1,232 Forum Posts by "swayside"
I'm a bit of a music junkie, but I've never gotten into electronica or techno. I'm looking to try to scratch the surface, but I don't really know where to start. If you would, please, help me out by recommending a song or two. I'm not looking for in-depth lists of bands or discographies. Actually, I'd prefer that I didn't get those. I'm just looking for specific songs to look up.
If it makes any sense, I'd like songs of a particularly high-energy feel. I'm looking for a rush and a thrill. I've heard a few like that in the past, but I really don't know who they were by, and I can't even remember the tunes.
Thanks in advance.
At 1/4/07 05:31 AM, ReiperX wrote:At 1/3/07 11:33 AM, swayside wrote:Multiple things don't add up about the Tower of Babel.Tower of Babel.By this you could either be referring to the place and politics of the Tower or the alleged supernatural lingual changes.
1) The people were supposively making a tower that can reach Heaven. Its physically impossible unless at the time heaven was literarlly in the sky, or they had some trans dimensional technology that is far past anything we can comprehend today. If neither of those are true, then why would God destroy it because they cannot possibly reach Heaven?
This is a good question.
Think about the logistics of building a tower that reached up that high. Keep in mind though, that, in Genesis, God split the heaven (singular) that he made with the earth into three sections. The third heaven was the one, supposedly, where God dwelt. Perhaps building a tower to heaven a hyperbole, or what they actually intended to do literally regardless of it's actual possibility.
Also, bare in mind that God didn't create Adam to think just like you and me. We don't even use 50% of our brain. The Protestant god of "waste not, want not" would not have created a brain only to waste most of it. Adam came straight from the hand of God. I think, personally, that Adam could have been preprogrammed with all sorts of intimate knowledge of physical science. He'd be able to do things with elements that we're just learning today. Plus, anything he didn't know, he certainly could have learned from God himself because they walked together in the cool of the day according to the Bible. Adam would have been incredibly intelligent and knowledgeable. Also human fossils have been found that are, in some cases, 10-12 feet tall. Adam, and his subsequent generations were also probably significantly larger than us today. With that kind of knowledge passed down from Adam to a race of people that were genetically superior to us today, large tasks like the building of the ark by merely 4 people is conceivable.
This is just after the flood, too. These people were not only rebelling against God by staying in the same place. They were essentially attacking God. The flood was still fresh in the mind of this group of people. Building a tower that stretched to heaven would protect them from just that sort of wrath of God by elevating them to a place above the waters. They could do as they pleased without consequence if they pulled this off according to that line of thought.
2) The tower of Babel was between 100 to 150 years after the flood. That is not a long time for the 8 people to reproduce to create a large enough city and civilization to build this tower. Remember, the life span decreased drastically after the flood.
Let's just say that each of Noah's sons had one child every two years. After just one hundred years (assuming that the birth rates weren't any faster than that and that Noah himself did not reproduce after the flood), you'd have just over 150 people. Assuming that the tower was between 100 and 150 years after the flood, that's ample time to reproduce enough to account for the man-power necessary to build the tower especially when you consider that the people that built the ark themselves were with them and probably passed on the knowledge of construction. Very large tasks accomplished by a few people working together was apparently the order of the day.
3) If the people were intelligent enough to build the tower while talking in the same language, and God miraculously made all of their languages different, then it probably would not have taken long for them to learn each other's languages. For such an advanced civilization it wouldn't have been too hard at all it would seem.
That's a good point, but it was also a new idea. They had no concept of different languages before that happened. They didn't have any methods to get around such a problem. Some may have, but, for others, this may have been a turning point. This is the second time that God did something major in retaliation against man's rebellion. No one, but Noah and his family actually experienced the flood, but even they knew no other form of retribution from God. I think it's logical to assume that many involved with the tower turned from their rebellious attitudes when God did something to them directly. The language problem was bad enough, but the indirect effects of the problem probably had a good deal to do with why people gave up the construction and spread out over the face of the Earth as God told them to do in the first place.
