I was really tempted to downvote comments for falsehood here, but I think responding to those falsehoods may end up being more valuable. Also because @NetRunner shouldn't have to be the only one arguing in favor of equality.

>> ^Trancecoach:

And my response to that, again, (and let me make this clear, because you seem to think that we're in disagreement on this point) is to accept that there is, in fact, a wage disparity on the basis of gender. What I am suggesting, which I believe Rachel doesn't appreciate in this clip, is that there are other, deeper, societal reasons underlying this wage disparity and, thus, there are other, deeper, societal ways to address these reasons which do not include legislation in the manner in which it's being proposed.

This is demonstrably false -- In fact, they address it in the clip. Using the most complex models with as many variables as possible, there is still a massive gap in pay that cannot be accounted for by economic class, lifestyle choice, occupation, or any other variable. These studies don't just look at aggregate figures, even though the data is almost always presented that way. When you have two people of opposite gender in the same position, the woman will almost always make considerably less than the man.

>> ^Trancecoach:
Farrell does offer some explanations for the wage disparity and, like me, feels it's unacceptable, morally. We (You, Rachel, Warren, and myself) could all, essentially, cite the very same statistics and studies and draw different interpretations and conclusions from the data which clearly demonstrates the disparity in wages on the basis of gender. While I do not side with conservatives or corporatists on this issue (because I do not deny that the wage disparity exists nor do believe that it's the way it should or ought to be), I do believe there are other underlying factors which include both misogyny and misandry that have fostered the problem to its current state.


Your comment that you can draw different conclusions from the same statistics is meaningless unless you actually do it -- That is, produce your own analysis based on the data or find someone who has. Otherwise it's akin to saying "You can use statistics to prove anything, so we should disregard any conclusions people have drawn from them." You can dismiss any conclusion or evidence in this fashion, and it has no place in a rational discussion.

I haven't read Farrell's work, so I'm going to have to infer his arguments based on what you've written about him. It sounds like what he's presenting is a guide to how women end up making less based on lifestyle choices -- Choosing to stay with a child instead of going to work, choosing not to take a better paying job elsewhere to stay near family, choosing (involuntarily) not to fight as hard for a raise as her male coworkers, etc. This information can be used successfully to avoid making those choices or to mitigate them, and avoid falling into the "lower pay" traps.

This is certainly useful information, but it is not a valid basis for justifying a pay gap. The fallacy with that argument is that it necessarily presupposes that your pay for a particular job should depend on how you got that job. Let's say we have a man from a somewhat wealthy family that traveled a lot after college and so entered the workforce late, received adequate performance reviews, changed companies a couple of times, and now is in his mid-30s as a middle manager in a financial firm. Let's also take a woman from a lower-middle class family who worked hard to get a Masters degree and started at a financial services firm but had to take time off to care for an ailing family member and put her career on hold for a few years to have children, and now in her mid-30s has found herself in the same middle manager position at the same firm.

Given that premise, statistics tell us that the man will almost certainly be making more than the woman -- Possibly even 25% more. You could argue that the man likely has more pull at the company because of his family's wealth and that the woman made poor choices (earnings wise) by putting her career on hold for so long, but the fact is that they are both in the same position doing the same thing. The law doesn't care how your career went and how you ended up in your job; it clearly states that for the same work men and women should be paid equally, and the woman in this scenario is the target of discrimination.

>> ^Sotto_Voce:

This is bullshit. The poll asked people whether Citizens United would lead to corruption. It did not ask whether Citizens United was incorrectly decided. But Thinkprogress somehow infers that the poll indicates widespread agreement that the judges' reasoning was "bizarre". It indicates nothing of the sort.
It is entirely possible to believe that the ruling will in fact make the system more corrupt while still believing that it is the correct ruling on purely legal grounds. That's my position, and the position of a number of other people on the left.
Also, note that only 69% of people polled agreed with the claim about increased corruption. That means 31% either disagreed with the claim or were not sure about it. Somehow this shows that the ruling is less popular than witchcraft. That Thinkprogress blog post is ridiculous.


Your voce is not very sotto.

But, seriously, I can't defend TYT on this point.

This is bullshit. The poll asked people whether Citizens United would lead to corruption. It did not ask whether Citizens United was incorrectly decided. But Thinkprogress somehow infers that the poll indicates widespread agreement that the judges' reasoning was "bizarre". It indicates nothing of the sort.

