me face-to-face.
3. It's not political correctness, it's her freedom to follow her religion (just like providing accommodations for a deaf student isn't political correctness... goddamn, why is making something easier for someone, giving other people their rights, and shit like that always "political correctness?" Jesus fuckin' Christ, lay off the buzz words, or at least use them right!) . I'm not 100% sure, but wouldn't the deaf person be in a special education class?
4. So what? They hired Muslim teachers, I'm sure knowing full well that they are Muslim (it's not like it's hard to miss or anything). Can I say that the nuns in the Catholic school can't wear their habits because of some stupid reason? No. Why, exactly, is the fact that two schools are religious schools pertinent?
Here's the thing: people have the right to freedom of religion as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others or otherwise cause harm. How does a Muslim woman wearing her viel infringe upon the rights of others or otherwise cause harm?
Muslim paranoia is not confined to Europe... Americans seem to think that a few crazy idiots flying planes into buildings=all 1 billion Muslims are evil, horrible people who are going to bomb you.
Kasualty, check out some American white-supremacist groups. Their concerns (like more people of colour than white people in America some time down the line) are like yours.
Pre - Towards what dirrection do you MOST lean? (Left or right)
-Left
1 - Is The idea of abortion more focused on the fetus or the mother?
-For me, on the woman carrying the fetus (yes, I'm one of those choicers who insists on using words right)
2 - Do you feel law is to maintain the rights of the defendant, or to uphold justice the victim.
-Both
3 - Do you feel high taxes or low taxes strengthen the economy?
-In all honesty, I don't know enough about economics to answer.
4 - Was the agricultural evolution generally a bad thing or a good thing?
-I don't know.
5 - Who was more evil Stalin or Hitler? (Take into account that number of kills is mainly based on oportunity)
-Both were pretty damn evil, but Stalin fit more evil into a longer period of time and he doesn't get nearly as much attention as Hitler.
6 - who was more evil? sadam or george bush? (Dont get into a bush argument, if you really feel bush is more evil, then please say so)
-Saddam. I'm not that liberal, and anyone who says Bush need to dig their head out of their ass.
7 - If you had the power to convert everyone in the world to one religon (Including Atheistim) which would you. (you can say why later, or start your own thread)
-Agnostic, so that everyone would realize that we won't know until we die, but are still free to believe in what they please.
8 - Should pro-religon be encouraged in public areas?
-No.
9 - When you argue about contraceptives for increasinly younger individuals, is your opinion economically based, medically based, morally based, or legally based? (Or other(ly)-based)
-I base it upon trying to keep them from making a stupid decision: having unprotected sex. Everyone should have access to protection and should be well-educated when it comes to sex so that if and when they decide to do it, no matter when, they're prepared.
10 - If american soldiers weren't dieing in iraq (at the current rate, or at all) do you feel the public would have veiwed iraq as a "Good idea" or still a "Bad idea"
-Bad idea. I think the death toll of American soldiers exacerbates public opinion, but people thinking that it was a bad idea isn't solely based upon soldier death.
11 - Is your opinion on enviormentalism domestically based, ecologically based, or internationally based. (For exaple, if i'm against drilling in alaska because of fear of interfearing with the caribo (i'm not sure how that's spelled, i'm sorry) then my opinion is maining ecologically based
-A mix, but I don't have much on an opinion on the subject.
12 - How much influence do you feel lower class individuals had over the state of their being as a whole (Alot, alittle, none, etc. )
-A little
13 - Lets say in the middle of the arizona they find large oil reserves which would be relatively easy to harvest, if you had to write to the government why you feel this is a good or bad idea, would your opinion ever mention international reasons why this is a good or bad idea.
-Probably
14 - Do you feel rich people are generally good, bad, or far to mixed to tell
-Far too mixed
15 - Who do you feel has more power, The televison / newspaper / books etc. or the government
-T.V. and the government
16 - Do you feel bias in news either which way is unavoidable, or perposefull
-Unavoidable. If people are doing it, there's going to be some bias no matter what.