Also, just a little side note...
The water from the flood could not have come from the kind of rain we see today. Where would all that moisture come from in the first place? Besides, when rain droplets condense onto dust particles in the air, something called the 'latent heat of condensation' occures. If you dip your hand in water, your hand will get cooler as the water evaporates. When it condenses, it releases that heat. If enough rain to flood the earth were to condense, the heat would be enough to quite thoroughly cook the earth. Nothing would have been able to survive a climate change like that.
Also, the water couldn't have evaporated. Where would it have gone? That's an awful lot of water, and I really don't think that it just up and floated away.
At 1/3/07 03:21 PM, ReiperX wrote:
A world wide flood causes many problems.
1) Where did the water come from?
2) Where did the water go?
3) The change in the salinity of water would have more than likely killed off almost all sea life, as well as fresh water life. Not to mention the drastic change in the ocean's temperature that would have caused most of whats left to die off as well. Yes I know there are some aquatic life forms that can live in brackish water, which is what the entire world would have turned into. But for the most part it can't.
1) Psalm 24:1 For he hath founded it [the earth] upon the seas, and established it upon the floods. Genesis 7:11, In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
There was water underneath the crust of the earth. The flood came as a result of these subterranean water-chambers rupturing. The pressure exerted by the continents would cause the water to surge through the cracks once the seal was broken. The rapidly moving water would erode the sides of the fractures causing the fault-lines we see today. The surge would shoot up very, very high and fall back down causing torrential rains. This would be sufficient to cover the earth as it was.
2) Genesis 8:1,3 And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters assuaged. And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated. Psalm 104:5-9 Who [talking about God] laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever. Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains. At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away. They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them. Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.
This takes a little context so, please, bare with me. Both at creation and after the flood, God said to the people something to the extent of 'go multiply and be fruitful'. Apparently, the god of the Bible has a thing for population (overridden by his sense of justice). The world before the flood was specifically designed to be the perfect environment to handle an enormous population. There were, perhaps, one or two super-continents covering a majority of the earth's surface. Since it was designed to be habitable, there would be no need for huge mountains or treacherous terrain. The earth, with comparatively smaller oceans, larger continents, and smoother terrain, would be a little easier to flood than earth as it is today, and those qualities follow the logic of God's creating the earth for habitation.
The fountains of the deep broke open, and the earth was covered in water that came from inside. Once the deed was done, the fountains relented and the rain stopped. Now you have a smooth earth with some rips in it blanketed with enough water to cover all of the land. This is where "They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys" comes into play. That phrase works on the same principle as "They came in by the hundreds". In that verse, it says that the land rose up into mountains and sank down into valleys. Take a bowl and get enough water in it to cover the bottom completely. Now, tilt it. Some of the bottom gets higher, some of it lower. What happens to the water in that situation is key here. When the land did that, the water washed off into the oceans. The water from the flood is still here according to the Bible.
3) It's true that fresh water fish can't survive in salt water and vice versa. However, that's only true if you just toss a fish into the other kind of water. However, if you gradually add to the saltiness of freshwater and detract from the saltiness of saltwater, you can put freshwater and saltwater fish in the same tank. I think that most, if not all, sea-fairing creatures were freshwater in nature. After all, man was the crown of creation and the world was designed to suit his needs. Why have salty oceans? The ocean gets saltier and saltier very, very gradually over time. In the 4,400 years since the flood, it's gotten up to today's 3.5% salt. It's the same principle behind the Dead Sea or the Great Salt Lake but on a much larger scale. Before the flood, rivers may or may not have run off into the sea as many do today. The Bible also teaches that it didn't rain before the flood. With no rain and an already smooth earth, there would be little or nothing for rivers to drain because land-locked bodies of water would already be at least close to the lowest point it could find. The Bible does mention a spring that parted into four rivers. These, presumably, could have run off into the ocean possibly taking with it salt deposits and other sediments. The oceans would have gotten saltier at a much, much slower rate than even today's rate. After the flood, with the rain and elevated water running off into the oceans, the salt percent increases over time, and it's gradual enough, I think to slowly change the make-up of the creatures within to be able to deal with it.
