RackJR

hmmm. Did you read the article? No one was asking for a pat on the back, or on the head, for any choice, or anything else. I don't recall anyone else, besides you, bringing this up. Since you've emphasized the exact same thing in other threads, regardless of the thread topic, I'm curious: As a "good christian", do you feel it's your job to act as the anti-queer jack-in-the-box? Whenever the subject of homosexuality comes up, you pop up and blurt out "THEY DON'T DESERVE SPECIAL TREATMENT" regardless of the topic, as if Pavlov had joined the thread and rang the bell just for you, and this is your conditioned response? So, you're saying that you only feel pleasure if procreation is the result? No one can honestly say that. The truth is that sexual gratification feels good, whether it is "successful" or not. It also feels good whether you are in the majority (hetero) or in the minority (homo). It's the result of billions of years of evolution. The creatures that felt pleasure from the act were more likely to do it, and the more times you do it, the more chances for success you have. Homosexual behavior exists all over the place in the natural world. They still give it a shot, so to speak, even though it's not going to be "successful". It still feels good. So, you didn't choose, but they did? The fact is that you had nothing to do with the matter. You were attracted to women before you really even knew what was going on. That's just the way your wiring is. Face it. They didn't either. They're attracted to men before they even know what's going on. It's just the way they are. You didn't choose. They didn't choose. I bet if they could choose, a lot of them might choose to be attracted to women. I don't know for sure, just guessing. But when so many people like you spend so much time spewing this hate, could you blame them for taking the easy way out, and choosing the other side? But you have to keep calling it a choice, right, so you can keep on seeing them as different from you? It's not easy to hate someone who you see as the same. You're a christian hetero. Yeah you really sound like the minority. I'm white. You white Ron? I'll keep my guesses to myself. However, I will point out that I think John posted this to begin with, because you don't often see people who've been so discriminated against, discriminating against others (I have no idea if they actually discriminated or not). You make more than your share of hateful posts. Ergo I seriously doubt you're in anything that could realistically be called a minority. Is this what you call "manning up"? The world will be a better place when attitudes like this simply die off. Unfortunately, the bigots of today will be replaced by bigots tomorrow, who will find reasons to hate and vilify someone new. Maybe, like you, they'll use your 2000 year old book as the reason. Maybe they'll make up a new one. The reason doesn't really matter, it's just the excuse you use to marginalize someone else. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

I find this as ridiculous as I hope every other person finds it. It is insanity to think that inflicting actual harm over a comic is "just a reality". My only point is that there are radicals in every belief system. It's currently in fashion to call muslims fanatics. Whoever uttered these words against the creators of south park clearly falls into that category. However, since I currently live in the middle east, I can say that most muslims share your viewpoint, and mine. They think it's insane that someone in their religion would say something like this. In the world today, I think there are plenty of "other" religious people who would like to separate my head from my shoulders for any one of the posts I've made here in the past few months. Hopefully if their ancient text is the same as your ancient text (assuming you hold religious beliefs, I have no idea) that won't mean that you'll look the other way, or not see it for what it is. I'm sure abortion doctors all over the US feel much less than perfectly safe when they leave work. there are radicals in every belief system. when the belief systems themselves are dismantled, perhaps the steady supply of radicals will dwindle. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

Or just the same rights as everyone else? People with attitudes just like this : have forced them to fight for those rights. Ron, how old were you when you "chose" to be straight? Give us an outline of that thought process, if you will. Was it a difficult "choice"? I myself can't remember "choosing" to be straight. It was just kinda how it happened. But I'm pretty curious to hear from someone who obviously thinks that sexuality is a choice. What swayed you? What did you mull over, as the pro's and con's? Do you think it's a religious thing, that you feel better being on the side with the most people? Do you have to take care in your life, to make sure that you're never in the minority? Say what you mean. Do what you say.

