1,987 Forum Posts by "WolvenBear"
At 3/22/11 01:59 PM, The-universe wrote: Uhh...this person I'm replying to has yet to supply a peer reviewed article stating that cancer can be cured by willing it out of the body.
haha, pwnt.
I wouldn't laugh. No one disagrees that believing you'll beat cancer is as important as anything else in beating cancer.
http://www.ehow.com/how_5659977_overcome -cancer-positive-attitude.html
At the very least, faith does help. Hard to crap on belief when every study says it helps.
At 3/20/11 01:49 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Why couldn't you simply say "mea culpa" and move on? I was on topic to what Ranger2 and I were discussing at that specific point and time. You didn't read it carefully enough and you made an error. It happens, I've done it before, I'll do it again I'm sure. Just accept it and lets move on.
Well, because a mea culpa means I got it entirely wrong. I got a small detail wrong that, if you remove, still works against your argument. The argument in Afghanistan or Iraq is little different. While I may have said the wrong country, my point still applies.
There was no wrong committed.
It's still a mistake, which like I say, happens, and it makes the content of your post irrelevant and incorrect. Again, why not just admit you made a mistake and move on? Why do you feel the need to offer some kind of defense?
I don't. I got your point wrong. However, when we go back, if we replace my misunderstanding with your actual point...it still leaves you wrong. If we take out talking about the Jews, it still undermines you. Iraqis asked us to come in dozens of times. Afghanis begged for US support for decades.
While I misunderstood your country, the results are the same. I got the country wrong, but the commentary is still correct.
Sir, I present you with satanbrain, zoorule, and other identified Israeli citizens who continously argue for Palestinians not having rights in the region. I also present you with all those pesky UN reports of Israel violating human rights. That's why I say, to me both sides fuck up, it just looks like the difference to me is that one side of the coin isn't necessarily trying to hide or present themselves as something different. Plus there's also the polls that someone (may have even been yourself) pointed out where a majority of Palestinians aren't in favor of what they're government was doing (razor thing majority sure, but a majority nonetheless). That's what I dislike about the approach most people seem to take with this issue, it seems like they want to frame the argument like "ALL of Israel feels this" or "ALL of Palestine feels that" when it's not necessarily the case. It'd be like saying ALL of America can agree on any one thing, you know? The bigger the group, the better the odds of disagreement.
Well, since you're trying to be nice, I will return the favor. I fail to see how saying "both sides make mistakes" is a valid point. Side A launches missiles from schools and hospitals, knowing that return fire will happen and kids or sick people will die. The return fire and the initial fire are both the fault of Side A, not Side B. Side A starts sending children with backpacks to blow up civilians. Side B, afer a few attacks starts shooting Arab children. Side A is responsible for every death on both sides that happens.
The examples continue. If you do something bad, and I respond, both your action and my response are your fault.
Ok, well we'll see how things turn out. Because I tell you, if we applied your time table to the America post-Revolution, well, then the United States would have been a pretty big fail too.
Um, no it wouldn't. I'm sorry, that's nonsense.
The walk came in a big bad way today...you know man, you really MIGHT want to give things a little more time to develop before making these pronouncements in the future.
I didn't realize the President would violate the law and commit to an illegal war. Imagine that, I based my views on the world on the law. Hmmm.
No. Maybe you should try looking at reality, and not being in la la land.Right...because I'm the guy whose getting proven wrong left and right at present...
Yes, that's exactly who you are.
At 3/18/11 02:24 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Except this is not even remotely what WE WERE TALKING ABOUT!!! It helps when you actually read all the posts that constitute a conversation vs. just skimming. This particular piece your replying to was not in reference to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict at all.
Forgive me, I have missed several pages. And I did conflate your argument with others. However...
You ARE arguing in an Israeli/Palestinian thread using outside examples.
While I might have gotten the details confused, it is hardly a massive mistake on my end,
Sources please? Not trying to be an ass. Just because usually I hear this stuff but then I never see non-biased evidence to back it up. I know neither side is lily white, I never argued they are. But I just haven't personally seen the evidence to decide one side is necessarily more "evil" then the other.
Then you haven't looked. Not trying to be an ass, but if you haven't seen Palestinians glorifying suicide bombing...it's because you haven't even bothered to look. It's all over al Jazeera. It's in the Hamas releases. Etc. It is IMPOSSIBLE to even try and research this without coming across virulent anti-semitism in Palestine. It's virtually impossible to find anything in Israel to even remotely counter it.
Yet the military regime may be showing signs they could be transitional:
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/m iddleeast/news/article_1626975.php/PREVI EW-Test-of-Egypt-s-revolution-in-first-p ost-Mubarak-vote
I think we should let them get through this vote before we decide if it was a "win" or "a pretty big fail", what do you say?
No, I think I'll look at what's going on now. Best case scenerio, things return to exactly how they were. That is a fail. Worst case scenerio, things get worse. That is a much bigger fail. There is no way to look at this that doesn't make it look like a waste of life and ideology.
Well, looks like we're going to be getting that foreign interference. So I guess we shouldn't count those protests out either eh.
Well, no. It really doesn't. We keep hearing talk. But the walk isn't coming. Again, best case scenerio, we come in in a month. The protesters will not last that long.
You know, maybe you should try being a little less absolutist before things have completely played out.
No. Maybe you should try looking at reality, and not being in la la land.
At 3/17/11 10:44 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: It's not just Repubs. Since the Reagan administration, every administration has contributed to some form of deregulation. Look at how the Clinton administration threw Brooksley Born under the bus, for chrissakes.
There hasn't been a single instance of deregulation in either of our lifetimes. The CRA was expanded greatly under Bush Sr, Clinton, and Bush Jr. People who cry "deregulation" are simply clueless.
What we really need is to reinstall the Glass-Steagall act, then most of this will stop.
Yes, institute something that never worked. That will fix the problem!
At 3/17/11 08:57 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: So basically, the Republicans want to go back to the wild west. Where the banks can say, fuck you all we're taking you down with us.
I hope you Republicans who voted for these dirt bags are happy. They really are doing a great job of trying to ruin this country.
Actually, if they follow through, it's great. Let people make moronic risks...and then FAIL.
No more bad risks follow. Its simple.
At 3/16/11 10:11 AM, lapis wrote:At 3/15/11 10:19 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:woohoo (I hope this works). Question 24 near the bottom is very relevant.Remember that the Palestinians voted in Hamas over Fatah.They did indeed. Do you have any polls as to why they did that? I don't, I'll admit that right off the bat, but I always figured that fear and probably just a perception that Fatah was not getting them what they wanted probably had a lot to do with it. Much more then an overall radical "let's wipe out Israel" sentiment.
Some of this is quite terrifying:
" With regards to whether a government headed by Hamas should go on with the agreement that the PLO and the PA signed with Israel (Oslo Agreement), a slight majority (51.7%) said such a government should go on with this agreement while a ratio of (42%) said Hamas doesn't have to go on with this agreement. ... Following Hamas victory in the PLC elections, and when asked whether Hamas should halt its operations against Israeli targets inside Israel and in the West Bank and Gaza Strip against civilians and military troops, a majority of Palestinians (51.7%) said Hamas should halt its operations while (39.1%) said Hamas has to continue with its operations. ... When asked about their feelings towards suicide bombing operations against Israeli civilians, a ratio of (56.2%) still either strongly support or somewhat support such operations."
Yea, not encouraging when 40-50% of the public are for violence to Israel, depending on how you ask the question.
At 3/15/11 10:47 PM, Nomader wrote: I think it has more to do with the fact that the situations in Afghanistan and Iraq were brought about by invasions and occupations, not revolutions from people underneath their own governments. I have to be honest, if a foreign country invaded the United States and told me to obey my new "provisional government", I'd probably be the first person to say, "Hell no" and take potshots at it any way I could. Therefore, I feel using the Afghanistan and Iraq examples fail to give a big picture of the Middle Eastern populations as a whole.
Ehhhhh.
But the Iraqis have been begging us to help them since Ford. Saddam was a monster and the people hated him. To compare that to your example is apples to cheese graters...
But that military junta is slowly responding to the demands of the protesters, and actually just today disbanded their state security agency. Things are calming down, and democracy looks to be developing in the near future-- with regards to the Muslim Brotherhood, they have said that they are firmly in support of a secular democratic state (NYtimes).
Yes, the MUSLIM Brotherhood, who demands sharia is in favor of SECULAR government. Laugh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brot herhood
So hows that military junta going in reality? Pretty poorly:
http://www.businessinsider.com/amr-abdal lah-elbihiry-2011-3
But at least they dissolved the security force right? Well, no:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110315/wl_n m/us_egypt_security_2
They're just replacing it with a different named force with the same offices which will do the same thing. What a change!
I don't think anywhere is "incompatible" with democracy, per-say, but that some places find it harder than others for it to take root. But these antiquated ideas of places having problems accepting democracy are really pre-information age; the genesis of the internet has allowed the ideas of democracy to flourish among the youth of the Middle East, who are now turning their attention towards forming constructive democratic governments instead of destructive terrorist organizations.
This doesn't seem to match reality. Something to back that up please?