It's true that the majority opinion says that the ruling will not lead to corruption, and they're probably wrong about this (or working with a highly constrained notion of corruption). But this is an incidental statement. They make it explicit that the ruling does not hinge on this: "Limits on independent expenditures... have a chilling effect extending well beyond the Government’s interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption. The anticorruption interest is not sufficient to displace the speech here in question."

So Milhiser is completely wrong when he suggests that disagreement with the justices on this point entails disagreement with the ruling. It is entirely possible to believe that the ruling will in fact make the system more corrupt while still believing that it is the correct ruling on purely legal grounds. That's my position, and the position of a number of other people on the left.

Also, note that only 69% of people polled agreed with the claim about increased corruption. That means 31% either disagreed with the claim or were not sure about it. Somehow this shows that the ruling is less popular than witchcraft. That Thinkprogress blog post is ridiculous.

>> ^Deano:
What's the logic for God existing given the complete lack of evidence?

Well, first you must ask yourself why you think there is no evidence for God. Logically, if God exists, the entire Universe is evidence for God. The question is, how would you tell the difference? How do you know what a God created Universe would or wouldn't look like? If you can't tell the difference, why would you rule it out? Why is it absurd to believe that the Universe was intelligently caused?

People get confused thinking that because science has described the mechanisms of how the Universe works, that this description somehow rules out an Agent. That would be like saying that describing the brush strokes of a painting rules out a painter. The real question is how did the Universe get here?

As I showed in my reply to Gallowflak, Dr Krauss got something from nothing by simply redefining what nothing means. He got something from nothing by redefining nothing as something..specifically empty space (which isnt actually empty) or a quantum vacuum (which has states and properties). That isn't nothing, and more importantly, none of this answers the question of how something came from nothing.

You see, when it comes to origins you have only two alternatives. Either there is a first cause of the Universe which began from *absolutely nothing*, or the first cause is eternal. Logically, from nothing, nothing comes. Therefore the first cause of the Universe must be eternal. We can also deduce many other things from this conclusion, such as that this cause is timeless, spaceless, immaterial, enormously powerful, and transcendent. Timeless and spaceless and immaterial, because time, space and matter had a beginning, enormously powerful for obvious reasons, and transcendent because whatever causes the Universe is necessarily greater than the Universe. You can also draw an inference to a personal cause from here.

There are many logical arguments for the existence of God. There is also evidence, such as the evidence from fine-tuning or information in DNA. Take your pick.

>> ^messenger:
So, how is you believing that you have a superior intellect to someone who believes in God not pride?

Read it again. Nobody claimed to have a superior intellect to anyone else. The contrast is between using our intellect and not using it. As Galileo famously put it, "I do not feel obliged to believe that that same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use." Now, he was talking from the perspective of a person of faith who simply didn't believe the bible or church teachings anymore but certainly did still believe in God. We are speaking as people with sense, reason and intellect who don't see sufficient evidence to come to the conclusion that God might reasonably exist.

It's the entire contention that someone who believes in God is not using their sense, reason and intellect that is prideful. Did you know that 40 percent of biologists, physicists and mathematicians believe in a personal God? Some extremely intelligent people believe in a Creator, and they can back up their beliefs with logical evidence. You see theists through a grossly distorted lens created by your own prejudice, and it blinds you. Galileo, by the way, did believe the bible; what he didn't buy is the catholic interpretation of it, and rightly so.

>> ^messenger:
Since there is no empirical evidence for or against Gods existence, how do you calculate how likely or unlikely His existence is?

The lack of evidence for existence is a non-concrete kind of evidence for the lack of existence. So the overwhelming lack of evidence for God is a bloody strong case. Everywhere we look in nature, we continue not to find God.

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Although I think there is evidence, such as fine tuning and information in DNA. In any case, do you honestly believe you can point an instrument at God and say "there he is!". Is this idea not fundamentally ridiculous? I think what youre confusing is mechanism with agency. You think because you describe a mechanism, how something works in a mechanical sense, somehow it rules out an Agent. God says He upholds the entire Universe; that He is the one that keeps the atoms from flying apart. How does mechanism rule out Gods agency?

Not only that, but if God created the Universe, do you realize that the entire Universe is evidence of Gods existence? The question I would put to you is, how would you tell the difference? How would you know you're looking at a Universe God didn't create? What would you expect that to look like?

