"First of all, it's not special status that they are seeking; it's equal status. This will fit in nicely with the whole "I just don't see homosexuals are being seperate or different than anyone else, because they're not" thing."

They already have equal status. When they seek to separate themselves from everyone else by their lifestyle choices, they don't deserve special recognition. If you're going to do that, then you are going to reap consequences. This is a society that even wants to empower kids to be gay, and it's sad what happens to them. They don't know what is happening to them, or why. They're taught this is normal. Well, that much is right. Among humans sinning is very normal.

"Second, the rules that you are referring to come from the old testament. All of the stupid rules of the old testament, like cutting off your hand if it causes you to sin, were kind of like, you know, made fun of by this dude that began preaching around 30 C.E. He had some craaaaaazy ideas like loving your enemy, helping the poor, serving others, respecting women, paying taxes, and just generally being kind to every one even if they are mean to you. He also enjoyed just chilling with sinners. It was like, his favourite thing to do. His ideas were so radical that he was executed (to death) by close minded, selfish people, that thought that it was better to oppress people than treat them nice. "That Jesus dude will cause an uprising against us! Let's kill him!"

I find it incredibly ironic that it is the atheists that I know who actually live humble and caring lives that are closer to Jesus' teachings than the so called Christians who are only selfish beings, interested in what Jesus can do for them, i.e. granting them eternal life."


Hey captain, why don't you leave bible interpertation to the experts. No, it's not just the OT that lays down the rules about homosexuality. The NT has them too. It's a good idea to be well versed in something before you correct someone who is well versed in something. And this pathetic image of Jesus running around with the sinners saying "Hey, it's all alright man", this is the filter of someone who has no idea what is in the bible or what it means.

Come on, anyone who puts humble and atheist in the same sentence can't think anyone is going to take them seriously. Seriously, if we were to pop some of these egos here you'd be in danger of creating a sonic boom. I find it amusing that atheists like to say they are all great happy loving people who actually do more good works than the average Christian does. LOL This must be your non-neckbearded internet dwelling variety. Not at all the bitter, purile, egotists who love to trash believers at any opportunity that I've experienced. I'm sorry but atheists are terrible people. Immoral, selfish and apathetic to a T. Violent and angry too. Atheists are usually the worst kind of people you could imagine.

>> ^Gallowflak:

>> ^Matthu:
I don't know how you people sleep at night.
I guess it's easy for a lot of you to pretend you don't see what your government is doing in your name.
It's crazy. You're all committing crimes against humanity by proxy.

Comments like this are so fucking obnoxious. Yes, there are serious problems, yes, people have become incredibly apathetic and sociopathic and yes, culture is more and more nihilistic, but how dare you pretend you've the moral authority to indict an entire people for the crimes of their government?


You're absolutely right. I am no moral authority. But I can freely put forth my opinion.

And my opinion is that the vast majority of Americans fucking know better. And if you know what your government is doing, you are morally obligated to get in the streets and scream.

So yes, it ain't my business, and it's probably obnoxious as hell to have an outsider throw your dirty shit stained laundry in your face, but maybe ya'll need to be shamed into some fucking action.

@Gallowflak Not trying to be an asshole, but enough is enough...

>> ^Matthu:

I don't know how you people sleep at night.
I guess it's easy for a lot of you to pretend you don't see what your government is doing in your name.
It's crazy. You're all committing crimes against humanity by proxy.


Comments like this are so fucking obnoxious. Yes, there are serious problems, yes, people have become incredibly apathetic and sociopathic and yes, culture is more and more nihilistic, but how dare you pretend you've the moral authority to indict an entire people for the crimes of their government?

>> ^NetRunner:

So what's your real beef with me?


You and DFT (just in this thread alone) have defined my anti-war position as a "sport" and a "game". You've spun being against military aggression and interventionism to mean I'm apathetic to life-loss or I'm stroking my own ego. Or that this is somewhat about pitting Democrats against one another. All baseless red herrings.

You've both taken disingenuous and sanctimonious positions of morality when your party supports acts of war, and belittle and browbeat anyone who scrutinizes it.

I especially love how DFT spun Obama's acts of war into something completely ridiculous about Milton Friedman. It's amazing what you two think you can get away with.

