It's written somewhat in the style of something I might publish were I running for President. Some of this will probably surprise some of you. I'd like to hear your opinions on my positions, feedback, further questions, anything you want to say. Enjoy.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:Death penalty
I can not support the death penalty.
See, that right there made me stop reading and realize that some alien had taken over Omega's body.
Who are you?
Go back to your own planet and leave us in peace!!
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
See, Liz and I had this bet, and now I know I'm going to win! In two years, you're going to be living in NYC, wear leather, have purple hair and tatoos, and your best friends are going to be a gay couple - Jeff & Gordon - at whose wedding you officiate!
Ok, maybe not.
Posted by Nim the Merciful (Member # 205) on :
Regarding suicide:
quote:I believe the feelings of loved ones must be taken into account.
This is a tricky thing. I've dealt with depressed people, and I can safely say that appealing to the person's conscience, trying to use guilt to force the person to live often makes it worse. Saying "Think of your mother!!" may easily deepen the anguish, making the original sorrow stronger; "Now I'm hurting my mother as well, I can't bear this..." Or worse, a turn in arguments; "I should stay alive just to make someone else feel good? Rooaaarr!!!"
Good list nontheless, I support anyone going to such length to define (as far as they can) their standpoints in all popular questions they can think of.
As a european gaijin, I have no interest in things regarding the US congress, state legislature or the dollar (from german daler, lol!), but the other things were interesting.
Extra tidbit: From 1534 up until 1873, Sweden had the Daler, then we changed to Krona (Crowns).
So the US keeps sloppy seconds, teeheehee.
Posted by Nim the Merciful (Member # 205) on :
Also, begging patience for a layman, why hold out for a terraforming of Venus? Is it impossible to do Mars first? Venus is further into the system, right? So lots of more gravity to force to get there, no? And shitty gas all over the place, like ammonia and other worthless substances.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
your best friends are going to be a gay couple - Jeff & Gordon
Jeff? Are you trying to tell us something?
I've dealt with depressed people
Oh, I don't mean depressed people. I suppose I didn't actually address legal action in that bit. I think any desire to end one's own life should be brought before a judge, at the very least. That judge can require treatment, in cases of depression, or give an okay for you or someone else to end your life, in cases of old age or incurable painful medical conditions.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nim the Merciful: Also, begging patience for a layman, why hold out for a terraforming of Venus? Is it impossible to do Mars first? Venus is further into the system, right? So lots of more gravity to force to get there, no? And shitty gas all over the place, like ammonia and other worthless substances.
It's not impossible to do Mars, I just think Venus seems easier. It's capable of holding an atmosphere and has earth-like gravity, and Mars will never have either of those. Of course, we'd have to either get it spinning or implement an artificial day/night system. Not sure what you mean by "lots of more gravity to force to get there", but I'd think Venus, being closer to Earth, would require less energy to reach.
I'm not an expert, but this is what I understand so far. As I understand things, Venus is very hot and has extreme surface temperatures. These are the two main problems with any sort of mission to the planet. I THINK part of the reason for the high atmospheric pressure is the high temperature. Once you start sublimating elements that should by all rights be solid, your atmosphere is gonna weigh a lot more. So if we could, say, block a good chunk of the sun's heat, the planet should cool down significantly, which should let the heavy gasses solidify on the surface, reducing atmospheric pressure. Of course, given that Venus is nearly tidally locked, it'd just heat up again if you removed the block. We'd need some sort of artificial day/night scheme using large orbiting devices of some kind to maintain a reasonable temperature and thus reasonable pressure. Once that was done, it'd just be a question of survival needs, instead of the planet actively killing you.
But I'm just a computer science major, what do I know? Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:Jeff? Are you trying to tell us something?
Hah. No. Actually, it's been a running joke on 98-Rock that Nascar star Jeff Gordon is gay. So a few weeks ago, the morning show crew flipped out when there was a bit of a controversy over a local paper publishing the engagement announcement of a gay couple named ... Jeff, and Gordon.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
*reads, sobs* Our baby's all grown up. . . 8)
Very interesting reading. Reminds me of an article from one of Michael Moore's books, really (I forget which one, mainly because I've forgotten who I've lent them to) - most Americans think they're Republicans but really when you look at their core beliefs they're far closer to being Democrats, I'm not saying that's necessarily the case with you, Stephen, it's just something that occurred to me while I was working through it.
Strange coincidence, though - just this morning I woke up and almost the very first thought that popped into my head was that they really need to start firing cometary masses of ice at Venus. The sooner you start, the sooner it'll be finished. No idea why I'd be thinking about terraforming Venus at 0730. . .
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Because you're whacked?
quote:Originally posted by Lee: most Americans think they're Republicans but really when you look at their core beliefs they're far closer to being Democrats, I'm not saying that's necessarily the case with you, Stephen, it's just something that occurred to me while I was working through it.
I'm of the opinion that our parties no longer have core beliefs. They exist to perpetuate themselves and the occupations of their elected officials. Part of the reason I wrote this is that I no longer wish to be associated with any political label of any kind, because they tend to lead to people making unfounded assumptions. If you want to know what I think, I'll hand you a copy of this and let you figure it out.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: Strange coincidence, though - just this morning I woke up and almost the very first thought that popped into my head was that they really need to start firing cometary masses of ice at Venus. The sooner you start, the sooner it'll be finished. No idea why I'd be thinking about terraforming Venus at 0730. . .
Read Greg Bear's Forge Of God: (good) Aliens destroy Europa and Ganeymede to replenish their consumables and then fire off all the ice at Mars and Venus. ...OTOH, there are bad alien forces that fuck Earth royally.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
My opinions on some of those, though not all:
Death Penalty--I agree with you.
Abortion--Can't say I like abortion, but I do support the right to choose.
Euthanasia--Might as well agree.
Immigration--OK, I guess.
Space Travel--Yay! Space!
Drugs--Agreed, mostly. Don't like drug use, either.
Gun control--Disagree. I think there should be tougher gun laws, and we should be thinking of an assault weapons ban. After all, what are they good for? Shooting deer? Keeping yourself protected in case Baathist guerillas invade Oak Hills?
Official language--I'm fine with not having an official language, even though English is the most accepted.
Foreign Policy--Don't like arming brutal regimes, either. I do not feel that a missile defense is worth it, like you...simply because we are not threatened by ICBMs by anyone. I doubt North Korea would launch a missile at us, I doubt Iran will have any 10,000 mile or whatever missiles anytime soon, and I doubt China will ever attack us. Now, for other countries, it's a possibility. As for Israel, yes it deserves to exist. And so does Palestine. Despite the relative clam there is now, we should be working toward a better solution to the conflict, first by being tough on Sharon and second by being tough on Arafat. Though last year the road map crashed and burned.
Gay marriage--I disagree. I am Christian, too, but I do not see harm in giving people the rights they deserve.
Campaign finance--Feingold. Yay! McCain. Yay!
Posted by Nim the Merciful (Member # 205) on :
A financer named Feingold? This is altogether too much.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Disagree. I think there should be tougher gun laws, and we should be thinking of an assault weapons ban.
Why do you say disagree? I'm all for tougher laws, at least once we try making the ones we have legal and actually enforcing them. And I'm not necessarily against banning assault weapons, either, though I'd be interested to know how many people were killed with them. Most deaths I hear about are from handguns, though that isn't necessarily representative.
Gay marriage--I disagree. I am Christian, too, but I do not see harm in giving people the rights they deserve.
Again, why do you think you're disagreeing with me? What I said was more that I don't think it really matters what the government recognizes, just that it should at least be consistant.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Read "The Forge of God" many years ago, still re-read it occasionally. Still one of the better end-of-the-world books out there. Not really been sure about the sequel though - "Anvil of Stars" - following the adventures of the human children on the Ship of the Law as they seek out the origin of the planet-killers. For one thing, a lot of it doesn't match the original epilogue of "FoG" in the details.
Euthanasia. . . I understand the principle. Kate's even spoken to me on the subject. Thing is, although I understand the reasoning behind people wanting to die rather than suffer a prolonged and ultimately fatal illness, and I also understand but don't especially subscribe to the viewpoint of those who oppose it, I know that I can't really picture myself being in the position of either having to choose such a fate for myself or support someone else's choice.
You see, I don't have especially strong opinions on many subjects. I'd find it quite hard to compose a whole screed like Omey's done. A lot of the time I prefer not to hold opinions on things that don't affect me. Others I haven't made my mind up about. Like, drugs. I've done my fair share. And I've never had any problems with them. But I also know that I've been fortunate in that regard. I don't do drugs anymore, by the way - matijuana makes me feel ill and keeps me awake, and I promised never to use cocaine again when I got married, because my wife doesn't like it.
