1,987 Forum Posts by "WolvenBear"
At 7/20/06 02:25 AM, Streakydesign wrote: Is Christianity based upon sercuirty upon your death and good judgement in life?
I figure it's based on sercurity for death because people won't freak out about dying and they have this image they will be in a cloud glowing in light with a halo on thier head?
I mean there are so many beliefs how can this be the right one?
Most religious beliefs have several of the same tenets. Such as: The golden rule, don't kill, steal, rape, etc. So, it's not like there's some huge difference between ideologies between Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism. Pretty much every major religion except Islam.
At 7/20/06 06:29 AM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote:But its also a better way to lifeEither prove it or be quiet - atheists would disagree with you, both would disagree with Muslims. If one religion were empirically better than the others, why would others even exist? The logical conclusion is that different faiths work for different people.
It's really not hard to prove. Adhereing to the basic tenets of Christianity, it ensures an easier life, and Christians (and religious people in general) are generally happier.
At 7/20/06 08:57 PM, natwel wrote: This is what my uncle said about the concept of God
Well, gee, if your uncle said it.....
At 7/21/06 11:38 AM, ThunderboltLegion wrote:At 7/18/06 11:38 AM, Athlas wrote:Incest was a must in the beginning otherwise the human race would have never gotten started, as the potential for berth defects grew larger God declared incest a sin as it was going to become detrimental to the human race.
I honestly don't remember the part of the Bible declaring Incest wrong.
That does sound like a lame excuse, but don’t worry, I believe you :) Cain and Abel are the first two recorded, I believe only three are ever directly mentioned. Some have thought of this as some sort of contradiction saying that the human race would have never gotten started but just because the Bible only mentions three sons of Adam and Eve, it doesn’t mean that they didn’t have many more children.
It also says in the Bible that there was already a civilization in the land of nod. Leading us to believe that there were many more besides Adam and Eve.
What about the pope?Well considering that the pope is the head of the Catholic Church and the Catholic Church accepts evolution above the teaching of the Bible I’d have to say that I wouldn’t want him speaking for me.
Um, no he doesn't. Pope John Paul said evolution was compatable with the Bible, not above it. And from what I remember, Benedict shot that ruling out of the sky.
At 7/30/06 08:07 PM, therealsylvos wrote: After a long hiatus i have returned! for how long only god knows.
ok now for my question, if christianity is all about peace and loving your fellow man how come jesus said (Matthew 5:22), "Think not that i have come to send peace to the world. I come not to send peace, but the sword."
Note that i am not intending to bash christianity hear i am genuinly intrested in hearing what you have to say.
Considering Jesus' overall message, this seems to be allegory or colorful speak, not literal. Jesus came to bring conflict...to shake things up, and to make people question their beliefs. This would literally turn family members against each other, and friendships shaken up.
At 7/31/06 04:13 PM, drDAK wrote: Thank you. Altough I will disagree on the part that Israel has the right to fire at the innocents. That, too, is hardly courageous. Innocents should never be harmed. Families die because rockets kill innocent people. Israel must wage a land war, not a dangerous missle based one. Destroying Lebanon's highways and its beautiful airport is not to be lauded.
Why should they waste their soldiers lives? Hezbollah would still use human shields and innocents would still die. Every innocent dead's blood is on the Islamic monster's hands, not Israel's.
At 7/31/06 07:50 PM, -Glaciar- wrote: Israel is invading the independent country of Lebanon, killing innocent women and children - anything that stands on its way to domination in this region. So, where are the United States to defend the democracy and peace on earth? The americans invaded Serbia and destroyed churches which were 400 years older than the US itself, and all this for far smaller reason. Therefore, the US should have already invaded Israel and overthrown the government.
Yeah, but America spends billions of dolars each year to keep the economy of Israel alive. Protected by the greatest military force on earth, how do you expect the israeli people to show any mercy? No, this war aint gonna be ended that easily, thrust me on that. And no matter what the half-jewish Condoleezza Rice says, the USA wont do anything to stop Israel.
Yes, Israel is bad indeed! You should have noticed that for the past half a century.
You're an idiot. Hezbollah started transgressions and Israel is defending themselves. Only a buffoon would argue that Israel is trying to "dominate the region" when they continue to cede land to the Palestinian terrorists.
At 7/31/06 06:12 PM, Athlas wrote: I don't understand why you always have to get personal. It isn't very enjoyable to debate with a person who gets personal. Maybe I wasn't very clear before. Yes, clinically speaking, the fetus is alive. But it isn't aware of its surroundings nor can it think or feel any emotions. It MIGHT have a bad live, but one of the reasons for abortion is because the moter is unable to provide a good life. I'm not saying we should have a regime where children are being randomly massacred, I'm saying the mother has the right to decide what's best for her child, and no one else.
You have no scientific knowledge is personal? Fetuses feel, think, explore their fingers and toes, have dreams, kick, punch, smile, and when aborted we have videos of them screaming in pain. So there goes the whole "fetuses can't think or feel".
The mother DOES NOT have the right to kill her child. And it sucks that you're taking offense to a logical rebute to your argument, but it's a really stupid argument. "Ms. Yates, do you feel you did right by your children?" "Mother of Baby Doe, did you do what was right for your child?" Heck, I might have a little respect for the pro-choice position if the majority of it's believers denounced these practices. But they continue to hide behind weak arguments, and to call the children that are desposed of worthless, THEN when they're arguments are destroyed, they claim personal foul (sound familiar?). The LOGICAL conclusion of your argument is to decide on a case by case basis whether or not someone is having a good life or is useful and act accordingly (utilitarian bio-ethics, eugenics, etc), which is exactly what the pro-choice movement is moving closer and closer to. Look at the defense of Andrea Yates. Look at the case of Baby Doe. Or even the controversy over Terry Shiavo. Partial birth abortion.
And getting murdered is never "best for the child". No society gets to come in and protect the weak. Throughout Europe, more liberal than us most of the time, has limits on abortion.
The tired argument that the mother is "aborting the child for it's benefit" is not only bullshit, but quite frankly, it's stupid. It's a ridiculous argument based completely in rhetoric and anyone spouting it would be right to feel quite dumb. So, basically, you're getting mad that you're being called on bs. But hey, you want reasons why you're wrong, that just deal with now, and JUST abortion and JUST women's choice? I can do that too.
- Most women who have had abortions say they were pressured into the decision by their spouse, boyfriend, lover, fiance, or parents. (So much for their choice) Even many pro-choice feminists have decried abortion as another way for men to lord over women.
- Women who have abortions are more likely by a ratio of 3 to 1 than women who had miscarrages to have mental problems or commit suicide. (They feel guilty because they killed their child).
- Planned Parenthood's bread and butter is abortion. One of the first three questions they ask anyone who comes in: "Have you considered an abortion?" Many other "counsiling clinics" work in the same way, subtly pressuring women towards abortion. (Again, so much for "choice", more like co-ersion).
- Many women who have had abortions say they wished they'd had someone supporting them to either a. keep the child or b. had given them more option.
- "Pro-choicers" routinely object to such common sense concessions as informing women of health risks associated with abortion (such as increased chances of breast cancer, depression, suicide, possible sterility) or of alternatives to abortion (such as adoption, WICK, governmental and private agencies, catholic charities, etc).
Hell, even on a "pro-choice" basis, your arguments fail. And these are just the arguments relating to women and choice. And of course your lack of knowledge about babies pre-birth. All abortion talking points are either lies, confusion, or complete rhetoric.
And if you see me telling you that you have no scientific knowledge to be a personal attack, then you really have too thin of skin to be debating anything political. And if you dislike me telling you the natural conclusions of your philosophy, maybe you should revisit it. I have the science on my side, court cases, etc backing me up. Read Peter Singer, the founder of Planned Parenthood (her name escapes me) who was a huge proponent of eugenics. Just because Howard Dean promises that "no abortion will be performed on a living baby" doesn't make it so....we all know his commitment to science (rolls eyes). These people aren't random nobodies who no one listens to. These are the founders, and the leaders of the pro-choice movement. But if you don't wish to be mocked for saying ridiculous things with no basis in reality....then don't say ridiculous things with no basis in reality.
At 7/31/06 05:40 PM, Crusty_Wiwuh wrote: It can't "end the babies life" because the babies life hasn't started yet. It's not even a baby yet, it's just a fertilised egg- some dividing cells. It's made of living cells, but that's about it. It can't live on its own and it can't think. And the mother wouldn't do it if she didn't think it was worth it.
Again, you have no clue what you're talking about. It is alive in the womb. It IS viable (meaning it can live outside of the womb) as early as 16-18 weeks (which is 4- 4 1/2 months). Brain activity starts long before birth. And whether or not the mother thinks its worth it is irrelevant.
Sure you can say, "Aw but it's so wasteful" or whatever, but I see no harm in giving up before you've started. An unwanted child won't be raised as well as a wanted one.
Also irrelevant.
Abortion is a right, and it's far from murder. Wanting to ban abortion is like vegitarians wanting to ban meat.
Abortion is hardly a "right". It is NOT far from murder, as it ends a life. And vegetarians want to ban eating meat because it kills an animal. So that IS actually a good comparison.
Someone needs to reread a science book.
