Your most controversial belief

[Dementor]

What is your most contoversial belief? Do you have strong feelings that go against the norm? I'm not talking typical Liberal vs. Conservative stuff, but stuff that you wouldn't tell anyone beyond the safety of an internet forum because you KNOW they'd probably want to pound you?

I'll hold mine for a bit: I don't want the thread to become about MY most contovesial belief. I'll tell mine once the thread is nicely on track (or needs some spicing up)

So: Share!

-Dementor

[ScytheNoire]

pick one of those whacko conspiracies, and i'm all for it

CIA killed JFK? sure, why not.
never landed on the moon, all faked? sure, sounds good.
humans are actually aliens from another planet, maybe Mars? heck, sounds like fun.
aliens live amongst us? would explain a lot of things.

not sure exactly what you are getting at though, what point you are trying to make? are you asking for someone to say they are pro-Hilter or like to wear woman's underwear to church?

[Dementor]

not sure exactly what you are getting at though, what point you are trying to make? are you asking for someone to say they are pro-Hilter or like to wear woman's underwear to church?

Well, do you?

Anyway, the kind of stuff I'm looking for: (this is JUST an example)

"Osama Bin Laden was totally justified in his actions regarding the 9-11 terrorist attacks. I'm an American, but I feel this was simply a counter-attack against a nation that has been opressing his people for decades. He used the only means possible to deal a devastating blow to the post powerful nation on earth. He is not only a good man, but a GREAT man."

(JUST an example, I do NOT feel this way.)

Stuff that you keep locked inside and don't tell anyone about. Or maybe secret fantasies: (another EXAMPLE)

"I fantasise about killing people. Not just 'crushing your head' stuff, but really gory, sick stuff. It isn't even about people I WANT to die... just random people, people I don't even know. It always seems like something that would make me feel really good."

(I don't ACTUALLY think this)

Stuff like that.

[Lord_Shinnok]

We need to have more disease and war on this planet to keep the population down.

The tsunami in Asia was a good thing.

Religions are crap.


Bond > All.


Not surprisingly, the last one draws the most debate (though it pointless since it’s true).

[raffster]

What is your most contoversial belief? Do you have strong feelings that go against the norm? I'm not talking typical Liberal vs. Conservative stuff, but stuff that you wouldn't tell anyone beyond the safety of an internet forum because you KNOW they'd probably want to pound you?

I'll hold mine for a bit: I don't want the thread to become about MY most contovesial belief. I'll tell mine once the thread is nicely on track (or needs some spicing up)

So: Share!

-Dementor

Somewhere deep inside of what I think is "I" believes that this life we have is nothing but a dream that will just vanish before that "I" has even realized what this life is all about.

[Shnookems]

Bond > All.
MacGyver > Bond

How's that for controversy?

[Lord_Shinnok]

MacGyver > Bond

How's that for controversy?

not very good since mullets lack the ability to beat anything

[SpiritWalker]

No help for the the third world people.

Giving them better/easier access to medicine gives them a better life expectancy, which equals more chance for them to breed more, which equals more overpopulation.

The fact that they refuse to use anticonception, because these people think more children equals more money, is absurd. So I'd say let nature take its course and don't give their weak children a chance to survive by giving them food, clothes, medicine etc, sort of a natural anticonception.

All the money, food, clothes and medicine in the world can't help these people if they keep breeding uncontrolled. And since they're too blind to see that, no help for you!

Yeah, I am evil, I know. Well you wanted controversial ;)

[Shnookems]

not very good since mullets lack the ability to beat anything

While I will grant that Bond has a much better haircut, without Q he's just a smart guy in a suit. Can Bond make a nuclear device from a rubberband, a credit card, three cat hairs and a diaper pin?

[Maullus]

Howdy,

I can't think of something that I wouldn't admit to other people because I know "they'd probably want to pound" me. However, I'm certain I have some beliefs that don't exactly correspond to the generally accepted range of opinions.

Off the top of my head:

I believe that America is, and has been nearly since its inception, an empire run by a financially motivated minority and supported by, 1) the ignorance and apathy of the majority, and 2) the strength of our military and the ruthlessness with which they can be/have been deployed.

Rather then a literal translation of the Manifest Destiny doctrine, Modern-day America does not seek to expand its physical borders but the borders of "Democracy" (i.e., the 60s) or "Freedom" (today.)

This is not to totally denigrate the country (as there are some contributions worthy of note) but rather to admit to the role into which our policy has painted us.

[Sage the Mage]

I'm not seeing anything controversial. I've heard social darwinism before (not a fan), and all countries are ruled by the upper class.

[Lord_Shinnok]

I'm not seeing anything controversial. I've heard social darwinism before (not a fan), and all countries are ruled by the upper class.

firstly, those aren't very controlversial.

secondly, i want to kill every kitten in the world and then create a large toga from their fur to clothe my 1 mile tall robotic giant.

[DrunkCajun]

My beliefs are not beliefs, they're fact. Some people seem to take issue with this, but since I believe I'm right, and that's a fact, they're, unfortunately, wrong.

:surprise:

[Blackmoon]

Controversial stuff, huh? I suppose the biggest thing is the insignificance of human. I believe humans are nothing more than a disease on this planet. Our ability to build constantly higher towers and our desire to do that, is not what rises us above animals. It's what lowers us below them. I generally value a life of a random animal above life of a random human. Follow up from that I don't believe humans to be a crown of creation or evolution or whatever you wish to call it. We are a passing moment in timespan of the universe. We will eventually destroy ourselves and after that something new arises. Although we may be raping Mother Nature now, she will well outlast us. The pain we cause to Her is like a mosquito biting.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Controversial stuff, huh? I suppose the biggest thing is the insignificance of human. I believe humans are nothing more than a disease on this planet. Our ability to build constantly higher towers and our desire to do that, is not what rises us above animals. It's what lowers us below them. I generally value a life of a random animal above life of a random human. Follow up from that I don't believe humans to be a crown of creation or evolution or whatever you wish to call it. We are a passing moment in timespan of the universe. We will eventually destroy ourselves and after that something new arises. Although we may be raping Mother Nature now, she will well outlast us. The pain we cause to Her is like a mosquito biting.

Lol.. didn't agent Smith say that in the Matrix?

[Daedric]

-Recycling is a waste of time. It wastes more money that it saves. If the amount of trash that was recycled last year were instead evenly spread across our landfills, our landfills would be a whole half a centimeter more full.

-Global warming isn't nearly the problem it's made out to be. The Earth's natural cycles have a much greater effect on atmosphere than we do.

-The Feminist movement has hurt men far more than it's helped women.

-The Space Shuttle Columbia that was destroyed in the atmosphere when returning to Earth was actually hit by secret new Chinese missile technology. (Feb 2003)

-Suntan lotion and Sunblock have chemicals in them that are bad for our skin's pores, and their use ultimately leads to cancer. More people using it than ever before would explain the increase in skin cancer.

-The United Nations doesn't care nearly so much about how much China pollutes the atmosphere as it does about the United States. China does next-to-nothing to regulate pollution relative to America.

[Daedric]

Lol.. didn't agent Smith say that in the Matrix?

Yeah, it was closely along the lines of that.

[PlagueBearer]

Daedric sort of beat me to it with the feminism line.

I believe a woman's place really IS in the home.

And I think SpiritWalker's beleif in [Social] Darwinism is hilarious, largely due to the fact that his existence begs us to beleive that reproducing is NOT the be-all and end-all to life.

:happy14:

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Yeah, it was closely along the lines of that.

"Have you ever stared at it... marvelled at its beauty... its.. genious...... Billions of people just... living out their lives.... oblivious..."

One of my fav lines in teh movie (shortly after he gives his monologe on how humanity is a spreading disease.



Fun thread otherwise... I'd love to nuke the hell out if it and flame you all lol.. j/k.

My controversial statement of the day is: "There is no such thing as an authentic Democracy".

Have fun :)

[Blackmoon]

Thought it sounded familiar :lol:. Oh, well. I assure you that's what I really believe and I didn't rip it from Matrix :happy34:

[ScytheNoire]

okay, okay, i'll pick something... :scratch:

okay... umm... something controversal...

ah, i got it! :idea:

Bush is the Anti-Christ :surprise:

[Mastgrr]

I'm pro-social freedoms.

I'm not advocating for these things, but I wouldn't bother arguing against it if it became possible:
Smoke pot should be allowed in the privacy of your home for example (smoking should only be allowed at designated areas or in your home, otherwise banned everywhere else).
Polygamy. People who want to should be able to.
Incest relationships, as long as they don't have any babies.

[Dementor]

Me?

I'm a racist.

I mean, let's think about this: the different sub-species of human (which IS what we are, though no scientist would say so any more) were separated for long enough to create signifigant differances in hair growth, body pigment, fat distribution... it's absurd to think that this evolutionary time apart had NO impact on our brains, and other "below the skin" attributes.

This isn't so say that "asian people are smarter than white people" per-se, but our brains DO work differently, making certain "races" better at some things than others.

Also, Europeans have a natural pre-disposition to racism. History shows this well enough, and I think it has to do with the fact that European Homo Sapiens had to compete with Neandertals for signifigantly longer than any other ethnic group. This led to an instictive agression to any human in whom we saw that we could see immediate differances compared to ourselves or our kin.

That said, inter-racial marriages are a VERY good thing. The offspring seem (in my personal observations) to take on the positive traits of each parent. This is, in my opinion, the future of the human race.

[Cloud_Walker]

Dementor: You aren't a racist if you merely recognize facts. But if you disrespect them because of any observed inferiority, then you are a racist.

There are two views of mine that I guess are controversial. One I will argue, the other I won't, but neither will I argue on here.

The one I do argue: non-violence. The one I won't argue (because I haven't taken the time to study it yet): communism.

[Maullus]

Howdy,

The one I do argue: non-violence.

I'd like to see a discussion on that topic, perhaps in another thread. :)

[neosonichdghg]

Okay, first of all, someone mentioned feminism. Here is my flame-worthy, controvesial belief on feminism:

It started out good, but they took it too far.

That's it. I think that equality for women is a wonderful thing, BUT there are a few major problems with the modern theory.

a.) they don't want equality, they want superiority. I genuinely believe that this movement started out fighting for equality. The problem is, this current generation has mostly gotten equality and now want superiority in addition to what is left of equality.

b.) you have to give something up to get something. Ages ago, according to popular belief anyway, knights obeyed the laws of chivalry. More recently, in the Victorian era, these beliefs were actually followed. Even more recently, the phrase "chivalry is dead" has become extremely popular among feminists. Now, it's become popular with everyone. Well, chivalry is the practice of opening doors for women, moving chairs for women, etc. based on the principle that they are different and deserve it for all the hard work they to for us men. However, if they a.) say housework is not just for women, b.) demand they be treated just as men, and c.) specifically reject "special treatment" in everyday life, chivalry is something that is going to go away. Sorry girls, it's one or the other.

Now, I don't believe this is an unreasonable position, but I seem to be in the minority. And on a lot of other things. Hmmm... minority...

<In a shocking new breakthrough, President Bush has bowed to the demands of the powerful Nerd Party and passed the controversial "LOTR swag" laws>

Well, I'm off. See you at the White House!

[Elly]

Me?

I'm a racist.

There was an article on the BBC today that actually asked that question...

This article on the BBC today asks that very question (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4447471.stm).

Below is the better of the two included links to the actual test as there are some other tests there which you can do (good coffee break stuff)

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/uk/selectatest.html

[Daedric]

a.) they don't want equality, they want superiority. I genuinely believe that this movement started out fighting for equality. The problem is, this current generation has mostly gotten equality and now want superiority in addition to what is left of equality.

Exactly. One big problem with Feminism is the fact that they want to stop sexism, yet they are sexist themselves and they express it to no end. Not a very good example to set for a movement you want people to join. Ah, hypocrisy in one of its finest moments.

b.) you have to give something up to get something......Sorry girls, it's one or the other.


Thanks for pointing that out. My thoughts exactly, and I'm glad someone else will admit to feeling that. :happy34:

[D.K.night]

Here's my controversail beliefs:

1) Feminism has nothing good whatsoever for Man. OK, so all these so-called "suffragettes" way back before many of us were born sacrificed their lives in order to give women, some greater measure of equality, eg. voting rights etc. The truth is, these feminists don't know what the hell they want. They say this and that, but can any of us, much less them, name and list, the clear and specific agendas that they are trying to change, or at least make a difference to? My unofficial, unscientific count says that many of these feminists are in fact lesbians. We've all heard them say the words "men are nothing" in talk shows, on the streets in rallys and so on. "women need men like a fish needs a bicycle". Pssshaw. Then who, or more accurately what, is going to satisfy your biological needs, lass? Who's going to assist in procreation? Oh, oh, a "donor", may I suggest?

2) All this stuff about SARS and avian flu. You know what? I think it's a good thing where it's mainly concentrated, eg. in China. The Chinese does not give two s***s about it's people, it truly doesn't. Since the whole Tinnamen square massacre(I refuse to use the word "incident") sadly, all the students who gave their lives away only served to make future lives all the more stricter eg. further tightening down of the media, more powerful brain-washing controls in place of the young. The answer? A disease of mass death to wipe out anyone and everyone to shake things up a bit. Show the Chinese gov't that their strict Communist ways don't work. Show the world what kind of place China really is. Seriously - the Chinese don't even know or refuse to believe, that anything is wrong with their gov't. You challenge them on their beliefs and you'll get anger, I guarantee it. But that all stems from the brain-washing. So I say wipe a good portion of them out and start from scratch. And the way to do it, is by a deadly disease.

3) Govt controlled public transit in British Columbia, Canada. It's the worst transit system ever, with easily 30 minutes to 1 hour waits for the bus to show up. And they have the gall to say that they are among the best in tranist systems. Uproot the system and privatize it. That'll improve customer service, lower the horribly overpaid wages, lower the ticket prices, kill the zone fare system, speed up the system, and promote competition. So I were to climb onto the bus, I can expect to see service with a smile.

4) This whole China vs. Taiwan BS. Just nuke the crap outta China, problem solved. Done.

5) This whole belief of huge self-entitlement which seems to be de rigeur amoung youngsters these days. Whatever happened to the good ol' teachings, where if you caused trouble, and get smacked for it, you deserved it?! You want cash, you work for it. Yearn that Louis Vuitton purse? Slave your ass away at McD's or retail and EARN the glorified piece of croc skin. You want a 350Z? Sweep floors, mow the lawn, take out the trash. Nothing's for free, and we old timers learned that the good ol' fashioned way. The sweaty hard way.

[Oakleh]

only 2 people know about this, (my parents) but i killed my younger brother when i was 10.
been having nightmares ever since.
accidentally pushed him out a window when playing hide and seek.. coroner and police beleived he fell...

Also, i think that americans are morons.. =P well sam fisher is cool...

[MixedVariety]

Oakleh, I can only shake my head at such judgemental flamebait.

[Oakleh]

Oakleh, I can only shake my head at such judgemental flamebait.

well it was saying your most controversial belief. obviously some americans are great, i lvoe visiting (i am from the UK) and have been several times.

However, being an economist i know that for 4 % of the world population to use 27% of its resources is absurd...
The fact you see the need to crush anythying that stands in your way of this way of life (e.g. saddam, who was an ok guy in my opinion!)
And from studing economics, your whole economic system could crash at any time due to your marginal perpensity to consume being not only higher than all other countries in the world, but you actually spend MORE than you make, on the whole...

I mean morons was a strong word, but i like individual americans, but as a nation...

its not flame bait, its controversy... as i was asked for!

sorry.

[Spawn of God]

i had something controversial at the beginning of the thread, but after reading thru the entire thing i forgot it... o yea--

Religion is a huge waste, because we have a bunch of people trying to get some sort of divine placement (go to heaven, avoiding hell) and i think its stupid to bother trying to whorship some other worldly being, espiecially since theres no real proof that anything like that exists. any holy writing can just be fiction, miracles can be made up, and to devote ur life to try to get some godly reward is a waste of that life

[Craigie]

Biggie Smalls can't rap :wink2:

[Mad_One]

Ok,if you want controversy its good to talk about religion,here it goes.

I think religions are good for children cause it shows them the correct way to behave in society(and mostly cause they are only kids),but any adult who still follows a preconceived religion is one of the next:

a)A lazy fool who refuses to think by himself

b)Someone who is afraid to see the truth cause he is scared of reality and needs someone to tell him pretty stories about how good kids go to heaven

c)A mindless person who has lost his own personality and ideas thanks to the program society and religion has forced on him.



"Religions steal men souls and make them their slaves"

If anyone knows where this quote comes from you get a cookie :happy34:

[Dublo]

People think I'm paranoid. Is paranoia going against what corporate news tells you?

