On March 27 2012 02:43 Dagobert wrote: For the same reason religion should always be separate from governmental affairs, free speech should be upheld at all times. Because one day, you might find yourself and your religion/opinion in the minority, and I bet you would not like it if you didn't have the means to oppose the majority just because you didn't want the minority to oppose you while you were in the majority.
That doesn't mean people can say what they want. A threat ("I'm gonna kill your ass, motherfucker") is unacceptable.
Yep. It would be strange, wouldn't it. What if Christians became a minority, and they got put them in jail when they told other people "you're going to burn in hell for eternity".
I mean, that's kind of a rude thing to say, but it's accepted I guess. You get to threaten children with hellfire but you don't get to make jokes about skin color.
On March 27 2012 02:47 MaddogStarCraft wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:42 AwayFromLife wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:40 MaddogStarCraft wrote: [quote]
Yes but the government provides something?
Your mystical man in the sky doesn't provide anything other than a false hope and a jobs for virgins.
Honestly? I'd rather have "false" hope than $5 a gallon for gas.
Mystical man in the sky < Police, Fire Departments, Army, Libraries, Education etc...
And using nuclear weapons on civilians was justified, look at the math behind Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Oh give me a break, maths behind a moral debate, be serious.
Again you disregard facts (math).
As a human I am biologically attuned to try and maximize pleasure and minimize pain. This can be shown by math. Therefore the human species and the choices we make can be justified or unjustified by math.
Stop screaming "FUCK FACTS". You're coming off stupid.
Nuking any populated area is mass murder of civilians. There is no justification possible.
Yes there is. Go read about it for 30 minutes and come back here. The causality rates would've been much worse had of the bombs not been dropped and an invasion been used instead.
People were drafted from both sides (Japan and America). Do you consider people in the military not to be citizens? Are you retarded?
Oh look! Absolutely no point, just tells you to go read then calls you retarded. Obviously we have a star debater here, definitely a champion.
I'm not going to list facts for you that you can go and read by yourself.
You're either too lazy to read it or too stupid to comprehend the simple material that a 9 year old can understand with ease.
TIL everyone who disagrees with MaddogStarCraft are retarded/stupid/idiot.
On March 27 2012 02:17 xenobarf wrote: Thoughts are as follows, either we have free speech or we do not, there is no middle area. Personally I'm for free speech.
Happy birthday, but really? No middle area?
(Everything allowed to say) ------------------------- (???????????????) ---------------------------------- (nothing allowed to say)
Any ideas of what could go in a middle area? (Hint, think of how it is in Sweden.)
The problem is that if we go into it trying to define a middle area, the who does this? All human beings are infallible and or biased in some form or another.
And yes, I agree that going around throwing racial slurs or doing salutes to Hitler is not a nice thing.
Yeah, it's crazy hard to decide what things are ok to say, and which are simply not ok. And different people have different opinions as you say. There is no single right answer, and it is certainly different in different places and at different times.
The ones to decide and enforce it should be the same people that decide and enforce what you are allowed to DO, rather than SAY. Which will be some kind democratically elected (well, in several steps, representative w/e don't know the terms) group of people and some kind of police force.
Because letting the government (or some form of government) decide what you can and cannot say is going to work out just fine. It's okay to have utopian ideas, but we still live in reality where, like I said, people are infallible and biased.
hmm, not sure if any of that is sarcasm, please clarify if so.
Anyway, no, it's not the ultimate solution, but I think it is the best we can do in the current political system we are using atm. I mean, you can vote for a party that will decide where to put this line, and then it is by democracy supposed to end up with a set of rules that most find acceptable, although everyone will have some details that they would have done differently.
I don't know, what do you propose to do differently?
It was sarcasm. It is definately not the ultimate solution. If voting for a group of people with their own bias, morals and ideas is the only way to land in some form of "middle ground" then its best left alone. The moment you let something subjective be decided by a few human beings is the moment someone gets royally fucked in the ass, whether they deserver it or not.
So you want that what can be said and not said should stand above our current democratic system? Then decided and enforced by who? Do you want to do the same with all laws, or only what you are allowed to say?
Can you expand a bit on "best left alone"? I don't understand what method you want to use to decide what is ok and what isn't. It's easy to criticise, but if you don't have a better suggestion it's not worth much tbh.
On March 27 2012 02:43 Dagobert wrote: For the same reason religion should always be separate from governmental affairs, free speech should be upheld at all times. Because one day, you might find yourself and your religion/opinion in the minority, and I bet you would not like it if you didn't have the means to oppose the majority just because you didn't want the minority to oppose you while you were in the majority.
That doesn't mean people can say what they want. A threat ("I'm gonna kill your ass, motherfucker") is unacceptable.
Yep. It would be strange, wouldn't it. What if Christians became a minority, and they got put them in jail when they told other people "you're going to burn in hell for eternity".
I mean, that's kind of a rude thing to say, but it's accepted I guess. You get to threaten children with hellfire but you don't get to make jokes about skin color.
On March 27 2012 02:47 MaddogStarCraft wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:42 AwayFromLife wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:40 MaddogStarCraft wrote: [quote]
Yes but the government provides something?