At 7/31/06 05:44 PM, Athlas wrote: And of course, you're always rigt. What makes you think the child would benefit. This is impossible to prove. How can you kill something that isn't even alive? What if the mother is a rape victim? I look around me, and I see families with children who had been better off if they had never been born at all. This may sound harsh, but it's the truth. Teenage mothers tend to be unable to raise their child decently, resulting in both of them having a miserable life. For instance.
Because it doesn't get killed. That's a benefit. It may have a good life, it may have a bad one. THAT is impossible to prove. But at least it gets to live. And the child is alive. That ALSO can be proved. And if the mother IS a rape victim? So what? And that's your opinion that the child would be better off never being born at all. And it may sound harsh, but not only do you have no scientific knowledge, but your opinion on whether or not someone would be better off dead is irrelevant. Society is filled with people who were born into bad circumstances, had a hard childhood and then made something of themselves. Rush Limbaugh, Oprah (if you believe her account of it), and many many more. When one begins deciding who gets to live and who doesn't, the society ends up going into utilitarian bio-ethics, socialism, and other joys.
Wouldn't hurt you to pick up a science book either.
At 7/30/06 11:35 PM, Rioan wrote: You are obviously a deeply disturbed person. Enough said about that.
Abortion shouldn't be banned, it needs to be left as an option.
It's the mother's right to do as she wishes.
No it doesn't. It is the termination of a unique human life. The mother should have no more right to kill her child in the womb than she does after it's born. But hell, since teh ACLU, Planned Parenthood, NARAL and NOW all support the latter, I think it tells us something about the proponents of abortion.
What people should be doing, instead of burning down abortion clinics, is helping to educate these girls as to what other options there are.
Ah the safe, legal, and rare mantra. What a bunch of crap.
At 7/30/06 11:41 PM, Targos93 wrote: Abortion is needed. Unless you want to take in all the teenagers babys. Its all up to the mother and depending on there age there parents
Wow, two sentences. Three errors.
1) Abortion is NOT needed except in cases of danger to the mothers life.
2) Parents have nothing to say about it in the real world, regardless of age.
3) There are no shortage of willing adoptive parents. As it is there's no shortage of willing parents for the children already in the system.
At 7/31/06 12:14 AM, FlurpMonkey wrote: murder only hurts people when they know theyre going to die. after that they're too dead to care. murder mostly hurts the people left behind. which in this case would be no one.
Well, murder HURTS the baby, so you fail once. Most women who have had an abortion go through extreme depression, so you fail twice. And it usually breaks up families, and hurts the rest of the family, so strike three.
At 7/31/06 02:21 AM, Dubh_Solas wrote: your obviously either a guy, or have never been laid.
Logical falicy or ad hominim, either way. The majority of abortion supporters are men and lesbians. More women are pro-life than men. And either way, your argument is useless.
for you to impose your thoughts on what someone can or cant do, is utter stupidity
No, it's called law. For example, the following things have been regulated or banned (in other words, people were told they can't do them): rape, murder, prostitution, drug use, child abuse, sposal abuse, theft, hit and run accidents, etc.
Is there an intelligent pro-abortion person on this board?
At 7/31/06 06:34 AM, areyoureadyEddie wrote: To get rid of it completley is just wrong, in Ireland its illegal. Once, a teenage girl was raped and became pregnant and was refused an abortion. That girl would be scarred for life even if she wasn't pregnant, but to actually be made give birth to that baby is just horrific.
Most victims of rape who have an abortion feel like theyve been victimized a second time. So it's better to put it up for adoption.
At 7/31/06 08:55 AM, Athlas wrote: A woman's belly is her own business. No society, government or religion has the right to intervene. Everyone has the right to be happy, and if the mother thinks she is unable to raise her child properly, neither of them would benefit from it.
We have the right to regulate. Every country in the world regulates it. And the child benefits from being born. Wrong on all three counts.
At 7/31/06 09:51 AM, Zen444 wrote: In their rhetoric, rabid Pro-Lifers love to draw analogies to the Holocaust whenever possible, which makes their opponents Nazi sympathizers, if not the gas chamber attendants.
And all pro-choicers compare the "fascists" who want to "control their bodies" to Nazis. Abortion WAS founded on eugenics, so the comparison to Hitler isn't really that inappropriate.
Every once in a while some nut actually takes this genocide talk seriously and decides that it would be wrong to sit idly by while innocents are being annihilated. So they call in some death threats, plant a few pipe bombs, and start torching clinics.
Yea, and the rest of the pro-life community condemns them. It's so rare however, that it's hardly worth mentioning.
All of these guys are motivated by their Christian doctrine to prevent the slaughter of innocents. Which is a little puzzling, given that Yahweh specifically sanctioned infanticide more than once in the Old Testament.
In your opinion.
At 7/31/06 03:11 PM, Crusty_Wiwuh wrote: Women have a right to do what they want with their bodies. You can't just write something off as "wrong" if it doesn't actually hurt anybody. It doesn't matter if the thing has the potential to become living and sentient, because it's not alive to know what it's missing.
It hurts the mother, it ends the babies life. And we know from videos that abortion is far from casual fridays to the fetus. And the fetus is alive.
Jesus and the pro-choicers say pro-life people hate science. Idiotic.
At 7/31/06 10:06 AM, CadillacClock wrote: Not in every ones Country. Teaching children the acts of war and how to use the weapons given is some what disturbing.
You mean kinda like what almost every Islamic country does? You know: Iran, Syria, etc.
The Lebanese citizens wanted nothing to do with this war. It was a simple matter that Israel jumped onto. A matter which was not worthy of war terms. Now that the war has begun Israeli military leaders are under fire for using bombs with a higher rate of missing there target.
Except for the fact that several Hezbollah members were elected to the Lebanese government. And an act of war is an act of war, whether it be big or small. Just because the American government will allow blatant hostilities to our armed forces with no response for a decade doesn't mean Israel has to.
Casualties of war are generally justified, but not when they're intentional.
When a military enemy surrounds themselves with civilian targets, the civilian targets generally die. Sad, but hardly a case that Israel is happily killing civilians. They weren't targeting the civilians.
It's biased; yet, it shows the other disturbing side to this war. As such you have to wonder who the real evil is. The Hezbollah, Lebanese, or the Israelis.
It's really not hard to see who the evil is. Hezbollah. No question.
At 7/31/06 10:42 AM, drDAK wrote: Now, I concur with the starter of this topic, Israel is not what it is cracked up to be by our biased media. Listen, I guess the facts that Israel has targeted (and killed) many Lebanese civilians have been "over looked", huh? What can we expect from such a "civilized" nation if they go around killing innocents in an attempt to root out the bad.
Our biased media makes Israel look like the bad guy. It's kinda like the rest of the world, people piss and moan about Israel, but never say a damn thing about the cowards they're fighting.
Had America done such a thing... people would be raising hell.
Exactly. But notice no one condemns Hezbollah.
And I'm sory, but if you don't see constant condemnation of Israel by the UN and world community as "raising hell", I question where your head is.
At 7/31/06 02:56 PM, DiabloCloud wrote: PLZ can you explain why r they cowards? do you mean cauze they hit the Israeli army and run? if you don't know, this is how the resistance in all its history had worked.
Let me start by saying, type coherently.
Next, they're cowards for: deliberately targeting civilians NOT surrounding a military target, surrounding THEMSELVES with innocent children, etc.
you r saying that Hezbollah is larger and better than the Lebanese army. then why dosn't the USA help the Lebanese goverment by supplying it with weapons instead of trying to disarm Hezbollah? and you say that Hezbollah is supplied by other countries... can you tell me who supplies Israel? isn't the USA the one that supplies Israel? than there is no problem in other Gov. suppling Hezbollah.
Hezbollah is IN the Lebanese government. We would be directly funding a terrorist group.
Can the USA help the Lebanese Gov and army by giving us the prohibited weapons that she is giving to Israel to kill civilians in lebanon?
and why isn't Israel punneshed for using these weapons. maybe because the USA controls the security council and all the United Nation organization.
You have zero clue how the world works. The US controls the UN? What a joke.
how r they using them? just tell me.. if(and only if because it isn't true) Hezbollah is firing missles from somewhere next to the houses... than why hitting the houses!?
You're an idiot. "How are they using the citizens? You mean by hiding in them and then firing at Israel so the citizens take the wrath? I don't see how that's cowardlyor using the citizenry at all!"
that isn't true.
Your knowledge of the subject is far from complete enough to comment on this.
At 7/7/06 05:38 AM, Lhotun wrote: I didn't even know the figures, I was mainly pointing out your initial "more blacks are put on trial" to be a godawful argument.
It's NOT a bad argument. Sorry. More blacks are put on trial, yet more whites are executed. It really shoots down the whole racism thing.
I honestly believe bias to not be a good argument, since that sweeps through the entire system.
So if blacks commit more crimes, we're biased for charging them. Yet if we don't charge them, we don't care about black victims (their primary target), we're biased. BS all around.
When someone goes to rob a bank, they carry a gun. They don't intend to kill anyone. They may very well be rather unprepared to meet resistance. Guns are many times used to intimidate. But if a gun is pulled on you by a civilian, you will likely pull yours. You really think whenever a criminal goes into a situation armed, he is planning on shooting up the place?
We have lots of cases where they don't. Where they carry a snickers bar in their pocket. Or just hand the teller a note that says "I have a gun" or "I have a bomb". If you take a gun, you expect resistance. Yes, whenever a criminal commits a crime, he intends to carry his crime through, by any means neccessary.
