Originally posted by zeyth First I'll start off with a negative negative makes a positive, and thus you have stated that I have read your post, which I did. Second I'll re-state my previous statement, since you haven't commented it at all: My statement was based upon the five (or six) realms of buddhism. Naraka (Translated as hells) Animals (who share space with humans, but are another kind of life (Nirvana thingie) Pretas Humans (Asuras (Inside brackets, as this realm ain't recognized by all schools of buddhism)) Devas (Often translated as gods) Now, if I am not wrong this makes 3 (or 4) worlds. Since pretas interact with humans, I place them in the same world as humans, this may or may not be right. So you have the hell world. The earth world (or whatever to call it) (The lower deity world) And the world of Devas (gods). Now, from this, we can derive that the gods do not interact with humans, and that hell-beings do not ineract with humans. (I also put lower gods into this non-interact.) Thus we have animals, and humans and pretas (which I couldn't quite understand what are) in one world. Of course, a human can be reborn as a deity etc. etc. Or a pig a deity, since a human can be reborn a pig. Gods cannot interact with humans, nor vice versa. Thus you don't believe in gods. But the realm is in buddhism, and thus gods are in buddhism.
Besides it's a discussion, not a link-a-page contest. Make your own statement, or don't bother.
I won't comment on the insane philosophy, people always seem to take it the wrong way (woo woo).
But seriously, links are appreciated, because outside sources are by definition the only way to prove factual statements on the internet. I can make a convincing argument based on the 'fact' of bacterial life on mars, but I better damn well have a link to show that there actually IS bacterial life on Mars, capiche?
Baterial life on mars???
You've never heard of mars-pigs??
Okay, onto seriousness: I couldn't understand your first sentence.
And yes, outside sources is probably a good idea.
However, you're also supposed to argument yourself too, which you have failed to do so far.
You've just stated something, and linked to something, which said naught on the actual matter.
In fact it confirmed what I said, that gods ain't believed in, as they are in many religions, but that they are believed to exist nonetheless.
Premise;Argument;Backup argument;Argument for argument;Conclusion;Optionaly outside sources supporting your conclusion and argument.
"Because frankly you decided to take up the mantra and normally I honestly don't pay too much attention to who posted what. If you don't hold that opinion, sorry for confusing you with another person. I normallydon't do these childish personal crusades, but if someone is banging on your door with a torch..."
Ha, ta, ta, ta
That is a Double Standard. Calling someone else a liar, while a pass is given to one's self. That invalidates your claim.
And I would like to thank you for making it known that you do not care who posts what. It shows much of your personality here.
"Um, you asked me about the credibility of a website. I do science, not blogs. Looked like a giant pile of advertising mumbo-jumbo to me. Is there some actual facts there? I'm sure there's probably a few."
Don't do blogs... rriigghhtt. Whatever you say chief.
"Also, I don't play 20 questions."
I know, you like giving them.
"This 'before I go further' nonsense is just silly. State your point or don't state your point (I bumped the thread, just for you)."
Superficial and impulsive, interesting package you got there.
Some one needs to bone up on their patience and communicative skills and learn about clarification and probing. And yes I do see you bumped the thread without answering, not even a copy and paste. But still, you may get yourself a cookie.
"Now, do you want to discuss your evidence for a 'soul' of which you have none? Or your evidence that prayer is anything more than a way of making yourself feel useful in situations where you're actually useless, a way for people to give themselves an illusion of control."
So certain you are.
But when dealing with a superficial persona, hard to make reason with.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
In the shortest form, a Flat Tax is a form of tax in which all citizens would pay the same rate of tax; for example 10% income tax for everyone to pay, no matter what level of income or family size.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
This is one of those odd news stories that you don't come across every day.
And a disclaimer, my posting of this article is not of supporting a ban of marriage or that homosexuals are violent people, or anything to that effect. This is simply a news article of one of those rare cases in which a Lesbian murders another Lesbian.
Huff Post writer stabs lesbian lover 222 times
Posted: October 30, 2008
A freelance election reporter for the Huffington Post fatally shot herself after stabbing her lesbian lover 222 times with a screwdriver and stuffing the body in the back seat of the victim's BMW, authorities say.
Carol Anne Burger, 57, an award-winning photojournalist and regular contributor to the website, reported on the election from their home in Florida. She had experienced an upsetting breakup with software executive Jessica Kalish, 56, a woman whom she had married in Massachusetts, the Palm Beach Post reported. The partners were planning to divide their assets, including the home they still shared, after splitting last year. Kalish had met another woman and frequently went on dates with her.
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
"Because frankly you decided to take up the mantra and normally I honestly don't pay too much attention to who posted what. If you don't hold that opinion, sorry for confusing you with another person. I normallydon't do these childish personal crusades, but if someone is banging on your door with a torch..."
Ha, ta, ta, ta
That is a Double Standard. Calling someone else a liar, while a pass is given to one's self. That invalidates your claim.
And I would like to thank you for making it known that you do not care who posts what. It shows much of your personality here.
That I focus on the information posted and not the person behind it? Well the fact that you think this says a lot about me does explain why you've turned attacking me into a personal vendetta. By challenging your ideas I am NOT challenging you. This honestly seems like a maturity issue. Your ideas are not yourself - you personally are not attacked when the positions you espouse are questioned.
"Um, you asked me about the credibility of a website. I do science, not blogs. Looked like a giant pile of advertising mumbo-jumbo to me. Is there some actual facts there? I'm sure there's probably a few."
Don't do blogs... rriigghhtt. Whatever you say chief.
Okay, I doubt we'll see any information on Global warming in the thread. Did bump it for you, done discussing it here. Your question had nothing to do with Global Warming, at all, in the least. So post what you have to say, or don't. Period.
"Now, do you want to discuss your evidence for a 'soul' of which you have none? Or your evidence that prayer is anything more than a way of making yourself feel useful in situations where you're actually useless, a way for people to give themselves an illusion of control."
So certain you are.
But when dealing with a superficial persona, hard to make reason with.