At 1/3/07 09:49 PM, Grammer wrote:
I know, but I don't like it how people assume there had to have been incest going on. God may have made Adam and Eve with his own hands (guided by evolution), but that doesn't mean they were the only people created by God's hands.
I know what you mean, but a counter-assertion is just as invalid. I'm not trying to say that either is right. I'm saying that both sides are just as (un)reasonable.
However, I'd like to mention that every religion in which the garden of Eden story is told traditionally, the first people are said to have come straight from the hand of God. Progressive evolution is not a doctrine that is actually taught by these religions. It's a concession that individuals make and something read into the text. That's got nothing to do with the accuracy of the theory, but it is a supplemental theory applied to an established premise.
At 1/3/07 11:45 AM, Grammer wrote:
Genesis 4:15
Then the Lord said to him, "Not so! Whoever kills Cain will suffer a sevenfold vengeance." And the Lord put a mark on Cain, so that no one who came upon him would kill him.
While that doesn't necessarilly imply the opposite of what you're saying, it doesn't endorse it. I just says "whosoever". That could easily refer to any of Adam's subsequent children that might just get self-righteous enough to try to kill Cain. I'm not saying that God didn't create other people. I'm saying that that verse doesn't back up the notion.
At 1/3/07 11:48 AM, candymancan wrote:
I was joking, my real opinion on the matter is that I don't want a gay man staring at my cock whilst I'm in the shower, that's an infringement on my rights.
...You're referring to your right to privacy in your shower and not some right to not be attractive to men who are attracted to men, right?
I'm going to go ahead and classify that as postmodern humor before I break something.
At 1/3/07 07:00 AM, ReiperX wrote:At 1/3/07 12:04 AM, afliXion wrote:I don't think so.... The Bible goes absolutely perfectly with history. No exagerations. Can you give an example?The flood.
What's wrong with the flood? There are some major geological features on the earth that can only be explained logically by the flood. There's the bad lands of the middle east. There're huge ripple marks that indicate that a huge amount of water was moving through that area. Also, Grand Canyon. From where the canyon starts up north going all the way down to the ocean, the Colorado River drops vertically almost an entire mile. However, if you walk along the edge of the canyon and follow the river from start to finish, as you get closer to the half-way point, you'll be gradually getting higher and higher in altitude until you reach what's called the snow line. The Grand Canyon cuts through a east-west mountain ridge. Continuing from that point, as you move closer and closer to the mouth of the river, you'll be going down in altitude. Rivers do not flow up hill. The Colorado River is no exception. It didn't push it's little way all the distance up the mountain and slowly cut a groove deep enough for it to start flowing down hill. Something else made Grand Canyon. The river just happens to be there because, hey, it the path of least resistance for all that water. Also, there's no delta. All the dirt that got washed out is gone. There should be a huge delta for that thing. Just look at the Mississippi delta. The Grand Canyon, I think, is a good indicator of a massive amount of water running over the face of the earth. Refer back to one of my previous posts in this topic for a link to a seminar that goes into more detail if you'd like.
The young Earth Hypothesis (And no offense, but I have a very hard time even calling that a hypothesis).
Okay, really, that's a HUGE prejudice. Essentially, you're saying 'I and people I respect believe this, therefore opposing opinions are inherently not only incorrect but invalid to the scientific method'. Go look up the definition of the word "hypothesis" and tell me that the young earth theory isn't one. Even if it's flat out wrong with no redeeming qualities, it's still a scientifically viable theory on which can be based testable predictions.
That aside, I do know of a few examples of young-earth-supporting information. For instance, the earth is slowing down in its rotation. Every year to year and a half, a second is added to the clock. I think the figure is that it's slowing down at the rate of a 1,000th of a second each day, but I'm not sure. Going back in time at that rate, friction, the Coriolis effect, centrifugal force, etc. would have made life on Earth extremely uncomfortable if billions of years are involved.