I believe;
There is a cover up surrounding 9/11
CIA (or someone higher) is responsible for JFK's assasination
AIDs and the SARS epidemic were man made. Want reasons for this?
Religion is a load of crap. Just reasons to start wars and conflicts.
I do not believe in god.
Peoples votes in elections do not sway the outcome.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I'd love to make an example of the last few posters regarding their primordial views on religion, but then I'd suffer the duress of having neosonichdghg ask me to confine my posts to a separate thread. Hooray for ignorance. :happy14:

[det]

We need to have more disease and war on this planet to keep the population down.

The tsunami in Asia was a good thing.

Religions are crap.


Bond > All.


Not surprisingly, the last one draws the most debate (though it pointless since it’s true).

WoW, you are spot on with my beliefs...apart from the last one. But you are right again in your acessment that it is most debatable.

Looks like I am not the only cynical poster here (I knew that, though) :D

[D.K.night]

People think I'm paranoid. Is paranoia going against what corporate news tells you?

I believe;
There is a cover up surrounding 9/11
CIA (or someone higher) is responsible for JFK's assasination
AIDs and the SARS epidemic were man made. Want reasons for this?
Religion is a load of crap. Just reasons to start wars and conflicts.
I do not believe in god.
Peoples votes in elections do not sway the outcome.

Nice, nice...please elaborate on the AIDS and SARS section.

I'm interested!

[PlagueBearer]

Nice, nice...please elaborate on the AIDS and SARS section.

I'm interested!

SARS I would entertain as a man-made disease, but not AIDS. The way SARS worked, it could have military applications as a biological weapon; and China hasn't been real big on scruples since their revolution. And then again, neither have we. But AIDS doesn't make sense as a weapon; it kills slow and has a dumb method of transmission. Now, if you want to say that AIDS was 'created' by the homosexual population... well, that would hit a lot closer to the mark.

And Dementor, being tolerant of other races doesn't mean ignoring differences, it means celebrating them!

[/sarcasm on that last one]

Oh, and AgeOfAbnegation, if you were looking for an invitation, I say go for it.

Largely because I'm confused about your use of the world "primordial". :chinny:

[ScytheNoire]

if you understand how AIDS works, it is very logical that it could be man-made. it's a brilliant way of crippling a person. it would be like smashing the wall of a fort so you can invade it. it's basic logic, if you want to open up a body for attack, you take out the defenses first so you can have easy attacks.

[PlagueBearer]

Well, okay, but why does it take so damn LONG? And why doesn't it have a better method of spreading itself? Sure, it's really uber-deadly, but it doesn't spread well and it isn't fast, two things that are basically the be-all and end-all of a biological weapon. And besides, we can reliably trace it back to African monkeys.

Now SARS, though, that came out of nowhere. Real fast. And it spread like wildfire. Killed pretty good too. As far as diseases useful in war, man, it would rank up there in like the top ten. AIDs, though... "I want General Scorpekov dead in thirty years, for certain. I'm not taking any chances with this one; Slopovich, go have butt-sex with him."

Yeah...

[ScytheNoire]

but that's the thing, if you are designed a biological weapon, you don't neccassarily want it to spread really well. you want it to hit a targeted zone, but, not go beyond that zone. if it spreads too well, you would be dealing with the destruction of all mankind. but, something like AIDS, if it's only transmitted sexually, there is a good chance of it being able to be limited to a zone. think of all the naturally diseases that are often linked to just certain areas or climates.

that's why the concept of these highly contagious, easily caught, vriuses are so dangerous in the wrong hands. it's just too easy for the wrong people to become victims. but, something like AIDS, just avoid having sex or blood transmission, and you can avoid the virus. AIDS isn't a fear of mine as much as getting a more contagious virus, such as pregnancy.

[SpiritWalker]

I highly doubt SARS is/was a biological weapon. It isn't that super contagious (think common cold) and also doesn't kill everyone it infects. Basically more people die every year from the flu than from SARS. So I don't understand where the mass hysteria surrounding SARS ever came from..

[ScytheNoire]

the reason the hysteria happened, having to deal with it here in Canada (not sure if they went whacko in the states) is because of how much it is like a common cold. but they really worry because people go to doctor's and hospitals when sick, then, they end up giving it to other people who are already sick, been through surgery, or have a weakened immune system.

having been through some surgery and the messed up immune system, i know that they take that stuff, and any outside infection, very seriously. someone in a weakened state can die very easily from something like that. thus, why the flu kills so many each year, mostly infants and elderly, their weaker immune systems.

[neosonichdghg]

Okay, AoA, I'm really sorry about that. There were two reasons for it:

1. Lack of sleep

2. Being in a very touchy mood over a.) Idiots complaining about minor problems with my game, b.) my current project being underfunded (I'm broke) and running out of time, c.) little sisters in general, d.) spyware driving me crazy crashing my computer and e.) Cookie Monster

I apologize as profusely as I can without spamming and making the mods even more angry with me. Please, ignore everything I said on that thread.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

:p It's cool. On a side note, welcome to our OTF.

[Dark Knight]

And I think SpiritWalker's beleif in [Social] Darwinism is hilarious, largely due to the fact that his existence begs us to beleive that reproducing is NOT the be-all and end-all to life.

:happy14:

He is not begging you to believe that reproduction is not the goal of life (which is a seperate discussion in itself...), but that - hey; we dont have to support it 'gl+hf'.

And anyway I dont see a reference to having NO kids there, just not loads.
---

I also agree with Maullus viewpoint; and this is I think a lot of the reason why I have no time for individual liberal Americans... - because at the end of the day, as a whole 'you' go stomping over the world, taking everything and generally being Empirish.

Basically, if American actions as a whole were less hypocritical (perhaps more liberal leadership), they would be easier for the rest of the world to swallow.
---

Hmm I will have to go away and think of some controversial beliefs I hold.

[Dublo]

I highly doubt SARS is/was a biological weapon. It isn't that super contagious (think common cold) and also doesn't kill everyone it infects. Basically more people die every year from the flu than from SARS. So I don't understand where the mass hysteria surrounding SARS ever came from..
SARS actually did cause alot of death. And mostly important it caused mass fear around the world.
SARS has an element in it (like Aids) which is impossible to evolve in nature. It had to have had a helping hand.

[MixedVariety]

One of my many controversial beliefs:

Couples that have to send their kids to a daycare, shouldn't have kids.

[Mad_One]

Ok AoA,now that everything is resolved,whats that example you wanted to say? i know it might hurt my feelings :sad44: ,but it might show me another point of view about this stuff.What i've said is what i think right now based on the experiences i've had but im always open to new ideas about it,so im ready to see your example.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Ok, here is your post on the matter. I'll keep it short and sweet.

Ok,if you want controversy its good to talk about religion,here it goes.

I think religions are good for children cause it shows them the correct way to behave in society(and mostly cause they are only kids),but any adult who still follows a preconceived religion is one of the next:


You come off pretty strong. A person will learn an ethics regardless if they adhere to a religion or not - pop culture, the media, the music you listen to - all are examples of pedagogy.


a)A lazy fool who refuses to think by himself


Since you seemed kind in your post to me, I won't tear you a new one over how silly that sentance is. While there are those who could be put into the old marxist notion that "religion is opium for the people", I would say that the majority of "fools" living on earth now are those who tend to sway with pop culture, which has dramatically shifted away from organized religion in the last century. However, many people have actualized their adherence to a given faith by taking note of its philosophical and revelatory underpinnings, including myself.


b)Someone who is afraid to see the truth cause he is scared of reality and needs someone to tell him pretty stories about how good kids go to heaven


Sure, but be careful not to stereotype and generalize. While many have said that religion is a crutch, they fail to realize that they too rely on something to help them through life, which in some cases, can be a defence mechanism called scepticism. I'd say the brave individuals are those who can accept the full meaning of a given creed, and face up to its truths, instead of a smorgasboard of convenient belief maxims and aphorisms.


c)A mindless person who has lost his own personality and ideas thanks to the program society and religion has forced on him.


That's pretty much what you've said before, rephrased. Though I will say that religion has gotten a bad rep in some cases by those who don't fully enter into its reality. One last thought - everyone has a religion - what's yours?

[Mad_One]

Ok first than anything,thanks for answering me.As i see it now,some of the problems with my post,were that i wanted to keep it short and that some of the sense of my words is lost in translation as english isnt my main language( im from a spanish speaking country in south america,bolivia),ill try to explain myself better this time.

I must apologize first,cause i didnt take enough time doing the a,b,c qualification and i should have explained in a better way why i think like this.
As in everything there are exceptions and i dont think all religious people belong to one of them,i just mentioned the main situations i've seen(i've been born in a catholic family and i've met with a lot of other religions while searching for my own answers to life).

There are indeed people who really follow a religion because they believe in it and i really respect them cause they are just like me,the only difference is that their beliefs are the same as the ones of a religion,mine are not.My problem with religions is that most people this days follow religions for different motives than the ones they should(True belief) and religions seem to be happy with that as long as they have enough followers.



You come off pretty strong. A person will learn an ethics regardless if they adhere to a religion or not - pop culture, the media, the music you listen to - all are examples of pedagogy.


Little to say here,what i meant was that religions teaches well childs(of course this can also be learned by other means but i think religion does a pretty good work here),but once they are smart enough to do it,they should decide if they really believe in what has been taught to them,and if they dont, just look for their own answers and not follow(like sheeps do)the religion for different motives.



Since you seemed kind in your post to me, I won't tear you a new one over how silly that sentance is. While there are those who could be put into the old marxist notion that "religion is opium for the people", I would say that the majority of "fools" living on earth now are those who tend to sway with pop culture, which has dramatically shifted away from organized religion in the last century. However, many people have actualized their adherence to a given faith by taking note of its philosophical and revelatory underpinnings, including myself.


I was trying to be nice,im happy i didnt mess it up this time :happy14:

What i meant here is exactly what you said above,people that follows the religion cause of their friends,family or cause its "cool",and they are too lazy to do research about their own religion to discover if they really believe in it,the difference with c) is that this people know about their ignorance,they just dont care.


Sure, but be careful not to stereotype and generalize. While many have said that religion is a crutch, they fail to realize that they too rely on something to help them through life, which in some cases, can be a defence mechanism called scepticism. I'd say the brave individuals are those who can accept the full meaning of a given creed, and face up to its truths, instead of a smorgasboard of convenient belief maxims and aphorisms.


Everybody believes in something,i do too.But this kind of people only follows a religion cause they are afraid of the answers they could find by themselves,they could even force themselves to believe in something they dont only to feel comfortable ,and to have something to say to their children when they start asking about the meaning of life.


That's pretty much what you've said before, rephrased. Though I will say that religion has gotten a bad rep in some cases by those who don't fully enter into its reality. One last thought - everyone has a religion - what's yours?

This kind of people is the one that pisses me the most,they are the product of brainwashing,probably this isnt done intentionally by religions but a weak mind(someone who has problems at the moment,or is only predisposed to this)can sometimes believe in everything they hear as a self-defense mechanism,and they will defend the ideals only to keep their sanity.

The reason this people pisses me is cause there is nothing i can do to help them and they make me feel impotent(yeah i know they probably dont want to be helped,but its part of my personality to try to help people think by themselves).They really dont know their religions but they will defend it with their lifes.

Example: ( ^^ )
Me: ...and that's the reason why i dont believe in your religion
Them: Infidel!!!
Me: Ok,but please tell me why you believe in it
Them: Blasphemy!!!.Get out of here!!!We will tell your parents about this!!!
Me: ok...

About my beliefs...i've developed my own philosophy of life through a lot of time(i've dedicated a lot of time only to do this) and they are in constant evolution as i try to keep my mind opened to new ideas,i could explain it here but i dont want to confuse anyone...( j/k neosonichdghg :p ),it's really too long but if you want we could create a thread about it,so all of us could share our beliefs.Just to make this clear,i do believe in god,but mostly in an energy kind of him,and one of my main ideas talks about time not really existing in the true reality and it being only being somekind of "illusion" created by some force(maybe us,maybe god) to allow us to comprehend whats happening around us,this leads to some theories about multiple lives going on at the same time,vision of the future,existence of god,and others.If you are imaginative you can easily see how the inexistence of time leads to this stuff :happy34:

After all this said,if you really believe in your religion(this goes to everybody),sorry about the misunderstood :buddies:

Edit:Ouch!! Just realized how long this turned out to be,srry :P

[Mad_One]

By the way, "Religions steal men souls and make them their slaves" comes from Castlevania: Symphony of the Night for PS

Ritcher: You steal men soul and make them your slaves!!!
Dracula: The same could be said from most religions
Ritcher: Your words are as empty as your soul!!!
Dracula:Enough talk,have at this!!!
Ritcher: Die,monster!!!

Really cool game :happy14:

[AgeOfAbnegation]

My problem with religions is that most people this days follow religions for different motives than the ones they should(True belief) and religions seem to be happy with that as long as they have enough followers.


Most of your post is summed up with reference to what you see in other people. I'd say clean that baggage out of your system, take a step back, and zero in on your own standing with God. St. Peter asked Christ "what about the others", to which was answered "what about them?". Forget about what everyone else thinks or does - focus on your own journey. What they do has no effect on you (or at least it shouldnt).

[Mad_One]

Ok,thanks man,ill put that to practice. :happy34:
I think what caused my "problem" with religions is that i saw some good friends fall into the categories i mentioned cause of different reasons,and at the time i was unable to do anything about it,that caused my reaction to try to help people find their own way,even if they don't want to.If i was able to find my own path,they should be able to do the same,and i should respect their choices even if im not ok with it.Anyway im happy i was able to find a solution to the misunderstood as it was bothering me a lot.

[Maullus]

One of my many controversial beliefs:

Couples that have to send their kids to a daycare, shouldn't have kids.

Ooo! I like that one. :D And it reminded me of something I've often discussed...

People should have to be licensed to have children. :happy34:

Totally missed the last page of posts. That'll teach me to... uh... I don't know what that will teach me. Anyway, in regard to the discussion, I'd like to toss something out there. I don't know if this was what Mad_One was trying to convey, but it seems to run along the same tracks.

My problem with Christianity (as well as most religions, actually) is the fact that while they may (and often do) have some very intriguing, very insightful, and very appealing aspects, they coat it in a fairy-tale.

I'm sorry, but I just can't believe in burning bushes, revelations from God on a mountaintop, or Immaculate Conception. My distaste for Christianity (again, most religions) is based on the fact that I tend to reject their fundamental core. Does this mean I don't believe in God? Not necessarily. But religion does not tend to be a buffet, and I'm not really interested in a smorgasbord of beliefs anyway.

To put it a bit more succinctly, I feel that religion would have value if it wasn't covered in a sickly, saccharine sweet coating. And the two aspects are indivisible.

Oh, and I can't stand Church communities. Priggish hypocrites.

One last thought - everyone has a religion - what's yours?Good question.

[SpiritWalker]

One last thought - everyone has a religion - what's yours?
Mine's called: "SW's Army O' Doom And Pink Fluffy Things That Go "Hisssss""

re·li·gion
1.
A. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
B. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
1A.
Thou shalt regard SW as thou master and creator and give him all your money.
Thou shalt not acknowledge other gods for they are weak and in need of crushing.
1B.
You do talk about 'SW'.
When someone yells they don't wanna hear anything anymore about "SW" or goes into coma, or flips out, keep converting till they can only think "SW".
Only the whole world has to be converted.
One converting at a time, to concentrate and maximize converting power.
Everyone shall wear "SW is holier than thou" shirts, no shoes though, bare feet only.
Converting goes on as long as is has to.
If this is your first converting, you have to convert or else you'll suffer at the hands of the almighty "SW".
2
You will vast 30 days a month, every month.
All beautiful women are belong to SW, if you do not comply, you will be assimilated.
All beautiful women are required to walk around naked all day, the rest will need to cloth themselves so that they do not disturb the almighty SW with their hideous sights.
Elimination of certain world leaders will be required.
3
Our SW, who art in Potland; ph34r3d be Thy name; Thy wrath come; Thy will own all hawt mammas on earth. Give us this month our monthly bread; and smite us our trespasses as we butcher those who trespass against SW, and lead us not away from teh SW; but deliver us teh booty. Es Way.
4
You will live, fight, die, chop of heads of little white bunnies for SW.

[neosonichdghg]

Mad_One, this is a topic that really interests me bacause I actually hold a lot of the same opinions as you and remain firmly a Christian. I had a very interesting conversation the other day with the daughter of a High Priestess of the Pagan religion on this topic, and I will share with you some of the things we discussed.

Before I say anything else, let me first state that I take the term "spiritual warfare" very seriously. I believe that there are literally angels and demons literally fighting over us, I believe that those literal demons do try to influence us in a very real and direct way, although I don't believe they should be blamed for everything, and I strongly believe that there is a near-literal war going on to convert non-Christians. Because of this view, I have a rather...practical view of Christianity.

