3,623 Forum Posts by "Ravariel"
At 5/18/08 11:12 AM, Dre-Man wrote: Love and hate don't mix. Ever. You have to choose one or the other
Ah, to be the young, naive optimist again...
How so? Without the love of God, you would not love.
Don't you mean Brahman?
There is no doubt in knowledge.
There is no knowledge without doubt.
Now you get to figure out if I'm mocking, quipping, or making an actual point. Then again, maybe it's not that simple.
Wrong. All wars were fought before Christ came.
Wait...what?
They have no faith. They have only belief. They have only religion.
Right. And wouldn't they say the same about you? So who do I believe? You? Them? Myself?
You'll say (paraphrase) "Look into your heart/bible and you'll see the truth and that truth is my version"... they'll say the same thing... I'll look and see that neither side makes sense so where does that leave me?
And do you truly believe that someone can only mature by conforming to YOUR OPINIONS?!
Don't you believe the same thing? Oh wait, they're not your "opinions", they're "facts", no?
At 5/25/08 07:12 AM, Diederick wrote: I have no idea, but this certainly doesn't go for all of us.
I know... generalizing for the sake of simplicity here...
I believe most gay men are actually very masculine.
Two words: Music Theater.
Maybe my experience is limited... but it's at the best a 50/50 split from where I stand. Moreso for women.
Take gay porn for instance, don't expect too many flamers in there (though I don't believe you will actually investigate).
This is true. And I'm comfortable enough with my sexuality to have watched and, if not enjoyed, at least understood, gay porn. Then again, porn is often the extremes of stereotypes used in order to more easily fulfill fantasies. See: Cytherea, Christy Canyon, John Holmes, et al.
At 5/24/08 10:32 PM, AdamRice wrote: Well that's certainly been the case here in Michigan. All this outsourcing is making our economy boom! Hell, we've got more new jobs emerging than we have people too fill! All of our companies have become so wealthy outsourcing, they can't hire enough American workers! It's great, I love Michigan, and I love outsourcing!
Michigan's issues go WAY farther than outsourcing. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that very very few, if any, of our problems have been caused by excessive outsourcing.
At 5/24/08 09:25 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: How has the kinds of rights that man has been entitled to over the past 3 centuries changed?
See, now we run into the crux of the problem: What is the difference between an "inalienable" right and one given by the state/community/social group?
i.e. what rights should we have vs what rights we're given by the rulers of the time. Certainly the second has changed greatly over the years. However, the right to life has, and always will, be an inalienable right. Remember also, that your right to live only reaches as far as my face. Take my right to life and you effectively give up your own.
The rights of liberty and pursuit of happiness are definitely ones I believe should be inalienable, but have at many times been ones restricted by the state/etc. Those we have down in the constitution are nice, but not inalienable.
Also: Since homosexuals are supposedly attracted to their own gender... why do they try so goddamn hard to look like the OPPOSITE gender?
i.e. Butch Dykes, and overly-effeminate gay men.
Serious question.
At 5/22/08 10:11 PM, hippl5 wrote: Cruelty makes them taste better.
QFT
lolonewordpost
At 5/24/08 12:58 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:At 5/23/08 10:46 PM, ImaSmartass2 wrote:Isn't that only when you outsource manufactors of raw materials, not those on an assembly line?No. 100 percent of outsourcing leads to the company increasing profit (or else they would stop outsourcing).
I lack some of the common know how to make an "intelligent" response, but give me break.
Which, ironically, they're starting to do. Because as they're finding out, som 12-year-old getting $2 a day in the Phillipines doesn't make as good a widget as Joe McNormaldude making $7.00 and hour here. They also save in shipping costs, and lawsuits when their factories accidentally make their widgets out of GHB.
So, there's a balance... some outsourcing is definitely good all around. Too much is not.
At 5/22/08 11:16 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: 1) Do you agree with the statement that all humans are created equal and why? [Yes or no and why]
I echo Commander's question.
2) What is your conscious reasoning for doing acts of altruism?
I echo staff's answer.
3) Do you beleive Altruism is or can be a subconscious act? if it is, what makes it treated as so 'venerable' in our society? Can you make a case for why it should still be venerable in our society even if you feel that it is or can be subconscious?
Yes. The desire to stop pain in others is a necessary drive. If we did not feel that way, then we would quite quickly destroy ourselves.
4) Would you do something beneficial to yourself and consequently harmful to somone else if you knew that you wouldn't get caught or punished for it?
It would depend on the degree of benefit/harm. Great benefit, little harm, absolutely... not so much vice-versa.