My brother in law beat my sister (he was murdered before i had a chance to "talk to him). If i went to talk to him ,adn had a gun....I intended to use it. The law works this way (and it's written by intelligent people). You take a gun, you plan to use it. So if you shoot someone, it's not UNPLANNED.
Constant access to internet and phone is equivalent to both a PS3 and an X-BOX360? Either way, my point was that you made heaven sound like a dream. Yeah, if you want to get free internet, you steal a loaf of bread. You don't murder three people. Where you get sent to for that isn't quite as sweet.
Constant access to internet is pretty nice. Having stuff hand delivered to you whenever you want is also nice. Being released to do your own show is spectacular. Making shittons of money because people feel bad for you is awesome. Give me her deal and I'll take her six months anytime.
I'm acting like state-sanctioned murder doesn't exactly solve any problems and only causes new ones.
It's keeps criminals from getting out, and causes no new problems. I'm cool with that.
And you proove my point exactly. "Lets let loose a convicted murderer, that should be fun."
How do I prove your point. Your point is "put them in jail for life and we're good." Yet Willie Horton was in jail for life and was released. If he was dead, what could Dukkakis have done?
That is just stupid. Thats like when they convict a man for a life sentence and the guy gets out in 15 years. That isn't because we can't contain him. Thats a stupid system added onto it. Capital punishment is irrelevent.
Hey if we didn't have morons running around saying "Let's let Charles Manson out of prison, maybe I'd agree.We have people that run around saying that the end times are upon us. And they've been saying that for quite a while now. That doesn't mean people take them seriously.
And what do those people have to do with anything? Dukkakis said "Hey let's release convicted murderers on the weekends AND WE DID. This moron in California is tryng to get Manson released. Considering that California is VERY liberal, pardon me if I'm worried.
What you're saying is: "Just because it happens all the time, it doesn't mean it'll happen again."
What numbers?
I was just recalling a testimony from a witness of McVeigh's excution and an Israeli woman's response to Mossad's post-Munich assassinations.
I guess I'm foolish for thinking some people actually would rather get the worst part of their life behind them.
And? They are in the minority. And there's a reason the court lets them talk.
And for the note, "the rest of your life in prison" is not what I'd refer to as "for awhile"
When quite a few people are imprisoned "for life: then are released after 10 years (my sister's mothers killer), I's say "a while" is a fair call.
At 7/7/06 05:07 AM, Lhotun wrote: stuff that made me sound stupid
Ah my bad all around.
As for your source...I couldn't find the right data (my comp is slow), so where exactly should I look?
Now about appeals...
What level of appeals would be appropriate? You'd want everything that occured in the case to be checked at least once. How about twice? After all, when turning in a college paper, I usually proofread twice. Is a man's life worth more than my grade in "English Composition?" I'd hope so, so let's add on a third time. Are three lookovers enough to ensure that the prosecutor didn't withold information, the confession wasn't coerced, the jury wasn't biased, the counsel wasn't pathetic, there were no expert testimonies that were blatantly misleading, or any number of things that could cause the entire case to be thrown out?
I love the college paper metaphor. Do you have a group of twelve people look over your paper to make sure it's flawless, and agree in unison? No, then it's nothing like the criminal system. When a person gets a dozen or more appeals over 30 years, I think even the most skeptical of us would agree thats too much.
The problem that capital punishment has already demonstrated is, as I already said, if we hadn't had "unlimited appeals" and a long wait to be executed, we'd have killed at least several innocent people.
It blows my mind with I hear people point out that we haven't killed any innocents, then they want to get rid of all the reasons why we haven't.
Yet, it blows my mind that we usually find people innocent who are sentenced to LIFE IN PRISON< not death. And even in DP cases, it's murky. I'd personally say, any longer than a decade is postponing it.
Next we'll hear people saying we should remove the safety locks on guns. They're not dangerous, accidental shootings are going down.
Yea, cause all those safety locks stopped accidental shootings. All safety locks do is keep kids from shooting people....WHICH if you're storing your gun right, the kid won't get it. And those who DON'T store the gun right, ALSO don't put the safety lock on it.
At 7/7/06 05:29 AM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote: WolvenBear, Goliath- is right in his use of statistics, as far as I understand the argument.
Toad, we normally get along, but please...explain to me how he is right.
If you make a claim "Group X believes Belief Y", then it can be disproved with the fact "Person A, belonging to Group X, believes Belief Y' "
No, it really can't. If the claim is " a higher percentage of group X are happier than of group Y" it can't be disproved with "ah but we found 1 person of group Y who believes this". Nope.
Whereas if you say "Many of Group X believe Belief Y" it is not a fact so much as a correlation - You can't then say "All of Group X believe Belief Y"
The claim was "More christians are happier than athiests", which was backed up by numbers. I didn't say ALL christians were happy or ALL athiests unhappy.
At 7/7/06 05:24 AM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote:
Seconded. Evolution has a mountain of evidence to support it, and I would be happy to show you any of it if you weren't just saying that to be annoying.
No, Toad, I'm not saying that to be annoying.
The theory of evolution basically states:
We came from single celled creatures. And then (most recently) through monkies.
Though I do often argue stuff to be contentious, here, I believe what I'm saying. When you can show me evidence that a bird evolved into a bat, then I'll believe.
Evolution has ZERO evidence to it's credit.
At 7/7/06 05:12 AM, Goliath- wrote: People who attend religious services weekly or more are happier
Thats a quote from the data.
I lot of religious people attend weekly. Even lots of "going through the motions" people attend weekly.
You havent posted any credible links. And my opinion makes more sense than yours. So you fail at this argument.
Whatever bud. Numbers>your opinion.
We have witnessed evolution. I would say that can support it.
We haven't. Sorry. The best we can do is say that viruses become resistant to anti-biotics.
Globally the earth has increased .9 degrees in the last hundred years.
That hardly proves anything.
I would say its warming up.
Less than a degree in a hundred years? Are you aware of the little Ice age?
If your not even going to listen to me than whats the point in arguing with a wall.
No offense. But piss off. If we want to get into the history of the pagan verses the history of the christian....guess what...the Christian still wins.
You think Christians are intolerant...yea I get that. Couldn't care less, but I get it. As far as I'm concerned, you're no different than the people who say all blacks are criminals because one robbed them.
You are out of your league.
At 7/6/06 03:45 AM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote: Let's not engage in complete hyperbole here because they found some pre Gulf War I sarin and mustard gas shells. Not everything that the administration said was true, and some of it has even been proven false. Iraq was not the greatest threat at the time, and the downing street memo's at least show that Britain was of the opinion that they were not.
Yet no one said that Iraq was the "greatest threat at the time". So nop,e try again.
Iraq was not seeking yellow cake uranium from nigeria as Plame's husband as well CIA analysis of the supposed proof proved before it was even mentioned. The so called mobile chemical weapons factories are now believed to most likely have been used to produce hydrogen.
Plame's husband was proven false. Try again.
Contrary to what was said pre invasion, we did not have exact co-ordinates of active wmd factories and laboratories.
When did ANYONE say we had co-ordinates? Last I recall...they didn't.
Could Saddam have been making WMD's without anyone knowing? It's possible, but let's not pretend that the discovery of some decaying shells which the pentagon didn't even make too big a fuss over prove that the administration was 100% accurate in its claims.
Let's see, the government said "Saddam did not destroy his weapons of mass destruction and is trying to make more." Well, we proved the first part right. And the fact that we know that they were trying to deal with both France and Russia to look the other way while they bought more proves the 2ND part right too.
Actually, I think part of the problem may have been that the operation switched from CIA controll to military control half way through the mission. There was also the problem that they sent in paid afghani militia who may have also had loyalties to Bin laden.
What?
All I can respond to here is : When the military invaded they got control. DUH. The rest I'd like you to link.
At 7/6/06 03:58 AM, Wyrlum wrote: They never really tried to catch him after the Afganistan war ended anyways. This is just one more indication that the Bush admin doesn't care about catching Osama.
And this is what is so funny about all these Republican claims about Bill Clinton failing to catch Osama. I wonder what the Republicans will say when we see Osama's smiling face on tape after another major attack.
Yea, those stupid Republicans....killing al Quida in Iraq. The hell are they thinking.....killing the group that bombed us....
Yea you have nothing.
At 7/6/06 09:26 PM, -Rainmaker- wrote: If you are suggesting, in any way that, North Korea and Iran combined could combat the U.S. Military, you're simply quite pathetic.
Number one: I didnt even remotely suggest NK and Iran would team up. I reread my post 6 times. No one who read it would even remotely come up with that, so you pulled that out of thin air.
HOWEVER. Iran would kill a ton of our soldiers. Not saying they'd win, but they'd kill a lot of us because they have no problem with sacrificing their people by the million to kill us. We'd smoke them in the end, but heaven forbid an insurgancy came about.... And with the current anti-war climate in the US, NK would easily defeat us. Hell, we think 2000+ soldiers dead in 3 years was bad....NK would give us something to cry about. We'd lose 300 in a week or so, and the anti-war lobby would pull us home.
And I'm ABSOLUTELY sure that Iran can compete with the U.S. and our allies in not only size, but technology. Iran could TOTALLY whoop our ass any day of the week. They're just fighting what is obviously the strongest military force in the world.
Wow, you so totally owned me. Because even though I never even remotely suggested that Iran could fight us on any scale...you read through to the subtext of my words....Iran can beat us...Shut up.
