>> ^lantern53:

Evoking Jeremiah Wright is not a scare tactic. It is a legitimate question to be answered for 2008 or 2012.
Of course, after Obama threw him under the bus, all those questions went away. No man whose pastor and spiritual mentor preached 'God damn America' should ever inhabit the White House.
If you disagree, then you don't really see how America is the greatest country in the world, and you should vote for someone who feels the same way...Obama.


I don't think anyone with a pastor should inhabit the white house.

Evoking Jeremiah Wright is not a scare tactic. It is a legitimate question to be answered for 2008 or 2012.

Of course, after Obama threw him under the bus, all those questions went away. No man whose pastor and spiritual mentor preached 'God damn America' should ever inhabit the White House.

If you disagree, then you don't really see how America is the greatest country in the world, and you should vote for someone who feels the same way...Obama.

I think this ignores the fact that thrashing a and beatings used to be common, and society has always had problems. You're never going to convince me that the way to stop violence is to be violence. All you're saying with that is that you're somehow special and violence is ok only when you're doing it. I just don't agree with that.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

I think the larger point is missed though. If all good black men (and good white men for that matter too) showed this level of caring in our culture, then our entire culture would be changed and less violent. This discipline only teaches the kid to rebel because it is rare to be shamed for your actions in America. I remember a mother who had her kid hold a sign on the street about him being a failure in school because he actually failed that grade. Same argument--psychological abuse, teaches them to rebel, better ways to handle it, etc.
Do you honestly think the Uncle hasn't tried talking to the kid? Sitting down and chatting? I personally have talked with thugs in a mentoring kind of way, never above them and never condescending...but they don't respect that because American culture vilifies it. Even the liberal culture takes it for weakness as they scream for heads in passive-aggressive manner.
You think like a rational person, that I think is the biggest problem. Thugs don't.
>> ^robbersdog49:
>> ^Sagemind:
Oop's ya, Uncle then - Obviously the guardian though. Or someone who cares about him. I don't think it much matters. That uncle is putting a firm stand down on Gang Banging.
Gangs are some touch crap to get involved in, I don't think the "Uncle" is is being harder on him than gang members would - most likely, he may be saving the kids life.
>> ^robbersdog49:
>> ^Sagemind:
That's a big kid who still respects his father. I think he's gonna be alright.
Gotta get through to them somehow that gangs are not cool.

Nephew? Let me google that for you...
Learning that you gain respect by using violence. That sounds like a great lesson. Sure to keep him out of trouble.


I think the reasons he's doing what he's doing are perfectly valid, he's right to try to turn the kid away from gangs and gang culture. I think the way he's doing it is wrong. He's giving the kid something to rebel against.
If he really respected his uncle, his uncle wouldn't have to beat him like that. That's not respect you're seeing - it's about as far from respect as you can get. It's fear.

I think the larger point is missed though. If all good black men (and good white men for that matter too) showed this level of caring in our culture, then our entire culture would be changed and less violent. This discipline only teaches the kid to rebel because it is rare to be shamed for your actions in America. I remember a mother who had her kid hold a sign on the street about him being a failure in school because he actually failed that grade. Same argument--psychological abuse, teaches them to rebel, better ways to handle it, etc.

Do you honestly think the Uncle hasn't tried talking to the kid? Sitting down and chatting? I personally have talked with thugs in a mentoring kind of way, never above them and never condescending...but they don't respect that because American culture vilifies it. Even the liberal culture takes it for weakness as they scream for heads in passive-aggressive manner.

You think like a rational person, that I think is the biggest problem. Thugs don't.

>> ^robbersdog49:

>> ^Sagemind:
Oop's ya, Uncle then - Obviously the guardian though. Or someone who cares about him. I don't think it much matters. That uncle is putting a firm stand down on Gang Banging.
Gangs are some touch crap to get involved in, I don't think the "Uncle" is is being harder on him than gang members would - most likely, he may be saving the kids life.
>> ^robbersdog49:
>> ^Sagemind:
That's a big kid who still respects his father. I think he's gonna be alright.
Gotta get through to them somehow that gangs are not cool.

