1,987 Forum Posts by "WolvenBear"
At 7/29/08 12:57 PM, T-N-T wrote: I don't think you read my text very clearly.
I did. You're still stupid. I ignored your irrelevancies.
A man goes to his doctor and says "I have AIDS." The doctor asks if he has fallen ill recently. The man says "Yea, I got a cold, but I'm ok now." The doctor concludes he doesn't have AIDS. The man points out he stubbed his toe...and the doctor still concludes he doesn't have AIDS.
Recession is a clearly defined term. We are not in one. The fact that you don't give a damn that we have growth shows you to be an economic illiterate and a hack to boot!
At 7/29/08 03:28 PM, CIX wrote: The economy isn't growing, that's inflation doing its job.
No the economy is growing. It's cool. You have no clue what the hell you're talking about. Back to silence?
GDP is good if you want to look at consumer spending and nothing more. People haven't come to terms that they should live within their means so this just means the Federal Reserve has to print more money to cover the debt which loses the purchasing power of the dollar.
Holy crap, you're a moron.
At 7/30/08 04:17 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Republican suck ass....
And yet the Democrats have done more damage in 2 years than they did in 14 years. Well, crap.
At 8/2/08 01:33 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: You're playing the "play the race card" card. Its the easiest way for white people to get away with being racist. "Oh their just playing the race card"
I didn't play the "play the race card" card. I told you what Obama said.
I'm sorry you're too much of a moron to deal with reality.
If I simply report on what someone else says, I'm not playing any card...I'm just reporting.
Nevermind that Obama has consistantly tried to distance himself from previous politics and candidates and presidents. Of course he's different than them, and yeah perhaps he is black. But he's saying, don't be afraid of me because I'm different. And thats not playing the race card thats asking for a fair chance. In some ways McCain is the one playing the race card, just from the top of the deck.
He's not different. He's a run of the mill career politician.
He's boring, and completely average in every single way. Same old same old.
And if you say that your opponents are telling people not to vote for you because you're black, it is INDEED playing the race card. And being that McCain is Barack Obama's biggest defender from attacks, it also makes Obama a filthy liar.
At 7/6/08 03:24 PM, Coherent wrote: The Judicial System
Awesome. Hopefully they'll get in the 9th California district, where they just make up the law as they go along.
Oh, I don't know... maybe to prove they actually have a reason for holding someone?
This is war. Not a criminal trail.
They go before military tribunals.
4 men that we know about. You can't assume that they were the only ones being tortured, especially considered the testimonies from employees at Guantanamo.
No others have come forward.....hmmmmmmm....
There's evidence to support it. And there's evidence to support that the torture is being ordered by the interrogators.
No, there's not.
Yawn, done with you.
At 8/1/08 11:41 PM, stafffighter wrote: Yeah and the guys on the money are white. it's the same thing. And, might I add, he wasent wrong about them doing it.
No one has claimed you shouldn't vote for Obama because he's black...except for Obama in talking about these imaginary people. He's thwe only one who's played the race card. And he's played it repeatedly.
At 8/1/08 02:18 PM, fli wrote: The government isn't banning fast foods... but they're trying to curb their aggressiveness and their tenacity.
The fast food restaurants aren't "aggressive". They open and provide something people want. People respond by buying it. The government is overstepping their bounds.
After all,
Unhealthy people cost the government a lot to aid.
There's so much wrong with that statement, I don't know where to start.
It's not even an "I the consumer" issue most of the times!
Because, inevitably, the people who totally bitches and rips up on the government for supposedly trying to "control their lives" are the VERY same ones who are costing the government to aid them in their time of need.
That's teh government's fault, no the welfare person.
They sue... who helps the businesses who are sued? The government.
If they don't have sufficient insurance, who gives them aid? You guessed right.
Where the hell do the governments help businesses who are sued for wrongdoing?
Folks, yes... consumerism is about having choice.
But there are such things such as MAKING a RIGHT choice too.
You're not arguing that point tho.....
At 8/1/08 02:24 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Gee, the state with a brilliant, tactical governor who has an unbridled love for free enterprise and despises socialism is obviously in the middle of a plot to succeed from the union and form a marxist state.
Clueless again are we?
The pro-amnesty, universal health care pusher, nanny stating Kennedy family adoptee is a right wing capitalist? Utter nonsense.
"Free Market" has nothing to do with this. NO ONE is saying that by limiting the free market, they are going to be making money off this deal. They've been covering this on the local news stations, and the plan is too temporarily halt fast food on strips that already have excessive numbers of fast food restaurants, so that restaurants, which are harder to start up and require more capital, have time to form.
"We're not limiting free market. We're just telling businesses they can't start." Do you ever think before you type?
At 8/1/08 02:54 PM, Al6200 wrote: blah blah blah
Or we could get out of this stupid thinking that the government has any right to limit such business ventures. If we started thinking right the country would be better.
At 8/1/08 05:15 PM, Proteas wrote: Okay, let's break that down a bit; 400 fast food restaurants spread out over 32 square miles. That equals out too about 12 and a half restaurants in every square mile. That's 1 restaurant every 1500 feet no matter what direction you walk in.
And? Who cares?
Look at how many gas stations there are. Look at how many clothing stores. EXCESSSIVE I SAY!
Does anybody else here see anything inherently WRONG with that picture, or that fact that such restaurants still want to open in that area?
No. These businesses see money and open there. We should let them. They're smarter than anyone who'd want to limit them.
At 7/29/08 02:25 AM, T-N-T wrote: I hate to tell you this, but we are in a recession. Gas prices have been going up, and so has food prices. And lets not forget about our house values as well. Yep, we are NOT having a recession...
We AREN'T having a recession. If teh economy is growing, a recession is impossible. It's like saying you're losing money while your bank account is growing.
Recession=2 quarters of negative growth. We haven't had a month of negative growth,
As I said. No recession. Shut it.
At 7/28/08 06:09 PM, lapis wrote:At 7/28/08 04:38 AM, WolvenBear wrote: This board's resident Muslim, lies through his teeth about Muslim doctrine and tries to rewrite Muslim texts.Lmao. What's the user name of this board's elusive resident Muslim? I bet he gets all the chicks.
Hmmm, starts with an L. I believe he even uses the lower case l version.
We both know I'm talking about you.