Right, no evidence, but I'm supposed to accept that there's a single logical reason to believe it exists? I don't believe in UFOs, Unicorns, or Souls. They all seem the same to me - nonsense that might make us feel good to believe in, but which just does not exist.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
There is a real simple answer to this whole issue.
Get the government out of the business of recognizing one marriage over another. Ever since our government instigated a tax system on the people it has become nothing but a tool of manipulation, division, and invasion of privacy.
Stop with the crazy prying through the use of our tax system. Quit with the benefits of one group over another. The people in America have grown so accustomed to taxation that they can't even think of another system of government income anymore. Even in the midst of all the things the government does wrong to us and the evils that it puts upon the people, American's have learned that as long as they are in the majority then they are safe.
But this country was not designed to favor the majority or the minority. Our system was one intended upon equal rights and justice for the INDIVIDUAL. It was a nation born out of unequal treatment in our beginning history and we've forgotten about that.
You give the people a chance to vote on an issue, and you're going to find that the mob rules mentality will set in every time. And you want to tell me how much gay rights will hurt America? I counter that by saying that it will not hurt America nearly as much as putting the future of this nation in the hands of a majority rules vote on these types of things.
WE are all a part of America. Each American deserves to have their own self determination outside of the realm of government influence. It's something that we were founded on and that's what is causing us so much hurt right now. We are a confused people when we hear "land of the free and the home of the brave" yet see the reality of what we are all around us. We have become a nation of weak minded followers with no courage or will to do what is needed to protect our individual freedoms. We are subjects that are told how afraid we should be and we have bought into the fear mongering.
Individual freedoms requires bravery. It requires that we let others live their own lives instead of fearing that someone might do something to cause us discomfort in our personal beliefs. But what we don't understand anymore is that personal beliefs are gone when we turn to the government to force behavior on to others.
It is not a respect for personal freedoms to turn and take another groups away. Grow some nuts, live your own damn lives, and leave others to live theirs. It takes a coward to force the world to act how you would like it to.
You don't like gay people, then fine. I would imagine they don't like you either. But that is an opinion. You take it to a personal level when you start forcing the government on their backs. I don't care who the person is, you start pushing your will on them by using the government and you are my enemy. I don't care if it is someone I disagree with 180 degrees, I will defend their right to be who they want to be with equal regard by the government. And that regard to me means get the hell out of mine and others lives.
Independence means not being under the control of others. We celebrate Independence Day because of our breaking free of a tyrannical system. We celebrate it as a cry for the individual as well. Yet, lately we don't give a damn about independence. We only seek control as a group. F*ck that! Get the hell out my life and others lives. Go live your own life and leave everyone else alone. You want a strong nation, then that's what it takes.
I don't care if your a hate filled redneck hick religious neo-Con or a big government socialist liberty hating liberal. Both of these parties are my enemy right now. Take your nosey control seeking asses somewhere else.
In the shortest form, a Flat Tax is a form of tax in which all citizens would pay the same rate of tax; for example 10% income tax for everyone to pay, no matter what level of income or family size.
That'd be fair, when using with "different kinds of people" (nationality, gender, sexuality, intelligence, body, whatever).
Although I'd think poor people should pay a lesser part of their taxes than a rich person.
Do I mean a huge percentage in difference? No.
After all (most) rich people have worked their way up there, and thus partly deserve it.
The poor people don't got as much money, and thus really need what they have.
I'd think that the tax should then range from 5% to 15% depending on income.
I have a honest question to everyone that is an "esteemed follower" of the original promise of this nation of ours, it's forefathers, and the laws of the land that governed the people.(This is really only speaking to those of the aforementioned belief, but also are pro gay-rights).
You are aware that the laws of the United States in most if not all states back then, there was a minimum punishment of imprisonement, and a maximum punishment of execution, for homosexuals, right?
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
"If a mother can kill her own child, what is left before I kill you and you kill me?" -Mother Teresa when talking about abortion after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979
"Because frankly you decided to take up the mantra and normally I honestly don't pay too much attention to who posted what. If you don't hold that opinion, sorry for confusing you with another person. I normallydon't do these childish personal crusades, but if someone is banging on your door with a torch..."
Ha, ta, ta, ta
That is a Double Standard. Calling someone else a liar, while a pass is given to one's self. That invalidates your claim.
And I would like to thank you for making it known that you do not care who posts what. It shows much of your personality here.
That I focus on the information posted and not the person behind it? Well the fact that you think this says a lot about me does explain why you've turned attacking me into a personal vendetta. By challenging your ideas I am NOT challenging you. This honestly seems like a maturity issue. Your ideas are not yourself - you personally are not attacked when the positions you espouse are questioned.
"Um, you asked me about the credibility of a website. I do science, not blogs. Looked like a giant pile of advertising mumbo-jumbo to me. Is there some actual facts there? I'm sure there's probably a few."
Don't do blogs... rriigghhtt. Whatever you say chief.
Okay, I doubt we'll see any information on Global warming in the thread. Did bump it for you, done discussing it here. Your question had nothing to do with Global Warming, at all, in the least. So post what you have to say, or don't. Period.
"Now, do you want to discuss your evidence for a 'soul' of which you have none? Or your evidence that prayer is anything more than a way of making yourself feel useful in situations where you're actually useless, a way for people to give themselves an illusion of control."
So certain you are.
But when dealing with a superficial persona, hard to make reason with.
Right, no evidence, but I'm supposed to accept that there's a single logical reason to believe it exists? I don't believe in UFOs, Unicorns, or Souls. They all seem the same to me - nonsense that might make us feel good to believe in, but which just does not exist.
UFOs exist.
First of, I'll start saying that an UFO ain't a machine built by aliens, but rather an unidentified flying object. Thus anything in the sky we see and cannot explain, at the moment, is an UFO, be it a light, an object or something else entirely.
Using a common phrase and some math I can also prove that aliens exist ^^
Common phrase: The universe is infinite.
Proof about the common phrase: I've seen it stated by scientific thingies before. The reason for the infiniteness stated differs, but it was still stated that it was infinite.
We also know that life is a rare thing. It doesn't pop up everywhere.
We'd then have a formula kinda like:
0,00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 (You get the idea) * infinite (I dunno how to post that sleeping 8) = infinite.