Also, the Earth is slowly falling away from the sun. Going back puts the Earth too close for life to exist. On the same note, the sun is constantly losing mass. Going back too far creates the same problem essentially.
There are a few others. I'll share later if your interested in listening to them.
Making man of clay.
Okay... saying that this does not 'fit perfectly' with history is really not a good argument. It's based on either the assumption that the Bible is incorrect and, therefore, man was not made of clay or the assumption that man was not made of clay and, therefore, the Bible is incorrect. His argument is based on the assumption that both the Bible account and the notion that man was made of clay are correct. Besides, what does evolution teach? 'Man ultimately came from rocks and water". That's pretty much what clay is made of. Therefore, your statement implies that you do not believe that any god had anything to do with the origination of man. You may not believe that that happened, but that does not mean that it didn't. Keep in mind that, in this paragraph, I'm not saying that any god had anything to do with it. I'm saying that your line of logic is solely based on a belief that the origin of man implies no miracles. His line of logic is solely based on a belief that it does. You can't prove either, so your just butting heads with that argument.
Why animals have sharp teeth, yet supposively only ate vegetation.
Just look at fruit bats and panda bears. They are vegetarian, and they both have some pretty mean-looking teeth. That indicates a plausibility for other sharp-toothed animals to be vegetarian before the curse that the Bible refers to.
Talking Snakes.
This is based on the assumption that nothing that doesn't happen today ever happened before. I'm not an avid student of this particular topic, but would a talking snake really derail history as we know it? By the way, the Bible only mentions one talking snake. I'll admit that I can't explain it, but you can't back up the assertion that a talking snake never existed.
How Noah's family repopulated the entire Earth.
In 4,400 years, a population can easily grow from 8 people to 6 billion even accounting for wars and famine. It's exponential. Also, remember that just after the flood, people, according to the Bible, were still living to be very old. They were capable, in their extended lifetime, of producing far more offspring to get the earlier generations going. After that, boosting the population levels like that isn't difficult at all.
Tower of Babel.
By this you could either be referring to the place and politics of the Tower or the alleged supernatural lingual changes.
If the former, I don't see what's so difficult about it. people coming together to build a tower as a symbol of the pride in their civilization. Nimrod, the head-runner of this group, is an actual historical figure referred to by many who have nothing to do with the Christian faith. New Agers believe in him. Freemasons believe in him. Also, apart from faith, historians believe in him-- just like they believe in Napoleon or Jimmy Carter. He was married to the priestess of the original mystery religions still practiced and referred to today.
If the latter, once again, that is based on the assumption that miracles do not happen, and, therefore, that event did not occur. To make an example that you might appreciate, suppose I didn't believe in fish. I could say, "therefore, evolution took it's course through a different genus". Belief counts for nothing. I can't prove that the lingual change happened. You can't prove otherwise. I happen to believe it did. You're belief doesn't make me wrong.
---------
Also, could anyone give me some examples of clerical errors in the Bible? I mean, like, actual textual contradictions, not just things you don't believe. I'm looking for areas where the Bible might contradict itself, not you.
I certainly wouln't want to be in charge of supplying a solution, but that is an interesting problem. I know of a few homosexuals that were in the armed forces, but they almost always wait until they're out of the military to come out of the closet.
Sodomy being illegal is an interesting twist in all this. Personally, I'm against sodomy laws because they restrict personal, private freedoms even of heterosexuals. The administration is certainly in a corner on this one. I'd like to see where this is going.
I think that one of the key differences between me and most others on this topic is why I think what. My reasons aren't based on pragmatism at all. While I can keep up with most that outline the practicality and effectiveness of their social aid theories and policies, those are really beside the point to me. Results in the last place don't matter to me. Rights in the first place do. So long as personal rights are protected before social aid programs are considered, I really don't care what the program is. That principle does, however, kind of narrow down the scope of programs.