You're not an honest man bud.
At 7/27/08 11:02 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Neither did Islam. That's because there wasn't gunpowder yet.
Christianity started with Christians getting slaughtered. Islam started with Muslims slaughtering...
However, the Christians DID slaughter.
As have every other group in history. Since you don't wanna make a point, I'll call you stupid and move on...
At 7/27/08 11:21 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: And Christians protest the funerals of dead U.S servicemen, calling them "faggot sinners" and decrying that god slaughtered them because the U.S sin's too much.
Yea, notice that this group NEVER quotes the Bible. Notice that this group NEVER has biblical debates. When confronted by Jewish debaters...they get wiped across the floor. Why? They're not Christian and don't know the Bible. Sorry, chaps, the WBC aren't a Christian sect.
Wackies all around.
If the WBC is the worst Christians produce...we are clearly superior.
Well, yes. But not in the violence department.
Yes period. Including in the violence department.
Actually, the Holy Book is the exact same; it's called the Bible. The Muslims, as we know, also have an additional book, much like Mormons.
The Mormons don't contradict the Bible. The Muslims do.
Islam isn't stuck anywhere, middle eastern states are. Muslims is America are up-to-date.
Is that why 1 in 4 Muslims in the US under 30 are pro-bombing?
:Middle East=Islam
So in saying that Islam is not to blame...you admit Islam is to blame....
Fool.
At 7/25/08 04:07 AM, laurielegit wrote: When was the last time you asked 100 Muslim people and found that over 20 of them supported terrorism. The key word in your argument is see. you cant say whether or not 80% of Muslims are non-extremists because you didn't carry out that research.
When was the last time you personally talked to a Muslim who was against terror. This board's resident Muslim, lies through his teeth about Muslim doctrine and tries to rewrite Muslim texts. When that fails he simple calls his opponents racist. Try to debate the man. He talks about anything other than religious doctrine. And this is supposedly one of the "moderates".
you also say that "you don't see them making organizations opposing the extremists". I'm an atheist, but I don't support radicalism.... yet why haven't I formed an organisation against them...I suppose this means I support radicalism.
You're kinda slow huh....
At 7/25/08 06:23 AM, AapoJoki wrote: That reminds me of Capn Awesome saying: "Only in Islam can one be labeled 'not an extremist' simply because he has no immediate desire to blow you up."
Yea, try again. Jerry Falwell was deemed an extremist for saying gays caused 9/11. Pat Falwell was deemed an extremist for sayinga natural disaster would occur...that never did.
Only in Islam can you support Jihad, and lie to support the faith and be called a moderate. Capn Awesome is a moron and I hope he gets hit with a clue brick.
At 7/25/08 07:59 AM, lapis wrote: blah blah blah
I love how this is tried to pretend that the two religions are close. "All that we disagree on is that Christ was God!" There's not only a hell of a lot more than that...but that description is BS from the word go...
At 7/25/08 11:47 AM, GrammerNaziElite wrote:My point is that the thread title is 'Don't hate Islam', then you boast about 'hating all religion', but it's okay because you 'hate them all the same'.Yes, exactly. The title would have been, 'Don't Hate Islam More Than Other Religions', but there's a title limit and all that.
That title is pathetic too. How about "Don't hate all those religions that have absolutely no affect on your life more than you hate the one that teaches it's followers to kill you," How bout that?
At 7/24/08 10:00 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: Christianity kicked off about 800 years after it was formed, when Europe, which was the center of the world back then, decided to have holy wars with each other and start a Crusade. Now, Christianity was pretty extreme back when it was first formed, and so were the nations that sponsored it....
Sigh. Are you always this clueless when you rant about something?
Christianity was spreading like wildfire even before it became the official religion of the only empire that mattered in the world at the time in the 300s.
To say that Christianity was "extreme" when it first came about is to say that Buddhists are extreme, or Peanut Butter and Jelly is extreme. They wen't around preaching love and tolerance and were usually brutally murdered for their efforts.
When Christianity was officially adopted as the religion of Rome, the empire was close to collapsing. Christianity didn't cease the fall of the empire, but at least it slowed the persecution of the Jews and Christians.
Now, Islam has been around for a good deal of time, but only lately has it REALLY kicked off, drawing almost a third of the world's population in its grip.
Compared to the history of Islam, the modern revival is rather tame. During the 2nd half Mohammad's lifetime, Islam more than quintupled it's gains. In the following centuries it spread across all of the Mid East, almost all of Africa, much of Asia and into Europe. It wasn't until some massive defeats that the conquest stopped. Comparing the last 20 years to the time of Mohammad, Islam seems rather tame.
Oh, of course the Holy Books are different, and most of the ideas, but the level of extremity is almost the same.
Oh please. What crap. "Everything is different, but it's still the same."
Islam is stuck 1,000 years in the past, but it is not barbaric.
I'm sorry, who's stoning homosexuals? Who's killing rape victims? Who's trying to establish a worldwide caliphate? Yea, Islam is barabaric.
Just to make it clear, I hate all religion, but I hate them all equally, and any dislike I have for any particular system of belief lies not in the ways of said belief, but in my own ignorance.
Agreed.
So by all means, fight Islam, but realize that by hating them, personally and individually, you have topped their level of ignorance. They may believe something that should have evolved 1,000 years ago, but they are no different then we were back then and bigots have been regarded as fools since the beginning of civilization.
That's absolutely moronic. There is nothing ignorant about hating people who want you dead. Rape victims are not ignorant for hating their rapists. The families of murdered people are not ignorant for hating those who killed their loved ones. There is nothing ignorant about hating the #1 cause of violent death and grief in teh world.
If you wish to discuss this matter with me, do so with dignity, respect, and proper grammar.
So, please don't point out how you have no clue what you're talking about?
At 7/20/08 07:43 PM, JoxskornerStudios01 wrote: 1. Start a war.
The republican party knows that us as barbaric Americans LOVE war. Because watching it in movies clearly isn't enough. Its not like we actually have to care about the young adults that actually have to go to war. So starting a war is a good way to get elected. (:
After George Herbert Walker Bush declared peace, Democrats declared him weak and railed against his position. THe offical democrat postion until 2003 was that we needed to remove Saddam.
When a Republican did just that, Democrats assailed him for being a liar (for saying the stuff Democrats said for the past 12 years).