17 - if a policy you supported effected you in a way that affected you slightly in a negative way, ( for example higher taxes, you cant buy that vacation to spain, your upset, or, electing somone who was very pro-police, who increased police budgets, so you see alot more police cars driving around which makes you nervous) the would you still support the policy
-If it's something that isn't really important (like some stupid vacation), I would especially if the slight annoyance/inconvenience is outweighed by the good it does.
18 - would you be more apt to finding counter evidence against a statistic if the statistic was used against you in a debate?
-Yes, unless it's blatantly wrong (if, for example, I'm arguing for gay rights as per usual and someone on my side says that 80% of Americans are gay, I'm going to challenge that and disprove it, because it makes us look bad).
19 - do you ever try to SERIOUSLY rationalize what your counter party beleives.
-I try. Sometimes their "logic" is soooooooo stupid and bad and crappy that my brain wants to vomit.
20 - have you ever agreed with somone who was in the opposite dirrection as you (left right)
-Yes
21 - did you gain your beleifs in bulk, or one at a time.
-Some in bulk, some one at a time. Many of them are products of having the sense beat into my skull (like how I used to be pro-life, but am now pro-choice).
At 7/6/05 08:32 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:At 7/5/05 11:41 PM, Maus wrote:that bond movie was full of it. connery was to old for that movie. But serioulsy it matters who gets elected in 2008. if it's another stong right winger and not moderate or dem who knows.At 7/5/05 11:34 PM, mikemill123 wrote: And as long as the Republican Party is in control you will never be able to get married. Gays can scream and cry about it all they want but the fact of the matter is. You will never gain the high points of marrige.Never say never.
Even the fucking dems don't support gay marriage... Kerry, for one, supported the joke known as "civil unions," and he probably only did THAT to get the gay vote (which, we're probably one of the smallest minorities, so... why?). They're too afraid of losing the social conservatives, of which there are many. Politicians don't care about what's good for the people, they care about serving their own agendas/personal systems of morals and values and lulling the voters into thinking that they're a good person to elect to office. If that happens to coincide with the good of the people, that's an added bonus.
Note, because I know that people have been saying "homophobia is only if you're scared of gay people": Homophobia is NOT just a fear of gay people. It is also an aversion to and/or intolerance of gay people.
Homophobia is such a waste... Just like racism. Waste of air, waste of internet, waste of time... Seriously, people who are so against gay people need to find something to do with their lives.
At 8/21/06 02:15 AM, KingCharles wrote:At 8/20/06 09:44 PM, Sinthe wrote:But disorders like Downs aren't passed through the family... Both parents can be perfectly normal and they can have a Downs baby. Disorders like that are the result of trisomies.This is True, but still, intelligence is affected somewhat by genes.
Proof?
You could be born to parents who have an IQ of 100 between them and graduate from Harvard 22 years later.
At 8/20/06 11:40 PM, mattfreidelsoad wrote: There is too much bias in middle school too. Teachers are usually looked up to by their students, they are role models and can deeply affect a young childs thought process. They are making it hard for right wing people like me to exist in public schools. Now Im not ultra- right wing, i support abortion in some cases, and believe stem cell reasearch should be allowed. But even i feel that teachers openly opposing republican candidates before a school election, ( where students choose who they feel should be govenrer/ president, etc.). Also one student in our school got expelled for using the N-word against a student who had jumped him. Now I am not saying that it was right to use this word, but in your oppinion , which action do you believe is worse, beating up a student, or using a word that even though it is innopropriate and sometimes hateful, is often thrown around by the very demographic offended by the word?
Oh, boo hoo. You should look at some of your text books (especially for health!). I think you'd be pleasantly surprised.
Anyone who thinks that the left wing has soooooo much power needs to look at the people who have the REAL power: the government, and probably those big ass corperations.
Really? Because I find that there's substantially MORE T.V. shows that don't show straight white men that way. Watch something that isn't comedy (remember, comedy isn't supposed to be taken seriously!).