The Judeo-Christian ethic does harp a lot on charity, but I don't think the government is the way to do it. Wouldn't you get rather peeved at some preacher if he called you out for walking by a hobo without helping him? If you would, why wouldn't you get peeved with a statesman who doesn't even confront you personally requiring, through law, your resources to be dispersed throughout the impoverished community? I'm not saying "don't help the poor 'cause they suck". I'm saying "don't help the poor through taxes". If you like the poor or want to help, help. No one's stopping you. This especially applies to those that subscribe to the Judeo-Christian ethic. That's what the church is for. The church-body or congregation is the group of people. The church itself is supposed to be a facility for helping the community. That's why churches have steeples-- so people, when in need, can look to the sky and see the cross. The symbol of the Christian faith in that context is supposed to be a beacon to the area around it that implies "we will help". That's why some churches have what are called benevolence funds. They keep money on hand to help anyone that walks through the door. That's social aid. If you're not part of a church, you can still give to secular charities (just be sure to do your research on it. Go ahead and research the church you're giving to if you are). That's the fabled safety net.
If my resources go to someone else, it should come out of my hand and go into the recipient's hand. It should not be legally required of me and handed out arbitrarily. That, I think personally, is an insult to the spirit of charity.
At 1/2/07 05:06 PM, cold-as-hell wrote:
The bible is FULL of errors and unbilevibilities. Its based on faith, not evidence, so it really doesnt matter how wackey a religion can be.
So people who address religious concepts and beliefs as if they had any iota of fact behind them are just flat out wrong by principle?
At 1/2/07 05:51 PM, Idiosyncratic wrote:At 1/2/07 04:12 PM, swayside wrote: Just register as an independant. I think that would describe you best.I don't think it's possible to re-register. Is it?
It is.
Just register as an independant. I think that would describe you best.
Before I get flamed for linking to this guy, bare in mind that refering to someone is not one hundred percent endorsement of everything that person says.
Kent Hovind gives lectures on Creationism. His seminar part six deals with the flood. If you have a spare couple of hours and are interested in it, I'd reccommend giving it a listen.
http://drdino.com/downloads.php It's under "The Hovind Theory".
I'm not saying that this proves anything. It's just food for thought. I think every point deserves a counterpoint.
DNA is rather complicated, so I hope that I can give this argument justice.
Keep in mind that this argument is based on the Biblical premise of creation. I'm not saying that I endorse it, but I'm always game for a fair stab at something like this.
First off, there were no laws against incest until Moses penned the Torah. There wasn't any reason to be against it if there were no laws banning that behavior.
(I'm sure that I'll get flamed for even mentioning science and the Bible in the same sentence without bashing Christ. Please, please, please be open minded enough to assume that not all creationists are irrational morons. If creationists [be they Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or whatever] say that the earth was created, why would they just leave the notion as an assertion? Whether you agree with these people or even like them at all, people like Dr. Henry Morris, Dr. Hugh Ross, Dr. Kent Hovind, etc. have constructed hypotheses to explain the Bible and apply its principles to reality based on the scientific method. That aside, this is not an argument about the validity of scientific creationism, so please don't come back at me with arguments against it. I'm simply saying that creationists have this theory and within this theory is the principle which answers the question brought up by the starter of this thread.)
The scientific model of Biblical creation predicts that, from the point of creation ex nihilo, the universe has been on a steady decline in order according to the second law of thermodynamics. Assuming that that is the case, as the Bible would, that would also apply to the human gene code. In human DNA, there are billions of chromosomes. On average, the modern human has about 3,500 deformed chromosomes. If two people with the same deformed chromosomes reproduce, the child is much more likely to have physical problems. People who are closely related are more likely to have the same deformities in their genetic code and are, therefore, for more likely to produce deformed children than people who are more distant than a second cousin. That's the Biblical rule and why it's there.