DNA? ahhhh... an excellent illustration of the difference between scientific and theistic thought processes. In the scientific world, if a piece of evidence is found that contradicts the currently held model, the entire model is subject to scrutiny and possibly rejection. In the theistic world, if a piece of evidence is found that contradicts the model of a creator, the evidence must be forced to fit into the model, so you can continue to cling to the idea of a creator. DNA is a code that occurs naturally, the result of billions of years of evolution. That doesn't work for a theistic mind, so this person claims that no code has ever been found that wasn't designed by a conscious mind, in order to explain the code that was found which wasn't designed by a conscious mind. If it doesn't fit into the religious model, it proves the religious model. outstanding. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

It sounds like you're looking at him to show token acts of patriotism in order to feel he's patriotic. If he did those things, it would make him a patriot? Seems to me like every waking moment of his life right now is dedicated to improving this country. It might not be in a way you agree with, but he's put himself out there to try. Every bit of his life is scrutinized, analyzed, criticized. Was GWB a good president because he never missed an opportunity for knee-jerk patriotism? Do the actions and efforts of the current CIC mean so little to you, if they are not accompanied by "the little things"? Maybe he has a different idea of patriotism than you do? Is your idea of patriotism the only valid one? since you brought it up, what defines a patriot, IYO? Say what you mean. Do what you say.

I guess about the same stuff that you'd expect from any other people who embrace a religion founded by any other (insert number) century nut case!! ? Say what you mean. Do what you say.

Are these the passages you were citing? 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. How do we know the difference between these extra terrestrial angels, and the angels god created, and angels of humans who have passed? Is it ok if I just ask you when I'm confused? Clearly you can easily tell when god was discussing alien life forms in the bible. And here I was, thinking jesus was god's only son. But you're telling me that these guys, even though they're called sons, were actually alien life forms? Credibility has nothing to do with a belief system. Credibility is the ability to be believed. So by your words here, your belief system can only be believed if I believe in it? Sounds very religious. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

I carried a man purse. It was an Oakley bag, so it didn't look like a purse. But it held my Berretta .40 Cougar very nicely. Even had a pocket designed for a cell phone that was perfect for the extra clip. Wasn't the best if you think of yourself as a quickdraw, but works to have it with you. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

Thanks Bill. After dmcoco suggested reading about cicero, I spent last night doing just that. None of it seemed to support the idea that he believed in any god, and certainly not the christian god. His references were always to "the gods". He also seemed to embrace epicureanism for at least a part of his life, and therefore no god, or gods. Glad to see someone else got the same impression. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

All those santa believers would have the exact same thing to say to him. "You believe in the bible? Well, whatever gets you through the night...." Say what you mean. Do what you say.

What a great line. Practice it in the mirror. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

13Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying, 14"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests." 53Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? Is the story of the flood. No aliens anywhere. Dude, you've proved it........ once again that the bible is so vague that someone will try to use it to further their arguments about anything. These passages have absolutely nothing to do with extra terrestrial life. Or are you going to claim that the heavenly host is aliens? Or that 12 legions of angels are actually aliens? Are you going to next make reference to the angels who starred in The Abyss? Care to list a few of those? Do you guys just think that listing off bible passages is going to make you sound credible? Say what you mean. Do what you say.

would someone need to be burned at the stake, according to leviticus? Say what you mean. Do what you say.

How would this make a difference to the conversation? He understands it well enough to point out an obvious misrepresentation. None of us probably fully understand the current model of the BB. To completely grasp it is most likely beyond all but a few theoretical physicists. That doesn't mean we have blind faith. None of us completely understand gravity, but it can't be called blind faith to believe it's real. The analogies are endless. The religious minded seem to never tire of misrepresenting scientific theory, as if these continued diversions will prop up their beliefs. If you think the BB theory says something came from nothing, google it and then tell us where that is. The truth is that no scientific person is ever, ever going to claim that something came from nothing. Most high school physics students understand the conservation of mass. It seems to me that the bible says that everything needs a creator, and everything came from god. Of course the obvious and tired next question is "who created god". Maybe spend some time on that one. See if your answer doesn't exactly mirror "something came from nothing". Whatever it is, it will only prove that you have no interest in finding out a scientific answer. It will mean that you read a 2000 year old book (or more likely just listened to someone who you believe read it), found a terribly simplistic answer to a complex question, and stuck your head in the sand. I'm very grateful that a lot of people don't find that to be enough, and they continue to seek greater understanding. When science has answered this question, what will you choose to misrepresent next? Say what you mean. Do what you say.