One opinion I did always have was that Omega, you were quite young when you joined our little community. It always seemed to me you had a lot of opinions that seemed unsustainable in the real world. I always thought that you needed to grow up a lot (must try that myself someday!). No offence, because I actually kind of respect what you've written in that piece; but the very title of this thread suggests you feel this way yourself, or so it seems to me.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Ah, ignore those. I wrote that in a rush. I was going to write a post explaining how I neglected to read the 2nd paragraph of your gay marriage thing but the post became too convoluted.
Bah.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
So. Omega's a liberal now. I'm still having trouble wrapping my mind around that one, but let's give it some time.
Now, a few points:
First, I think that what you're referring to as "euthanasia" is actually assisted suicide. I've typically heard "euthanaisa" used to refer to "pulling the plug" on someone who is beyond the point of making a decision. Which is something you didn't really address.
Second:
"Of course, it might help if there was a way to pass an amendment without Congress's approval, but that's nothing I'm addressing right now."
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress..." -US Constitution, article V (emphasis added)
Sounds to me like amendments can be proposed by an initiative from the state legislatures, whether the federal congress likes it or not. Of course, that's probably even more difficult than getting Congress to do it, but it still appears to be possible.
Third:
"There are tax effects, but I understand that those tend to work AGAINST the married couple."
I've never heard that. I was under the impression that joint tax returns resulted in a lower tax rate or a higher deduction or something.
Also, you didn't mention things like insurance. My mother is covered by the medical insurance my father has through his job. I'm pretty sure that most employer-based insurance doesn't let you put down "homosexual partner" as a family member eligible for coverage.
Fourth:
"While I'm at it, why do you, ANY of you, care if 'under God' is in the pledge, or 'In God we trust' is printed on coins?"
I respond with:
"...part of this country being founded on Christian beliefs is the requirement of its government to respect ALL beliefs. ANY forced participation in perceived religious activity risks alienation, which is the last thing Christians should want."
And I think that's all I noticed that I wanted to comment on.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
You see, I don't have especially strong opinions on many subjects.
Yeah, me either. For example, in my bit on drugs I say I wouldn't push to have them legalized, but would pass such a law if most people wanted it passed. I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. Or my bit about the seventh amendment, I don't care much about that. If I were editing the Constitution in a text editor, I'd probably change that without even thinking, but neither will I shed tears if it stays the same. Shoot, when it came to helping the poor I didn't even list what I believed to be the best solution, just that we should find out what the best solution is. What I've listed aren't necessarily strong opinions, they're just opinions.
It always seemed to me you had a lot of opinions that seemed unsustainable in the real world.
Some may have been. Others were sustainable but contradictory. Still others were based on assumptions, which I now refuse to make. I don't know everything. If I have to make an assumption, I'll just not hold an opinion, thanks. I am now the living incarnation of pragmatism. My goal is to help as many people as possible. I will gather information about how I might best do that, and then do it. Simple as that. So yeah, I guess I have grown up a bit.
First, I think that what you're referring to as "euthanasia" is actually assisted suicide. I've typically heard "euthanaisa" used to refer to "pulling the plug" on someone who is beyond the point of making a decision. Which is something you didn't really address.
The definition of euthenasia we studied in one of my classes actually divided the concept into six categories: either voluntary, nonvoluntary, or involuntary; and either active or passive. Pulling the plug would be passive, and if they can't make the decision it's non-voluntary. I'd definitely oppose involuntary, against their stated will, that's just murder plain and simple. Non-voluntary and voluntary passive are recognized medical rights in most cases, so you're right, I didn't address those. What I'm addressing is voluntary active.
Thanks for the bit about states initiating a constitutional convention. I knew that was there, don't know what I was thinking.
you didn't mention things like insurance
True, but that's less of a legal thing. Insurance companies would create an equivalent product to deal with the demand for it if the government ceased to care about marriage one way or the other. I'm surprised they haven't already, to tell you the truth. My dad's an actuary, maybe I'll ask him.
As for the pledge, you're probably right. What was the supreme court ruling on manditory pledge-saying, wasn't there one recently? The coins I have little issue with. I wouldn't force anyone to say the pledge with "under God" in there. I probably wouldn't force anyone to say it at all, really. But like drugs, I won't push for a law regarding it. If it happens, sure, but I won't advocate it.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Actually, insurance companies are involved in the biggest problem I have with euthanasia in it's basic (if incorrect or incomplete) definition - that of voluntary suicide for terminally ill patients. I worry that should it become commonplace, more and more treatments will become unavailable because of the cost. And that's whether the cost is being borne by medical insurers or a governmental health service, who will leave euthanasia as the only option.
Of course, that's pretty much what happens now anyway, except that the slow lingering death is all that's available. I'm not making a lot of sense here, I guess I'm just worried that once it becomes societally acceptable to off the old and infirm, even when it's their own choice, that it'll then become their only choice.
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
Well I have to say that some things there left me rather speechless. In a good way. Big surprises on gun control, elections and caring for the poor.
Not that I agree with what you said verbatim, however you're actually questioning things, in a logical manner.
Well done Ommey Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
I thought this would surprise the crap out of y'all. That's half the reason I did it.
Omega's a liberal now.
No labels, please. Labels are the other half.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
It's not a label. It's a noun. If you don't want to be labelled in any way, shape, or form, you'll have to stop calling yourself a "Christian". After all, both are merely terms describing, in general, certain sets of beliefs you share with a significant number of people.
"What was the supreme court ruling on manditory pledge-saying, wasn't there one recently?"
There was no decision. It turns out that the guy had lost custody of his daughter to the child's mother. Since he was suing on her behalf, the court determined he didn't actually have the right to do so, and they threw the case out.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
If you don't want to be labelled in any way, shape, or form, you'll have to stop calling yourself a "Christian".
Well, you'll note the first time I said it I said no political labels. I just left it off the second time, assuming people would get that it was still what I meant.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
It's still essentially the same thing, though.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
I suppose the essential difference is that I know what Christian means and I'll argue for it. Political labels' definitions I neither know nor care, but I want to avoid the connotations they bring to mind for a lot of people. Especially given that most of those connotations are false. Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
And what about the fact that even Christians have disagreed for hundreds of years on what Christianity is, and that it has many connotations to different people, which are sometimes false?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote: People must know that there are better choices than abortion. Young women must feel that their communities and their families will not ostracize them for their mistakes. They must know that they will find love, acceptance, and forgiveness in their homes, no matter what they may have done.
Man, you managed to sound both sincere and condecending at the same time. You could be an irish priest! The "no matter what they may have done" part sure screams "holier than thou".
I'm intrested to hear what your position is on Stem Cell research.
If you were really running for President and mentioned agreeing with a terrorist organization like the Right To Life on anything you could just pack it in and withdraw from the race right there.
Good stance on Gun control though: well thought out.
Here's where I start laughing really hard:
quote:I've never quite understood why homosexuals care about marriage. Religious aspects are obviously minimal, given Christianity's clear statements about the morality of homosexual relationships, and Christianity's prevalence as a religion in the USA.
They care about marriage because it's society's ultimate acceptance of their union. As to religion, I know several devout Christians that also happen to be gay: nothing a man-made church decrees will sway them in their feelings or their faith. Judge not, and all that, Omega. Posted by Tora Ziyal (Member # 53) on :
I'm not entirely suprised about all this since we've been seeing signs, but I didn't know you'd gone as far as you have . Good job and all, not for coming to agree with us but for coming into your own opinions.
Now for the good stuff:
Death penalty -- agree for the most part. Not sure about the last sentence.
Abortion -- My opinion is slightly different and you touched on it a bit. Basically, I'm pro-choice for the reason that banning abortion will not solve the problem, it will merely force it underground. And what causes abortion is i)the mother's choice and ii)the possibility of social ostracism. The fact that abortion is even a possibility comes from fear of ostracism. I might be making leap here because I haven't the time to explain this step by step, but basically I think to end abortion naturally and completely, society must end its fear of sex (esp. before marriage) and make teen pregancy a thing that requires no forgiveness. Can't or won't do it? Then live with the possibility of abortion as a consequence.
Euthanasia -- Basically I think euthanasia is a cop-out and if you're still living it means you have something to sort out in life. But, like a lot of things, a choice you are forced to make or not make gives you little or no learning experience. So legislation has no place in it.
Immigration -- As an immigrant myself, I find it very hypocritical to say somebody can't move to this country for its opportunities just because they can't find/don't have the money for a legal way in. Also, I think boundaries are very arbitrary. For example, Mexico used to own California; their ancestors owned the land for generations (and before as Indians). Then the U.S. comes and kicks them out, and if they wanted to come back without following our rules, they're "illegal immigrants" on the land their ancestors lived. It doesn't make sense to me. If we want to stop illegal immigration, we need to help improve their country and therefore make them want to stay in it.