Swallow your propaganda whole do you?
>> ^quantumushroom:

the USA is the only nation in the world that is also a moral force for good. We are forced into the role of World Policeman by an admixture of hostile, backward nations and apathetic, do-nothing, spineless First World nations who pretend not to know better.

You're giving Obama too much credit. The left claims he's a puppet doing the bidding of the military-industrial blah blah, but it's apparent that any "president" LESS decisive than the fking UN is a fraud. Obama's only real wars are on the Constitution and American Exceptionalism.

Not to oversimplify, but fk it, I will anyway: the USA is the only nation in the world that is also a moral force for good. We are forced into the role of World Policeman by an admixture of hostile, backward nations and apathetic, do-nothing, spineless First World nations who pretend not to know better.

Gaddafi's a POS, but as in Egypt, keeping muslims from taking over more governments trumps the antics of puppet dictators.

>> ^draak13:

People make stupid comments all the time. Whether or not it was intended, this thread was essentially trolled off-topic with enormous rants about religion vs. atheism. Instead of going on forever about it, why not pay as much attention to it as it deserves? Immediately after the religious posting, Enoch magnificently addressed and concluded that religion doesn't consistently shape behavior nearly as much as good parenting in just 1 post. Of course the religious faction is going to reply back; their religion is a strong component of their identity. Just don't mind it and continue the thread forward.
If it's possible to salvage this thread at all, we were actually talking about how behavioral shaping comes most strongly in 2 forms revealed so far:
1) Mass showing of materials which help instill understanding of people who are very different from normal in some way, with sincere discussion (such as dealing with bullying the gay or mentally retarded individuals)
2) Parenting, to ensure that children hold strong values about understanding each other and treating each other well.
Are there any other interesting ideas to add to the list? Also, point 2 is huge; how do you get more parents to parent better?


I think 2) is in fact overrated. Most of a child's development nowadays comes from social interactions at school and in their neighborhood. Judith Harris expounded on this in her book, The Nurture Assumption. Parents have the most impact on their child's early development, before they can socialize on their own. In that small period of time, you can develop a child's intellectual potential, but the moral character, if not already determined or strongly limited by genetics, will be molded by future social interactions. Of course, parents are included in these social interactions, but their influence will be much diluted, especially compared to the school authority figures, the real authority in a school kid's life (they can make life miserable for them both at school and at home, by telling the parents).

So, as the saying goes in Africa, it takes a village to raise a child. Again, something known in the time of the ancient Greeks. Even Plato admitted this, although he tried to bring religion in, hence why he wasn't taken seriously. In this perspective, 1) should be an integral part of society's behavior at large, not just in videos. Although of course videos can have a pregnant effect on a child's mind and act as a surrogate to real life examples. The problem arises when those children are let go after school: they see that real life is not like the videos. They can then try to change the real world, become apathetic or worse, become cynical. And this is what is wrong with preaching: the hypocrisy of the "do as I say not as I do".

To prevent this, you have to teach intellectual self-defense at the same time as the reasons why behavior as shown in the videos is more desirable than behavior seen in real life. This would be hard for even philosophers to do, not to mention underpaid elementary school teachers. In our philosophy department here, there is a minor in "philosophy of children". It has nothing to do with describing the essence of children, but more with how to talk about philosophy with children: how to approach concepts in general and how to touch difficult subject matters. Still, the goal is not for the philosopher to teach children about moral/ethics, but to teach how to think about such things.

So, as a parent be a good role model and teach your child how to fish (think) instead of just giving him fish (preaching). For example, instead of trying to always be the best you can be around your child, be yourself. And when you fail to uphold a principle or whatever, instead of giving excuses be frank and explain why people sometimes fail even if they start with the best of intentions. The important thing is not that you be the best today, but that you be better tomorrow.

Also, never think you can shield your child from anything. Better it be you that show him the ugly things than he finds out by himself or through friends/society. That way you can explain and answer his questions. So: sex, drugs, violence and death education at a very young age repeated at various times to ingrain the facts (not the moral preaching). No need to be hands-on of course! Don't want you all to go rape and kill your children or something.