Besides, combined, while they DO have more troops, and MAYBE, MAYBE equal technology, their military is not as organized, and I can assure you that they do not have the .combat support that the U.S. has.
Ignorance is total bliss.
I'm sorry, but someone needs to take a 101 course on American culture and war. Iran is dangerous because they have nuclear technology and a complete lack of care for their citizenry. NK is even worse. Before you wish to challenge me, go back and read all the anti-war stuff prior to our engagement with Afghanistan, and then pre-Iraq. A majority of the country is anti-war right now, even though we were justified going in. And we were terrified about SADDAM using WMDs on us. What if we know the country has nukes, or nuclear technology?
At 7/7/06 04:40 AM, Goliath- wrote: And its done in how frequent you visit church. Not nesecarily what religion you are.
It's done on whether you're religious or not. It has nothing to do with "how religious you are". Stop making stuff up.
Whats the point? I have provided evidence and yet you still refuse to refute it.
You have provided 0 links, 0 quotes (aside from Karl Marx), and 0 evidence. You're opinion doesn't count.
Yea, I am.Now thats sad.
Evolution has no evidence to support it. Nor does global warming. I can out argue you on both those points too.
You were talking about jews. I was talking about christianity (which you somehow seem to know). Stay on topic.
Jews and Christianity are intertwined (seeing as how Christians came from Jews and we share HALF of the same book. It's not irrelevant. The only real difference seperating us is : we believe the savior has come and they don't.
doh rely?
Yea, really.
You say that 3000 people represent the earth, yet you say I am a hypocrite.
And I put forth more studies. You point to one person. You say 3000 people aren't representative of everyone, yet 1 person you know is the exact embodiment of our faith. Yeah, you're the hypocrite.
Why? If you sincerely regret what you have done...why should you not be forgiven?If you ask that question you wouldnt understand the answer.
You're right. I don't. And you apparently can't explain it to me. It doesn't mean you don't get punished on Earth. It doesn't mean you don't pay the price.
How can you base an entire religous aspect on a small study. How can you say "Yet they are less happy. So they kinda fail.".
I produced more. Including one from an athiest site. Produce something else to prove me wrong or shut up.
Because I believe several studies that show Christians to be happier than athiests?You . . .
I am sorry, I cant do this argument.
Just thinking about your point of view makes me want to punch the next religious person I find in the face.
OK. Good for you. You could call every Christian on the face of the planet a baby raping homosexual and I couldn't care less.
I'm sorry, but your entire argument is moot. Produce something or shut up. You are mad for one single reason: you are wrong. I have numbers and logic on my side. You... want to hit me. Sad, but whatever.
Um, it's Catholic. Are you completely ignorant of that which you are arguing?I thought priests were reserved for the whole father thing?
Yea....another sinning human being....
And?
sigh
Don't sigh at me. You want to compare me to murders centuries ago, simply because of my Christian beliefs. If that is the childish standard you want to use, then don't complain when it is used against you. It's like the whole "People of X Party are all the same." "Oh really? Member Y of your party did this...you must be just like him." "Well that's not fair."
http://www.24-7prayer.com/cm/news/1246Typical from a religious site. How aboaut a nuetral site? I dont even see any evidence of it.
How bout the ATHIEST SITE provided.
Notice the problems with the study? Let's list some:
You can be sure, though, that quite a few Christians will cite this as proving how wonderful Christianity is without ever thinking to ask questions about it. I wonder why?
You deserve a round of applause sir, I wasnt sure you were actually that stupid and you were just joking around but you proved me wrong.
So a Christian says "I'm happy", and the athiest calls them stupid. OK. Whatever.
It has nothing to do with being stupid. A group of people are asked the question "Are you happy?" And after they answer yes or no, they are asked...are you christian? Are you married? Etc. The article simply says that Christians will say how wonderful Christianity is if asked. They AREN'T asked. It doesn't say why the athiests claim to b unhappy. It doesn't argue that Christians REALLY aren't happy. It simply criticizes that "Christians will use this to say how wonderful Christianity is".
I feel like mocking you know.
So "In today's study. Penicillian was found to be more effective at treating diseases than cow dung. You can be sure the proponents of penicillin will take this to mean that it is more effective than cow dung. How silly."
I can keep going, I'm fine with providing more.You still have yet to find an argument against my your study is invalid statement.
Because I've provided you with at least 2 studies (by YOUR admission) that prove me right. I don't have to prove you wrong.
To turn your earlier insult around. You must've failed science I take it. Because in real science, once someone produces their findings...it is up to others to prove them wrong. So if someone says...I disagree, but without any proof, the scientist doesn't have to prove themselves to the nonbeliever.
In other words...unless you put up or shut up (as I've prompted you to do repeatedly), I will just take you as the same joke I took Penal Disturbance to be.
At 7/6/06 09:05 PM, -Rainmaker- wrote: Not true. I'm signing on to releive those who have been three, four, and five times. It's not right for them to suffer. Besides, every able-bodied male, in my opinion, owes his country some stint of military service - via combat or otherwise. You owe it for you nation, even if you're not really defending the cause of freedom.
Screw that noise. My friends come back from Iraq telling me how they weren't allow bullets on patrol. My ass IS NOT stepping into a combat zone without enough ammunition to kill all of Russia.
At 7/7/06 03:52 AM, Goliath- wrote:Yea, it really does. I have numbers to back me up, and you're just saying "I DISAGREE!"Oh really?
Is that why I'm saying that the study is pointless because there is no other informaton available besides their religion and their current happiness?
And their socio-economic background, and their political standing. So, I'm sorry, but either you didn't read the link I sent, or you're slow on the comprehension.
And the sad thing is, you'll either ignore this or just retort with some stupid comeback that will leave me wondering why I even bother.
When you produce ONE SINGLE FACT that helps your case, then you can talk about bad retorts. So far you've talked about the middle ages, and a preacher YOU know.
You are very religious I can tell.
Because your brain automatically sorts out information you dont want to look at and you ignore it.
I don't go to church. I don't give two shits about what people do in their lives. You wanna screw another guy, I couldn't care less. Snort coke? Go for it! Have 80 kids by different women? I couldn't care less. You are the one that keeps using religion like it's an insult. And providing nothing to help your cause. And ignoring everything I send.
I was merely pointing out something, that as you feel your being persecuted by atheists its not like christians havent done the same thing.
Yea, white people used to have black people as slaves too. If I black guy hits me with a whip I'm calling the cops. You're so desperate to win here you're just reaching everywhere.
If this test is random than we have no basis of what type of person it is. If you look at other graphs they point out the more money you make the happier you are. So why not compare atheists that make 35k to 50k with christians who make 35k to 50k?
It also points out being white you are more likely to be happy. So why not put that with the category? Being married makes you happier?
I reread it. Saw NOTHING on race. So first it's...we know nothing else about these people (cept they're religious), now all of a sudden you know their race and if they're married. Make up your mind.
So why dont we compare 100 christians that are married, make 35k to 50k a year on family income, white, 3 children, two years of community college, and live in a suburban neighnorhood with the exact same thing except they are atheist.
We did. It's in the study. We didn't break it down by years and community college. But still.
Show me a survey that does that and produces your answers and I will agree with you. Until then this survey is inconclusive, and if you still argue that I am ignoring the facts then its pointless to argue.
No. Let's call this what it is. Until I produce a study that agrees with you, you will ignore it.
This isnt math. Stop trying to avoid it and answer me. Hopefully with something that makes sense.
I have not only answered you, I have ripped apart everything you've put forward. When you produce ONE piece of evidence that even calls what I've shown into question, then you can talk. I've put forward something by an ATHIEST SITE. When you put forward anything EXCEPT your opinion, then I'll pretend that you're an adult.
At 7/7/06 03:52 AM, Goliath- wrote: It might, or might mean there was more christians interviewed than atheists.
It's done in percentages.
Doesn't really matter.I take it you didnt do so well in science class.
When you compare anything and you want an accurate result, you cant have that many variables. Thats the first thing you learn in science.
In science, when you want ot prove someone wrong, you produce evidence that proves them wrong. Til you do that, your "I disagree" means shit.
For example a lot of athiests believe in global warming and evolution with no evidence to back them up.Thats sarcasm right? Its hard to tell online.
Because I dont think your serious.
Yea, I am.
FASCINATING. So all those Jews who are promised heaven (and yet don't believe in Christ) really hurt your theory.I thought we were talking about christianity where you have to believe that christ was god to go to heaven.
But I guess you can just change the topic of discussion like that whenever you want.
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought your whole point was on the subject of Christianity. So I showed you how you have zero idea what you're talking about.
Are you honestly too dumb to understand how the history of the Jew matters to the Christian? Cause they're pretty inter-related.
I personally believe that a good life will get one into heaven. But that's just me.Thats not what my local priest believes.
Ah, your local priest speaks for ALL christians then eh? So I'm stupid for using a study that uses 3000 people, but just one suffices for you? What a hypocrite.
But no, I am frightened by the idea that anyone can go into heaven regardless of the life they lived simply because of a few beliefs they hold.
Why? If you sincerely regret what you have done...why should you not be forgiven?
Yet they are less happy. So they kinda fail.Oh my god, dont tell me you are serious?
"Oh my god, don't tell me that you are honestly taking 40% to be more than 20%."
You begin to bore me.
Are you really that intolerant and ignorant? You people are the reason why religious people have a bad name.