5) Would you kill a murderer if you felt doing so would save more lives? [Spur of the moment descision, a now or never sort of thing]
Yup.
At 5/23/08 08:41 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: 1a) Do you beleive all people are equal in the sense that they are entitled to a certain number of inalienable rights, and should be treated equal under the law? Please prpvide a non ethical or ethics based reason for why this is so.
Ah, my clarification... answer:
Abso-fucking-lutely. Use the Hobbsian veil of ignorance: If you didn't know which way the inequality would fall upon you... would you go for equal or non-equal? It is most beneficial for a species and a people to have an equal set of rights granted across the board.
1b) If, hypothetically, all people are entitled to certain inalienable rights under the law, if this principal is all yielding and universal, why is it subject to change. How can it be a universal truth that all people are entitled to certain schizophrenics rights.
...I don't understand your question. Why would a set of inalienable rights be malleable at all?
At 5/24/08 03:12 AM, promontorium wrote: 2. There is nothing in the entire constitution about marriage, gay or straight. Apples and oranges.
Equal protection clause + Full Faith and Credit (because it applies to marriage). Just because the words "gay" and "marriage" don't appear doesn't mean the constitution doesn't apply to them.
If you want to play your little 'both or neither' game, then guns should remain legal, and marriage shouldn't have any regulations or benefits in the eyes of the law. Anyone should be able to marry anyone or anything including toasters, air, and Santa Claus, but they should get no legal benefits from it whatsoever. Marriage should have no value at all legally.
While I certainly don't disagree that guns should be legal, I do have a bit of trouble with no legal status for marriage. How do custody and property/inheritance issues become resolved without a legal marriage status?
At 5/22/08 08:20 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Isn't the why just as important though.
Possibly. But it's a question for another, different, theory to try to answer.
You're also confusing "why" and "how". "Why" implies intent... something that can't be determined.
Let it be known: I LOVE playing devil's advocate.
It makes me giggle... Like a schoolgirl.
no, I won't take off the pleated skirt...
At 5/20/08 04:37 PM, Imperator wrote: I mean it's like me saying "I'm a Red Wings fan!". Then you ask "what do you think about the Avalanches"?
I say "well I DON'T think about the Avalanches, I'm a Red Wings fan".
You should say: "Didn't we sweep you with a single player scoring more goals in the series than your entire team?" Or: "Oh, them... they suck."
At 5/20/08 04:55 PM, poxpower wrote: But if he tells you to gouge out your eyes then it's like "but we don't do that anymore so surely he wasn't serious!".
Yes and no. Again, you're ignoring the context. IF (big if) Jesus said "when you ogle a wo/man you must gouge out your eyes." And it was the common punishment for such an act at the time, it can be inferred that he was only talking to them in that culture. A broade context might lend it to mean "If you break the law, submit to the punishment you earn from the culture you follow."
i.e. if you know an action's result is the death penalty, be ready to die if you do it.
Why would he mix the two so that only science that comes 4000 years later can separate what is fact and what is fiction?
So we would strive to find out? To test our wits? To see if we could figure out the puzzle? To lay another clue in our path? Maybe we're simply getting ready for another level of understanding of his word. Maybe our culture has finally (or will soon) come to the point of the inclusion and study of the gospels not included.
That's the sign of a very horrible writer or a pathological liar.
Or an infinitely intelligent writer. Have you ever read a book where you didn't get all the connections and the symbolism and the metaphors on the first reading?
So ok let me get this...
God creates man, but not smart enough so that he can talk straight to him.
Yup... if we were omniscient (necessary to follow god's actual conversation/meaning/thought process) we would be god already... and we all know how that ends.
Then God punishes stupid man for not doing what he asks him ( because he's stupid ).
True... but we don't really know what that punishment might be.
Then God finds one stupid man, orders him around a little, kills some unborn children, then writes down 10 commandments for him on a tablet.
So they say...
One of which is "don't lie".
..
Yup.
Yes well that makes sense.
We're all just stupid monkeys... of course it doesn't make sense. But your position, thoughts, and interactions with others does all probably fit into the planned effect of the words he wrote.
From middle Africa.
Yup... suck on that, Iraq!
So I guess he wanted the Crusades and the Inquisition.
Well that's nice.
Can a greater good come from an incredible evil?
You're just trolling me aren't you?One of your has to be wrong.
No... I'm actually asking why two different interpretations can't both be right.
If you and I look at an abstract painting and come away with two different impressions. different emotions, and different reactions... is one of us wrong?
