dorbie

According to the Christian view of how the world should be, human nature is indeed flawed, but then again, Christianity views lust, which is in fact rather essential to the survival of the species, also largely as a flaw. Human? Really? So if I stood in front of you and told you a bold faced lie, you wouldn't think I was a liar? You'd be ok with it because, of course, it's only human nature. Wow! You are understanding. I guess you wouldn't take it personally if the salesman intentionally "mislead" you and it cost you money. I mean, it's only human nature. Must be alright. Not legally, of course, but morally. I guess, as long as you don't get caught. Have you ever told a lie? Don't bother answering you're human so we know the answer. In denying your true nature you're lying to yourself. Pretending you have some moral high ground over another poster because he told a truth about humans that you deny is preposterous, he's not the liar in this argument, he's the one speaking the cold hard truth. If your spouse asked you if their ass looked big in their pants you might not be forthcoming with your opinion. If someone with terminal cancer wanted the facts you might not "give it to them straight" if they were not psychologically able to handle it. If a stranger asks you how you're feeling you might say "great" even if that's not the case. There are a myriad of similar circumstances big and small. These are very different from criminal fraud and most adults can tell the difference unless their brain is poisoned with silly absolutist nonsense that we all know they cannot live up to. And no we don't need more lies about a god to put a band-aid on this.

Firstly I used zombie in only one sense to characterize your resurrected god. There's also Matthew 27:52-53 if you want to get all George Romero. It was not ignorant, it was grounded solidly in scripture. Your objection is a semantic one. Second your misrepresentation of what I wrote does not excuse any old factual inaccuracies you care to throw out. Crying about "zombies" in response to valid criticism only illustrates that it got under your skin. Have you dared to look at the evidence in those videos that directly answers your question?

No, you simply do not understand the premise from which the question was asked though it was already explained to you...crystal clear. Really? I read: "The question that keeps ringing in my ear is why are we not perfect? " Followed by a lot of hand waving, begging the question and non sequiturs. The video answers your question. See, with the evidence you might have some wiggle room for faith in the recesses of the big bang or special pleading involving magic, but there really is no hiding from the glare of the mountains of evidence in support of evolution and other processes. You have to do what you just did, refuse to examine the evidence, or dismiss it without thoughtful consideration, all to support a bronze age book.

LOL, You do not understand it, it answers a question you asked two posts ago in profound ignorance. Stop filling your mind with nonsense and shunning the facts. Science and understanding reality is what gave you the ability to post your nonsense online today. Believing an inaccurate fantasy instead of the reality supported by the evidence is not a virtue, and it's not opening your mind. It's denying your mind knowledge that is readily available.

Ignorance does not mean what you think it does. Go on watch those videos. Defensiveness is in the eye of the beholder I guess, the facts are on my side, your invisible friend in the sky and his zombie son is on yours.

But you will believe in evidence that you evolved from a pile of dung? If your intent was to parade your ignorance and scientific illiteracy then you succeeded. I am familiar with a vast array of evidence for evolution from multiple fields of scientific study. It is beyond compelling. It is an absolutely overwhelming and practically irrefutable interconnected tapestry of mutually supporting facts. We are not perfect for many reasons. Evolution is undirected. We are here because our ancestors survived. We are shaped by pressures applied to an existing form with all of it's legacy and we are perpetually a work in progress. Here is the best video on the cause of evolutionary imperfection. Watch it if you dare: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1a1Ek-HD0 And a some details on existing animals showing the evolutionary progression: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yi7rUyaPT-c It's the God squad that has the explaining to do as to why His handiwork is imperfect in their unsupported fairy tale.

Really? I finally clicked through, all I see is some bad acting and a skydive. I've seen as much in a Hollywood R rated movie at the local cinema, the complaints are bullshit. I can't believe how tame and intercourse free this was after all the fuss. Great publicity stunt though. As for the girl, she has the last laugh. She bounces naked on some guy's lap gets a free tandem and has half the country talking about something she never did. I just hope she has the gumption to fend off the desperate pecker-heads who might now take an interest. Dumbest controversy ever.

It's the zombie god part I don't buy into. I do not believe in it there is no evidence for it nor any other supernatural nonsense. I don't need a book written by bronze age liars and madmen to tell me that lying is wrong or murder is wrong, and I'll scoff at your thought crimes of lust and desire. As for stereotypes, that has a lot to do with your fellow travelers and they are a natural consequence of dogma and literalism applied to a confused ancient text.

So you're ok with being a liar or with people lying to you since it's all just "natural?" Now there YOU just lied. I was quite clear about having a discussion where I specifically mentioned two elements; lust and desire. Why did you feel the need to misrepresent what I was talking about and redact that portion of the discussion just to make a vapid non-point? Your religion does NOTHING to make you moral as you've just demonstrated. Your God, your silly rules your sin and your guilt and you can't even live by the standards you hope to measure others by.