I feel if there is international influence, it should be at best to protect a border between the Palestinians and Israeli states. But before anything can happen, Israel needs to stop sending settlers into Palestinian territory and needs to cease the blockade on Gaza, which is essentially killing any chance it has of forming a legitimate democracy.
Yawn. Pass.
At 3/15/11 10:19 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Let's try an example: I come to your house. I just bust down your door, I walk in, I start watching your TV, eating your food, and then start telling you how I would like your house to look to fit my specifications. What would be your reaction?
Except that's not even remotely what happened. The Jews were there WHEN the US and UN (NATO didn't exist) made their decree. We could also point out that the Muslims did that whole busting in thing too....
They did indeed. Do you have any polls as to why they did that? I don't, I'll admit that right off the bat, but I always figured that fear and probably just a perception that Fatah was not getting them what they wanted probably had a lot to do with it. Much more then an overall radical "let's wipe out Israel" sentiment.
That flies in the face of all the facts however. As suicide bombing children's programs fill the airwaves and Palestinians have parades after a family is massacred, it seems like they like the whole "kill Israel" thing.
The government had the guns in Egypt. The people still got what they wanted.
No they didn't. The current guy stepped down and gave control to the MILITARY. That's 180 degrees from what the people wanted. Will they get more voice or less under martial law? More or less rights? As bad as the past regime was, at least it wasn't full military control of their lives. It was a pretty big fail.
The government has the guns in Libya. The people were getting what they wanted...but the latest I've heard looks like we may have this ending pretty counter to anyone's hopes.
Protesters are getting slaughtered and Quddafi will remain in power barring foreign interference. So the protesters will lose in Libya.
At 3/15/11 05:31 AM, LordZeebmork wrote: 1. Information Problems: Considering this, how is there no room in the economy for government intervention to move the market away from that natural state and toward how things would operate with perfect market transparency?
Information asymmetry is largely a product of laziness. Advertising is no excuse. Hundreds of thousands of reviews of products are available daily, and virtually everyone researches big purchases. If you make an uninformed decision...how is that on anyone else but you?
2. How is it logical to sacrifice the long-term interests of society as a whole, and each individual within it, for the short-term interests of corporations?
How is it in the interests of society to sacrifice job creation for illusive long term goals? Is a cheap job better than no job? Is being unemployed better than being employed? No one in the developing world seems to think so. At some point society has to acknowledge that "trying to give everyone a living wage" costs jobs.
3. Conglomerates pose a significant problem to the operation of a free market, by raising the entry barrier to the market.
Eh, that's a rather silly question.
If I stand to make money from your business, why wouldn't I sell to you? If you are dependent upon me supplying you with materials, the risk of you becoming a threat to me is so small and the profit is there...so why wouldn't I take advantage? Besides, if I don't, someone else will. And the person in a position to supply you is my competitor NOW. It's suicide to refuse to sell to people.
Hope that helps.
At 2/21/11 03:11 PM, Chris-V2 wrote: Um, Wolven, a baby may have similar if not very close DNA to its mother but so does its mothers organs. I don't think anyone's debating that a prenatal organism is made from some sort of distant, unrelated cell type that would pre-clude it from ever becoming a human. But you're still not making any sort of decent point for the anti-abortion debate.
OH SWEET JESUS.
A mother's organs have IDENTICAL (nt close) DNA to the mother. A baby will have 50% of the same genetic material as it's mother. That distinguishes it from every other part of the mother that has 100% DNA similarity.
Fuck, it pisses me off when morons who have no clue how something that GRADE SCHOOLERS understand call ME an idiot because they have no ida what they are ranting about.
Please watch some sort of documentary or read something about back-alley abortions. Come to grips with exactly how sordid a part of reality this is in poorer parts of the world and even some first world nations. Then tell me that the alternative to a clinic abortion is this. Haven't seen this one, incidentaly. But I've read enough about them to know I don't want to see it.
It's irrelevant. Ignoring that abortions INCREASED after abortion was legalized...
Whatever.
The answer to a rape victim should not be "bear the burden" or die in a back alley. That's pretty much the same choice the rapist approached her with in the first place.
Rape abortions are less than 2% of all abortions.
Not that this matters. It's just emotional grandstanding because intellectually you don't have the chops.
You clearly don't want to deal with what I'm saying, my arguements or any sort of logic. So you can keep your artificial tone of superiority. I'm not terribly interested in changing your mind, you're not the sort of person I'd like to hear defending the pre-choice side in a debate.
You mean I don't wish to deal with fantasy or error? Well, yes, that's true. I tend to deal with fact and reality. I've dealt with intelligent pro-choicers who made me actually debate. You are not one of them.
I'd place you around 5 year olds trying to convince me Barbie is real.
At 2/21/11 10:58 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Oh, so it's not alive but you can kill it?
Wait. Sorry, I think I had a stroke for the moment.
Are you unclear as to the meaning of the word "viability"?
Viability is the ability of an infant to survive if it is birthed, based on development. Whether or not an infant is viable had nothing to do with whether or not it is alive.
And pro-choicers, who rarely know basic scientific terms, feel comfortable in mocking someone who understands basic concepts better than them...
Again, you're trying to prove that it is alive, I am telling you that it is part of the mother. Since you are you are the oen trying to prove the affirmative, the burden is on you to prove it.
And you are wrong on both counts. EVERY fetus is alive, or it is referred to as dead tissue. Anything that does not have the same DNA as the mother is NOT part of the mother.
Goodness, having to explain basic concepts to fools is tiring.
Um... This back and forth you have had with me, as well as the ones you have had with the rest of the BBS show that their is no consensus here.
Ironically, no it doesn't. It just shows there are a lot of stupid people who ask a lot of stupid questions. I keep getting asked to prove basic biological facts that NO ONE IN THE WORLD (except for you morons) disputes.
The only impossible challenge here is to get you to back up ANY claim you have made with evidence. You say it's obvious, i have called shenanigans on that claim. If it is so damn obvious you should be able to prove it with a 10 minute search and 5 links. So do it. If it is so damn obvious, bury me with sources! All your delaying is doing is proving that it is NOT obvious by hinting that you cannot prove it.
But you have provided me NOTHING to disprove me. And EVERY claim I have made is an undisputed scientifict FACT. Hell, none of the basic points I've made are even arguable. A new DNA creation is made at conception. This creation is alive. Baring complications, it will grow and mature and be born. None of that is arguable.
Despite no one showing me I'm wrong, and despite none of my claims being arguable, I'm supposedly a fool for telling my intellectual inferiors that their questions are unscientific? Yawn.
At 2/26/11 02:36 PM, Ravariel wrote: And killing homosexuals and adulterers is not? Killing the entire world except for a few people on a boat is not? Sodom and Gommorah are not?
Well considering I addressed the adulterers aspect above...
Are we trying to dodge the fact that you have been proved wrong so many times it's not funny?
Not really, considering the entirety of the discussion has been about how Christians interpret and use the bible, and the apparent contradictions within the Bible itself, not how the Jews have used and interpreted the bible in history. But considering the status of judaism throughout the centuries, their lack of aggression is, in context (a concept that has been completely foreign to you so far), completely rational. They also, probably, understood what leviticus meant.
No, the discussion, until you entered it, was that Christians have been violent, therefore Christianity is violent.
Without even a cursorary glance at scripture, this argument is stupid as the vast majority of Christians are not violent. Beyond that, EVERY quoted scripture that "proves" Christians are violent is from the OLD testiment. No words of Jesus towards violence can be found.
And considering that there is NO point in history in which the Jews were more savage that their neighbors, that argument fails too....
What version (or verse, that'd work too), because I've just gone completely through Leviticus 11 (approximately 12 different versions) and in no place does it say "until evening".
In EVERY version it says until evening. Sorry, bud. You're lying here. Even though I posted it above, let's post the first three versions:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea rch=Leviticus+11&version=NIV
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea rch=Leviticus+11&version=KJV
http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries /0311.htm
Maybe the next few will help you:
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/leviticus /leviticus11.htm
http://www.answers.com/topic/leviticus-1 1
There is simply no way you are even REMOTELY being honest at this point. NO version of the Bible condemns people to death for eating shellfish (your original claim).
And NO version of the bible that I can find DOESN'T claim the "til evening" exception. The very first link on Yahoo was my first post.
You're lying here Rav. Plain and simple.
Unless you can explain to me that this actually means that people will "think you're weird" and avoid you, then your argument seems and awful lot like a hasty rationalization. Indeed it sounds to me exactly like you would be kicked out of your house, lose your job, and be exiled... if we actually took most of this book as seriously as we take a couple choice passages.
Yet your above scenerio never happened. I mean, pardon me for sounding like an authority and all, but your track record sucks so far.
Moving on. The historical record doesn't support this. Considering how straightforward the Bible is, and that it DOES mention banishment, the phrase cut off means to be shunned. (That's also the common modern day use of the phrase, but moving on.) So it may sound like that to you, but you also thought people would be killed for eating shellfish, and not even the most anti-Christian site supports that. Pardon me if your word seems to have a hint of bias.
