Raven

Nonviolent protests, gag me with a spoon.

Sure thereÔÇÖs a difference, IÔÇÖm not denying that, I was simply saying (at length) that the only thing different about this game (and being horribly buggy doesnÔÇÖt count, thatÔÇÖs not all that uncommon) is that it happens to be Arabs doing the suicide bombings. And furthermore, I agree that it is a rather cheep ploy to sell there game. I hadnÔÇÖt thought about government censorship though, that would be rather bad, if rather unlikely (after all, there is nothing obscene about crazed Arab suicide bombers, and if censorship includes things that are simply not PC then things are a hell of a lot worse then I thought).

quote: However, if you believe that the Democrats are now mostly the center (like I do) then I am left... but not a socialist. Both parties, as I understand it, are fairly centrist these days. quote: But I believe in success through hard work, dedication, and innovation....not a system where a persons success is predetermined by birth....and not insured by exploiting and promoting poor ethics while equating profitability at the expense of environmental common sense.. Success through hard work is fine darling, but success to most people means earning lots of money, and for some people to be earning more money, some have to be earning less (in fact, for a few people to be rich, there has to be a lot of poor people). Seeing as these already rich people want to stay rich, it only makes sense that it would be difficult for the poor to raise up (after all, for someone to get richer, other people have to get poorer). Socialism (and no darling, Im not saying youre a socialist, but you do appear to support some socialist ideas) makes succeeding harder simply because your margin for error is being taxed away to pay some fool who isnt even bothering. Sure, it bites if youre rich and have to put up with that kind of taxes, but it bites even more if youre trying to get rich with those kinds of limitations. As for the environment, I agree that to some degree protection of the environment is essential, but hardly to the extent that a lot of people make it seem. Im not an outdoors-fresh-air-and-sunshine type of girl, but even I dont want to live in an industrial wasteland, and neither would anyone with any sense. quote: I reject the idea of wealth indicating success. I further acknowledge a world outside of the corporate one presented to the American people.... Ok darling, youve got me, what is your idea of success? quote: I think it would be remarkable to know what Americans would want if they weren't being crushed by taxes for programs of corporate welfare and ever more elaborate weapons systems..... Crushed by taxes for corporate welfare eh? Darling, as I understand it most poor people pay very little in the way of taxes, getting income tax returns and similar nonsense. Furthermore, Im not a big war freak, but newer and better weapons are necessary for retaining our position as a super power, not to mention enforcing our will around the world. quote: or if they weren't in poverty or considered working poor...or just trying to keep the boat steady so their kids might have a shot at doing better....I think it would be interesting indeed..... Well darling, for them to have more money, others would have to have less money (it doesnt equate perfectly, but the truth is still there), and if that isnt socialist I dont know what is. Besides, I happen to like things just as they are (well, ok, I could always use more money, but Im working on that, not just sitting around expecting handouts). quote: Every time you speak with the self proclaimed authority of being semi learned, on the people you have never met, and the ideals you have never tried to live, you speak ignorantly and offensively...to me anyway.....so we can call it even. What can I say darling? I dont mean to offend you, but I shant go out of my way to tiptoe around you either. Oh, and by the way, you still havent explained the Ms. Rand reference, and Im rather curious. Oh, and I would hardly consider the way I speak (and think, for that matter) ignorant, though callous would sum it up nicely. quote: Some people would agree with your positions of people and their inherent worthbut I think most of them are busy being dictators or playing master of the universe in between holding executive positionscheers darling.. Dictators and masters of the universe eh? What happened to evil overlords? And again darling, thank you for your excellent response to my arguments, it truly is genius that you responded only to a point that was in parenthesis, fur surly that is where I would place my main ideas.

Something to point out for all of you: so called terrorist tactics are common in RTS games, itÔÇÖs just that most people donÔÇÖt think of them that way. Ever played WarCraft 2? What do you think goblin sappers and Dwarven demolition squads were if not suicide bombers? Or mage bombing (sending a mage into an enemy base and when units move to engage him have him cast blizzard on himself)? In Total Annihilation you have sniper kbots which, being able to cloak, can be sent in to eliminate the enemy commander (or simply to target him for long rang artillery, both strategies usually ending up with the loss of the sniper). Playing earth 2150 I have been subject to numerous suicide attacks by bombers who will fly into my base and (maybe) destroy a unit or building, before being taken out. If you have ever plaid homeworld cataclysm (and I donÔÇÖt advise it btw, itÔÇÖs not all that great a game) youÔÇÖll be familiar with mimics and mimic corvettes, which use cloaking technology to disguise themselves as enemy units and then kamikaze. ThatÔÇÖs more suicide bombers (in fact, there half crazed suicide bombers who are out for revenge). I could go on and on (including a few nasty ways I have backstabbed my cousin, but I shanÔÇÖt get into that), but dirty and underhanded tactics are inherent in most any RTS game, and some of these tactics will be considered terrorist. The only new thing here is that they happen to be Arabs, and it happens to be one of there primary strategies.

If there going to do something like this they might as well do a good job of it. Bleh! Tasteless and tacky!

Thank you darling for adequately responding to the single joke in my post while ignoring the rest of it, your interest in a though out debate is inspiring to us all. quote: If anyone is curious go to a search engine and type anti globalization or anti corporation....good luck there were thousands of responses..... Did. Very interesting, but Im not sure if a see a problem (above and beyond the environment, which is moderately important). Everyone seams to be going on about human rights violations in foreign countries, but how is this a problem? Its not like we have to worry about rights violations in the US, we have already been through that stage of economic development, and if some third world countries are being exploited, well, thats hardly my problem (besides, there is something to be said for low cost consumer goods). quote: So I ask the esteemed Ms. Rand wanna be. fantasy or unreported reality? Well darling, Im not sure that I get the Ms. Rand reference (though Im assuming that its a compliment intended as an insult, like so many of your comments about me are), and Im not sure what youre asking (is what fantasy or unreported reality?). quote: I am not a socialist nor am I stupid....the free market is a live fire zone....but corporate media won't talk about it much....unless you watch the business shows and see how much they discuss the oil in Iraq and various other things..... I knew you werent stupid darling, and I know the free market is risky, but Im not sure if I get your point. Your writing style is so very disjointed (and often vague) that I often find myself having to puzzle out what youre talking about, or what your point is. Not a good writing strategy.

Yea, and if it has good graphics it would probably sell too

quote: A lot of the Nato states are socialist...even we are to some extent....but it's backwards....taxes go into corporate welfare schemes and the politicians and generals end up as business men. Ok darling, youÔÇÖve lost me, why is it bad for politicians and generals to end up business men? Seams perfectly reasonable to me, but go figure.

Well, IÔÇÖm currently a college student in America, and as I have only set foot out of my house once or twice in the last few weeks (the deck doesnÔÇÖt count) so I canÔÇÖt say our experiences are all that similar. Oh well, there is something to be said for taking courses online... I get to sleep at weird hours and read a lot [ 10-18-2002, 05:59 AM: Message edited by: Dragon Lady ]

Telemarketers, how horrid whats really bad though is when they call while Im sleeping grrrr I dont know what to say about the script though, rather nifty, but who knows how effective. I have a half sister who worked as a telemarketer for a while, and when someone was especially irritating she would mark them as wanting more information so they would get called again.

I agree, we need to invade Canada. Besides, it would be really easy, no military to speak of and the citizens are unarmed, so itÔÇÖs not like there would be a downside.

ItÔÇÖs not all that funny truth be told. Of course, maybe some of the humor comes from looking at it from a liberal point of view, I donÔÇÖt know.

LMAO!! That is too rich, truly.

No, itÔÇÖll probably be ÔÇ£humans crash on marsÔÇØ

Well, I prefer metric myself. I still use the english system a lot, but thatÔÇÖs primarily because everyone else does. Metric is considerably easier, and not just because you donÔÇÖt have to deal with a bunch of arcane units. ItÔÇÖs conversion, itÔÇÖs so easy to convert between different units (and please, donÔÇÖt tell me its just as easy to figure out how many inches in a mile as centimeters in a kilometer), not to mention there is non of that nonsense about varying distances. Never mind what Soback says about a mile being 6,000ft, that isnÔÇÖt the case, a mile (depending on what country youÔÇÖre in) can very between a little over a thousand feet to nearly 12 thousand feet, and never once cone to an easy measure like 6,000. In the good old USA a mile happens to be 5280ft, an absolutely horrific number to do much of anything with. quote: Its bad enough that I use a mix of metric and English units in my games. Yea, I was wondering about that myself. Oh well, I donÔÇÖt do much planet side anyway, so I donÔÇÖt often have to look at that horrible altimeter

Lotharr, darling, it sounds like your getting a wee bit too caught up in what weÔÇÖre all arguing about. I donÔÇÖt want to come off as rude, but you should take a break from the forum for a few days, youÔÇÖll be better for it when you come back.

quote: Less reproduction=less labor for productivity which means less food and lower quality of life, especially when combined with the more limited gene pool due to less reproduction, which means less scientific advancements and the possible extinction of the human race due to traits that need to be reproduced dying out due to lack of reproduction. There would be less people to feed, so that point is moot. As to the gene pool, that is utter nonsense, genetic evolution isnÔÇÖt how we solve our problems and it hasnÔÇÖt been in a great many years. As for science slowing down, sure, inconvenient, but nothing compared to overpopulation. quote: Also, if nature intended for a population growth decrease, it would occur naturally. If nature intended? Darling, nature is non-sentient and intends nothing. I might argue that if nature had intended us to fly we would have wings, and thereby consider airplanes to be unacceptable. quote: What your advocating is the same as destroying animals and organisms in ecosystems and assuming everything will turn out allright and there won't be a ripple effect. You canÔÇÖt really believe this. Were not talking about killing off an endangered species, but a measured reduction in the population of an extremely successful and over populated species. I mean, sure, we could wait for nature to take care of it, with the way we are ruining our ecosystem it shanÔÇÖt take all that long, but we might as well take care of it ourselves. quote: Yes, pacifying a population CAN benefit those in control. It's not common sense, however, and not even by any stretch of logic, benefitting the people in charge of the Churches by telling their congregations not to murder, steal, cheat, lie, commit adultery, etc. I donÔÇÖt believe this, I really donÔÇÖt. There are a lot of reasons for someone to want to control the population, some do it because they think they can help, some do it because they enjoy it, some do it because itÔÇÖs what they were taught to do, some do it for money and power, and some probably do it for other reasons. In the past the church was a rival for the state in terms of controlling the people, and often they were linked (establishmentarianism, if you like long words). My point is that the original function of the church was to control people, the same as the state, but in modern times direct control of the people has been left to the state, and the church mostly exists to provide a sense of meaning in peopleÔÇÖs lives, and to act as an extra bulwark of morality. quote: There's no BENEFIT for the Church for doing that. Money, power, influence, et cetera. The church is a lot less powerful then it was a couple of hundred years ago, but it still has a lot of money and power. Besides, ask yourself for a moment how it benefits the government to control the people? Most of the same reasons apply to the church, or at least did. quote: Also, the number of atheists/agnostics that exist also prove that there's no net benefit to the "control" exerted by religion since there is no clear dichotomy between the groups in terms of reactions toward governments/those in power. YouÔÇÖve lost me; this doesnÔÇÖt seam to make any sense. quote: If your in a totally isolated building from the time your born with no windows, just because you can't see the ground that the building is on doesn't mean that the ground doesn't exist. You can infer from the fact that everything in the building is always supported by something under it, that there is a very good chance that there has to be something under the building supporting it. Yea, but you could also be on a spacecraft accelerating at a constant rate of 1G, or on a space born centrifuge that generated gravity. Or hell, you could be in an alien laboratory with gravity plating, but feel free to assume itÔÇÖs the ground if it makes you feel good. quote: My analogy doesn't apply in 100% of cases, but it shows that just because you can't PROVE God with science, doesn't mean that He doesn't exist or is outside of science. But it doesnÔÇÖt mean he exists outside of science either, but I will get to this later. quote: Women's lib has gone too far. I find parts of it really hypocritical now too. "Equal rights", but women don't have to register for the draft. Talk about a double standard. Either they are equal and get drafted, or they aren't and they don't. First of all darling, IÔÇÖm not even going to get in an argument about whether women are equal to men, that is a waste of time, but it is my belief that that men and women are approximately equal, with no real way of telling which is better, if indeed one is. Women and men should have the same legal rights, except where there is a point for them not to (such as the draft, and donÔÇÖt even try to tell me that the average woman can be just as good a soldier as the average man). I was referring to the cultural changes that I donÔÇÖt like. quote: I beleive most of what is "nautral" is moral, but a lot of what is "natural" could easily be considered that because of societal influences, so there's always doubt on a pure "nautral" society. So what youÔÇÖre saying is that you believe that natural is moral, except when you donÔÇÖt want to. Nice. quote: Point taken. I think that my argument only applies to immoral/moral activities, since it's true that if EVERYONE had a "pleasure first" view of society, it would infringe on our liberties due to crime, or lack of humans to reproduce, etc. Ok, let me get this straight. If everyone doing something would be bad for society, then it its wrong (read: immoral), and if everyone doing something isnÔÇÖt bad for society then it is ok. But this standard only applies to things which are moral or immoral. That, darling, is circular reasoning. quote: Job choice though, is a choice under which society would balance itself out (not everyone could/would ever become a banker since then there would be no one banking. Everyone could become hedonistic and we'd have anarchy. Everyone could only have sodomy, and the race would die out) Yea, but everyone could be a bum. Is being a bum immoral now? What about choosing not to have children? IÔÇÖm sterile, so it isnÔÇÖt a problem for me, but what if someone didnÔÇÖt want to have a child? If everyone didnÔÇÖt want a child then our population would plummet (sure, there may be a few accidental births, but they would be put up for adoption, and never adopted because no one would want them). So it is not immoral to not want a child. And, for the US anyway, voting is another issue. If everyone decided not to vote then it would result in a political catastrophe (after all, there canÔÇÖt be an election with 0 votes), so not voting is immoral. But it gets worse, because if no one wanted to be a farmer, then we would have mass starvation, and therefore it is wrong to not want to be a farmer. But on the other hand, if everyone was a farmer, most people wouldnÔÇÖt be able to get enough land to properly farm, and thus would starve, so being a farer is immoral as well. This all seams ridiculous, especially my point about farmers, because your reasoning is ridiculous. Humans arenÔÇÖt supposed to all be the same, and it doesnÔÇÖt make any sense to try to change this. But there is another reason these horrible immoral activities (like sodomy) arenÔÇÖt bad, the same reason being a bum isnÔÇÖt bad, because not everyone wants to do them. I donÔÇÖt want to be a bum, or a farmer, or a banker (though the last isnÔÇÖt all that terrible), and neither do a lot of people, which is why society works. Society even needs ambitious (or perhaps even greedy, though I think that is just a matter of degree) people to prevent stagnation, or even degeneration. So, I have a new filter to determine if something is wrong: If most of society doing it would be catastrophically bad, if most of society would do it if unhindered by morals, and if there is no advantage to some people doing it, then and only then can it be considered wrong because of itÔÇÖs negative impact on society. quote: If you can't disprove it you can't consider it a lie. So if I were to claim that IÔÇÖm an all powerful immortal who is choosing to remain unknown would you believe me (after all, if IÔÇÖm all powerful and thus outside of science there would be no way to disprove me)? quote: Well, something outside of science had to have created whatever created whatever created whatever created what we consider matter today, at least as empirically proven by science. I will concede the point that the CP is outside of modern science, but there is no way to determine if this phenomenon is truly outside of science, or simply incomprehensible by modern standards (after all, wouldnÔÇÖt quantum theory be incomprehensible by ancient Greek standards). quote: Ok, the prevailing argument used to be that the universe exists, so it always has and always will exist since there's no evidence proving otherwise. Nonsense, I never said such a fool thing, and IÔÇÖm getting tired of having you put words in my mouth. I said that there is no way to determine if the universe has always existed or not, or what happened, and therefore we can only guess. I said this repeated times, and if you go back to the last page of posts you can probably find it in some manner or another in most of them. quote: If you accept that a higher power existed, there's no reason to assume that He hasn't always and will always exist since there's isn't evidence proving otherwise. Sure darling, everything is true until proven false, I believe you, honest. quote: If that entity is outside of science (which it has to be), there's even LESS reason to even assume that the concept of death/non-existance would even exist in relation to that entity. There is neather reason to believe it still exists, nor reason to believe it no longer exists, therefore the only two possibilities are to make agues with no basis in fact, or to admit not to know. I prefer the latter option. (I covered the outside of science argument earlier, both in this post and in previous ones). quote: BTW, speaking of making fools of yourself, you don't seem to know how to spell "KNOW". Darling, that is pathetically low, and completely irrelevant. If I wanted to, I could point out all of your spelling errors, and trust me, there are more then a few, but IÔÇÖm polite and I understand that just because you happen to misspell (or, as in this case, mistype) a word doesnÔÇÖt reduce the credibility of your arguments. Quibbling like this does. quote: We had updated information on the Atom Bomb through senses. We don't have any updated information on God/higher power, unless you accept religious texts. As I said at the end of the line you were responding to, your right, we don't KNOW. Thank you. quote: At least I have the beliefs of a few billion people+history supporting my scientifically unfounded assertion. You, on the other hand, have nothing disproving it except personal doubt. Yep, and how many billion supporting other wrong assertions? If popular (or even worse, historical) belief was a valid way to measure truth or falseness of something then science would have ground to a halt ere it ever got off the ground. I, on the other hand, have a logically sound sense of doubt, which, while not backed by a history of fools, is still something. quote: I'm not sure if I said it earlier, but i'm using "God" in exchange for "the entity" since it's a shorter word and it falls under my beliefs. Believe it or not darling, how you refer to something has a lot to do with how you understand it. If