Thus aliens exist.
Whether they do act as many people say and such (abducting and visiting and a bunch of other thingies,) that's another question entirely.
"Because frankly you decided to take up the mantra and normally I honestly don't pay too much attention to who posted what. If you don't hold that opinion, sorry for confusing you with another person. I normallydon't do these childish personal crusades, but if someone is banging on your door with a torch..."
Ha, ta, ta, ta
That is a Double Standard. Calling someone else a liar, while a pass is given to one's self. That invalidates your claim.
And I would like to thank you for making it known that you do not care who posts what. It shows much of your personality here.
That I focus on the information posted and not the person behind it? Well the fact that you think this says a lot about me does explain why you've turned attacking me into a personal vendetta. By challenging your ideas I am NOT challenging you. This honestly seems like a maturity issue. Your ideas are not yourself - you personally are not attacked when the positions you espouse are questioned.
"Um, you asked me about the credibility of a website. I do science, not blogs. Looked like a giant pile of advertising mumbo-jumbo to me. Is there some actual facts there? I'm sure there's probably a few."
Don't do blogs... rriigghhtt. Whatever you say chief.
Okay, I doubt we'll see any information on Global warming in the thread. Did bump it for you, done discussing it here. Your question had nothing to do with Global Warming, at all, in the least. So post what you have to say, or don't. Period.
"Now, do you want to discuss your evidence for a 'soul' of which you have none? Or your evidence that prayer is anything more than a way of making yourself feel useful in situations where you're actually useless, a way for people to give themselves an illusion of control."
So certain you are.
But when dealing with a superficial persona, hard to make reason with.
Right, no evidence, but I'm supposed to accept that there's a single logical reason to believe it exists? I don't believe in UFOs, Unicorns, or Souls. They all seem the same to me - nonsense that might make us feel good to believe in, but which just does not exist.
UFOs exist.
First of, I'll start saying that an UFO ain't a machine built by aliens, but rather an unidentified flying object. Thus anything in the sky we see and cannot explain, at the moment, is an UFO, be it a light, an object or something else entirely.
Using a common phrase and some math I can also prove that aliens exist ^^
Common phrase: The universe is infinite.
Proof about the common phrase: I've seen it stated by scientific thingies before. The reason for the infiniteness stated differs, but it was still stated that it was infinite.
We also know that life is a rare thing. It doesn't pop up everywhere.
We'd then have a formula kinda like:
0,00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 (You get the idea) * infinite (I dunno how to post that sleeping 8) = infinite.
Thus aliens exist.
Whether they do act as many people say and such (abducting and visiting and a bunch of other thingies,) that's another question entirely.
If the universe is infinite, it would contradict many believed theories. It also would call for an outside force that does not follow normal physics.
Infinite is a very meta-physical term when thought about. It breeches the very fabrics of our mind and assaults us with incomprehensible thoughts for we are finite beings.
No idea if the universe is infinite or not though. Honestly I think it's too big for any person to ever really though. The fact that we can even measure amounts of space in gigaparsecs(To give an idea of that size is about 3.26 billion light years) sure makes that a possibility.
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
"If a mother can kill her own child, what is left before I kill you and you kill me?" -Mother Teresa when talking about abortion after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979
"Because frankly you decided to take up the mantra and normally I honestly don't pay too much attention to who posted what. If you don't hold that opinion, sorry for confusing you with another person. I normallydon't do these childish personal crusades, but if someone is banging on your door with a torch..."
Ha, ta, ta, ta
That is a Double Standard. Calling someone else a liar, while a pass is given to one's self. That invalidates your claim.
And I would like to thank you for making it known that you do not care who posts what. It shows much of your personality here.
That I focus on the information posted and not the person behind it? Well the fact that you think this says a lot about me does explain why you've turned attacking me into a personal vendetta. By challenging your ideas I am NOT challenging you. This honestly seems like a maturity issue. Your ideas are not yourself - you personally are not attacked when the positions you espouse are questioned.
"Um, you asked me about the credibility of a website. I do science, not blogs. Looked like a giant pile of advertising mumbo-jumbo to me. Is there some actual facts there? I'm sure there's probably a few."
Don't do blogs... rriigghhtt. Whatever you say chief.
Okay, I doubt we'll see any information on Global warming in the thread. Did bump it for you, done discussing it here. Your question had nothing to do with Global Warming, at all, in the least. So post what you have to say, or don't. Period.
"Now, do you want to discuss your evidence for a 'soul' of which you have none? Or your evidence that prayer is anything more than a way of making yourself feel useful in situations where you're actually useless, a way for people to give themselves an illusion of control."
So certain you are.
But when dealing with a superficial persona, hard to make reason with.
Right, no evidence, but I'm supposed to accept that there's a single logical reason to believe it exists? I don't believe in UFOs, Unicorns, or Souls. They all seem the same to me - nonsense that might make us feel good to believe in, but which just does not exist.
UFOs exist.
First of, I'll start saying that an UFO ain't a machine built by aliens, but rather an unidentified flying object. Thus anything in the sky we see and cannot explain, at the moment, is an UFO, be it a light, an object or something else entirely.
Using a common phrase and some math I can also prove that aliens exist ^^
Common phrase: The universe is infinite.
Proof about the common phrase: I've seen it stated by scientific thingies before. The reason for the infiniteness stated differs, but it was still stated that it was infinite.
We also know that life is a rare thing. It doesn't pop up everywhere.
We'd then have a formula kinda like:
0,00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 (You get the idea) * infinite (I dunno how to post that sleeping 8) = infinite.
Thus aliens exist.
Whether they do act as many people say and such (abducting and visiting and a bunch of other thingies,) that's another question entirely.
If the universe is infinite, it would contradict many believed theories. It also would call for an outside force that does not follow normal physics.
Infinite is a very meta-physical term when thought about. It breeches the very fabrics of our mind and assaults us with incomprehensible thoughts for we are finite beings.
No idea if the universe is infinite or not though. Honestly I think it's too big for any person to ever really though. The fact that we can even measure amounts of space in gigaparsecs(To give an idea of that size is about 3.26 billion light years) sure makes that a possibility.