What about the laws of logic? Where do they come from? If they're only in our brains, subject to constant flux, then what is rationality? It isn't anything you can trust if what you believe is true. Therefore all of your arguments fall apart. You have nothing in your worldview that can explain it, yet I can explain it. I know there is an omnipotent God who made us in His image, and we are rational beings because He is a rational being.

>> ^messenger:
Please, stop talking about science. You really do not understand it. You sound like a religious sceptic spouting crap about the bible. Really, what you say about science is just non-verified faither talking points. All science is based only on observation and drawing generalized inferences from that. "Theories" are just that. The strength of a scientific theory is roughly [how well it predicts other things] ÷ [how many things you have to just accept]. The belief in a particular atomic structure for oxygen has many predictions, which are testable and have largely been shown reliably true. So the atomic structure of an oxygen atom is a generally accepted theory, even though we will never be able to sense it directly. It's scientific. On those same grounds, the theory of evolution is also a strong theory in science. It has very few conjectures (three simple ones, I believe I heard Dawkins once say), it generates predictions, the predictions are testable, and they affirm the theory. Saying that evolution is untestable is as ridiculous as saying we haven't investigated every oxygen atom, so the model of the atom is untestable, and therefore unscientific.

If you understood it better than I do then you would know what macro evolution is. The scientific method uses empirical evidence, which comes from empirical experimentation or observation. There is no experiment to prove macro evolution, nor can it be empirically observed. It is simply an unjustified extrapolation from micro evolution (which is proven beyond a reasonable doubt), and based on nothing but inferences from *circumstantial* evidence and not evidence based on empirical observation.

Many people have this conception that the theory of common descent is as certain and proven as 2 + 2 = 4, or as Sepacore put it:

"once claimed to be a book of literal truth, becomes more and more metaphorical as science stomps its way all over the human races ignorance of the universe reaching greater level's of understandings that are testable through mathematical predictions"

That is certainly how it is taught in schools, as absolute fact, and that's why I believed it too. It's when you stop looking at their conclusions and see the actual data they base them on that you will get the shock of your life. Yes, you're right, the theory makes a few predictions, all of which have turned out to be wrong..such as this:

The main cause, however, of innumerable intermediate links not now occurring everywhere throughout nature depends on the very process of natural selection, through which new varieties continually take the places of and exterminate their parent-forms. But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.

Darwin

Darwin predicted that for his theory to be true, there must be innumerable transitional forms in the fossil record. What have we found?:


"Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, .., prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search... One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's prediction. Nor is the problem a miserly fossil record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong.
N. Eldredge and I. Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, pg 45-46.

What we find is that creatures appear in stasis, and enter and leave the fossil record abruptly with no changes.

Another prediction is a start from simple to complex, with an increase of diversity of the phyla over a long period of time.

"Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably longer than the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and during these vast, yet quite unknown periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer."
Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 1st edition, pg 307.

What we find is that all of the phyla we have today all abruptly appeared in the "cambrian explosion"

"The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs ... "
S. Gould, The Panda's Thumb, pg 238, 239.

This is just the tip of the iceberg for how poor a theory macroevolution actually is, but you won't have a shortage of true believers in it, even though they don't even understand what evidence it is based on. I do know something about science, and although I am a layman, I am perfectly capable of understanding of what makes a sound theory, and what doesn't. I would believe in macroevolution if the evidence supported it. Not only does it not support it, but it actually argues against it. It is shocking to someone who has been indoctrinated (like I was), but if you want to talk about fairy stories, macroevolution is a whale of a tale.

@shinyblurry

I know your response wasn't to me, but I thought I'd give my answers anyway.

So, how is you believing that you have a superior intellect to someone who believes in God not pride?


Read it again. Nobody claimed to have a superior intellect to anyone else. The contrast is between using our intellect and not using it. As Galileo famously put it, "I do not feel obliged to believe that that same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use." Now, he was talking from the perspective of a person of faith who simply didn't believe the bible or church teachings anymore but certainly did still believe in God. We are speaking as people with sense, reason and intellect who don't see sufficient evidence to come to the conclusion that God might reasonably exist.

Since there is no empirical evidence for or against Gods existence, how do you calculate how likely or unlikely His existence is?

The lack of evidence for existence is a non-concrete kind of evidence for the lack of existence. So the overwhelming lack of evidence for God is a bloody strong case. Everywhere we look in nature, we continue not to find God.