However, in the beginning, there would not have been deformed chromosomes. Would the Christian God of 'waste not, want not' create the first man with genetic deformities? Why would he? The Bible itself says that creation 'waxes old like a garment'. Everything that God created is on a steady decline in order-- it's all disintegrating. Genetic code is no exception. In the first few hundred generations, incest wasn't a problem because there weren't enough deformities to cause any more real risk than reproducing with someone outside the family. As the code was copied and copied and copied, it began to deteriorate just like a Xerox off of a Xerox off of a Xerox.
So, did Adam's sons and the early subsequent generations after them practice incest? Yes. Was is wrong according to the Bible? No, there was no law against it until Moses. Is it wrong according to be Bible now? Emphatically, yes.
I'd like to make a disclaimer if I may. Notice that this argument is made "according to the Bible" not "according to reality". You may or may not believe that the Bible reflects reality, but it's not the point here. This thread is about the incest supposedly practiced by main characters in the Bible and the Biblical laws against such conduct. I'm simply saying that the Bible is not contradicting itself in that point and only that point. That is the scope of my argument.
I know what you mean. I, too, agree with the right on a lot of issues-- more, in fact, than I agree with the hard left. There are, however, issues that I just can't get around with them. On top of that, there're individuals that I can't stand. Bush pushed a few of my buttons with the marriage thing, but it wasn't his agenda that got me the most. It was his disregard for the constitution which barres the federal government from ruling on marriage at all. It's a state issue. The fact that the president himself is so either ignorant of or malicious to constitutional process just scares me.
At 1/2/07 10:06 AM, tawc wrote:At 1/2/07 09:59 AM, swayside wrote:Your being a bit biased on the way you determin on how france lost those wars, I could say the same about the 15 or so american wars.
War of 1812 - Lost
Korea - Lost
Vietnam - Lost
Iraq - Lost
War on Terrorism - Lost
I don't believe the American war record has anything to do with what I said. You said 'what losses' so I said 'these losses'. I did, in fact, explicitly say that I, myself, don't have a large enough base of research to have an opinion on France one way or the other.
So you're saying that WWII doesn't count because France wasn't ready? I'm kind of predisposed to the line of thought that says that a loss is a loss regardless of circumstances even if they are unfair.
Also, I don't have too much of a base of research to whole-heartedly support or attack the French, but I do know of a few losses:
- Gallic Wars
- Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian. [Or at ths time in history, a Roman -ed.]
- Hundred Years War
- Mostly lost, saved at last by female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare; "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman." Sainted.
- Italian Wars
- Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians.
- Wars of Religion
- France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots
- Thirty Years War
- France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.
- War of Revolution
- Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.
- The Dutch War
- Tied
- War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War
- Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded Frogophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French military power.
- War of the Spanish Succession
- Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since.
- American Revolution
- In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare; "France only wins when America does most of the fighting."
- French Revolution
- Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French.
- The Napoleonic Wars
- Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.
- The Franco-Prussian War
- Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.
- World War I
- Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States [Entering the war late -ed.]. Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.
- World War II
- Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.
- War in Indochina
- Lost. French forces plead sickness; take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu
- Algerian Rebellion
- Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare; "We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.
- War on Terrorism
- France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to Vietnamese ambassador fail after he takes refuge in a McDonald's.
At 1/2/07 01:31 AM, Techware wrote:At 1/1/07 05:38 PM, swayside wrote:I do not endorse or even trust the Republicans.I wonder why. Probly because of the media coupled by the population's general ignorance.
So... I don't like the Republicans therefore I'm ignorant or misinformed? Perhaps it's because I have a few legitimate disagreements with that party and a few individual members of it. Maybe, just maybe, I based my statements on my own personal reasoning and not the echos of other people's sentiments.