2. Try and come up with a sufficient reason to make the war.
Claim that just because a group of individuals attacks the united states in an act of terrorism is a justification of starting a war. Because otherwise, people will catch on to your plan! Generalize and assume that MOST people in the middle east are terrorist!
How dare people claim a first attack as a reason for fighting back!
3. Invade peoples privacy.
You should always wiretap the phones of people from the middle east! Because they are plotting something... And we all know that! And dont worry, you will get away with it because your the president!
Moron.
4. Get the country's funds low!
Cut funding to everything! Only put effort into war! And sign contracts for rising oil! Then blame the oil companies! This will get the skeptical people off your trail!
Yea, absolute bullshit.
Bush has INCREASED funding to everything...including Planned Parenthood. You fail.
5. Let your country fall into a depression.
The country isn't in a recession, let alone a depression. The economy is still growing thanks.
That's my complete unorganized list. If anyone here in any way disagrees with this than I'm up for a debate. But this is roughly what Bush has done to our economy, Government, and nation. And john mcain wants to do the same thing.
cough, I hope posting this didn't make me look like some sort of idiot...
It did, and you are. Have a nice tall glass of Kool-Aid fool.
At 7/22/08 10:58 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: You don't want to believe even if there is undenyable proof? Too fucking bad! Bush will be impeached and thrown into prison or worse without help from you people.
Go ahead and laugh you ignorant fools, I was once like you.
Bush won't be impeached for this. Why?
Because it fucking happened the way millions of people saw it happen.
Go get hit by a bus you worthless excuse for a human being.
At 7/23/08 12:30 AM, PieGraphGlock wrote:At 7/21/08 04:01 PM, physicsman09 wrote: Ever heard of checks and balances?President Bush probably hasn't, considering he went to war without the Congress's approval.
Yea, try again. Congress voted for the AUMF against Irag in supramajority numbers.
Seeing that, a the laws are right now, Bush can attack any country, for any reason, at any time, and hasn't done so...Bush is the most constitutional person is out government right now. He didn't have to ask to invade Iraq, yet did. What a lawful guy.
At 7/23/08 02:35 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: I think it would be fairly hard to do any worse than Bush.
Then you're a moron.
At 7/1/08 10:03 PM, MrFlopz wrote: You do the same evil but you are exempt from punishment because you weasel your way into heaven because you happened to have come by the right religion that grants you entrance. This is what your religion teaches. You are just as bad as the guy in the video. YOU have torn your conscience to pieces if you want people to suffer
Hardly. I kill no one. I rape no one. I rob no one.
I simply don't do any of the same evils.
Sorry that you're too stupid to see the difference.
No one3 with a conscience loses sleep over the punishment if the evil. So, quite simply, if you disagree on this, you're an evil person. Shrug. Enjoy hell.
At 7/1/08 10:12 PM, Effruin wrote:At 7/1/08 09:56 PM, WolvenBear wrote:At 7/1/08 09:49 PM, MrFlopz wrote: In order to condone the suffering nonbelievers face in hell you cannot have a conscience.And why's that? Those who burn in hell have done evil against their fellow man. I lose no sleep over the evil being punished.
I have a strange sort of faith, you see. In my faith, I think that everybody, no matter what they've done in their lifetime, will go to Heaven. That's right, that includes Hitler, Darth Vader, and Hilary Clinton.
Your faith is wrong abd I will ignore it as the tripe it is.
The argument that communism never occured can best be summed up like:
Theory guy: If I shoot myself in the foot I'll get a million dollars!
Other: What? From who? That's ridiculous?
TG: Nope! Watch!
(Shoots himself in foot.)
TG: OH GOD! IT HURTS SO BAD!
OG: See? I told you it didn't work. You didn't get a million dollars!
TG: Exactly. Which proves I never shot myself in the foot.
Communism has happened over. And over. And over. And over. And over again.
That it doesn't work doesn't mean it hasn't been tried.
At 7/1/08 09:49 PM, MrFlopz wrote: In order to condone the suffering nonbelievers face in hell you cannot have a conscience.
And why's that? Those who burn in hell have done evil against their fellow man. I lose no sleep over the evil being punished.
At 7/1/08 09:33 PM, MrFlopz wrote: In order to truly believe in Christianity you must first rip your conscience to pieces before burning them to ashes then bludgeon your mind with a blunt object.
Based on what?
A boring video that I couldn't plod through.
Another idiot athiest on our hands?
At 7/1/08 06:19 AM, Ravariel wrote: So, if you sin you can go to heaven without repenting?
The ban on pork has an EARTHLY punishment. The ban on mixed threads has an EARTHLY punishment. They are the equivalent of jaywalking and drving without insurance.
People still get sick from pork, too... I don't see us trying to pass a constitutional amendment against pork.
Are you deliberately being stupid?
I've debated you enough to know you're far more intelligent than these crap arguments you're putting forward.
How have you proven, with scripture, that homosexuality is a moral, and not health-only, issue?
Eating pork was never "an abomination". Homosexuality on the other hand is listed as equal with beastiality. EVEN Ignoring all else, that proves it.
Seriously, I'm not seeing it.
Cause you choose not to.
Except the bible says no such thing. The only mentions of marriage are hetero, but nowhere does it say that that is the only way it should be. This could also be merely an omission by the authors due to cultural prejudice or ignorance... but that assumes that the bible is the word of god filtered through imperfect authors, and thus prone to error.
That's idiotic. No, I'm not even pretending you made a point here.
You're simply wrong, and you're too damned proud to admit it, despite being repeatedly proven wrong here. You keep trying to skirt the issue, but the Bible is clear that homosexuality is an abomination, and that marriage is between a man and a woman. Sex is to procreate.
In the face of uncontrivertible evidence that the bible DOESNT support gay marriage like your claimed, now your imbecilic point is that God forgot talk about it? Grow up.
No, sorry... Christians don't have a monopoly on slave-freeing. Even in the NT, slave owning was condoned, so much so that slaves were specifically told BY THE BIBLE to obey their owners AS GOD... Ephesians 6:5-9 and others... so you fail on this point.
Of course I don't. The Bible is the first book that claimed that masters have a responsibility to not abuse their slaves. No book before it has claimed such.