The scientific theories which contradict the literal truth of the bible, such as the theory of deep time, macro evolution, and abiogenesis, are not subject to empirical testing. You cannot prove these theories in a lab. They are inferences based on circumstantial evidence, and are not truly scientific

Please, stop talking about science. You really do not understand it. You sound like a religious sceptic spouting crap about the bible. Really, what you say about science is just non-verified faither talking points. All science is based only on observation and drawing generalized inferences from that. "Theories" are just that. The strength of a scientific theory is roughly [how well it predicts other things] ÷ [how many things you have to just accept]. The belief in a particular atomic structure for oxygen has many predictions, which are testable and have largely been shown reliably true. So the atomic structure of an oxygen atom is a generally accepted theory, even though we will never be able to sense it directly. It's scientific. On those same grounds, the theory of evolution is also a strong theory in science. It has very few conjectures (three simple ones, I believe I heard Dawkins once say), it generates predictions, the predictions are testable, and they affirm the theory. Saying that evolution is untestable is as ridiculous as saying we haven't investigated every oxygen atom, so the model of the atom is untestable, and therefore unscientific.

>> ^A10anis:
@ Shinyblurry's post starting with "Your welcome" (didn't quote the lot of it because i don't want that dribble being repeated below my post)

Your hypothetical story used to make a point about how you make yourself feel better was quite disturbing. Under the same logic you employed there.. if someone told you "kill 1000 babies" and all suffering would end for eternity, your story would only encourage an idiot to be a horrific murderer because of some deranged persons words.

Actually, the point of the hypothetical was to show the sloppy reasoning inherent in digging for treasure in a spot marked other than X.

>> ^A10anis:
You state "The only thing which is stopping you is pride.". No, it's the use of intelligence.
* It's not believing things because they make me feel better, or allowing me to think less because i can say magic did it.

So, how is you believing that you have a superior intellect to someone who believes in God not pride?

>> ^A10anis:
* It's the love of actually thinking about situations from a 'likely/unlikely true based on scientific reasoning' position, which is what drives human advancements forward.

Since there is no empirical evidence for or against Gods existence, how do you calculate how likely or unlikely His existence is?

>> ^A10anis:
* It's not naively thinking or pretending there are great things to learn from a disgusting book of prejudice, torture, fear and horror (i.e. kill your loved ones because you hear voices or let towns rape your daughters because they're of less value than a male stranger).

The bible, apart from the revelation of God, is a historical account of the actions of fallen men. Men who were sinners and sometimes did things which were morally wrong. That there was no effort to cover up those sins is a point in favor, not against.


>> ^A10anis:
* It's not believing claims that a book is an accurate account of history and the universe, when it gets the most basic things a God would know wrong, coincidentally these claims are just the way things would appear to a human's untrained eye (sun revolving around the planet).

If you want to address the accuracy of the bible, you must first accurately portray the bible. My guess is that you have only studied the bible through the lens of skeptics. Do you know the actual history of how this idea came about? The bible does not say the sun revolves around the earth, but it was interpreted that way by Claudius Ptolemy in the 2nd century. Claudius proposed a theory of geocentricity, which at the time, was far more accurate than the existing theory of heliocentricity, and he interpreted certain passages of scripture to support his assertion. These passages, specifically Joshua 10:12-14, and Psalm 93:1, do not teach geocentricity at all, but were taken out of context by Claudius and others to promote the theory.

>> ^A10anis:
* It's because the bible (unbelievable in it's own right), once claimed to be a book of literal truth, becomes more and more metaphorical as science stomps its way all over the human races ignorance of the universe reaching greater level's of understandings that are testable through mathematical predictions.

The scientific theories which contradict the literal truth of the bible, such as the theory of deep time, macro evolution, and abiogenesis, are not subject to empirical testing. You cannot prove these theories in a lab. They are inferences based on circumstantial evidence, and are not truly scientific. You must *believe* them, and real science is based on knowledge, not belief.

>> ^A10anis:
Quote "Yet, it wasn't evidence at all, it was simply what I preferred to be true.". Seems like not much has changed, except your preferences.

Your preaching is nothing more than the same unjustified crap that those who don't have facts to support them continue to make. IMO you've either given up on your critical analytical abilities, or you're a troll copy/pasting.. given how similar your sentences are to other preachers.

What changed is that I fairly investigated the claims of Jesus Christ, instead of dismissing them based on a superficial knowledge of Christianity. When I did that, I received supernatural evidence that they were true.