At 5/19/08 07:45 PM, poxpower wrote: Are you denying that punishments such as stoning, crucification, limp chopping, eye-gouging, tongue-chopping etc. weren't in that culture? Certainly Jesus and his followers knew very well what kind of punishments were the norm back then.
In this, as in everything, context is king. Yes, punishments eem cruel and unusual to us now... however, hangings and electrocutions seem cruel and unusual to us as well.
Maybe we're just a little too pussified.
Why are there historically false things in the Old Testament? Unless it's not the word of God.
Would god be unable to create a parable, a metaphor, and illustrative story? Why must every word be historically accurate for it to be god's word?
Well we assume that God wouldn't lie to people. So why does he put so many false things in his book?
Of course god would lie to us. We can't possibly understand everything he wants us to do, so he uses parable (metaphor, fiction... LIES) to guide us in the right direction.
Or the flood. Not a word. Or the whole line of descendants from Adam. There's no record of these people and DNA evidence suggests it's complete bullshit.
Adam, no... but we do have genetic evidence of a common female ancestor... just sayin'.
So how can it be trusted? ( sort of answers my first question: God wrote it so it wouldn't get twisted later on but then that failed too obviously ).
Unless it got twisted in the way he wanted it to...
One of your has to be wrong.
Why?
Anyone who say the "other" side is all bad, and does only evil things and likes it while "their" side is the victim and altruistic is a deluded fool.
So my internets got shut off the other day. Called the Devil ( I mean, comcast) since my cable didn't go out... last month my payment didn't go through (fed tax return didn't come in, fucked the finances, etc) so, without telling me, they removed me from the auto-bill... then the instant they issued this month's bill (read: not at the due-date), they shut off my intarwebs. Got the bill in the mail the next day.
Seriously, wtf?
God I wish I could get Charter, or ANY other cable intarweb company.
At 5/16/08 06:05 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: This isn't a rhetorical question...
How many of you will be excited when polygamy becomes legal by judicial decision.
*raises hand*
Because you're right, it's not different. Any number of consenting adults should be able to enter into legal contracts.
At 5/15/08 07:26 PM, Phratt wrote: Thank you.
Are you a conservative because I'd like to know.
Actually, no. While I hardly run the party line, I tend to be more liberal than most. I can give a few assumptions gleaned from various conversations, however... and other conservatives feel free to correct/specify these points.
1) They feel a strong sense of duty and commitment to authority and tradition. As such, many more "liberal" ideas, such as gay marriage and abortion run counter to what they see as a rich tradition.
2) Change for the sake of change isn't necessary: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"
3) Generally more religious. Following from point 1, this encourages a much more strict interpretation of what they see as the ultimate authority, and a strong adherance to their dogma.
4) Fiscally, a true conservative will be for extensive spending reductions in government, along with tax cuts... both of which are excellent ideas. Many of our entitlements sometimes will come under fire from them as well, like Medicare, Welfare, universal health care... they believe that the free market will be better able to give people a wider range of health care options and be able to do it more efficiently.
Others can add features as they please. I don't want to be accused of straw-manning anything.
At 5/15/08 07:26 PM, animehater wrote: His ignorance does not justify his arrogance.
Justify, maybe not... but explain, yes. When all you've been exposed to is one viewpoint, your dedication to that viewpoint can, indeed, come across as arrogance.
At 5/15/08 07:19 PM, MattBlackguard wrote: Age: 14
FAIL
Is that all you do, berate people about their age?
Just because he doesn't understand the conservative mindset doesn't mean he can't learn.
I honestly don't know where the verious parties lean on the issue, but science has shown that the most economically and artistically advantageous length of copyright is 14 years. Ironically, this is the length that the original copyright laws granted.
Current law is death plus 70 years. Thank you Walt Disney.
There are no bad words... only bad numbers. 3 5/8... foul. 1/137... well, that... that should just never be used in public. I'm embarrassed to even write it here.
At 5/13/08 06:50 PM, Imxset wrote:Seriously...wtf is up with our weather. 40-degree February... 70-degree April... 50-degree May.Well, at least you don't live in Florida.... 90-degree weather all around >_<
Fuck Michigan.
...you say that like it's a bad thing.
At 5/13/08 02:44 PM, Imperator wrote: Ran into some judgemental assholes today.
:(
On a brighter note I'm pretty sure I did decent on my Greek exam.
Grats!
More brighter note: Weather's getting nicer again......for however short of time that will last of course......
Seriously...wtf is up with our weather. 40-degree February... 70-degree April... 50-degree May.
Fuck Michigan.
At 5/13/08 01:56 PM, TheMason wrote: The amount of training required is related to the simplicity of function...not danger level. Furthermore, I know of two people who have shot either themselves or a family member through inappropriate handling of a firearm.