Because the specifics of the offense aren't the point. I love how when you have no place to go, you latch on to one mistype and ride that as though it were the lynchpin of my argument.
Uh, no. The specifics of the offense ARE the point. If you claim that something equals death, and it doesn't, you are wrong. To put this into modern context...
This is like claiming that jaywalking is a capital crime. Of course it's not. It never has been, and it never will be. But this undermines your ENTIRE credibility when you claim something insane.
This is NOT a small mistake. Had I claimed something similar, you'd be all over me, and don't pretend otherwize. If you can't admit you were wrong here...you simply have no credibility for further debate.
At 2/26/11 11:53 AM, Imperator wrote: The fuck are you on?
The Greeks were practicing philosophy, and the Chinese could read their Confucian classics. Judaism was the religion of exactly who the early Jews were: A bunch of marauding dirt farmers.
The fuck are YOU on? The greeks were throwing children onto cliffs MILLENIA after the Jews said killing ones young was abhorrent. The Chinese were slaughtering their own for the hell of it in the 1980s. Get a reality check fool.
No seriously. When you say its your religion that makes you a good person, then without your religion, what would you be? A shit head? Or still a good person?
No, seriously. You're asking me to imagine a world where I'm not me. Where I wasn't raised the way I was raised. Where I was not taught what I was taught.
What am I supposed to say to this? If my parents had been marauding cannibals, perhaps I'd be one too? Perhaps if I was raised to believe that chicken feathers told the future I'd be a fortune teller.
If you don't get why predicting what I'd be in a completely different world is a stupid question...you're an idiot.
Do you need an outside influence before knowing how to act, or are you capable of deducing a path without it?
Yes. Every single person alive has needed outside influence. This is AGAIN a stupid question.
One word reply in response to a proposition with a MASSIVE presupposition at the front.
Otherwise, a counter question of mine could start "If aliens anal raped you....."
Didn't you do that though? Looks above. Hmmm....you did. Well, that's awkward...
If you'd like to be intelligent and debate like someone who has an IQ above 60, sounds fun. If you wish to keep asking me stupid questions that require me to imagine a parallel universe, just save us both the time and stop looking stupid.
At 2/26/11 01:08 PM, SolInvictus wrote: so no one brought up how Wolvenbear misrepresented scripture in order to set off this new line of debate?
i would have expected a few people to be a little more entertained by that.
Whoa! Wait, I misrepresented scripture?
Holy shit! I mean, I provided historic context, the ACTUAL scripture and rebutted factual rebuttals to....
Oh, I didn't misrepresent scripture. It was someone else who did and I corrected him.
Try being stupid in silence next time. There's a non-religious parable about that.
At 2/23/11 04:30 PM, KemCab wrote: And if Muslims in India slaughtered Hindus, then Muslims slaughtered Hindus -- but nobody really uses that to make Islam look bad.
Someone's never read the news...
However. If athiests target Jews, because they hate Jews...thats that. And yes, in the real world, when Muslims target Hindus because of religion...it is reported as Muslims targeting Hindus...
In fact, since the same thing can be said the only reason that the point one could attempt make from the observation that "religion X is bad" is that all religion is bad since one can say the same thing regardless of what religion you are talking about. Atheism is the only exception because it is not a religion, which gives leeway for religious people to claim that it also "kills" people and therefore come to the conclusion that it is "immoral" and "evil" because it rejects the idea of a divine moral authority or universal morality.
Circular logic. All religion is bad because all religions have killed people. But since no athiest is a religious person, athiesm can't be bad no matter how many athiests kill people. Flawed.
Any comparison of religions based upon "atrocities" is just a glorified pissing match and you're being an idiot for participating in one.
Considering the above, and the lack of log....MOVING ON.
That's nonsense too. If religion XYZ commits a genocide because their prophet told them to, the religion is at fault. If relion ABC committing 3 witch burnings because a dude got scared in Salem...well it doesn't mean much. Especially if he's not ABC religion.
You're arguing over a worthless point which should have been thrown out years ago. There is no "Christian wrong" just as there is no "atheist wrong." These terms are relative. Arguing relative terms with people who have different systems of valuation than you do will get you nowhere.
So, argue with the people who are arguing with me?
I mean, what kind of stupidity is this? You admit there is no singular Christian fault...yet instead of AGREEING with me that there is no singular Christian fault, you argue with me over some random points? You're useless.
At 2/23/11 06:11 PM, Imperator wrote: So what kind of person would you be without religion?
I'd be a necromancer. Next stupid question?
The laconic reply suffices:
If.
One word replies in lack of an intelligent argument? Boring. Strike two.
Doubt it.
Sorry, but that's strike three. Try playing again when you're smarter. Simply saying "nope" isn't a counter argument". Bye now bud!
At 2/23/11 07:03 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: Irreligious != atheist.
Well, of course. Lot of people either believe in God, or aren't sure without being a part of a religion. The idea isn't to slander all people who either aren't sure, or don't believe in a God as mass murdering, bad mustache wearing monsters. The vast majority of atheists are wonderful people.
The question above is: Was HITLER an atheist. Except for a few statements in public...yes he seems to be. He was openly hostile to all the religions in his country. He persecuted both Christians and Jews. Unlike any real Christian, he felt he had the power to overwrite the word of Christ. And he openly contradicted him. So yes, I believe Hitler was an athiest, and his hate of religion inspired him.
I do appreciate your clarification tho.
Nevermind, can't sleep. Let's try and get to more!
At 2/23/11 03:09 PM, Ravariel wrote: Feel like actually answering instead of evading?
Whoa whoa whoa! No, no, no. You made the assinine claim that the Bible commands the slaughter of those who eat shellfish and wear cotton/polyiester hybrids. This is insane. Claiming that I'm evading for directly refuting (and causing you to admit "I don't know what I'm talking about!") your ridiculous claim is in itself evading. I directly answered your question. Now I'm supposedly evading for not answering in advance something you were going to ask in the future? Abject nonsense. You're too smart to post this kind of drivel when you are proven wrong.
You're the one evading R.
Before we move on, we must address the adultery issue. We'll get to Christianity soon enough, but let's look at whether Judaism was "barbaric" in adultery. Turns out...they weren't:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topi c/6618/adultery
So if Judaism did not depart from cultural norms, and they did not, they were not brutal. Nor is proscribing something that every other proscribed, and punishing it the same way "promoting violence". This would be like castigating America for the Wild West. It's foolish.
It gets worse. Judaism required two witnesses for ANY punishment, other than divorce, to occur.
http://www.artandpopularculture.com/Adul tery
So, Judaism was far more civilized than the rest of the world. But what about Christianity? There's this little known myth (only billions have access to it), that Jesus demanded that stoning of adulterers stop. Some unknown woman...Christians don't even mention her or anything. Mary Magdalan? It's not like she's a central figure or anything!
So you're wrong on that. Next point?
The funny thing is, there's a very easy answer here that I have yet to see any theist make that would completely shut down this line of argument. I wonder if you're clever and/or ballsy enough to find/claim it.
That you're wrong and you don't know what the hell you're talking about?
How about "The bible doesn't even recommend punishment for eating shellfish or wearing a cotton blend"? Does that work? I mean, you're wrong on this, but you're still trying to frame it like you're right...
Sooo... biblical scholars and church leaders have never read the bible?
Biblical scholors don't claim the bible proscribes death for eating shellfish. Your hole is getting awful big there....
Catholics, though they have shifted towards more inclusiveness, believe that only through their church can one enter heaven.
This site never links off site. Their only source that they claim:
:The author, who was brought up a Protestant, can recall a conversation over five decades ago with some Catholic friends from the neighborhood. He was taught in Sunday School that Catholics automatically go to Hell; his friends were taught in separate (Catholic, parochial) school that all Protestants end up in Hell.
Sorry, fail. What a sorry source.
By contrast:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Do_Protestants _believe_that_Catholics_will_go_to_heave n
Taken as a whole, though, most Protestant groups accept the Christian faith of Roman Catholics and believe that they are saved. Here are some examples of Protestant denominations that do believe Catholics are saved: Methodists, Anglicans, Free Methodists, and Lutherans. There are many more. In fact, I do not know of any Protestant tradition that officially says that Catholics are not saved.
Moving on?
Well, if that mother then hits them repeatedly, they may take issue with the whole "no hitting" rule... to extend the ridiculous metaphor.
Good counter. Except Jesus didn't hit his followers. So, kinda a bad counter after all....
As long as you attribute individual action to atheism, sure, that works. But then we'd have to include people like FDR killing hundreds of thousands, if not millions for Christianity. However, once we attribute action to the correct inception then it becomes more problematic. And if we go further and look at historical contexts, then your position becomes very, very tenuous.
Interesting. I'd be quite interested to see the quotes of FDR that make Christianity out to be violent. It'd be particularly interesting to see how this makes Christianity more violent for defending itself and Judaism (granted your quotes are accurate) than the Nazis attacking them.
Unfortunately for you, R, I AM including historical context. Hitler attacked the Christians and Jews because of who they were. Stalin was open in his hate of belief. As was Mao. As was Pol Pot. Etc. These guys made it clear why they killed Christians. One of these guys proves my case more than you proving every Christian killer in history....