>> ^A10anis:
Christianity is a sacrificial cult, full of unsubstantiated claims.

Your gross mischaracterization not withstanding, how have you investigated the claims of Jesus Christ?

>> ^A10anis:
Jesus's so called miracles appear in many other religions, usually descriptively to the letter.

Have any actual evidence to support this claim? Be sure to include the original sources and not just the claims of skeptics.

>> ^A10anis:
Your beliefs come from a time where women were valued as little more than a discard-able possessions.

Galatians 3:28

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Scripture teaches that woman have the same value in the eyes of God as men do. God has assigned us different roles, but he shows no partiality between men and women.

>> ^A10anis:
And If your God did exist, then said God can go fuck themselves, as i have no desire to follow the direction and teachings of a psychopathic asshole.

I would suggest it is the distorted lens through which you see God that informs your negative opinion of Him.

>> ^A10anis:
PS: although I'm not censoring myself too much, it's not my primary intention to offend you (but don't care too much either), just can't stand how people spouting this type of content can think they 'should' be taken seriously.

Atheists rarely censor themselves when they speak to Christians. Nothing you've said here is unexpected. I do not take offense at what you said; on the contrary, I care about you as a human being made in the image of God, and I see you as being worthy of love and respect. My hope is that you come to know the love of Jesus Christ. You simply have no experience of God at the moment, but God is willing to show you He is there at any time. He loves you more deeply than you understand. Draw near to Him and He will draw near to you.

Preamble: Much as I hate going through these sorts of exercises, they are sometimes necessary, particularly when a thread has gotten large. People forget what they're responding to; what the topic really is at the time they're responding, leaps of logic, etc. One thing's certain about these summaries: they're always helpful. <- Yes, that's a boast.
1. I posted some quotes from Roger Ebert's review (and blog) that I thought captured my own feelings about The Raid, including a brash comparison to the joke movie Ass featured in Mike Judge's hilarious flick Idiocracy.

2. I get dressed down by Sarzy for said comparison. Sarzy also claims Ebert said there was no craft or artistry to The Raid (which he never actually said, but never mind) and that The Raid is a martial arts milestone.

3. ChaosEngine makes an amusing ad populum argument and later makes a strong case for the merit of terse storytelling and inference of story elements.

4. I ask Sarzy why The Raid is a milestone.

5. Sarzy responds with many heartfelt testimonials by sympathetic reviewers, personal opinions, and lauds its choreography and direction.

6. I excise all the subjective-slanted testimony and focus on what is demonstrably true about The Raid: it was choreographed and directed with great care. I point out that without context (story), conflict is without meaning.

7. ChaosEngine gives it one last try with another amusing post about inference of story elements on the part of the viewer and indirectly calls me a prick. Classy!

8. I respond to ChaosEngine by inferring a wonderful storyline to Ass, instantly making it one of the best joke movies I'd ever watched.

9. Sarzy points out that plenty of other genres of film are short on story. The best examples are the "meditative" styles featured in art houses and the like.

10. I respond to Sarzy's excellent point by citing other possible gains (transcendence) by watching these "meditative" style pictures, gains that are not possible (in my opinion) with martial arts pictures. I remind him that I am responding to his point with, and I quote, "...I am merely responding to your point about the role of story."

11. Despite my reminder, Sarzy erroneously concludes that every film I see must transcend me to another plane even though all I was doing was attempting to shoot a hole in Sarzy's point about other films that are loose on story.

And that pretty much brings us up to date.

But do you see how helpful these summaries can be? They're my little innovation. You internet kids and your short attention spans made its creation a necessity.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^shuac:
To ChaosEngine: I'm unimpressed by ad populum arguments (that because it's popular, it must therefore be true, or good, or whatever). It's a logical fallacy and I don't dig fallacies so much. Also, regarding the case for the value of terse storytelling: well done sir! If only Ebert and I were arguing against terse storytelling, you'd really have us against the ropes. You dropped some straw, man.
I was pointing out that the film has received plenty of critical acclaim. Ebert is welcome to his (increasingly irrelevant) opinion, but my opinion is that he's wrong and I stand by it. I'm not alone either.
My point about Hemingways story wasn't about terseness, it was about inference. There are aspects to The Raids storyline that aren't written down in the script. And even then it wasn't a direct rebuttal to anything Ebert (or you) said, merely a point about how I felt the movie was made. But go ahead and assume everything is related to you.
You don't have to like the Raid, and you're welcome to go watch some tedious pseudo-intellectual bullshit for a few hours if it strokes your ego, but comparing it to "Ass" in Idiocracy is, as @Sarzy pointed out (and somewhat ironically) idiocy.
Sorry for sounding like a condescending prick, but you work to your audience. At least I can actually form my own opinion rather than regurgitate someone else's.