First of all, I agree completely that many people who claim to be Christians are indeed mindless drones who "believe" simply because it gives them warm fuzzies. There is also a group of people who "believe" because it is socially acceptable. Then there are those who "believe" because their friends and family have brainwashed them. What I disagree on is a small but important distinction in terms : I believe that these people do not follow God, but rather the "shell" of the false church. This includes holding to rituals too religiously, believing that memorized prayers actually mean anything when they are recited, and singing in church merely because it's "what you do". I believe that these groups of people are no longer Christians and have been badly betrayed by those who claim to be pastors and have led them so far astray.

I know many true Christians. Most of them, sadly, are congregated at the church I currently attend and I know few outside it. There are, I realize, many others, but they are sadly few and far between in this day and age. The true Christians I know have a completely different mindset than those I have complained about above. They have a simple faith, if deep in its execution - They believe that God exists, is the Creator of all, sent His son who is a part of the Trinity to die for our sins, and that son rose from the grave and ascended back into Heaven. Terry Pratchett struck the perfect distinction, but reversed the terms: Those pretenders who sing with no belief, pray with no faith, and worship the Christian religion Believe. They are incredibly pious in their actions, adhering to every rule on Sundays and doing what their "pastor" tells them on church outings. Those who are true Christians, who worship God, believe. Non-capitalized. It is not a complicated affair, it is not a ritualized concept, and it is not a vague trust in something that may or may not exist. They simply understand that God exists, and that they are on His side, use those as base assumptions, and move on with their lives. They go to church to learn about God and to worship Him simply because He deserves it.

That's the good and the bad. Now for the ugly. I believe, as is stated in many places in your posts, that the vast majority of Christians who try to convert people are heavy-handed people who beat people over the head with their beliefs. Now, I believe that they exist for a different reason. I believe that they exist because a.) they Believe and are ministering a false message or b.) They believe but have no clue how to minister effectively. The main problem they have is what I call the "spiritual sidearm": verses and slogans. Slogans serve no purpose but to close minds and hearts, and verses are literally meaningless to people who do not believe the Bible is true. I truly cannot believe that people think non-Christians who denounce the Bible will be swayed by quotes from that Book. That's like me quoting a six-year-old's school story about bunnies as evidence of evolution. If you don't trust the source, quotes from it are meaningless.

So that's my belief. At least some of it - I have to give up the computer and this is already a really long post. If anyone wants to hear more, which I seriously doubt, I am willing to post again later.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I truly cannot believe that people think non-Christians who denounce the Bible will be swayed by quotes from that Book.

I know what you're saying, but I don't agree with that statement. Any conversion comes from the word of God, and as a professed Christian, you're obligated to promote it.

[SpiritWalker]

I know what you're saying, but I don't agree with that statement. Any conversion comes from the word of God, and as a professed Christian, you're obligated to promote it.
A good minister of God doesn't have to actually quote directly, but could talk about God intentions and such, thus making the listener interested to hear more, he/she can do this by either going to A church or read the bible. He/she will become more and more interested et voila, you have yourself a converted mindless drone.

That's how I usually convert them myself, only with me it's a lot more violence and blood. :happy34:

[neosonichdghg]

AoA, I agree that the Bible should be promoted and I do promote it when I attempt to minister. However, my statement was and still is that actual verses are useless. Concepts from the Bible are useful when properly supported, but simply quoting scripture at people who don't believe the Bible is true is not going to have any effect other than hardening their hearts further. Like I said, it really is the sidearm of the good minister. The main weapons have to be reason, open-mindeness, and a firm grasp of the concepts behind the words in the Bible - not the words themselves.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

AoA, I agree that the Bible should be promoted and I do promote it when I attempt to minister. However, my statement was and still is that actual verses are useless. Concepts from the Bible are useful when properly supported, but simply quoting scripture at people who don't believe the Bible is true is not going to have any effect other than hardening their hearts further. Like I said, it really is the sidearm of the good minister. The main weapons have to be reason, open-mindeness, and a firm grasp of the concepts behind the words in the Bible - not the words themselves.

I've seen a single line of scripture change people's lives.. You can't make a judgement call on what will or will not affect someone. What you've posted there is cynical. You're not asked to be successful, you're asked to be faithful.

[Mad_One]

Neosonichdghg as you said,we share lots of opinions and i kind of understand how you feel about religions.As you ,i could probably continue being a Christian but i decided to leave it because i have a different point of view about a lot of the philosophical stuff in the religion,and i decided it was better to leave the religion to avoid becoming a false catholic.

Even if i dont believe that god is in our dimension,i do believe in a lot of the "spiritual warfare" stuff cause i've seen a lot of weird paranormal stuff during my life and i would be betraying myself if i would say that i dont believe in some kind of battle of good against evil,but i see it more as a karma kind of thing and i preffer to stay in a neutral position in it. ( :ash: heh but for survival reasons i think im more inclined to the "good" side )

[Sage the Mage]

I've seen a single line of scripture change people's lives..
I'd say it was someone who was already faithful.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I'd say it was someone who was already faithful.

Well, I'm saying that I know people, and know of many, who did not posses that "homegrown" faith that would seem to provide a basis for getting touched by scripture.

[Sage the Mage]

As in, not born again, not already indoctrinated as a youth?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

As in, not born again, not already indoctrinated as a youth?

Yes. I don't exactly live in the bible belt, remember lol..

[MixedVariety]

I don't suppose that this would be a good time to state my agnosticism, now, would it?
Well, too late. I'm a scientist and a skeptic. At least I'm not an athiest, here to tell you how ridiculous religion is. But one of those will be along sooner or later.

[Sage the Mage]

Yes. I don't exactly live in the bible belt, remember lol..
Well I thought I recalled you mentioning something extremely similar to the born again types, and theoretically we should swap where we each live.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I don't suppose that this would be a good time to state my agnosticism, now, would it?
Well, too late. I'm a scientist and a skeptic. At least I'm not an athiest, here to tell you how ridiculous religion is. But one of those will be along sooner or later.

I would offer that skepticism is the natural outcome of the scientific method applied to the transcendental.



Well I thought I recalled you mentioning something extremely similar to the born again types, and theoretically we should swap where we each live.

What was it I mentioned? As for switching locales, I'm happy where I am lol :p. To be honest, I'm not well cut out for bible-belt culture, but I'm glad they have their faith and morals (those who are sincere in it).

[Sedmire]

My most controvercial belief is that I am in favor of the death penalty.

...in the sense that we should screw the 'humanity' in putting someone to death, and we should just simply shoot them in the head. Simple, cheap, effective.

What?

[MixedVariety]

I would offer that skepticism is the natural outcome of the scientific method applied to the transcendental.


What hogwash! You eschew hyperbole, without true cogitation.

I would reword it thusly:
Skepticism is the natural application of the scientific mind to a lack of data regarding the unknown.

Blind acceptance of the unexplainable via transcendental imaginings has no place in the true scientific community. I will not be drawn into a religious argument, however; my beliefs are of no more, or less, importance than anyone else's. As far as I am concerned, anyone may be right, or they may be wrong, until proven otherwise. Stories recounted over thousands of years of legends do not constitute proof.

[Incite_Riots]

Not the most strange of my beliefs but almost certainly the most controversial:

Paedophiles are mentally ill and should be treated as such. If conviced they should be incarcerated in institutions for the criminally insane and provided with proper psychiatric treatment. It should be "safe" for those who feel tendancies this way to come forward and be voluntarily provided with necessary treatment. Care in the community schemes for post incarceration for convicted paedophiles which have proven extremely successful in Canada should be extended to all countries. Same thing for those who have sexual disfunction of any sort (by that I mean those who gain pleasure from non-consensual sexual acts).

Right, probably time to change my user name after that one. :scared:

[DrunkCajun]

Not the most strange of my beliefs but almost certainly the most controversial:

Paedophiles are mentally ill and should be treated as such. If conviced they should be incarcerated in institutions for the criminally insane and provided with proper psychiatric treatment. It should be "safe" for those who feel tendancies this way to come forward and be voluntarily provided with necessary treatment. Care in the community schemes for post incarceration for convicted paedophiles which have proven extremely successful in Canada should be extended to all countries. Same thing for those who have sexual disfunction of any sort (by that I mean those who gain pleasure from non-consensual sexual acts).

Right, probably time to change my user name after that one. :scared:

Actually, yeah, I think for most criminals we take too weak of a policy. And by weak, I don't mean that we don't punish them enough. I mean weak in the sense that we don't bother with the rehabilitation part of the sentence. Better just to throw them in jail and let them be subjected to all manner of predatory attacks in jail than to bother trying to give them therapy or education. Why help them when we can just guarantee they leave jail even more screwed up than they came into the system to begin with?

[MixedVariety]

Actually, yeah, I think for most criminals we take too weak of a policy. And by weak, I don't mean that we don't punish them enough. I mean weak in the sense that we don't bother with the rehabilitation part of the sentence. Better just to throw them in jail and let them be subjected to all manner of predatory attacks in jail than to bother trying to give them therapy or education. Why help them when we can just guarantee they leave jail even more screwed up than they came into the system to begin with?

Well, you know my views on this. If there were a way to ensure, 100%, that a particular rehabilitation would work, I'd go for it. Otherwise, letting such creeps back out into society is asking for trouble, as several recently dead children would attest to. If they could.

[DrunkCajun]

Well, you know my views on this. If there were a way to ensure, 100%, that a particular rehabilitation would work, I'd go for it. Otherwise, letting such creeps back out into society is asking for trouble, as several recently dead children would attest to. If they could.

Oh absolutely, MV. I'm just saying that throwing them into a 15 year sentence of being sexually attacked in the showers every day and then releasing them back into society isn't the best idea in the world. If you're going to rehabilitate a sexual predator, we should probably start by not subjecting them to sexual attacks themselves. Something tells me they're probably already screwed up in the head enough without the added joy of Bubba and his pals.

[Coltaine]

I think he was mainly talking about thiefs, burglars ect.

[DrunkCajun]

I think he was mainly talking about thiefs, burglars ect.

And yes, I meant in general. Sexual predators are a special case, but it applies universally I think. If I were put in jail for shoplifting and couldn't walk without a limp when I got out, you'd better believe I'd have a chip on my shoulder. I'm really not shocked that our criminals spend their lives in and out of jails on a regular basis.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

What hogwash! You eschew hyperbole, without true cogitation.

I would reword it thusly:
Skepticism is the natural application of the scientific mind to a lack of data regarding the unknown.


That's not hogwash at all, by any stretch. Science can accurately discover things within its own realm. However, science cannot prove God, or anything above sense data. That much you do agree with. Where the problematic comes in has to do with what to do at this juncture. All of a sudden, there's "nothing", and that's it. Go read what I posted in the "morality of murder" thread - it touches on this exact problem. Scepticism is the same as dogmatism.


Blind acceptance of the unexplainable via transcendental imaginings has no place in the true scientific community.


Before commenting on this, you'd be well advise to read some metaphysics. The transcendental is not a child of the imagination, but rather, is necessary by means of reason. When empiricism reaches its limits, speculative reason must take you the rest of the way. To remain strictly empirical suggests one's thinking on the matter is still in its infancy.


I will not be drawn into a religious argument, however; my beliefs are of no more, or less, importance than anyone else's. As far as I am concerned, anyone may be right, or they may be wrong, until proven otherwise. Stories recounted over thousands of years of legends do not constitute proof.

We're not talking about religion here, nor are we talking about stories and legends. We're talking about methods, and getting it right. Hate to break it to you, but the advice you get from someone trained to think properly IS WORTH MORE than someone spewing mere conjecture and opinion. Furthermore, there are solid guidelines in establing an epistemology and its proofs and/or evidences.

[SpiritWalker]

I've seen a single line of scripture change people's lives.. You can't make a judgement call on what will or will not affect someone. What you've posted there is cynical. You're not asked to be successful, you're asked to be faithful.
Lines like these?

And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air. Gen.6:7

And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die. Gen.6:17

For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth. Gen.7:4

And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: Gen.7:21-23

Or..

Just one example (http://www.thebricktestament.com/joshua/family_stoned_burned/jos07_02.html) from this (http://www.thebricktestament.com/) site. :happy34:

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Yep :). Now "keep going" :happy34:.

[Daedric]

Lines like these?

Your ignorant reply would be better suited to something like "Any single line from the Bible can change a person's life." You find a few lines out of the thousands uopn thousands available and use ones like that to try and "prove your point," which isn't convincing in the least.

Instead doing a google search for lines about death, how about searching for positive lines instead so you can truly acknowledge AoA's point? You could easily fill a thread. Your life might even be changed.

Take a look at Proverbs in particular, wolfy.

[SpiritWalker]

Your ignorant reply would be better suited to something like "Any single line from the Bible can change a person's life." You find a few lines out of the thousands uopn thousands available and use ones like that to try and "prove your point," which isn't convincing in the least.

Instead doing a google search for lines about death, how about searching for positive lines instead so you can truly acknowledge AoA's point? You could easily fill a thread. Your life might even be changed.
All I am trying to say is, don't think the whole bible is love and good stuff like some think. If I would try to sell my car, do you think I would mention all the bad stuff I've had with it? Same goes for these ministers who stick their foot between my door as I try to slam my frontdoor in their faces, they only tell the goody stuff, they don't tell about the millions of people God killed in the bible, or maybe they should to scare them into believing like they used to do in the middle ages. And when I read the bible on why they were killed, over things like property, don't believing in him and such, I think by myself what a cruel God the God from the bible actually is.

See for all the good things that are in that book, there are an equal amount of atrocities in there.

So you might see it as ignorance, I see it as reading the bible as it is, a book of compiled fiction stories, nothing more, nothing less.

[Daedric]

All I am trying to say is, don't think the whole bible is love and good stuff like some think. If I would try to sell my car, do you think I would mention all the bad stuff I've had with it? Same goes for these ministers who stick their foot between my door as I try to slam my frontdoor in their faces, they only tell the goody stuff, they don't tell about the millions of people God killed in the bible, or maybe they should to scare them into believing like they used to do in the middle ages. And when I read the bible on why they were killed, over things like property, don't believing in him and such, I think by myself what a cruel God the God from the bible actually is.


According to the Bible, God is also a God of wrath, and many other things as well. He loves every person, but that doesn't mean that everyone is going to be immune to his judgement. You have to realize as well that these "millions" of killings, which I don't know that there were that many, happened for certain reasons. The largest killing, caused by the Great Flood (Noah's Ark story) happened to rid the world of wickedness. Only Noah and his family were good enough in God's eyes to survive. Other mass killings have occured because people had bred with demons and other spirits, having cross-breed children, which also probably was going on at the time of Noah. There's a lot of confusing aspects in the Bible, and just taking a passage about somebody being killed for various reasons is wrong to make judgements on. It takes a lot of reading the Bible to start understanding who God really is.

Now, if you don't believe in demons or spirits, either, then there's probably no reason for you to believe what God said about Him judging these people, in which case you also have no reason to believe He is a cruel God.

[SpiritWalker]

According to the Bible, God is also a God of wrath, and many other things as well. He loves every person, but that doesn't mean that everyone is going to be immune to his judgement. You have to realize as well that these "millions" of killings, which I don't know that there were that many, happened for certain reasons. The largest killing, caused by the Great Flood (Noah's Ark story) happened to rid the world of wickedness. Only Noah and his family were good enough in God's eyes to survive. Other mass killings have occured because people had bred with demons and other spirits, having cross-breed children, which also probably was going on at the time of Noah. There's a lot of confusing aspects in the Bible, and just taking a passage about somebody being killed for various reasons is wrong to make judgements on. It takes a lot of reading the Bible to start understanding who God really is.

Now, if you don't believe in demons or spirits, either, then there's probably no reason for you to believe what God said about Him judging these people, in which case you also have no reason to believe He is a cruel God.
It's also wrong to just blame genocide on simpel words like wickedness, demons and evil spirits.

Also, bible and believing or not, you could never understand God nor his motives. So all you can judge him by is his actions discribed in the bible and you know what, yes that is cruel, and that deserves the name God of Wrath. But then saying he's also a loving God, not possible, because loving and acting out wrath through death and lots of it isn't very, well, loving..

Don't try to portay me as someone who is a simple-mind that doesn't know or hasn't read the bible. I live in one of the most christian villages in this country, I know more than enough about it.

I can say this though I don't renounce God, I do renounce the bible and the church as the source to hear about his teachings and words.

[MixedVariety]

That's not hogwash at all, by any stretch. Science can accurately discover things within its own realm. However, science cannot prove God, or anything above sense data. That much you do agree with. Where the problematic comes in has to do with what to do at this juncture. All of a sudden, there's "nothing", and that's it. Go read what I posted in the "morality of murder" thread - it touches on this exact problem. Scepticism is the same as dogmatism.



