"The police are not a 'foreign' army, like the red coats.""

Um, is this really what they taught you in those private schools you attended? Yikes! The redcoats were the British army/police. The colonies were British (until a small group of colonists claimed otherwise).

"You've spent a bunch of time and effort trying to convince me of your points"

I have done no such thing. Like I said, you've done nothing to interest me in correcting any of your errors in thinking.

"Well, I'm confused."

Yes, I'd say so.

"shirking your duty to pay taxes is theft and treasonous"

If serfdom make you happy, then by all means, be a serf! For me, there are many legal ways to avoid the non-duty. Just ask Romney and practically any/every crony and rich non-crony, and anyone who's actually paying attention. In the meantime, I've far better things to do with my time than attempting to argue you out of the kind of thinking which conduces the bottom of the social ladder.

If this doesn't make you *happy, your thinking is broke.

edit: and while I'm at it, there's some pretty *skilful acrobatics going on there

Congratulations! Your video, 4 Awesome Videos That Make You Happy to Be Alive | Cracked, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 1 Badge!

Your video, 4 Awesome Videos That Make You Happy to Be Alive | Cracked, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

ORLY?
I was talking about endoskeletons, I should have been more specific. Obviously, they have an exoskeleton like all arachnids and decapods. Spiders have a no way to push their limbs outward through muscle-skeleton action as they lack the equivalent of a triceps. But if it makes you happy to feel smarter... trolololo lololo lololo...

>> ^Mikus_Aurelius:

Sometimes it's helpful and appropriate for adults to tell teenagers what they ought to do.
^ I think that's the opinion I have in common with the straw man you're so intent on flogging. By all means continue if it makes you happy, but if you keep quoting me, you'll keep getting snarky comments.
>> ^Stormsinger:
flog flog flog


My mistake...I thought you were trying to add something to the discussion. I won't make that mistake again.

Sometimes it's helpful and appropriate for adults to tell teenagers what they ought to do.

^ I think that's the opinion I have in common with the straw man you're so intent on flogging. By all means continue if it makes you happy, but if you keep quoting me, you'll keep getting snarky comments.

>> ^Stormsinger:
flog flog flog

Thanks bro, and thanks for the promote. I pulled the title off of youtube, so im not married to it. I'll think about alternatives.

I think the question of meaning is primary in our lives..and it's easy to go through life just doing what everyone expects you to do (go to school, get a job, get a wife, get a house, have kids, retire, die), without really thinking about it. The bread and circuses you were talking about. The American dream, for instance..is this really a fulfilling concept? Is the point of our lives to check everything off that list before we die? That's the way it is portrayed to us by society, anyway..just do A B C D and E and you'll have lived a meaningful life.

I don't think anyone really buys that, because it isn't fulfilling. I believe it is the true origin of the mid life crisis. You're doing everything society says you need to do to make you happy, and it's not making you happy. You've achieved all of these goals and checked the things off of the list, but even though you should be at peace, you're not. I think it's that dichotomy Tim was talking about between your heart and your mind, where you know in your core being that there has to be something more than this, a reason that you're here, but intellectually you can't justify it so you go along with the program. Yet for some reason you're disappointed when that greater meaning never manifests itself. You might even get depressed over it. I think it's because you're living as though there is a greater meaning even when you don't actually believe that there is. It's because the heart and the mind are not in agreement with one another. Sooner or later, something has to give, so I think these are questions everyone should ask themselves.

I'm sorry, did I say anything discriminatory against polygamists?
By all means, do go right ahead and marry a whole bunch of dudes if it'll make you happy
I really think people worry too much about other people's private lives.
Life is short. Have a nice ride.

I've deleted the apostrophe but added speed painting to the Tags.
So does this make you happy or angry?
>> ^xxovercastxx:

No apostrophe. Thank you for not calling this speed painting.

IMO
-80% of all music is shit.
-Every genre has good and bad examples, but mostly bad.
-There is no such thing as objectively 'good' music. Whatever music pleases you the most is the best music in the world, even if it's Celine Dian (gag).
-Different styles of music have different effects on your brain (some are stimulants, some are depressants, some tell you stories, some are trippy, some are trance inducing, some speak to primal rage, some make you horny, some make you laugh, some challenge your intellect, some make you happy, some make you sad, some take you on a dynamic emotional journey, etc.)
-The more styles of music you are able to understand and enjoy, the better your life will be.