I would love to see the world become a unified nation in my lifetime. You might think it impossible, but it's already happening via the Internet (e.g. how do you legislate an Internet law and apply it only to your country? You could do it, but it's difficult to enforcecan end up regulating businesses outside the country). Stranger things have happened.
I need to go to bed. I'll talk about the rest tomorrow.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
The world seems to be getting less and less unified, though, at least politically. Sure, Europe has formed the Justice League (I guess it would be the Justice Society, to be, uh, comically correct?), but former staunch NATO allies are now barely on speaking terms. (The U.S. and everyone else, basically.) Several nations are just dissolving altogether. The internet may bring together Star Trek fans of many nations, but what it really excels at is identity theft and espionage.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
And porn. Oh so very much porn.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
mmmm....porn.
Posted by Nim the Merciful (Member # 205) on :
It's not porn, it's panache.
And The World gets less unified? I'd say the opposite, the world gets more and more polarized, within the old groups. The result is strangely enouph the same, fewer people within distinct borders.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I blame Canada. ....And mabye Finland.
I think we should all come together as a global community to decide how long he Defiant really is.
(nuclear war ensues)
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
quote: And The World gets less unified? I'd say the opposite, the world gets more and more polarized, within the old groups.
I don't understand what you're getting at.
What I was suggesting is that, today, there are more and more varied political conflicts than there were, say, fifty years ago. States that used to be held together by Cold War necessities have since collapsed. I'm not really making a moral observation about this, at the moment. (I don't think "unification" is inherently good or bad, in this context.)
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I think Unification was a fairly terrible episode.
I think that, while economic unification(s) are becoming more apparant and the exchange of money and the motivations that go with it are far more common today, the political scene is more disorganized than at any time in our lives.
There's so many new governments with diverse needs and grudges, that keeping track of them and their disputes with one another must be a royal headache for any state department.
Also add that since the fracturing of the old Soviet Union, there are several new people with their fingers on nuclear weapons.
I dont see a true unification within our lifetimes.
Posted by Nim the Merciful (Member # 205) on :
We need a big worm.
Sol: It seems we feel the same thing, for some reason I read your initial statement as "getting more unified", not less. Of course, I've had a fever for a couple of days.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
The "no matter what they may have done" part sure screams "holier than thou".
Again with connotations. I mean exactly what I said, and I'll worry about phrasing it better if I ever have speechwriters. If you want to read condesention into it you go right ahead. Tell me when you have an objection to my belief that such an approach by families and communities in general would reduce abortions.
I'm intrested to hear what your position is on Stem Cell research.
I'd need to look into it more, but my limited understanding is that there is no longer any reason to create an embryo specifically to be killed for stem cell research, which would render the question moot. Am I misremembering or misunderstanding what I've seen on the subject?
They care about marriage because it's society's ultimate acceptance of their union.
Well, then they're silly, 'cause it's not. "Woo-hoo, I have a piece of paper that says we're married, that means you have to accept our lifestyle as being just as good as yours!" It does no such thing. If anyone thinks that gays getting legally married is gonna change Christians' minds about the morality of homosexuality, they have minimal grasp of reality.
As to religion, I know several devout Christians that also happen to be gay: nothing a man-made church decrees will sway them in their feelings or their faith.
Good thing the Christian church isn't man-made, then. If they believe it is, then I fail to see how they're devout Christians. I'd love to hear how they work around scripture so that they can keep two contradictory lifestyles, it'd be interesting.
I think to end abortion naturally and completely, society must end its fear of sex (esp. before marriage) and make teen pregancy a thing that requires no forgiveness.
While that would end abortion for the most part, you'd have what many people (including me, obviously) view as the negative consequence of people having promiscuous sex, not to mention that such a society would have thrown out Christianity entirely and all the good it does. This will never occur, thank goodness. Before we try throwing out Christian morality entirely, how about we try applying it in its entirity, including love and forgiveness?
I find it very hypocritical to say somebody can't move to this country for its opportunities just because they can't find/don't have the money for a legal way in.
That's a somewhat complex sentence, but I think what you're effectively saying is that it's hypocritical to have laws at all. Which is probably not what you MEANT to say. Like I said, we can make a place for people, I'm all for that, but they have to do it legally. Especially given the international terrorist situation. We NEED to know who is in our territory, as part of the government's job to keep the country and it's people safe.
Also, I think boundaries are very arbitrary.
I'd probably agree with that. But they do exist, and we have to deal with them as such.
Mexico used to own California; their ancestors owned the land for generations (and before as Indians). Then the U.S. comes and kicks them out, and if they wanted to come back without following our rules, they're "illegal immigrants" on the land their ancestors lived.
Ancestory is pretty well irrelevant in determining possession of land. If it wasn't we'd be going back and forth forever. I prefer to deal with what is.
If we want to stop illegal immigration, we need to help improve their country and therefore make them want to stay in it.
Agreed. Not quite sure the best way to go about that, but the principle is sound. That still doesen't mean we should allow illegal immigration, though.
Also add that since the fracturing of the old Soviet Union, there are several new people with their fingers on nuclear weapons.
Are you thinking of anyone specific? I was under the impression that all the former Soviet republics had returned their nuclear weapons to Russia. I'm not sure if India and Pakistan's nuclear programs are derrived from Russia, or even how long they've had nukes. Or is this just the general "Someone somewhere could have old Russina nukes" thing?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"I'd need to look into it more, but my limited understanding is that there is no longer any reason to create an embryo specifically to be killed for stem cell research, which would render the question moot."
I've never heard that. I believe all the research currently being done is on cells collected prior to the ban.
"If anyone thinks that gays getting legally married is gonna change Christians' minds about the morality of homosexuality, they have minimal grasp of reality."
It wouldn't, no. But at least they'd only be oppressed by private citizens, then, and not their own government which is supposed to represent them.
"Good thing the Christian church isn't man-made, then."
Sure it is. Or are you saying Jesus intended for it to have so many rival sects, and practice so much death and destruction and such?
"I'd love to hear how they work around scripture so that they can keep two contradictory lifestyles, it'd be interesting."
I'd love to hear the quote from Jesus that says "gays are bad". It's mentioned very few times in your "scripture". Once or twice in the Mosaic Law (which you yourself have repeatedly stated is no longer applicable) and once or twice by Paul (who never even met Jesus, and who didn't really seem to care much for anyone who wasn't just like him anyway). So someone could easily be a Christian (defined as someone who believes that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah) and still be as gay as they like.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
quote: Good thing the Christian church isn't man-made, then. If they believe it is, then I fail to see how they're devout Christians. I'd love to hear how they work around scripture so that they can keep two contradictory lifestyles, it'd be interesting.
Clearly, not all Christians find religion and tolerance mutually exclusive.
quote: Ancestory is pretty well irrelevant in determining possession of land. If it wasn't we'd be going back and forth forever. I prefer to deal with what is.
In terms of policy, I would agree with you. But from a practical point of view, the numerous Native American land claim settlements going on would tend to disagree with the grand declaration that ancestry is irrelevant.
quote: I've never heard that. I believe all the research currently being done is on cells collected prior to the ban.
That fits my recollection as well. I also recall some research being done on some way to cause adult cells to revert to stem cells, but I do not think that anything useful came out of it.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: [QB] The "no matter what they may have done" part sure screams "holier than thou". If you want to read condesention into it you go right ahead. Tell me when you have an objection to my belief that such an approach by families and communities in general would reduce abortions.
You approach wont work as long as church leaders insist on calling women that legally terminate their pregnantcy "murderers": no one's going to come forward for that "forgivness". No one that follows their rights under the law would want to be considered a "forgiven murderer". If you really want to reduce the number of abortions- embrace sex education, contraception and open discussion between young people and their parents/teachers about sex.
None of which the chruch is for.
Moral or not, pre-marital sex is a choice and turning a woman's right to choose into some social taboo only makes it harder for pregnant woman to seek alternatives.
quote: I'm intrested to hear what your position is on Stem Cell research.
I'd need to look into it more, but my limited understanding is that there is no longer any reason to create an embryo specifically to be killed for stem cell research, which would render the question moot. Am I misremembering or misunderstanding what I've seen on the subject?
So far the "farming" of Stem Cells has had limited results. :Why not use the tissue from aborted fetuses that will just be incinerated anyway? Even if you consider them to have been viable little humans, it's no more disresectful t harvest some tissue than to burn it. Besides, think of all the living children that could benifit from the research those cells culd provide.
quote: They care about marriage because it's society's ultimate acceptance of their union.
Well, then they're silly, 'cause it's not. "Woo-hoo, I have a piece of paper that says we're married, that means you have to accept our lifestyle as being just as good as yours!" It does no such thing. If anyone thinks that gays getting legally married is gonna change Christians' minds about the morality of homosexuality, they have minimal grasp of reality.
