Wow, a libertarian who was willing to look up the word "statism" in Merriam-Webster!

Too bad he just ignored what was there and made up his own definition for it, and then pretended that the Merriam-Webster definition was the inevitable result of his definition.

Name a civilization without a government. Government, economies, tech, art and culture are all very much intertwined. They are absolutely linked. I'm not sure what point you were going for with that comment. And what's with the insults? Nutter? QM? Why the cheap rhetoric?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society


In reply to this comment by GenjiKilpatrick:
psh. what is your definition of civilization exactly?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civilization

Because linking bureaucracy with the development of culture and art and technology makes you sound like a nutter.

Like the liberal version of pennypacker or QM.. @_@

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Railing against the concept of government is basically railing against civilization.

psh. what is your definition of civilization exactly?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civilization

Because linking bureaucracy with the development of culture and art and technology makes you sound like a nutter.

Like the liberal version of pennypacker or QM.. @_@

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Railing against the concept of government is basically railing against civilization.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/sirex" title="member since February 23rd, 2007" class="profilelink">sirex
Points to consider:
Accepting money in exchange for sexual favors. That makes you a whore.
Who the hell randomly chooses their sexual partners? Enjoy STDs much?
If anything, it makes sense that she'd make her selections from the same circle of candidates, for multiple reasons:
She obviously like athletic guys. It's much easier to obtain vital information. She'd have plenty of opportunities to court the ones she liked.
You're just calling her a whore cause our culture allows for it.


I think there's a difference between liking athletic guys liking sex and pursuing relationships...and fucking the entire Lacross team. This was a goal that she set for herself...to fuck all these guys. She succeeded grats to her, however yes she is a Whore. Sorry to cite this buttttt. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/whore?show=0&t=1286402001

Under the 3rd definition "venal or unscrupulous person". She's certainly unscrupulous/

Within the English language cult is NOT a synonym for religion. From a strictly dictionary definition, the difference is largely the number of adherents. In common usage the difference is also a distinctly more negative or derogatory connotation to cult as well.

I'm making the obvious point that the difference between the church of Scientology and the local church run soup kitchen goes deeper than semantics. What ever your opinion of most religions today, or religion in general, Scientology stands as more sinister than most, and by a large margin. From the secrecy it uses to hide it's beliefs to it's aggressive policy of hate and destroy your enemies it stands out as more vile than most other religions and cults around.

If you think other religions need to be bashed too, that's your business. I will however object to you elevating one of the worst(Scientology) by saying it's no worse than all the others. You aren't just smearing religion with that kind of comment. You are at the same time elevating the status of Scientology to that of other mainstream religions, no matter how low you may consider that bar to be.

In reply to this comment by GenjiKilpatrick:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cult

Any group whose main commonality is adherence to cultural laws based on superstitious/ supernatural/metaphysical beliefs is part of a cult.

Tho like Gwiz said, the level of sanity amongst and within groups varies.

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

wait. what religion isn't a cult?


Wait, are you really content to just say they are all 'equal'?

So, you don't see any utility in distinguishing between Koresh's Waco sect and Hindu's following in the approximate example of Ghandi?

I'm afraid you might find that such a ludicrously oversimplified world view is... inaccurate.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cult

Any group whose main commonality is adherence to cultural laws based on superstitious/ supernatural/metaphysical beliefs is part of a cult.

Tho like Gwiz said, the level of sanity amongst and within groups varies.

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

wait. what religion isn't a cult?


Wait, are you really content to just say they are all 'equal'?

So, you don't see any utility in distinguishing between Koresh's Waco sect and Hindu's following in the approximate example of Ghandi?

I'm afraid you might find that such a ludicrously oversimplified world view is... inaccurate.