Indeed, the logic is unassailable... you just miss the forest for the trees. Because there are literally an infinite number of possibilities for the "correct" god, including a god that exists and punishes every single belief system, including one that rewards the non-believers, including non-existence, then under Pascal's Wager everyone is equally likely to get "the good ending", ergo no single position is any better than another.
No, there are THREE possibilities. You choose the right God, you choose the WRONG god or NO god. Or there is NO god. Possibilities 2 and 3 have the same outcome. Well, there is a fourth possibility. The God who created stuff and doesn't give a crap. So no answer is wrong or right.
Mocking the idea of a God while proclaiming there might be a God who gives eternity to the rocks, or other such things hardly makes you look more rational.
Pascal's wager is a foolish attempt at fear-mongering by people too myopic to contemplate a god that would reward the non-believer and/or punish the believer.
No, Pascal's wager is a rational wager. While the athiest might wish to discount it, the logic is sound. While there may be issues with the original premise (I didn't learn the name of the wager til after I argued a similar thing), the third possibility is kind of a middle point. It's "what if we're BOTH wrong?" But while the middle option holds a negative for the theist, it is the same negative for the atheist. The wager still weighs in the theists favor.
Bit of a difference between a spanking and eternal torture... just sayin'.
Not many kids murder and torture and kill and rape.
However, there are many verses in the Bible that suggest that the eternal torment only exists for the worst of the worst. Revelations suggests a second death for most of the evil:
"The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. The sea gaveup the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."
Eternal torment in Revelations is reserved for Satan and his followers after the fall.
At 2/23/11 03:09 PM, Ravariel wrote: I was talking about the entirety of the rest of the bible.
Yes. Paul going blind for attacking Christians was hateful. Um, I mean...
Abraham being told not to kill his son...The story of Jonah preaching to people who hated the Jews...
Since the claim that the Bible is violent is really the claim that Judaism is violent, the question is...was it? Well, no. Judaism was by far less violent than any of the other religions that surrounded it. For a savage people in a savage land, Judaism has a variety of absolutely bizarre passages in the bible. While it makes sense today to say rape is wrong...it absolutely didn't at the time. Women weren't people. They were things for making babies. The idea that men who had sex with unwilling women owed them something was revolutionary. While the bible does talk about keeping slaves, the idea that a slave should be given a CHOICE in whether to stay with his master is idiotic if you look at the times. Slave rights is revolutionary. So on and so on. While the ancient Jews are certainly not modern day Americans...well, neither is anyone else, including Americans during the revolutionary war.
What about if you were a God? Screw the million dollars, if you're god, then all of that would be peanuts.
I don't want to go to the doctor for ingrown toenail surgery. I know I'll be fine. I know I'll come out ok. It still sucks. I'd pass on getting nailed to a cross, yea.
Mmmm, deflection. I am shocked and surprised. Also, where does it say that the "uncleanness" (read: abomination, same descriptor used for another passage a couple phrases before) only lasts for a day? Anyway, what about cursing your parents? (punishment: death) Or having sex during mentruation? (punishment: banishment/shunning) Adultery? (death) Incest? (death)
Leviticus 11. Whoever eats of these or touches them shall be unclean until evening (nowhere in my bible does it claim that eating unclean animals makes you an abomination. An online search of other versins also makes me say huh?). Reading the whole thing instead of a clip helps?
But let's look at the rest. Shunning and banishment are NOT the same thing. It's the equivalent of some sexual practices in America today. If you tell your best friend you pee on your wife, he'll probably think you weird and stay away from you. But you won't be kicked out of your home, lose your job, or be exiled.
I'll touch on the rest later. Sorry, I'm getting tired, and the rest require a more...thorough...response.
At 2/24/11 11:38 AM, Imperator wrote: Pffffffffffff.......
Are you serious?
What a great question! Why yes, Virginia those are the statistics!Though you will have to forgive me as I will only do basic rounding.
http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/smallbus.
html
The average self employed person's income (not business size) was worth about 50k. Depending on what they do, that's pretty decent. For a business of 1-4, the average is about 28k per person. For a business of 4, that puts payroll alone at ~102k. Considering a business must advertise, invest in technology, etc, that business owner is rich. To justify paying that much to employees, the owner must be making a minimum of 150k a year, just to break even. That would be considered "the rich". At 5-8, it's about the same. So, an 8 person company, still hardly big, is paying 207k in payroll alone.
Hmmm, so, yea. I guess I'm serious.
Right, that's how it works. Every business that has trouble is doing something wrong.
No actually $100,000 would have kept a few more people on payroll. Business is still running, and the dry spell for us is more or less over.
Every business that goes to the government crying for a bailout is doing something wrong, yes. That is exactly how it works.
But this is bad logic. That money for GM didn't come from thin air. It was taken from other businesses, or individuals, or borrowed. The economy is not helped by taking from one to give to another.
Makes me shake my head....
But let's repeat for the slow:
Jobs were lost.
Money was given to GM. Jobs were still lost.
Mockery only makes sense when one isn't asking stupid questions that have already been answered above. Considering that EVERY reply here was a snide remark to something that I'd explained in GREAT detail above, you kinda look like an imbecile. Because it's not like I just claimed all business owners were millionaires. I went into detail about how someone can be rich on paper and be struggling to meet their bills. It's not like I claimed that GM deserved the money, I REJECTED that idea. It's not that I claimed that all businesses that were in trouble were bad businesses. Hell, I even said that businesses are hampered by regulation and taxes in a way no employee could understand.
So, in short, you are arguing a strawman. And you are doing it very poorly.
Hence the irony, bub.
There's no irony. If you understood anything that I typed, you'd understand that. It makes perfect sense.
At 2/23/11 09:04 AM, fatape wrote: Your ignoring the fact they were temporary tax cuts in the first place and were meant to run out later this year IIRC , it also did have some tax cuts not introduced on the bill before like a new estate tax cut.
No I fully understand that. But voting to keep a long running tax rate that is set to expire is not, in any sense of the word, a tax cut. Because there is no decrease in taxes.
You just don't want to admit Obama isn't the super liberal people like to portray him as and he's more beneficial to conservatives then not.
Huh? While I am not a conservative, Obama has NOT been beneficial to conservative causes. He has massively expanded government and raised taxes. While I don't think McCain would've been much better, you wouldn't have had McCainCare or banning of FourLoko, or some of the other egregiously unconstitutional nonsense we got under Obama. Claiming he's been a boon to conservatives, other than getting a lot of them elected by opposing him, is curious...to say the least.
At 2/22/11 06:56 PM, Warforger wrote: No. The problem isn't that he went after Communists the problem was that he went after people who were completely innocent .
But no one he went after was completely innocent. EVERYONE he targeted was already a state target. There were security issues with everyone he went after. Does that mean they were all guilty? Well, no. But it does mean that they all had raised warning flags before. It's not like McCarthy was pulling names out of a hat. He was going after people that had already been triggered as risks.
Because he was a person in government and gets automatic promotions, I mean the average Senator doesn't go in their commercials going "I am the son of a aristocratic and rich father, I became a Lawyer and defended companies in court" but rather would like to give the impression of "I came from a suburban household/farm/city like you did and I have a vision for a better government as I personally studied the issues face to face with the people involved in them", it's like Bush he didn't show off his military standing because of his dad who got him promoted for no reason other then because he could.
I...um....huh?
The average person is more likely to be impressed by a somebody than a nobody. Using the example of Bush that you cite...Bush cited his best examples when running for President. He used his military service to make him sound as brave as possible. He used his governorship. He downplayed his mediocrity (which his opponents rightfully played on). When Senator Kerry brought up his terrible record as a private businessman, Bush made jokes. Look over there. Ignore that I really wasn't successful on the business stage!
While nobody openly says in political commercials "I am God and you are dirt", none of them claim to be humble nobodies. They tout their legislative or executive experience. If they have military experience they run with that.
So, even if true, the fact that McCarthy downplayed his military start makes me think he's a man prone to understating his case...
That's the biggest logical fallacy I've ever heard on this forum. Venona says nothing of the like, basiclly what you just said was "McCarthy went after Communist Spies, and sources say there were Communist spies therefore McCarthy went after the right Communist Spies" 1st and 2nd statements are true but the 3rd makes no sense.
Hmmm. I don't really think that's the argument I made. And looking back, there's a lot you're trying to downplay to bolster your case. Let's recap.
100% of McCarthy's charges were filed against people who had been flagged by other agencies as security risks in government. Almost all of the people McCarthy's lists said were security risks had been removed for being security risks.
Even if we go no further, that proves McCarthy to not be a liar. If I claim I have a list of 300 people who are security risks, and 200 of them have been found to be security risks...it doesn't really matter about the remaining 100. The list has found a lot of security risks. If 2 out of every 3 are security risks, it's beyond unreasonable to call a dude a liar for saying "what about the other 1/3rd?"
How would you respond if you found out that there was a list of people, every list one of them who had been investigated had been fired...then hearing that the remainer hadn't been investigated. I'd at least want hearings.
Even if every person was innocent, that demand is perfectly rational and reasonable.