Seriously, that's an illogical conclusion apparently based on the assumption that people who don't like the Republicans ignorant or misinformed. Does everyone who votes Democrat operate under misinformation? Is every Independent and ignoramus that just doesn't understand the Republican party? While I certainly do not agree with a lot of people out there, I don't just assume that they think differently due to inferior logic or misinformation. Maybe, just maybe, they simply have different conclusions based on the same circumstances that I look at. I don't think that they're deficient because of that.
Grow up and learn to contend with differing opinions instead of insulting them.
Just so you know, telling us to "discuss" is rather high-and-mighty of you. That's what this forum is for. You don't have to tell us.
----------
I think that we are all born with a natural right to live. I do not think we are born with the right to the means to live. I do not inherently deserve unearned resources simply to keep me alive. The government is there to protect my right to life, not support it. I have no right to food. I have the right to earn it. I have no right to shelter. I have the right to earn it. If I did have a right to those things, then what of the people that own them? Do they have the obligation to adjust their price based on the subjective need of every individual? They could and would be completely within their rights to do so, but they also have the right to require anything they would in exchange for access to their resources.
Also, those that earn more should pay more, but that's a basic mathematical principle. Individuals should pay a flat percentage tax. Graduated income tax is either illogical or communistic. The second plank of the Communist Manifesto dictates a heavy progressive or graduated income tax. Wether you like the idea or not, it is a communist one.
I'm against all governmental finacial aid. Perhaps if tax-payers didn't have to fund such programs, the significantly lighter tax-burden would not only give otherwise generous people more resources to throw around, but it would also keep people farther from the poverty line which is what those programs are there for anyway. Not paying as much money is having more money. More money is prosperity that is, at the very least, comparably greater to that experienced under the greater tax-burden.
I voted for Bush in the last election. It was the first election in which I was old enough to legally vote. I was very excited. I considered myself to be what I now refer to as a neo-conservative. I'm a registered concervative as it stands right now.
However, due to events and studies I've done which actually have little or nothing to do with the Iraq conflict, I've completely withdrawn my loyalties from our current administration. I do not endorse or even trust the Republicans.
The only honest and accurate way I've found to give some kind of title to my system of political policy beliefs is saying that I'm "civil libertarian by creed, not party affiliation". I think that a governments sole function is to ensure and protect civil liberties. Some of those are debatable, sure, but some of the core ones like life and freedom are enough to get my point across. If the protection of those rights is the paramount concern of government, then national defense, criminal laws, the penal system, police force, ect. all fall right in line. There are many, many things endorsed by "civil libertarians" that I'm just completely at odds with, but the words in the title and their actual denotation serve to describe my beliefs rather well. That's the best that I can do.
well, what a topic to come back for...
okay, here's how this works. the death penalty, wether you're for it or against it, is about justice and deterance. a stipulation of it should be that it fits the crime-- so if someone were to slit someone else's throut, i don't think the wolf-pack idea would serve justice.
capital punishment is not speaking on behalf of the victim. it's not about the piece of mind for the victim's family. it's not about the appeasement of society. it's about justice. we all have rights. violation of some of someone else's rights voids some of the perpetrator's rights-- the more severe the the violation, the more harsh the suspension. this is why "victimless crimes" like speeding are often merely fined while petty theft, battery, and murder are respectively more severely punished.
the debate on this topic gets hazy around this area-- what punishment is merrited by the violation of another's right to live. to me, for the intentional termination of someone else's life, nothing short of direct capital punishment is just. i say "direct" because justice doesn't come through the violence of inmates in prison during a life-sentence. i've heard a lot of people bicker on this issue saying that if murderers were put into prison, they'd spend the rest of their lives being raped and bludgered and would probably be killed in the end anyway. that doesn't work at all-- not just because of how it doesn't fit the crime, but mainly because you can't insitutionalize something like that. you'd have to make sure that there was some guy in the prison bigger and meaner than the one you're putting in. if that were the case, who's going to bludger the bigger, meaner guy? god knows what he did to get into prison.
now, as for the deterant aspect of the punishment-- that is a latent effect. if deterance was a main aspect in punishment, it'd be just fine and dandy to go along with the wolf-pack idea. deterance comes into play when it is proven to the populace that crimes will not be overlooked and are weighed equally.