>> ^quantumushroom:

There is no sophistry here. None.
Whittle laid out the argument perfectly, starting with historical precedents and touching on the long list of conflicts caused by muslims right up till today. Add to the timeline the noncoincident fading of Europe.
No honest seeker looking to replace Western Civilization with something better would choose defective and brutal islam, with its backa$$wards sharia law and failure to produce anything of material or intellectual value.
If there's anything Whittle said that's patently false, do tell.


then you have no idea the meaning of sophistry:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sophistry
the argument does not have to be based in lies..in fact..an argument based in sophism tends be true but it is a cleverly disguised manipulation.many times avoiding certain pertinent facts or cherry picking others to promote a particular ideology.

mr whittles argument would make sense to someone not armed with historical knowledge or someone bursting with nationalistic pride and therefore easily manipulated to adopt mr whittles argument believing it a sound argument.

until they meet me that is.

dont be so quick to swallow the words of others QM.
while mr whittle does make some salient points his argument is pure sophism.
because he totally IGNORES massive amounts of historical data and instead speaks to the most fearful and easily swayed and i find that deplorable.

^ http://mw2.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hedonism

>> ^calvados:
You want "segues". Segways are scooters.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/segues
</grammarnazi>


Ha, teaches me not to use fancy words (although I did not realize that I was using one that fancy). Thanks for the correction.

>> ^calvados:
You want "segues". Segways are scooters.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/segues
</grammarnazi>
>> ^sanderbos:
My favorite from this one is the drill that segways into a a sawing sound,

Holy crap, I had no idea that was how you spelled the full word. I always thought that was how people spelled the abbreviated version which is common in film jargon, which I guess is actually "seg".

>> ^sanderbos:
My favorite from this one is the drill that segways into a a sawing sound,


You want "segues". Segways are scooters.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/segues

</grammarnazi>

>> ^blankfist:
@NetRunner, you think of "obligation" as it pertains to law, which is an absolute requirement. The non-legal definition of obligation can mean a moral requirement or the act of being accommodating.


Not to be more snarky than usual, but I'm thinking of obligation as it pertains to the English language.

Sometime you and I need to come to agreement on a dictionary.

Here's Merriam Webster:

obligation
1 : the action of obligating oneself to a course of action (as by a promise or vow)
2 a : something (as a formal contract, a promise, or the demands of conscience or custom) that obligates one to a course of action b : a debt security (as a mortgage or corporate bond) c : a commitment (as by a government) to pay a particular sum of money; also : an amount owed under such an obligation <unable to meet its obligations, the company went into bankruptcy>
3 a : a condition or feeling of being obligated b : a debt of gratitude
4 : something one is bound to do : duty, responsibility

So let's see, #1 uses the words promise and vow, #2 uses the words debt, contract, and commitment, #3 also uses the word debt, #4 uses the words bound and duty. Doesn't sound particularly optional to me.

Now obviously a debt of gratitude isn't enforceable by legal means, but when someone says "After what my friend did for me years ago, I felt obligated to help him now", you don't get the impression that they're talking about having made the choice to help because of their generous or charitable nature, so much as seeing it as something they don't have any choice about because they owe a debt or feel a sense of duty.

This is my point. If you're obligated to help the poor, there's no particular reason not to make it a legal arrangement by which you literally owe a debt to the poor, and failure to pay that debt makes the evil red men with guns come for you.

If you want to imply that helping the poor is a nice, but optional thing (like helping old ladies across the street) you can just say "the rich should help the poor because it's what good people do, but they shouldn't feel obligated to do so."

That's what they're really saying anyways. Not that the rich are obligated help the poor, but that they're not and furthermore that no one should try to impose such an obligation on them because it'll make Ayn Rand cry.

That fine stereotype authority loving obese judge was getting off on it. Look at her vapid expression as she doles out that sentence, as the defendant cries she is loving it! This is what is wrong with the US Justice System.

If you can't keep your emotions in check then you are biased and as such should recuse yourself.

Upvote for a politician who knows the real definition of socialism. It's about time someone got a little Merriam-Webster on these liars' asses.

just had to weigh in here.

agnostic
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

atheism
http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

You can actually be both if you believe
a) the existence of god is unprovable.
b) god does not exist.

I think I am more agnostic than atheist simply because I can't prove it.
For all I know Santa Claus is the champion of a gazillion gods and he rides
a unicorn that the strings of string theory come blasting out of its butt.

The point I am getting at is that everyone is so so different that even if they do believe in a god...
each persons version is different. So you can not pile attributes onto them simply because
they do or do not believe in something.