The worst part is, is that these people were only labeled as a security risk because they MIGHT be Communists, MIGHT be is different then THEY ARE and much different then THEY ARE WORKING FOR THE SOVIETS
That's not a small might though. Imagine if Iran had spies in our government. Wehave a list of people who MIGHT be spies. Every last one of them would at least be investigated. Why is this unfair?
They weren't traitors, they were suspected but few of the people he went after actually were.
That none of them were punished, and that he actually stopped an execution of a traitor he helped uncover hurts the point. That some of them WERE outted under Venona also undermines you.
At 2/21/11 05:22 PM, Ravariel wrote: So, because Jesus "allowed" himself, being god, to "die", which god can't really do (and, if he was actually divine, he would actually know this) in a way that, to a god, would be in the grand scheme of things, similar to a hangnail, but is horrible to humans, we should ignore all of the blatantly violent and inciteful passages that surround this incident?
Well, ignoring that there are zero hateful passages surrounding this incident.
Here's the deal. You're going to survive this, but I want to do this to you. I want to strip you naked, force you to carry a heavy wooden beam. I will affix a crown of thorns to your head. Along the trail, I am going to whip you with something that will rip the flesh from your back. And I'm going to whip you more than 100 times before we even start. When we get there, I am going to nail you to a tree, and let you suffocate. Or at least, close to. Then I am going to stab you in the chest with a spear.
Can we set that up Rav? Sound like a deal? Even if I was guaranteed I'd survive, and was given a million dollars, I'd have to pass.Having something go through your foot sucks. Being stabbed sucks. Even if I was guaranteed I'd survive, to hell with that deal. Even knowing he'd be resurrected, Christ begged God "Please don't do this. Give me a pass." Christ knew how bad Crucifiction was. And he wanted no part.
Personally, I wouldn't want to get him in the foot with a hammer if I could avoid it. And I know I'll be fine after an hour. I can't imagine agreeing to be brutally murdered.
The problem here is another one of the fundamental failures of the layman apologist: cherry picking what is allegory and what is actual instruction. Is Leviticus instructional? Or is it allegorical? Should we slaughter those who eat shellfish and wear cotton-poly blends or not? What, exactly, constitutes "murder" according to the second commandment?
Here is one of the problems of the layman critic. The layman critic claims "The Bible demands the murder of people who eat shellfish." Of course it doesn't. The only "penalty" is to be unclean for a day. But it makes the layman feel superior to the believer, even though he is speaking nonsense.
When you start to decide what is "real" and what is "parable" and are not a biblical scholar like, say, someone who posts in this very thread (or one of my own friends irl), then why should I take your word on what the bible means? Centuries of scholars and apologists have very different views on the bible than you... why is your take the correct one?
Well, I have not made the error of claiming the Bible demands death for people who eat shellfish or wear fiber blends. That the case against me is a single line and the case I presented was much more also says something.
But whatever. It's not a terribly honest question. "Why should I believe you instead of someone who's never read the bible!?!" OK, go with whatever makes you happy man.
No, but everyone who belongs to a church believes there is only one true church (barring Unitarians and maybe some other sects), which for the purposes of this argument is equivalent. Also, this brings up another point: which church's take on the bible is correct? If I get it wrong, I burn in hell. If the Catholics have it right, then the Protestants are doomed and vice-versa. I mean, if the people who follow the damn thing can't even agree on what it means, and have done all of those things that you're trying to explain away in order to give voice their differences, then how am I supposed to take ANY of your explanations as true? Again, you look at it from a singular point that must be correct in order to validate your feelings, and will rationalize away anything that contradicts that point and other takes on your book. I being outside, see your position as just one of hundreds, if not thousands, that all look the same, all look equally bad, and all have the same contradictions... just in different places.
Except this isn't the view of ANY church. No Christian church believes that if you follow Christ and try not to hurt your fellow man that you won't be saved. You seem to not understand the religion.
But let's move on, people disagree.
By this logic, if a mother tells her two sons not to hit each other, and one ignores her, her saying wasn't clear.
I cut out the random insults attributed to mistaken identity. If you feel like actually addressing the points you glossed over instead of saying nothing but "nuh-uh!" then by all means, do so.
Also, you've segue'd yourself into Pascal's Wager. You might want to re-think that tack... just sayin'.
Well originally, the tact was to argue which was more dangerous in general numbers. That was clearly athiesm. But the challenge was put forth to argue whether athiesm or religion was a better gamble on the immortal scene. Pascal's Wager is clearly correct on this point. Maybe non-believers find it silly, but the logic is unassailable.
At 2/21/11 05:41 PM, Jedi-Master wrote: How can a god love you if he threatens you with eternal torment if you don't comply with his demands? And how can we have free will when there will be eternal consequences for our actions, assuming that Christianity is correct?
How can a parent love you if they have punishment on the table? Oh, all parents do that? Hmmm...
At 2/21/11 06:00 PM, Imperator wrote: To highlight how incredibly stupid it is to think you have any sort of chance, Group A thinks everyone else is fucked, except Group A.
Except group A doesn't think that. But whatever.
The question is, is group A right? Does group A have it figured out?
We make this decision every two years. Group R tells us if we vote for D we're dicked, and group D tells us we're dicked if we vote for group R. The fact that both groups make the same basic claim doesn't mean that we can't be screwed. One or both groups can still F us over. Truth doesn't disappear because two people make the same claim.
At 2/23/11 01:51 AM, Jedi-Master wrote: Your posts are as good as always Avie. One last thing.....Why would God care about us worshipping him? We would theoretically be infinitely inferior to God in every way imaginable, and we're worthless when compared to him....So why should he care if we worship him or not? Why does he have a need to be praised? Wouldn't that be indicative of having a fatal flaw in that you require your creations to worship you, or else? It doesn't make sense to me...That's why I believe in an impersonal God. That's why I am a Deist. I believe God created the Universe, but is nothing like the God of the Abrahamic religions.
But this also asks the question of why would God reward you? If God doesn't give a crap about you, you will not be rewarded. You will live, suffer, die, and blink out of existence. You will not go to paradise.
Sucks, but reality often does.
At 2/21/11 03:55 PM, Imperator wrote: THAT'S a blanket statement on personal taste.
Shrug. It's a comment in response to a comment.
Precisely why having one faith, based on risk aversion, is silly.
Now we're getting into a different category. No one has faith because of "risk aversion". For the same reason that no one is an atheist because of "risk aversion".
We were talking who was right or wrong. And what the risks were of that. And as I said above...
If there is no God, there is no risk in believing. If you are right and I am wrong, my belief does no harm to me. If I am right and you are wrong, then I benefit and you do not. If we are both wrong, then I am no worse off than I was before. The risks of choosing the wrong religion are no worse than choosing no religion.
If it's roulette, the dude who bets always has a chance, while the dude who doesn't...doesn't.
Guess you'd better hope Athena isn't really real then, huh?
Ah stupid intellect. I know you're trying to be witty. But my brain demands I point out Athena's followers didn't kill chickens to her.
And what does being a Christian have to do with what you've done to help others?
That's a good question. I was raised in a tradition that demanded that I acknowledge that others are more important than myself. If I have the ability to help someone and I don't do so, I am a bad person. I was taught that God wants us to help others, even if it is inconvenient or sucks. And as I followed this, I found satisfaction in helping others. Had I not been raised with these Christian tenets, I would not have undertaken most of what I have to help others.
It's going to suck for a lot of Christians if the first thing God says to them is 'Why didn't you get off your ass and help people instead of just praying for them?"
Yet, Christians are more likely to donate to charity than non-Christians. Christians are more likely to donate their time and energy than non-Christians.
If that question is coming...there'll be a lot less Christians than non Christians answering it.
Christians use their religion as a crutch and safety blanket. In actuality, they are not happier nor more self-fulfilled, because what gives them these things is not within themselves, but a superficial construct.
Even if we ignore that every study ever conducted (to my knowledge) has determined Christians to be happier...this simply isn't a counter. If I am happier, then I am happier. Even if I am using silliness to be happier than you...I'm still happier. And if there is nothing in the great beyond but death, then my crutch was a fantastic thing. It allowed my to live a happier life than people without it.
More blanket statements. You also tend to be bigoted and persecute your non-believing brethren a lot too.
I'm not claiming that every Christian does more than everyone else. That'd be stupid. I'm claiming that, on average, Christians and Jews donate more than anyone else. This simply isn't arguable.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424 052748703766704576009361375685394.html
I've read hundreds of studies that make similar claims. Religious charity outdoes secular charity. And much of secular charity goes to foundations that don't actually help people: PBS, art museums, etc.
So says you. I say it's a waste of time to pray, head to Church, and worship deities.
Much more useful to spend that time and money actually contributing to society than pretending prayer does something.
Oh, let's not pretend. While church goers are at church, you are asleep in your bed. If you like your sleep, that's great. But you're not doing anything useful to society, so let's nip that in the bud right now.
Even if I'm a fantastic person? Then God is a dick.