that's a lot of fluff about yourself without really addressing the questions you posed. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

give us your answer please. you didn't address your own words. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

i'm not sure where the 400+ planets comes from. can you clarify that? i've read books by Dawkins that talk about the number of planets as a positively huge number (hundreds of billions) and the number of potentials as life carriers as a number much larger than 400. just curious what your definition is here. if life were discovered elsewhere, why would that change people's view here? we have mountains of scientific data that religious people find a way to discredit or ignore, right now. would the addition of new data or facts cause them to reconsider? or would they simply take it in stride and employ the exact same tactics? they're already masters of mental gymnastics... they'll pole-vault over the new facts and just keep on running, bible in hand. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

= high school lamesauce Say what you mean. Do what you say.

i have no idea what that award is. want to waste more time and get more off topic explaining it? don't you have lots of other threads to tend to? Say what you mean. Do what you say.

you should probably just skip my posts. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

could you post all your rules of posting for me? i don't have the full list. thanks. stylistic criticisms? content? shall i just let you speak for all of us? you really can't read anything if it's not one line snips? i don't really like the style most people have of the one line attempts to quickly insult the person who posted as an idiot. but thanks for saying that i must post exactly the way you like to post. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

Skyrad i'm curious. have you watched the second video that someone posted, the longer one? where the guy is skipping down the street just before realizing that he's in front of cops? and if so, are you still saying that we should be supporting these "hero's" and that the kid had it coming? I spent 20 years working in college bars, sports bars, night clubs, and owned a pool hall. i've dealt with more drunks than i could hope to remember. in all those years, i did get into a few altercations. every one of those altercations came after the drunk person hit me somehow, and not before. I had every conceivable insult hurled at me, from fucking my mother to ending my life and everything in between. finger pointing, spit flying in my face cuz they're so close, you name it. i think i have a good idea of what constitutes aggressive behavior. this kid wasn't being aggressive at all. he looked like he was having a pretty good time. every altercation i got in came after several minutes of discussion, or shouting, what i would call posturing. every one came with a serious amount of shit talking first. never did someone just smack me out of the blue. i think that's because most guys really don't want to get in a fight. they want to look as tough as they can without actually risking physical harm. and having been in my share of fights, i don't really want to get in any more. i do everything i can to avoid that kind of confrontation. most guys i know with fighting experience do the same. they talk and back up until they can't do either any more. what i mean by all that is that IMO it's a pretty small percentage of the people you run into that actually want to get in a fight and go after it immediately. and i don't think it usually starts with someone dancing down the street. also, did anyone else notice how incredibly fast this happened? those cops escalated that situation so quickly. obviously i don't have audio, but it can't have been much of an attempt to talk on their part. how can anyone say that they were trying to avoid conflict? i watched the video a couple extra times just to see if it looked possible that the kid had contacted the horse. if he did, the horse certainly didn't show any response. how far back do you guys need video to cover this person before you can say he didn't deserve what he got? if the guy had taken a swing at one of them, i think them taking a swing back would have been merited. and then arresting him. i've watched a lot of cops arrest people. i was a firsthand witness at the boulder colorado student riots, all 3 of them. i watched police in riot gear deal with students, and although i didn't think they handled it the best way, it certainly didn't involve anything that could be considered in the same thought process as this incident. did the kid clearly smack the horse and then kung-fu style demolish an officer? this was 3 guys with batons, supposedly there to protect and serve, beating the shit out of him after what can only be described as a defensive step backwards toward the wall. how good is your reaction time when you're drunk? do you follow all directions instantly? how about when you're drunk, ecstatic that your favorite team just won, and positive you're not doing anything wrong? would you immediately grasp that you're in peril from the police, when you know you haven't done anything wrong? i (not very scientifically) counted 7 seconds between the time i think he noticed the police to the time the first officer struck him. if i did it very badly, it might have been 9 seconds. if you're drunk and happy, you gonna grasp that you are in serious danger from the people there to protect you, in 9 seconds or less? i guess it's possible that they were shouting at him longer than that to stop... but i think given the circumstance of the night (it was a big win) and that it's a college town (college kids + basketball can easily = drunk college kids) a fair bit more patience was in order. so i'm curious. are you still of the same mind as when you originally posted this? Say what you mean. Do what you say.