Your mystical man in the sky doesn't provide anything other than a false hope and a jobs for virgins.
Honestly? I'd rather have "false" hope than $5 a gallon for gas.
Mystical man in the sky < Police, Fire Departments, Army, Libraries, Education etc...
And using nuclear weapons on civilians was justified, look at the math behind Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Oh give me a break, maths behind a moral debate, be serious.
Again you disregard facts (math).
As a human I am biologically attuned to try and maximize pleasure and minimize pain. This can be shown by math. Therefore the human species and the choices we make can be justified or unjustified by math.
Stop screaming "FUCK FACTS". You're coming off stupid.
Nuking any populated area is mass murder of civilians. There is no justification possible.
Yes there is. Go read about it for 30 minutes and come back here. The causality rates would've been much worse had of the bombs not been dropped and an invasion been used instead.
People were drafted from both sides (Japan and America). Do you consider people in the military not to be citizens? Are you retarded?
Oh look! Absolutely no point, just tells you to go read then calls you retarded. Obviously we have a star debater here, definitely a champion.
I'm not going to list facts for you that you can go and read by yourself.
You're either too lazy to read it or too stupid to comprehend the simple material that a 9 year old can understand with ease.
TIL everyone who disagrees with MaddogStarCraft are retarded/stupid/idiot.
If they disagreed with reason, sadly there is a lack of it here.
Clearly you can't read, and make arguably shittier observations than Hilter.
On March 27 2012 02:11 WaesumNinja wrote: Adding this one into the mix
That was a pretty good video. I totally forgot that guy even existed til this reminded me. A lot of great points in it. People can be offended all they want but it's completely meaningless, and nothing should happen because of it, or else you are infringing on someone else.
On March 27 2012 02:43 Dagobert wrote: For the same reason religion should always be separate from governmental affairs, free speech should be upheld at all times. Because one day, you might find yourself and your religion/opinion in the minority, and I bet you would not like it if you didn't have the means to oppose the majority just because you didn't want the minority to oppose you while you were in the majority.
That doesn't mean people can say what they want. A threat ("I'm gonna kill your ass, motherfucker") is unacceptable.
Yep. It would be strange, wouldn't it. What if Christians became a minority, and they got put them in jail when they told other people "you're going to burn in hell for eternity".
I mean, that's kind of a rude thing to say, but it's accepted I guess. You get to threaten children with hellfire but you don't get to make jokes about skin color.
On March 27 2012 02:47 MaddogStarCraft wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:42 AwayFromLife wrote: [quote] Honestly? I'd rather have "false" hope than $5 a gallon for gas.
Mystical man in the sky < Police, Fire Departments, Army, Libraries, Education etc...
And using nuclear weapons on civilians was justified, look at the math behind Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Oh give me a break, maths behind a moral debate, be serious.
Again you disregard facts (math).
As a human I am biologically attuned to try and maximize pleasure and minimize pain. This can be shown by math. Therefore the human species and the choices we make can be justified or unjustified by math.
Stop screaming "FUCK FACTS". You're coming off stupid.
Nuking any populated area is mass murder of civilians. There is no justification possible.
Yes there is. Go read about it for 30 minutes and come back here. The causality rates would've been much worse had of the bombs not been dropped and an invasion been used instead.
People were drafted from both sides (Japan and America). Do you consider people in the military not to be citizens? Are you retarded?
Oh look! Absolutely no point, just tells you to go read then calls you retarded. Obviously we have a star debater here, definitely a champion.
I'm not going to list facts for you that you can go and read by yourself.
You're either too lazy to read it or too stupid to comprehend the simple material that a 9 year old can understand with ease.
TIL everyone who disagrees with MaddogStarCraft are retarded/stupid/idiot.
If they disagreed with reason, sadly there is a lack of it here.
Clearly you can't read, and make arguably shittier observations than Hilter.
On March 27 2012 02:17 xenobarf wrote: Thoughts are as follows, either we have free speech or we do not, there is no middle area. Personally I'm for free speech.
Happy birthday, but really? No middle area?
(Everything allowed to say) ------------------------- (???????????????) ---------------------------------- (nothing allowed to say)
Any ideas of what could go in a middle area? (Hint, think of how it is in Sweden.)
The problem is that if we go into it trying to define a middle area, the who does this? All human beings are infallible and or biased in some form or another.
And yes, I agree that going around throwing racial slurs or doing salutes to Hitler is not a nice thing.
Yeah, it's crazy hard to decide what things are ok to say, and which are simply not ok. And different people have different opinions as you say. There is no single right answer, and it is certainly different in different places and at different times.
The ones to decide and enforce it should be the same people that decide and enforce what you are allowed to DO, rather than SAY. Which will be some kind democratically elected (well, in several steps, representative w/e don't know the terms) group of people and some kind of police force.
Because letting the government (or some form of government) decide what you can and cannot say is going to work out just fine. It's okay to have utopian ideas, but we still live in reality where, like I said, people are infallible and biased.
hmm, not sure if any of that is sarcasm, please clarify if so.