This is as much as you can do, I think, to "protect" or "arm" your children against society's more nefarious influences without resorting to indoctrination or physical confinement (although these last two options sound more like blinding and amputating than protecting really). If all children were educated like this, we may not get a perfect society (the genes!), but at least it should be a better society and certainly a more honest and open one.

honestly, i love this shit. and glen beck.
right wing nut jobs are the cure for what ails the apathetic center

I don't disagree with some of what you've written, but there are very real differences between the two parties, enough to matter at election time.



em>>> ^criticalthud:

umm..
QM, who pays for the ads on tv? large multinational corporations or mom and pop bakeries?
Now, I'm not saying that large multinationals don't contribute to democrats, they do, as dems are sucking hard on the corporate tit too, ...and since when has either party been "of" the people? Our political system responds primarily to the top 5% in this country,...the rest of us get the bill.
The top 5% make policy
the top 5% pay far less (percentage wise) in taxes, straight up, or through loopholes and tax shelters.
the top 5% control the media
relentless brainwashing is pretty much anything on tv - making you a good, flag waving, upstanding, apathetic consumer. economic slaves that are suckered by their never ending search for security and material possession. You have been socialized to be a consumer who is afraid to question your government.
the institution of slavery was replaced by the institution of debt...wrapped up in red, white, and blue.
you and i are probably very close in what we think is good for this country. the difference is that i'm pretty fucking aware there is hardly one ass-bag in congress that actually has the people's interests at heart.
the best slave is the one who doesn't realize he's a slave.
the idea of liberal vs. right wingers, at least as far as the people are concerned, is like a magician's distraction, done through propaganda to make us all less aware that we're being royally fucked in the ass.

umm..
QM, who pays for the ads on tv? large multinational corporations or mom and pop bakeries?
Now, I'm not saying that large multinationals don't contribute to democrats, they do, as dems are sucking hard on the corporate tit too, ...and since when has either party been "of" the people? Our political system responds primarily to the top 5% in this country,...the rest of us get the bill.
The top 5% make policy
the top 5% pay far less (percentage wise) in taxes, straight up, or through loopholes and tax shelters.
the top 5% control the media

relentless brainwashing is pretty much anything on tv - making you a good, flag waving, upstanding, apathetic consumer. economic slaves that are suckered by their never ending search for security and material possession. You have been socialized to be a consumer who is afraid to question your government.
the institution of slavery was replaced by the institution of debt...wrapped up in red, white, and blue.

you and i are probably very close in what we think is good for this country. the difference is that i'm pretty fucking aware there is hardly one ass-bag in congress that actually has the people's interests at heart.
the best slave is the one who doesn't realize he's a slave.

the idea of liberal vs. right wingers, at least as far as the people are concerned, is like a magician's distraction, done through propaganda to make us all less aware that we're being royally fucked in the ass.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Corruption is the grease of democracy, and taxocrats are some of the biggest recipients of Wall Street money.
Here's why not to worry about it: when revolutionaries take over, they turn into the exact types they overthrew. It's a constant of history.


You can't spell apathetic without 'pathetic'... ; )

SD, congrats, I thought it'd be a given that words can have more than one meaning. I specifically said common usage for a reason, as in, the meaning the average person would be most likely to derive from the word. Keep playing semantic games to push this retarded narrative of yours. I just figured you could be more precise when describing other people's intent instead of lazily tossing around generalized blanket terms which end up meaning different things for different people. By your own definition, any one person who is not some apathetic nihilist, who has any interest in shaping the future of the world in the human marketplace of ideas (I hate using that phrase but it is apt) is basically a "militant".

MLK, to use your flawed example in a previous argument, was one militant motherfucker for daring to change the status quo and it's unsurprising that there were people like you, not racists, just tone trolls, saying the exact same thing.

Here's a good word, secularist. Was that so hard? Put "atheist" in front of that and at least you have something accurate. Expressing a personal desire to see religion gone and supposedly attempting to destroy it on those grounds are two different things. The New Atheists are of the former; they think it has no place in governance or science. New Atheism was a label foisted upon them by the media that ended up sticking, it was never something they came up with, there's nothing new about their form of atheism as they have all but given up exasperatedly trying to say so and disown the label. They think people should be free to practice religion in private and certainly want people to be educated about them in schools, via comparative religion. The fact that I even have to mention this just shows how uneducated you are on their positions. Out of context quote-mining is worthless when they have expanded on what they actually mean by those quotes in exhaustive detail to AVOID the very confusion you are trying your very hardest to sow. They are actively trying to minimize its status through education, not outright destroy it.