No you really are being condecending: only your belief in your religous system says that gay lifestyles is "wrong". Seperation of Church and state should eliminate debate and reduce it to a simple human rights issue. Gays dont have a "minimal grasp of reality" in wanting equal rights any more than blacks had when they wanted to drink from a "white" water fountain or to ride at the front of the bus. It takes time as well as tolerance.
quote: As to religion, I know several devout Christians that also happen to be gay: nothing a man-made church decrees will sway them in their feelings or their faith.
Good thing the Christian church isn't man-made, then. If they believe it is, then I fail to see how they're devout Christians. I'd love to hear how they work around scripture so that they can keep two contradictory lifestyles, it'd be teresting.
So, in your scripture, Jesus and God built all those cathedreals, taxed generations of peasents into the ground to pay for them, cast wrought gold crowns, meiters and ruby sceptres for the Pope to wear....man, they sure were busy! Was it Jesus that covered for those pedophile priests? Did God conviene the Inquisitions? Did angels inprison Galielo? Of COURSE it's a "man-made" organization, despite whatever motivations or origins to ascribe to it.
Posted by Tora Ziyal (Member # 53) on :
quote:I think that, while economic unification(s) are becoming more apparant and the exchange of money and the motivations that go with it are far more common today, the political scene is more disorganized than at any time in our lives.
Don't you think that the political scene is becoming more chaotic because it cannot keep up with the speed of economics and is scrambling to retain disappearing boundaries? At least that's what I'm seeing.
quote:not to mention that such a society would have thrown out Christianity entirely and all the good it does. This will never occur, thank goodness.
I didn't know the entirety of Christian morality revolved around sex.
I understand what you're saying of course, but you were the one hypothetically throwing the baby out with the bath water, not me. If you think throwing out fear of sex means throwing out Christianity, then fine, but personally I think the more lasting teachings of Jesus will outlive some of the pettiness in Christianity. I'm not going to bother convincing you out of your fear of sex, but only say that abortion is usually a direct consequence of it. Whether or not you would trade promiscuous sex for abortion is up to you.
quote: Before we try throwing out Christian morality entirely, how about we try applying it in its entirity, including love and forgiveness?
(from dictionary.com) forgiveness: n 1: compassionate feelings that support a willingness to forgive 2: the act of excusing a mistake or offense
By definition, unconditional (you didn't use this word, but why go halfway?) love means there is no condition which a person must fulfill to receive your love. If unconditional love were applied in its entirety, no forgiveness would be required under any circumstance.
quote: That's a somewhat complex sentence, but I think what you're effectively saying is that it's hypocritical to have laws at all.
Let me rephrase it for you: I find it very hypocritical to say somebody can't move to this country for its opportunities just because they're not as privileged as I am.
quote:Like I said, we can make a place for people, I'm all for that, but they have to do it legally. Especially given the international terrorist situation. We NEED to know who is in our territory, as part of the government's job to keep the country and it's people safe.
Sure, we'd love immigrants if they would all just come here legally. But obviously it isn't possible for some (I'm mostly thinking of Latin Americans), whether it's because they can't find a sponsor or don't have the money or whatever. In California people think there's a problem with illegal immigration, but they're more worried about these people not paying taxes than anything else (terrorism certainly isn't on their minds). To that I say, make the illegals legals and collect taxes. Then they'll see our government for the bloodsucker it is and spread the word back home, thereby decreasing illegal immigration .
This is kind of a long article, but it talks about the negative effects of border patrol on the police and citizens.
Space travel -- Yeah, space travel is kinda cool, but I'm more of the opinion that we still have plenty of things to learn right here, so let's get that done first. There are frontiers in cultures, relationships, and the human mind, not just physical frontiers (although we haven't exhausted the ocean yet). If private citizens want to fund space travel, they can go right ahead, but I don't see it as a national concern.
Drugs -- I really, really can't stand our current policy on drugs, especially when marijuana is not much more damaging than tobacco. I think part of the appeal IS that they are forbidden, and lack of trade regulations over drugs means dealers and growers end up with fat wallets. We NEED to admit that the war on drugs is not working, and learn from the mistakes made during Prohibition.
The other thing is, there are many, many legal substances/activities you can get addicted to. Addiction is as much (if not more) a psychological problem as it is a physiological problem. People who get addicted to things find the real world to difficult to cope with, so they sedate themselves or create their own little world. It is that which must be dealt with, and it's not something you can legislate.
Gun control -- pretty much agree on this one. People can have guns, but regulations should be tighter.
Affirmative action -- agreed. Although I might go a step further and not only make certain minorities aware of opportunities, but help them make plans to get there (if they're not qualified). I think one of the reasons why people living in ghettos can't get out is because they don't believe they can do it, so they settle for what everyone around themis doing.
Official language of the US -- Agree
Minimum wage -- You have a good idea there with the experimentation. I waver back and forth on this topic, but right now I think minimum wage should stay low to force people to find/create a better living and not get stuck in a minimum wage job because they can survive on it.
Free trade -- I like free trade. It's what brought Taiwan and Hong Kong from backwards to prosperity in half a century while China lagged behind. While I understand people's frustration with outsourcing, I'm not sympathetic. Free market moves, adapts, and evolves, and changes in the job market means we need to change, too. If people follow the tide into IT, they shouldn't be surprised when the tide leaves. It's the nature of things.
But you know what kinds of jobs are least likely to get outsourced? Those that deal directly with people, which you can't do holed up in a cave somewhere. I see it as god's way of saying, you're here to deal with people. Get over it.
Debt -- agreed. Let's start by cutting some salaries and spending. Government employees are overpaid.
Tax code -- agreed again. I like the 10% flat tax myself.
Pollution -- agreed.
Patent system -- agreed.
Double jeopardy -- agreed.
Seventh amendment -- Haven't thought much about this, but that makes sense.
Jury duty -- while we're on the subject of court cases, I think jurors should be paid decent wages (it's, what, $5 a day here?). It will increase the quality of the jury instead of getting a dozen people who are either good citizens or too stupid to get out of it, and probably more of the latter.
Elections -- agree about the popular vote. And the modified election terms is a very good idea.
Congressional processes -- agreed.
Social Security -- This is a topic I've been reading about lately (I work in financial service now, particularly with retirement planning). Not social security directly, but the general problem of what to do with old people once they can no longer work. There is no easy solution, but the most effective solution will come from financial independence, which means a person has enough passive income to pay for their expenses without depending on the government, family, an employer, or even themselves. That involves saving, investing, and most importantly, practical financial literacy. Again, this is a problem with our education, which is stuck in the Industral Age when doing well in school means getting a good job, which means lifetime security. Did any of your high schools teach you about finances and investments? Mine didn't. College didn't either, but that's because of my major. I think they should include finance classes as part of the general requirements instead of just humanities and sciences.
Working past retirement age might be an option, but take a look at some numbers: disability statistics. They told us at work that one out of four seniors over 65 is disabled. I figured you guys need some proof, so I looked this up. Check out the numbers at the bottom for people 65 and over. 41.9% has some sort of disability. That's like, way more than a quarter. But sometimes people with a small disability can still work, so the number for those that need care would a more conservative figure -- and that comes out to 29.9% (self-care plus institutional care). They might live another decade or two, but they definitely can't work.
That's it for today. It's good thinking about this stuff. I might type up a list of my own opinions and put them on my blog. Thanks for the ideas, Stephen.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
I'd love to hear the quote from Jesus that says "gays are bad". It's mentioned very few times in your "scripture". Once or twice in the Mosaic Law (which you yourself have repeatedly stated is no longer applicable) and once or twice by Paul (who never even met Jesus, and who didn't really seem to care much for anyone who wasn't just like him anyway). So someone could easily be a Christian (defined as someone who believes that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah) and still be as gay as they like.
Jewish law isn't applicable to Christians, that doesn't mean that it's valueless. Jewish law says to kill all the witches. The law not being applicable to Christians means we're not supposed to kill witches. But the fact that the law was there in the first place still tells us that God isn't a fan of sourcery and such. Without the law, Christ is meaningless.
Clearly, not all Christians find religion and tolerance mutually exclusive.
Clearly this odd misdefinition of "tolerance" is still prevelant.
You approach wont work as long as church leaders insist on calling women that legally terminate their pregnantcy "murderers": no one's going to come forward for that "forgivness". No one that follows their rights under the law would want to be considered a "forgiven murderer".
What I'm saying with a lot of this is that the law does not define morality, the law is the law and nothing beyond that. Changing the law will not change peoples' opinions on the morality or lack thereof of a particular action. What you're saying seems to be that no one will come forward to ask for forgiveness for one mistake if their made to feel that their other option is also wrong. That makes no sense.