Before commenting on this, you'd be well advise to read some metaphysics. The transcendental is not a child of the imagination, but rather, is necessary by means of reason. When empiricism reaches its limits, speculative reason must take you the rest of the way. To remain strictly empirical suggests one's thinking on the matter is still in its infancy.



We're not talking about religion here, nor are we talking about stories and legends. We're talking about methods, and getting it right. Hate to break it to you, but the advice you get from someone trained to think properly IS WORTH MORE than someone spewing mere conjecture and opinion. Furthermore, there are solid guidelines in establing an epistemology and its proofs and/or evidences.

I can think of no answer to some of this. Your sentences each make individual sense but seem to say nothing when strung together. You have a very real possibility of a future in law or politics.

Your second paragraph makes some sense, though. I'll even agree with some of it, outside of the metaphysical necessity malarkey.

Skepticism and dogmatism, by the way, have very different meanings. You would be well advised (to coin a phrase) to pop open a dictionary, in which you will not find your Morality of Murder thread, but definitions of many, many words.

[Daedric]

Also, bible and believing or not, you could never understand God nor his motives. So all you can judge him by is his actions discribed in the bible and you know what, yes that is cruel, and that deserves the name God of Wrath. But then saying he's also a loving God, not possible, because loving and acting out wrath through death and lots of it isn't very, well, loving..
Loving someone doesn't mean you let them get away with "murder," per se. Your wife may love you, but if you go off and do something strongly to her disliking, she may forgive you, but you're still gonna be in a lot of trouble with her. You may be punished, or "grounded" from certain activities. It's hard to find a good example because no one can have the same love that God does, and a spouse pales in comparison.

And I agree, we cannot understand His actions fully. Some of them we can understand to a good extent. Perhaps these people you mentioned that were victims of His wrath were threats to society, and needed to be made an example of for the greater whole. What better way to enforce a law? Who knows. God works in mysterious ways.
Don't try to portay me as someone who is a simple-mind that doesn't know or hasn't read the bible. I live in one of the most christian villages in this country, I know more than enough about it.
I'm not portaying you that way, but more as an ignoramus about the subject. And you don't know enough about it, because otherwise your opinion about God or the Bible wouldn't be so uneducated. Anyone can search the internet for verses and interpret them for their own purposes.

I can say this though I don't renounce God, I do renounce the bible and the church as the source to hear about his teachings and words.
But you do renounce Him. Where is the source to hear about His teaching and word then? Through your own thoughts? What you want Him to be like? What fits your life defines God? The Bible is supposed to be God's word, and saying His word is fictional and a lie is as good as renouncing Him. From what I've seen you are saying, you see God as someone who agrees with you and fits your lifestyle so you don't have to change it. Unfortunately, too many people think that way.

[DrunkCajun]

But you do renounce Him. Where is the source to hear about His teaching and word then? Through your own thoughts? What you want Him to be like? What fits your life defines God? The Bible is supposed to be God's word, and saying His word is fictional and a lie is as good as renouncing Him. From what I've seen you are saying, you see God as someone who agrees with you and fits your lifestyle so you don't have to change it. Unfortunately, too many people think that way.

Out of curiosity, Daedric, are you a Catholic? And if so, are you one of those Catholics that believes all Protestants are damned because they aren't Catholics? Not trying to stir up further debate, just genuinely interested. Already embroiled in enough trouble today...

[Daedric]

Out of curiosity, Daedric, are you a Catholic? And if so, are you one of those Catholics that believes all Protestants are damned because they aren't Catholics? Not trying to stir up further debate, just genuinely interested. Already embroiled in enough trouble today...

Nope, I am Protestant. And yes, those types of Catholics truly bug me. No offense to you Catholics out there, but I am not in agreeance with much of the Catholic church's teachings, and view it to be a religion based more on tradition than faith and the Bible's teachings. So much of Catholicism is unscriptural, including making the sign of the cross, prayer beads and rosaries, praying to saints and/or mary, viewing mary as a diety(sp?), holy water, and even the concept of nuns, priests, and other church leaders not having families. The Bible says leaders of the church should, and I paraphrase it to the best of my memory, it goes something like this "...for if a bishop cannot even lead his own family, how can he lead the family of God?" I'll post later if any of you want to know the verse; I don't have a Bible on me.

And yes, I do see the point you are trying to make by asking me this. :whistle:

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Out of curiosity, Daedric, are you a Catholic? And if so, are you one of those Catholics that believes all Protestants are damned because they aren't Catholics? Not trying to stir up further debate, just genuinely interested. Already embroiled in enough trouble today...

For the record, that is not Catholic doctrine.

[Sage the Mage]

Oh joy, we're back here again :P

We're not talking about religion here, nor are we talking about stories and legends. We're talking about methods, and getting it right. Hate to break it to you, but the advice you get from someone trained to think properly IS WORTH MORE than someone spewing mere conjecture and opinion. Furthermore, there are solid guidelines in establing an epistemology and its proofs and/or evidences.
Remember how we got to the point where you pretty much were stuck at only having at most a definition for God, and that's about it? "Thinking correctly" is at most just imposing your faith upon others.

[Daedric]

"Thinking correctly" is at most just imposing your faith upon others.

No, because there is such a thing as "thinking incorrectly," such as forming opinions and arguements based on factually wrong information to use as evidence. This is how opinions can be "wrong."

And yes, I'll take info about these types of subjects from a philosophy major for more value than say, a business professional. Just like you would probably take an accountant's advice on your finances over a philosophy major's opinion.

[Xaf]

Keanu Reeves is a great actor.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Remember how we got to the point where you pretty much were stuck at only having at most a definition for God, and that's about it?


In terms of reason, yes.


"Thinking correctly" is at most just imposing your faith upon others.

Thinking correctly gets you to the point where positing God and what he is not is a viable thing.

[Sage the Mage]

Thinking correctly gets you to the point where positing God and what he is not is a viable thing.
All that is irrelevant. To this point, we have went as far as we could with secure reason in simply positing a necessary first mover.
Its fun to use that quote. Correctly to me implies secure, as far as not insecure logic. How can one think correctly when the whole basis of their thinking coupld possibly be faulty?

[Lord_Shinnok]

Keanu Reeves is a great actor.

you disgust me

[AgeOfAbnegation]

How can one think correctly when the whole basis of their thinking coupld possibly be faulty?

Then I guess it's up to the thinker to ensure that his/her basis of thinking couldn't be faulty. :)

[Dublo]

Keanu Reeves is a great actor.
you... you MONSTER!

[Erept0r]

Keanu Reeves is a great actor.


Only surpassed by Pauly Shore.

Jenifer Lopez should be executed for crimes against all humanity (basically cause she exists).

:creep:

[PlagueBearer]

Beleiving that all Protestants will go to Hell is not part of Catholic dogma.

Really? But doesn't that mean that everybody can beleive whatever the hell they want?

And doesn't that mean that the Church is pointless?

I'm not trying to say that the Church is pointless. My point is, any institutionalized religion has to denounce every other institution of religion. Otherwise, their point is lost. If a religion doesn't claim to have the only reliable view of God, it stands to reason that any beleiver in that faith would be obligated to choose another.

So what happened to controversial beleifs? Now we just talk about religion. = (

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Really? But doesn't that mean that everybody can beleive whatever the hell they want?

And doesn't that mean that the Church is pointless?

I'm not trying to say that the Church is pointless. My point is, any institutionalized religion has to denounce every other institution of religion. Otherwise, their point is lost. If a religion doesn't claim to have the only reliable view of God, it stands to reason that any beleiver in that faith would be obligated to choose another.

So what happened to controversial beleifs? Now we just talk about religion. = (

That was posted by me lol :p. Protestants are Christians just as Catholics are. The only difference is the degree to which one enters into the "fullness" of the faith. Still, the fundamental tenets are the same which is the key, really. Still, ascription to the universal church is highly encouraged. I liked your point however, it makes sense.

[Gaza0469]

No help for the the third world people.

Giving them better/easier access to medicine gives them a better life expectancy, which equals more chance for them to breed more, which equals more overpopulation.

The fact that they refuse to use anticonception, because these people think more children equals more money, is absurd. So I'd say let nature take its course and don't give their weak children a chance to survive by giving them food, clothes, medicine etc, sort of a natural anticonception.

All the money, food, clothes and medicine in the world can't help these people if they keep breeding uncontrolled. And since they're too blind to see that, no help for you!

Yeah, I am evil, I know. Well you wanted controversial ;)

I agree :) Im evil 2 :)

[Raistlin Majere]

Why does all the interesting threads turn into religious debates? Come on, lets set this aside get back to shocking people.

[Coltaine]

No help for the the third world people.

Giving them better/easier access to medicine gives them a better life expectancy, which equals more chance for them to breed more, which equals more overpopulation.

The fact that they refuse to use anticonception, because these people think more children equals more money, is absurd. So I'd say let nature take its course and don't give their weak children a chance to survive by giving them food, clothes, medicine etc, sort of a natural anticonception.

All the money, food, clothes and medicine in the world can't help these people if they keep breeding uncontrolled. And since they're too blind to see that, no help for you!


What you should realize thought is that overpopulation is not the problem in Africa right now. the opposite is the case. Africa is about to die out due to AIDS. Overpopulation was a problem some years ago but not anymore. Current demografic data shows, that the countrys with a very large population have a dwindling population.
Also you should not only say that greed causes them to have that many children. It is mainly based on poor education of the woman in these countrys. Another point is that the church does says condoms are against god.
(not in that word but something along that line.)

[Coltaine]

sorry dopple post

[Ash Housewares]

Why does all the interesting threads turn into religious debates? Come on, lets set this aside get back to shocking people.

kill whitey

[DrunkCajun]

What you should realize thought is that overpopulation is not the problem in Africa right now. the opposite is the case. Africa is about to die out due to AIDS. Overpopulation was a problem some years ago but not anymore. Current demografic data shows, that the countrys with a very large population have a dwindling population.

Not sure where you're getting your data from, but here are some numbers from the United Nations Population Fund. (http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2004/presskit/docs/indicator2.pdf) Seems that in fact population is projected to continue to increase at a pretty fast rate globally, with most of that taking place in underdeveloped nations. In fact, from what I've read recently, I believe that most first world nations these days are barely at the replacement rate.

PS: African nations aren't the only ones considered "third world."

[Sage the Mage]

Basically, AIDS & other epidemics have lead to a leveling off somewhat of the massive population growth.

[Coltaine]

I got that idear from an article of GEO. A German Science magazine. There was being stated, that the data from about a decade ago were not longer up to date due to the spreading of AIDS. Also the growth rate of china is not that significant due to the one child policy. It seemed to be a well founded article. To bad i don't have it anymore and can't find any supporting data in the internet. This makes arguing kinda pointless, because i can't back anything up and i don't recall the article that specific.

I only mentioned africa because of the population in other third world countrys outside africa are not significant in comparison to africas population.

[DrunkCajun]

I only mentioned africa because of the population in other third world countrys outside africa are not significant in comparison to africas population.

Er...really?

India: population estimated at 1,065,070,607 (Source: CIA World Factbook (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/in.html))

Africa: population estimated at 885,000,000

Indonesia: population estimated at 218,700,000

Brazil: population estimated at 179,100,000

Pakistan: 159,200,000

Russia: 144,100,000

Bangladesh: 141,300,000

Source: Nations Online (http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/world_population.htm)

Looks like if you add the 5 most populous countries in the world after India and China, you'll find that they're comparable in population to the entire continent of Africa, and might find that they're all considered third world outside of a city or two. And last I checked China and India were also outside of Africa. :happy34:

Sorry, not trying to be mean, just thought I'd call you on the misinformation. For the record I did see an article in my searching that referenced the fact that disease was impacting the population growth rates of Africa, but that doesn't really translate into having solved the population growth problems on our planet.

[haughty]

I believe that marriage between men and women is doomed to misery at best, failure at worst. Men prefer to spend their time with other men, and women prefer to spend their time with other women. Men and women rarely enjoy the same activities, and participate in activities they do not care for only to please their partner.

Men and women should hookup to procreate only, though lord knows we could use less of that.

I also believe that the use of serial commas is wrong. As is the use of may instead of might.

[Daedric]

Roger Moore > Pierce Brosnan
:whistle:

[D.K.night]

I believe that marriage between men and women is doomed to misery at best, failure at worst. Men prefer to spend their time with other men, and women prefer to spend their time with other women. Men and women rarely enjoy the same activities, and participate in activities they do not care for only to please their partner.

Men and women should hookup to procreate only, though lord knows we could use less of that.

I also believe that the use of serial commas is wrong. As is the use of may instead of might.

Yeah but as far as activities go, procreation ranks up there as one of the activities which both sexes think about, consciously or unconsciously on a daily basis. I don't find myself thinking about WoW all the time idly but when a nice lookin' lass walks by, these thoughts of procreation come unbidden and even uninvited. I mean sure, many activities are best performed with members of the same sex, but when it comes to procreation, there's nothing better than uh, doing it, with a member of the opposing sex, know what I mean? Unless you're homosexual which is an entire topic all in itself.

[PlagueBearer]

I believe that marriage between men and women is doomed to misery at best, failure at worst. Men prefer to spend their time with other men, and women prefer to spend their time with other women. Men and women rarely enjoy the same activities, and participate in activities they do not care for only to please their partner.

Men and women should hookup to procreate only, though lord knows we could use less of that.

I also believe that the use of serial commas is wrong. As is the use of may instead of might.

Yeah, procreation is actually more fun than you seem to think. And lots of guys like to hang with ladies, myself included.

India: population estimated at 1,065,070,607 (Source: CIA World Factbook)

Africa: population estimated at 885,000,000

Indonesia: population estimated at 218,700,000

Brazil: population estimated at 179,100,000

Pakistan: 159,200,000

Russia: 144,100,000

Bangladesh: 141,300,000

Source: Nations Online

India, Russia, and Brazil are third world nations?

[Daedric]

India, Russia, and Brazil are third world nations?
Not the nations in their entirety, but certain parts of them could be considered third-world.

[DrunkCajun]

Yeah, procreation is actually more fun than you seem to think. And lots of guys like to hang with ladies, myself included.



India, Russia, and Brazil are third world nations?

:scratch:

You ever been to any of them? The Copacabana beach may not be considered third world, but I think outside of that Brazil is pretty darned underdeveloped. If Argentina is considered third world, I think Brazil's about as third world as you can get. For the record, I lived in Argentina for 10 years and have travelled extensively in Brazil.

Russia? Are you joking? It's a bloody disaster economically. Rampant crime, unemployment, and corruption. Just because they have internet connections there doesn't put them next to Sweden on the "nice places to live" list. Believe me, my parents are about to move to Moscow.

I don't have first hand experience in India, but I've studied it pretty closely, not to mention speaking with my father about it after his trips there. Again, an internet connection doesn't make you a first world nation, and nor do nuclear weapons. Some of the bigger cities might have rich people and you could be fooled, if quarantined to certain parts of those cities, into believing the country is comparably developed to, say South Korea, but I'd argue that's probably merely the case in a very very very narrow percentage of the country.

EDIT: GDP Global Rankings in 2003:

Russia: #86 at $8,900
Brazil: #95 at $7,600
India: #152 at $2,900

And the only one that's showing any real signs of economic life is at the bottom there, #152.

http://www.worldfactsandfigures.com/gdp_country_desc.php

[PlagueBearer]

Well, let's be clear on terms, here. I might be drastically wrong, as I am an ignorant American and willing to admit it, so if my definitions are way outside the norm, let me know. But as I understood it, the first-third world nation classification came not out of crime or even poverty statistics directly, but rather from industrialization.

So, first world is the United States, Great Britain, Australia, France. Industrialized, sitting pretty up at the top of the industrial food chain. Upper end is the United States, lower end probably Panama.

Second world is developing nations, in the process of undergoing their personal Industrial Revolutions; to one degree or another. Characterized by pollution and cheap labor; India is probably borderline upper limit, I guess Brazil might be bottom limit here. (My knowledge of Brazil only extends to the fact that they have a soccer team, so I base that assumption on absolutely nothing.)

Third world is starving, impoverished, and doing just about jack to get industrialized. Characterized by civil unrest and genocide, rife with poverty and often disease, poor sanitation and "family planning". Africa runs the gamut here, although countries in the Middle East and South America fall in easily, too. Several former Soviet republics are in the upper to middle range of this one.

Again, I'm not consulting an almanac or anything, I'm just explaining my understanding of that particular vocabulary. Regardless, of the nations you cited, only India had a superior population to the whole of Africa's, and we both agree that India is on it's way up the economic food chain. Assuming they don't blow themselves and Pakistan of the face of the Earth, they've only really got upwards to go, here.