Your comment is better than the content of the video, IMO.

I used to think about this too, then I figured out what others here seem to have figured out, which is being a bit of an asshole draws women to you, and being respectful and treating them right makes them happy and want to make you happy. I had to stop thinking like a logical man ("I never like arrogant behaviour directed towards me, I value total consistency and support, and I want a partner who has a good heart."), and started understanding how women think ("I like interesting, confident people, I'm curious about contradictory behaviour, and a being around a dangerous guy makes me feel kinda safe, somehow."). And that has made all the difference.>> ^Yogi:

Assholes are interesting: I guess if you're curious about why they are assholes but for anyone who is an asshole (namely me) we know that an asshole is an asshole for a reason that probably isn't good enough.
Assholes have confidence: It probably appears that way while they don't give a shit about what you're saying and just continue on with their boring lives...bet that seems intriguing to idiot girls.
To me Assholes look more dateable because people have that list and they see an asshole that runs counter to it but doesn't care. They start wondering if that asshole actually has the answers and that their list or set of morals could possibly be wrong.
The problem is people are stupid, and they're worried that their stupid. When you're scared you make mistakes, so you date an asshole cause you're stupid and scared.
Empowered smart women are better lays anyways

http://www.rense.com/general11/fk.htm

fluoride doesn't make you happy. it makes you slow and forgetful.

for example

Symptoms of Hypothyroidism

Fatigue
Weakness
Weight gain or increased difficulty losing weight
Coarse, dry hair
Dry, rough pale skin
Hair loss
Cold intolerance (you can't tolerate cold temperatures like those around you)
Muscle cramps and frequent muscle aches
Constipation
Depression
Irritability
Memory loss
Abnormal menstrual cycles
Decreased libido

@SDGundamX

On the So-Called Benifits of Religious Belief

First, I'm going to assume that you simply googled "religion+health+studies" or stg like that, and did not read before posting; frankly, I don't blame you. I can only hope you are not as intellectually (and downright) dishonest as the second link you posted: the very first study cited is completely misinterpreted; basically, since kissing multiple partners can increase probability of meningococcal disease, and strict religious tradition would prevent that, religion prevents meningococcal disease. Yeah, really strong science in favour of faith right there. Some of the studies cited actually prove the opposite of what the site is peddling, but they excuse this by accusing the meddling of "Jews and Buddhists" in the prayer groups. I'm actually surprised at some of the studies the website cites, one of which concludes that "Certain forms of religiousness may increase the risk of death." Some of the studies make no mention of religion whatsoever. I could go on, but the point is made.

As for the studies - and they exist - that show positive correlation between health and religion, they concern only the social benefits of religion as community*. The so-called "New Atheists" are the first to point out this positive role, although the uniting and socially reinforcing factor of religion is the same force that fosters and reinforces hate, prejudice and discrimination against the self (guilt) and the "Other" (non-members of the ingroup, "heathens", gays, blacks, "Westerners", you name it). When people use the socially unifying and reinforcing benefits of religious organisations to defend religious beliefs, a certain comparison quickly comes to mind, which Godwin's law prohibits me from making...

As for faith itself, a recent study suggests that it can actually have negative effects on health, because of the stress and guilt believers put upon themselves when prayed for (link). Regardless, even if a positive placebo effect could/can be attributed to faith/rel. belief, it does not make it any less idiotic or objectionable than the belief in homeopathy or vaudou.
_{(if interested in what I think of the "faith is comforting" argument, pm me, I'm filling this thread enough as is)}

Your "two-sides of same coin" analogy fails entirely: telling a believer they're delusional is not denying their perception of their own happiness. A child happy at the prospect of Santa delivering presents is delusional, but truly happy. The idea that there is the same amount of evidence against and for religious belief is pure ludicrous. The Abrahamic God (let's not bring in the thousand and one others for now) has been logically disproven, even before el Jeebs showed up with his promise of hellfire. There is also substantial evidence that he is man-made, as are the book(s) describing him, which are full of inconsistencies (and outright fallacies) themselves.