No doubt about it. I agree completely that it is human nature and everyone is guilty of doing it. That's not my point. The point is there is a price to pay every time you or I break the Law. Either paid by you when you die or paid in your place by someone else. Your silly "law" not mine, your guilt not mine. There's a heavy price paid for feeling guilty over things everyone does naturally which are neither illegal nor immoral.

Jesus came to save sinners. The righteous don't need saving. Guess you're good to go. But if you've ever lied, stolen, looked with lust outside of marriage, desired something that belonged to someone else, disrespected your parents, etc., you might want to reevaluate your character. Your silly rules not mine. Looking at someone with lust outside of marriage is human nature, desiring a thing that is someone elses is natural too, it is delusional to deny this and idiotic to call it sin. There is nothing immoral about either of these acts. I will continue to do both and have absolutely no compunction about it. As for reevaluating my character, I'll take better counsel than that of a bronze age mythology peddler.

So you are saying that Atheists are stronger in spirit, have fewer defects in character are not as spiritually blind and are more free than the religious. OK

That's the problem. Elect to disengage and everything may be lost. You HAVE to fight. No I meant a belligerent party in a collaborative process can disengage and return to legal conflict, but really I'm thinking of custody and coparenting rather than a more finite divorce process. Even then it still boils down to a hearing and court order, unreasonable people don't accept recommendations that do not favor them and often have unreasonable expectations.

Lawyers certainly support their own right to carry, an unusually high percentage have CCW permits.

I agree with everything you wrote.

Again with child custody situations these are ongoing long after the divorce. As you know, at any time issues can flare up or a change in custody be sought. It's a longer term prospect.

This was not a divorce but a custody dispute, it seems like their earlier divorce MAY not have been as high conflict. This hearing seems to have taken a different turn. I don't think you can optimally structure a system around preventing murderous narcissists going postal. Collaborative can be effective but it's there as an option now. When two parties are engaged in a process like this either can elect to disengage when behavioral problems emerge and this is exactly what happens.

Re-vamp divorce law/guidelines for equity? The guy shared custody and was seeking sole custody the day before and didn't get it. He made allegations against her and she against him. Apparently the ex said he was bipolar and threatened to kill her. Well....with hindsight, I don't think she was lying. Custody disputes are stressful and bring out the worst in some people. It drives some people to extreme acts and allegations. For those with mental issues it can really bring it out with a vengeance. One thing I know, this Dekraai asshole was not thinking of his kid when he did this, he was focused on himself so blaming family court for not granting his request for full custody is bullshit. The son he professed to care about is now effectively an orphan thanks to him and will have to live with the horror of who his dad is and what he did (if he's even alive). The guy got more than a fair shake and just didn't like the outcome, and these murders don't undermine the court's decision not to grant his custody request, they vindicate it and then some. P.S. and for any guy who is thinking of empathizing with this mass-murdering scumbag. He's the reason the next innocent guy in a custody dispute will have a false allegation against him taken seriously pending further investigation. It's poster-boys like Dekraai that compel courts to issue DV-TROs like confetti.

When a guy walks into a salon and asks to get his man-boobs waxed say YES? For the sake of the children.

The story should be "kid takes porn to school". Secondarily and more important for folks here is was the TI giving the skydive his full attention in a safe jump. The rest is just bullshit and confabulation.

A key measure of helmet performance is safety. Now if you had said aesthetics....

I do not see why years of advice and lessons about camera snag points should go out the window with the use of a Go-Pro. Cheap and cheerful does not mean basic safety advice should be ignored. There's enough troubling evidence in this thread to make any sensible skydiver reconsider this as an option.

It's the only option. Well, that and harness input. While this might look pretty reckless for a skydiver, it's really not that crazy for a speed/acro wing. Definitely should have given himself a bit more room, though. That and there were obviously plenty of other places to swoop. Context is everything, if it was an open field you could argue that it wasn't so reckless (although the results speak for themselves). His life is his to risk but the public did not sign up for his stunt. If he'd shown he didn't have the chops for his stunt and boxed himself in with rocks and trees instead of residential buildings I'd view his actions more favorably. If you take the margin of error afforded by your wing and piss it away through your decisions then it's no longer margin for error. It's gone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoWl1pxVVBU Same video different site: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7a6_1306357152 And some say swooping the LZ is a bad idea.... This is a ground launched paraglider with a high wingloading (for PG), but worth a look for you guys. Probably doesn't belong in incidents because it's a different sport but I hate to see this lesson go to waste. It's an interesting video because it shows some of the worst decision making imaginable.

No, you can do that with head tracking AND a head mounted display. You can head track without an HMD. So I was taking remarks literally and we were talking about different technological components. HMDs have their benefits, notwithstanding the fact that after 20 years they still have their shortcomings.