IT's a quite common phrase to use.
(The infinite one.)
The theory I deem to make most sense is one that said something like:
The universe is finite, but, since the results of the big bang still continues, the universe is always expanding, and thus unmeasureable as a whole, and thus it might be called infinite.
Originally posted by zeyth UFOs exist. First of, I'll start saying that an UFO ain't a machine built by aliens, but rather an unidentified flying object. Thus anything in the sky we see and cannot explain, at the moment, is an UFO, be it a light, an object or something else entirely. Well yes. That's why the Air Force created a Blue Book on them - they figured the only sign of something like the U2 Spy Plane would be random sightings - those things are damn close to radar invisibile. Using a common phrase and some math I can also prove that aliens exist ^^ Common phrase: The universe is infinite. Proof about the common phrase: I've seen it stated by scientific thingies before. The reason for the infiniteness stated differs, but it was still stated that it was infinite. We also know that life is a rare thing. It doesn't pop up everywhere. We'd then have a formula kinda like: 0,00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 (You get the idea) * infinite (I dunno how to post that sleeping 8) = infinite. Thus aliens exist. Whether they do act as many people say and such (abducting and visiting and a bunch of other thingies,) that's another question entirely.
Well duh. However they are not on our planet. They probably never will be.
Now if you're suggesting the chances of God's existence are similar to the chances that UFOs are aliens on Earth, then I'd tend to agree.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
Well duh. However they are not on our planet. They probably never will be.
Technology has, so far, always been going forward.
If we thus choose to set the value of the technology high enough at any given time to evade threats such as meteors, and the sun and a bunch of other stuff, we would, given enough time, be able to travel to other planets. Other planets with life. Now if you're suggesting the chances of God's existence are similar to the chances that UFOs are aliens on Earth, then I'd tend to agree. There are no logical or physical evidence of a god at all, while there are physical and logical evidence of life. Thus the chances for a god (or a bunch of 'em) would be far lower than aliens on Earth, concluding from evidence. If you had the technology to traverse space in such a manner, it would also be logical to conclude that you could also stay hidden from sight unless you wanted to expose yourself. That aliens are small green slime men, is however, quite a hilarious statement.
Technology has, so far, always been going forward.
If we thus choose to set the value of the technology high enough at any given time to evade threats such as meteors, and the sun and a bunch of other stuff, we would, given enough time, be able to travel to other planets. Other planets with life. There are no logical or physical evidence of a god at all, while there are physical and logical evidence of life. Thus the chances for a god (or a bunch of 'em) would be far lower than aliens on Earth, concluding from evidence. If you had the technology to traverse space in such a manner, it would also be logical to conclude that you could also stay hidden from sight unless you wanted to expose yourself. That aliens are small green slime men, is however, quite a hilarious statement.
This is not necessarily the case. If we posit that the logical extension of our computing capacity is a Matrioshka Brain, there is every chance that exploration would simply not be as big of a priority as it might otherwise be. After all, the population capacity of a Matrioshka brain is trillions, at the very least.
This would very neatly explain why we've never particularly been visited by any physical explorers. Or at least detected any. Frankly, dragging along physical bodies when hopping star systems is a complete waste of valuable resources. And as for having any interest in 'settling' our planet, their native habitat would be computronium, and our star system is probably not especially suited for producing it, if they felt like settling.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
This is not necessarily the case. If we posit that the logical extension of our computing capacity is a Matrioshka Brain, there is every chance that exploration would simply not be as big of a priority as it might otherwise be. After all, the population capacity of a Matrioshka brain is trillions, at the very least.
This would very neatly explain why we've never particularly been visited by any physical explorers. Or at least detected any. Frankly, dragging along physical bodies when hopping star systems is a complete waste of valuable resources. And as for having any interest in 'settling' our planet, their native habitat would be computronium, and our star system is probably not especially suited for producing it, if they felt like settling. Is a matrioshka brain a huge compuiter fueled with a star? If so, I don't see the relevance. May you please explain this brain of yours? What is not the case? That you'd be able to traverse spcace? Yes it'd be the case. Whether you'd actually do it has no relevance for the possibility.
replying to the actual topic of this thread. Yes everyone in the united states should have freedom and the persuit of happiness. I thought we all knew that.
There is a real simple answer to this whole issue.
Get the government out of the business of recognizing one marriage over another. Ever since our government instigated a tax system on the people it has become nothing but a tool of manipulation, division, and invasion of privacy. Stop with the crazy prying through the use of our tax system. Quit with the benefits of one group over another. The people in America have grown so accustomed to taxation that they can't even think of another system of government income anymore. Even in the midst of all the things the government does wrong to us and the evils that it puts upon the people, American's have learned that as long as they are in the majority then they are safe. But this country was not designed to favor the majority or the minority. Our system was one intended upon equal rights and justice for the INDIVIDUAL. It was a nation born out of unequal treatment in our beginning history and we've forgotten about that. You give the people a chance to vote on an issue, and you're going to find that the mob rules mentality will set in every time. And you want to tell me how much gay rights will hurt America? I counter that by saying that it will not hurt America nearly as much as putting the future of this nation in the hands of a majority rules vote on these types of things. WE are all a part of America. Each American deserves to have their own self determination outside of the realm of government influence. It's something that we were founded on and that's what is causing us so much hurt right now. We are a confused people when we hear "land of the free and the home of the brave" yet see the reality of what we are all around us. We have become a nation of weak minded followers with no courage or will to do what is needed to protect our individual freedoms. We are subjects that are told how afraid we should be and we have bought into the fear mongering. Individual freedoms requires bravery. It requires that we let others live their own lives instead of fearing that someone might do something to cause us discomfort in our personal beliefs. But what we don't understand anymore is that personal beliefs are gone when we turn to the government to force behavior on to others.