Because I believe several studies that show Christians to be happier than athiests? You're the one with no knowledge slandering Christians like crazy.
Why would you go to a random person and say father anyway?
Um, it's Catholic. Are you completely ignorant of that which you are arguing?
At my school we had traditional christmas decorations. You know the baby jesus, santa claus, the regular stuff.
We also had protestors outside our school, I asked why they are protesting and they said it unfair to those who arent christian.
To which I asked if it seemed unfair to them, and they replied "no, their christian, but others could be offended".
That makes no sense. Explain it or move on.
In truth, most atheist people have no problem with christians or even christian holidays. Its when you start knocking on doors things become a problem.
Nope sorry, we have the right to knock on doors. And you have the right to shut them.
Their christian.
Your christian. So you should share the same beliefs because you are both apart of the same religion.
Or atleast by your logic thats how it works.
You're an idiot. Obviously then, since you're a pagan, you kill babies.
There's been more than one study bud.Mind showing me?
Sure!
http://www.24-7prayer.com/cm/news/1246
http://www.tearfund...ians+are+happier.htm
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/049667.htm
I can keep going, I'm fine with providing more.
At 7/7/06 01:30 AM, Lhotun wrote: Once again, it costs more regardless of appeals. In Kansas, for instance, appeals make up less than 30% of capital punishment case costs. About 50% of the cost comes from the trial and pre-trial periods. Lets not even note those costs would be incurred even if the person was found innocent.
Please cite.
This does not change the fact that minorities are given the death penalty at a higher percentage. Ten black people and five white people kill someone else. The black guys get the death penalty, the white guys life in prison. "More black people went to trial" is not a reasonable argument for why the the white people got a lighter sentence.
Here again, you are wrong:
http://experts.about..cement-341/White.htm
From the article:
Number executed was 885, from 1977-2003. 510 of those, or 58%, were white
That would be the majority by the way.
Death penalty can be given for "first degree murder" in some states; but I won't go into that. I'll go straight to Texas, since they're the experts. In Texas, you can be executed for killing someone in the commission of a crime. That is one murder and it isn't especially heinous.
Felony murder. Great law, imo.
You go in to commit a crime and someone dies. Damn straight you should be charged for first degree murder. And AGAIN, unless the crime is heinous, the death penalty is usually not given.
The reason people kill varies, but most probably don't enjoy it. Using your example, lets say I decide to rob a house. I'm robbing it, but the homeowner wakes up and pulls a gun on me. Knowing I either kill or be killed, I shoot him. I might've put myself in that situation, but that doesn't make the outcome enjoyable for me. Either way, I wind up on death row.
No, but when you robbed that house, you knew that you might encounter that. Despite the fact that you might have to kill someone, you do it anyways. You want whats in the house. If you carry a gun, you went into the house, prepared to meet resistance and with the intent to kill. You have weighed it in your mind, and that human life means less than getting money, jewelry, whatever. So either:
a. You enjoy killing.
or b. You don't give a damn about other human life.
Either way, I say fry you up.
Your idea of what prison is like is fairly incorrect, I'm pretty sure Martha Stewart didn't have it that nice.
She had constant access to internet and phone. They brought in a turkey (just for her) on Thanksgiving. To show you how hard she had it:
http://www.bobfromac..com/marthadiary.html
She was called CUNT, my god. Please. When you wanna talk about how bad prison is, dont EVER mention a celebrity.
The analogy to the victim is silly. It implies that the killer's family was somehow responsible for the pain of the victim's family; therefore, their pain is irrevelent.
It's not silly. Your comparison was stupid. The person committed a crime. Their family gets time to say what a great guy he was. Other than that...who cares? You're trying to act like the family should have some great override button, just because they're family, and to hell if he committed a crime.
Not only can a furlough program be restricted or completely removed; resulting harm caused by inmates out of the prison are a result of the program.
Yea, tell that to the victims of Willie Horton. Removing it after the fact doesn't mean the victims of crimes go away.
"This guy killed five people. Then we willingly let him out of prison, when we didn't need to. Then he killed someone. Clearly, the only way we can contain him is to kill him."
Hey if we didn't have morons running around saying "Let's let Charles Manson out of prison, maybe I'd agree.
Does it really? First of all, that is entirely subjective. There some who would say quite the opposite.
Second, why is locking the killer up forever not closure enough? Where exactly is "closure" met? I'd imagine closure is more about getting done the trial and moving on with your life; and considering a death penalty case would mean a longer trial, I propose that closure is delayed due to the death penalty.
Well, let's look at it this way. Most families of victims want the killer dead. Not behind bars for awhile. So while you disagree, it means very little. So take your little "it's subjective" quote and throw it out the window.
You may as well be saying "Hey, you know, whether or not people want anesthesia during surgery is subjective....numbers? I don't need to see those."
At 7/6/06 08:43 PM, pt9_9 wrote: That doesn't mean we should kill anyone. Its a violation of natural human rights, regardless of a person's circumstances. It's not societies right to kill. It's societies right to keep him/her away from society.
It keeps them away from society. And since your whole point is: "People change", no I shot that down.
graph
proves nothing
Electrocution has stopped being used for reason's of "inefficency". However, lethal injection is used in modern times because of it's euthanasia factor. We use lethal injection on fatally wounded animals to give a painless death, likewise for murderers.
Electrocution was stopped because it was cruel and inhumane. As for the euthansia factor, the way we kill animals and the way we kill humans is completely different. For animals we use an overdose of barbituates, which more or less causes them to go to sleep. For humans, we use a three drug cocktail. The first drug is an anethesia. The second stops the lungs. The third stops the heart. Sorry, but if you don't know this, you're out of your league on the subject.
And regardless. You don't get to play both the "too cruel" and the "not cruel enough" card.
And pain was only recorded during an electric chair session when it was improperly set up.
No. You have no clue what you're talking about. Actually watch one. People contort and writhe and scream. Painless it was not.
I'm pretty sure I was saying that in the right context......
Nope. Try again.
Someone was implying how mentally challenged people should be killed. Or maybe I miscomprehended.
As far as I remember, YOU started the mentally handicapped vs killer discussion. And even if you didn't, you continued it. Your bad either way.
At 7/7/06 01:30 AM, Lhotun wrote: Innocent people have been on death row for over a decade. That is undeniable.
Yet it is unimportant. We have no proven cases of someone being wrongfully executed. Which is exactly what you originally said was "truth".
Not only would that have caused many of the above people found innocent on death row to have been executed, it still does not make the death penalty less expensive. Death penalty cases have greatly increased costs from step one. For instance, in some cases, there are actually two separate trials that take place; one to determine guilt or innocence, and another to determine whether to give the death penalty.
And? There are two trials for people who are not sentenced to death. The appeals process is more than 75% of the cost. The sentencing phase is usually a week at most. And compared to the original trial alone is inconsequental. Sentencing is a common process in trials by the way, not just capital ones.
It isn't a deterrent. You can't point to fewer purse snatchings and say that capital punishment is the cause.
Of course you can't. Purse snatchings are not a capital crime. What a pathetic retort.
Texas has over 30% of US executions, yet has a murder rate higher than the national average. It has a murder rate that is 1.7 times the average of states without the death penalty. Lets not even look at other countries, like the UK, France, or Canada.
This is the best I can find here:
http://www.disasterc..om/crime/txcrime.htm
"In the year 2000 Texas had an estimated population of 20,851,820 which ranked the state 2nd in population. For that year the State of Texas had a total Crime Index of 4,955.5 reported incidents per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 8th highest total Crime Index. For Violent Crime Texas had a reported incident rate of 545.1 per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 13th highest occurrence for Violent Crime among the states. For crimes against Property, the state had a reported incident rate of 4,410.4 per 100,000 people, which ranked as the state 10th highest. Also in the year 2000 Texas had 5.9 Murders per 100,000 people, ranking the state as having the 17th highest rate for Murder. Texas’s 37.7 reported Forced Rapes per 100,000 people, ranked the state 17th highest. For Robbery, per 100,000 people, Texas’s rate was 145.1 which ranked the state as having the 16th highest for Robbery. The state also had 356.3 Aggravated Assaults for every 100,000 people, which indexed the state as having the 13th highest position for this crime among the states. For every 100,000 people there were 906.3 Burglaries, which ranks Texas as having the 12th highest standing among the states. Larceny - Theft were reported 3,057.4 times per hundred thousand people in Texas which standing is the 10th highest among the states. Vehicle Theft occurred 446.8 times per 100,000 people, which fixed the state as having the 13th highest for vehicle theft among the states "
17th highest for murder. True this is in 2000. But unless you wanna show your figures, that shoots your ridiculous "highest crime rate in the country" bs out of the water.
I would like to note however, that I was incorrect, seeing as how in 2000 (when Guilliani was mayor) NY was the 23rd highest in murders.
At 7/6/06 07:28 PM, Athlas wrote: Still, these were actions based on belief. The crusades took plenty of christian casualties (i.e. christians murdering christians) as well. Rape, pillaging, all these actions were excused because they were made in 'god's name'.... Besides, preaching about peace and how it's wrong to murder, and than stating you can kill all the 'infidels' you like, sounds a bit hypocrit to me.
Yea, stuff happens. Bad people do bad things and excuse it anyway they can. What's your point?
"It is wrong to lay (lie?) with men as with women"
And somewhere along the way, the bible mentions it's wrong to spill seed.