where do you get this? doesn't really matter, but seems like you're making this up to maintain an argument? i'm not justifying anyone. your post seemed to be defending the bishops. me too. so, why the comments about the bishops not issuing fatwas? Say what you mean. Do what you say.

kinda contradictory huh? but that's all we have to work with. not knowing you personally, i can read your posts and reply to those. i didn't put words in your mouth. you labeled yourself so. as far as what i get as your tone, these are your words, and what i was replying to. -from a previous post the reality is, if christianity still held power, they wouldn't be wasting time calling for fatwas. they would have the person killed outright, maybe doing it themselves. maybe his family as well. killing people is what they did, and often for far less than a cartoon. you seem to be defending the bishops here, as if they are so tolerant that they won't kill someone for words. i'm saying, if they were still in power, they absolutely would. how is it fundamentally different? because our society has (perhaps) moved forward from the outlook of some current muslim societies? because the coverage is better? maybe it's different for you, if christianity is your flavor. but religion is all the same to me. it's a struggle for power. i don't make excuses for anyone, and certainly not for christianity. it seems like that's what you're doing here. religion is about control over the masses based on fairy tales, and deaths that result from those beliefs are abhorrent, regardless of which fairy tale you subscribe to. you are saying christianity is different. i disagree. one is 2400 years old, one is 900 years old. one is now only executing the occasional abortion doctor, and not typically all those who dissent with their words (thanks to long a process which claimed the lives of countless dissenters). one still is. are the cartoonists still alive? how about the victims of the inquisition, or the witch trials? maybe you're more right than you think. maybe they are different. the ever predictable attempt to bolster your position by insulting those who engage you. how refreshing. if you're not defending christianity, why get in a twist from my comments? if you are defending christianity, why try to claim otherwise? Say what you mean. Do what you say.

not at all. i think it's good for people to condemn things that are clearly wrong. however, it seemed from the tone of your post that you share a religious outlook with the people who made those threats. your own tenets talk about not casting stones at others. you do it anyway. so, if you're going to hold christianity up as the standard, and say that no christians are issuing death threats at the moment because you're such good, tolerant people, i'm going to point out that you were not so tolerant at one time. as it stands, many of your adherents are not tolerant today, and if they could, would restore the church to the power position it enjoyed for thousands of years. worldwide, the christian church is still incredibly powerful. but your history is not laudable. if christianity still held power the way it did in the dark ages, it would still be the dark ages!! we fought our way out from that strangle hold, to be in our current position. you're only able to stand on the moral high ground that you seem to enjoy here because athiests or agnostics or secularists or whatever you want to call them fought with their lives against the institution, and won the right to dissent. hopefully someday the people of muslim belief will share your distaste for the issuance of death threats for something like a cartoon (or anything else). i didn't say you didn't have the right to condemn it. i said you should thank the secular contingent of society for the rights we all currently hold. it was more of a jab to get you to see that you are not unlike them. your history is the same as theirs. you're just at a different point in it than they are. your time of power has (hopefully) ended. theirs is still going on. when everyone can condemn the things that are simply wrong, no matter what belief system you cling to, perhaps the world will have taken a step forward. Say what you mean. Do what you say.