It is not a respect for personal freedoms to turn and take another groups away. Grow some nuts, live your own damn lives, and leave others to live theirs. It takes a coward to force the world to act how you would like it to. You don't like gay people, then fine. I would imagine they don't like you either. But that is an opinion. You take it to a personal level when you start forcing the government on their backs. I don't care who the person is, you start pushing your will on them by using the government and you are my enemy. I don't care if it is someone I disagree with 180 degrees, I will defend their right to be who they want to be with equal regard by the government. And that regard to me means get the hell out of mine and others lives. Independence means not being under the control of others. We celebrate Independence Day because of our breaking free of a tyrannical system. We celebrate it as a cry for the individual as well. Yet, lately we don't give a damn about independence. We only seek control as a group. F*ck that! Get the hell out my life and others lives. Go live your own life and leave everyone else alone. You want a strong nation, then that's what it takes. I don't care if your a hate filled redneck hick religious neo-Con or a big government socialist liberty hating liberal. Both of these parties are my enemy right now. Take your nosey control seeking asses somewhere else.
Is a matrioshka brain a huge compuiter fueled with a star? If so, I don't see the relevance. May you please explain this brain of yours? Assuming simulation space of the size such a computer is capable of, leaving the brain seems like a limitlessly bad proposition. Assuming the time scales involved in interstellar travel, and the computing speed of the brain, the exponential nature of ideas generated in the time that such a journey would take would be absurd. Even outer layers of the sphere are 'the boondocks.' What is not the case? That you'd be able to traverse spcace? Yes it'd be the case. Whether you'd actually do it has no relevance for the possibility. Well an implicit assumption in most alien visitation calculations is that aliens would WANT to visit other star systems once they had the capacity. I don't think that's necessarily the case.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
I have a honest question to everyone that is an "esteemed follower" of the original promise of this nation of ours, it's forefathers, and the laws of the land that governed the people.(This is really only speaking to those of the aforementioned belief, but also are pro gay-rights). You are aware that the laws of the United States in most if not all states back then, there was a minimum punishment of imprisonement, and a maximum punishment of execution, for homosexuals, right?
There were also laws against women voting and black people were not considered even completely human.
Good try.
Our nation has grown to give freedoms to more and more people. It's contagious, and it's one bug I'm glad to catch. All citizens should be given the freedoms they need to make their own independent decisions free from the intervention and prying of others. We are simply working to make that a reality.
replying to the actual topic of this thread. Yes everyone in the united states should have freedom and the persuit of happiness. I thought we all knew that.
Unfortunately some don't. Some believe that freedom should only be a nice propaganda tactic, but not a reality that's actually allowed to play out.
I have a honest question to everyone that is an "esteemed follower" of the original promise of this nation of ours, it's forefathers, and the laws of the land that governed the people.(This is really only speaking to those of the aforementioned belief, but also are pro gay-rights). You are aware that the laws of the United States in most if not all states back then, there was a minimum punishment of imprisonement, and a maximum punishment of execution, for homosexuals, right?
There were also laws against women voting and black people were not considered even completely human.
Good try.
Our nation has grown to give freedoms to more and more people. It's contagious, and it's one bug I'm glad to catch. All citizens should be given the freedoms they need to make their own independent decisions free from the intervention and prying of others. We are simply working to make that a reality.
Well if we're going to be completely correct when it first started out only land owners could vote as well. And on the issue of black people, yah, that's partially true; but that still didn't stop some of them from becoming wealthy landowners that owned slaves themselves.
By point is, when people like you talk about original intent, and how the forefathers intended this and that, the actual time they lived in did not exemplify what you are in fact saying, so it really makes it a fallacious point.
Now your last paragraph what you just posted, see, that's personal opinion, and it doesn't rely on fallacious statements like, "What our forefathers fought for", or "bill of rights", and it's well thought out statement.
I'm personally against the homosexual agenda, but I'm not looking for another debate in it. I was just pointing out something that bugged me and was historically incorrect.
Btw, haven't seen you around in a millenia porgie, it's cool to see you posting again.
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
"If a mother can kill her own child, what is left before I kill you and you kill me?" -Mother Teresa when talking about abortion after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979
Assuming simulation space of the size such a computer is capable of, leaving the brain seems like a limitlessly bad proposition. Assuming the time scales involved in interstellar travel, and the computing speed of the brain, the exponential nature of ideas generated in the time that such a journey would take would be absurd. Even outer layers of the sphere are 'the boondocks.' I still can't get it. This brain, is a giant computer fueled and built around a star? Does it send back information to a planet? HAs the original organism become the computer? Is the computer the maximum of their current ability? Is the computer fully mechanical? Is it partly organic? Please do explain what it actaully is? Well an implicit assumption in most alien visitation calculations is that aliens would WANT to visit other star systems once they had the capacity. I don't think that's necessarily the case. A statement about whether they would or would not travel has not been brought up yet. I would guess whether or whether not would be kinda invidual. Some humans like to explore and find out new things. Some humans like to sit on their couch watching TV. Etc. Etc. I would guess that an entire civilization would not bother travelling unless completely neccessary, and even then, some people would just remain behind and not bother.
I still can't get it. This brain, is a giant computer fueled and built around a star? Does it send back information to a planet? The key is the limit of the human brain. The best estimate we have of its computing capacity is 0.1 quadrillion operations per second, 100 million MIPS. That gives the entire computational capacity of the human race as about 6*10^23 IPS.
A Matroshka Brain would have, at the very minimum, a capacity of several million times that (probably a lot higher). You'd probably have to start cannabalizing the planets after a while (though it will start as ultra-high power computing clusters in close orbit). HAs the original organism become the computer? Is the computer the maximum of their current ability? Saying that having access to the calculation space involved would be a limit, while true, is understating things. As for the original organism becoming the computer, yeah, prey much. I see that much interlock between computers and humans as inevitable. Is the computer fully mechanical? Is it partly organic? Organic/Mechanical is a construct of limited technology. What is a nanomachine? An ultra-small device with a built in power supply, method of self-replication, ability to perform simple tasks, ability to group together with other machines to perform complex tasks, energy storage, etc.