I know the story you're thinking of. God tells a man (I forget his name...but we've discussed it on NG before) to impregnate a woman and he doesn't, so God punishes him. The lesson of the story...if God tells you to do something, you do it.
I didn't say it's wrong, I said it's annoying.
Then tell them to shut the hell up! Or walk away. Or ignore them. Or begin singing the song about Jesus being a whore. If nothing else, you'll piss them off as much as they piss off you.
If the bible (or any religious book for that matter) is being used as if it were law, than yes, I think it should be restricted in certain ways.
What are you talking about? Yes, that little girl who wants to start a bible group....that's somewhere along the line of "the bible being used as law".
Again, you're jumping to conclusions. Have you actually read my other posts?
Yup. You jump around alot and spout random nonsense.
At 7/6/06 08:41 PM, Goliath- wrote: All the graph shows is that there is more happy christians than happy atheists.
So more happy Christians than happy athiests doesn't mean that there's more happy Christians than athiests?
It doesnt provide information from their background, race, gender, age. There is no way to compare the results to each other when they are in different categories.
Doesn't really matter. If 47 percentage of one group say they're happy, and 19% of another group say their happy, the 47% wins everytime.
Athiests are usually liberals....which means they don't have that realistic a view.Most athiests believe that what they see is real. And only what they see, how is that unrealistic?
Most liberal ideas are nonsense. For example a lot of athiests believe in global warming and evolution with no evidence to back them up.
Or the idea of eternal damnation.
What really interests me is that in christianity you can repent anytime, it doesnt matter as long as you are truly sorry and you will be forgiven. But when you die if you didnt believe in christ you suffer for eternity while someone who could have been a mass killer that repented will go to heaven.
FASCINATING. So all those Jews who are promised heaven (and yet don't believe in Christ) really hurt your theory. Coincidentally, the bible also never says that someone will eternally suffer. The concept of hell is man made. The bible ACTUALLY says that judgement is an erassure. One is thrown into the lake of fire where they die. And since God is all about forgiveness, I personally believe that a good life will get one into heaven. But that's just me.
Now that truly frightens me.
You're frightened by misunderstanding. But it's cool.
Religious people are more likely to have a sense of purpose.And atheist people are more likely to make life the best it can be because you only get one chance.
Yet they are less happy. So they kinda fail.
They believe in the basic goodness of people, and believe in positive outcomes.But I thought (atleast in catholism) that christians believe that all people are born with sin and must repent.
The idea of original sin. Yea, for the most part, people really don't believe in that. The belief that people must repent IS however universal among Christians. We just don't all believe you have to go to another sinful person and say "Excuse me father for I have sinned...."
But the idea that being religious will make you happier than those who arent is just ignorant.
It's a factor.
The Christian is perfectly happy keeping to himself, it's the athiest that needs to get rid of his Christian neighbor's display of Christianity.
Are you really that ignorant?
Please say I took it out of context and you didnt actually mean that atheists need to get rid of his neighbors christian displays..
Hmm, lawsuits every year to ban Christmas trees (or at least rename them), cresh sets, etc. I'm not the ignorant one here. If you are, quite frankly, too stupid or too lazy to see the attacks on Christmas as anything other than "I don' wanna see it, make it go away" then whatever.
You said that Atheists, in a way, persecute or discriminate christians for beliefs. And I said the christians used to execute pagans for their beliefs. How is that unrelated?
How do the deeds of people who died hundreds of years ago have any bearing on the subject of what people are doing today?
Your the one basing the entire population of religious and non religious on a 3000 person study.
There's been more than one study bud.
Sorry, you saying I disagree doesn't mean much.And you saying my point doesnt mean much doesnt make it less valid.
Yea, it really does. I have numbers to back me up, and you're just saying "I DISAGREE!"
So now that I have actually provided a point I hope you have the ability to debate it and wont go running back to the survey, or something else that a religious person would stereotypically do.
I'm sorry, what WAS your point? You said my study was invalid without providing anything to contradict it. You pull up stuff from hundreds of years ago, and say it somehow applies to Christians today. I could go back and pull up what the pagans used to do, but really, what the hell is the point. I doubt you sacrifice children, so it's not like it means anything. You offer this circular logic that somehow more isn't more because even though there's more people, we don't know the color of their skin, etc. You didn't refute a single point I made, except to call one idiotic (go you!), and now sit there and tell me the ball is in my court. So if logic's a "religious thing"...
Hell, I'll ressurect something I said a long time ago: "I'm putting forth a reasoned argument, saying 2+2=4, and you're saying ah, but what about the trees?"
At 7/6/06 08:19 PM, Thespus wrote: I'm inclined to believe Sarge mostly because he's right but also because I'm pretty sure you were confused by what he meant.
Look at Anna Nicole Smith who had to sue to get any part of her HUSBAND'S estate. And also look at the little old lady who leaves her fortune to her cat. Sorry, gay marriage doesn't solve anything. I am not confused on anything.
No. If anything, the courts decide simply for the gay community. How does gay marriage affect you, personally? I don't see how your amendment argument can hold up for any type of logical debate.
Hmm, marriage is the societal recognition of a union, therefore it is in effect society who gets to decide if a marriage is valid. Not a hard concept really.
How does it affect me? Hmmm, well, let's see. It puts FURTHER strain on the Social Security system, adds more people to medicade and medicare. Adds more people to government benefits. So it leads to higher taxes for me. Yea it affects me.
And I'm sorry, but you seem to have missed the whole point of the article. Despite your moronic assertion that the "courts decide for the gay community", the NY court found gay marriage unconstitutional. So, the courts in essence told the gay community to piss off. For once the courts did the right thing. The citizens of NY said no, and the courts left it that way. If in Conn., the courts said no after the voters said yes, that would be bullshit too.
They have civil unions. Not the same name which isn't fair, but it's still all the same rights and all that.
Gee, and to hear anyone talk...you'd think civil unions and marriage are completely different......which is why almsot everyone for gay marriage is somehow against civil unions.
Likewise.
You can't grasp a simple article. You don't understand the complexities of court and wills. You say that Conn. has gay MARRIAGE when it doesn't. And you don't seem to get why people have the right to decide how much they pay in taxes. Sorry if your pathetic attack on my 100% factual rebuttal doesn't mean a lot to me.
At 7/6/06 06:58 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote:At 7/6/06 06:51 PM, jlwelch wrote: What about it? Sounds like good news to me. Now only Massachusetts harbors their kind.Connecticut has homosexual marriage too. Thankfully!
MORE GAY MARRIAGE! Not only does it mean more women for straight men, it also means less problems with estates as well as more stable families AND recognition of the equal rights of ALL HUMAN BEINGS!
Gsgt, how in God's name does Gay marriage mean more women for straight men?
Gay marriage doesn't mean less problems with estates, more stable families or does it "recognize equal rights of all human beings". What a goofball.
This is why if we want marriage to be decided by the people, we need that amendment, otherwise the courts decide for us.
And Connecticut does not have gay marriage.
Wow, there was nothing right in your post at all!
At 7/6/06 06:43 PM, Goliath- wrote: There is to many variables in that study to actually conclude that if you are christian you more likely to be happier than an atheist.
Not really. The socio-economic factors have little to do with it, as the graphs show. The factors for happiness clump together as do the factors for unhappiness.
I think that atheists tend to have a more realistic view of life, which to most would seem bleek and depressing.
Athiests are usually liberals....which means they don't have that realistic a view.
Your religion has nothing to do with your happiness, besides the idea that you will go to heaven because you believe in christ wile your neighbor goes to hell because he doesnt.
Did you actually read what you just said? Religion has nothing to do with happiness.....except for the idea of eternal paradise. Religious people are more likely to have a sense of purpose. They believe in the basic goodness of people, and believe in positive outcomes. Religion has a LOT to do with being happy. For example read either Eddie Guerrero or Shawn Michaels (both wrestlers) autobiographies.
Kind of like when the church killed thousands of pagans during the middle ages?
Yup. And those athiests who killed all those people of faith in Germany? Perhaps those lovely people of no faith in Russia? China? Cambodia? Vietnam? North Korea? Japan? Italy? Do I need to keep going?
Your church killed people centuries ago is such a great retort to my point, btw. Good show. People will always stray and do evil things. Not only do the people in the middle ages have nothing to do with our point, the misdeeds of one person have no bearings on another unrelated person. Way to bring up something useless!
Coincidentally, Christians are also more likely to: have large families, donate money, volunteer, and other various things.sigh, thats another assumption with a lot of variables.
To many to conclude an actual point.
Um, again, no. Catholics are more likely to have a large family than most other Christians. Baptists have a lot usually too.
Just because you disagree does not make the numbers go away. If religious people on average have more children than non-religious people (and they do), my point is correct. If religious people on average are happier than non-religious people (and they are), my point is correct. Sorry, you saying I disagree doesn't mean much.
At 7/6/06 06:07 PM, Athlas wrote: Ok, but that doesn't mean 'god' was involved. If a delusion made him feel at comfort, than yes, it could have caused his medical improvement. But that's because he was convinced about something, not because of a provable fact.
It IS a provable fact. He thought he'd get better. Therefore he DID get better. Which was exactly what you said didn't happen. Whether or not it proves God exists is irrelevant to either of our points.
I wasn't refering to the homocidal sociopath that pops up every now and than, going on akilling spree in te name of 'god' (or the voices inside...);
I was refering to the inquisition, the jihad, the crusades,...