It's pretty clear to me what your intent is. You're trying to smear any atheist who dares not keep it to him/her self. You're too worried about atheists merely speaking out, yet I hear nothing from you about the vastly disproportionate amount of influence and entanglement religion (a bunch of imaginary ideas with no basis in reality used to control, kill, and enslave people for thousands of years) has in society and politics right now, fucking up my country in the process. Where's your indignation when it comes to that? Oh, but BOOHOO, we're sooooo militant. Give me a fucking break.

I'm not replying here to sway anyone through pleasant-sounding yet essentially hollow rhetoric, just to correct your nonsense.

I agree with everything said. I just want to know what the difference between a "war criminal" is and a man who makes "rape/aids camps" and "gasses jews" and such, and what George Bush is? He is classified exactly the same as those, "war cimimals," so what is the difference?

(And yes, he is classifed in the exact same way... So even if you do not classify him that way, you do purport the same information...)

>> ^radx:
The Institute for Public Accuracy published a comment, co-signed by Daniel Ellsberg, on the current WikiLeaks situation and quoted this Pravda article, a quote I'd like to copy:

What WikiLeaks has done is make people understand why so many Americans are politically apathetic … After all, the evils committed by those in power can be suffocating, and the sense of powerlessness that erupts can be paralyzing, especially when … government evildoers almost always get away with their crimes. …
So shame on Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and all those who spew platitudes about integrity, justice and accountability while allowing war criminals and torturers to walk freely upon the earth. … the American people should be outraged that their government has transformed a nation with a reputation for freedom, justice, tolerance and respect for human rights into a backwater that revels in its criminality, cover-ups, injustices and hypocrisies.

Being an asshole isn't criminal. If it was, everyone else you just referenced would also be eligible for arrest.
>> ^peggedbea:

right, so rape charges are bullshit. however, refusing to talk these women after he slept with him about the possiblity that he gave one of them an STD - if thats the actual story - makes him an asshole.
also, so far he's leaked that things don't shock americans. we expect that our military is gunning down civilians, and are rather apathetic to it. we expect to get dicked over financially, and are rather apathetic to it. the embassy cables, while hilarious and ironic, were also not shocking. americans either don't know who robert mugabe is, and if they do, they already knew he was the devil. we suspected that merkel was unimaginative and of course we think the iranian government is pure evil
I've lost faith in Assange. i suspect there is some explosive truth to be told in the files he's using as leverage. Maybe I'm just imagining it and maybe I'm too optimistic about the power of information, but I'm sure theres some pretty explosive stuff about BP and the banks that americans actually do care about right now and truths we deserve to know. But he's holding on to anything consequential to american politics (i'm sure the other stuff effects global politics, but americans dont actually care about that) to save himself. If you want to expose what self-serving, bought pricks america's political and corporate leaders are, and share truths that need to be told, why waste time and clout on embassy cables? Why not expose exactly how oil and banks are fucking us in the ass while giving reach-a-rounds to our politicians?
So, basically, I like leaking information and all that. But I'm pretty sure Assange is an egomaniac.
>> ^notarobot:
"The two Swedish women who accuse WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange of sexual misconduct were at first not seeking to bring charges against him. They just wanted to track him down and persuade him to be tested for sexually transmitted diseases, according to several people in contact with his entourage at the time."
(via The Guardian.)

I felt that way a few years back, but recently I've become very cynical. It's true that we have access to more information, but I don't see it being used to make things better.

Big business has never had more control over our government than it does right now. Income inequity has never been worse than it is right now. The population is booming, while corporations are automating and laying off workers, sending jobs to third world nations. It's a race to the bottom.

We are too comfortable and apathetic to make the changes needed. I'm very passionate in my beliefs, but I really don't do shit to change this world, other than argue with people on a very cool, but relatively small website. I can't really even think of anything I could do that would have any kind of impact at all. I feel powerless.

We are going to have to wait for some catastrophic event to force us into making changes. Global Famine? Economic collapse? Complete breakdown of society? Meteor? Nuclear holocaust? Global Climate change? I don't know. And if some catastrophic event does occur, there is no guarantee things will change for the better. The powerful have always been good at turning tragedy into capital.

If I didn't have hope, I wouldn't be typing this, but the older I get, the more I feel like the old donkey in Animal Farm.