Anyway, no, it's not the ultimate solution, but I think it is the best we can do in the current political system we are using atm. I mean, you can vote for a party that will decide where to put this line, and then it is by democracy supposed to end up with a set of rules that most find acceptable, although everyone will have some details that they would have done differently.
I don't know, what do you propose to do differently?
It was sarcasm. It is definately not the ultimate solution. If voting for a group of people with their own bias, morals and ideas is the only way to land in some form of "middle ground" then its best left alone. The moment you let something subjective be decided by a few human beings is the moment someone gets royally fucked in the ass, whether they deserver it or not.
So you want that what can be said and not said should stand above our current democratic system? Then decided and enforced by who? Do you want to do the same with all laws, or only what you are allowed to say?
Can you expand a bit on "best left alone"? I don't understand what method you want to use to decide what is ok and what isn't. It's easy to criticise, but if you don't have a better suggestion it's not worth much tbh.
I think you misunderstand, when I say its best left alone I'm saying that NO ONE should govern what can and cannot be said. It's easy to critize your idea because its completely infallible and will leave someone or somebody out cold, either everyone has freedom of speech or no one has it. Censoring people is not a good idea.
If you're worried about people being allowed to go around calling black people racial slurs then thats a good concern and guess what, if that person wants to do that its his right, that doesnt mean theres no consequences for having freedom of speech.
On March 27 2012 02:43 Dagobert wrote: For the same reason religion should always be separate from governmental affairs, free speech should be upheld at all times. Because one day, you might find yourself and your religion/opinion in the minority, and I bet you would not like it if you didn't have the means to oppose the majority just because you didn't want the minority to oppose you while you were in the majority.
That doesn't mean people can say what they want. A threat ("I'm gonna kill your ass, motherfucker") is unacceptable.
Yep. It would be strange, wouldn't it. What if Christians became a minority, and they got put them in jail when they told other people "you're going to burn in hell for eternity".
I mean, that's kind of a rude thing to say, but it's accepted I guess. You get to threaten children with hellfire but you don't get to make jokes about skin color.
On March 27 2012 02:47 MaddogStarCraft wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:42 AwayFromLife wrote: [quote] Honestly? I'd rather have "false" hope than $5 a gallon for gas.
Mystical man in the sky < Police, Fire Departments, Army, Libraries, Education etc...
And using nuclear weapons on civilians was justified, look at the math behind Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Oh give me a break, maths behind a moral debate, be serious.
Again you disregard facts (math).
As a human I am biologically attuned to try and maximize pleasure and minimize pain. This can be shown by math. Therefore the human species and the choices we make can be justified or unjustified by math.
Stop screaming "FUCK FACTS". You're coming off stupid.
Nuking any populated area is mass murder of civilians. There is no justification possible.
Yes there is. Go read about it for 30 minutes and come back here. The causality rates would've been much worse had of the bombs not been dropped and an invasion been used instead.
People were drafted from both sides (Japan and America). Do you consider people in the military not to be citizens? Are you retarded?
Oh look! Absolutely no point, just tells you to go read then calls you retarded. Obviously we have a star debater here, definitely a champion.
I'm not going to list facts for you that you can go and read by yourself.
You're either too lazy to read it or too stupid to comprehend the simple material that a 9 year old can understand with ease.
TIL everyone who disagrees with MaddogStarCraft are retarded/stupid/idiot.
He's a megalomaniac, simple as that.
False.
I have delusions of grandeur from my hypo-manic and manic episodes.
Although that doesn't make me a megalomaniac.
I've stated facts the entire time, a megalomaniac runs around without facts shouting out shit that isn't reasonable in practice or theory.
On March 27 2012 02:43 Dagobert wrote: For the same reason religion should always be separate from governmental affairs, free speech should be upheld at all times. Because one day, you might find yourself and your religion/opinion in the minority, and I bet you would not like it if you didn't have the means to oppose the majority just because you didn't want the minority to oppose you while you were in the majority.
That doesn't mean people can say what they want. A threat ("I'm gonna kill your ass, motherfucker") is unacceptable.
Yep. It would be strange, wouldn't it. What if Christians became a minority, and they got put them in jail when they told other people "you're going to burn in hell for eternity".
I mean, that's kind of a rude thing to say, but it's accepted I guess. You get to threaten children with hellfire but you don't get to make jokes about skin color.
On March 27 2012 02:47 MaddogStarCraft wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:42 AwayFromLife wrote: [quote] Honestly? I'd rather have "false" hope than $5 a gallon for gas.
Mystical man in the sky < Police, Fire Departments, Army, Libraries, Education etc...
And using nuclear weapons on civilians was justified, look at the math behind Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Oh give me a break, maths behind a moral debate, be serious.
Again you disregard facts (math).
As a human I am biologically attuned to try and maximize pleasure and minimize pain. This can be shown by math. Therefore the human species and the choices we make can be justified or unjustified by math.
Stop screaming "FUCK FACTS". You're coming off stupid.
Nuking any populated area is mass murder of civilians. There is no justification possible.
Yes there is. Go read about it for 30 minutes and come back here. The causality rates would've been much worse had of the bombs not been dropped and an invasion been used instead.