The inquistion was more of a case of the state taking on the role of God. I personally believe Islam to be a religion of violence, so that explains the jihads. And the crusades were a series of campaigns to keep Islam from expanding via force.
When does it matter to you whether something is real or not.
I don't know how to explain it any better than this. (Lack of knowledge when it comes to English vocabulary related to the subject)
OH, ok, so this is one of those "random respond to this" points, that has nothing to do with anything. And I STILL don't really know what you're trying to get at here.
What about masturbation, homosexuality,... and the deeper, philosophical state of mind the bible restricts (think about this before answering please)?
The bible DOESN'T restrict masturbation. And homosexuality isn't really all that good for you. You don't seem to have a very high knowledge of the bible or religion in general.
Karl Marx's communistic principles weren't exactly upheld by the governements that used them. He aslo said communism would never work for the USSR.
Or China, or Vietnam, or anywhere else it's been tried. Socialism doesn't work. It elevates the state to the position of God and pretty much always leads to fascism.
Meh. They can pass me my bottle of rhum.
Sorry, but in my personal opinion, if you have to drink the rum to be happy, it doesn't seem that you're very happy.
I'm not saying you shouldn't be a christian, you can be whatever the heck you want to be, as long as you don't start slapping it in other people's faces. I'm getting tired of hearing how I'm going to spend an eternity burning in hell. And how some of them are convinced their belief is the ONLY correct belief.
We have this thing in America called "freedom of speech" which means they have the right to tell you you're going to hell, and you have the right to tell them to shut the hell up. I hear lots of things that I don't like to hear. That's part of the downside to the 1st amendment.
The lawsuits designed to limit Christians freedom of speech show a lot about the people who file them. Christians don't sue Jews over the Star of David or the menorah. Nor do Buddhists sue Muslims over the crescent. Only athiests.
More or less you have someone who doesn't adhere to the principals of Christianity, because our religion tells us God is merciful, and he alone (not us) decides who goes to heaven. Those people have little to no faith, and make up for it (in their mind), byshoving it down other people's throat. And it's not like "you're always hearing it", unless it's from the same person. So stop being such a damn drama queen and overblowing it.
At 7/4/06 03:12 PM, Dragon_Smaug wrote: I don't have time to find evidence, but yes, people have been executed who were innocent.
No, there weren't.
This is proven by the fact of the many last-minute exonerations due to DNA and other evidence. This evidence is not available all the time, so it's highly probable a few innocent are executed wrongfully.
DNA evidence can rarely "exonerate" someone, except in cases of rape, where there was one rapist and the victim wasn't sexually active. And you're saying that because we saved a couple of people FROM death...that proves innocent people WERE killed? Not buying it.
At 7/4/06 03:34 PM, pt9_9 wrote: It is definitly about punishment. Many prisoners(not pertaining to ones that get the death penalty) come out of jail seeking to better themselves. By killing murderers, we let them off easy, because we want it easy. It's about showing murderers the pain of their crimes.
And many go out and commit more crime.
And it's not like prison doesn't kill. Jeffrey Dauhmer got beaten to death in prison. I'm sure he regretted his actions.
I'm sure he regretted getting caught.
Instantaneous death is a gift for murderers.
It's not "instaneous". And this is such a stupid point. The death penalty isn't cruel ENOUGH? Every single prisoner on death row disagrees with you and fights their sentence tooth and nail.
At 7/4/06 08:28 PM, pt9_9 wrote: Killing people because they killed people is why revenge by law does not work. The logic does not make any sense.
The logic makes plenty of sense. Don't kill someone or we'll kill you. Children understand it. Don't hit Timmy or you'll get hit too. It takes a pretty dense individual not to get it.
"Revenge by law" works perfectly. Criminals in jail don't commit more crime til they get out. Dead ones commit no more crime period.
If a person has a thought process, than there is always a way to change it. If a person is insane, he doesn't get sentenced to death. He gets off by reason of insanity. When it comes to perturbed minds, then only you can decide whether society comes before the individual or the other way around.
No, most psychologists disagree. A sociopath will always be a sociopath. They are impossible to change. And the insane person is put into a little rubber room for life. Society still comes first.
Individuals make up society. And by shunning those that do not seem as sufficient to our needs, is like saying we should kill the mentally challenged. What good are they to keep around? They have a problem, and so do murderers. We should work towards a suitable punishment.
That is unmitigated bullshit. The mentally challenged usually: have jobs, can drive, can raise a family, and are productive members of society. Killers don't have "a problem", they ARE the problem. Mentally handicapped people on the whole don't kill their neighbors. Killers do.
If we wanted to show the consequences, why are all killing methods for the death sentence instantaneous? Why don't we stretch him till his body parts dismantle? Or singe his balls off?
Well, there has never been an instaneous method of killing. The electric chair took minutes. And pain makes it feel like hours. Lethal injection can take hours. The waiting for the penalty is years. Your point fails.
Besides, it would take a twisted individual to torture criminals. Not only would we have to worry about the executioner, but just because we need to get rid of the criminal doesn't mean we need to torture him.
You can't have it both ways, saying that the death penalty is too cruel, then that it's not cruel enough.
Fascism is always a great concept when you use the "fear-to-discipline" mentality. But for now, I think I'd be pretty grossed out by the hack of a guillotine, if you catch my drift.
The death penalty is not fascism. Are you 12?
At 7/4/06 09:57 PM, pt9_9 wrote: Matters can coexist, you know. And frankly, the primary reason for your argument is to keep society going. This isn't about what is optimum financially. It's about what's optimum for humanity.
The death penalty is optimum all around. Finacially. Morally. AND for society.
Prison for life isn't a bad way to die? Death is inevitable, so killing on the spot doesn't do that much. Containing life with borders is not torture, but not painless death.
Painless punishment is not at all punishment. It's liberation.
And? Who cares? They're not killing anymore innocent people. I call that a win.
And sorry, but life in prison isn't that bad.
Because it's inhumane.
Because people do not think the same way as others do does not mean they deserve to be sentenced to death. It is arguable that it doesn't matter, but in reality, these wackos have lives.
No, no. You've spent all this time arguing that the death penalty is too humane. You don't get to bitch about the inhumanity of it now.
"Eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind."-Gandhi
Gandhi was only successful because of the basic good of people. If he had tried his speel in USSR or Communist China, Ghandi would've been renamed speedbump.
There are always solutions, but that doesn't mean there aren't better solutions.
When you come up with something better, we'll listen.
At 7/4/06 10:35 PM, pt9_9 wrote: If you get into "contamination of the gene pool" and issues such as that, science will always prevail. Of course there are ways of dealing with things. But retards do not choose to live let alone live mentally challenged. We don't kill people off when we can't give a politically correct justification of doing so. And that's impossible.
Retards don't choose to be retarded, yet killers choose to kill. Your comparison, YET AGAIN, fails.
Killing a murderer hastily only feeds his arrogance to his crimes and destroys our morality.
Well, way to pull something out of nowhere. A dead person has no arrogance. How foolish.
At 7/3/06 11:37 AM, Dragon_Smaug wrote: I'm not going to read the whole thead, but I have what is in my opinion a very good reason to abolish the death penalty:
Innocent people die.
Yet, no case of an innocent person dying has ever been produced.
Supporters argue that it is a deterrent to crime. Studies show that states with the death penalty, when grouped together do not have fewer homicides than states without. Also, the monetary cost of the death penalty is greater verses the monetary cost of keeping someone imprisoned for life.
No, the monetary cost of the death penalty is less. The cost of the endless appeals is more. so the solution? Cut out all those appeals.
And to my knowledge, Texas has a smaller crime rate than lets say New York. Texas and Japan prove that capital punishment DOES deter crime. And people don't generally fight life sentences that hard, but people fight tooth and nail to avoid the death penalty. No, we know it's a deterrent. It'd be MORE of a deterrent if they didn't sit there for 30 years, knowing they've got a good chance of an activist judge or a parole board releasing them, or of the penalty being revoked, or of dying in prison.
At 7/3/06 11:39 AM, Dragon_Smaug wrote: To follow up my post; the justice system is not perfect, and there are recorded cases of people being sent to the chair, only to be proven innocent later.
No, there aren't. Not a single one has ever been produced. In fact, the "cases of innocent men being executed" that you refer to....the evidence of their "innocence" is always as follows:
Their word that they did not do it.
The confession of another murderer on death row who cannot be punished for it.
The lawyers opening and closing arguments.
A movie made saying they were innocent.
At 7/3/06 05:01 PM, sdhonda wrote: 1.It costs more.
The appeals cost more, the death penalty itself is cheaper than life in prison.
2.Innocent people die. The justice system is a human institution, and therefore enivitably has errors.
None ever found.
3.A poor minority has a higher chance of being convicted than a rich majority.
A poor minority is more likely to commit a crime. Also, a poor minority is more likely to be VICTIM of another poor minority. Executing minority killers, makes the minority safer.
4.Not every person who kills is a serial murderer, and nessasarly a danger to society. And even then, they are in jail, hopefully in a solitary cell.
People don't get the death penalty for a single "clean murder". You either have to kill several people (Andrea Yates) or it has to be especially heinous. And considering there is a concerted effort to free Manson (a definately sick man, who has said "if freed, I'd do it again"), LWOP doesn't protect us from them.