Not directed at me? So you'd have posted what you did even if I never made that first post, is that right? Very good then. So long as we're free to infer what we like to any film bereft of story, I'd like to infer a compelling yarn into the multiple award-winning (and fictional) film called Ass.

In Ass, our protagonist is a subject in a medical trial testing an anti-flagellant. It's a closed study so all the test subjects are sequestered. Despite this, our hero smuggles in some chilli for supper the night before. The twist? He's in the placebo group.

Now wasn't Ass a great film? I see your point now. Well-done again!

Most impressive about this post is that I did it on an iPhone.

Enjoy your day!

>> ^shuac:

To ChaosEngine: I'm unimpressed by ad populum arguments (that because it's popular, it must therefore be true, or good, or whatever). It's a logical fallacy and I don't dig fallacies so much. Also, regarding the case for the value of terse storytelling: well done sir! If only Ebert and I were arguing against terse storytelling, you'd really have us against the ropes. You dropped some straw, man.

I was pointing out that the film has received plenty of critical acclaim. Ebert is welcome to his (increasingly irrelevant) opinion, but my opinion is that he's wrong and I stand by it. I'm not alone either.

My point about Hemingways story wasn't about terseness, it was about inference. There are aspects to The Raids storyline that aren't written down in the script. And even then it wasn't a direct rebuttal to anything Ebert (or you) said, merely a point about how I felt the movie was made. But go ahead and assume everything is related to you.

You don't have to like the Raid, and you're welcome to go watch some tedious pseudo-intellectual bullshit for a few hours if it strokes your ego, but comparing it to "Ass" in Idiocracy is, as @Sarzy pointed out (and somewhat ironically) idiocy.

Sorry for sounding like a condescending prick, but you work to your audience. At least I can actually form my own opinion rather than regurgitate someone else's.

>> ^Payback:

>> ^Asmo:
>> ^skinnydaddy1:
>> ^Fletch:
^ Yeah, ok Evel. This kid was scared, and he went anyway and succeeded. An awesome lesson to learn when you are young and not made of as stern a stuff as yourself.

meh I knew it would not sound right. Oh well, but thanks to the self righteous dick police I now truly know. So, please forgive this poor sad excuse of a human.

Nothing to do with dick police, not everyone was created equal. Your original comment infers that his/her (whichever) achievement was not as significant because you were apparently fear free as a kid, as if that means anything. It's more impressive to do something in spite of being terrified than to do something that you do not fear. To try and drag down the achievements of a ~9 year old because you were apparently a pre teen He-Man is a cuntish thing to do.

Hear hear! Courage is never a lack of fear. It's functioning properly in the face of it.
Lack of fear usually is a symptom of stupidity or ignorance.


I would like to offer sincere apology to everyone. My conduct and comments were out of line and uncalled for. while I would like the use the excuse of a complete lack of sleep and having to working Saint Patrick day weekend and dealing with drunks and others I feel this would just be an excuse and does not pardon my conduct in the least. After sleeping for a good 15 hrs. getting up and over a large pot of coffee and rereading everything. I have found that I'm not immune to rabid stupidity and asinine logic. I can not stress enough my embarrassment over the entire situation.
Again, My Sincere Apologies to everyone.

Thank you.

>> ^Asmo:

>> ^skinnydaddy1:
>> ^Fletch:
^ Yeah, ok Evel. This kid was scared, and he went anyway and succeeded. An awesome lesson to learn when you are young and not made of as stern a stuff as yourself.

meh I knew it would not sound right. Oh well, but thanks to the self righteous dick police I now truly know. So, please forgive this poor sad excuse of a human.

Nothing to do with dick police, not everyone was created equal. Your original comment infers that his/her (whichever) achievement was not as significant because you were apparently fear free as a kid, as if that means anything. It's more impressive to do something in spite of being terrified than to do something that you do not fear. To try and drag down the achievements of a ~9 year old because you were apparently a pre teen He-Man is a cuntish thing to do.