If you really want to reduce the number of abortions- embrace sex education, contraception and open discussion between young people and their parents/teachers about sex.
None of which the chruch is for.
If by "for" you mean "has as part of its purpose", sure it is. The church is here to do good. When raising children, all that in your list is part of it. If by "for" you mean "in favor of", then you're mistakenly thinking of the church as a monolithic entity. My particular congregation has an in-depth sex education class for every kid that comes through the youth group, including contraception. The church I went to prior to this one did too. You'll further note it's part of my list. I'd also say that it will reduce teen pregnancy. What I've proposed regarding forgiveness would result in reducing the number of teen pregnancies that end in abortions. Different question.
Moral or not, pre-marital sex is a choice and turning a woman's right to choose into some social taboo only makes it harder for pregnant woman to seek alternatives.
Pre-marital sex is a sin. As such, many families are concerned with their reputations. What you're saying is that we should change it so that nobody considers pre-marital sex a sin. That will not happen, and I guarentee you wouldn't like the results if it did. And since it won't happen, do you have a better proposal than mine?
Why not use the tissue from aborted fetuses that will just be incinerated anyway?
I'm fine with that. I won't support the creation of human fetuses specifically to be destroyed, but those that died by other means whatever they may be, I agree, use the tissue however is most useful.
Seperation of Church and state should eliminate debate and reduce it to a simple human rights issue.
Okay, so you're going for option 1 and 2 in my list, expand marriage until it's anything you want it to be? Fine, we can get rid of the legal concept entirely, I have little problem with that.
Gays dont have a "minimal grasp of reality" in wanting equal rights
Well, then it's a good thing I didn't say that.
I think the more lasting teachings of Jesus will outlive some of the pettiness in Christianity.
Applying the teachings of Jesus requires wisdom: knowing what actions produce good results and what actions don't, and applying that knowledge. All the love and good intentions in the universe don't do squat if you don't know what will help people.
If unconditional love were applied in its entirety, no forgiveness would be required under any circumstance.
That does not derrive naturally from your definition of "forgiveness". The only case in whcih forgiveness is not required is if not wrong has been done. Thus the only way no forgiveness would be required is if nothing is ever considered wrong. If love is doing what's best for someone else and placing their well-being above your own, which I would argue it is, then your argument would require that there being no right and wrong is what's best for everyone.
I find it very hypocritical to say somebody can't move to this country for its opportunities just because they're not as privileged as I am.
Well, then it's a good thing I didn't say that.
we'd love immigrants if they would all just come here legally. But obviously it isn't possible for some (I'm mostly thinking of Latin Americans), whether it's because they can't find a sponsor or don't have the money or whatever
If they don't have the money to physically travel here they have bigger problems. In that case they'd pretty well have to commit a crime just to GET here, no? Rule of law == good thing.
Government employees are overpaid.
Depends on the government employee. Elected officials may be in a lot of cases, but people like police officers and teachers certainly aren't.
Posted by Ultra 2 Legit 2 Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Police officers are ridiculously overpaid, especially considering they are abusive, intolerant and corrupt, the whole lot of them, and if anyone argues with me, you're wrong and I hate you.
Note: I am serious, and I hate them.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: [qb] I'd love to hear the quote from Jesus that says "gays are bad". It's mentioned very few times in your "scripture". Once or twice in the Mosaic Law (which you yourself have repeatedly stated is no longer applicable) and once or twice by Paul (who never even met Jesus, and who didn't really seem to care much for anyone who wasn't just like him anyway). So someone could easily be a Christian (defined as someone who believes that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah) and still be as gay as they like.
Jewish law isn't applicable to Christians, that doesn't mean that it's valueless. Jewish law says to kill all the witches. The law not being applicable to Christians means we're not supposed to kill witches. But the fact that the law was there in the first place still tells us that God isn't a fan of sourcery and such. Without the law, Christ is meaningless.
So you pick and choose what Old testament laws are still applicable and what is outdated. Is there some scripture that describes how this is accomplished? On what criteria is some part of what was considered God's Law now outdated? I cant recall Jesus coimg out with Bible: Version 2.0
That's where your church (the one not built by man) comes in: they've decided what you should believe and what you should ignore and although you're not catholic, most of your doctrines follow theirs. Many Christians prefer to follow Jesus' actual teachings and decide for themselves what is truly moral in His eyes: thus you can be both Christian nad gay and have no problems being both.
In time the stigma of being gay will be as ignored by mainstream Christianity as the rest of the book of Leviticus. As inconcievable as that may be (to you) at the moment.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
UM: Regional police or RCMP? Or both?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
WTF? timelag posts?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ultra 2 Legit 2 Magnus: Police officers are ridiculously overpaid, especially considering they are abusive, intolerant and corrupt, the whole lot of them, and if anyone argues with me, you're wrong and I hate you.
Note: I am serious, and I hate them.
But do you hate them as much as they hate the ungreatful public that consider them all to be overpaid, abusive, intolerant and corrupt? Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Jewish law isn't applicable to Christians, that doesn't mean that it's valueless. Jewish law says to kill all the witches. The law not being applicable to Christians means we're not supposed to kill witches. But the fact that the law was there in the first place still tells us that God isn't a fan of sourcery and such. Without the law, Christ is meaningless."
So, Yahweh doesn't like witches. Does that mean we should disallow Wiccans from marrying? After all, if we can't stone them, we should at least stop them from making corruptable babies, right?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Aside from that red-haired girl on Buffy, is there any Wiccian worth reproducing with?
None I've ever seen.
Not that they should'nt have the right, of course.
Posted by Nim the Merciful (Member # 205) on :
"Jewish law says to kill all the witches."
Nim's law says kill all hippies.
Tora Ziyal: "I really, really can't stand our current policy on drugs, especially when marijuana is not much more damaging than tobacco."
You're abso right! We should ban both. Posted by Ultra 2 Legit 2 Magnus (Member # 239) on :
It's like, whenever I have to think of issues, I try to imagine WHAT WOULD MARK MESSIER DO WHEN HE HAD GARY COLEMAN IN THE LOCKER ROOM WITH HIM AT THE SAME TIME?!
Posted by Ultra 2 Legit 2 Magnus (Member # 239) on :
AND IS HE TOUCHING HIS BUM?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
So you pick and choose what Old testament laws are still applicable and what is outdated. Is there some scripture that describes how this is accomplished? On what criteria is some part of what was considered God's Law now outdated?
None of the law is outdated. All of it's good for learning about God's intentions for human life, even if the specific commands are no longer binding.
So, Yahweh doesn't like witches. Does that mean we should disallow Wiccans from marrying?
You all seem to be operating on the opinion that I said the government shouldn't let gays get married. Did I say that I thought that, somewhere in this thread that I missed?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
quote: tol�er�ance ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tlr-ns) n.
1. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others. ... Source: The American Heritage� Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
? Misdefinition? Its the very first definition in the dictionary. Note the "respecting" part.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
And if you'll check the definition of respect, you'll see the second definition is "To avoid violation of or interference with". People can believe what they want, I have no particular desire to force them to stop. Thus, tolerance. That doesn't mean I have to say that all beliefs are CORRECT.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...WHAT WOULD MARK MESSIER DO WHEN HE HAD GARY COLEMAN IN THE LOCKER ROOM WITH HIM AT THE SAME TIME?!"
Get a bigger towel, would be my suggestion.
"I really, really can't stand our current policy on drugs, especially when marijuana is not much more damaging than tobacco."
"Not much more"? Since when is it any more damaging than tobacco? For that matter, since when isn't tobacco more damaging than marijuana?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: And if you'll check the definition of respect, you'll see the second definition is "To avoid violation of or interference with". People can believe what they want, I have no particular desire to force them to stop. Thus, tolerance. That doesn't mean I have to say that all beliefs are CORRECT.
You've already said that being gay and being Christian are "two contradictory lifestyles." Since people can't change being gay, any more than they can change having sickle cell anemia or having brown hair then obviously you're implying that they should drop Christianity. That sounds like interference to me.
Secondly, I believe that the definition of tolerance refers to the *first* definition of respect, not the second. i.e. "To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem." which is even more clearly not being met.
Your second definition is suffixed with a clearly irrelevant example.
quote: re�spect ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-spkt) tr.v. re�spect�ed, re�spect�ing, re�spects 1. To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem. 2. To avoid violation of or interference with: respect the speed limit. 3. To relate or refer to; concern.
I don't think that the definition of tolerance implied that you should respect same-sex beliefs and practices in the same sense that you would respect the speed limit.
But as I said, luckily your beliefs do not seem to correspond with all Christians. At least not the majority of Anglicans.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Since people can't change being gay, any more than they can change having sickle cell anemia or having brown hair then obviously you're implying that they should drop Christianity.