Didn't I just describe a cell? Organic is a construct word because our technology is currently very different from organics. This will not be the case forever - nor, indeed, for very long. Please do explain what it actaully is? Ultra-high density computing matrix constructed out of large amounts of matter, possibly up to and including most of the suitable matter in the solar system, creating a computational matrix and construction capacity beyond anything we can imagine, allowing our population, idea capacity, and overall abilities to grow at an exponential rate. A statement about whether they would or would not travel has not been brought up yet. I would guess whether or whether not would be kinda invidual. Some humans like to explore and find out new things. Some humans like to sit on their couch watching TV. Etc. Etc. I would guess that an entire civilization would not bother travelling unless completely neccessary, and even then, some people would just remain behind and not bother. On the other hand, at the level of undertaking of interstellar travel, how many people have to disagree before it becomes non-viable?
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
Comments
I won't comment on the insane philosophy, people always seem to take it the wrong way (woo woo).
But seriously, links are appreciated, because outside sources are by definition the only way to prove factual statements on the internet. I can make a convincing argument based on the 'fact' of bacterial life on mars, but I better damn well have a link to show that there actually IS bacterial life on Mars, capiche?
Baterial life on mars???
You've never heard of mars-pigs??
Okay, onto seriousness: I couldn't understand your first sentence.
And yes, outside sources is probably a good idea.
However, you're also supposed to argument yourself too, which you have failed to do so far.
You've just stated something, and linked to something, which said naught on the actual matter.
In fact it confirmed what I said, that gods ain't believed in, as they are in many religions, but that they are believed to exist nonetheless.
Premise;Argument;Backup argument;Argument for argument;Conclusion;Optionaly outside sources supporting your conclusion and argument.
"Because frankly you decided to take up the mantra and normally I honestly don't pay too much attention to who posted what. If you don't hold that opinion, sorry for confusing you with another person. I normallydon't do these childish personal crusades, but if someone is banging on your door with a torch..."
Ha, ta, ta, ta
That is a Double Standard. Calling someone else a liar, while a pass is given to one's self. That invalidates your claim.
And I would like to thank you for making it known that you do not care who posts what. It shows much of your personality here.
"Um, you asked me about the credibility of a website. I do science, not blogs. Looked like a giant pile of advertising mumbo-jumbo to me. Is there some actual facts there? I'm sure there's probably a few."
Don't do blogs... rriigghhtt. Whatever you say chief.
"Also, I don't play 20 questions."
I know, you like giving them.
"This 'before I go further' nonsense is just silly. State your point or don't state your point (I bumped the thread, just for you)."
Superficial and impulsive, interesting package you got there.
Some one needs to bone up on their patience and communicative skills and learn about clarification and probing. And yes I do see you bumped the thread without answering, not even a copy and paste. But still, you may get yourself a cookie.
"Now, do you want to discuss your evidence for a 'soul' of which you have none? Or your evidence that prayer is anything more than a way of making yourself feel useful in situations where you're actually useless, a way for people to give themselves an illusion of control."
So certain you are.
But when dealing with a superficial persona, hard to make reason with.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
"I probably didn't understand the flat tax part."
In the shortest form, a Flat Tax is a form of tax in which all citizens would pay the same rate of tax; for example 10% income tax for everyone to pay, no matter what level of income or family size.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
This is one of those odd news stories that you don't come across every day.
And a disclaimer, my posting of this article is not of supporting a ban of marriage or that homosexuals are violent people, or anything to that effect. This is simply a news article of one of those rare cases in which a Lesbian murders another Lesbian.
Huff Post writer stabs lesbian lover 222 times
Posted: October 30, 2008
A freelance election reporter for the Huffington Post fatally shot herself after stabbing her lesbian lover 222 times with a screwdriver and stuffing the body in the back seat of the victim's BMW, authorities say.
Carol Anne Burger, 57, an award-winning photojournalist and regular contributor to the website, reported on the election from their home in Florida. She had experienced an upsetting breakup with software executive Jessica Kalish, 56, a woman whom she had married in Massachusetts, the Palm Beach Post reported. The partners were planning to divide their assets, including the home they still shared, after splitting last year. Kalish had met another woman and frequently went on dates with her.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79422
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
"Because frankly you decided to take up the mantra and normally I honestly don't pay too much attention to who posted what. If you don't hold that opinion, sorry for confusing you with another person. I normallydon't do these childish personal crusades, but if someone is banging on your door with a torch..."
Ha, ta, ta, ta
That is a Double Standard. Calling someone else a liar, while a pass is given to one's self. That invalidates your claim.
And I would like to thank you for making it known that you do not care who posts what. It shows much of your personality here.
That I focus on the information posted and not the person behind it? Well the fact that you think this says a lot about me does explain why you've turned attacking me into a personal vendetta. By challenging your ideas I am NOT challenging you. This honestly seems like a maturity issue. Your ideas are not yourself - you personally are not attacked when the positions you espouse are questioned.
"Um, you asked me about the credibility of a website. I do science, not blogs. Looked like a giant pile of advertising mumbo-jumbo to me. Is there some actual facts there? I'm sure there's probably a few."
Don't do blogs... rriigghhtt. Whatever you say chief.
Okay, I doubt we'll see any information on Global warming in the thread. Did bump it for you, done discussing it here. Your question had nothing to do with Global Warming, at all, in the least. So post what you have to say, or don't. Period.
"Now, do you want to discuss your evidence for a 'soul' of which you have none? Or your evidence that prayer is anything more than a way of making yourself feel useful in situations where you're actually useless, a way for people to give themselves an illusion of control."
So certain you are.
But when dealing with a superficial persona, hard to make reason with.
Right, no evidence, but I'm supposed to accept that there's a single logical reason to believe it exists? I don't believe in UFOs, Unicorns, or Souls. They all seem the same to me - nonsense that might make us feel good to believe in, but which just does not exist.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson
There is a real simple answer to this whole issue.
Get the government out of the business of recognizing one marriage over another. Ever since our government instigated a tax system on the people it has become nothing but a tool of manipulation, division, and invasion of privacy.
Stop with the crazy prying through the use of our tax system. Quit with the benefits of one group over another. The people in America have grown so accustomed to taxation that they can't even think of another system of government income anymore. Even in the midst of all the things the government does wrong to us and the evils that it puts upon the people, American's have learned that as long as they are in the majority then they are safe.