5.And, not every killer likes killing, or feels no empathy. Sure, there are a few psychopaths who get a boner from murdering people, but they are few and far between.
That's nonsense. Most killers enjoy killing. Or they WOULDN'T DO IT. And last time I checked, there were no innocent home owners who shot an intruder in self defense on death row.
6.For all the sadists who want murderers to suffer, lets think for a second. Do you feel any pain when your dead?
The whole argument against the death penalty is that it is "cruel" and that the executed "suffer. So yea, I'd say there's pain involved. We know the electric chair hurt like a son of a bitch. We know hangings sucked. We know firing squads weren't pleasant. However, having three solid meals a day and a free XBox 360 AND a PS3 with new games all the time, doesn't seem all that bad to me.
7.For those who say that "But what about the victims family". While they may want the killer dead, what if they don't. It's not unheard of for victims families to not want the death penalty. Hell, the last kennedy brother said "My brother [ted] was a kind and caring man, who wouldent want death on anyman" when testifing at sirhan sirhans trial.
Usually, the victim's families wishes are taken into account. You present evidence that makes this point moot.
8.And of course, lets not forget about the killers family. Do they not get a say? No, they don't matter, they're reletive killed someone so their opinion is worthless.
Um, are you kidding? The relatives always get to get on the stand and say "my brother/father/cousin is a good man". Beyond that...do they get a say? Of course not. Did the victims family get a say in whether or not THEIR family member was killed?
At 7/3/06 10:48 PM, sdhonda wrote: Plenty of innocent people are in jail. But guess what? If evidence comes up that they arnt guilty, they can be released. Until alchemy and philosiphers stones are invented, dead people can't be brought back to life.
Life sucks.
What do motives have to do with it?
Oh I don't know.... they kinda make the difference between self defense and murder, manslaughter and murder one, etc.
My point was that "the person killed someone, he will kill again, therefore is a danger to society, and must be killed as the only way of making society safe" arguement is logical fallacy. Just because a person kills, doesent mean they will kill again. And like said, they can't kill people if they are in an isolated cell.
Furlough program. Cells don't protect us.
Let me ask you a question. How many people does the death of the convict affect?
It gives the family a sense of relief and closure.
At 7/6/06 12:50 PM, -Rokhan- wrote: Followers of religions are dumb and weak...
People who attack religion for no reason are dumb and weak. Yup, all those religious people who avoid peer pressure to smoke, drink, do drugs, and are abstinant. That's all a sign of weakness....Fool.
At 7/6/06 04:20 PM, Athlas wrote: Right. Delusion leads to happiness and health. There is no way to prove the connection between the patient's hope and his sudden improvement.
Yes, actually, the patient's state of mind is linked with whether or not they get better. Multiple medicle studies have been done on whether or not positive outlook affects whether or not the patient gets better and they have unanimously come to the same conclusion...it certainly matters.
http://www.mothernat..shelf/books/12/8.cfm
It has a nice little quote by a Harvard Med school Ph.D.
Here's another:
http://www.medscape...viewarticle/481700_4
Not necesserilly a positive delusion. There are many people out there who kill in the name of their god. It doesn't necessarily give them hope either, look at hinduism and its horrible system of justifying injustice.
And there are many people out there who kill for fun. And there are people who specifically target the religious. AHA. So the fact that a loony guy ignores all Christian precepts and kills in the name of Jesus invalidates millions of people who use Christian ideals to live a good life.
A prison of the mind is the most horrible thing I can imagine. Besides being trapped between life and death, unable to move, speak, see or hear, that is. If it doesn't matter to you wether it's real or not, when DOES it matter to you?
I'd love to respond, but I have no clue what you're talking about.
Would you feel comfortable about the governement or the media lying to you? Stating false promises and reporting false occasions in order to keep the population under control? 'Cause really, isn't that what religion is all about?
I hope you're kidding with the whole "media and government lying" thing. Cause really, that's all the media and government do. And no, religion is NOT about lying to people to "keep them under control". Tho, I can understand how you'd believe that, cause all of our commandments like: don't kill, don't steal, don't screw your neighbors wife....they're all pretty CONTROLLING.
Keeping people in line and keeping them happy, with something to look out to when their insignificant life ends? "Religion is opium for the people" - Karl Marx
I find it ironic that we are quoting KARL MARX about the evils of religion. I mean, after all, it's not like communism was a smashing success. Hell of a lot of dead people under communism.
Christians are a hell of a lot happier than athiests, so even if they're wrong (and we alldie in the end), at least the Christian dies smiling.Once again, there is no way you can proof this.
If I take in two bottles of painkillers with a bottle of rhum, I'll die with a smile on my face too. Many people who have faith have miserable lifes too, they're just looking out to afterlife. Look above on what I think about this.
Actually, again, I can show that Christians ARE happier. People across the spectrum are happy and unhappy. But again, studies show that Christians are happier than athiests.
http://happinesspoli..ublicans-are-happier
And activities of groups like the ACLU proves me right. The Christian is perfectly happy keeping to himself, it's the athiest that needs to get rid of his Christian neighbor's display of Christianity. Kinda like how you hear all those people complaining about "sickening displays of patriotism".
Coincidentally, Christians are also more likely to: have large families, donate money, volunteer, and other various things.
At 7/5/06 02:53 AM, 3rd_Front wrote: nonsense
Before I mock you, I would like to say this:
I do not believe in survival or the fittest or evolution.
That being said, your entire moronic article was saying how the strongest killing the weakest was somehow contradictory to the theory of....the strongest killing the weakest. Congrats. You jsut made yourself sound like an idiot by putting forth the exact same theory that you seem to dislike. No one said that the cat was "brave", they just said they were stronger than the mouse.
At 7/5/06 10:33 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: So much for learning the lessons of September 11th. The fun never ceases when you're dealing with the most inept administration in American history.
Al-Quida has changed and so have we to combat them. It's obvious by the post, you didn't even read the article. No more commenting from you.
At 7/5/06 11:11 PM, FightingForFreedom wrote: I find it intensley humurous that:
We don't bother to find the mastermind behind 9/11.
Yea the whole Afghanistan thing never happened...
We don't take military action against two nations that admit to have nuclear weapons and express a threat to use them against us.
Gee, North Korea has a million soldiers (more than us), and Iran can strike our allies. What WERE we thinking?
At 7/6/06 02:47 AM, BigBlueBalls wrote: Yep that's what happens when you deviate from the so-called "war on terror" and start attacking Iraq over WMDs that don't exist.
We've found the WMDs and are tracking more down. We know for a fact now they did exist and every single thing Bush told us was true.
If the U.S. flooded Afghanistan with troops, in the s: ame way as Iraq, they'd have probably found Osama by now. Instead the U.S. had a lackluster force in Afghanistan and spent all their money starting a war on a country that doesn't mean dick all. I mean heck the U.S. pretty much found everyone they were looking for in Iraq, didn't they?
Um, no. Good try. This is the whole "too much here, not enough there" bullshit the left uses these days. Afghanistan was where bin Ladin was originally hiding, so unless you get that, stop commentating in this forum.
Next time, when you start a war looking for a guy like Osama bin Laden, finish the damn war and do it right, don't go off doing other useless shit and try to convince Americans that it's somehow related to the War on Terror. No Bush fucked up and this is just one more example of this failed administration.
Nope, it's really not. And your pathetic inability to grasp how we can be theatened by more than one person shows a ridiculous lack of grasp by you.
At 7/6/06 12:49 AM, bakem0n0 wrote: In that it makes people happy, yes, faith is a wonderful thing. But your example also brings to mind faith healers . . . and that application of faith is far from good. So long as it isn't your primary response to crisis, but merely a sorce of stability and hope, faith, be it in God, or anything else, is a grand thing.
If a faith healer heals, than what difference does it make? Really?
Unfortunately, I'm going to have to stop agreeing with you now.
Ok, whatever.
I've heard this said, and it is one of those statements that screams "Bullshit."
It's one of those completely ungrounded subjective bits of recruiting propaganda that get used to convert people.
Thing is, I really don't think most of the people who tell me this are any happier than I am. Just because I don't believe in God doesn't mean I'm unhappy. If anything, it just means I'm happy for different reasons.
Ok, look at the ACLU. It is a group of sad pathetic athiests who's only existance is to tell Christians "you can't do that". When people get sued over the 1st Amendment, it is always Christians, freely preacticing their religion, by pathetic athiests who can't stand the sight of the nativity. Or jews. People of faith never sue other people of faith. It is always athiests. If you are athiest and happy, that's great. But you are the exception, not the rule.
At 7/5/06 01:41 PM, Athlas wrote: Ok, fair enough, I'll give you a counter-exaple.
long example
So someone has a hallucination and feels silly. That's a good counter-example to the ledge example.......
Here let me give you a counter example.
You are in a hospital bed, deathly sick. Suddenly, it seems as if someone is in the room with you, comforting you. You can't see them, but you feel like you're not alone. And you can almost hear someone whispering in your ear that you need to get better. Despite the fact that the doctors tell you it's hopeless...this weird feeling makes you cling to hope, and you get better.
Now, whether or not the "visitor" was real or not is irrelevant, wouldn't you say? It had a positive effect, and produced a good result. By what you seem to believe, religion is a "positive delusion that gives people hope". If it makes people happy, what difference does it make if it's real or not? Christians are a hell of a lot happier than athiests, so even if they're wrong (and we alldie in the end), at least the Christian dies smiling.