The verse continues to expound upon turning the other cheek, and to act righteously in the face of evil, for the reward was in heaven. Wrong again, Rav!
blah
So, you're simply wrong AGAIN. Yet, you deny the factual basis. Though I have granted that the whole thing is bullshit for the sake of argument. Still teh first book to say such a thing. SHRUG.
Yes, very progressive...
The first incident of rape victims rights in history.
Address the fact that you believe that because some impressive cultures practiced things we feel are immoral that that means that (universal) objective morality isn't real?
I did. Beyond a shadow of a doubt. Stop being a jackass and admit you have no counter examples.
Ooh, sure, point out the one thing that's fairly straightforward, and ignore the other 783,000 words in there.
I haven't ignored anything. I keep shooting down every pathetic argument you make and yet you point out that I'm not yet addressing arguments that haven't been made yet. You haven't been right on a single point yet. Yet, you continue to change the subject.
Even D2K would find such an argument pathetic. It's disappointing from one of the people I think is the smartest on the board. Start addressing my arguments damnit.
Tell me, do you believe that everything in the bible is literal fact? This is not an idle question. Do you?
Of course not. The bible makes clear that it is not 100% literal fact.
There are obvious allegories, parables, and oral history.
Your question is a distraction and we both know it.
Sorry, mixed up the definition of Moloch... a thousand apologies...
Looking past that, even in the Bible, mixing threads and homosexuality aren't equal. If you can't grasp this basic point....you're either very foolish or deliberately dense.
Adultery isn't illegal. Incest's legality is patchwork at best. And if bestiality is illegal, then there's a few rather easy to find sites on the internet that flaunt it rather easily.
Are we talking about biblically still? Because homosexuality, incest, beastiality and adultery are all worthy of death OT.
And if we're talking about today...adultery and beastiality are illegal. Incest, like homosexuality is recognized by the state as an abburation, and incest couples can't get married.
And dare I mention Lawrence v. Texas?
And? In debating me on biblical matters you bring up a 20th century case?
Pathetic.
Regardless, this specific argument is one of scale. I don't see national movements to amend the US Constitution to ban, outright, incest, bestiality or rape. I don't see States trying to amend their constitutions to criminalize a person marrying their former spouse's sibling. I don't see national crusades against horse porn.
Are you kidding? Beastiality and rape are ILLEGAL. Incest (usually between a minor and an adult) is either illegal or not recognized by the state. There is no widespread opposition because there is no movement to fight for such a cause.
Though theres not a person smart enough in the world to debate why gay marriage is ok yet incest marriage isnt.
Quit avoiding the question.
Rav, stop telling me to stop avoiding things. I addressed this way back. That you're now talking about it in a way that I've already shot down does nothing against my ironclad arguments.
Too lazy to actually respond?
I have. REPEATEDLY. Hence why I said "read what I've already said". I ADDRESSED this already. That you're trying to pretend I didn't is a failure of YOUR debate...not mine.
Some are abrogated... some are not... Which is which? LIST (with reference) the laws in leviticus that were abrogated by Christ... because the list seems to vary depending on your desire to avoid tough questions.
Addressed. Sorry, RAV, you being too lazy to acknowledge that I talked about something doesn't mean I haven't. I will ignore stupid debates I've already had and won from now on.
OT said mixed-thread clothing was bad. Jesus said nothing... still baaaad. Insert a thousand other things we consider, as a society, silly to criminalize for "Mixed-thread clothing" and maybe, just maybe, you'll finally get the point.
LMAO. I have addressed this.
The mixed thread is still illegal. I ceded that.
You keep pounding one point I conceded to hype up the hundred points youre obviously wrong on.
Stop beingt D2K.
At 7/1/08 02:00 AM, marchohare wrote: You're really thrashing around now, WolvenBear. You pointed me at a Wikipedia article, most of the contents of which I probably knew before you were born. Were you alive in '75? Because that's when I first became interested.
Yet, you're still so wrong. Interesting.
Marijuana use was not more common in the 'thirties than it is now, and you don't know squat. Hemp products were more common, but not its use as an intoxicant. Most white people didn't even know hemp could be smoked. It's use as "reefer" was pretty much limited to Mexicans, Blacks, Jazz musicians, and a few sailors.
Nor did I claim that marijuana use was more common in the 30s than it is now. Nor did I claim anything remotely like that. I showed that marijuana use declined after it was made illegal, which no serious historian denies.
http://www.cesar.umd.edu/cesar/drugs/mar ijuana.asp
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~tommyb/Marijua na.html
http://www.humboldt.edu/~morgan/mary_s03 .htm
That's just a sampling.
Marijuana use was nowhere near as isolated as you claim. And the laws against it came after an explosion of it's use amongst whites.
It's use as an intoxicant didn't start to take off in a big way until the Beats of the 'fifties.
it's use as an intoxicant started in the mid 20s to 30s and is what called for the ban. After that use declined until the mid to late sixties, when the hippies decided to openly flaunt the law en masse. The sixties are also when the laws against weed began to loosen. Hmmmmm.
As for alcohol prohibition, alcohol use didn't decline. Only it's reporting did. Here's a good article on it.
As even this article makes clear, he doesn't know if consumption actually increased. He's basing it on two factors: increase in drinking related crimes (which the number of offenses ou could be arrested actually increased), and an increase in drinking deaths (which is more due to unsafe product than increased sales).
Mass production of alcohol in the US shut down. Even between the smuggling and home production, supply dropped. Demand remained constant (even after those who made their own were out of the market.) Prices raised. Add that to a massive depression.
Of course drinking decreased.
The idea that drinking increased ignores not only the evidence of the Depression, but the entirety of history. No product has ever had increased consumption once supplies dropped and prices raised (this is something that everyone agrees happened to booze). Not only does it seem unlikely, in and of itself, that booze consumption decreased (making it the only product in history to do so), but coupled with the Great Depression it's downright ridiculous to claim it increased.
Every has less money+prices increased+supplies went down=everybody drank more.
Yea, sorry. Not quite.
What's funny is that, considering your stance on gun control (we agree... I think) I doubt you believe substance bans are a good thing either. You slipped up, and now you're simply trying to argue your way out of a mistake.
I'm fully against banning weed. You're right. I think it should be legal.