Based on your assumptions, you'd be correct. But since your assumptions are utterly unfounded, I deny implying any such thing.
I believe that the definition of tolerance refers to the *first* definition of respect, not the second. i.e. "To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem." which is even more clearly not being met.
Your opinion is duely noted. I choose to hold another which makes more sense.
Posted by Ultra 2 Legit 2 Magnus (Member # 239) on :
DULY
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Duly noted.
*desperately needs sleep*
Posted by Tora Ziyal (Member # 53) on :
quote: "Not much more"? Since when is it any more damaging than tobacco? For that matter, since when isn't tobacco more damaging than marijuana?
And if I said "marijuana isn't any more damaging than tobacco," someone might ask me to proove it, which I'm not inclined to do. So I took the conservative approach. Please criticize something important next time so I don't have to give an inane explanation like this one.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: So you pick and choose what Old testament laws are still applicable and what is outdated. Is there some scripture that describes how this is accomplished? On what criteria is some part of what was considered God's Law now outdated?
None of the law is outdated. All of it's good for learning about God's intentions for human life, even if the specific commands are no longer binding.
You still did not answer the question of WHO decides what law is "no longer binding"?
I cant recall Jesus saying anything to that effect at all. Has there ever even been a official decree against the practice of slavery or the burning of witches from the Roman church? I doubt it: those laws making it acceptable could come in handy again some day. Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Roman church=church in Rome.
Roman CATHOLIC Church=Catholic Church.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Double Post...ERGHHHH
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Please criticize something important next time so I don't have to give an inane explanation like this one."
Please be less snippy next time, so I don't have to give a sarcastic response like this one.
Posted by Tora Ziyal (Member # 53) on :
quote:Applying the teachings of Jesus requires wisdom: knowing what actions produce good results and what actions don't, and applying that knowledge. All the love and good intentions in the universe don't do squat if you don't know what will help people.
And if you do not let people do the actions that may lead to undesired results, how will they know that it won't? Sure, you could tell them, and I'm sure parents have told their kids what's good and what's not since the beginning of time, and we know how well that usually works. Experience is the fastest road to wisdom. Some people just need the bad experiences to realize it's not what they want.
quote:If love is doing what's best for someone else and placing their well-being above your own, which I would argue it is
Does loving someone not involve letting someone decide what's best for themselves? Or is your good intentions more important than their free will?
And no, that's not my definition of love. Those might be a few of the effects of love, but I wouldn't say that's all it is.
quote:That does not derrive naturally from your definition of "forgiveness". The only case in whcih forgiveness is not required is if not wrong has been done. Thus the only way no forgiveness would be required is if nothing is ever considered wrong.... then your argument would require that there being no right and wrong is what's best for everyone.
You've hit upon something there. I don't believe in absolute right or wrong. However, I do believe in what works and what doesn't, depending on who you want to be, and that's where I think laws and morality came from. People found out that murder, stealing, and eating pork did not work if they wanted to have peace and health, so they made laws or told people "because God said so" to make other people do what they're doing.
I know you don't agree, and that's great because it's free will at work. But you obviously know that certain things you call "sins" do not work for us, which is why I pointed out how fear of sex does not work if you want to stop abortions, because fear of rejection is greater (in fact, it's the number one fear). That was a little convoluted so I'll rephrase it this way: fear of sex produces rejection, and fear of rejection produces abortion in pregnant teens. For any effort to end abortion to WORK, it must begin at the top.
Again, I reiterate that wrongness is a judgment based on certain conditions, and I find that to be incompatible with unconditional love. I'm not saying that, if you had a pregnant unmarried daughter, you should go, "congratulations! When's it due?" But it is more loving to know that she's already living with the consequences (a baby and all that comes with it) and love her all the same.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Veers: Roman church=church in Rome.
Roman CATHOLIC Church=Catholic Church.
Roman CATHOLIC Church=Catholic Church= basis for all other Christian denominations, including what Omega believes in.
...and still does not answer the question of who detirmines what's valid from the Old Testament and what "no longer applies" to Christians.
The answer is simple: he can't tell me who's made that decision for him on what to believe. ...besides, The many editors of the bible have chosen not to sign their work.
It would take some degree of heresy to determine for oneself which of God's laws he can safely ignore.
Posted by Tora Ziyal (Member # 53) on :
I'm just going to address two more topics I care to talk about at length.
Education -- I think public schools have bigger problems than funding and prayers. The education system is obsolete. The classroom setting rarely inspires learning. Standardized testing (as well as most exams) tests people's testing skills more than their actual knowledge (why do we need to know elimination tricks on the SATs?). I personally know at least two people who are perfectly intelligent beings who suck at taking tests, while I excel at tests (more adrenaline = more focused) and do average in homework. As I said before, we also need more financial education from an early age. It is ridiculous that schools don't teach you how to manage the one thing you have to use in life. We also need to admit that knowledge is not more important than character and teach subjects based on values, such as responsibility, honesty, or love. More funding is not going to help without changing the system, and the quickest way to change the obsolete is to provide economic competition (as we know is part of a free market). In other words, parents who want to send their kids to private schools should be able to get vouchers, or at least not have to pay the part of their taxes that goes to public school funding.
Care of the poor -- Recently, I went to a seminar called Understand Men 101 taught by this woman named Alison Armstrong. The seminar was really good and eye opening, but what I am reminded of is her background. She really likes to get to the bottom of things, and her career started out with studying what causes homelessness. (She started the Orange County Homeless Issues Task Force and the Orange County Summit for Children) In her words: "Half the homeless in Orange County are children. And the root of homelessness for many adults lies in childhood -- things that didn't happen that should have, like learning to read; and things that shouldn't have happened but did, like abuse. In 1994, my personal compulsion to understand men converged with my personal and professional commitment to children. I realized one of the best ways I can help children is by altering the way their parents relate to each other. By shifting those relationships from the adversarial context we inherited, to the partnerships that are now possible, parents can create home environments in which their children flourish." And so, she conluded, improving relationship between couples will end homelessness.
[ July 18, 2004, 10:53 PM: Message edited by: Tora Ziyal ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Roman CATHOLIC Church=Catholic Church"
Actually, the Roman Catholic church = the Roman Catholic church. There are other denominations that call themselves "catholic", also. "Catholic" means "universal". So, any religion that calls itself "catholic" is already lying to you just in its name.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yet they all spawned from the same seed, follow 99.5% of the same doctrine and dispite their own squabbles, preach the same party-line. Do ANY of the denominations know who did their bible editing?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
You still did not answer the question of WHO decides what law is "no longer binding"?
I cant recall Jesus saying anything to that effect at all.
Well, if he didn't say the law isn't applicable and you assume it IS, then you get all sorts of fun stuff like all of us having to observe Jewish dietary laws and circumcision. Not to mention sacrifice laws when sacrifice has been rendered moot. The church agreed on the answer to that one in the mid first century: that Jewish law is not binding, but still useful to study because it can provide understanding of God's will when taken in its context.
And if you do not let people do the actions that may lead to undesired results, how will they know that it won't?
Well, hopefully the people being taught will by that point have been instilled with the wisdom required to know that it's a good idea to listen to people with more experience than you. Not everyone has to learn the hard way.
Experience is the fastest road to wisdom.
Actually, no, the fastest road would require little experience at all, just listening to people around you would be much faster. So long as you keep in mind, of course, that they COULD be wrong.
Some people just need the bad experiences to realize it's not what they want.
Yup. Sometimes life has to hit certain people over the head on certain matters. My point is that when young people don't listen to the wiser people around them, said wiser people should forgive them when they realize their mistakes.
Does loving someone not involve letting someone decide what's best for themselves? Or is your good intentions more important than their free will?
Love requires you to allow for free will under most circumstances (unless you're talking about a child, in which case letting them stick a fork in a power socket because they want to is a Bad Idea). But love also requires you to TELL someone the consequences of their future actions, or at least ensure that they know. They can do what they want, but if you don't tell them what will happen if they do you're just being neglegent.
I won't quote your entire opinion on love and morality, Tora, it's quite long and you already know I don't believe in moral relativism. But your last setnence, at least, is exactly what I'm saying already. "it is more loving to know that she's already living with the consequences (a baby and all that comes with it) and love her all the same."
Roman CATHOLIC Church=Catholic Church= basis for all other Christian denominations, including what Omega believes in.
I hope you mean historical basis. Doctrinal basis, no freaking way.
...and still does not answer the question of who detirmines what's valid from the Old Testament and what "no longer applies" to Christians.
Who said ANY still apply?
*reads Tora's next post*
You wanna be my secretary of Education?