Hear hear! Courage is never a lack of fear. It's functioning properly in the face of it.

Lack of fear usually is a symptom of stupidity or ignorance.

>> ^skinnydaddy1:

>> ^Fletch:
^ Yeah, ok Evel. This kid was scared, and he went anyway and succeeded. An awesome lesson to learn when you are young and not made of as stern a stuff as yourself.

meh I knew it would not sound right. Oh well, but thanks to the self righteous dick police I now truly know. So, please forgive this poor sad excuse of a human.


Nothing to do with dick police, not everyone was created equal. Your original comment infers that his/her (whichever) achievement was not as significant because you were apparently fear free as a kid, as if that means anything. It's more impressive to do something in spite of being terrified than to do something that you do not fear. To try and drag down the achievements of a ~9 year old because you were apparently a pre teen He-Man is a cuntish thing to do.

>> ^Pprt:

This is the reality of population movement to first world countries.
People abandon developing nations for a meager existence elsewhere. Hundreds of millions have absolutely no hope for their own countries and simply dream of leaving it... what are the hopes for the rest of the world if we allow this to continue?


'Allow' infers some sort of control..western imperial (or post-imperial) powers have as much choice about people following the wealth they extracted as a sandcastle does about the tide coming in.

>> ^Barbar:

If you actually believe he is setting laws based on his belief in Jesus, based on that link, you're an imbecile. I expect you're smarter than that, but sufficiently dim to expect nobody to follow the link. Yeah, he mentions Jesus, but I rather suspect it's an attempt to reduce the deficit that's driving him, not a religious compass. He's just saying in an offhand way, 'Hey republicans, here's a way to square this with the ministry of Jesus.' presumably to preemptively take the wind out of their sails in the future head butting.
Yes, Obama is campaigning. I'm no fan of Obama any more, that is for sure. Never really was a fan of either party, although Obama briefly gave me Hope(tm) before flushing it down the toilet. I don't see how it's relevant that some of his grassroots efforts are in churches. Is that not typically the case? Either way it's a complete straw man.
What Santorum said was on a whole other level of idiocy. It was based on a misunderstanding not only of the text, but also of the practical implementation of the ammendment over centuries of history.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
All the Prog-Lib-Dytes out there are such hypocrites on this subject. Santorum says a few things about religion, and the neolib goons all start freaking out about how he's "violating the wall of seperation".
Meanwhile, Obama - your beloved dictator - has directly and clearly stated that he is setting government policies based on his belief in Jesus...
http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/02/news/economy/obama_tax_rich_jesus/i
ndex.htm
And he has also called on churches to start telling thier congregations to vote for him...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BdjoHA5ocwU
So - to put it bluntly - you people who are pretending you are so offended by guys like Santorum are nothing but partisan hacks. You completely ignore when social progressives directly use religion to push political agendas that you agree with. You get all upset when conservatives even hint that they have a religious faith. It gives you zero credibility, and makes you a bunch of blinkered, pig-ignorant hypocrites.
Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows what Santorum and other conservatives mean when they talk about religion. They support the 1st Amendment in its true sense - religious freedom FROM GOVERNMENT. That's all the 1st Amendment ever meant; not the selectively applied "Oooo - you aren't allowed to even THINK about religion in a public place" that you Prog-Lib-Dytes use as a rhetorical club to beat down any ideas that you dislike.




I pretty much agree with Barbar.

And, criticizing Santorum doesn't mean I can't criticize Obama. His appeal to religion is nowhere near the same level as Santorum's, but I don't like either tactic. I think it's more in line with how things are "supposed" to run to leave religion out of the entire process, no matter who is running.

I use more than two brain cells when I think, and when I do, I infer that the right usually have specific social policies in the crosshairs when they try to get us revved up by using religion. Abortion, contraception, gay marriage. These are all specific issues that are directly impacted by the Right's appeal to Christian voters. They aren't shy about name calling (neither is Winstonfield_Pennypacker it seems). They tend to forget, if they were to be elected, they would have to represent all Americans, not just Christians.

And so, while I'm not a fan of Obama's appeal to churches or religion, it's different from the way Republican candidates, namely Santorum, invoke religion to get a vote. If you look at my previous posts, I make a pretty clear distinction between an individual stating his believe and a government official letting his personal religion guide policy. The thinking seems to be: Since most of us are Christians let's use religion to our political advantage.

So, when religion becomes a justification of the decisions our government makes, we need to call them out.