Anyhoo, as to the "underpopulation" theory, I don't think you have to worry about a curbing human enthusiasm or ability to procreate; barring, of course, nuclear war. If the case of global radiation, yes, we'd be in trouble.

Big trouble.

But other than that, we're good.

[Simplistic]

I've always thought I was wierd for thinking that people dying was good because overpopulation will become a major issue in 100 years and a person dead now is one(and a lot of potential descendents) less for the future.

China and the USA need to have a war over Taiwan. Finish the issue already, because it's too hard to solve with diplomacy.

Finish North Korea.

Intelligent Design is a thinly designed plot to introduce Creationism into schools. Die ID. You'd be surprised just how many people actually believe ID is science.

[Sage the Mage]

Well, let's be clear on terms, here. I might be drastically wrong, as I am an ignorant American and willing to admit it, so if my definitions are way outside the norm, let me know. But as I understood it, the first-third world nation classification came not out of crime or even poverty statistics directly, but rather from industrialization.

So, first world is the United States, Great Britain, Australia, France. Industrialized, sitting pretty up at the top of the industrial food chain. Upper end is the United States, lower end probably Panama.

Second world is developing nations, in the process of undergoing their personal Industrial Revolutions; to one degree or another. Characterized by pollution and cheap labor; India is probably borderline upper limit, I guess Brazil might be bottom limit here. (My knowledge of Brazil only extends to the fact that they have a soccer team, so I base that assumption on absolutely nothing.)

Third world is starving, impoverished, and doing just about jack to get industrialized. Characterized by civil unrest and genocide, rife with poverty and often disease, poor sanitation and "family planning". Africa runs the gamut here, although countries in the Middle East and South America fall in easily, too. Several former Soviet republics are in the upper to middle range of this one.

I'll simplify it for you: First World - Westernized nations, Second World - Soviet Nations, Third World - Everybody else.

[Ash Housewares]

I'll simplify it for you: First World - Westernized nations, Second World - Soviet Nations, Third World - Everybody else.

indeed, he was a little off, Third World isn't so negative, and Second World was the designation for the Soviet Bloc, don't know if Second World still carries a meaning today

they were basically a political denotation, the two sides of the cold war(1st & 2nd) and the neutral parties (3rd) and then their more modern definitions gradually came into being

[DrunkCajun]

From the same website as most of my economic data: http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/third_world_countries.htm

Basically I was wrong on China and Russia (though I still think an internet connection and a factory do not keep them out of the third world--in the case of Russia I strongly believe that the country has made negative progress economically in the last 20 years.). That still leaves quite a few people outside of Africa--India for a start.

[Ash Housewares]

From the same website as most of my economic data: http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/third_world_countries.htm

Basically I was wrong on China and Russia (though I still think an internet connection and a factory do not keep them out of the third world--in the case of Russia I strongly believe that the country has made negative progress economically in the last 20 years.). That still leaves quite a few people outside of Africa--India for a start.

India is plenty, I couldn't get over my initial stupifaction to reply to the earlier Africa comment so I'm glad you did, and now I'll back you up, listen to your father

[haughty]

Ok, this one is really unique and controversial. My girl and I were talking last night about the continued movement of the US to a service-based economy. I am no economist, but I feel some trepidation about this. It seems like we are forgetting how to manufacture and grow and we are therefore increasing our dependence on a world that pretty much hates us. Scary.

She had the solution: Turn America into a giant amusement park. People love coming to America to see the sites, enjoy the freedom and watch the freaks. Why not get more bang for thier tourism bucks?

We set it up like a cruise ship. Give every tourist a "tour card" to charge all of thier expenditures throughout thier trip. This provides a simple means of purchasing items and allows individuals to easily lose track of the amount of those expenditures. It has the added bonus of providing Homeland Security with the exact location of all non-citizens in our country.

Americans will become actors within our country park and we will entertain the tourist in a variety of ways. Tipping is expected for all entertaining and tourists who disregard this will be taken to the inner city for a “unique american experience.”

Now, I know you are probably thinking about all those rules Disney has for its employees. Always be nice, never break character, etc. Don’t worry, I envision more of a “Dick’s Last Resort” theme to our service. Face it, this country is the primary source of entertainment in the world already. Sure, at the moment most hate us for it, but we could turn our behavior into a positive, profitable venture!

[Fast Eddy]

Somewhere deep inside of what I think is "I" believes that this life we have is nothing but a dream that will just vanish before that "I" has even realized what this life is all about.

Do you still bother to step out of the way of speeding buses?

[Fast Eddy]

-Recycling is a waste of time. It wastes more money that it saves. If the amount of trash that was recycled last year were instead evenly spread across our landfills, our landfills would be a whole half a centimeter more full.

-Global warming isn't nearly the problem it's made out to be. The Earth's natural cycles have a much greater effect on atmosphere than we do.

-The Feminist movement has hurt men far more than it's helped women.

-The Space Shuttle Columbia that was destroyed in the atmosphere when returning to Earth was actually hit by secret new Chinese missile technology. (Feb 2003)

-Suntan lotion and Sunblock have chemicals in them that are bad for our skin's pores, and their use ultimately leads to cancer. More people using it than ever before would explain the increase in skin cancer.

-The United Nations doesn't care nearly so much about how much China pollutes the atmosphere as it does about the United States. China does next-to-nothing to regulate pollution relative to America.

Funny how statistics show that people who spend excessive time in the sun and don't use sunscreen are the ones with the highest incidence of skin cancer. Of course, I realize this belief is simply a supporting belief for the other crazy beliefs you have.

[D.K.night]

Funny how statistics show that people who spend excessive time in the sun and don't use sunscreen are the ones with the highest incidence of skin cancer. Of course, I realize this belief is simply a supporting belief for the other crazy beliefs you have.

But the next problem is, where are these "statistics" that you're quoting coming from? The same companies who are trying to sell the sunblock lotion? Or an independant researcher, who isn't compensated in any way, by the above?

[Stoutwood]

And while we're talking conspiracy theories, Stalin and Hitler didn't really die, they just faked their deaths, got plastic surgery, and became part of Bush's cabinet.

[PlagueBearer]

And while we're talking conspiracy theories, Stalin and Hitler didn't really die, they just faked their deaths, got plastic surgery, and became part of Bush's cabinet.

Stalin must have pulled a doozy. Don't they have his body on display?

[Shnookems]

Stalin must have pulled a doozy. Don't they have his body on display?

I think you're thinking of Lenin....

[XaToM]

here are a few of mine;

*Personally Women's place is NOT in the home it's out getting me food from KFC,

*LIVE8 will/has changed nothing, the only effect will be that the African's will be
dissapointted that they didn't get a party with load music.

*The USA is too large and it's is wrong to group sane people with the like of Texans

*The 2nd war of Iraq was not to stop saddam hussien but to get his oil.

*The iraqi people were better off with saddam sure he was a tyranical dictator who who drag people of to there deaths but at least they had food, running water and a roof over their heads.

*The Christian church is an out dated and corrupt organisation, original designed as of conning people out of their hard earned penny's in the middle ages.

Note: I'm not saying anything anti-christian I believe that Jesus had a very important message HOWEVER your missaries (can't spell :ash: ) are not spreading that message but forcing people to believe that he was the son of god. EVEN YOU ARE FORGETTING HIS MESSAGE, which was to treat everyone fairly and be kind, don't spend your life's hating people, NOT ONCE did he say "WORSHIP ME (or his father)" The idea of Christianity was spread about after his death by his friends who proclaimed him the son of god.

Also 9/11, people needed to wake up and realise that this has been happening for 1,000's of years.

Also did the Jews seek any revenage for the holicaust? no, did they start invading other countries? no. Then why should America do so when they suffer a event on such as smaller scale?

Note #2: I'm not Anti-American I am aganist people who believe that they can rule the world and that use TOO much of our natural resources and that can possibly be mobidly overweight when the other half of the world is starving to death.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Hehe and haha, I'm back sportsfans ^^. I got bored, and I haven't replied to tripe in well over a month. Apparently the new batch of posters come as the rest - believing their opinions are worth posting. Shame.


Note: I'm not saying anything anti-christian I believe that Jesus had a very important message


What message?


HOWEVER your missaries (can't spell :ash: ) are not spreading that message


What message?


but forcing people to believe that he was the son of god.


Obviously they couldn't "force" you :p. BTW, what has the media and the other sources you imbibe forced you to believe?


EVEN YOU ARE FORGETTING HIS MESSAGE, which was to treat everyone fairly and be kind, don't spend your life's hating people


Ahh, that must be the message. Sounds like common courtesty doesn't it? What DID he preach though?


NOT ONCE did he say "WORSHIP ME (or his father)" The idea of Christianity was spread about after his death by his friends who proclaimed him the son of god.


John 14-18 or so is helpful here (John is part of the Gospels - its in a book called the Bible). Or, a direct quote would be (Jesus citing deuteronomy) "You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve" - luke 4:8

I applaud your passion, but try to discover its source before blowing your load all over the OTF.

[DrunkCajun]

Hehe and haha, I'm back sportsfans ^^. I got bored, and I haven't replied to tripe in well over a month. Apparently the new batch of posters come as the rest - believing their opinions are worth posting. Shame.

Lord forbid anyone express an opinion that you disagree with. :surprise:

BTW, what has the media and the other sources you imbibe forced you to believe?

Man, media has really taken some turns since I last "imbibed" in it (this morning). I can't ever recall being forced to believe anything by anyone (except perhaps being forced to pretend I believe certain things by certain authority figures, but they don't really count as media). What news channel are you watching that's holding your eyelids open and indoctrinating you with beliefs? Sounds a little too Burgess for my tastes.

Welcome back AoA. How's things? :teeth:

[Sage the Mage]

Also 9/11, people needed to wake up and realise that this has been happening for 1,000's of years.
Yes, we have been using fear as a political tool for 1,000's of years.

Also did the Jews seek any revenage for the holicaust? no, did they start invading other countries? no. Then why should America do so when they suffer a event on such as smaller scale?
I know terribly little on the subject, but the closest thing we have to Jews as a country is Israel, and I'm pretty sure that Israel has had some pretty violent responses to terrorist attacks.

What news channel are you watching that's holding your eyelids open and indoctrinating you with beliefs? Sounds a little too Burgess for my tastes.
/cue Fox News response.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Lord forbid anyone express an opinion that you disagree with. :surprise:


I miss the glory days of last year, where did everyone go?


Man, media has really taken some turns since I last "imbibed" in it (this morning). I can't ever recall being forced to believe anything by anyone (except perhaps being forced to pretend I believe certain things by certain authority figures, but they don't really count as media). What news channel are you watching that's holding your eyelids open and indoctrinating you with beliefs? Sounds a little too Burgess for my tastes.


It was just a note that not all influence is presented in a heavy handed manner. I've said before that overexposure to one type of ideology, even that with a velvet presentation, will "force" that ideology by means of contiual exposure with lack of its contrary. In the most basic sense, the media doesn't "force" in the usual sense of the term ie. "this is the way it is sux to be j00", but rather we've learned a method of presentation over time, and cultural underpinnings that present a certain interpretation of the facts given.


Welcome back AoA. How's things? :teeth:


Not bad, just had to drop by b4 I leave for vacation tommorow :p See u in a few weeks.

[Inquisitor7]

here are a few of mine;


*LIVE8 will/has changed nothing, the only effect will be that the African's will be
dissapointted that they didn't get a party with load music.



In general, sending aid to Africa doesn't help. The national elites of the various African countries steal heavily from their people, and, according to a new report from the Globilisation Institute, for every 1% of aid received in those developing countries, there is a 3.65% drop in real GDP per person. Source: http://www.thebusinessonline.com/Stories.aspx?StoryID=1C80DA35-3838-4F1A-A9F9-5C7E04BBCB88

So I agree.


*The USA is too large and it's is wrong to group sane people with the like of Texans

Sweeping generalizations only confirm your own lack of intellectual development. I have encounterd quite a few intelligent Texans.



*The 2nd war of Iraq was not to stop saddam hussien but to get his oil.


This is a rather commonly held belief. Quick question: how much money and oil has the US gotten from Iraq?



*The iraqi people were better off with saddam sure he was a tyranical dictator who who drag people of to there deaths but at least they had food, running water and a roof over their heads.

He also killed around 300,000 of his own people and had paramilitary groups terrorizing any who questioned him. Also, Iraq has seen many improvements in its infrastructure as time has gone on (the place sure isn't perfect though).


*The Christian church is an out dated and corrupt organisation, original designed as of conning people out of their hard earned penny's in the middle ages.

Note: I'm not saying anything anti-christian I believe that Jesus had a very important message HOWEVER your missaries (can't spell :ash: ) are not spreading that message but forcing people to believe that he was the son of god. EVEN YOU ARE FORGETTING HIS MESSAGE, which was to treat everyone fairly and be kind, don't spend your life's hating people, NOT ONCE did he say "WORSHIP ME (or his father)" The idea of Christianity was spread about after his death by his friends who proclaimed him the son of god.

I guess you are entitled to your own opinion, but methinks you are a bit too cynical. Christian Churches do a lot of good.


Also did the Jews seek any revenage for the holicaust? no, did they start invading other countries? no. Then why should America do so when they suffer a event on such as smaller scale?

So, are you saying that we should have allowed the Holocaust to continue? Are you also saying that we shouldn't prevent our people from being killed by terrorists?


Note #2: I'm not Anti-American I am aganist people who believe that they can rule the world and that use TOO much of our natural resources and that can possibly be mobidly overweight when the other half of the world is starving to death.

So basically you are Anti-American? You are basically accusing us of being overweight, bellicose, polluters. How is that not being anti-American?

[Mastgrr]

So basically you are Anti-American? You are basically accusing us of being overweight, bellicose, polluters. How is that not being anti-American?He's not accusing us (-- as in not having substantial evidence behind it) without merit because 80+ million adults in this country are either overweight or obese. We're also the largest single emitter of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels in the world. I think whether we're militaristic is a subjective matter though.

Loving your country is taking the good with the bad.

[SpiritWalker]

You are basically accusing us of being overweight, bellicose, polluters.
You are denying you are?
Everyone knows the US has the most fatties percentage in the world.
More than enough countries in the world hate your (goverment's) guts for the way you (your goverment, which you chose) handle foreign policies.
Acting elite by ignoring the world's plan to counter polution, namely The Kyoto Protocol.

[Mastgrr]

Acting elite by ignoring the world's plan to counter polution, namely The Kyoto Protocol.I think that's really sad by the way. Blaming it on "hurting the economy" is just stupid. Choosing between the environment or economy is a false choice. Portland, Oregon just proved it for example. link (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/03/opinion/03kristof.html?oref=login)

[SpiritWalker]

I think that's really sad by the way. Blaming it on "hurting the economy" is just stupid. Choosing between the environment or economy is a false choice. Portland, Oregon just proved it for example. link (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/03/opinion/03kristof.html?oref=login)
Well if they'd just put a little thought in to it they could reduce polution without harming the economy so to speak, but I guess they just have to many of those Texans, or at least 1, at the wheel of a too powerful country ;)

[XaToM]

Sweeping generalizations only confirm your own lack of intellectual development. I have encounterd quite a few intelligent Texans.

yes, there are sweeping generalizations and there is not one group of ethnic's that are totally stupid, however this stereotypical view is mainly from your leader George W. Bush as personally it is appauling to see someone so war hungry in charge of roughly 75% of the world's nuclear misslies (the russians disarmed, did you?)


He also killed around 300,000 of his own people and had paramilitary groups terrorizing any who questioned him. Also, Iraq has seen many improvements in its infrastructure as time has gone on (the place sure isn't perfect though).
yes but i'm sure 300,000 people died either during or as a result of the war, this includes the brave men and women who gave their lives in this conflict.


I guess you are entitled to your own opinion, but methinks you are a bit too cynical. Christian Churches do a lot of good.
Yes I ahev afriend who is very christian and often helps the needy but unlike most other christians I know she's not trying to convert people and helps regardless of their religion, however to define someone's actions due to their beliefs is stereotypical therefore many christians do do lot of good,

It is mainly the catholic church, like telling teenagers not to use condoms, and the lack of femlae priests etc, that kinda highlights my points.



So, are you saying that we should have allowed the Holocaust to continue?
No I'm not saying that at all, what on earth gave you that Idea?


Are you also saying that we shouldn't prevent our people from being killed by terrorists?
There is a difference between protecting your people and invading other countries, It seems to be the view of your president to take this stance and as he was elected by a majority he speaks for your most of your countrymen and women.

"One's man terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" , people like Osama bin laden don't useally decide to fly planes into tall builds for no reason, You got to realise America must have done something(not sure what exactly but must research) to prevoke such haterd.