Instead of spending money on incarcerating people and policing, we'd make money off of taxing the substances.
None of this means that the simple facts I put forward are in dispute. The gun ban in DC led to less guns (which is why crime went up). Prohibition led to decreased supply but increased crime. The repeal of said bans in Europe have led to increased usage.
Stop it, because that's how wrong ideas get into circulation. Don't try to re-write history.
The idea that drinking went up despite everything is silly. Smoking goes down when the taxes go up. Gas consumption goes down once prices go up enough. Yet somehow you're pretending that illegal substances aren't affected by...you know...the stuff that affects everything else.
At 6/24/08 02:41 PM, Ravariel wrote: What of other crimes that I already mentioned... Muslims, cursers of parents, blasphemers, etc?
Muslims aren't mentioned in the Bible. If you don't get that...you're really not cut out for Biblical debate.
Conceeded, but even so... if you fail even one of god's commandments you are condemned to death (i.e. "real" death, no heaven after you die of whatever causes, or hell and eternal torture depending (again) on who you ask)... provided you don't repent. So you're telling me that eating pork is worthy of eternal damnation (whatever that entails)?
No, of course it's not. And the bible says no such thing.
This is a deliberate misinterpretation to make us all look EEEEEVIL.
Never my point. My point was that it's stupid NOW, because we understand how to avoid the dangers. As such, any "punishment" for disobeying that rule is pretty silly, no matter how minor.
Yet people still get sick. And the "punishment" was a health sanction. It's like the "punishment" for getting a VD is that no one wants to sleep with you...
For the same reasons, we can conclude that the rules against homosexual sex (not homosexuality, mind... merely the act of sodomy) were based in the same health concerns. And that now that we understand the dangers and can prepare and prevent most of the issues, that it's just as silly to punish for it now as it is to punish for eating pork.
Yea, no.
Homosexuality was a health issue yes (and still is...the majority of STDs are gays).
Neverthe less, as I showed, sex is a moral issue, not just a health one.
Stop being dishonest and skirting that.
So, by not saying it was expressly okay, we have expressly said it isn't? I wasn't aware that the bible was a compulsory rule set.
By saying "marriage is to be between a man and a woman" yes we are saying it is not to be "between a man and a man". In the same way that be saying that "we are supposed to cross at street corners" we affirm that "crossing in the middle of the street is illegal.
Damn, you suck at debating this whole "meaning" thing.
Judeo-christian opposition to slavery, what?
Originated with Christians? What?
And, anyway, if you credit judeo-christian valuers as the reason slavery was abolished... well, it certainly took them a while.
Was first talked about IN THE BIBLE! Damn....
Rape. Yeah... lookit that... pre-judaic condemnation of rape, most notably in Paganism and Greek mythology. Granted, the reasons behind the laws (often dishonoring the head of the family (male)) were different. However, the bible itself also has a wishy-washy record on rape, so this isn't the best example.
The law that a man who raped a woman was responsible to take care of her is the ONLY example of such a feeling in history.
The first time historically of a law protecting children from harm was in Rome which forbade sacrifice of adults or children to the gods. However, abandonment of female, or deformed children was commonplace. The first full ban on infanticide was in Judaic culture, so here you have a point. Not sure what it figures, but whatever.
So the Spartans did some fucked-up shit... so did the early Judaic and Christian churches. What does this prove? Laws against murder go back farther than Judaism. See: Hammurabi's code.
LOOK OVER THERE!
My point was deeper than that and you know it. Address it or move on.
So, you're saying that the bible isn't easily interpreted in different ways? Or are you saying that your interpretation is the only valid one?
"Thou shalt not murder" is pretty cut and dry. The bible is exceptionally straightforward. Those who need to interpret it are liars or fools.
So, these rules are still valid enough to try and make constitutional amendments about, even though the reasons behind them are clear and avoidable now? I don't see anyone trying to illegalize mixed thread clothing, or islam, or planting 2 different crops in the same field.
Islam isn't in the bible. You suck at this.
Again, WHY IS THIS LAW DIFFERENT? It is mentioned in (figuratively) nearly the same breath as all of these others... yet nowhere do I see the fury of people as I do towards homosexuality.
Incest is illegal. Beastility is illegal. Rape is illegal. It is mentioned IN THESE contexts. No others.
Bible ignorance.
Christ said we all fell short. Adultery was no longer sleeping with another man's wife but thinking impurely. This is a standard none of us can match. We get o heaven by God's graces.
Stupidity
So, your entire argument is that you're too unintelligent to debate a rational point?
Is it legitimate to levy the same punishment (death, hell, whatever) against the child as the adult for the same "crime" when the adult has the knowledge
Too lazy to read my response to this?
Muslims, and those who "give their offspring" to them: death. Cursing parents: death. Blasphemy: death.
ABROGATED.
Are we having a stupid moment? I addressed this.
So, because Jesus didn't specifically mention this law, means that it (and none of the other hundreds of laws he didn't mention) remained in full force and is worthy of constitutional amendments?
Stop being an utter idiot.
Look, you're so ridiculously wrong on Christianity that it's not funny. Even you realize you're clueless.
You hae no argument and you're just too stuboorn to admit it.
As there is no real doctrinal reasons against homosexuality in the NT other than an omission (possibly of Jesus, possibly of the authors) of redaction... again, why the furor? Since there is no NT banning of homosexuality, how can you even say that churches who allow it go against doctrine? Since, as we've already discussed, the reasons behind it are probably health and cleanliness (like many of the other rules) then why, when all of those others are considered trivial, does this one split churches and garner such animosity from the fundamentalist community?
Pure laziness and stupidity.
On a (you) doctrinal level, if OT says "homosexuality bad" and Jesus says nothing...homosexuality is still bad....You don't get that do you.
I'll hit the other arguments later.
At 6/24/08 12:42 PM, poxpower wrote:At 6/24/08 06:09 AM, WolvenBear wrote:The point isn't that they pick and choose, the point is that they both pick and choose and pretend like they're not picking and choosing because it's the "word of God".
Or as I said...there's NO point.
OMG! A hypocrite! That's so much easier than addressing an argument!
Well elfer answers it but still hahahaha
You didn't watch the video did you, nimrod?
I even explained what it was about and you just overlooked it.