People were drafted from both sides (Japan and America). Do you consider people in the military not to be citizens? Are you retarded?
Oh look! Absolutely no point, just tells you to go read then calls you retarded. Obviously we have a star debater here, definitely a champion.
I'm not going to list facts for you that you can go and read by yourself.
You're either too lazy to read it or too stupid to comprehend the simple material that a 9 year old can understand with ease.
TIL everyone who disagrees with MaddogStarCraft are retarded/stupid/idiot.
If they disagreed with reason, sadly there is a lack of it here.
Clearly you can't read, and make arguably shittier observations than Hilter.
So does that mean you've now godwin yourself out of the thread with that post and automatically lose?
On March 27 2012 02:43 Dagobert wrote: For the same reason religion should always be separate from governmental affairs, free speech should be upheld at all times. Because one day, you might find yourself and your religion/opinion in the minority, and I bet you would not like it if you didn't have the means to oppose the majority just because you didn't want the minority to oppose you while you were in the majority.
That doesn't mean people can say what they want. A threat ("I'm gonna kill your ass, motherfucker") is unacceptable.
Yep. It would be strange, wouldn't it. What if Christians became a minority, and they got put them in jail when they told other people "you're going to burn in hell for eternity".
I mean, that's kind of a rude thing to say, but it's accepted I guess. You get to threaten children with hellfire but you don't get to make jokes about skin color.
On March 27 2012 02:47 MaddogStarCraft wrote: [quote]
Mystical man in the sky < Police, Fire Departments, Army, Libraries, Education etc...
And using nuclear weapons on civilians was justified, look at the math behind Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Oh give me a break, maths behind a moral debate, be serious.
Again you disregard facts (math).
As a human I am biologically attuned to try and maximize pleasure and minimize pain. This can be shown by math. Therefore the human species and the choices we make can be justified or unjustified by math.
Stop screaming "FUCK FACTS". You're coming off stupid.
Nuking any populated area is mass murder of civilians. There is no justification possible.
Yes there is. Go read about it for 30 minutes and come back here. The causality rates would've been much worse had of the bombs not been dropped and an invasion been used instead.
People were drafted from both sides (Japan and America). Do you consider people in the military not to be citizens? Are you retarded?
Oh look! Absolutely no point, just tells you to go read then calls you retarded. Obviously we have a star debater here, definitely a champion.
I'm not going to list facts for you that you can go and read by yourself.
You're either too lazy to read it or too stupid to comprehend the simple material that a 9 year old can understand with ease.
TIL everyone who disagrees with MaddogStarCraft are retarded/stupid/idiot.
If they disagreed with reason, sadly there is a lack of it here.
Clearly you can't read, and make arguably shittier observations than Hilter.
On March 27 2012 02:17 xenobarf wrote: Thoughts are as follows, either we have free speech or we do not, there is no middle area. Personally I'm for free speech.
Happy birthday, but really? No middle area?
(Everything allowed to say) ------------------------- (???????????????) ---------------------------------- (nothing allowed to say)
Any ideas of what could go in a middle area? (Hint, think of how it is in Sweden.)
The problem is that if we go into it trying to define a middle area, the who does this? All human beings are infallible and or biased in some form or another.
And yes, I agree that going around throwing racial slurs or doing salutes to Hitler is not a nice thing.
Yeah, it's crazy hard to decide what things are ok to say, and which are simply not ok. And different people have different opinions as you say. There is no single right answer, and it is certainly different in different places and at different times.
The ones to decide and enforce it should be the same people that decide and enforce what you are allowed to DO, rather than SAY. Which will be some kind democratically elected (well, in several steps, representative w/e don't know the terms) group of people and some kind of police force.
Because letting the government (or some form of government) decide what you can and cannot say is going to work out just fine. It's okay to have utopian ideas, but we still live in reality where, like I said, people are infallible and biased.
hmm, not sure if any of that is sarcasm, please clarify if so.
Anyway, no, it's not the ultimate solution, but I think it is the best we can do in the current political system we are using atm. I mean, you can vote for a party that will decide where to put this line, and then it is by democracy supposed to end up with a set of rules that most find acceptable, although everyone will have some details that they would have done differently.
I don't know, what do you propose to do differently?
It was sarcasm. It is definately not the ultimate solution. If voting for a group of people with their own bias, morals and ideas is the only way to land in some form of "middle ground" then its best left alone. The moment you let something subjective be decided by a few human beings is the moment someone gets royally fucked in the ass, whether they deserver it or not.
Also, I'm a bit confused about what you want actually... you first post:
On March 27 2012 02:17 xenobarf wrote: Thoughts are as follows, either we have free speech or we do not, there is no middle area. Personally I'm for free speech.
later:
On March 27 2012 02:32 xenobarf wrote: And yes, I agree that going around throwing racial slurs or doing salutes to Hitler is not a nice thing.
Which to me seems to hint that you indeed find some things to not be acceptable. Or do you mean that while it is not nice to say some things, it should still not be enforced?
I find people talking about restricting freedom of speech, offensive.
Does that mean we should shut this thread down because it is offensive?