Please Note : before you deicide to say that I'm surppoting Osama Bin Laden, i'm not. i'm deeply sadden by the loss on 11/9 (9/11 to you). i do not even know why his group did such a thing and even with reason the taking of so many lives is an extremely, well for the lack of a better word, evil and heartless.




So basically you are Anti-American? You are basically accusing us of being overweight, bellicose, polluters. How is that not being anti-American?


No I'm not accusing you of anything i'm merely stating the facts, That america has the largest percentage of overweight people, Only in America do you get cars the size of two road lanes, and your children drink twice as much soda-pop as milk. Oh and your country is the only one who didn't sign up to the kyoto argeement.

Loving your country is taking the good with the bad.

Agreed the only way to counter a problem is to admitt you have one like the efforts over here in the Uk to end the masssive increase in teenage pregnancies which are forcing young girls out of education and into full time motherhood.


I applaud your passion, but try to discover its source before blowing your load all over the OTF.

Fair point and the whole point of this post is to invoke controversy.


Apparently the new batch of posters come as the rest - believing their opinions are worth posting

A. I was asked to post these, read the thread first....

B.And by replying you believe that your opinions are worth posting, therefore by you own logic you are same as me and this new batch.

[Inquisitor7]

He's not accusing us (-- as in not having substantial evidence behind it) without merit because 80+ million adults in this country are either overweight or obese. We're also the largest single emitter of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels in the world. I think whether we're militaristic is a subjective matter though.

Loving your country is taking the good with the bad.

Yeah, I believe I overreacted. It was wrong of me to accuse him of being anti-American.

As far as your points on the environment go (I can't argue with what you have said about obesity), all I can say is that from what I have read air quality in the US has improved.


Acting elite by ignoring the world's plan to counter polution, namely The Kyoto Protocol.

The Kyoto Protocal would have dealt severe damage to our economy. The degree of regulation it would have impose would have increased production costs enormously. If we had subjected our businesses to that then we would have found our economy stagnating and many people out of work.


yes but i'm sure 300,000 people died either during or as a result of the war, this includes the brave men and women who gave their lives in this conflict.


Mind providing a source to back your claim. I have one for mine: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3738368.stm

It is mainly the catholic church, like telling teenagers not to use condoms, and the lack of femlae priests etc, that kinda highlights my points.

Well, as a Catholic, I am going to have to disagree with you. However, I think you should look at things from a different perspective: what if the Church really believes that condoms are wrong and that God does not women priests? Do not think that I haven't questioned my beliefs: I have. I have examined Church history to some degree (I am no expert), and as far as I can tell people were acting in good faith. Of course there is room for disagreement on the Church's intentions, but that doesn't mean that her teachings aren't true.


No I'm not saying that at all, what on earth gave you that Idea?

You said that the Jews never tried to get revenge for the Holocaust, did you not? I interpreted that to mean that you were putting forth a sort of pacifistic argument. My apologies for misunderstanding.


There is a difference between protecting your people and invading other countries, It seems to be the view of your president to take this stance and as he was elected by a majority he speaks for your most of your countrymen and women.

True, but should we not pursue the terrorists?


"One's man terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" , people like Osama bin laden don't useally decide to fly planes into tall builds for no reason, You got to realise America must have done something(not sure what exactly but must research) to prevoke such haterd.

It is true that America isn't perfect, but that doesn't justify their act against us. The fact of the matter is that they hate us because we aren't like them. We are infidels in their eyes, and they believe our culture is going to destroy theirs. I agree with you that we should examine our image in the world after such an attack, but we will never change ourselves because of such an attack. We will not be pushed around by terrorists. If they think they can get away with slaughtering our people, then they've got another thing coming.

Also, I must again apologize for my earlier accusation. I was out of line to call you anti-American.

[Sage the Mage]

You are denying you are?
Everyone knows the US has the most fatties percentage in the world.
More than enough countries in the world hate your (goverment's) guts for the way you (your goverment, which you chose) handle foreign policies.
Acting elite by ignoring the world's plan to counter polution, namely The Kyoto Protocol.
If I recall, if everyone consumed as much as the average american, the world could only support around two billion people. Anyway, its debatable that we actually chose this administration :)

[AgeOfAbnegation]

A. I was asked to post these, read the thread first....

B.And by replying you believe that your opinions are worth posting, therefore by you own logic you are same as me and this new batch


Your post (in bold letters) presented a "fact statement" which needed dire correction. I pointed that out and provided textual evidence. That is not airing one's opinion, but dealing directly with text content, and getting it right. Here's an example of something different - in this case, it's not presenting an argument, but rather stating a preference:


It is mainly the catholic church, like telling teenagers not to use condoms, and the lack of femlae priests etc, that kinda highlights my points.


Ok, so it's clear from this that you don't LIKE it, but present no argument dealing with it. In your previous post, you proceeded to teach others what Catholics believe and profess, but you had your ass handed to you from a single scripture quote. There really is a difference between airing your preferences, and presenting a clear argument.

[DrunkCajun]

You are denying you are?
Everyone knows the US has the most fatties percentage in the world.

Here's a good article for ya--looks like you oughtta watch your waistline there. :happy34:

http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050609/NEWS/506090327/1002/NEWS01

LONDON — America's burgeoning waistlines have long had Europeans snickering over their homemade vegetable soup.

But today, faced with child obesity rates that sometimes even surpass America's, Europeans are also fretting over fat.

The European Union released data this year on its 103 million youngsters showing the number of overweight schoolchildren rising by 400,000 a year due to a lack of exercise and eating the wrong foods.

In Britain, one in five children is overweight or obese. Over 30 percent of children in Italy, Spain, and Portugal are considered overweight.

That percentage is on par with estimates for children in the United States, where the number of overweight children has tripled in the past 25 years, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta.

New estimates also indicate that about half a million children in Europe are combating the same kinds of health problems suffered by middle-aged adults simply because they're too fat.

Experts reported at this month's annual European Congress on Obesity in Athens that children were increasingly suffering from high blood pressure, raised cholesterol levels, and impaired glucose tolerance — a harmful mixture called "metabolic syndrome" that's generally related to obesity.

"The figures suggest that children in the European Union could soon be measuring up to their counterparts in the United States, where the numbers affected by the metabolic syndrome doubled from 910,000 to 2 million in less than 10 years," according to an analysis by the International Obesity Task Force, a network of obesity scientists and policy experts.

The group estimated that between 2,000 and 10,000 European children already suffer from the type of diabetes that is usually diagnosed in middle-aged adults.

Experts say the there are several reasons for the explosion in obesity in Europe, many of which will sound familiar to American parents.

Diets rich in fresh fruits and vegetables have given way to processed foods filled with fat, salt, and sugar.

At the same time, TV and computer games have made children here increasingly sedentary.

"Most people believe that lack of physical activity is a major contributor, and the causes of the huge decline in physical activity in children are multiple," said Kay-Tee Khaw, professor of gerontology at the University of Cambridge in England. "Children who used to walk to school or at least walk to the bus stop now generally go door to door by car.

"They are less likely to spend leisure time playing outdoor games and more likely to be indoors doing sedentary activities," he said. "Schools are selling off their playing fields and reducing time for sports activities."

Health economist John Komlos, a professor at the University of Munich in Germany, said that impatient parents are also at fault.

"People here are working longer hours and do not have the patience to raise their children properly," he said. "There is a dominating attitude circulating within the culture that you should consume today. Do not postpone. Eat it right now, not tomorrow.

"This makes it difficult for parents and children to exercise self-restraint," he said.

Komlos added that an increase in mothers who work outside the home means that children "eat more frozen foods which are a mixture of chemicals."

Concern about this trend has led celebrity chef Jamie Oliver to launch a high-profile campaign to overhaul British school lunch menus nationwide.

Parents have applauded the hit TV show "Jamie's School Dinners," which features the so-called Naked Chef's attempts to lure students away from unhealthy standards such as Turkey Twizzlers — curly sausages that contain up to 20 percent fat — by cooking up a variety of vegetables and other healthier options.

Neville Rigby, director of policy at the International Obesity Task Force, notes that the aggressive marketing tactics employed for so long in the United States have been rolled out across Europe, contributing to rising obesity.

"There are trends in Europe that are following those in the United States," he said. "There's intense marketing here that regards children simply as units of consumption."

"Of course, the good news is that there's a consciousness now that we need to reverse the trends," he said.

EU Health Commissioner Markos Kyprianou outlined plans at the Athens obesity conference for a European code of conduct to control marketing of unhealthy foods to children.

Kyprianou said that the EU would consider using regulation to battle the problem if voluntary measures fail to rein in obesity rates.

Some countries have already taken matters into their own hands. Ireland, for example, imposed a ban on TV advertisements for candy and fast food as of Jan. 1.

Mounting pressure has pushed many multinational companies to employ a wide array of tactics to ease public concern.

For example, Coca-Cola stresses that it does not market in European schools to children under 12.

The company also is looking at labeling to determine whether more relevant health-related information needs to be included on its packaging.

"We think we stand for responsible behavior," said Steve Leroy, a Brussels-based spokesman for Coca-Cola.

Coca-Cola also has launched projects in most European countries to promote physical activity.

For example, the company has a partnership with the Danish Cyclists Association in Denmark to encourage more people to ride their bicycles.

"We think we can contribute to making physical movement trendy again," Leroy said. "The bottom line is that our products can have a place in a balanced lifestyle."

[rutty]

It's all MacDonald's fault ;)

[SpiritWalker]

The Kyoto Protocal would have dealt severe damage to our economy. The degree of regulation it would have impose would have increased production costs enormously. If we had subjected our businesses to that then we would have found our economy stagnating and many people out of work.
I believe Mastgrr already gave a link to an article in which it is stated that it is possible, because one of your cities has already achieved such a goal, so I see no reason why the rest of your country can't.

Here's a good article for ya--looks like you oughtta watch your waistline there.

http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs...327/1002/NEWS01
Well ignoring the fact that the article is only about children.
Yes, those damn Brits should stop feeding their children saucages and fries at breakfast :p

[CTM]

i believe that there should be no repressive law against drunk driving.

[D.K.night]

Hehe and haha, I'm back sportsfans ^^. I got bored, and I haven't replied to tripe in well over a month. Apparently the new batch of posters come as the rest - believing their opinions are worth posting. Shame.



What message?



What message?



Obviously they couldn't "force" you :p. BTW, what has the media and the other sources you imbibe forced you to believe?



Ahh, that must be the message. Sounds like common courtesty doesn't it? What DID he preach though?



John 14-18 or so is helpful here (John is part of the Gospels - its in a book called the Bible). Or, a direct quote would be (Jesus citing deuteronomy) "You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve" - luke 4:8

I applaud your passion, but try to discover its source before blowing your load all over the OTF.

"blowing your load all over the OTF"

lol

I couldn't help but nearly laugh out loud. That conjured a pretty dirty image from my mind. Curses, too much adult-oriented films.

[Inquisitor7]

I believe Mastgrr already gave a link to an article in which it is stated that it is possible, because one of your cities has already achieved such a goal, so I see no reason why the rest of your country can't.



Our country is reaching record lows as far as ozone pollution goes. This article (http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/sab/enviro/05_enviroindex/21_air.html) shows that we are improving our air. Also, over the past 30 years we have been reduced air pollution in half, and "during a period of robust economic growth" ( source (http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/Archive/2005/Jun/13-495911.html) ). My point is not that environmental improvement and economic growth are mutually exclusive, rather I am saying that, since we are improving, why risk going too far in one direction and risk damaging the economy? In my opinion, the Kyoto Protocol would go too far.

[DrunkCajun]

Oh and your country is the only one who didn't sign up to the kyoto argeement.

Interesting...but wait, no, in fact the US did sign the Kyoto Protocol. I seem to recall Bill Clinton signing it, in fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kyoto_Protocol_signatories

In fact, we're not even the only nation not to ratify the agreement. Shoot, Australia doesn't even intend to ratify it. Oops.

What about countries that haven't yet ratified it?

Croatia
Egypt
Grenadines
Indonesia
Kazakhstan
Liechtenstein
Monaco
Philippines
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent
Solomon Islands
Switzerland

Doh! This is all as of last fall. But you know what, that's still not a complete list of nations in the world. Perhaps you can revise your inaccurate and ignorant statement? You might do some research next time too.

[Etoh the Mighty]

I believe that bumperstickers should be banned. so should those obnoxious magnet ribbons and the signs that say "In memory of (xyz)" You bought your car in memory of someone? Wtf?
Also, I don't know if this has been said yet (there are a loooot of pages in this thread) but when I read the first page I saw someone who said it was conceivable that the CIA was responsible for killing Kennedy. It reminded me of a joke.

Q: How do we know the CIA wasn't involved in the Kennedy assasination?
A: Well, he's dead isn't he?

[Raistlin Majere]

Q: How do we know the CIA wasn't involved in the Kennedy assasination?
A: Well, he's dead isn't he?

Q: How do we know the CIA wasn't involved in the Castro assassination?

A: Well, he is still alive, isn't he?

[Etoh the Mighty]

*shrug* They came out and admitted that they had made botched attempts on Castro's life.

[drakkhen]

that priests and mages that roll on dreadmist are crossdressers ooohhhhhhhhhhhhh

[Etoh the Mighty]

Ooh, that's pretty controversial. Don't let your momma hear you say that. :happy53:

[MixedVariety]

I miss the glory days of last year, where did everyone go?


We're still around. Since you aren't here very often, we've been forced to find other sources of amusement.

[GByte]

Originally Posted by Inquisitor7
So, are you saying that we should have allowed the Holocaust to continue?


Well, to tell the truth, no one was actually trying to stop the Holocaust. Stopping the Holocaust was just a side effect of destroying Germany, which was trying to take over the world. No one actually cared about the Jews...

Contraversial beliefs?
Ehm, well, nothing that wasn't said already.
Yea, the war in Iraq has nothing to do with freeing anyone, nither protecting anyone. (Iran on the other hand, is very dangerous to the world, and no one seems to stop them) I say, glass 'em!
Well, religion is no good too, especially here in Israel, where there's no seperation of religion from state, which is really bad for both.

And the best is that space tourism is what's going to really drive the space industry.

Oh wait! I got another one!
The Holocaust is used way too often as a political tool by the Israeli government, and I'm saying it as both an Israeli and a jew... Sometimes, they just need to let people express their opinions (people like neo-nazis), because making things like that illegal (like in Europe) only makes it more attractive for young and rebelous people.

Sorry for the bad english, it's kinda rusty.

[Etoh the Mighty]

Most cynical americans will tell you the war in iraq has little to do with freedom. Otherwise we would have found "reason to believe" that they were involved with the terrorists which we seem to be evasively not looking for. :roger:

[Stevinator]

Well, since we're spouting controversial opinions, here's a few.

whomever is dissing my country because we have fatty kids needs to lay off, it's none of his business how much we eat. to you sir, i say "get bent".

This may seem heartless, but frankly, I'm not concerned with people starving in africa. the population there is growing some 16 times as fast as here in the US and they have little hope of feeding (literally--like having the food for them to eat) that population growth. if it wasn't for AIDS things would be worse. There's a very good reason these countries are having these problems, and I don't like the idea of sending them money to NOT fix them. I say cut off aid to the whole damn continent until they learn to behave themselves like adults and stop raping and mutilating their women, and start putting in the blood, sweat and tears my forefathers did to industrialize this country.

and the kyoto treaty. don't give me crap about that, that treaty wasn't worth using as TP. Essentially it came down forcing the US to say we are the root of all evil and we should shut down what little manufacturing we have left in this country to appease whiny europeans who think it's funny to steal money from starving kurds (yeah that's right, I brought up the oil for food scandal--if you don't like it, go tax someone! :) ). Now, if the standards had been fair all the way around I'd have maybe--big maybe--supported the thing, but the part that really blew my whistle was that china--the country most likely to fuel its industrial revolution with the dirty kind of coal (bitumulous?) pretty much got off the hook. So you can take your kyoto treaty and roll it into a big ol' joint and smoke it (or don't--you know that's polluting!) because it was unfair and completely biased against the USA.

oh and oregon can do it because all twelve people who lived there started recycling and two quit smoking. There's a huge difference between Oregon and say california, or any other industrialized state. :)

I don't think women belong in the kitchen, and I think equal rights are important, but I don't ever want to hear that women earn less than men. Look. It's not men's fault you get pregnant, are less likely to ask for raises and tend to work part-time jobs to raise kids. If your career is better than your man's then make him raise the kids. don't whine that you work retail and make less money. Don't whine that you got pregnant and never went back to work. I didn't decide how the human race reproduces, blame god or jesus or something. leave me alone--especially if you make more than me.

And speaking of religion, that's fine if you are all "born again" or if you were just born once but still a bible thumper, or whatever other book you might be thumping; but don't be all like, making your books rules my laws. if you think abortion is murder, condoms should be banned, the pledge should be a prayer, that gays shouldn't get married, adulterers should be stoned, mixing cotton and polyester is a sin, jihad is cool, women should be kept in a box in the basement, and sex should be illegal; fine. I'm glad you hold yourself to that high standard. I don't. I'm pro-choice, pro-rubbers, anti-state sanctioning of religon, pro-gay marriage (even though it's icky), not a player hater, pro-fabric blending, anti-jihad (though angry yelping should be allowed), and pro-taking my girl out to movies, especially if she's dressed secksy, and i'm definitely pro-gettin' jiggy. The government is not there to prevent people from sinning, it's there to protect my rights, especially those of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If you really believe there's a god, then let me do my thing, and he'll deal with me as HE/SHE/IT sees fit later on. Leave me alone! And take me off the LIST! And quit stuffing your pamplets in my door, mailbox and windshield wipers!!! it's worse than the guys who want to do landscaping/pave your driveway/raise your kids! GRRRR!!!!

I don't know who said this, and I'm not checking, but whoever said the US went to iraq for oil. you're right but not really. we're not taking any of the iraqi oil. we're buying it--for more than we could've bought it for before the war. we DIDN"T buy it from them before the war, because there were embargos on the entire country for oil due to saddam's behavior. I have a friend who actually spent a good portion of the time he was in the navy tracking down iraqi oil shipments and stopping them from selling it. The french, russians and a few others did buy the oil really cheap through a program designed to help feed the kurds, but the kurds never saw the money, it was split between them and saddam. so get off your high horse.

and to whomever said they thought that Osama bin laden had good reasons for attacking the US, spain, england, indonesia, and all the other stuff they've been attacking for the past ten years; that's prolly true. Of course, i have good reasons for giving you an atomic wedgie, and swirly, and running you up a flagpole, but I don't. You know why? first it's wrong, it's illegal, and finally, because the government will put me in a place where i will get it in the rear for 3-8 years (guess--how much for assault and battery?). I'm not keen on that. OBL can have all the reasons he wants to blow things up. That doesn't mean he's right, justified, and that he won't be hunted for the rest of his life. Hopefully, we'll put him somewhere where he'll meet some really big "friends".

Here's another candid opinion. racial profiling is okay. Racism is not, but if a much larger percentage of one race commits some form of serious crime than another, then we should profile them. The vast majority of current terrorist threats come from arabs, so don't search old white ladies as much as young angry looking arabs. Blacks commit more common crimes than whites, so if the tasty-freeze gets held up don't pull me over and ask me about it (I'm a white guy who's usually wearing a suit, and driving a grand cherokee. pull over the guys thumping out some rap song about how it's cool to kill whitey, dressed in red jerseys and bling, combs sticking out of their heads, with their low riders and slurpin' strawberry tasty-freezes. I know that sounds terrible, but white guys wearing suits in grand cherokees just don't often rob tasty-freezes. If someone transferred 100M from a company account to his own, you can ask me, I didn't do it, but at least I won't instantly have lost faith in our nation's law enforcement.

Here's another one--this one's added:

Isreal. the whole country shouldn't even exist. I don't understand how the jews couldn't just come here, or whatever as long as they stayed out of eastern europe. why piss off a completely new group of people by taking their land? Britain, you're our bud, but that was stupid.

Hmm, what else do I have opinions on? I'll think about it. oh, and for those of you who don't post on the diablo oart of the forums, you may not recognize the terrible dripping sarcasim <sp?> in just about everything I post. I'm not trying to insult as much as make a very long post somwhat readable. so if my opinion differs from yours, it's cool. you're wrong, but it's cool. :)

[kernelpops]

@ Stevinator, That would qualify for an Anhakabbq rant. Good Job :happy34:

[AgeOfAbnegation]

We're still around. Since you aren't here very often, we've been forced to find other sources of amusement.

No really, the glory days last year, when I was busy thrashing the original WoW OTF'ers (you guys didn't show up yet). This year I deal with the same sob stories, but it does get tiresome posting the same message over and over :whistle:

[XaviarGangrel]

Wow, what a great thread... first post in the WoW side of things, so lets make this a good one...

A. Equality is a sham. The principle of equality is a good thing, however what we have now and what we will have in the future if we continue is in no shape or form Equality. Equality is not achieveable by making laws to protect specific groups, nor by attempting to make up for the actions of our peolpe in the past, wihch are now considered wrong. Equality is only achieveable by ensureing that laws do not mention race/religion/sexual preference/etc at all. Assault should be Assault, no matter who does it.. it does not matter if the person who killed them is a different sexuality. Murder is no more or less important if a white man killed a black man, than if it is the other way around.

B. Related to the above, nobody has to make up for the "crimes" of their ancestors. Nor does anyone have to feel shame. History is full of things that we no longer agree with doing, however, it was done, and at the time society as a whole considered it acceptable.. looking at history and saying that we should be ashamed or make up for things that were done, only drags up things that were done and makes us all think about them again.. and hate gets reborn. I dont believe that there is a single person in western society who can say, without a shadow of a doubt, that in the past an ancestor of theirs has NOT been "repressed", and chances are most people have ancestors who did the respressing. History should be viewed from as dispasionate a view as you can, especially as thoughts of "right" and "wrong" change as society does.

C. Israel is a terrible terrible idea. For those who dont know the history, from what I understand.. the English (I am English) promised to leave Palastine to its people if they agreed to fight with us against Hitler. Nobody was that interested in saving the Jews when they started, infact Anti-semitism (horrible word) was just as wide spread in the allied countries as it was in germany at the start of the war... we just didnt go to the extreme that the Nazi's did. After the war, the allies felt guilty.. awful.. how terrible awful things had been done to the Jewish people.... Now, I am not going to suggest that it wasnt a terrible thing, it was AWFUL, DISGUSTING, TERRIBLE.. possibly the worst thing ever done in the history of mankind... However, the answer was NOT to rip Israel away from the palistinians, and give it to the jews to create a religious zealot state to rival the most strictly muslim country. Furthermore, since the war, people in the west have been so terrified of being labled "Anti-Semetic" that they refused to question the actions of the Israeli goverment. We argue that other goverments are wrong for doing many, many things that the Israeli goverment does frequently.. yet it is only lately that people dare to stand up and say that having terrible things done to them in the past, does NOT justify them doing pretty damn terrible things to people now. Creating Israel was like taking a kid who has been bullied for 10 years through school, moving him to another school, beating up the kids and telling them they cant go on the playground if he says he dont want them there... and giving him a gun to defend his playground with. Taking the oppressed and giving them guns, land, goverment, etc.. does not make up for the past, what it does too often is make them the oppressor.

D. America.. ahh America.. before I start, I have many, many, American freinds.. I have met alot of American's who are both intelligent and pleasent to speak to. Its a shame then, isnt it, that your goverment and many of the people who, officially or unofficially, represent your country in other nations.. are such fools. It is my firm belief that "American" is not just a nationality to some people, it is a Religion. Those who hold up the Constiution like it is an extra book in the Bible. Those who speak of reaping a terrible vengence on those who attack america. Those who use the term "Anti-American". One has to remember that America as it is today, started life with people who were forced to leave their own countries for various reasons, some were religious zealots, some were criminals, some were oppressed minorities.... but all of them came to America believing it would be a new start, and with a huge chip on their shoulder. So they oppressed the native people, and created their great country. They had wars over it against those who would take it from them, then had wars over it to decide which side of the coutry would rule it. They made an idealistic legal document without considering for a moment what the future may hold, nor considering the fact that people in that future would hold it up as an excuse for many terrible things. America has grown without major attacks from outside, for many years, but when it does get attacked it reacts with almost Holy Vengence. It refused to commit to World War 2, until it was attacked by Japan.. and now, in a similiar way, it did not give a DAMN about terrorism, until it was attacked. Infact, the american goverment quietly ignored the fact that many of its communities were supporting terrorist actions in their relative "homelands". It is widely known as a fact that much of the money given to the IRA during the troubles in Northern Ireland, came from so called "Irish-Americans".. and until recently, nobody in the American goverment really tried to stop it. America's forgien policy is now, and has always been as far as I can tell "We dont care what happens to anyone else unless it effects us publicly, we dont need the rest of the world, let them die". America acts like it is the only country to have suffered terrible attacks, it is not. Going to war all over the world, and bringing democracy and American style freedom like it is a wonderful thing for everyone, will not make the rest of the world like you more.. it is your forgien policy, greed and all around arrogance that have made people all over the world hate america... you wont change that, until you change yourself and your goverment.

Damn, this is becoming a long post.. I think I'll go play some and try and think up more controversial things.. wow this forum is fun! :)

[DrunkCajun]

D. America.. ahh America.. They made an idealistic legal document without considering for a moment what the future may hold, nor considering the fact that people in that future would hold it up as an excuse for many terrible things.

Ah, I believe that's where you're wrong.

The founding fathers knew quite well that they couldn't foresee the future of our nation and they could never predict problems that may arise with the system. Thus, they built as much flexibility into the system as they saw was possible. Thus the reason for the Supreme Court to rule on disputes whenever they arise and interpret their relevance to the Constitution. Thus the power of the legislature to amend the Constitution and change it (as has been done a number of times throughout the 230 years our nation has been around), and thus the term limits put on the different offices of government.

In fact, studying the American government and the way the system was put together led me to appreciate the system that much more as I realized just how ingeniously it was cobbled together with the intention of it lasting.

[Maxxim]

Ah, I believe that's where you're wrong.

The founding fathers knew quite well that they couldn't foresee the future of our nation and they could never predict problems that may arise with the system. Thus, they built as much flexibility into the system as they saw was possible. Thus the reason for the Supreme Court to rule on disputes whenever they arise and interpret their relevance to the Constitution. Thus the power of the legislature to amend the Constitution and change it (as has been done a number of times throughout the 230 years our nation has been around), and thus the term limits put on the different offices of government.

In fact, studying the American government and the way the system was put together led me to appreciate the system that much more as I realized just how ingeniously it was cobbled together with the intention of it lasting.

Exactly. How many nations have had a charter document last this long? Not so many.

It's impossible to create one document that properly and beneficially plans for any future contingency, and it is implausible to try to rewrite such a document every so often to "reflect modern times and/or thinking." The U.S. Constitution, in itself, is probably one of the best, if not THE best, charter document in the history of the civilized world. It is simply a framework that essentially states, "Here are your rules, go out and shape the country as it needs to be shaped (or reshaped), according to this set of inviolate rules." There isn't much more you can do than that.

Of course, people are by nature flawed (and, in my opinion, most people are complete idiots, but that's another rant). So the way in which we apply the Constitution may or may not be correct, depending on your personal political and/or ideological viewpoint. But to refer to the Constitution itself as an "idealistic legal document," with the negative connotation implied by Xavier above, is shortsighted and not well thought out, or at least imprecise.

And now to my rant, which has been addressed in numerous forms above:

I am absolutely sick of people wanting to be "equal" or saying they aren't treated equal, or haven't been in the past. I cannot stand so-called "minorities" constantly pointing out the lack of fairness or equality, or talking about their plight as a minority.

1. Gay people. You're gay. It's fine. It doesn't make you any different. You don't get to complain about being treated just like "normal" people, while driving around with rainbow stickers on your car and otherwise flouting your sexuality. If you go out of your way to point out your differences, other people will keep those differences in mind. If you want to be treated equally (whatever that means), just go about your life like everyone else. If there was a bumper sticker for being straight, wouldn't you find it stupid for everyone to drive around with them? Everyone likes something different in the bedroom. Get over it.

2. Black people. No one owes you anything. Seriously. You are now as equal as you can ever be. Demanding to be called "African-American" makes you less equal. Everyone else is just called American. If you want to be the same as everyone else, do it. What a lot of black people really want is to get a leg up on everyone else for awhile to make up for past grievances. Here's the catch: all that junk is over. No one alive today was a slave. So stop asking for reparations. It's the dumbest thing I've ever heard of, and it makes black people as a whole look like greedy, lazy, money-grubbers. Most black people don't fit this description. But the few who make such a big fuss about something so dumb make everyone look bad. Shut them up and get on with your lives.

3. Mexican/Latin American/Puerto Rican/etc. We speak English in America. You are welcome to come to America, we'd love to have you. Learn the language. There are so many free programs for immigrants, you have no excuse. I'm sick and disgusted by the language allowances we make in this country. For over 150 years everything was fine. Now people move here, take advantage of everything the greatest country in the world has to offer, and refuse to even learn the language, so we concede and start putting everything in Spanish!!!! It's the most rediculous thing I've ever heard. Now my 4 year old son is already learning Spanish in preschool! Instead of giving him a choice of languages in high school and college (for instance, taking Latin like I did; it may be a dead language, but I'm a better writer and speaker than most people I know because I understand the roots of our languages), my son is forced to acquiesce to these people. If I moved to Mexico, would everyone speak English just for me? No. They wouldn't do it at all no matter how many people moved there. We'd all learn their language.

4. In the near future, white people will be a minority (I believe Asian will be the majority, am I correct?). If we start complaining like everyone else, how will all the current minorities take it?

It doesn't matter what you are. Shut up and get on with your life.

[DrunkCajun]

3. Mexican/Latin American/Puerto Rican/etc. We speak English in America. You are welcome to come to America, we'd love to have you. Learn the language. There are so many free programs for immigrants, you have no excuse. I'm sick and disgusted by the language allowances we make in this country. For over 150 years everything was fine. Now people move here, take advantage of everything the greatest country in the world has to offer, and refuse to even learn the language, so we concede and start putting everything in Spanish!!!! It's the most rediculous thing I've ever heard. Now my 4 year old son is already learning Spanish in preschool! Instead of giving him a choice of languages in high school and college (for instance, taking Latin like I did; it may be a dead language, but I'm a better writer and speaker than most people I know because I understand the roots of our languages), my son is forced to acquiesce to these people. If I moved to Mexico, would everyone speak English just for me? No. They wouldn't do it at all no matter how many people moved there. We'd all learn their language.

If only we could get Americans to bother with learning foreign languages when they moved abroad, I'd agree with this. Unfortunately, I grew up abroad in an expat community, and I know just how many Americans never bothered to learn the local language or even basic customs, expecting the people around them to cater to them instead. They got huffy when people didn't speak English, or when the local customs didn't agree with their worldview.

Moreover, we're a nation of different cultures. If you go to parts of Louisiana, street signs are still in French from hundreds of years ago when the Acadians were exiled from Canada and marched down to the swamps of Louisiana. I don't hear too many people complaining about Cajun French.

Re: learning Spanish at 4--good! The younger they learn another language, the better chance they have of retaining it!! I'm sick and tired of people proudly telling me they speak Spanish because they took a few years of it in high school and college, and then looking at me like I'm speaking ancient Greek to them when I try to speak to them in Spanish. Our foreign language education in this country, for lack of a better word, sucks. If the only way our kids are learning other languages these days is through assimilation of children of other cultures, more power to them.

And what's to say your kid couldn't learn Latin? You speak it, teach him! There's no rule anywhere saying that kids can't learn multiple languages! I grew up being ashamed of the fact that I only spoke two languages--many of the kids I went to school with spoke at the very least three, some as many as 5. One girl I went to school with spoke Dutch, French, Spanish, English, and German. How many kids in the US can claim to even understand a few words of a second language?

And by the way, Latin and Spanish are very similar. My Spanish fluency allows me more often than not to read Latin words, and most certainly permits me to read/understand French, Italian, and Portugese at least on a very elementary level. Furthermore, learning Spanish gave me the same benefits regarding my English that you claim Latin did for you--I learned more about grammar and the English language by learning Spanish than I ever did in English classes, even through the college level.

At any rate, bringing up the children speaking Spanish is a poor argument to support your rant--those kids will be speaking fluent English by virtue of being in the public education system long before their parents ever will. You might also consider that for all the free programs out there, transportation for someone without a car in cities without public transportation is very difficult and expensive, and moreover most of the people you refer to barely have enough time in their day to earn a living and feed their kids. Somehow carving out another few hours of their day for learning the language isn't always possible, unfortunately.

And PS--it's spelled ridiculous. :happy05:

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I dont believe I've posted a controversial idea yet (I may have but I'm too lazy to check). Here's my contribution, in addition to my usual pop-shots and sniping.

I'd like to see America become an empire, somewhat akin to ancient Rome. I'd promply move from Canada, a country that still searches for what it stands for.

[Etoh the Mighty]

Hell, America is already moving down the "bread and circus" path. I'd say that in many respects we're not that far off... and we've lasted just about as long as the republic phase of the Roman nation.

[Maxxim]

If only we could get Americans to bother with learning foreign languages when they moved abroad, I'd agree with this. Unfortunately, I grew up abroad in an expat community, and I know just how many Americans never bothered to learn the local language or even basic customs, expecting the people around them to cater to them instead. They got huffy when people didn't speak English, or when the local customs didn't agree with their worldview.