But you're walking around telling people God is a dick and that spending time in worship is useless. You deride helping others. Why would God keep around one of his creations who is spitting in his face? And that's the best case scenerio. Let's hope it's not Ares who is the one true God. He'll rape you with spears for eternity.
It's like saying "hey I'm a great person, but I'm gonna kick you in the nuts!" Kick. "Can I have 5 bucks?" Who the hell is gonna give you five bucks?
At 2/21/11 07:46 AM, Bacchanalian wrote: My argument wasn't made to dispute the claim that "all religion is peaceful," and actually relies on the notion that Al Qaeda is a religious group. You shot down an argument I'm not making and affirmed a tenant of the argument I am making. Meanwhile, the issue of whether or not Al Qaeda is instructed by text is irrelevant to the point I'm making.
This is insane. I correctly see where you're going. I acknowledge that it is a twisting of my argument. I present reasons why you're wrong...
But none of that matters apparently.
The point I'm making is that, if Al Qaeda were to acquire the means, they would be hostile to religion, and actively persecute most religious people. This would not render Al Qaeda irreligious. In other words, being hostile to religion and actively persecuting religious people does not make one irreligious.
Except that wasn't even remotely my argument.
Hitler was openly against every religion except Islam, because Islam hates Jews. While he is commonly claimed to be a Christian, it's clearly false, demonstrated above.
The example would make more sense if instead of quoting the Quran, al Quida screamed "Allah sucks" before killing people.
And this is particularly the case if you're going to de-contextualize Hitler's contempt for-certain-religions as contempt for-religion (itself - being implied). Wasn't it you who said he could've been Buddhist or taoist? If I'm to believe that you've actually committed to your logical construct, then it should be inferable that you haven't found instances of Hitler attacking Buddhism or Taoism. So it's dishonest of you to phrase Hitler as being "hostile to religion," so as to imply or get away with such absolutism as deriving from the phrase that Hitler was irreligious.
This is actually an interesting challenge.
I'm not so sure that Hitler hated Christianity in and of itself, as I am that he hated the challenge it posed to what he was doing. Christians of every denomination were actively opposing him. While he originally tried to pretend he was Christian for the masses...well, it didn't work. So does it mean much that Hitler didn't have any contempt for religions he never came in contact with. I'd have to say no. His original tact was to pretend to be Christian to win people over, because the majority of Germany was Christian. I can only imagine he'd've hated Buddhists if he'd been born in the Orient instead of Austria.
It wasn't accidental. My dispute with you doesn't revolve around the notion that Hitler must be religious. So, 'admitting' that the evidence suggests that he was irreligious, didn't really seem all that big a deal. The 'admission' was made to communicate a distinction that actually is of consequence to my dispute with you.
Then I admittedly miss the distinction. It's not often I have to ask for clarifiation. But I do here. If you've made a point, I missed it.
At 2/22/11 10:26 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Let this be a lesson to you to provide sources.
Yet this hasn't affected tax rates. It's provided a couple of tax credits, but that's not a tax cut. And everything in that is temporary, over one year. Whether or not we agree on the merits of any tax break given...the fact that it is a one time deal provides, at most, an anemic shot in the arm of any tax payer. That the majority of this went to people who paid no federal income taxes hurts the idea that this was a tax "cut", and supports that it was a giveaway.
Reading this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Re covery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009#Taxe s_.28.24275_billion.29
Most of this was monetary giveaways. Money was given to the poor because they were poor. Tax cuts has little, if anything, to do with it.
Ah yes because removing incentives to outsource will our jobs elsewhere...
How does this reduce the incentive to outsource? I've never heard anyone claim that the stimulus made outsourcing more expensive, including Obama. Nonsense.
Ummm. yes they are AIG provided insurance on companies to people who had NO interest in them. I cannot remember the number right (heard this from nationally known securities law scholar) that AIG had given out more than 10 times GMs value in insurance when GM went belly up. They messed up and messed up good. If you, or I had done that we would be homeless right now. AIG, on the other hand, still exists and the executives are still living it up. They profited off of the recession in not having to pay for their actions.
You seem to have little idea what you are talking about. AIG was indeed an insurance company. But to say they gave anything on people "with no interest in them" is silly. AIG was a troubled and poorly managed company. But if you wish to claim that they are doing better under Obama's thumb than in their heyday when they were near a trillion dollar company...you're dreaming.
If you want to say AIG should've collapsed and the gov't should've done nothing...I agree. But to claim they're profiting from the financial collapse is devoid of reality.
Perhaps fatape is talking of the Bush tax cut extensions.
Which wouldn't be a tax cut. But ok....
Business were never taxed 90%. The PEOPLE were. And guess what? When you are a business owner who makes money that will be taxed 90% what do you think that business owner will do? They will leave much of the money in the business in order to reap the benefits of the profit without being subject to the high taxes. I'm sure your advanced economic knowledge could see how high taxes would actually ENCOURAGE investment in one's company.
There's some truth in what you say. The corporate tax rates before JFK were not 90%, they were 52%. But JFK lowered them to 48%. Economic progress followed. And tax receipts increased. Ironically, the capital gains rate (investing in companies) wasn't lowered below 50% until Carter. So it was less profitable to invest in a company than to be the company.
But this ignores the basic concept. Do companies tax taxes into consideration when doing business. As even you seem to admit, the answer is yes.
Military is less than education? really?The Heritage Foundation says otherwise. Military spending is second ONLY to social security. It is 7 times the spending on education. Cut the military budget in half and we would only save $350 billion. Now I have a bone to pick with what you want to cut. The DOJ? Are you really telling me you want to remove the federal courts and the federal police? I do agree a great deal of the government agencies could be streamlined, but cutting them is also stupid. These agencies do a lot that the states cannot afford to do. There is a reason that only 12% of the budget has been deemed up to cut. (partially because the consevratives will never cut their own pet projects, i.e. NASCAR funding)
My apologies. It seems we have finally topped education spending with military spending. By 1%.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/
Let's point out that this is ONLY federal government spending. So spending on education still trumps military spending, but that's irrelevant.
While I am opposed to the government funding NASCAR, they spend a paltry 7 million on that. Ignoring things that cost billions to focus on millions is shortsighted for me. It's like complaining about a missing penny while ignoring that 100 dollar bill went poof. Should we be worried about both? Well, yes. But the 7 million is nothing compared to a billion here and there.
Then we have the DOJ. Yes, I do absolutely believe that the federal police and the federal courts should be cut. More than 50% of the things that federal courts try they have no jurisdiction on. Given that the Constitution gives the power to the feds to try piracy and treason and nothing else (we can even add on terrorism), I feel the feds are too big. And that the feds put mild criminals in jail for ridiculous sentences that make them risks to society when they get out that they weren't to begin with.
At 2/22/11 10:36 AM, fatape wrote: Obama passed a billed that would cut taxes to the tune of almost a trillion dollars.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/12/1 5/us-usa-taxes-idUSTRE6A44K020101215
This is just undeniable fact, Obama isn't someone conservatives or republicans should be against he's basically just a black bush.
This doesn't cut taxes. It keeps the laws in place that are in place. At best, it was Obama agreeing NOT to raise taxes. If you think not raising taxes is a tax cut....whistles....
At 2/22/11 12:59 PM, Imperator wrote: Small businesses make up the bulk of the economy.
Yes. And 100% of small businesses are "rich". What's your point.
The reason why the stimulus did not do shit is because most of the money went to the largest corporations, and small businesses had to fight over negligible sums.
Well, no. Not really. It didn't do anything because it was a handout to his favorite causes. Kinda like giving money to an art museum doesn't fix homelessness. But moving on...
I've worked in the auto industry. GM got a bailout.
Gm should've went bankrupt. I agree. Next?
Had we gotten even $100,000 it would have enabled us to keep the payroll during dry spells, and seek new clients.
Or it would've given you a 100,000 and you'd have squandered it. Like GM. There's this weird idea that if we just give irresponsible people or businesses money...they'll become brilliant businessmen! It doesn't work like that. This is GM's third? bailout. They still suck. They'll still eventually hit rock bottom again and need a bailout. Or they'll die. Their business model doesn't work. And it will end them sooner or later, no matter how many times they get a helping hand. Either they go under or become a government business. They will not succeed on their own.
Pump a trillion into small business creation and expansion, and the recession will end pretty quick.
No it won't.
There might be a bit of irony in that while GM never did crap for us, Ford sends us work regularly.
And Ford refused a bailout. Sound business works while bad business suffers. Ford vs GM is the libertarian model.
At 2/19/11 10:09 PM, fatape wrote: Me nor anyone on newgrounds is not the Obama administration , not that it would matter anyway since Obama has only decreased taxes during his administration.
Obama has raised taxes. He hasn't decreased any.
Even if that were true it's better then drowning in debt only for China to take over the reigns.
How does that make any sense? So because Obama is financially irresponsible it is better to kill jobs (putting our country is worse states) than to spend like we have a brain? Huh?
At 2/19/11 11:19 PM, Warforger wrote: And yet the way things are right now this is far from the truth, the corporations CEO's are richer then ever and are only profiting from the recession while everyone else is getting poorer, I mean for example if we fund a big insurance company that needs x billion dollars that it says "needs to save jobs" and then the next day we find out it was spent on vacations effectively wasting the money, we know that they aren't being burdened that much by the taxes. If they want to survive the tax increase they have too *gasp* take money out of their personal lives and cut back from their paychecks rather then cut their workers in order to pay for the taxes.