But this country was not designed to favor the majority or the minority. Our system was one intended upon equal rights and justice for the INDIVIDUAL. It was a nation born out of unequal treatment in our beginning history and we've forgotten about that.
You give the people a chance to vote on an issue, and you're going to find that the mob rules mentality will set in every time. And you want to tell me how much gay rights will hurt America? I counter that by saying that it will not hurt America nearly as much as putting the future of this nation in the hands of a majority rules vote on these types of things.
WE are all a part of America. Each American deserves to have their own self determination outside of the realm of government influence. It's something that we were founded on and that's what is causing us so much hurt right now. We are a confused people when we hear "land of the free and the home of the brave" yet see the reality of what we are all around us. We have become a nation of weak minded followers with no courage or will to do what is needed to protect our individual freedoms. We are subjects that are told how afraid we should be and we have bought into the fear mongering.
Individual freedoms requires bravery. It requires that we let others live their own lives instead of fearing that someone might do something to cause us discomfort in our personal beliefs. But what we don't understand anymore is that personal beliefs are gone when we turn to the government to force behavior on to others.
It is not a respect for personal freedoms to turn and take another groups away. Grow some nuts, live your own damn lives, and leave others to live theirs. It takes a coward to force the world to act how you would like it to.
You don't like gay people, then fine. I would imagine they don't like you either. But that is an opinion. You take it to a personal level when you start forcing the government on their backs. I don't care who the person is, you start pushing your will on them by using the government and you are my enemy. I don't care if it is someone I disagree with 180 degrees, I will defend their right to be who they want to be with equal regard by the government. And that regard to me means get the hell out of mine and others lives.
Independence means not being under the control of others. We celebrate Independence Day because of our breaking free of a tyrannical system. We celebrate it as a cry for the individual as well. Yet, lately we don't give a damn about independence. We only seek control as a group. F*ck that! Get the hell out my life and others lives. Go live your own life and leave everyone else alone. You want a strong nation, then that's what it takes.
I don't care if your a hate filled redneck hick religious neo-Con or a big government socialist liberty hating liberal. Both of these parties are my enemy right now. Take your nosey control seeking asses somewhere else.
-----------------------
</OBAMA>
"I probably didn't understand the flat tax part."
In the shortest form, a Flat Tax is a form of tax in which all citizens would pay the same rate of tax; for example 10% income tax for everyone to pay, no matter what level of income or family size.
That'd be fair, when using with "different kinds of people" (nationality, gender, sexuality, intelligence, body, whatever).
Although I'd think poor people should pay a lesser part of their taxes than a rich person.
Do I mean a huge percentage in difference? No.
After all (most) rich people have worked their way up there, and thus partly deserve it.
The poor people don't got as much money, and thus really need what they have.
I'd think that the tax should then range from 5% to 15% depending on income.
I have a honest question to everyone that is an "esteemed follower" of the original promise of this nation of ours, it's forefathers, and the laws of the land that governed the people.(This is really only speaking to those of the aforementioned belief, but also are pro gay-rights).
You are aware that the laws of the United States in most if not all states back then, there was a minimum punishment of imprisonement, and a maximum punishment of execution, for homosexuals, right?
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
"If a mother can kill her own child, what is left before I kill you and you kill me?" -Mother Teresa when talking about abortion after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979
UFOs exist.
First of, I'll start saying that an UFO ain't a machine built by aliens, but rather an unidentified flying object. Thus anything in the sky we see and cannot explain, at the moment, is an UFO, be it a light, an object or something else entirely.
Using a common phrase and some math I can also prove that aliens exist ^^
Common phrase: The universe is infinite.
Proof about the common phrase: I've seen it stated by scientific thingies before. The reason for the infiniteness stated differs, but it was still stated that it was infinite.
We also know that life is a rare thing. It doesn't pop up everywhere.
We'd then have a formula kinda like:
0,00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 (You get the idea) * infinite (I dunno how to post that sleeping 8) = infinite.
Thus aliens exist.
Whether they do act as many people say and such (abducting and visiting and a bunch of other thingies,) that's another question entirely.
"Because frankly you decided to take up the mantra and normally I honestly don't pay too much attention to who posted what. If you don't hold that opinion, sorry for confusing you with another person. I normallydon't do these childish personal crusades, but if someone is banging on your door with a torch..."
Ha, ta, ta, ta
That is a Double Standard. Calling someone else a liar, while a pass is given to one's self. That invalidates your claim.
And I would like to thank you for making it known that you do not care who posts what. It shows much of your personality here.
That I focus on the information posted and not the person behind it? Well the fact that you think this says a lot about me does explain why you've turned attacking me into a personal vendetta. By challenging your ideas I am NOT challenging you. This honestly seems like a maturity issue. Your ideas are not yourself - you personally are not attacked when the positions you espouse are questioned.
"Um, you asked me about the credibility of a website. I do science, not blogs. Looked like a giant pile of advertising mumbo-jumbo to me. Is there some actual facts there? I'm sure there's probably a few."
Don't do blogs... rriigghhtt. Whatever you say chief.
Okay, I doubt we'll see any information on Global warming in the thread. Did bump it for you, done discussing it here. Your question had nothing to do with Global Warming, at all, in the least. So post what you have to say, or don't. Period.
"Now, do you want to discuss your evidence for a 'soul' of which you have none? Or your evidence that prayer is anything more than a way of making yourself feel useful in situations where you're actually useless, a way for people to give themselves an illusion of control."
So certain you are.
But when dealing with a superficial persona, hard to make reason with.
Right, no evidence, but I'm supposed to accept that there's a single logical reason to believe it exists? I don't believe in UFOs, Unicorns, or Souls. They all seem the same to me - nonsense that might make us feel good to believe in, but which just does not exist.
UFOs exist.
First of, I'll start saying that an UFO ain't a machine built by aliens, but rather an unidentified flying object. Thus anything in the sky we see and cannot explain, at the moment, is an UFO, be it a light, an object or something else entirely.
Using a common phrase and some math I can also prove that aliens exist ^^
Common phrase: The universe is infinite.
Proof about the common phrase: I've seen it stated by scientific thingies before. The reason for the infiniteness stated differs, but it was still stated that it was infinite.