No, because you only intend to have it enforced in certain cases, with certain groups. Asking the government to pick sides against other parts of its society is not going to create a better, more harmonious society.
The only thing you are going to do is sow more discord, this time under the radar because the opposition can't even speak back without being silenced.
The government shouldn't pick sides like that. Learn to be big boys and talk it out with your words. If you feel offended, skip over it.
Stop trying to think that your hurt feelings are justification to strangle freedom of speech to death.
Ugh, how eager some of you are to destroy that which makes the first world so great. You inherit a fortune and now you are trying to find ways to squander it.
Past generations had to fight for this right. Expect to have a fight if you want to destroy it. A verbal fight, if that doesn't cause too much offense of course.
On March 27 2012 02:43 Dagobert wrote: For the same reason religion should always be separate from governmental affairs, free speech should be upheld at all times. Because one day, you might find yourself and your religion/opinion in the minority, and I bet you would not like it if you didn't have the means to oppose the majority just because you didn't want the minority to oppose you while you were in the majority.
That doesn't mean people can say what they want. A threat ("I'm gonna kill your ass, motherfucker") is unacceptable.
Yep. It would be strange, wouldn't it. What if Christians became a minority, and they got put them in jail when they told other people "you're going to burn in hell for eternity".
I mean, that's kind of a rude thing to say, but it's accepted I guess. You get to threaten children with hellfire but you don't get to make jokes about skin color.
On March 27 2012 02:47 MaddogStarCraft wrote: [quote]
Mystical man in the sky < Police, Fire Departments, Army, Libraries, Education etc...
And using nuclear weapons on civilians was justified, look at the math behind Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Oh give me a break, maths behind a moral debate, be serious.
Again you disregard facts (math).
As a human I am biologically attuned to try and maximize pleasure and minimize pain. This can be shown by math. Therefore the human species and the choices we make can be justified or unjustified by math.
Stop screaming "FUCK FACTS". You're coming off stupid.
Nuking any populated area is mass murder of civilians. There is no justification possible.
Yes there is. Go read about it for 30 minutes and come back here. The causality rates would've been much worse had of the bombs not been dropped and an invasion been used instead.
People were drafted from both sides (Japan and America). Do you consider people in the military not to be citizens? Are you retarded?
Oh look! Absolutely no point, just tells you to go read then calls you retarded. Obviously we have a star debater here, definitely a champion.
I'm not going to list facts for you that you can go and read by yourself.
You're either too lazy to read it or too stupid to comprehend the simple material that a 9 year old can understand with ease.
TIL everyone who disagrees with MaddogStarCraft are retarded/stupid/idiot.
If they disagreed with reason, sadly there is a lack of it here.
Clearly you can't read, and make arguably shittier observations than Hilter.
So does that mean you've now godwin yourself out of the thread with that post and automatically lose?
Godwin's "law" applies when I reference Nazi's for no reason...
He's talking about having to tiptoe around religious people because they might be "offended" by criticisms of it.
Well, even in that regard, there's a line to be drawn. There's a difference between talking calmly and kindly about differences in religion, and screaming at one another because you don't believe in the same thing.
I'm a believer, and I would never insult anyone of a different religion, and I don't make fun of my atheist friends. I don't get upset when a non-believer asks me why I believe in God, but I do get my jimmies rustled when someone immediately identifies me as a bible-thumping idiot and claims superiority over me for my beliefs.
Yes but here is the problem you support an organization (the church) that is responsible for millions of deaths.
So you support an organization that has used mass genocide, mass murder, rape, enslavement and torture. You sound like you support the Nazi's.
That's why I find "offence" in you even being part of that organization.
Let alone the fact that you are belittling the logic of all of humanity by thinking that there is a mystical man in the sky.
I also choose to live in America, so does that mean I support the genocide of Native Americans, the use of minorities as slave labor, and using nuclear weapons on civilians? Because Americans have done all that in the past.
Extremism statements are silly. I don't condone everything the organizations I'm part of have done in the past (I live in Illinois, but I think selling Senate seats is wrong. How craAazy), and if you think every single person of faith does, you're an idiot.
Yes but the government provides something?
Your mystical man in the sky doesn't provide anything other than a false hope and a jobs for virgins.
Honestly? I'd rather have "false" hope than $5 a gallon for gas.
But the point is that you are throwing all of human knowledge out the window because "fuck proof". You are an idiot or insane. Fucking bonkers. You can be called such.
Who came up with the initial idea of the Big Bang? Catholic Priest.
Who was shunned and ignored for ages. EDIT: My bad, he didn't know what he discovered* EDIT2: My bad again, I keep mixing up these damn theories. The big bang discovery had been discussed for a while before that priest got involved. It's not his discovery
Who kept the majority of the European countries from falling apart during the Dark Ages and kept a record of all scientific advances during that time so they weren't lost? ...Catholic Church, again.
The dark ages are named after the oppression the church and religion had on sciences and critical thinking. The church was not a good factor lol.
Who never taught that the Earth was flat? The Church, even though they did stick to the whole "Sun revolving around the Earth" bit for a long time.
Galileo is very happy that they prosecuted and convicted him for heresy for that theory I'm sure.
Dunno about the other 2. Just don't spew out things you don't know about
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître - or find another non-wikipedia biography. Nowhere does it talk about him being ostracized or cast out, so don't just spew things out.
The dark ages were caused by the Visigoths, germanic tribes, rampaging about Europe, raping and pillaging everything in their path. The Church came down (heavy handed, admittedly) and kept everything in order. They were oppressive, but they kept Western civilization alive. History lessons.
Well, http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/14/Revenue_1.html - for America, but most Catholic organizations are small groups like communities going out and helping, not one nebulous Catholic nonforprofit.
Galileo was also stubborn about it and decided to publicly humiliate the Church, which forced a house arrest on him, despite being a close friend of the Pope.
On March 27 2012 02:43 Dagobert wrote: For the same reason religion should always be separate from governmental affairs, free speech should be upheld at all times. Because one day, you might find yourself and your religion/opinion in the minority, and I bet you would not like it if you didn't have the means to oppose the majority just because you didn't want the minority to oppose you while you were in the majority.
That doesn't mean people can say what they want. A threat ("I'm gonna kill your ass, motherfucker") is unacceptable.
Yep. It would be strange, wouldn't it. What if Christians became a minority, and they got put them in jail when they told other people "you're going to burn in hell for eternity".
I mean, that's kind of a rude thing to say, but it's accepted I guess. You get to threaten children with hellfire but you don't get to make jokes about skin color.
On March 27 2012 02:47 MaddogStarCraft wrote: [quote]
Mystical man in the sky < Police, Fire Departments, Army, Libraries, Education etc...
And using nuclear weapons on civilians was justified, look at the math behind Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Oh give me a break, maths behind a moral debate, be serious.
Again you disregard facts (math).
As a human I am biologically attuned to try and maximize pleasure and minimize pain. This can be shown by math. Therefore the human species and the choices we make can be justified or unjustified by math.
Stop screaming "FUCK FACTS". You're coming off stupid.
Nuking any populated area is mass murder of civilians. There is no justification possible.
Yes there is. Go read about it for 30 minutes and come back here. The causality rates would've been much worse had of the bombs not been dropped and an invasion been used instead.
People were drafted from both sides (Japan and America). Do you consider people in the military not to be citizens? Are you retarded?
Oh look! Absolutely no point, just tells you to go read then calls you retarded. Obviously we have a star debater here, definitely a champion.
I'm not going to list facts for you that you can go and read by yourself.
You're either too lazy to read it or too stupid to comprehend the simple material that a 9 year old can understand with ease.
TIL everyone who disagrees with MaddogStarCraft are retarded/stupid/idiot.
He's a megalomaniac, simple as that.
False.
I have delusions of grandeur from my hypo-manic and manic episodes.
Although that doesn't make me a megalomaniac.
I've stated facts the entire time, a megalomaniac runs around without facts shouting out shit that isn't reasonable in practice or theory.
Again, may I recommend a dictionary?
Oh. Let me guess, you think you're actually spewing out facts, because you're calling them facts. I understand.
On March 27 2012 02:43 Dagobert wrote: For the same reason religion should always be separate from governmental affairs, free speech should be upheld at all times. Because one day, you might find yourself and your religion/opinion in the minority, and I bet you would not like it if you didn't have the means to oppose the majority just because you didn't want the minority to oppose you while you were in the majority.
That doesn't mean people can say what they want. A threat ("I'm gonna kill your ass, motherfucker") is unacceptable.
Yep. It would be strange, wouldn't it. What if Christians became a minority, and they got put them in jail when they told other people "you're going to burn in hell for eternity".
I mean, that's kind of a rude thing to say, but it's accepted I guess. You get to threaten children with hellfire but you don't get to make jokes about skin color.
On March 27 2012 02:47 MaddogStarCraft wrote: [quote]
Mystical man in the sky < Police, Fire Departments, Army, Libraries, Education etc...
And using nuclear weapons on civilians was justified, look at the math behind Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Oh give me a break, maths behind a moral debate, be serious.
Again you disregard facts (math).
As a human I am biologically attuned to try and maximize pleasure and minimize pain. This can be shown by math. Therefore the human species and the choices we make can be justified or unjustified by math.
Stop screaming "FUCK FACTS". You're coming off stupid.
Nuking any populated area is mass murder of civilians. There is no justification possible.
Yes there is. Go read about it for 30 minutes and come back here. The causality rates would've been much worse had of the bombs not been dropped and an invasion been used instead.
People were drafted from both sides (Japan and America). Do you consider people in the military not to be citizens? Are you retarded?
Oh look! Absolutely no point, just tells you to go read then calls you retarded. Obviously we have a star debater here, definitely a champion.
I'm not going to list facts for you that you can go and read by yourself.
You're either too lazy to read it or too stupid to comprehend the simple material that a 9 year old can understand with ease.
TIL everyone who disagrees with MaddogStarCraft are retarded/stupid/idiot.
He's a megalomaniac, simple as that.
False.
I have delusions of grandeur from my hypo-manic and manic episodes.
Although that doesn't make me a megalomaniac.