Moreover, we're a nation of different cultures. If you go to parts of Louisiana, street signs are still in French from hundreds of years ago when the Acadians were exiled from Canada and marched down to the swamps of Louisiana. I don't hear too many people complaining about Cajun French.

Re: learning Spanish at 4--good! The younger they learn another language, the better chance they have of retaining it!! I'm sick and tired of people proudly telling me they speak Spanish because they took a few years of it in high school and college, and then looking at me like I'm speaking ancient Greek to them when I try to speak to them in Spanish. Our foreign language education in this country, for lack of a better word, sucks. If the only way our kids are learning other languages these days is through assimilation of children of other cultures, more power to them.

And what's to say your kid couldn't learn Latin? You speak it, teach him! There's no rule anywhere saying that kids can't learn multiple languages! I grew up being ashamed of the fact that I only spoke two languages--many of the kids I went to school with spoke at the very least three, some as many as 5. One girl I went to school with spoke Dutch, French, Spanish, English, and German. How many kids in the US can claim to even understand a few words of a second language?

And by the way, Latin and Spanish are very similar. My Spanish fluency allows me more often than not to read Latin words, and most certainly permits me to read/understand French, Italian, and Portugese at least on a very elementary level. Furthermore, learning Spanish gave me the same benefits regarding my English that you claim Latin did for you--I learned more about grammar and the English language by learning Spanish than I ever did in English classes, even through the college level.

At any rate, bringing up the children speaking Spanish is a poor argument to support your rant--those kids will be speaking fluent English by virtue of being in the public education system long before their parents ever will. You might also consider that for all the free programs out there, transportation for someone without a car in cities without public transportation is very difficult and expensive, and moreover most of the people you refer to barely have enough time in their day to earn a living and feed their kids. Somehow carving out another few hours of their day for learning the language isn't always possible, unfortunately.

And PS--it's spelled ridiculous. :happy05:

1. Crap, I didn't check my spelling. I hate people like me. Sorry.

2. I'll grant you that Latin and Spanish are similar. I also speak Italian do a degree, and they are similar as well. I'll also grant you that Spanish will help my son, and that it is good to start so young. My problem is that I would like him to have more of a choice. It's almost that he must learn Spanish now, whereas when I was younger that wasn't the case.

3. There is no excuse for the Americans you mentioned, and I would put them in the same category. I only used Mexican/South American since that is what I experience on a daily basis. People from an English-speaking country have no business going somewhere else and getting upset that people speak another language.

4. Time and wealth are no excuse (another of my controversial views). When my great-grandfather immigrated from Italy, he got a job digging ditches for 15 hours a day, and made just about enough money to keep a leaky roof over his head and keep his family from starving. He also learned English. My family isn't special, thousands upon thousands of immigrants have done the same thing. There are ways to ensure everyone has at least the opportunity, regardless of wealth. They need only expend the effort to learn.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Hell, America is already moving down the "bread and circus" path. I'd say that in many respects we're not that far off... and we've lasted just about as long as the republic phase of the Roman nation.

America could never become an empire due to the strong liberal lobby in the major cities (as I understand). Whatever happens though, America needs to retain its cultural identity, or it will end up like Canada :scared:. I doubt the republicans will get elected next term. If the dems get in, they'll promote agressive changes.

[PlagueBearer]

It is my firm belief that "American" is not just a nationality to some people, it is a Religion.

That's my firm belief, too.

But you make it sound like a bad thing.

In God We Trust. It's served us pretty well for a long time; we're sitting pretty. I fail to see this as a bad thing, but then again, I'm on the inside looking out. I can understand, I suppose, that looking into a beleif-set like our could be pissy. But what do you want us to do?

[Etoh the Mighty]

And it's my doubt that the world would stand for another Empire being brought about.

[Stevinator]

That's my firm belief, too.

But you make it sound like a bad thing.

In God We Trust. It's served us pretty well for a long time; we're sitting pretty. I fail to see this as a bad thing, but then again, I'm on the inside looking out. I can understand, I suppose, that looking into a beleif-set like our could be pissy. But what do you want us to do?

"in god we trust" was stealthily added to our money in the early last century by some treasurer. It stayed there because no savvy politician would touch that obnoxious breach of the seperation of church and state Ideal that had been held for over a century for fear of being tarred feathered and wedgied (did they have wedgies back then?).

oh, and I know I usually post much more on the other OTF but I can out rant anabananapalooza1 anyday. If that crazy canook wants to tango we'll start a rant off thread. My only downfall is lack of time to post all my ravings :)

That's right! I got my dillers, my TATs and nervous twitch, Let's throw down!!!

lol

BTW
Time and wealth are no excuse (another of my controversial views). When my great-grandfather immigrated from Italy, he got a job digging ditches for 15 hours a day, and made just about enough money to keep a leaky roof over his head and keep his family from starving. He also learned English. My family isn't special, thousands upon thousands of immigrants have done the same thing. There are ways to ensure everyone has at least the opportunity, regardless of wealth. They need only expend the effort to learn.

My relatives did the same (well similar). we may not be uber-elites here, but we live comfortably and I owe them a debt of gratitude for instilling in me the work ethic and desire to learn that has helped me get on my own way.

oh and one more thing. about us being fat/soda pop drinking--37 gallons a year is about one can of soda a day(assuming my american math skills are up to par). If you call us fat again we're sitting on you!

[AgeOfAbnegation]

And it's my doubt that the world would stand for another Empire being brought about.

Did you know that we're headed for a "one world" empire of sorts now? These days it's not about old skool guns germs and steel, but rather economics and globalism. Call it a velvet takeover if you will.

[Stevinator]

Did you know that we're headed for a "one world" empire of sorts now? These days it's not about old skool guns germs and steel, but rather economics and globalism. Call it a velvet takeover if you will.

I disagree. the first attempt at a supernational body, the league of nations, failed. the UN is frought with setbacks scandals and the US, the sole super power remaining, really seems to be at odds with it most of the time. Also, the EU decided that it was not ready for a constitution yet and that there would be considerable setback and re-negotiations. Sure countries are more interdependant now than they were, and technology has brought the world closer together, but I"m just not sure we've made as much progress as it seems. As china rises as a superpower and more and more nations develop nuclear capabilities, i see the world on the verge of becoming more tense, not less. When the wall fell, everyone let loose a collective sigh of release. now with the US embarking on a unpopular war, the middle east is settling down, but relations with more powerful countries seems to be slipping. Granted, its their fault for being whiny spanks and allowing unfair labor practices, but nevertheless, relations are slipping. Where can this go? and how will a world that continues to focus less and less on the past and more and more on the present deal with rising tensions? I worry sometimes.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I disagree. the first attempt at a supernational body, the league of nations, failed. the UN is frought with setbacks scandals and the US, the sole super power remaining, really seems to be at odds with it most of the time. Also, the EU decided that it was not ready for a constitution yet and that there would be considerable setback and re-negotiations. Sure countries are more interdependant now than they were, and technology has brought the world closer together, but I"m just not sure we've made as much progress as it seems. As china rises as a superpower and more and more nations develop nuclear capabilities, i see the world on the verge of becoming more tense, not less. When the wall fell, everyone let loose a collective sigh of release. now with the US embarking on a unpopular war, the middle east is settling down, but relations with more powerful countries seems to be slipping. Granted, its their fault for being whiny spanks and allowing unfair labor practices, but nevertheless, relations are slipping. Where can this go? and how will a world that continues to focus less and less on the past and more and more on the present deal with rising tensions? I worry sometimes.

I'm thinking less in terms of soverign boundaries and more in terms of ideology and finance. You raise a good point about China though, I've always maintained that it was going to be the big player. A good book on that is "China Inc.", which describes the burgeoning phenomenon that is China. I'd say give it 50 years or so, the world will be a different place. Anyhoo, we're headed for big problems with our resources in the near future, and I can only imagine what's going to happen to the economy. The proposed solution would likely be an amalgamation of currency, but I'm no economist.

[Sage the Mage]

Anyhoo, we're headed for big problems with our resources in the near future, and I can only imagine what's going to happen to the economy.
Basically we're screwed in around 15-25 years on oil, correct?

And China is old news. Bush in 2000 was all about China.

[Maxxim]

And China is old news. Bush in 2000 was all about China.

China is emerging news. We'll be seeing alot of China-related stuff in the near future, and we'll be having a good bit of trouble from them sooner rather than later.

For instance, China has become more vocal, and potentially more violent, about retaking Taiwan. China threatened a full invasion if Taiwan officially declares its independence. The U.S. has consistently backed Taiwan. A prominant Chinese general stated to the media that if the U.S. would try to get involved with any China/Taiwan conflict, China would likely use its nuclear weapons against the U.S. His comments were not sanctioned by the Chinese government, but the government has yet to come out and say otherwise.

Another example: A large Chinese energy concern is attempting to purchase Unocal Corporation, a mainly-U.S. oil company. The Chinese company, who's name escapes me, makes most of its money through government or quasi-government work. It's president or CEO (or whatever they call it in China) is also an official of the Chinese government. This is clearly one of many attempts at China gaining another foothold in the U.S. economy. At this point, Unocal only represents about .3-.5% of our daily energy needs, but the potential is there for China to begin making larger moves. Unocal also has a state of the art underwater reconnaissance division, which could easily be molded to a military use in the pacific. The department of defense, among other government agencies, is evaluating whether the sale should even be allowed.

These are just two examples of the problems that are growing related to China. The signs are still pretty subtle, but over the next couple years we'll be seeing a lot more. Definitely not old news.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Another example: A large Chinese energy concern is attempting to purchase Unocal Corporation, a mainly-U.S. oil company. The Chinese company, who's name escapes me, makes most of its money through government or quasi-government work.

You're referring to "Cnooc". Behold..



Chevron sweetened its offer for Unocal late yesterday in an 11th-hour move to thwart a rival offer from Cnooc, a government backed Chinese oil company, executives close to the negotiations said.

Skip to next paragraph

Steve Harris/Unocal, via Associated Press
A Unocal natural gas storage operation in Kermit, Tex. Chevron and Cnooc have been locked in a battle of nerves over who will end up controlling Unocal.



The Fight for Unocal
Unocal Bid Denounced at Hearing (July 14, 2005)

A Deft Balance in Orchestrating China's Oil Offer (July 7, 2005)

The Big Tug of War Over Unocal (July 6, 2005)

Unocal, via Bloomberg News
A Unocal drilling platform in Thailand. At the heart of the battle for the company lie Unocal's oil and gas fields in Asia, mainly in Indonesia, Thailand, Myanmar and Bangladesh.
Unocal's board voted to accept Chevron's increased offer worth $17 billion, or $63 a share in cash and stock, and rejected a still higher all-cash offer from Cnooc worth $67 a share as too politically risky, the executives said.

The decision by Unocal's board could end the takeover battle that has stirred significant debate in Washington about national security concerns and trade policies with China. Still, it is possible that Cnooc could return to the negotiating table with a higher bid.

For the past month, Chevron and Cnooc have been locked in a battle of nerves over who will end up controlling Unocal, a mid-sized independent oil company based in El Segundo, Calif. Both bidders are racing against an Aug. 10 deadline, when the shareholders of Unocal will get the opportunity to approve or reject the offer.

The battle has turned into a source of tension between the United States and China, with some American lawmakers saying they would seek to pass legislation blocking the Chinese takeover.

Last Thursday, Unocal's board, which met at the company's headquarters, instructed its management to keep negotiating with Cnooc, which had put $18.5 billion on the table in cash. While still endorsing Chevron's cash-and-stock proposal, the board of Unocal decided then that it would consider an offer from Cnooc if several conditions were met. They include financial guarantees if Cnooc walked away from a deal or if the offer was blocked.

Chevron is betting that the opposition to a takeover by a Chinese company will scare Unocal's board away from the Chinese offer, while Cnooc is convinced that, ultimately, Unocal will consider the financial benefits of its bid.

At the heart of the battle lie Unocal's oil and gas fields in Asia, mainly in Indonesia, Thailand, Myanmar and Bangladesh, as well as a scattering of assets in North America, which hold a total of 1.7 billion barrels of proven oil and gas reserves.

Both companies see Unocal as an opportunity to raise their reserves and increase production at a time when access to oil and gas fields is getting increasingly difficult.

A Cnooc victory would bring the largest takeover by a Chinese company of a foreign company and the biggest step so far by one of China's three state-owned oil companies to break out of their country in the search for sources of energy. Chevron, meanwhile, is betting on Unocal's growth potential to help it increase production and add to its global reserves.

Unocal's shares have gained 9 percent since April 4, when the deal with Chevron was announced. They closed at $64.99 a share on Tuesday. Chevron closed at $57.30.



I'd say the issue is not only just oil and gas deposits, but also water, and other resources. China has a 5th of the world's population, and its economy is picking up speed fast. That means mass consumption.

[Sage the Mage]

China is emerging news. We'll be seeing alot of China-related stuff in the near future, and we'll be having a good bit of trouble from them sooner rather than later.
What I ment was that China has been on the radar for a while.

[Abercromby]

I hate a lot of children. If they're related to me, I'm okay with them, and some others can be okay for a bit, but as soon as I hear one crying or having a tantrum, I want to play football with them, with them as the ball. :skull: But doesn't everyone?

*silence*

[Stevinator]

I don't like pets. Kids I can deal with in small doses, and there a few dogs that i like, but I don't like the idea of animals living in my house. the purpose of having houses is to keep the weather and animals out! I also refuse to clean up poo. if an animal crapped in my house it would be dinner that night (or the next).

[Freemason]

Elvis shot JFK

[Dark Knight]

Running from armed police is a bad idea.








:whistle:

[HR_Hellfire]

I don't have beliefs. It is a firm fact that it is only a matter of time before I bring the world to heel with me and command everything. Then you shall all bow before me. Those who fail to comply will die in unfathomably painful ways while those left alive will suffer greatly under my tyranical rule. This shall end upon my death of some ailment or another at which time the system will fall apart the goverment shall be eaten from within and collaps leading to a golden age for humanity. All thanks to me.

[Volja]

My thoughts aren't so controvesial, in fact there not even complex. I have pondered every aspect of life and death and our environment for a long time. I've come to the conclusion that were just a bunch of primitave fools that aren't half as civilised as we think we are, we have created many wonderful things, such as language for example. But we all do things we don't want to do, we do them because were afraid of what will happen if we don't. Alot of us don't know how to be happy and alot of us can't be ourselves due to our crippling physcholoical issues.

We may guess at things such as where did we come from or what is the universe, but for now at least, we are ignorant to all of this. There are great problems in the world but we worry about trivial things such as will we get to level 56 tonight? This whole post doesn't even have a point, much like our lives do not. This may sound morbid but personally im not thinking that way, were just a bunch of random things, life is just a bunch of random **** that happens, so enjoy it while you can.

No doubt somebody will shoot down my (what could possibly be classed as opinions) for whatever reason, but meh. Perhaps im completely wrong and we have some huge purpose that i will see when i am older than my obviously quite immature age of 19, perhaps i just wasted a few minutes of your life reading this. :scratch:

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Not a bad post really Volja, I was thinking along those lines at your age, with the exception of the "random things".

[Volja]

Not a bad post really Volja, I was thinking along those lines at your age, with the exception of the "random things".

Basically, i don't know how we got here, or what was here before, or even what we are, sometimes it annoys me so much that i will never know, i try to block it out :)

[AgeOfAbnegation]

i try to block it out :)

I did pretty much the opposite. Give it a shot. :happy14:

[Volja]

Something to add that just i just remembered i often question.

What if, people with behavioural problems, anti-social bhaviour or learning difficulties, are actually the only "sane" ones. We don't totally understand the human brain, perhaps we "help" them but only because they have been surpressed and not allowed too be what were supposed too be. Autism for example fascinates me, unable to do simple tasks but illogically clever in other ways? Apologies if this touches a nerve with anybody i really dont mean too offend..

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Something to add that just i just remembered i often question.

What if, people with behavioural problems, anti-social bhaviour or learning difficulties, are actually the only "sane" ones. We don't totally understand the human brain, perhaps we "help" them but only because they have been surpressed and not allowed too be what were supposed too be. Autism for example fascinates me, unable to do simple tasks but illogically clever in other ways?


I think you have to coincide that with nature. If everyone had autism or weren't able to function, live could not contunue on earth.


Apologies if this touches a nerve with anybody i really dont mean too offend..

Word of advice - never be concerned that the questions you have a right to ask should offend others. If they don't like your honesty and sincerity, sux to be them.

[Volja]

I think you have to coincide that with nature. If everyone had autism or weren't able to function, live could not contunue on earth.





That's a good point, hadn't thought of that. Could go even deeper, perhaps that's natures "plan" if it is capable of such a thing.