Your comment about John Smith suggests that the only evidence that could convict a fraudster is confession; good thing you aren't a judge! Seriously though, your doubt probably stems from your lack of acquaintance with the evidence. You can start by reading his brief biography on Wikipedia; his con trick of "glass-seeing" (looking at shiny stones in a hat and pretending to see the location of treasure), for which he was arrested several times, is eerily familiar to the birth of the Book of Mormon (looking into a hat and "transcribing" gold plates that probably did not exist). He even had to change a passage after losing some pages of the transcript He received a divine revelation that the exact pages of the transcript that he lost needed to be changed, and that God had foreseen the loss of those papers (link).

The further one goes back in history, the harder it is to get historical evidence against religious beliefs, but there are always logical arguments that count as evidence as well (in arguing the idiocy of certain beliefs). Since my Santa analogy above seems not to have appealed to you, here's a different one. Imagine Kate were to have said "I do not believe in witchcraft/vampires because I'm not an idiot." Audience response? "Duh!" or stg similar. And yet there is the same amount of evidence for witches and vampires as there is for deities and afterlife**. The only difference between these three once highly common delusions is that one of them persists, even demanding respect, when it deserves at best critical scrutiny, at worst nothing but scorn.


<sub>*(and sometimes those benefits stemming from certain rules, like no alcohol/extra-marital sex etc... still nothing to do with belief.)

**Actually, there is relatively more evidence in favour of vampirism than of deities and afterlife</sub>


tl;dr: faith/rel. belief has no health benefits (check sources b4 posting); argument of religion's social role is double-edged; delusions are still delusions if they make you happy (try drugs); Joseph Smith Jr was a (convicted) fraud; idiotic beliefs are still idiotic when shared by the majority, just more socially unacceptable to mock.

>> ^SDGundamX:


See my answer to @BicycleRepairMan--what people accept as evidence in this matter and how much evidence is required for people to believe (or not believe) in a religion varies from person to person. Further complicating matters is that belief is not binary--it's a very wide continuum that includes people who aren't sure but practice the religion anyway.
My point about the New Atheists is that they feel the evidence against religion is sufficient. They are entitled to that opinion--but at the end of the day it is only an opinion. They should be free to express that opinion and tell people their reasons why they came to that conclusion. But they shouldn't pretend that their opinion is "fact" or belittle those who haven't come to the same conclusion.
About the "faith improving lives" bit--there is a fair bit of empirical evidence for the benefits of religious faith (in terms of both physical and psychological health: see here and here for more info) so I can't see how you can argue it is "delusional." Unless you meant that religion isn't the only way to obtain the same benefits, in which case I absolutely agree. But I find an interesting parallel in your thinking the New Atheists can tell a religious person that he/she is delusional if that religious person believes religion has a positive effect on their life with Christians who claim that atheists think they are happy but in reality suffering because they aren't one with Christ. Seems like two sides of the same coin to me.
I'm glad I amused you with my reference to Scientology. But this is a very rare case where we have a "smoking gun" so to speak. While I agree with you that there is a some suspicious stuff going on with Mormonism (how some passages in the Book of Mormon are very similar to other books available at the time John Smith lived), I'm unaware of any hard evidence that John Smith actually admitted to making it all up. Again with Mormonism, we're back to people having to personally decide for themselves what to believe (and all the issues that entails). [...]

I never claimed those to be facts. >> ^BoneRemake:

Thats fine, as far as I know you are not a member of the force there so what you say is just second or third hand knowledge.
In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
I completely disagree. These charges are in no way violence related. You can EASILY serve an arrest warrant without drawing a gun. Put your hand on it if it makes you happy. Now, were they serving a warrant for murder, then sure, blaze in there with guns drawn.
>> ^BoneRemake:
Do SOME of you not understand that they draw their guns for a reason ? its called training and its protocol. Just because a swat team may be involved with bringing down Popeye's spinach vegan factory doesnt mean they will walk in there with Guns on their backs and friendly waves of "hello " hands and the warrant in hand. Wake up, they have protocol to follow.
As well I am pretty sure what skeeve said was that its for others protection not just the people who want to drink milk, sure they get sick ( fuck'em in my opinion, its their choice) but it is communicable to others, the general population, WHICH government does give a shit about ( or so I heard once)