And I explained why the test was unrealistic. In human interactions, the test ignores that human and animal interactions aren't governed like that. When someone breaks into an apartment, there is no "other person" who gets to push a button. When I decide to kill you to take your car, you don't get to push a button. Sometimes the simulation works, sometimes it doesn't.
When applied to animals it bares no semblance to reality.
I'm sorry, but your video disproves nothing I said.
You don't know anything about animal cooperation and you're trying to pass it off like you're a seer instead of someone who's watched maybe one documentary on lions when he was bored.
Or someone who's had an extensive background with animals of all species. Animals rarely work together, even as housepets. No one with even the basest of interactions with animals would claim otherwize. Even trained dogs will steal treats from each other...knowing they'll get punished.
In the wild, cooperation is rarer than conflict. It's not just lions...monkeys, felines in general and canines in general, spiders, fish....etc. Animals rarely work together even amongst their own species. Your generalization doesn't even work amongst humans...let alone animals.
Who said they worked over self interest?? And who says YOU work over self-interest?
Because newsflash: there's not a single moral out there that isn't motivated by self-interest.
Of course there is. Any mother who decides not to abort a sick child is working against self interest. Any child who personally cares for a sick parent. Any person who gives their seat up to a stranger. Anyone who gives to charity. Morals are rarely influenced by self interest. Morals usually involve self sacrifice for others.
Woah maybe this is too advanced for you.
You seem less intelligent with each pathetic argument.
Here's an example: If we're 5 people, and we have a "don't murder" rule, chances are, we'll last MUCH longer than the 5 people who have a "you can murder" rule.
We have no-murder rules now. Does it stop people from killing? Of course not. Your point makes no sense on it's face.
Most of the stories are... HISTORY???
They're stories, but they're not HISTORY, trust me :O
Based on what? You haven't been right in this thread so far.
Practically the entire old testament is pure fiction. And whatever truth there was to it is completely twisted to a point where barely even the names and locations of places match up with archaeology.
Based on what? Please back that up with something.
Huh that's not the point.
You're basing your "morals" on a people who went around slaughtering innocent tribes because they were on a holy mission.
That's fucking sickening.
No, it's not. They were slaughtered because they were an abomination in the sight of god. They committed human sacrifice, and were evil.
Regardless, your ridiclous little summary could sum up any advanced nation that is still around today....
I'm 100% sure I know the bible better than you do.
And I didn't even read it.\
OK, sorry, Pox, but you're just being stupid here.
"I never read the book, but I know it better than you."
Of course you don't. Which is why I'm wiping the floor with you here. You have no clue what you're talking about, and since youre too damned arrogant to admit you're clueless, you're looking supremely stupid here.
YOu do realize that christians usually follow strictly what Jesus said?
Most of them don't even care for anything else in the bible, they just go "well if Jesus said it..".
But he didn't say a damn thing about it. That's pretty telling.
Yea, sorry, try again.
Ignoring just how weak that is as a biblical argument...(you're gonig for truth right?).
None of the Christian chruches (including the heretical Episcopalians) ignore the old testiment. None of them. Your point is, again, wrong on it's face.
And look at you, pretending like you can just "imply" what a 2000 year old historical figure who lived in a society that has nothing to do with ours wanted or not.
Look at you, saying a book supports something that it condemns. Sorry, Pox, you're not going to come out of here looking anything except foolish.
What caused the fall and the chaos?
You really believe the roman empire fell because they went into "decadence" or some bullshit? Sounds to me like they were torn apart over religious differences all over the place.
But whatever I didn't look into it, I just find it quite interesting to note that the fall of civilization in europe coincides exactly with the rise of Christianity.
Except it doesn't....
And what is this? Again: I have no idea what I'm talking about...but here's my two cents anyway!
THe roman empire had been declining for centuries. The infrastructure had been crumbling for some time. The army had been slowly shrinking.
Then Rome effectively split into three under a crown dispute. All three "empires" that had formerly been Rome were involved in chronic war and soon collapsed. Imagine Iraq splitting into three and declaring war on Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria respectively. "Iraq" would soon disappear.
And so it was with Rome, as the savages overthrew Rome. While Rome's stupidity factored in, Rome was overthrown by outside forces. Was this because it had grown weak and decadent? Maybe. Regardless...it was still overthrown.
Christianity was not even a factor.
What part of this monster article are you referring to??
The part right at the beginning where it lists Islamic accomplishments that were taken from others, without exception.
Says who??
They didn't do shit. After 1000 years, they hadn't really made any sort of progress, all that was there was due to the Kings putting a society in place. What the shit did the church ever do except get rich as hell?
Yea, try again.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?
qid=20061020015432AAocbSl
The dark ages were a power vacuum. Christianity filled that vacuum and made the world a better place for it, as I have repeatedly shown.
Where?
Where the fuck is your evidence?
Yea, we don't play that. You made the absolutely idiotic claim that Christianity started the Dark Ages. As I always do, I proved you wrong. Now clearly incorrect, you demand MORE proof that you're irredeemably wrong, despite admitting that you don't give a damn that you have no clue what the hell you're talking about.
Pressed on how wrong you are, you've got a nice little corner there....
At 6/30/08 04:34 AM, marchohare wrote: You mean like the way practically everyone in the U.S. smoked marijuana before it was made illegal in 1937?
Marijuana use before the 30s was far more common than AFTER the feds began cracking down on it.
Clearly, we have someone else who doesn't know what he's talking about.
Before the bans, marijuana was a huge part of the American economy, being used in dozens of products. Hemp was big industry. It was even a pharmicudical. Marijuana use was rather common. This declined as the federal government began regulating it, finally making it criminal in the 50s.
Here's a neat history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_histo ry_of_marijuana_in_the_United_States
One doesn't even have to look at far off history to see I'm right. In Europe, as many states began decriminalizing the drug, and eventually allowing it, rates skyrocketed.
So, not only do you have no clue what you're talking about, but your snide remark is unillustrative. It's not illegal to drink...but not everyone does it. HOLY SHIT! Criminalizing it would have no effect!
This ignores the basic point, supply would dry up. Stores would stop selling it. Busch would go out of business. There would be a black market...but like prohibition before, it becomes more expensive and harder to get. Most people don't have the connections or the money to get it.
During Prohibition "Southerners would vote dry just as long as they could stagger to the polls," and we have no records for abortion because it was illegal!