At 8/20/06 09:24 PM, Pwnage_In_A_Can wrote:At 8/20/06 09:15 PM, Sinthe wrote:It says in you're a profile you're a chick. Are you a hermaphrodite now?At 8/20/06 09:08 PM, flashmonster666 wrote: I hate fags.We hate you, too.
At least God is on your side. *rolls eyes*
Yes. I'm a hermaphrodite. That's precisely what I am. Aren't you a smart one.
*rolls eyes*
At 8/20/06 09:13 PM, KingCharles wrote:At 8/20/06 07:39 PM, Sinthe wrote:*sigh* There's no proof that intelligence is genetic. Evolution only works on a genetic level.Well, Intelligence is influenced by genes. Its not rigidly determined, but its affected. Take Down Syndrome, for instance.
Humans are not devolving because we aren't killing the stupids.
And BTW, we don't need to kill the stupids. They do that themselves.
Ever heard of these?....
But disorders like Downs aren't passed through the family... Both parents can be perfectly normal and they can have a Downs baby. Disorders like that are the result of trisomies.
At 8/20/06 09:08 PM, flashmonster666 wrote: I hate fags.
We hate you, too.
At least God is on your side. *rolls eyes*
At 8/20/06 08:51 PM, Peternormous wrote: But you just made a sweeping generalization of many religions and people.
I really don't feel the need to slaughter every person that's non-Christian, and none of my Jewish or Muslim friends have ever really wanted to kill me either. Way to be a dick.
Read his post. He was talking about the history of the religions, and pretty much ALL of them have pretty bloody histories (at least, the big ones because those are the only ones that people know/care about). Nothing was said about every individual Christian/Muslim/Jew wanting to run out and murder people of other faiths.
Well, you've certainly committed enough crimes against the English language...
The police aren't going to come out straightaway unless something is happening right the fuck now. Of course they're going to put a robbery low on the priority list. The same thing happened when my house was robbed, only the 911 operator told me to call back when my mom got hoe.
At 8/20/06 06:33 PM, Korriken wrote: humans de-evolve, the intelligent ones can't be bothered to have children to interfere in their careers and get removed from the gene pool, while the less intelligent people breed like rats.
*sigh* There's no proof that intelligence is genetic. Evolution only works on a genetic level.
Humans are not devolving because we aren't killing the stupids.
You have to remember that Evolution has a lot of holes... In fact, that's why I trust it so much. Science does not claim to know anything, and science certainly doesn't say that some guy made everything and then told a human being to write it all down.
I'm sorry, I just don't trust creationism. It's too perfect.
Your friend probably just needs a little time. It can take awhile to change that much.
At 8/20/06 03:59 PM, o_r_i_g_i_n_a_l wrote:At 8/20/06 03:44 PM, TwO_FaCeD_PaRaNoID wrote: Well i am, because it is not a gay thing to harm other people, so if gay people start doing straight things(stereotypical speaking ofcourse), then we won't have anything of our identity left!So, being violent, or committing crime is a ‘straight thing’?
That’s bull dude.
I think it's more along the lines of bashing someone for their sexuality. Though, I'm pretty sure that the straight people who do this are a minority of their own.
At 8/20/06 01:23 PM, Korriken wrote: well, what do you expect? personally it kinda spooks me when i consider what a local preacher said a while back, "the world is becoming progressively more anti christian" and i take a look around and realize, HE IS RIGHT. you look at how the bible tells you to live, then look at the media today, they are almost exact opposites.
the bible tells you not to have sex out of wedlock, the media encourages it.
the bible tells you not to covet other people's belongings, the media encourages you to want what others have.
the bible tells you to not be prideful of yourself, the media tells you to be prideful.
the bible tells you to seek a person of the opposite sex for a partner, the media tells you to find someone of the same sex for a partner.
those are just a FEW things.
and if some asshat gay paints "breeder" on my car, I'll shove a baseball bat up his ass..... then again, he might enjoy the experience.. i better bash his head in with it.