We also know that life is a rare thing. It doesn't pop up everywhere.
We'd then have a formula kinda like:
0,00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 (You get the idea) * infinite (I dunno how to post that sleeping 8) = infinite.
Thus aliens exist.
Whether they do act as many people say and such (abducting and visiting and a bunch of other thingies,) that's another question entirely.
If the universe is infinite, it would contradict many believed theories. It also would call for an outside force that does not follow normal physics.
Infinite is a very meta-physical term when thought about. It breeches the very fabrics of our mind and assaults us with incomprehensible thoughts for we are finite beings.
No idea if the universe is infinite or not though. Honestly I think it's too big for any person to ever really though. The fact that we can even measure amounts of space in gigaparsecs(To give an idea of that size is about 3.26 billion light years) sure makes that a possibility.
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
"If a mother can kill her own child, what is left before I kill you and you kill me?" -Mother Teresa when talking about abortion after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979
"Because frankly you decided to take up the mantra and normally I honestly don't pay too much attention to who posted what. If you don't hold that opinion, sorry for confusing you with another person. I normallydon't do these childish personal crusades, but if someone is banging on your door with a torch..."
Ha, ta, ta, ta
That is a Double Standard. Calling someone else a liar, while a pass is given to one's self. That invalidates your claim.
And I would like to thank you for making it known that you do not care who posts what. It shows much of your personality here.
That I focus on the information posted and not the person behind it? Well the fact that you think this says a lot about me does explain why you've turned attacking me into a personal vendetta. By challenging your ideas I am NOT challenging you. This honestly seems like a maturity issue. Your ideas are not yourself - you personally are not attacked when the positions you espouse are questioned.
"Um, you asked me about the credibility of a website. I do science, not blogs. Looked like a giant pile of advertising mumbo-jumbo to me. Is there some actual facts there? I'm sure there's probably a few."
Don't do blogs... rriigghhtt. Whatever you say chief.
Okay, I doubt we'll see any information on Global warming in the thread. Did bump it for you, done discussing it here. Your question had nothing to do with Global Warming, at all, in the least. So post what you have to say, or don't. Period.
"Now, do you want to discuss your evidence for a 'soul' of which you have none? Or your evidence that prayer is anything more than a way of making yourself feel useful in situations where you're actually useless, a way for people to give themselves an illusion of control."
So certain you are.
But when dealing with a superficial persona, hard to make reason with.
Right, no evidence, but I'm supposed to accept that there's a single logical reason to believe it exists? I don't believe in UFOs, Unicorns, or Souls. They all seem the same to me - nonsense that might make us feel good to believe in, but which just does not exist.
UFOs exist.
First of, I'll start saying that an UFO ain't a machine built by aliens, but rather an unidentified flying object. Thus anything in the sky we see and cannot explain, at the moment, is an UFO, be it a light, an object or something else entirely.
Using a common phrase and some math I can also prove that aliens exist ^^
Common phrase: The universe is infinite.
Proof about the common phrase: I've seen it stated by scientific thingies before. The reason for the infiniteness stated differs, but it was still stated that it was infinite.
We also know that life is a rare thing. It doesn't pop up everywhere.
We'd then have a formula kinda like:
0,00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 (You get the idea) * infinite (I dunno how to post that sleeping 8) = infinite.
Thus aliens exist.
Whether they do act as many people say and such (abducting and visiting and a bunch of other thingies,) that's another question entirely.
If the universe is infinite, it would contradict many believed theories. It also would call for an outside force that does not follow normal physics.
Infinite is a very meta-physical term when thought about. It breeches the very fabrics of our mind and assaults us with incomprehensible thoughts for we are finite beings.
No idea if the universe is infinite or not though. Honestly I think it's too big for any person to ever really though. The fact that we can even measure amounts of space in gigaparsecs(To give an idea of that size is about 3.26 billion light years) sure makes that a possibility.
IT's a quite common phrase to use.
(The infinite one.)
The theory I deem to make most sense is one that said something like:
The universe is finite, but, since the results of the big bang still continues, the universe is always expanding, and thus unmeasureable as a whole, and thus it might be called infinite.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson
replying to the actual topic of this thread. Yes everyone in the united states should have freedom and the persuit of happiness. I thought we all knew that.
Completely 100% agree
I might I also add:
KEEP YOUR JESUS OFF MY PENIS!!
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson
There were also laws against women voting and black people were not considered even completely human.
Good try.
Our nation has grown to give freedoms to more and more people. It's contagious, and it's one bug I'm glad to catch. All citizens should be given the freedoms they need to make their own independent decisions free from the intervention and prying of others. We are simply working to make that a reality.
-----------------------
</OBAMA>
Unfortunately some don't. Some believe that freedom should only be a nice propaganda tactic, but not a reality that's actually allowed to play out.
-----------------------
</OBAMA>
Discrimination
--------------------------------------
There were also laws against women voting and black people were not considered even completely human.
Good try.
Our nation has grown to give freedoms to more and more people. It's contagious, and it's one bug I'm glad to catch. All citizens should be given the freedoms they need to make their own independent decisions free from the intervention and prying of others. We are simply working to make that a reality.
Well if we're going to be completely correct when it first started out only land owners could vote as well. And on the issue of black people, yah, that's partially true; but that still didn't stop some of them from becoming wealthy landowners that owned slaves themselves.
By point is, when people like you talk about original intent, and how the forefathers intended this and that, the actual time they lived in did not exemplify what you are in fact saying, so it really makes it a fallacious point.
Now your last paragraph what you just posted, see, that's personal opinion, and it doesn't rely on fallacious statements like, "What our forefathers fought for", or "bill of rights", and it's well thought out statement.
I'm personally against the homosexual agenda, but I'm not looking for another debate in it. I was just pointing out something that bugged me and was historically incorrect.
Btw, haven't seen you around in a millenia porgie, it's cool to see you posting again.
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
"If a mother can kill her own child, what is left before I kill you and you kill me?" -Mother Teresa when talking about abortion after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979
Does creating this thread mean I win at forums now? A monthly prize perhaps for most replies?
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson