Altho the 'final verdict' isn't in, I believe The Gay is genetic. Of course, that opens up another can of worms. Is homosexuality a genetic defect to be 'cured'?

"In what way are my rights diminished by guaranteeing those same rights and protections for others?"

Which rights are we talking about? Gays have all the rights of anyone else, including creating their own legal family. The 'right' for gays to officially marry under the law is the one exception, but that 'right' had never existed before.


>> ^therealblankman:

Even if being gay is a choice I don't understand how that fact serves as a basis for discrimination and oppression. At that point it's quite akin to a freedom of speech issue and while I may not be gay I'll defend to the death your right to be so. Get down with your bad gay self.
And as for our resident deep thinker @quantummushroom : riddle me this... in what way are your rights diminished by guaranteeing those same rights and protections for others? Or are you simply saying that Gays should just STFU and quit shoving it into your face? http://www.theonion.com/articles/why-do-all-these-hom
osexuals-keep-sucking-my-cock,11150/
I for one don't believe this for a second, just putting it forward for argument's sake

Even if being gay is a choice* I don't understand how that fact serves as a basis for discrimination and oppression. At that point it's quite akin to a freedom of speech issue and while I may not be gay I'll defend to the death your right to be so. Get down with your bad gay self.

And as for our resident deep thinker @quantummushroom*: riddle me this... in what way are your rights diminished by guaranteeing those same rights and protections for others? Or are you simply saying that Gays should just STFU and quit shoving it into your face? http://www.theonion.com/articles/why-do-all-these-homosexuals-keep-sucking-my-cock,11150/

*I for one don't believe this for a second, just putting it forward for argument's sake

Friendly reminder, there is a God and He loves you, and so do I. Looks like you're using new words too. Did you invent parroticaly all by yourself?

>> ^hpqp:
Heh, I'm just going to keep this gem of a comment, for further use evil laughter
Lookitchu, shiny, all full of new words you can parroticaly throw back at the first person who calls you out, how cute.
Just a friendly reminder: there is/are no God/s. When people like @SpaceGirlSpiff or myself talk about God/s it's the concept we are discussing. A bit like when fans of Star Wars debate about the fundamentals of the Force, and whether Darth Vador is redeemable or not. Now imagine someone comes to the discussion and claims Obi Wan showed himself to them, revealing knowledge that was later confirmed by watching the Star Wars Trilogy (the original, of course; the prequels are akin to The Book of Mormon). See where this is going?
I must admit, every time you accuse someone else of being illogical, irrational, condescending, arrogant, prejudiced, etc., it makes me smile and shake my head slowly. Oh well, I'm off to do something more productive than talking to a godbot. Hmmm, a devilish diddle sounds like a good idea goes off to find pr0n
>> ^shinyblurry:
@SpaceGirlSpiff
Spacegirl, your former post is riddled with logical fallacies. False analogies, begging the question, non-sequiturs and strawmen fallacies. You provided absolutely no rationale for any of your conclusions. You simply dictated the terms of the discussion as if everything you said was factual and justified. This alone makes your entire post irrational, and unfounded. Then you go on to unfairly characterize me as an unthinking animal or a mindless automoton in one giant Ad hom, dodging the debate completely, saying in the height of arrogance that I am not even worthy of a reply.
Let's go over this again. You asked, how do I know I am not following the wrong deity? My answer is personal revelation. Why do you think this is unreasonable, or irrational? If God exists He is quite capable of revealing Himself to whomever he chooses. It is a perfectly reasonable and rational reason to believe the bible is true. I explained that before I even read the bible, God had personally revealed to me certain facts about Himself which were confirmed later by the bible, and this is the reason I know the bible is accurate. Whether you consider that rational or not is a separate question. It is an appropiate and reasonable answer to your inquiry.
You stated Satan has the power of deity. I countered with the fact that the activities of Satan are restricted by God and that he cannot do anything without permission. A god that has to ask permission isn't a god. Again, this is a reasonable answer.
You go on to say God commands the slaughter of innocents. I reply that there are no innocents on a fallen world. So I reject your premise on the outset, as it is simply ignorant of even basic scripture. You say God condemns people to hell unless they bow, which is also grossly inaccurate. God condemns all sin, and it is unrepentant sinners that go to hell.
You further state that God commits genocide, another unproven and inaccurate assertion. You need an argument showing how God is morally culpable for executing His judgement and sovereign will before you can claim genocide. You go on to say job was punished to prove a point; i pointed out that job himself realized that nothing he had belonged to him, but rather it belonged to God and it was His right to give it or take it back, and that this was a lesson for the church, that God is not our debtor, but its rather the opposite. During the trial, God used this experience to teach at least 4 other people who came to argue Job back into obedience. It also presumes that job was punished unfairly, which is untrue. Job was a sinner, despite being very loyal, and moreover during the trial he sinned even more. I will further point out that God restored job to even greater heights after this was over.
On the last bit, you state an incoherent false analogy about a corrupt dictator who provided his subjects with a book declaring himself to be god and prevents outside communication. Well, there is plenty of communication going on in this world and plenty of books which all maintain different ideas about who God is. God isn't preventing any of that. A corrupt dictator allows no freedom of choice, you are obviously free to reject God your entire life. You make a number of false correlations about reason and logic and removing blinders, but none of these conclusions follow from the premise, which is a false analogy to begin with.
In short, spacegirlspiff, your post leaves much to be desired in terms of rationality and your personal attack on me further shows that this debate is based not on logic but on your personal prejudice against Christianity and God in general.

Heh, I'm just going to keep this gem of a comment, for further use *evil laughter*

Lookitchu, shiny, all full of new words you can parroticaly throw back at the first person who calls you out, how cute.

Just a friendly reminder: there is/are no God/s. When people like @SpaceGirlSpiff or myself talk about God/s it's the concept we are discussing. A bit like when fans of Star Wars debate about the fundamentals of the Force, and whether Darth Vador is redeemable or not. Now imagine someone comes to the discussion and claims Obi Wan showed himself to them, revealing knowledge that was later confirmed by watching the Star Wars Trilogy (the original, of course; the prequels are akin to The Book of Mormon). See where this is going?

I must admit, every time you accuse someone else of being illogical, irrational, condescending, arrogant, prejudiced, etc., it makes me smile and shake my head slowly. Oh well, I'm off to do something more productive than talking to a godbot. Hmmm, a devilish diddle sounds like a good idea *goes off to find pr0n*

>> ^shinyblurry:

@SpaceGirlSpiff
Spacegirl, your former post is riddled with logical fallacies. False analogies, begging the question, non-sequiturs and strawmen fallacies. You provided absolutely no rationale for any of your conclusions. You simply dictated the terms of the discussion as if everything you said was factual and justified. This alone makes your entire post irrational, and unfounded. Then you go on to unfairly characterize me as an unthinking animal or a mindless automoton in one giant Ad hom, dodging the debate completely, saying in the height of arrogance that I am not even worthy of a reply.
Let's go over this again. You asked, how do I know I am not following the wrong deity? My answer is personal revelation. Why do you think this is unreasonable, or irrational? If God exists He is quite capable of revealing Himself to whomever he chooses. It is a perfectly reasonable and rational reason to believe the bible is true. I explained that before I even read the bible, God had personally revealed to me certain facts about Himself which were confirmed later by the bible, and this is the reason I know the bible is accurate. Whether you consider that rational or not is a separate question. It is an appropiate and reasonable answer to your inquiry.
You stated Satan has the power of deity. I countered with the fact that the activities of Satan are restricted by God and that he cannot do anything without permission. A god that has to ask permission isn't a god. Again, this is a reasonable answer.
You go on to say God commands the slaughter of innocents. I reply that there are no innocents on a fallen world. So I reject your premise on the outset, as it is simply ignorant of even basic scripture. You say God condemns people to hell unless they bow, which is also grossly inaccurate. God condemns all sin, and it is unrepentant sinners that go to hell.
You further state that God commits genocide, another unproven and inaccurate assertion. You need an argument showing how God is morally culpable for executing His judgement and sovereign will before you can claim genocide. You go on to say job was punished to prove a point; i pointed out that job himself realized that nothing he had belonged to him, but rather it belonged to God and it was His right to give it or take it back, and that this was a lesson for the church, that God is not our debtor, but its rather the opposite. During the trial, God used this experience to teach at least 4 other people who came to argue Job back into obedience. It also presumes that job was punished unfairly, which is untrue. Job was a sinner, despite being very loyal, and moreover during the trial he sinned even more. I will further point out that God restored job to even greater heights after this was over.
On the last bit, you state an incoherent false analogy about a corrupt dictator who provided his subjects with a book declaring himself to be god and prevents outside communication. Well, there is plenty of communication going on in this world and plenty of books which all maintain different ideas about who God is. God isn't preventing any of that. A corrupt dictator allows no freedom of choice, you are obviously free to reject God your entire life. You make a number of false correlations about reason and logic and removing blinders, but none of these conclusions follow from the premise, which is a false analogy to begin with.
In short, spacegirlspiff, your post leaves much to be desired in terms of rationality and your personal attack on me further shows that this debate is based not on logic but on your personal prejudice against Christianity and God in general.

@SpaceGirlSpiff

Spacegirl, your former post is riddled with logical fallacies. False analogies, begging the question, non-sequiturs and strawmen fallacies. You provided absolutely no rationale for any of your conclusions. You simply dictated the terms of the discussion as if everything you said was factual and justified. This alone makes your entire post irrational, and unfounded. Then you go on to unfairly characterize me as an unthinking animal or a mindless automoton in one giant Ad hom, dodging the debate completely, saying in the height of arrogance that I am not even worthy of a reply.

Let's go over this again. You asked, how do I know I am not following the wrong deity? My answer is personal revelation. Why do you think this is unreasonable, or irrational? If God exists He is quite capable of revealing Himself to whomever he chooses. It is a perfectly reasonable and rational reason to believe the bible is true. I explained that before I even read the bible, God had personally revealed to me certain facts about Himself which were confirmed later by the bible, and this is the reason I know the bible is accurate. Whether you consider that rational or not is a separate question. It is an appropiate and reasonable answer to your inquiry.

You stated Satan has the power of deity. I countered with the fact that the activities of Satan are restricted by God and that he cannot do anything without permission. A god that has to ask permission isn't a god. Again, this is a reasonable answer.

You go on to say God commands the slaughter of innocents. I reply that there are no innocents on a fallen world. So I reject your premise on the outset, as it is simply ignorant of even basic scripture. You say God condemns people to hell unless they bow, which is also grossly inaccurate. God condemns all sin, and it is unrepentant sinners that go to hell.

You further state that God commits genocide, another unproven and inaccurate assertion. You need an argument showing how God is morally culpable for executing His judgement and sovereign will before you can claim genocide. You go on to say job was punished to prove a point; i pointed out that job himself realized that nothing he had belonged to him, but rather it belonged to God and it was His right to give it or take it back, and that this was a lesson for the church, that God is not our debtor, but its rather the opposite. During the trial, God used this experience to teach at least 4 other people who came to argue Job back into obedience. It also presumes that job was punished unfairly, which is untrue. Job was a sinner, despite being very loyal, and moreover during the trial he sinned even more. I will further point out that God restored job to even greater heights after this was over.

On the last bit, you state an incoherent false analogy about a corrupt dictator who provided his subjects with a book declaring himself to be god and prevents outside communication. Well, there is plenty of communication going on in this world and plenty of books which all maintain different ideas about who God is. God isn't preventing any of that. A corrupt dictator allows no freedom of choice, you are obviously free to reject God your entire life. You make a number of false correlations about reason and logic and removing blinders, but none of these conclusions follow from the premise, which is a false analogy to begin with.

In short, spacegirlspiff, your post leaves much to be desired in terms of rationality and your personal attack on me further shows that this debate is based not on logic but on your personal prejudice against Christianity and God in general.

>> ^eventualentropy:

Warning: Riddled with spoilers despite their claim otherwise


Thanks for the heads-up. I was just wondering whether to go ahead and watch this, since I'm going to buy all 4 books in a couple of weeks.

*edit* Lilithia - it would be awesome if you included a SPOILER ALERT somewhere high up in the video description and/or the tags!

Warning: Riddled with spoilers despite their claim otherwise

I don't EVER cross at those shady blinking-yellow-lights crosswalks. Seen too many near misses involving mothers with strollers. Don't use them...they shouldn't even exist because they give a false sense of security. Just spend the money on a pedestrian bridge.

edit: I realize this is riddled with sentence fragments>> ^longde:

In my town, we have an crosswalk that is frenquented by kids going to a park. This cross walk has yellow lights embedded in the road and on street signs for crossing pedestrians. And still you have assholes gunning past people who activate the lights.
I think drivers should absolutely always yield the right of way. I get annoyed too at slow walkers, but I figure I will get to where I'm going alot faster than they will half the time.
>> ^sixshot:
>> ^chilaxe:
She needs a new brain, but so does the pedestrian. A rationalist could never get hit by a car like that.

The bitch swapped lanes (or was that she went into incoming traffic lane to pass), which lead to hitting that elderly man. Sure the old guy should have looked one last time but that's besides the point. Reckless driving inevitably leads to shit like that.
I've seen assholes behind the wheel out on the roads all the time. And they do the most dumbest shit out there. Though I have yet to witness the result of their stupidity, it's only a matter of time when they get what they deserve.
At the same time, people who cross the street frequently needs to be more goddamn courteous. I've seen people who cross the street with no fucking regards to themselves or to whether or not it is even safe to cross. And that alone pisses me off as a driver and makes me hate the pedestrian law we have in America (whereas any vehicular hit to a pedestrian results in the driver being at fault 99% of the time). People like that makes me want to run 'em over Grand Theft Auto style. And in today's day and age of techno-gadgets, people are more prone to getting hurt due to not being attentive enough to their surroundings.

Gryffindor
Gryffindor values bravery, daring, nerve, and chivalry. Its emblematic animal is the lion and its colours are scarlet and gold. Minerva McGonagall is the most recent Head of Gryffindor. Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington aka Nearly Headless Nick is the house ghost. The founder of the house is Godric Gryffindor. Gryffindor corresponds to the element of Fire. The common room is located in one of the highest towers at Hogwarts, the entrance is situated on the seventh floor in the east wing of the castle and is guarded by a portrait of The Fat Lady. She permits entrance if given the correct password which is changed numerous times throughout the school year.


Hufflepuff
Hufflepuff, founded by Helga Hufflepuff, is the most inclusive among the four houses, valuing hard work, patience, loyalty, and fair play rather than a particular aptitude in its members. Its emblematic animal is the badger, and Black and Gold are its colours. Pomona Sprout is the Head of Hufflepuff. The Fat Friar is its ghost. Hufflepuff corresponds roughly to the element of earth. The Hufflepuff Dormitories and common room are located somewhere in the basement, near the castle's kitchens.


Ravenclaw
Ravenclaw values intelligence, knowledge, and wit. Its emblematic animal is the eagle, and its colours are blue and bronze. The Ravenclaw Head of House in the 1990s was Filius Flitwick. The ghost of Ravenclaw is the Grey Lady, who was the daughter of Rowena Ravenclaw, the house's founder. Ravenclaw corresponds roughly to the element of air. The Ravenclaw common room and dormitories are located in a tower on the west side of the castle. Ravenclaw students must answer a riddle as opposed to giving a password to enter their dormitories.


Slytherin
Slytherin house values ambition, cunning and resourcefulness and was founded by Salazar Slytherin. Its emblematic animal is the serpent, and its colours are green and silver. Professor Horace Slughorn was the Head of Slytherin during the 1997–1998 school year, replacing Severus Snape, who as well, replaced Slughorn when he retired for the first time several years ago. The Bloody Baron is the house ghost. Slytherin corresponds roughly to the element of water. The Slytherin Dormitories and common room are reached through a bare stone wall in the Dungeons. The Slytherin common room is a long, low underground room (probably under the Hogwarts lake, thus Slytherin house's affiliation with water) with rough stone walls and round greenish lamps hanging from the ceiling.

-http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Hogwarts_Houses

That was only the opening salvo.

The car ended up like this...

http://swns.com/gun-club-riddles-porsche-911-with-10000-bullets-221640.html

You didn't understand my post, and I can't be bothered to explain something that's not simple to someone who doesn't have any desire to learn. Sorry.

Your post was very simplistic..you propose an argument that we will eventually know everything (or rule god out) because science has explained things people use to think God directly inspired..which is false..science has not ruled out a supernatural causation for natural phenomena..we may know some of the ways but not the means

You then further try to say an infinite universe and a supernatural Creator are somehow logically equivilent ideas because they can both solve a particular problem, which is patently false, but of course this is what intellectually dishonest people do when they conduct their argument through ad homs. I advanced the questions I did as being fundemental to understanding life, which they are, and they are ones science knows nothing about. You go on to say I should "read a book". Well, I think that's a great idea and I recommend you do the same..specfically one on antisocial personality disorder.

Read Dawkins, instead of reading people quote-mining (or "summarizing") him. If you have read Dawkins, you haven't understood anything (at all). No way around that, sorry.

I did read dawkins, specifically his abominable God delusion where the idea is postulated that any appearance of design can be explained away by multiple universes. Of course, no word on where all those multiple universes come from, but that's the fun of science. You can postulate any lunatic theorum and cover it under an avalanche of imaginary "data" based entirely on speculation and conjecture. Then of course any ignoramous will buy it because science said it was true.

It will almost certainly happen in our lifetimes (assuming you're under 50) that people create life starting with inorganic chemicals. Will that change your mind at all? Of course not. How could it, when your belief system wasn't founded on reason to begin with? And, as before, there are already interesting ideas for how the first life could have formed. You may not find them credible (and certainly none has compelling evidence yet), but they're not metaphysical. But even if there was credible ideas it wouldn't matter to you, really, would it? Of course not, just move them goalposts.

They are entirely metaphysical, ie taken on faith. Evolution and abiogenesis are not testable theories. The mechanism of natural selection is not proven, and cannot even begin to account for the complexity of life. These theories have been elevated as some sort of unquestionable absolute that dogmatic materialists (and undoubtably secular humanists) take on faith, while pointing to pseudo-scientific research as science fact. As if somehow the methodology of scientific inquiry was respresentitive of the limits of reality itself. As far as abiogenesis is concerned, what was once a marxist wet dream hasn't moved one inch away from the sad experiments conducted in the 60s when they electrocuted pea soup. The theories it was based on have been entirely falsified. Abiogenesis is dead in the water, literally, and just wishing it was true isn't going to make it happen.

I guess add probability and infinity to the list of things you have no idea about. In short, yes those monkeys would - and we could make detailed predictions about how long it would likely take to get a sonnet, a play, or the entire collection. It would take a very, very long time for that last one obviously, but it would happen. Want to dispute that? Don't tell me about it. Again, I can't be bothered to teach you things you aren't interested in learning. Idiot.

lol, your entire post is just riddled with ad homs and childish conclusions with no supporting evidence. You have failed to prove that you know anything what so ever..extended diatribes and assertions of knowledge a counter-argument does not make. The probability of any of that ever happening in the timeline of the Universe is null and void. The odds of anything as complicated as a cell or dna arising from random mutation is expodentially less. The mechanism is completely unproven. Much like your presumption of superior knowledge.

you want a more detailed treatment of all this related stuff, Dawkins has written books that are easy to understand (very "pop science" level) that go over all this very clearly. At least by reading a couple you'd understand the other side (which you clearly, clearly do not at this point).

But if you don't want to know, just keep getting your stupid information and talking points from wherever the hell you're getting them now and go back under your rock.

read dawkins? He may be a passable biologist, but beyond that, its completely amatuer hour. Now that I know where you are getting your information from, I can understand why you think that using personal attacks is a demonstration of intellect. Have you ever had an original thought in your life? Lets see you flex this intellectual muscle you are bragging about...

>> ^grinter:

It's not the strongest argument, but, for the sake of continuity, consider what the reaction of Sift omnivores would be if they were forced to slaughter their own meat. Even those claiming they feel no moral imperative to respect the suffering of other animals might wince just a bit as that calf calls for it's mother in its last moments of consciousness.


I'm sure at least a few sifters are also hunters or at the very least, anglers. Personally, I've never killed a farm animal, but I have caught and killed fish. I am morally comfortable with killing for food. Hell I'm comfortable with killing for a lot less than that and so are most people, including vegans. Or are they happy to live in a cockroach infested apartment or a termite/woodworm riddled house?

"Riddle later said she was referring to an isolated incident when she saw pornography on a lawmaker's cellphone."

All the women were sick of a hostile environment. This was the final straw.

>> ^gwiz665:

Yes, a baby nursing is porn. I see that now...
But seriously, is that picture the only thing that happened? How is that hateful, violent etc.? How is it an attack on women? I must be missing something.

http://www.lonestarreport.org/Home/tabid/38/EntryId/1185/Civil-Justice-League-suspends-Parsley-Roberts-over-flyer.aspx

I'll bet they are back in their jobs as soon as the furor dies down.

Some clarification on the final comment on the vid:

"Rep. Debbie Riddle, R-Tomball, then asked Thompson whether she thought a symptom of the disrespect toward women was the "pornography on the floor of this House." Riddle later said she was referring to an isolated incident when she saw pornography on a lawmaker's cellphone.

Read more: http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/05/26/3108058/lawmaker-blasts-sexism-in-texas.html#ixzz1NfDeyFcI"

Yeah, I'm not really surprised it wasn't to your taste, it's quite similar to another one you didn't like (but, at least took the time to comment on, and thank you )

I have posted one or two things which, although I'm not sure you will like, I'm not sure you would hate.

This one is a C64 demo (predecessor of the Amiga):
http://videosift.com/video/BOOZE-DESIGN-2008-EDGE-OF-DISGRACE-C64 (although actually I liked this other one more, posted by Croccydile - http://videosift.com/video/Commodore-64-Demo-Deus-Ex-Machina )

Finally, this one at least sounds different, since it has Reggae style steel drum - http://videosift.com/video/Mattafix-Angel
In reply to this comment by westy:
coming to a generic indi film near you.