Eh, while that may be how it is, I'm not sure it's how it should be. Look at ATVs... no required training to ride offroad... as "simple" to use as an automobile, and nearly as dangerous. Training courses are recommended but not mandatory. Hell, I was driving my friend's 4-wheeler when I was 11. This doesn't mean I was excused from a training course when it came time to get licenced to drive.
ANd, since we're going all anectodal here, everyone I know who's been shot, was so with their own, legal, firearm. Granted, two of them were ambushed by a burglar who broke in, stole their weapons, tied them up and shot them both in the back of the head. The other was a hunting accident. And yes, more training would probably not have prevented either incident.
1) This guy was cleaning his pistol...
2) My ex-father-in-law was cleaning his deer rifle
Seriously... how hard is it to remember to unload your damn gun before you clean it? We're not talking about forgetting to put on your seatbelt here...
The ones who need safety training are those who start shooting in adulthood, and by and large they seek out training on their own.
Then my idea wouldn't really call for much expense at all. Those who already know it all should be able to pass any training quickly and easily... and those who would need it already get it... I just want some general federal guidelines, and that the training be mandatory.
I was drunk when I wrote this...I made the link to my argument later on.
lol.
An issue is very rarely insular and seperated from other issues.
You'll certainly get no argument from me about that.
The thing is the need for cross-state gun crime tracking and/or control is pointless until we tighten our borders.
WHile I don't think it's "pointless until" we tackle border issues, I also agree that border security will go a long way towards helping the measures be more effective. Black market firearms that are off the registration grid help us not at all, and until we get their ballistics on the system, are all but invisible... and by then it's already too late for someone.
What I would be okay with is a registry of guns used in crimes complete w/ballistics that investigators can use for cold cases.
Exactly!
However, I look at Canada and their gun registry system...and it is just not somemthing I want to deal with.
So we learn from them and create a system that doesn't suck.
Furthermore, look at post-Kathrina New Orleans. It would only aid the police in disarming the good guys when they actually need to be armed.
How so?
There is no seven day waiting period for guns on the federal level. Now some states may have them...but it is not a federal law.
It isn't? Could have sworn... Ah, now upon looking it up, it mentions that the waiting period expired when we got a background check system up that didn't suck. Hooray for technology.
Again, I look at the Canadian system. Totally screwed up. Plus such a registry would likely be administered by the BATF who is known for doing such a wonderful job.
...eh... fair point. Then I guess our next or rather concurrent, problem, is getting federal agencies to not suck. I'm sure it can be done... I just don't know quite how.
Cho would not have been stopped by a training requirement.
Maybe not, but a real background check would have. And the only way we can make sure that it happens in every state is to make federal guidelines.
There are many differences. First of all, a person carrying a firearm concealed needs to be familiar with:
1) Tactical situations
2) State laws about the use of force
These are different from hunting and home defense. A gun in the rack is carried for hunting/target shooting while a gun on the person is used for self-defense. Hunting is a kill that can only be developed by doing...not training. Home defense is something that can be learned at the gun store in a fifteen minute brief.
Mmm... I see your point. But shouldn't everyone who owns a gun be aware of use of force laws? Tactical situations might be a bit beyond what is necessary, but even for those who purchase for home security (or the illusion of it... "Oh shit, someone's breaking in... where'd I put the lockbox *ruffles through closet* oh here it is... honey, do you remember the combination....honey?" *looks up and theif already got away with jewels and wife*) would not a more than cursory training proceedure be desirable. "Point this end at the bad guy, pull here to make him run/die/stop".
While I realize that my examples are hyperbole, they illustrate my point: more personal knowledge of how to be safe and effective with a weapon is never a bad thing.
It appears I have missed the derailment of the thread and for that I apologize.
"on" topic: I make a mean BBQ sauce...
At 5/13/08 07:06 AM, KidPower wrote: Anyone who hoped in that unicorn thing is going out on a complete limb for something with no reasoning behind it.
How is that different from Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, or Christianity? Because there's a book for yours and not for my unicorn religion?
I believe he rewards people who do as he commanded and thats do devote there life to worshipping him,
You haven't answered the question: What if god rewards only the nonbelievers? And can you provide any evidence that this is not the case?
I can't die and find out that X religion was correct and change my mind then
Why not? Even in Christianity it is said that at judgement day is the only time when you actually have to say "Yep, you're god, sign me up" and declare your allegiance. Why can't we decide, once we find out the truth, once we are able to percieve that truth (as we are supposed to be able to do post-mortem), whether or not to accept or reject it?