We have records of botched abortions, because they'd run to a different doctor and get checked up. We DO have records. But abortion was expensive and performed mostly be skilled doctors.
You're talking about an illusion, not reality. Bans don't reduce behavior. If anything, they increase the behavior by providing a "forbidden fruit" factor--again, see pot use before 1937.
There's simply no evidence to support that claim. Your two examples are dead wrong.
The occurrence that gets reduced is accurate reporting. Period.
Bullshit. There's not a single example of use every increasing after legality expires. On a basic level it's simply impossible for it to. The supplies dry up, which drives up prices, and the illegal means further jack up the prices. On a simple basic level, it becomes impossible to supply all the people who want it. Even if 350% of the people who do X now were determined to continue...the supplies no lonmger exist. You're provably wrong.
At 6/28/08 02:41 PM, marchohare wrote: Oh, brother.
This is the "it hasn't fixed the problem, therefore it doesn't work" argument.
Prohibition did indeed reduce drinking. And the abortion rate has quadrupled (at least) during the years that it's been made legal. Quite simply, making something illegal DOES reduce the occurance of said activity (without a single exception).
At 6/29/08 12:09 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: Even though, as Australia proves, banning guns and enforcing the bans (this is the important part) has seen the murder rate drop notably in that time. Meanwhile, SOuth Africa proves that making guns available to all saw the gun murder rate increase 500%.
Though, if you look at Australia, the decrease in teh murder rate is identical before and after the gun ban. If the trend rate is unchanged by an action...that action certainly didn't cause the trend.
And South Africa's violent spike coincides with the violent impact the end of apartheid and the leaving of South Africa to it's own impulses by Europe. The gun ban lifting is coincida not causatory.
Australia did more than you ever could. Moron.
You're wrong. As always.
At 6/28/08 01:29 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: It's nigh-on impossible for any topic on gun control to break new ground, for the following reasons:
1.) Numerous people will say something along the lines of "The Bill of Rights declares we have the right to bear arms" and leave it at that (even though, actually, it doesn't).
Indeed it does. As our supreme court affirmed.
4.) WolvenBear acts like an ass. Topic goes off into flame war.
WolvenBear points out how you are wrong as hell and too much of an ass to admit it.
You simply don't ever address the fact that you're wrong about everything and instead change the subject. Sample convo:
You: The gun ban worked in England. After the gun ban, gun crimes dropped.
Me: Uh, no it didn't. Gun crimes have more than doubled since the ban.
You: You're a liar. You're only looking at air gun crimes.
Me: Well, while air gun crimes are still listed as "gun crimes", no. Handgun crimes, shotgun crimes, and even rifle crimes have all gone up.
You: Well, America's crime rate is still higher. I WIN!
You suck at debating, and you're not an honest person. We both know you're wrong...but you keep lying your way around the circle hoping to convince the other people who read it.
5.) Then somebody else comes along and says it's an American's democratic right to bear arms.
Aaaaaaaaaand repeat...
Which it is.
You dismissing a basic right in the Bill of Rights just makes you sound unintelligent. "Dude, I totally don't care what that first amendment thing says...there is no right to freedom of speech!"
At 6/28/08 10:38 AM, SlithVampir wrote: Well, neither Proteas nor Mez responded, so you'll have to do.
All right, let's go.
At 6/28/08 06:00 AM, WolvenBear wrote:I'm sorry, I thought we were supposed to be the GOOD guys. If you're willing to stoop down to the level of Saddam or Osama, go right ahead. I'll move to Switzerland.
Don't be stupid. We're not hacking them to death or hanging them.
When I said, "We wouldn't have that right in any other country", I meant in ANY other country. Not England or Australia, or Canada or France, or Wales or Prussia. Never before in the history of man have war criminals been afforded the rights of a CRIMINAL justice system. It's unheard of.
The idea that 12 random people should decide...on our CRIMINAL LEGAL standards whether or not someone is an enemy combatant is foolish.
Bull. Shit.
Try again chuckles.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,2004 99,00.html
It's this simple:
Everyone in the world knew that Saddam had WMDs before the war. Hanz Blix flat out said that Saddam was reconstituting his arsenal. We found weapons he wasn't supposed to have. By Saddam's own admission, he was buying all the chemicals to make VX and Sarin. We have satilite footage of convoys of trucks leaving inspection sites before UN inspectors arrived. Bunkers usually were recently cleaned when we inspected them.
After the invasion we found hundreds of weapons that were supposed to have been destroyed before the war, some sold by Iraqi forces on the black market. While degraded, they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Saddam never destroyed his old arsenal. The top Iraqi general, George Sada testified that the WMDs went to Syria. Syrian reporters and defects have confirmed this.
In the face of all the evidence, those who deny Saddam had WMDs are either insanely stupid or ridiculously partisan.
How many times does this have to be proven before Sean Hannity will shut his fat fucking mouth about Syria!!
Hmmm?
He was in...... where, then?
By the most liberal sources we have available, he fled into Pakistan early into the Afghanistan war.
Cute.
Not really. You have no clue what you're talking about, yet you're rambling on like you're Methusala.
Their capacity to kill innocents hasn't been proven. That's what this argument is about (I think).
100% of these people were picked up on battlegrounds. They were put in front of military tribunals. Anyone found lacking basic qualifications to be held was released. These people AREN'T here without cause.
On that note, I'll ask you the same thing I ask people in Cap punishment arguments.
It's not the same argument. At all.
What is the acceptable "Fail Rate"? How many people have to be wrongly imprisoned/tortured (I'm not even sure which one this argument is about to be honest) before the system has a problem and needs to be overhauled?
This is war, not grade school "fairness". Get it wrong with one person freed and hundreds of people die. Get it wrong with imprisoning someone and they lose a year of their lives (more than the average time for a detainee we release).
Look, bud, even if you were right on everything (and you're not), a fundamental reform of the military tribunals would be in order...not putting them in our criminal system. By our own jurisdiction, not a single one of these men can be tried in our courts. So putting them through our courts means they are all legally required to go free. We cannot charge people for murders done in other countries after all......
At 6/25/08 08:54 PM, SlithVampir wrote: I'll assume that you have already sourced that info. I'm not saying that we should just let these people loose into the world. I'm saying that they should have a jury composed of normal humans who review evidence and hear two arguments and make a decision, like any one of us would expect from an opposing country.