I've stated facts the entire time, a megalomaniac runs around without facts shouting out shit that isn't reasonable in practice or theory.
Again, may I recommend a dictionary?
A quick glance at your posting history shows that you're definitely going to win the negative nancy award for 2012. I enjoyed making fun of the way you argue, "retard!, idiot! stupid!, i dont need to link facts to my argument! I'm not lazy for half assing my arguments and not linking facts! You're all lazy because you don't know how to read! GRRRRR!".
But now I realize you're just a sad person.
I'm sorry that you're sad =(. I used to be sad and angry all the time too, for really dumb reasons! Look at my first posts, I was awful! But then I did this thing called growing up, I matured and was able to actually argue with people without resorting to personal attacks, and it was rad.
On March 27 2012 02:47 Djzapz wrote: [quote] Yep. It would be strange, wouldn't it. What if Christians became a minority, and they got put them in jail when they told other people "you're going to burn in hell for eternity".
I mean, that's kind of a rude thing to say, but it's accepted I guess. You get to threaten children with hellfire but you don't get to make jokes about skin color.
[quote] Oh give me a break, maths behind a moral debate, be serious.
Again you disregard facts (math).
As a human I am biologically attuned to try and maximize pleasure and minimize pain. This can be shown by math. Therefore the human species and the choices we make can be justified or unjustified by math.
Stop screaming "FUCK FACTS". You're coming off stupid.
Nuking any populated area is mass murder of civilians. There is no justification possible.
Yes there is. Go read about it for 30 minutes and come back here. The causality rates would've been much worse had of the bombs not been dropped and an invasion been used instead.
People were drafted from both sides (Japan and America). Do you consider people in the military not to be citizens? Are you retarded?
Oh look! Absolutely no point, just tells you to go read then calls you retarded. Obviously we have a star debater here, definitely a champion.
I'm not going to list facts for you that you can go and read by yourself.
You're either too lazy to read it or too stupid to comprehend the simple material that a 9 year old can understand with ease.
TIL everyone who disagrees with MaddogStarCraft are retarded/stupid/idiot.
If they disagreed with reason, sadly there is a lack of it here.
Clearly you can't read, and make arguably shittier observations than Hilter.
So does that mean you've now godwin yourself out of the thread with that post and automatically lose?
Godwin's "law" applies when I reference Nazi's for no reason...
When I do it with logic his "law" doesn't apply.
0/10 on thinking and application.
You said "Clearly you can't read, and make arguably shittier observations than Hilter." That qualifies for Godwin. It's not "for no reason", it's about hypberbolic comparisons, which that is.
On March 27 2012 02:47 Djzapz wrote: [quote] Yep. It would be strange, wouldn't it. What if Christians became a minority, and they got put them in jail when they told other people "you're going to burn in hell for eternity".
I mean, that's kind of a rude thing to say, but it's accepted I guess. You get to threaten children with hellfire but you don't get to make jokes about skin color.
[quote] Oh give me a break, maths behind a moral debate, be serious.
Again you disregard facts (math).
As a human I am biologically attuned to try and maximize pleasure and minimize pain. This can be shown by math. Therefore the human species and the choices we make can be justified or unjustified by math.
Stop screaming "FUCK FACTS". You're coming off stupid.
Nuking any populated area is mass murder of civilians. There is no justification possible.
Yes there is. Go read about it for 30 minutes and come back here. The causality rates would've been much worse had of the bombs not been dropped and an invasion been used instead.
People were drafted from both sides (Japan and America). Do you consider people in the military not to be citizens? Are you retarded?
Oh look! Absolutely no point, just tells you to go read then calls you retarded. Obviously we have a star debater here, definitely a champion.
I'm not going to list facts for you that you can go and read by yourself.
You're either too lazy to read it or too stupid to comprehend the simple material that a 9 year old can understand with ease.
TIL everyone who disagrees with MaddogStarCraft are retarded/stupid/idiot.
If they disagreed with reason, sadly there is a lack of it here.
Clearly you can't read, and make arguably shittier observations than Hilter.
So does that mean you've now godwin yourself out of the thread with that post and automatically lose?
Godwin's "law" applies when I reference Nazi's for no reason...
He's talking about having to tiptoe around religious people because they might be "offended" by criticisms of it.
Well, even in that regard, there's a line to be drawn. There's a difference between talking calmly and kindly about differences in religion, and screaming at one another because you don't believe in the same thing.
I'm a believer, and I would never insult anyone of a different religion, and I don't make fun of my atheist friends. I don't get upset when a non-believer asks me why I believe in God, but I do get my jimmies rustled when someone immediately identifies me as a bible-thumping idiot and claims superiority over me for my beliefs.
Yes but here is the problem you support an organization (the church) that is responsible for millions of deaths.
So you support an organization that has used mass genocide, mass murder, rape, enslavement and torture. You sound like you support the Nazi's.
That's why I find "offence" in you even being part of that organization.
Let alone the fact that you are belittling the logic of all of humanity by thinking that there is a mystical man in the sky.
I also choose to live in America, so does that mean I support the genocide of Native Americans, the use of minorities as slave labor, and using nuclear weapons on civilians? Because Americans have done all that in the past.