At 5/12/08 09:42 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:Fine, then how do we keep states like Louisiana from falling behind due to their poverty?Oh, we'll still fund them.
...huh? Then how is that "getting the federal government out"?
Then we can allow the states to set up a system for themselves.
But without the national registry, how can we get a streamlined method of tracking firearms and firearm crime across state lines?
Plus cops can like, totally stop killing our buzz, man.
werd.
Uhh... what?Do the Athletes have large Talons?
Not sure where you're going with this... but no.
Plus the fact that outsourcing is actually GOOD for the economy.
To a point... but like I said, the money companies are saving on wages are starting to come back in shoddy quality and shipping costs.
At 5/13/08 03:30 AM, TheMason wrote: Why do people think a national training program is necessary for firearms? They are not all that complex. I mean driving a car requires far more intelligence and attention to detail than firing a firearm. In literally an hour or less I could train anyone who is not functionally disabled how to handle any firearm safely. So a national training program is entirely unnecessary and waste of time and effort.
All due respect, I beg to differ. Yes, functionally, guns are simpler than cars. However, they are also at least as dangerous if not more so when handled inappropriately. We require a few hours of training and a short test for licencing people to be able to use a car. I don't see how this is such a burden when applied to firearms.
It should also be noted that I support removing nearly every weapon-type-specific law. I.E. AWB, clip size limits, and any of the other bs laws you can think of.
Secondly, why does there have to be a national registry? Most gun crimes are done with illegal weapons.
True, but having a national registry, that can be accessed by any law enforcement, would allow forces to link crimes between states, something which ia difficult to do now. We have licence plates and vin numbers for cars, and any police officer anywhere can see warrants issued to the owner of those cars... why not the same with guns?
Furthermore, look at our borders.
?
You talk about the patchwork of state laws. By and large they are not that different from each other.
By and large, yes.
What is different is these cities like NYC, DC and Chicago which try to institute gun-free zones.
Those are dumb, yes.
However, the problem is not with people who buy guns legally but people who buy them illegaly for illegal purposes.
Again, this is less for the legal owners than a tool to track guns used in multiple crimes. If a person in Utah gets his gun stolen, a national registy would help police in Florida solve a murder done with that firearm.
We make it harder across state borders they will just get them from Mexico and S. America.
?? I never said anything about making crossing state borders any more difficult. I only said that creating a national registry would allow law enforcement to track firearms used in crimes in other states, as well as perhaps get a point of origin where the firearm became illegal.
Hell currently it is probably easier and cheaper to get them by crossing a national border than a state border.
That may be true, but that's a whole other can of worms.
In sum, there is no need for further gun regulation. We have sensible and reasonable gun laws already.
I don't think so. The laws are too many, too restrictive, and too illogical. Eliminating all of them, including the Brady bill (as the background check would be part of the licensing... forget the 7-day waiting bit), into a national licensing and registration would reduce the complexity and streamline gun laws all across the union. It's not an increase in controls... in fact I think it relaxes them... it merely shifts the focus.
Again, no need for training or licensing. Afterall a gun and automobile have one thing seperating them: owing a car is not a civil right while gun ownership is.
Do remember, that while gun ownership is a right, it was meant for the keeping of a well-regulated militia. And, I don't know about you, but I don't feel like having Cho in my militia.
The only training I see as reasonable is if someone wants to carry concealed.
Why is there a difference in this area to you? How does someone carrying a firearm on a rack in their car differ from them carrying it on their person?
In my scheme, it would simply be another form of licence... much like a CDL.
At 5/12/08 09:05 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: If the majority want legal public nudity, [which will never happen]
If the majority want gay marriage, let them have gay marriage, if they want restricted civil unions, let them have restricted civil unions.
Yeah, nevermind what is actually right, the will of the ignorant and fearful is god.
As long as the flow of ideas can exist, [Key word, flow of ideas] radical views on social outlook will be diluted and won't enter the majority sphere.
Thank god, imagine what would have happened if the radical idea of "equality" or "civil rights" had entered the majority! Why ny now we might have a n***** for preside...
o wait...
But social activism and reactionism are arrogant in how they assume that the minority has the right to tell people what they should or should not be allowed to do, and that their veiw is superior despite so few people agreeing with it.
Wow... just wow. We may be arrogant because we believe that our correctness supersedes the majority's ignorance, but you're even more arrogant by suggesting that what is popular is always what is right.
Just remember that orientation (backwards, forwards, vertical, etc) can change the meaning quite a bit... not that I know what it might change to or from.