At 11/28/04 01:52 AM, PacoW wrote: 1. You rated pretty low on a decent movie.
2. Your review was unnesecarily hateful, and a bit too personal.
3. You got owned.
how was that a decent movie? it was horrible. my review was sarchastic, not hateful.
yeah... yeah, he totally owned me... yeah.
apparantly not in that case.
i was looking through my profile, and i ended up reading the responses to my reviews. the last reply i got was a bit... well... retarded. the animation i reviewed was "Demon in the Bigg City E1" (honestly tell me that you think that's a winner).
my review:
of all the recycled, predictable, over-testosteroned movies i've seen on newgrounds, i'd have to say that this one is a poster-child. some freakish demon guy with some physical irregularity, saves some chick from a thug in an alley, lays killer smack-down on an unsuspecting and frightenned criminal, and lo and behold, the woman has an unforseen effect on the main character (unforseen only to the characters in the movie, not to the viewers). well, good job on the whole recycling bit. we just get so many good ideas on newgrounds that we really have to count on authors like you to reuse and reface every plot point and character aspect that makes good origional movies what they are- not crap.
his response:
of all the recycled, predictable, over-testosteroned reviews i've seen on newgrounds, i'd have to say that this one is a poster-child. some gay pre-teen with some physical irregularity, watches some flash, leaves a gay review, and lo and behold, is actually a homosexual (unforseen only to the authors in the portal, not to the viewers). well, good job on the whole recycling bit. we just get so many good reviews on newgrounds that we really have to count on viewers like you to reuse and reface every pun and phrase that makes worthwhile reviews what they are- not crap.
----------
make what you can of that. i could hardly believe that someone would do something so absolutely benign and just stupid.
anyone else get anything like this?
well, once again we have a topic that starts a bunch of bickering and unfruitful argument. so you hate bush... whoo. so you hate kerry... whoo. if you're going to start a topic, prove something. don't just preach to no more tangible end than a subjective "(whoever) sucks".
as for my take on the issue--
i saw the first presidential debate. what people said about both of the candidates in regards to the debate was, for the most part, true-- kerry had a lot of style. bush, a lot of substance.
i'm a very opinionated person, but i don't keep up with current events as much as most of you probably do. i hadn't seen bush speak since the last time i saw one of his state of the union addresses, and i had never seen kerry speak. i sat there and watched bush fumble with his words and shoot cold looks at kerry, and i watched kerry looking like a cocky straight a student waiting to give the right answer. i watched kerry say that we were in a wrong war, but that we should get others involved.
i knew who i was going to vote for even before the final democtratic candidate was chosen. i think bush is a strong leader, and i'm not voting for him just because i don't want kerry in office.
okay, this is a classic forum game.
this is how it goes: the first post (this one) contains a question. this question can be serious, but the general idea is to be humorous. you'll find that it is easier to answer questions in a humorous manner than it is to make up humorous questions.
the next poster answers that question and posts a question of his own.
the next poster answers that question and posts a question of his own.
ad infinitum...
the format goes like this.
first post:
Q: (such and such question)
next post:
A: (answer to the first question)
Q: (second question)
next post:
A: (answer to the first question)
Q: (third question)
---
this is not a discussion thread. all posts are to be in this format and contain nothing but a question and an answer in the q&a format shown. this is a really great game, and i'd like to see it work here.
that having been said... on with the show.
Q: what shall we do with a drunken sailor?
At 12/16/03 12:18 AM, gothic1 wrote: i think you have tickets on yourself by saying you get on with nearly everyone everyone thinks they get on with more people than they do not all goths are like steriotypes beleve they are people in here that bag goths i bet half of you guys havent met a goth in your lives
could you...uh... punctuate? your point is kind of lost in traslation to english from retarded.
wow, indeed, bladefunner. wow, indeed.