I'm not sure about the replacement of standardized testing and the classroom setting. But hey, you propose a better system and I'll read it. I certainly agree with the need for financial education. Not so sure about teaching moral values in a school, to tell you the truth, parents would do a better job of that, and you'd have a question of what values to teach. But then, parents frequently DON'T do that job. Something to think about. I think I agree with vouchers in concept. It would have to be implemented VERY well, with enough flexibility in the public schools to allow them to function if a large number of students withdrew and went elsewhere. But it's doable.
By shifting those relationships from the adversarial context we inherited, to the partnerships that are now possible, parents can create home environments in which their children flourish.
What a brilliantly original concept this woman has! Though I'd love to know why partnerships are NOW possible, as if they weren't before...
That won't end homelessness, for sure. But it'll help.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: [QB] You still did not answer the question of WHO decides what law is "no longer binding"?
I cant recall Jesus saying anything to that effect at all.
Well, if he didn't say the law isn't applicable and you assume it IS, then you get all sorts of fun stuff like all of us having to observe Jewish dietary laws and circumcision. Not to mention sacrifice laws when sacrifice has been rendered moot. The church agreed on the answer to that one in the mid first century: that Jewish law is not binding, but still useful to study because it can provide understanding of God's will when taken in its context.
So you follow some of the revisions of First Century MEN. Not anything God said, but people -with their own agendas and prejeduces.
quote: Experience is the fastest road to wisdom.
Actually, no, the fastest road would require little experience at all, just listening to people around you would be much faster. So long as you keep in mind, of course, that they COULD be wrong.
Um....no. Wisdom is knowledge gained through experience. Simply being told something is the "wise" thing to do does not make you wise- understanding the reasons behind your choices is wisdom. Anything else is just empty knowledge.
Reading about life is not the same as truly living it. Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
So, wait... Yahweh, in his heart, really wants us to burn the witches and stone the gays, but he's just decided he's not going to hold us to it anymore?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
No. Yahweh, in his heart, really thinks witchcraft, pre-marital-, extra-marital-, and homo-sexual activity are Bad Things. He told the Jews to stone or burn people involved in such activities, which is how we know he considers those activities Bad. We learn from Christ that stoning and burning, however, are not the integral and universally necessary response to their being Bad. See the woman caught in adultery. "I don't condemn you either. Go! From now on don't sin." He didn't deny that she had sinned, but he forgave her and sent her on her way to do what she would from that point with what she'd learned.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Hmmm, question.
If I think that burning witches is fun, should I become a Jew?
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:If I think that burning witches is fun, should I become a Jew?
If you are already circumsised then perhaps it is for you, if not then I would really put some thought into this.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Y'know, I find myself in the odd position of defending Omega here. The guy has just posted a rather incredible (more so in the shift of his political opinions) update on his political thought, and yet we're still finding stuff to bash him on. Ok, ok, so he's still a scary religious guy ... he's from the Bible belt. Let's cut him some slack here. Let's take a step back, compare THIS Omega to Omega four years ago, and not harp on him about every tiny little thing.
I mean, what, do we want everyone here to be a cookie cutter image of ourselves?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: No. Yahweh, in his heart, really thinks witchcraft, pre-marital-, extra-marital-, and homo-sexual activity are Bad Things. He told the Jews to stone or burn people involved in such activities, which is how we know he considers those activities Bad. We learn from Christ that stoning and burning, however, are not the integral and universally necessary response to their being Bad. See the woman caught in adultery. "I don't condemn you either. Go! From now on don't sin." He didn't deny that she had sinned, but he forgave her and sent her on her way to do what she would from that point with what she'd learned.
Yeah, but when did he catch a witch and say "Allright, knock it off lady! I'm giving you one more chance..." It seems that the Christian's of Salem were missing that page from their bibles.
Really, the diffrences are a result of the catholic church needing to distinguish itself as seperate from Judiasm (the jews not being the most popular bunch) and, alwys being hungry for more converts and the money and power they bring, loosened or eliminated the rules on many things that would make people think twice about joining.
As example, you wont get many pig farmers to convert to a religion that wont allow you to eat the animal that is both your livlihood and food source.
Explaining the whole "circumcision" thing to those not familliar with the practice would be tricky as well... Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay: Y'know, I find myself in the odd position of defending Omega here. The guy has just posted a rather incredible (more so in the shift of his political opinions) update on his political thought, and yet we're still finding stuff to bash him on. Ok, ok, so he's still a scary religious guy ... he's from the Bible belt. Let's cut him some slack here. Let's take a step back, compare THIS Omega to Omega four years ago, and not harp on him about every tiny little thing.
I mean, what, do we want everyone here to be a cookie cutter image of ourselves?
Yeah, you're right....we're only debating the obvious religous aspects of his doctrine. You'll note that we generally applaud his stand on gun control and most of the other issues.
Basing your objection to gay marriage on a religous system that many don't subscribe to is going to incte some degree of debate here at Flare.
I like Omega (just as a friend, sorry). His views are well articualted and thought out, allthough often lightyears away from my own.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: No. Yahweh, in his heart, really thinks witchcraft, pre-marital-, extra-marital-, and homo-sexual activity are Bad Things.
Wait....you DARE to presume to know the heart of Yahweh!?!
HE'S A WITCH! BURN HIM!! OH! NOW I see why Christians don't do that anymore... Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Can't you just make one post with all that?
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
But then it might look like he was blathering on incoherrently. Oh.
Bravo, Omega, for so brashly stating your beliefs. Here's hoping you will allow yourself a chance to make some revisions as you garner new wisdom.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"I mean, what, do we want everyone here to be a cookie cutter image of ourselves?"
Of course not. Then whom would we bash about every little thing?
Posted by Tora Ziyal (Member # 53) on :
quote:Actually, no, the fastest road would require little experience at all, just listening to people around you would be much faster. So long as you keep in mind, of course, that they COULD be wrong.
I don't know about you, but for me wisdom is more an internal state than it is doing the "right" thing. Everybody would be wise if they would just listen. Yet, people don't. If they did listen and internalize it, it's probably because they are already wise about that particular event. If they didn't have the wisdom already, you can tell because 1) they won't listen or 2) you have to remind them every time the event happens. And then, what do you do when there is no right answer? Like, "should I tell her how I feel even though it might ruin our friendship?" or "should I take him back even though he screwed up?"
quote:Not so sure about teaching moral values in a school, to tell you the truth, parents would do a better job of that, and you'd have a question of what values to teach. But then, parents frequently DON'T do that job.
Sure, you could call honesty, responsibility, and love moral values, but they're values that everybody tend to subscribe to, if not practice. Very few parents, of any religious following or lack thereof, will say they don't want their kids to be honest and responsible. Even then, you can still allow parents to opt out if they wanted to.
Not only do some parents not actively teach values (honesty for example), when they do the lesson is often undermined by the poor examples they themselves are. As we all know, actions speak louder than words.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:Then whom would we bash about every little thing?
First of Two. Duh.
Posted by Nim the Merciful (Member # 205) on :
First of who? *looks around* Hm?
Grokca: "If you are already circumsised then perhaps it is for you, if not then I would really put some thought into this."
Aw, don't come dragging your penises and Sionist World Orders again, I've just waxed the floor and fed my cat.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Oh, I hear he's alive and well and posting on Trek-RPG.net where he whines about us lot being an intellectual latrine and mutual self-admiration society. He'll either re-appear around mid-November if Bush wins, or not at all if Kerry does.
Waxed the floor and fed your cat? Dangerous. The consequences of doing it the other way round. . .
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: Oh, I hear he's alive and well and posting on Trek-RPG.net where he whines about us lot being an intellectual latrine and mutual self-admiration society...
Well said, my good sir, very well said. It's when you say things like that when I begin to appreciate just how handsome you really are.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: the floor and fed your cat? Dangerous. The consequences of doing it the other way round. . .
You ever held a hairless cat? It's a hot water bottle with claws. Sad, really.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"You ever held a hairless cat?"
No, but I have held a hairless pussy... B)
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
I acknowledge your rapier wit, sir.
Posted by Capped in Mike (Member # 709) on :
Shik does as well. And me, too
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
And I acknowledge your apt sarcasm, sir.
Boo.
Posted by Ultra 2 Legit 2 Magnus (Member # 239) on :
I am just glad we've not forgotten.
Posted by Capped in Mike (Member # 709) on :
God bless Us, every One!
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
I think the abyss is staring at us.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
No, no, it lost, it blinked.....
Posted by Ultra 2 Legit 2 Magnus (Member # 239) on :
HYMEN!
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
A fun toy...
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
Well not that much fun, really.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
And you can only use it once.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Like a condom.... But that does not seem to be a fun toy to me....
Posted by Nim the Merciful (Member # 205) on :
Yeah, I hear there are a lot of people who don't take pleasure in screwing. You're in good company!!
Seriously, wtf???