I initially said "How does anyone profit on the economy getting worse...", then I saw your "reasoning". These businesses that are demanding bailouts are suffering. Sales are down, business is down, many of them are looking at going under. While I am not a fan of bailing bad businesses out...it's not like these people are making money hand over fist. They're begging the government to keep them from going under. And, in most cases, even with the bailout, they're not making anywhere near as much as before the recession. This is not "We're in the money" times. Even with the bailouts, most of these businesses are still in trouble, and having to cut jobs just to stay afloat. No one is doing better for having this recession.
The problem is that there are two options, we could cut a bunch of popular programs and get people's retirement in the dump in terms of medical insurance that we promised them by cutting the big spending programs or we could just keep piling on the debt paying for those programs.
Both those options suck. But look at what individuals have to do. When you get a pay or hour cut, you look at what you can cut back on. You don't take out a loan to buy a new Jaguar. It's time our government operated the same way.
At 2/20/11 09:52 AM, fatape wrote: The bill introduced semi recently decreased taxes by a trillion dollars from the middle class to the wealthy, I doubt the health care bill new taxes even come close to raising them that high.
No such bill has been introduced or passed.
Not really since taxes come after business spending , you also have to consider the fact that during america's supposed golden years the top tax rate was 90 percent. But again even if taxes directly result in lost jobs it's still would be worth it if we could pay off our debts.
This is wrong on every level. Job creation went through the roof both when JFK and Reagan cut the top marginal rate. Taxes are a constant fact. And no business that survives doesn't take taxes into consideration. If you're not considering that 90% of every dollar you make will go to the feds, you will overspend and go out of business. If you don't think businesses consider that...you're economically illiterate.
I only other way I see America paying off it's debt is by stopping all it's wars and cutting it's military spending in half but neither the current democrats nor republicans would allow such a thing.
While military spending should be cut, let's be honest. Military spending is less than spending on education. We could eliminate our military tomorrow, and it would barely make a dent in spending. We need to look at the military, the DOJ, eliminate virtually every government agency, and start cutting entitlement spending. If we don't cut social spending, we will never get out of defecit spending, and the country is doomed.
At 2/19/11 09:55 AM, fatape wrote: No they don't small business owners employ most people , while the super wealthy employ a minority.
I didn't claim millionaires are the only people that employ others. If you own a business, you are technically wealthy. My mechanic is struggling to make ends meet, but she has over 150k in tools and equipment. She makes, easily, 350k a year. But then that money goes to her employees, her bills, her mortgage, her loans for new equipment, her taxes, etc. By the time it's done, she's netting about 20k a year. She's looking at shutting her business down because it's not worth it.
Everyone is employed by someone better off (at least on paper) then themselves. Wanting to screw over your boss financially is wanting to screw over yourself.
At 2/19/11 10:59 AM, KemCab wrote: This is the most moronic statement I have come across today.
Truth is moronic? Who knew? I have the funny feeling I'm not going to read anything else brilliant in your post....
Yeah, sure, why not, it has nothing to do with gratitude or anything.
Yea, no one should be grateful to have a job or get money. Piss on those people who sign my paycheck! I don't need money!
THE RICH CREATE ALL OF OUR JOBS! THE RICH ARE OUR GLORIOUS BENEFACTORS! LET US CUT THEIR TAXES EVEN FURTHER AND WORSHIP THEM LIKE GODS!
If we cut the rich's tax rates to, let's say, half of what the poor pay, the rich will still pay more than the poor, the middle class, and the unemployed. Both in terms of absolute dollars, and percent.
Let's ignore whether or not the rich have a right to their money. And let's not pretend they're any less greedy than the rest of us. Is it a good idea to continually leech money from those who create jobs? Of course it isn't.
Draining money from those who use that money to employ others is foolish.
So maybe think before you respond again with "OMGZORS! YOU SHOULD SUCK A RICH DICK LOL. YOU ARE TEH QUEERZORS FOR TEH RICHZORS!" K?
At 2/21/11 01:00 PM, Warforger wrote: And? Everyone knows there were spies around, the problem is the McCarthy only made a witch hunt. He had nothing to do with Venona at all, he was often found to be a complete moron and pretty much no one believed anything he said by the time everything he said was shown to be lies, including for say his military service. A big one being saying he had a list of the names of over 200 Communist spies and held it up at a crowd only for someone to later find out it was just a laundry receipt. His whole career was more shit like that over and over again until the bastard died of his alcoholism because people stopped putting up with his bullshit.
Well, I didn't say he was connected to Venona. If you say something, and later on I prove that to be true, that doesn't mean you had anything to do with me or vice versa...it just means that the facts ended up proving you right. (Considering Venona wasn't released until after McCarthy was dead, I don't think anyone can say I was claiming he was responsible for something that occured long after he was dead...)
But let's look at some of the others. He WAS in the military. The only claim I can find that he lied is that he supposedly said he enlisted as a "buck private" when he was recruited as an officer. Even if this claim is true...it's a rather timid claim. He was a marine, went on combat missions and was an intelligence officer. If his "big lie" was that he started as a private instead of an officer...meh.
Really, I find that hard to believe. People generally lie to make themselves sound more important and successful, not less. Being a lieutenant is more impressive than being a private, and it seems weird that he'd lie to make himself sound less important or influencial than he was...
So let's look at the laundry receipt idea. Let's start by pointing out, no one has ever claimed it was a laundry receipt. Wikipedia traces the origin of this number and their findings are not great to the case that McCarthy was a liar...:
There is some dispute about whether or not McCarthy actually gave the number of people on the list as being "205" or "57". In a later telegram to President Truman, and when entering the speech into the Congressional Record, he used the number 57.[25] The origin of the number 205 can be traced: In later debates on the Senate floor, McCarthy referred to a 1946 letter that then-Secretary of State James Byrnes sent to Congressman Adolph J. Sabath. In that letter, Byrnes said State Department security investigations had resulted in "recommendation against permanent employment" for 284 persons, and that 79 of these had been removed from their jobs; this left 205 still on the State Department's payroll. In fact, by the time of McCarthy's speech only about 65 of the employees mentioned in the Byrnes letter were still with the State Department, and all of these had undergone further security checks.[26]
Taken at face value, that means that the original report he is supposedly citing found a minimum of 79 employees of the State department who were removed from their jobs for security issues. By the time he made his speech, about 70% of those listed on the report had been removed. At the very least, this is cause for concern. It's also worth noting that all 9 cases that he focused on had been previously investigated for various charges of spying.
I guess I don't get it. Everyone acknowledges that the State Department was riddled with Communist spies (kinda hard to ignore really). Every last person McCarthy went after had been flagged on more than one occasion as a security risk by others. The vast majority of people in the reports McCarthy used were found to be communists. Venona vindicates most of these "persecutions". The evidence was overwhelming.
Despite many of these people committing treason, none was given any sort of punishment beyond a pink slip.
I guess I fail to see the horror in traitors being fired. Maybe that's just me.
At 2/21/11 04:49 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: You gave no references for your "factual statements" and again, even a high schooler sees the holes in this.
I'm pretty sure I linked. I'll double check...
Yes, I did. But we'll ignore your mistake. We'll also ignore that you yourself have not linked to anything. I'm a forgiving guy. Mistakes happen. It's all good.
I did when I mentioned Arthur Miller, someone who was a victim of the "black balling" that occured due to the wild accusations McCarthy was throwing around before he was discredited.
Yea, I tried to ignore it because you were wrong. And on a level that made it clear you were completely ignorant of the subject you were talking about. Arthur Miller never was brought in front of McCarthy, as he never worked for the government. He never even met McCarthy. He never even went in front of the HUAC. His ONLY passing glance with the Red Scare was that his friend was tried. Miller then became a critic of the government, and had a passport denied.
Don't get me wrong, he did nothing wrong, and should've suffered no punishment. But to claim that Miller, who never worked in government, was never accused of being a communist, never went in front of either the House or Senate, never testified, was never fired, and had absolutely no relation to Joe McCarthy.... to claim it's McCarthy's fault is either dishonest or uninformed.
In the future, when you say someone has holes in their statement, don't make massive mistakes yourself, including not knowing the difference between the house and the senate. Thanks man.
At 2/20/11 01:18 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: I said it's comparatively less risky than sitting on a chair, when you never drive.
Which is a stupid argument.
The point of that little bit of logical over-your-headednesswas to demonstrate that a lack of participation in ANY endeavor is inherently less risky than engaging in ANY behavior, even if it's sitting on a chair.
Which is also a stupid argument.
Seems to me you see my point, and how it relates to the risk-aversiveness of theism to the critical mind.
You do not possess a critical mind, and therefore do not comprehend the point of my arguing.
No, I possess a critical mind, which is why I reject your stupidity.