That's just some preacher with a persecution complex. It's become very... I would say "fashionable" among Christians.
Isn't the bible rife with examples of God tempting man to prove his faith? I would think that the media is the same way. Anyone who blames their actions upon the media is weak and they, quite frankly, deserve it.
As a side note, the media doesn't really encourage people to find same-sex partners. If anything, it glorifies heterosexual unions just like the rest of society.
What you have to remember is that a lot of the shows that you're talking about are comedies. Comedy is not supposed to be taken seriously. It's all stereotypes because that's what people find funny.
I'm not shocked by some gay people harassing straight people. Some people think that just because they were treated badly they should go off and treat others badly. It's shameful.
At 8/20/06 02:15 PM, Pwnage_In_A_Can wrote:At 8/20/06 02:12 PM, Sinthe wrote: Explain. Proof supporting said explanation would be nice.Sorry, but it's kinda hard to link something when the thing I said was a metaphor.
Explain this statement:
"Homosexuality is not a legitimate discourse for marriage."
I asked how it isn't a legitimate discourse for marriage. So please, explain. Proof of why would be nice.
At 8/20/06 03:57 AM, Pwnage_In_A_Can wrote: Sorry, I didn't articulate my point very well. Recognizing homosexuality as a rightful sexuality for marriage is like recognizing a papercut as a legitimate reason to get personal-injury welfare.
Explain. Proof supporting said explanation would be nice.
At 8/19/06 04:55 PM, Pwnage_In_A_Can wrote:At 8/19/06 04:32 PM, Sinthe wrote: Of course there is a real reason to allow it: equality. Straight couples get a plethora of benefits from a ceremony that could last five minutes, while gay couples... don't. And please don't get started on the "they can get married, just to people of the opposite sex har har har look at how clever I am!" bullshit. It is discriminatory to allow heterosexual couples the right to marry someone they love or at the very least may be attracted to, and all of the benefits that it entails, while not allowing gay couples the same right.Homosexuality is not a legitimate discourse for marriage. Just like hychondria is not a legitimate reason to get welfare. Besides, people are pushing more civil unions so gay couples can get all the same benefits, just not the recognized title. It's these PC assholes that aren't willing to compromise.
And... how is it not a "legitimate discourse for marriage?"
Civil unions are bullshit. It's "seperate but equal" garbage that's basically saying "we'll give you some of what you want, but you're still legally inferior to straight people."
At 8/19/06 04:08 PM, Pwnage_In_A_Can wrote: This post reaks of bullshit. The first problem is you imply all traditions change over time or have to. Not the case with marriage, it has been the same since the Golden Age of the Sumerians and Egyptians, which I'm speculating is somewhere between 4000-4500 years. It has always been the same scenario. Secondly. no, people didn't just "marry for money." It was started as a means to justify a couple fornicating without breaking a religious practice.
Marrying for money only started recently, where everything became about money and self-prerservation: in the time of social-darwinism. The only people who still do this are people in socialist shitholes of a nation, but that's a discussion for another time. A mass majority of people still do get marry for love I'm sure(my apologies for no citation here).
No, but there's no real reason to allow it. Marriage has always been between a monogomous couple of the opposite-sex(with few exceptions of polygomy). People don't see any reason to give tradition the finger to accommodate the whims of an agenda.
I haven't yet mastered how the NG forums do quotes, so... good luck.
I wasn't trying to say that all traditions do/should change. I'm simply saying that they can, and they have in the past.
Of course there is a real reason to allow it: equality. Straight couples get a plethora of benefits from a ceremony that could last five minutes, while gay couples... don't. And please don't get started on the "they can get married, just to people of the opposite sex har har har look at how clever I am!" bullshit. It is discriminatory to allow heterosexual couples the right to marry someone they love or at the very least may be attracted to, and all of the benefits that it entails, while not allowing gay couples the same right.