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Yes, I would never take pleasure from screwing....
But playing with a hymen, well, now, that is a horse of a different colour now.....
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
horse.cx!!. Insert virginal mount joke. All your horse-molester are belong to us.
Posted by Futurama IV Shizzle (Member # 968) on :
the only unpleasurable thing about screwing is the burning sensation in my penis during the weeks that follow... Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Screw jacks are known to cause that when operated inappropriately, yes.
Posted by Futurama IV Shizzle (Member # 968) on :
I WAS REFERING TO MY STDs.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
NO WAY!! Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Remind me to tell you all of my visit to an STD clinic sometime. . . 8)
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
We're all ears.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
You're all ears: I'm mostly penis. Ask anyone.
Posted by Nim the Merciful (Member # 205) on :
Anyone was unreachable for comment. Jason, there's a difference between knowing the path, and walking the path.
Posted by Ultra Manjuice (Member # 239) on :
More like mostly penis holder, because of all the cock in the anus, like a penis pencil sharpener, sit and spin and squeak as you shave valuable skin cells off of a beefteque.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
U R WHAT U EAT!!!1!one!
I'm certain Omega really appreciates the direction this thread about his moral assumptions has taken.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Hyman!!!, er, Amen.....
Wouldn't this give him another reason to state his opinion??? Which, oddly, I am of no opinion....
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Ahhhhh....I feel the love.
From your mothers, anyway. Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
*drags this topic kicking and screaming back to the topic*
Just thought of a position I didn't cover. Illegally obtained evidence should not be ruled inadmissable. Whoever obtained it illegally should be punished severely, but it's still evidence and should not be thrown out because of its origin.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
I cannot agree. Evidence that has been illegally obtained destroys the justice system. To rule it admissable just for the sake of reaching a verdict would ultimately be far more damaging (to society as a whole) than a guilty defendant walking on occasion.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: Just thought of a position I didn't cover. Illegally obtained evidence should not be ruled inadmissable. Whoever obtained it illegally should be punished severely, but it's still evidence and should not be thrown out because of its origin.
That sure would make it easy to fabricate evidence, trample on human rights, personal civil rights and would make law enforcement officers criminals themselves. After all, look at the pitiful penalties for purjury....
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: Just thought of a position I didn't cover. Illegally obtained evidence should not be ruled inadmissable. Whoever obtained it illegally should be punished severely, but it's still evidence and should not be thrown out because of its origin.
That sure would make it easy to fabricate evidence, trample on human rights, personal civil rights and would make law enforcement officers criminals themselves. After all, look at the slap on the wrist penalties for purjury....a person could be framed easily if illeagally obtained evidence were admissiable.
I DO think that some evidence should be brought into the public domain though: having to get a search warrant for a person's garbage is a bit much.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
No, it isn't.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Regarding the garbage?
Are'nt you relinquishing any legal right over it by throwing it away?
Hmmm....something to think about though, I guess.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Throwing something away is not the same as releasing it to the public domain, nor should it be.
Posted by Nim the Merciful (Member # 205) on :
You know, I never thought about that. True enough, if people saw what harbored in my trash-bags at times, they wouldn't know whether to cry or scream.
Posted by Ultra Manjuice (Member # 239) on :
I leave a poop with a face made of buttons in each of your trashbags, just for that very moment.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartman: Throwing something away is not the same as releasing it to the public domain, nor should it be.
Yet...should'nt a search warrant for a suspect's apartment extend to their trash in front of it?
Currently, a warrant can be issued for either but they are usually seperate.
If grounds are found for the initial warrant, should'nt it extend that far? I can see both sides of the argument, but from a law enforcment POV, potential evidence might be lost to trash pick-up while a warrant is being obtained.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
One man's trash is another man's secret hiding place .... Shit, so much for treasure.....
Posted by Nim the Merciful (Member # 205) on :
"You are a filthy, filthy leek, Ritten!" Nim Ertsop
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Y'know, I was under the impression that once you put your trash on the street it's not yours any more, and thus subject to search regardless of warrant. Don't know where I got that, though.
Can you please give me an example of how someone could be framed using illegally obtained evidence? I'm assuming here that the judge and jury aren't idiots and aren't going to believe things that are blatant lies.
Oh, and penalties for perjury should be much much stricter, BTW, assuming you weren't being sarcastic about them being weak. I'm not sure what they are at the moment, but they should really suck.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"I'm assuming here that the judge and jury aren't idiots and aren't going to believe things that are blatant lies."
Ha!
Posted by Tora Ziyal (Member # 53) on :
quote:I'm assuming here that the judge and jury aren't idiots and aren't going to believe things that are blatant lies.
O.J. Simpson, anyone?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
It is also nice to assume that your judge is not, say, furiously masturbating, or is awake, but these are not necessarily safe assumptions.
(Also, judicial misbehavior is totally international.)
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: Can you please give me an example of how someone could be framed using illegally obtained evidence? I'm assuming here that the judge and jury aren't idiots and aren't going to believe things that are blatant lies.
THe term is "fruit from the posionous tree". If a search is illegal, any subsequent evidence obtained in that search are inadmissable as a result. A person could be framed easily via circumstancial evidence obtained ileagally or via planted evidence: cops want to make a case against someone they feel is guilty- allowing anything to be admitted from an illeagal search calls ALL the obtained evidence's origin into question. If investigators went so far as to break the law in evidence's gathering, how can you (as a juror) trust the source at all?
The warrant system serves as oversight to prevent having to prove yourself innocent against charges.
It's not so much that judges are idiots as that juries are idiots and need the law to be clear and strict to balance their opinions and biases: after all, they could'nt even get out of jury duty.
quote: Oh, and penalties for perjury should be much much stricter, BTW, assuming you weren't being sarcastic about them being weak. I'm not sure what they are at the moment, but they should really suck.
I really agree. Look at our pal John Poindexter: convicted of Congressional Purjury and now he's sitting pretty next to Tom Ridge at Homeland SEcurity conferences.
He was pardoned, of course.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: Y'know, I was under the impression that once you put your trash on the street it's not yours any more, and thus subject to search regardless of warrant. Don't know where I got that, though.
It does seem a bit odd that you would need a warrant to search trash in front of a house...
Afterall, don't they routinely search dumpsters and landfill sites when they think that evidence may have been dumped? How would the search warrant be worded on a landfill if it all still "belonged" to their owners?
Posted by Nim the Merciful (Member # 205) on :
I just remember that movie with Michael Douglas and Yaphet Kotto, that was a good movie. That bearded guy with the baggy eyes, who also was in "Foul Play", he's creepy in that movie.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Koto? My favorite Jem'Hadar.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
THe term is "fruit from the posionous tree". If a search is illegal, any subsequent evidence obtained in that search are inadmissable as a result. A person could be framed easily via circumstancial evidence obtained ileagally or via planted evidence: cops want to make a case against someone they feel is guilty- allowing anything to be admitted from an illeagal search calls ALL the obtained evidence's origin into question.
While restating all sorts of good stuff, it doesn't actually give me an example.
And while I'm typing, I should clarify my abortion position. I still believe that support and forgiveness are the best way to prevent a lot of abortions, but I also believe that late-term abortions should be illegal short of threat to the mother's life. Also, partial birth abortion is, so far as I understand the concept, inexcusable.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
How about this: allowing criminal proceedings (illeagally obtaining evidence) undermines any legal proceeding and no justice can truly be expected for the accused if the system itself is okay with admitidly illeagal prctices. It would mean that investigators and the evidence gathered are held to a more lax standard than any defense the accused might provide.
The only comparable defense situation would be if an alibi were proven faked but allowed as evidence anyway.
(insrt some quote about the first link inexorably chaining us all or somethin')
Posted by Tora Ziyal (Member # 53) on :
quote: It is also nice to assume that your judge is not, say, furiously masturbating, or is awake, but these are not necessarily safe assumptions.
Can you really blame them though?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Well, hypothetically, yes, quite vocally, with signs and angry letters.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"The only comparable defense situation would be if an alibi were proven faked but allowed as evidence anyway."
Well, no. That would actually be comparable to evidence being proven fake, but admitted anyway.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Evidence obtained illeagally is as suspect as any refuted alibi.
Worse mabye....an alibi is usd for self-preservation but planting evidence or using illeagal means to get it is just going out of your way to fuck someone over.
The law must be a higher standard than the criminals it prosecutes or it's no better than them.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Perhaps. But it was still a bad analogy.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I blow a smoke ring at you, sir.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nim the Merciful: "You are a filthy, filthy leek, Ritten!" Nim Ertsop
No, no, that is just the smell of the pizza's rom my new job as a Jeff Jr. .....
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
. Good job and all, not for coming to agree with us but for coming into your own opinions.![[Cool]](cool.gif)
. 
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)