Nephew? Let me google that for you...
Learning that you gain respect by using violence. That sounds like a great lesson. Sure to keep him out of trouble.


I think the reasons he's doing what he's doing are perfectly valid, he's right to try to turn the kid away from gangs and gang culture. I think the way he's doing it is wrong. He's giving the kid something to rebel against.
If he really respected his uncle, his uncle wouldn't have to beat him like that. That's not respect you're seeing - it's about as far from respect as you can get. It's fear.

>> ^Lendl:

And I'm going to say quality because of his foundation that I was unaware of: http://iamangelfoundation.org/
"Will.i.am has handed $800,000 of his fee from appearing on Britain's "The Voice" to Prince Charles' charity.
The Black Eyed Peas star served as a mentor on the reality show earlier this year, but rather than keep his wages, he's donated the cash to The Prince's Trust to fund a technology program for young people."
Neil DeGrasse Tyson would so be down with this.


The point of this is that with the entire musical output of this planet available to us, the first thing we send to another planet is the mawkish juvenile brain vomit of someone with the lyrical and musical capabilities of a shoe.

Good man for funding good things with his millions, but in the bank of art, he's bankrupt.

And I'm going to say *quality because of his foundation that I was unaware of: http://iamangelfoundation.org/

"Will.i.am has handed $800,000 of his fee from appearing on Britain's "The Voice" to Prince Charles' charity.

The Black Eyed Peas star served as a mentor on the reality show earlier this year, but rather than keep his wages, he's donated the cash to The Prince's Trust to fund a technology program for young people."

Neil DeGrasse Tyson would so be down with this.

I copied my response from another discussion, some reasons to own firearms.

Yes firearms were designed for military use, but for us to cover everything we use in our lives that started out or were improved by the military (essentially to make it easier to kill the enemy) would require more effort and space than is practical in an Internet disscussion.

J) The legitimate use of firearms.
The big Taboo, Killing:
The military uses firearms, and other tools to kill the enemy. This enemy is defined by the state who are elected officials. I won't go into depth as to why, as that is best served by a political debate. Suffice it to say that guns could be perceived to actually combat evil.

Hunting: another form of killing, however for most, the game is hunted as a food source. The only distinction I make between wild game, and beef in the store is who does the killing ( and I could use a uphenism for the word kill, but let's call a a spade a spade )(also keep in mind hunters are the leaders in protecting the ecology, ducks unlimmited was and is a group of hunters)

Defense: when another human desires you harm what recourse do you have? You can try to run, try to hide, hope you don't get caught. Call the athorities (provided it is not them who desire you harm) and hope they arrive in time, or fight back. Should you fight back, hopefully you are more powerfull than your attacker, or that they do not have a weapon of some kind.

Simply the presence of a firearm in a potential victims hands, can dissuade an nefarious individual from attempting an attack. Should that fail, and you need to shoot, I would much rather the criminal be injured or killed than myself or a loved one.

Sporting use: primarily enjoyment, competitions, black powder heritage days and cowboy action shoots promote an awareness of history and promote thought on how life was in days gone by.

Bonding: the passing of knowledge between two individuals engaged in an activity both find enjoyable. In the case of parent/child, or mentor/student, the teaching of the responsibilities of firearm use and the skills involved is important. If more people knew how to safely handle/store firearms, accidental deaths would be greatly reduced.


In closing, while I applaud the idealistic and utopic view that any form of killing is wrong and can/should be prevented, this is simply not the way life works.

Trying to persuade others to view the world as you do is the essence of debating, however, forcing your ideals upon another human being is the essence of tyranny. Irregardless of how honorable the intentions

2 million legal Canadian gun owners DID NOT kill anyone today, or yesterday or the day before...we have about 7 million guns...

You are a troll who has no idea of what you are talking about.

from ChaosEngine

You're right. Clearly the solution is to legalise rape, kidnapping, theft, assault and murder since people are doing it anyway.

Just noticed your postes wern't private, thought I'd post my reply.

LOL I concede I am an ape!

This is long but addresses many of your questions I think. Also your assumption on my thinking was correct...can't remember what it was but I agree.

now on to the LONG post.

A) Willpower while it has limitations, it is not Limited to a finite value. Just ask any smoker who has quit. Or, a recovering alcoholic.

B) Repeat criminals do not appear to have willpower issues, they make conscious decisions to defy the law, and ether justify it to themselves or simply have contempt for the law. Some may feel the law is wrong or simply does not apply to them.

C) If all it took for a human being to lose their humanity, self respect, morality and honor was to be at the losing end of life why have we not seen a violent uprising of the homeless and downtrodden. The addicts who HAVE lost everything and wander the streets trying to survive would therefore be the most justified to go on a rampage would they not?

D) As for American laws relating to firearms, I am a Canadian and therefore will not argue those laws, as I have little knowledge in that area.
As for Canada, the process of licensing requires a full background check, questioning of witnesses towards your character and ultimately is up to the discression of the license issuer, as I mentioned before.

Are there flaws? Yes. But that is a result of the system. Ideally the system would prevent or remove firearms from any individual before violence occurs. However in order for that system to function flawlessly one must live in a system similar to Communist Russia during Stalins reign. Where every action or spoken word is monitored and reported to the government, by agents, or even by family.

Canadian restrictions to licensing are as stringent as the LAW curently allows them to be without infringing ( too much) on an individual's rights.

E) A piece of plastic does not guarantee the holder to be law abiding. However, the process involved to acquire said item does involve scrutiny. And the desire to legally go through that process as opposed to acquiring firearms illegally and with much less effort does say something towards the individuals intentions.

F) Firearms training and safety cources do indeed instill responsibility, confidence in the use, and the safe possession of firearms. Personally I believe everyone eligible should be trained in the safe responsible use of firearms. Whether they choose to own or not. ( we have sex Ed in school, why not gun Ed )

G) As for F*** heads, they will always be F**** heads. One purpose of licensing is to prevent them from acquiring firearms legaly. Thankfully most of humanity does not fit into this category. ( however they do seem to be breeding at an alarming rate)

H) As for the Katana, not only was it a weapon, it was a symbol of honor for samurai and was passed down through generations with a reverence bordering on a relic. Spend time and look up the 7 virtues of the Bushido code.

Regarding Nukes, while their application is abhorrent to any rational human, think about how many were actually used for their intended purpose. TWO!, out of how many thousands. And both were released by human hands. Possession does not equate to application.

I) Yes firearms were designed for military use, but for us to cover everything we use in our lives that started out or were improved by the military (essentially to make it easier to kill the enemy) would require more effort and space than is practical in an Internet disscussion.

J) The legitimate use of firearms.
The big Taboo, Killing:
The military uses firearms, and other tools to kill the enemy. This enemy is defined by the state who are elected officials. I won't go into depth as to why, as that is best served by a political debate. Suffice it to say that guns could be perceived to actually combat evil.

Hunting: another form of killing, however for most, the game is hunted as a food source. The only distinction I make between wild game, and beef in the store is who does the killing ( and I could use a uphenism for the word kill, but let's call a a spade a spade )(also keep in mind hunters are the leaders in protecting the ecology, ducks unlimmited was and is a group of hunters)

Defense: when another human desires you harm what recourse do you have? You can try to run, try to hide, hope you don't get caught. Call the athorities (provided it is not them who desire you harm) and hope they arrive in time, or fight back. Should you fight back, hopefully you are more powerfull than your attacker, or that they do not have a weapon of some kind.

Simply the presence of a firearm in a potential victims hands, can dissuade an nefarious individual from attempting an attack. Should that fail, and you need to shoot, I would much rather the criminal be injured or killed than myself or a loved one.

Sporting use: primarily enjoyment, competitions, black powder heritage days and cowboy action shoots promote an awareness of history and promote thought on how life was in days gone by.

Bonding: the passing of knowledge between two individuals engaged in an activity both find enjoyable. In the case of parent/child, or mentor/student, the teaching of the responsibilities of firearm use and the skills involved is important. If more people knew how to safely handle/store firearms, accidental deaths would be greatly reduced.


In closing, while I applaud the idealistic and utopic view that any form of killing is wrong and can/should be prevented, this is simply not the way life works.

Trying to persuade others to view the world as you do is the essence of debating, however, forcing your ideals upon another human being is the essence of tyranny. Irregardless of how honorable the intentions

So if you read all that I thank you! I'm prepared to say we agree to dissagree and leave it at that but I'm open to more dialog if you wish.

I wish you lived in my area so I could take you to the range to see first hand what it's all about.

Big Ape signing off

Caution: Spoilers galore.

I found the House of the Undying scene to have a fittingly creepy mood, even though it was changed a lot. The scene with Drogo seemed to me to be stolen directly from the Accepted tests that Aes Sedai novices go through in The Wheel of Time, but it was a powerful scene nonetheless. I think they missed an opportunity when Dany exited north of the wall to show her a glimpse of the dangers coming from the north. What I missed most compared to the book was the vision Dany has of Rhaegar playing the harp and talking to some woman about his son, which is an important scene for a certain popular fan theory.

What annoyed me most in this season was how the story of Jon Snow and Qhorin Halfhand played out. You didn't really get to see how Qhorin became an important mentor to Jon Snow. Even worse: It was not pointed out clear enough that Qhorin practically ordered Jon to kill him in order to be able to infiltrate the wildlings. Instead it looked like Jon just killed him out of self-defense.

But there were more things I liked than disliked. Theon's battle speech scene was hilarious, and they pulled off Jaqen's face-changing really well. I also liked Luwin's demise; it shocked me how he was just stabbed out of hand, even though I knew he would die. I fear it might be a bit cryptic to non-book readers why Winterfell was suddenly burned down, though. There was also some brilliant acting from Sophie Turner as Sansa when she learns she doesn't have to marry Joffrey after all.

All in all, I liked most of the changes in this season. Some of them even made the story better than in the book, at least for the TV medium.

@shinyblurry:

Your characterization of bible literalists as "idiots" and people with "sheep-like" credulity and the "so-called" faithful, not-withstanding, I will agree that a disagreement on origins doesn't necessarily make someone less Christian. It doesn't say anywhere in the bible that you must agree on a literal interpretation of Genesis to follow Jesus Christ.

Calling the literal interpretation of Genesis a "quasi-heretical" doctrine of "19th century upstarts" is completely ridiculous, though. Almost as ridiculous as quoting Origen and Augustrine and claiming they represented the majority viewpoint of the early church. If you think the early church didn't believe in a literal Genesis, how do you explain Ephraim the syrian, or Basil of Caesarea? What about Ambrose of Milan, who was the mentor of Augustine? They all believed in a young earth, as did many others throughout the centuries.

Let us not also forget that Christ Himself was a bible literalist, who spoke about the narrative in the Old Testament, including Genesis, as literal history, and literally fulfilled the prophecies of the Messiah.


Could you perhaps refer me to some documents wherein St. Ephrem or St. Basil averred that the literal interpretation of the Bible is primary? Ephrem appears to have struck a middle ground between literalism and pure metaphorical interpretation, and St. Basil was a student of Origen's writings. Granted, St. Basil assiduously avoided the bizarre flights of fancy that plagued some of the Christian writers in the 4th century, but he was hardly a literalist in a strict sense--the literal sense was only one important sense in which to take the sacred writings.

If you want to support your point, a particular reference to Genesis will do best.

As far as Ambrose goes, it stretches the truth to say that he was a "mentor" of Augustine. Certainly, Augustine speaks rather highly of Ambrose in the Confessions. But Augustine writes with rather rose-colored glasses. A sober-minded approach to the life of Ambrose reveals that he was as much a political animal as he was spiritual. And even in the Confessions it is not recorded that Ambrose paid much attention to Augustine. If I recall correctly, Augustine doesn't record a single word that Ambrose said to Augustine outside of a public sermon in which Augustine was a member of the congregation.

In regards to Christianity, there is a mimimum requirement of belief, such as that Jesus was raised from the dead, to be a Christian.


In the traditional sense, certainly. There are other senses by which one might claim to be Christian--pointing out the tradition from which one derives one's moral compass, for instance. In this sense, many atheists can probably claim to be Christian atheists, rather than, e.g., Muslim atheists.

Simple observation shows most people, probably near the 99.9 percent mark, to be liars. There is no claim in Christianity that Christians are perfect. Far from it. Jesus was the only perfect man to ever live. Christians still sin, but hopefully they sin much less than usual. Christians living sanctified lives are comparitively rare, unfortunately. When you consider that half of the American church does not believe in a literal Holy Spirit or Satan, it isn't surprising.


Do they sin much less than usual? I haven't seen any sign of it. The statistics don't seem to bear it out. Nor does my personal experience. Of the best and most morally astute people I know, only one was Christian. The rest were Buddhist, Muslim, or Pagan.

In Christianity, it is to know God personally. Christianity is about Jesus Christ and nothing else. If you subtract Jesus, you don't have anything. You automatically get a new state of being; when you accept Christ you are a new creature, and you receive the Holy Spirit. You also have your sins forgiven and obtain eternal life.


To worship and devote yourself to a single God, like Jesus Christ, has a specific term in Hinduism--bhakhti yoga. It is the path of love and devotion.

No matter which god you pursue with this ardent and holy love, you will achieve the same result--sanctification, rebirth, and the descending dove of the Holy Spirit.

The forgiveness of sins is a psychological projection. Eternal life is yours regardless of what any god says.


Which spirit? Satan can make you feel ecstacy and love; it wouldn't be a very good deception if it wasn't deceiving. The question you should ask is, where is this coming from, and who gave me a spirit in the first place?

As far as intolerance goes, Jesus made it clear:

John 14:6

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Those are His words, not mine. A Christian is only telling you what He said, which is that you will face judgment for your sins. If you reject Jesus, you are telling God you want to stand trial for your sins on your own merit. If you are rejecting Jesus, it's for a reason that has nothing to do with anything you have written here.


As far as deception goes, I will quote to you the Gospels, Luke 11:17-19: 'But He knew their thoughts and said to them, “Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and a house divided against itself falls. If Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? For you say that I cast out demons by Beelzebul. And if I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? So they will be your judges.'

How can a demon bring holy ecstasy? How can a devil cast out division and hatred, and bring in such divine love?

And with regard to intolerance, it's almost entirely pointless to quote to me the first apocryphon of John--the so-called Gospel of John. I'm well aware of what it says. I've spent a lot of time considering it. That's why I think it's incorrect.

It does no good at all to suggest that it's someone else who's being intolerant. On the one hand, it looks like you're blame-shifting, too much the coward to take responsibility for the statement. On the other hand, you are providing no reason to think that the quotation provides any authority whatsoever, and undermining your position by your own indolence.

Not only do I live in the US, but I live Oklahoma, one of the most religiously conservative states. I don't have a great deal of respect for that brand of religion, for sure. Which is precisely why it's so galling to see a video that suggests that's just what Christians have to be like--that Christians who reject the Bibliolatry and hermeneutic cutting and pasting of those idiots somehow aren't real Christians, that rejecting the sheep-like credulity of these so-called faithful means that the thoughtful ones haven't actually thought it through. And somehow it is averred that those who cling to the ancient traditions of Biblical understanding are inauthentically Christian, since they don't accept the quasi-heretical doctrines of 19th century upstarts.

Your characterization of bible literalists as "idiots" and people with "sheep-like" credulity and the "so-called" faithful, not-withstanding, I will agree that a disagreement on origins doesn't necessarily make someone less Christian. It doesn't say anywhere in the bible that you must agree on a literal interpretation of Genesis to follow Jesus Christ.

Calling the literal interpretation of Genesis a "quasi-heretical" doctrine of "19th century upstarts" is completely ridiculous, though. Almost as ridiculous as quoting Origen and Augustrine and claiming they represented the majority viewpoint of the early church. If you think the early church didn't believe in a literal Genesis, how do you explain Ephraim the syrian, or Basil of Caesarea? What about Ambrose of Milan, who was the mentor of Augustine? They all believed in a young earth, as did many others throughout the centuries.

Let us not also forget that Christ Himself was a bible literalist, who spoke about the narrative in the Old Testament, including Genesis, as literal history, and literally fulfilled the prophecies of the Messiah.

As far as dogmatic authority goes, I think that you're partly right about some religions. Specifically, the big Abrahamic religions--Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It's important to remember that this is not the entire world of religion (even if they are important), so there are a number of statements about them that will be incorrect about other religions--in fact, most other religions.

It's true that the Big Three do indeed seem to require acceding to the truth of certain propositions in order to remain in their historical form: e.g., that the Torah was revealed by God, that Jesus lived, died, and rose from the dead, and that Mohammad received the Qur'an from Michael. (for each religion respectively) There is certainly an important sense in which certain very liberal theologians are still Christian, but this is something very different than historical Christianity.

In regards to Christianity, there is a mimimum requirement of belief, such as that Jesus was raised from the dead, to be a Christian.

Moreover, I myself don't think that moral authority is actually essential to religion. It's certainly related to religion, but as I'm sure you've observed--there's not much of a correlation between religious belief and moral behavior. Simple observation shows most Christians to be liars. Morality is not why they are Christian.

Simple observation shows most people, probably near the 99.9 percent mark, to be liars. There is no claim in Christianity that Christians are perfect. Far from it. Jesus was the only perfect man to ever live. Christians still sin, but hopefully they sin much less than usual. Christians living sanctified lives are comparitively rare, unfortunately. When you consider that half of the American church does not believe in a literal Holy Spirit or Satan, it isn't surprising.

Instead, I think it's something else--transcendence, and the promise of new states of being. Morality has almost nothing to do with this. The same man can be capable of the most holy ecstasies and raptures before the beauty of the God or gods that he prays to, a writer of the most delicately beautiful hymns and homilies--and the worst bastard on earth outside of church. Cardinal Richilieu was just such a person.

In Christianity, it is to know God personally. Christianity is about Jesus Christ and nothing else. If you subtract Jesus, you don't have anything. You automatically get a new state of being; when you accept Christ you are a new creature, and you receive the Holy Spirit. You also have your sins forgiven and obtain eternal life.

This is why we'll never get rid of religion, of course. But it's also why the monotheistic religions can be so dangerous. They incorrectly tie the ecstasies of the spirit to crude and intolerant dogmas, then demand that all others agree or face the sword or the pyre.

Which spirit? Satan can make you feel ecstacy and love; it wouldn't be a very good deception if it wasn't deceiving. The question you should ask is, where is this coming from, and who gave me a spirit in the first place?

As far as intolerance goes, Jesus made it clear:

John 14:6

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Those are His words, not mine. A Christian is only telling you what He said, which is that you will face judgment for your sins. If you reject Jesus, you are telling God you want to stand trial for your sins on your own merit. If you are rejecting Jesus, it's for a reason that has nothing to do with anything you have written here.

>> ^HadouKen24:

It's sad these children are being molded this way. Maybe not institutionally (afaik), but the poisonous slant of media they are exposed to, and the racism, hatred, and anger of the adults they look up to must take their toll. These children are not being raised in a vacuum, and are not to blame. It's just sad that, unless they find some escape from Israel, or a mentor to show them another truth of the world they live in, they will become hateful and paranoid adults and continue the cycle.

>> ^Retro:

>> ^Sagemind:
So... Killer Croc Huh?
Oh that's right, wrong universe....

No, silly. This is Spider-Man, it's Doc Croc, duh! nods


That's almost of right actually. The Lizard is a doctor, and another mentor of Peter Parker before he goes all freaky and evil. If you saw spider-man 2 or 3 he was the college professor. It's a shame, they had an actor who seemed perfect for the role in the last series, and he never got to do anything.

Part of the problem is due to the fact that many skilled trades-workers are not interested in mentoring an apprentice. They just don't want to or, don't have the time, whatever. So, tradesmen get older and no one replaces them when they leave. And, the apprentices that do get hired get treated like shit.

The problem for wanting to apprentice is especially bad if you are no longer a teenager. If you are in your late twenties and want to be an apprentice, the foremen, etc.. just scoff at you for being "too old"....

Your video, Pat Morita Discusses and Impersonates his Mentor Redd Foxx, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.