It takes a massive amount of idiocy to claim that something that has never produced a single fatality is more dangerous than something that has produced hundreds of thousands of fatalities. It becomes even more idiotic when you factor that every single person on the face of the earth has sat, and never died from it, yet many people have been killed by drivers, yet never driven.
There is no way to frame this debate that doesn't make you look like a complete and utter imbecile. Even if we limit the comparison to people who died while driving due to some sort of traffic incident where they are at fault, versus people who die of any cause while sitting....driving will still have more fatalities. And that's an insanely dishonest comparison, as we're including people who's deaths weren't related to sitting, while ignoring people who were directly killed because of driving.
Just admit you're wrong here.
At 2/20/11 04:29 PM, KemCab wrote: You are honestly the biggest insufferable moron I have ever had the displeasure of reading on this board. They were massacres. There was nothing "atheist" about them no matter who they targeted. This is just a pissy excuse to lay blame upon atheists for no real reason.
No, it's realism. If athiests in the USSR slaughtered Jews, then atheists slaughtered Jews.
Considering that I have rejected above the idea that every X is responsible if ANY X does something bad, I have rejected the idea that all atheists are responsible for whatever I am mentioning.
There is no such thing as "Judeo-Christian wrong" either. Stop arguing in moral terms. Jesus Christ, you are an idiot.
So, you're wrong on the fact that atheist attrocities happened. You're wrong that I am blaming them on all atheists. You're wrong on...well you're wrong on everything.
The fact that your entire argument is "you're stupid", makes me take you as the halfwit you are.
At 2/20/11 11:38 PM, Imperator wrote: It depends entirely on what you mean by "penalty". I see a penalty in wasting one's life in worship.
And if someone feels worship is a joy, then you are wrong. Perhaps for you, forcing you to go to church is a punishment, but many people enjoy it. This is a blanket statement on personal taste. Such statements are always wrong.
I despise mushrooms. They are the most vile, disgusting thing I have ever tasted. But that's just me. Many people like mushrooms. I just am not one of them. If I claimed mushrooms were a "punishment" because I personally hated them...it wouldn't be 30 seconds before someone came up and told me mushrooms were the tastiest thing ever. If my grandmother were still around, she might even slap me for refusing to eat mushrooms (her favorite food).
Same as I don't get the whole S&M thing...but if you like it, have fun! Please don't give me details...
Likewise, while it's true having no lottery ticket is riskier than having one, having one lottery ticket is not a risk-averse position.
Huh? Having a lottery ticket means you spent money on something that will most likely give you no return. How is engaging in risk less risky than not engaging in risk?
That said, these lotto tickets demand time and money, and our lives are rather short in the grand scheme of things. So betting on the wrong horse IS riskier than not betting at all in respect to our lives.
Oh, ok...
In respect to divine punishment.....well, if you're betting on a single deity for reasons of Pascal's Wager, then you're simply a moron. By reason of religion being the "safe bet", you should appease as many gods as possible, and at least give yourself a fighting chance. As is, betting on a single religion is like putting all your marbles on 27 black, except this roulette wheel has 1000 numbers and 5 colors....
This betrays a fundamental flaw in knowledge of ANY religion. Betting on all religions is no different than betting on none. You are not worshiping one God. No religion, including the ancient Grrek or Roman ones, accepts this as valid. Even Ares would spite you for praying to his competitors.
Your argument here makes very little sense...
If one is an atheist and is correct, then my life will have been fuller for not spending years of time, money, and energy eviscerating chickens in deference to supernatural beings.
I've yet to eviscerate a chicken to a supernatural being.
Yet, everything I've done as a Christian to help others has enriched me as a human being. Scouting for food, Habitat for Humanity, working with the VA, all of these things have made me a better person.
NO ONE'S life is fuller for refusing to spend it on others.
If you're arguing that it's rational to pick one, and only one, religion, you are incorrect.
Yet, I'm not incorrect. Even if I'm wrong, I have a chance at winning the "Roulette", athiests do not. I have a chance...they do not.
If you're arguing this life isn't wasted by worshiping a deity and being wrong, you're insane.
Why? Christians are happier and more self fulfilled than atheists. We give to our communities and bust our humps for others beyon our non-believing bretheren.
There is no downside to being a theist and being wrong.
If we're going by pure probabilities, one should be everything, and appease as many gods as one can discover.
Which results in a 0% chance of victory and is therefore foolish.
For natural reward/punishment, I think atheism is less risky. The chance of me wasting my life worshiping the wrong deity as an atheist is pretty small, nominally....zero.
Your chance of being rewarded in this life is not great. Your chance of being a great person and facing hardship is 100%.
If there is no God, that's great. You won't have a downside. If there is a God, you will be punished. Depending on who that God is...the punishments can be awful. (The Egyptians and Muslims believe some nasty crap...)
At 2/20/11 12:27 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: So if, say, Al Qaeda had the political and economic means to accomplish their 'greater' goal, and subsequently carried it out in full force, they would be irreligious?
Hmmm, would al Queda be a Muslim group?
Wait, before you celebrate, hold up. I know where you were going. Does al Qaeda quote the Quran? Are they a group that directly follows the teachings of Muhammad? If either answer is yes (and they both are yes), then the comparison is invalid. They are therefore a religious group following the religious teachings.
I never claimed all religion is peaceful. But it was a nice try!
And the lack of a record of atheists in death camps means he was on their side?
So, am I supposed to repeat myself every time I am asked a question I have already addressed? Look above.
Do you know what an atheist is? Did you not think I'd notice you capitalizing God?
Witty retort? "You know, you did a pretty bang up job with proving Hitler wasn't a Christian. But you capitalized god, so you're a liar!"
Capitalizing God for a religious person is like capitalizing Robert, or Tommy, or Mike. It's the way it goes. Do you have a point? Or are you just nitpicking to try and be contentious?
The evidence shows that at most he was irreligious. ( And the fact that hollow pandering, such as "I'm doing the Lord's work," was consequential to Hitler keeping favor with a substantial religious contingent is testament to the danger of religion. )
WAIT!
I'm sorry, but this very admission is what I have said repeatedly. He said religious things to gain favor among people he did not share views with. It's not like I myself haven't said this above, and sourced to it from other links. I have made this very argument over and over and over. Hitler said a couple of things that could mildly be construed as religious (though not any particular religion), but was openly hostile to every religion in the country. He simply wasn't a Christian. He rewrote the religion for his ends (no Christian thinks they can rewrite the word of God).
So, as I said, Christian was NOT a Christian, obviously not a Jew, and had no religious leanings other than towards himself. Ironically, despite inadvertanly agreeing with me, I know you'll challenge my conclusions in the future.
At 2/20/11 10:14 AM, Chris-V2 wrote: My point was that it's a false statement - it's much like saying you need an education to get a job. Yes you do, but you also need a number of other things. I'm not being dishonest, it's just that you're omitting obvious factors.
I'm stopping here. Claiming that someone else needs to PROVE oxygen is necessary to breath precludes you from mocking others.
Sorry, I feel little more need to debate children on adult matters beyond their intelligence.
At 2/20/11 10:36 AM, Camarohusky wrote: If it's so simple SOURCE IT UP. Seriously. Find me a scientifically sound study that proves that a fetus prior to the hird trimester is an independent viable lifeform.
Oh, so now we're changing the criteria?
I've never claimed, and have specifically addressed the viability issue. So viability is a non-issue for me. As addressed at least 3 times before.
As for independent, I don't have to prove it's independent. You have to prove it's not. And since you've admitted it is, well, you're kinda sunk on that one.
No more bullshit. No more deflecting. No more acting like this is a simple question. Just find me sources or admit failure. There is no third option here.
Sure there is. I can continue to say I'm not sourcing issues that everyone agrees on.
And if you wish to disagree on scientifically settled issues, please show me that YOU are correct. Show me that a fetus DOESN'T have different DNA than it's mother.
It's an impossible challenge and you have 150% chance of failure, but go ahead and try if you like.
At 2/20/11 01:18 PM, Warforger wrote: No they were not. Most were innocent only about IIRC a single digit number of the hundreds were actually spies. The logic was really stupid, it went along the really paranoid lines of "If I ask you if you are a Communist and you say you are not then you are a Communist, if you say are then you are a Communist" it was just more retardation, the methods for seeking them out were people complaining about workers rights, people who held some interest in the past in the Communist party and stuff along those lines. It was one of the worst things to happen to America in the 20th century showing off how paranoia is a huge flaw in America, and the effects of it left people like Glenn Beck to grow up and spout the aftershocks of it using more logical fallacies.
That's a pretty massive distortion of history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona_proj ect
As the venona cables make clear, there was a massive proliferation of people in the government associated with communist regimes. While it is a matter of dispute to what extent the people in the cables were involved with the communists, the connection is undeniable.
At 2/21/11 01:09 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Arthur Miller disagrees with you. I would say more...but everybody else took the stuff I wanted to say.
I love how you have the balls to call other people morons guy when you spout out things even a high school student knows is bullshit.
Kinda ballsy for a dude who has a low average for calling BS on me...somewhere around 0%. So pardon me if I stand by my factual statement above and demand someone prove me wrong.
Other than simply claiming I'm a fool, ya got anything intelligent to add?
