john5746

Well, here's one from the Left. I don't think there's any island theory from the left feeding this though. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg&feature=player_embedded#!

Well, the latest episode at the Empire State Building, where cops accidentally shot several bystanders, while killing an armed man from about 6 ft. - that provides yet more evidence that a bunch of armed people in a theatre doesn't make it safer.

Well, I would like to see Team Obama propose a budget that has similar deficit amounts as Ryan's. Then we could compare who is cutting what. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/14/fact-check-ryan-budget-plan-doesnt-actually-slash-budget/ The Ryan plan really isn't reducing the deficit, so it really shows how tough it will be to even slow the hole digging.

I dunno, at best you can argue a concept of god is needed, since we know there isn't any invisible force keeping us from doing bad things. if the concept is what keeps us somewhat moral and this concept is constantly hijacked by humans, then humans are really the ones running the show.

Let's imagine for a minute that this guy had absolutely no protection and there was great lighting in the room. So, I assume you think that everyone would be safer if only you were there with your gun to take him out? You would be correct, I think. However, that is just one incident. For you or someone like you to just happen to be there with a gun, would result in numerous people in every movie with guns. Not everyone would be as well trained, as level headed or as careful as you. Accidents would happen here and there. Arguments would escalate into severe problems. I have been to many movies without ever having someone come in with guns blazing. But, I have seen fights and arguments and people trip, etc. So, I'd rather continue having movies primarily gun-free.

No man is an island, pretty obvious. Nobody can become a multi-millionaire on an island by themselves. They need to leverage the resources around them, the skilled workforce, the infrastructure, even the military helps. It also helps when you father was wealthy and your cult is wealthy and you are a tax cheat with monies in every loophole known and unknown and it also helps if you lack empathy for those less fortunate than yourself. Just ask anyone on Wall Street. Go ahead and make up stuff in your head about Obama. I know you have to demonize him so that you feel better about voting for Mitt. By the way, Mitt in the video below from 1:45 to 1:57 only thanks other people for Olympians' achievements. No need to watch the rest of the video, bs is bs.

I think its obvious that we already have regulations on arms and that we can and should enact more without messing with the constitution. However, I do think we need an amendment that basically says bearing arms is a privilege that brings great power and thus has great responsibility and great punishment if that responsibility isn't met. This privilege is for personal protection or sport and not to engage in war against your government. If the people need to fight an armed conflict against their government, their only chance is to either confiscate army property or acquire the aid of a foreign power. So, guns are no longer needed if this was ever the intent. While we are at it, would also be nice to add another amendment that states that the founding fathers were not gods, but flawed men. These men had no idea what challenges would be faced in the future, so reading this document with only their intentions in mind would be like trying to get our morality from men who lived 2000 years ago. It would be sheer stupidity. But, more likely to get an anti-gay marriage amendment before we get anything like the above. This incident makes me wonder how they are able to catch terrorist plots in this country. I guess we have been lucky that they try to take action that requires communication within a group? I mean if they ever just start going rogue like this guy, well...batman help us, batman help us all.

He would have shot the boy wearing the hoodie. Its really sad, some people just seem to think the Wild West is the best possible world.

Would have been even more intelligent to say "Abraham, wtf? Don't do something stupid like this, even if I tell you. If I had wanted a robot, I would have made one."

Not just identify causes, but control them. I once worked in manufacturing and we had two shifts. Each shift was religious about certain settings for the oven, carts, etc. I disabled one of the controls, yet they both continued to dial it in, insisting it was necessary. Nothing is more stressful then having no control, but being held responsible for an outcome.

Why does he scare you? Because he curses and is loud? He is basically telling all the dominatrix wannabe's that their fantasies do not scare him. I was going to say that I thought the Greeks came up with it, but then I checked up on that, started to read a little and man what a flustercuck! I stopped before my head exploded. Gehenna I think its safe to say that threats of this sort have always been around and evolve as the ideas evolve. Good intentions gone bad. in regards to what the thread title would appear to be asking:

Women are even more devious than we realize. Take my wife for example. She earns more money than me, does more housework, keeps up with the kids more and manages to insure that I always have an orgasm before she does. I mean, it makes me feel so small... Yeah, she acts all nice, like she is on my side. She'll even throw me a bone now and then by asking me to move some big furniture or do some plumbing. But, that's just to keep me going a little longer to prolong the agony. AAAGHHH!!

I found this talk to be interesting. In it the speaker suggests that atheists can learn something from religion and should use the useful parts. 1) Education - Teach morality and how to live, not just information. Use the sermon method and repetition more often. Attach rituals to the calendar, nature and the body 2) Art - Art should be used for a purpose - for the betterment of humanity, not just for arts' sake. Art as a tool to celebrate our emotions and morality 3) Community/ Grouping - Religion scales very large effectively. We need a Wal-Mart or Google for philosophy/morality. Ideas, comments?

Hmm. That which can be observed or effects can be observed within space and time? If it can't be observed or has no apparent effect on anything observable, then it isn't real. What's your definition?

So God is Monica Lewinsky. Now the analogy is making some sense. The concept of God is as abstract as it gets, as evidenced by this forum. I'm not going to "make myself responsible" to an imaginary being. I'm also not going to accept analogies of the existence of abstract concepts(god) to the existence of physical known things. So, if someone says I don't think Santa exists, since I never got a gift from him and I don't know anyone who got a gift from him - you can't replace Bill Clinton or any other person in that sentence and make an argument.

Think about this a little more. Why pray? You can pray for starving kids to be fed or make it to heaven. That isn't selfish or shallow, but it is asking for something.

And then you will compare it to Bill Clinton as if that makes any sense. I can assume he was talking about a caring god, since this is done very often and follows from his logic. Its like assuming Santa Clause wore a red suit. That makes more sense than resorting to Bill Clinton. I'm not arguing about your main point, that there can be a god that isn't caring, just your analogy. Yes, you compared the existence of Bill Clinton to the existence of god. If you can do that, then the concept of god makes no sense. Which is probably the case. Dammit, another waste of time. Think about it some more. Why do people pray? You might pray that a kid doesn't die, which isn't selfish on your part, but you are asking for something.

that's fine, people can hide behind an abstract god concept that is meaningless and tell people that they cannot claim anything about it. Point taken. But, still your analogy was off base, unless you include a physical god. We don't need to justify the existence of a person with effects they have on the world. Bill Clinton exists, we can see him, touch him, have sex with him. An invisible friend would be a better analogy.

Poor analogy. We do not provide good deeds as evidence of the existence of specific people. People exist and everyone has had a mother, these are not exotic claims. The op is in regards to justification for believing in a God. One of the most common is that a god has an effect on believer's lives. That's the point of believing, so that you can ask for things or avoid bad things. But, you end up in a circle with something like the following: 1) God exists, because he has been good to me and blessed me with so many good things 2) He can do the same for you, if you do x, y, and z so and so did x,y and z but his family suffered terribly and died. 3) we cannot understand god's great love. So it is provided as evidence, but means nothing. So, yeah we cannot claim all gods do not exist, but we have a good indication that the god mentioned above doesn't exist.

Thanks, I found your posts in the other thread very informative by the way. I just wonder if the Swiss system, with more choice in regards to insurance, would fit better or be more likely to get approved with our country of many states. I probably shouldn't worry at this point as to what system can be approved, as long as we have morons in the highest judicial branch who think broccoli is a good analogy for health care.

OK, this thread is for those who agree that the US system is among the worst in the "first" world. Fareed Zakaria recently aired a nice special about how to save the American healthcare system. In that special, he presented the following arguments: He then provided glimpses into a few of the better healthcare systems that we might possibly learn from: Taiwain Something like US medicare for all citizens, but if covers everything and they employ IT(smart card) to improve administration efficiency and improve the care for the costliest patients. But, they rely on the asian work ethic to provide great care at low cost. Their doctors work their a$$ off. Switzerland Obamacare on steroids. Provides lots of choice, maybe too much choice. Costs are an issue with this system. England - complete government run system. Has had issues with wait times and not covering certain procedures. Others In other words, we ain't talking about broccoli. So, what system would be best for the US or if you live in another country, perhaps one of those mentioned, how good/bad is your system? It seems like the Swiss system is the most realistic for the US - maybe we could employ IT to help people determine the best insurance for them, like we do for flights and other things.

Yeah, sometimes, when I read a retarded post, I dream of reaching my hand through the post, through the moron's screen, grabbing them by the back of the head and typing "I'm sorry, I'm an A-hole and will not do this again" 50 times with their face. I also dream about taking people out with my car in traffic sometimes. But these dreams only last seconds. If I were to start thinking about this stuff throughout the day, I think I would seek professional help or go exercise or do something more healthy.

I am your true God and the true religion is this: Figure it out for yourself, because I'm not a micro-manager. Shit, I created that damn universe. If you need more, then do it yourself. Oh yeah, if someone says they are speaking to me, on behalf of me or they are me, they are full of shit. That includes this post

Well, that's the rationale for giving the police the benefit. Setting aside race, departments are comprised of individuals. Individuals do make mistakes, sometimes with malice, sometimes by carelessness. We do know that when these mistakes are made, departments(any depts, not just police) don't do the best job of policing themselves. They also give themselves the benefit of the doubt.

The police got a call from Zimmerman, told him not to pursue. Zimmerman was not in any danger, he reported no crime and Zimmerman has a gun. Zimmerman is responsible from that moment on. A struggle with Martin afterward is irrelevant to his guilt, only what he is guilty of. This is why we don't allow mob rule. But, something that is interesting to me is that when I hear these things reported, I always give benefit of the doubt to the police. I figure there is obviously more to the story that will explain their actions. Other people distrust police automatically. So, we all have bias and we need to be careful about rushing to judgements. Another thing to keep in mind is that police departments or any authority has much more power than individuals, so in this case if you could imagine what Martin's parents could do on their own to make sure justice is done vs the police. Put yourself in that situation, both Zimmerman's and Martin's parents.