Extremism statements are silly. I don't condone everything the organizations I'm part of have done in the past (I live in Illinois, but I think selling Senate seats is wrong. How craAazy), and if you think every single person of faith does, you're an idiot.
Yes but the government provides something?
Your mystical man in the sky doesn't provide anything other than a false hope and a jobs for virgins.
Honestly? I'd rather have "false" hope than $5 a gallon for gas.
But the point is that you are throwing all of human knowledge out the window because "fuck proof". You are an idiot or insane. Fucking bonkers. You can be called such.
Throwing out... alright, history lesson. [...]
But hey, keep your blinders on.
Who came up with the initial idea of the Big Bang? Catholic Priest.
Who was shunned and ignored for ages. EDIT: My bad, he didn't know what he discovered* EDIT2: My bad again, I keep mixing up these damn theories. The big bang discovery had been discussed for a while before that priest got involved. It's not his discovery
Who kept the majority of the European countries from falling apart during the Dark Ages and kept a record of all scientific advances during that time so they weren't lost? ...Catholic Church, again.
The dark ages are named after the oppression the church and religion had on sciences and critical thinking. The church was not a good factor lol.
Who supports the largest charitable organizations on the planet? Huh, Catholic Church again.
Who never taught that the Earth was flat? The Church, even though they did stick to the whole "Sun revolving around the Earth" bit for a long time.
Galileo is very happy that they prosecuted and convicted him for heresy for that theory I'm sure.
Dunno about the other 2. Just don't spew out things you don't know about
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître - or find another non-wikipedia biography. Nowhere does it talk about him being ostracized or cast out, so don't just spew things out.
The dark ages were caused by the Visigoths, germanic tribes, rampaging about Europe, raping and pillaging everything in their path. The Church came down (heavy handed, admittedly) and kept everything in order. They were oppressive, but they kept Western civilization alive. History lessons.
Well, http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/14/Revenue_1.html - for America, but most Catholic organizations are small groups like communities going out and helping, not one nebulous Catholic nonforprofit.
Galileo was also stubborn about it and decided to publicly humiliate the Church, which forced a house arrest on him, despite being a close friend of the Pope.
Oppression is what a western civilization in theory should be straying away from.
So you saying "They were oppressive, but they kept Western civilization alive". Is an oxymoron.
Galileo was going to be burned alive although because of his sponsors (who also gave money to the church) the church couldn't go through with it because of monetary issues. Trust me, the church has had no problem killing people for stating facts or going against them in any way, shape or form.
On March 27 2012 02:17 xenobarf wrote: Thoughts are as follows, either we have free speech or we do not, there is no middle area. Personally I'm for free speech.
Happy birthday, but really? No middle area?
(Everything allowed to say) ------------------------- (???????????????) ---------------------------------- (nothing allowed to say)
Any ideas of what could go in a middle area? (Hint, think of how it is in Sweden.)
The problem is that if we go into it trying to define a middle area, the who does this? All human beings are infallible and or biased in some form or another.
And yes, I agree that going around throwing racial slurs or doing salutes to Hitler is not a nice thing.
Yeah, it's crazy hard to decide what things are ok to say, and which are simply not ok. And different people have different opinions as you say. There is no single right answer, and it is certainly different in different places and at different times.
The ones to decide and enforce it should be the same people that decide and enforce what you are allowed to DO, rather than SAY. Which will be some kind democratically elected (well, in several steps, representative w/e don't know the terms) group of people and some kind of police force.
Because letting the government (or some form of government) decide what you can and cannot say is going to work out just fine. It's okay to have utopian ideas, but we still live in reality where, like I said, people are infallible and biased.
hmm, not sure if any of that is sarcasm, please clarify if so.
Anyway, no, it's not the ultimate solution, but I think it is the best we can do in the current political system we are using atm. I mean, you can vote for a party that will decide where to put this line, and then it is by democracy supposed to end up with a set of rules that most find acceptable, although everyone will have some details that they would have done differently.
I don't know, what do you propose to do differently?
It was sarcasm. It is definately not the ultimate solution. If voting for a group of people with their own bias, morals and ideas is the only way to land in some form of "middle ground" then its best left alone. The moment you let something subjective be decided by a few human beings is the moment someone gets royally fucked in the ass, whether they deserver it or not.
Also, I'm a bit confused about what you want actually... you first post:
On March 27 2012 02:17 xenobarf wrote: Thoughts are as follows, either we have free speech or we do not, there is no middle area. Personally I'm for free speech.
On March 27 2012 02:32 xenobarf wrote: And yes, I agree that going around throwing racial slurs or doing salutes to Hitler is not a nice thing.
Which to me seems to hint that you indeed find some things to not be acceptable. Or do you mean that while it is not nice to say some things, it should still not be enforced?
Sorry if you're confused. I believe everyone should have freedom of speech with no censorship. That doesnt mean I dont find certain behaviours untolerable. But whether or not I find it offensive if someone holds a sign saying "God hates fags" at a soldiers funeral doesnt waver the fact that I believe in freedom of speech.
EPT