Why? We wouldn't have that right in any other country. Why should they have it here?
And the Trials? If our clown of a leader would have left our troops out of a country with no WMDs and no desire to have a platitude forced upon them, then maybe we'd be putting Bin Laden himself on trial.
Iraq had WMDS. And if we hadn't invaded Iraq...we STILL wouldn't have found Bin Ladin, cause he wasn't in Afghanistan.
But I digress. The importance of morality and human decency is greater than any one man will ever possess.
Yawn.
So you're saying that to fight their evil, we must become evil ourselves? Granted, less evil, but still, dude!
That's a ridiculous argument. Holding people so they can't kill innocents MAY be misguided...never evil.
At 6/26/08 01:37 PM, Coherent wrote: They're not making new laws, they're making rulings. This is what the Supreme Court has always done. If the Supreme Court didn't have the power to make rulings, that would upset checks and balances.
The Supreme Court did not have the legal standing to hear this case.
Their ruling was unconstitutional and Bush should ignore it.
Do you believe that everything the founding fathers did was constitutional? What if some of them were slave owners?
That was Constitutional AT THE TIME.
The "theory" that the constitution is a living document? All that means is that the constitution is amended and re-interpreted all the time, which is a fact.
That doesn't make it a "living document". It isn't.
How exactly would you make a judgement stemming from a "legal" view? especially if you're changing a law. Every decision made in politics is made from personal views... that doesn't violate our democratic process at all.
Yes. It does.
At 6/25/08 08:19 PM, Coherent wrote: It's a deeply rooted American value. It's quite disheartening that you would toss something like that aside. Besides, you asked me what justification I would use for allowing them Habeas Corpus, you never said it had to be a law.
If you're going to legally challenge detention, having a legal argument helps....
Nobody could know tif they're innocent or guilty until they put these people up on trial. It's called presumption of innocence.
These people were caught on the battlefield engaging in hostilities. Presumption of innocence goes out the window.
Regardless...they always had teh right to challenge their detention, which is why many were released.
That's what Habeas Corpus is. Do you honestly believe it's a bad thing that these people get to question their own guilt?
Yes. It's a terrible thing that they can use our court system.
In 2007 a investigative team entered Guantanamo and questioned the employees, hoping to get them to report incidents of abuse. Here's the full report. Multiple cases of detainees being chained into the fetal position for 18 to 24 hours defecating and urinating on themselves, without food or water. Another report from a Guantanamo employee describes a detainee being left in near freezing temperature without proper clothing. Other cases describe extreme heat, and playing rap music a decibel levels high enough to cause ear damage (in order to keep inmates awake for prolonged amounts of time).
Out of over 500 employees, they found NINE who viewed misconduct....you're kidding right?
Confessions from Guantanamo employees, Medical examinations on former Gitmo inmates.
It's a ritz compared to say...REAL prisons.
They're untried Iraqi civilians. By your own admission they are not part of any state sponsored group/military. That means they are CIVILIANS.
UH, NO.
In colonial times, guerrilas were treated just like the other rebels. They were military combatants. No country in the history of man has treated armed combatants as civilians.
See, that's where you're wrong. Legally it's not a military matter. These are untried Iraqi civilians, they have no business in a military court.
Legally it IS a military matter. These are foreign citizens caught on a battleground and held in foreign detention. They are NOT subject to the constitutional rights we get. The Military Commissions Act of 06 leaves this directly to the military and tells SCOTUS to butt out.
So put yourself in their situation. Assume your country is invaded and you get caught on the streets at night after curfew. Because of this you're assumed to be a terrorist (this is just an example) and you're whisked off to one of their secret prisons where you're subjected to all of the treatments described above. 6 years laters you're released after finally being found to be innocent...
Cause that's TOTALLY what happened.
At 6/26/08 02:11 PM, kreten wrote: False flag operations have taken place before. I would encourage people to watch things like Loose Change or Zeitgeist not to become "conspiracy nuts" but to consider more than just the facts that you hear on the news on television.
Millions of people saw 9/11 happen on TV live. The news stations were reporting it as an accident when the second plane hit. Tens of thousands saw it in person.
For 9/11 to have been a "false flag" operation, hundreds of thousands of people would've had to be in on it. Innocent people would've had to agree to give their lives and lie to make the story work. It's simply not plausible.
I would wager that most people here refuting Loose Change haven't read up on nearly enough information addressing both the arguments to have enough of an opinion. But because it isn't POPULAR opinion, many people just can't fathom how it could be false. And admit it, the media has, at least in a minor way, steered you guys a certain way in your lifetime, to train you to sometimes ignore facts that can seem fishy or that you don't believe could happen.
In the section on "mythological dieties like Jesus" there are over 70 factual errors. The section is maybe 5 minutes long. That's an insane amount of errors for such a short section.
So, the real question is, if their entire section on religion is provably false...why would anyone care what they say about 9/11?
The government misleads, manipulates at times, its people. THAT, I'm sure we can all agree is true. That is part of their nature. I'm not 100% on whether it was planned or whether it wasn't, but there is a camp of mainstream physicists, scientists and engineers who refute it, and a camp of those who don't and believe the concensus in the 9/11 truth movement statements.
Just be informed.
Where are the mainstream scientists? There are fringe lunatics who have no clue what they're talking about, and are quickly shot down. These people are imbeciles. The entire 9/11 conspiracy theory doesn't make sense. Why fly planes into the building if you're only gonna blow it up?
At 6/21/08 07:05 PM, BAWLS wrote: I'm sure you have better reasons for why Carter sucked, other than that the conservative consensus is that he was terrible. Carter may have been ineffective, but his presidency didn't leave behind anything of the magnitude Bush's war in Iraq will.
The hell it didn't. All of our problems in Iran and Iraq are Carter's fault.
His continued interference in the MidEast is leading to the continued deaths in Israel.
His entire term was a joke.
He was awful.
With regard to the topic, the democratic congress can't be expected to do much as long as a republican, and a hard-right one at that, is president. Veto-proof majorities are hard to get.
Bush is a center left politician. He's hardly a right winger. And anyone who doesn't get this is simply too stupid to comment on politics.