I were to refer to the CP (which, by the way, is even shorting then typing god, so that argument is ever so much nonsense) as a pebble, it would imply a series of untrue of assumptions (at least, we assume they are probably untrue, I guess the CP could have been small, smooth, hard, and made of stone). Similarly, by calling the CP god you imply that it is what most people (yourself included) consider to be god. This is not the case (or at least, if it is, there is absolutely no way to tell), and thus you are referring to it inaccurately. quote: YouÔÇÖre still operating under the presumption that God needed science and was part of it/subject to it. Energy is a concept under science, and if energy existed, what caused that energy to exist? It couldn't be anything within science, and if it was, something had to have created that. Very true, but you are still operating under the assumption (at least in part) that the CP is the Christian god, which is even less likely then it being explainable by science. quote: Yes, and i've admitted that it is possible that it's not sentient, and it's possible that it's not a single entity, and it's possible that it's not aware of everything it created. There's no reason to assume all of those things, especially with all of the miracles and strong following of religions currently in the world. First of all, you have yet to make a strong tie between the CP and religion, though I will make one connection myself: that most religions contain a mythos that explains creation. However, this connection is tenuous at best as there is no reason to believe that the cultures creating these myths had any more understanding of the CP then we do, and were probably just indulging in baseless assumptions. As for whether or not its sentient, well, there is no reason to believe it is, and no reason to believe it isnÔÇÖt, and, once more, the only options are to make a baseless guess (just like people have been doing since the down of man) or to admit that you donÔÇÖt know. And once more, I choose the latter. quote: Regardless of the specifics, at the point of acknowledging the higher entity, it's a much better idea to study and examine in great detail many different religious beliefs and sects and see if you believe in one or not, instead of taking the path of least resistance and writing off God/the entity as "Existed, doesn't exist any more, I don't need to worry about it". Actually darling, my reasoning goes as follows: -The CP is a complete unknown (except that it created the universe in some manner or another). -There is no way to determine anything about the CP because there is no evidence about it. -Therefore it is illogical to make completely blind guesses about it. -Therefore there is no way to determine what, if anything, is necessary to do to get on the CPÔÇÖs good side (if such a thing is even possible), or if there is any reason to (after all, we havenÔÇÖt discussed whether there is an afterlife, which I happen to doubt). -Therefore it is a waste of time to try to do what is best to get on the good side of the CP. -Therefore I may as well do what I want to, itÔÇÖs as likely as anything else to be the right thing as far as the --CP is concerned, and definitely is the right thing for me. Oh, and as to your advice to choose a religion, any religion, you do know you were just suggesting that I become a Satin worshiper, right? quote: That's taking a huge risk and is just being lazy. Truth doesn't just come to you, you need to seek it out... And did you seek out the truth when you decided to be Christian? quote: We know the entity exists/existed and created. Now it's just a matter of figuring out the specifics, which we don't know about, but it'd be insane to automatically discount it and assume that he/she/it is just like you and is subject to science. And how do you go about figuring out the specifics? (IÔÇÖm ignoring the second half of that as I never clamed that it was anything like us, nor necessitated that it was governed by science). quote: Scientists typically admit if it will ever be possible to do something, I don't think any claim that they will ever be able to prove or disprove the existance of God, let alone the SPECIFICS of God. No, they donÔÇÖt, but then were not talking about god now, were talking about a phenomenon that may or may not be outside of science. quote: We can prove the truth vs gremlins, we can't prove the specifics of God or miracles, etc. How do you disprove gremlins? quote: Just because a connection can't be proven doesn't mean that it isn't there. Is this the ÔÇ£all things are true until proven falseÔÇØ logic again? Of course there may be a connection, but there is no reason to believe in one without evidence. quote: Nah, i'm just saying that humans are obviously far above animals, and are not subject the simple concept of "Morality=survival=civilizations=survival". Ok, so my reasoning on the evolutionary reason to develop morality is invalid because we are some 3% different from monkeys? Nonsense. quote: There's another moral development theory for women, but I really didn't pay much attention to it and it didn't apply to many women I know. It had 3 levels and progressed from focus on self, to focus on others, to sacrificing one's self for the good of others. Well, IÔÇÖm at level one then, and perfectly inclined to stay there. quote: But the intent of control doesn't really exist since there's no benefit to the Church from it. Addressed this earlier quote: Again, i'm sorry, but I thought that I already articulated that I was using the term "God" for the "phenomenon". Addressed this earlier quote: The similarity is enough to recognize that there has, at some point, been a being/entity MUCH, MUCH, MUCH greater/powerful than humanity, and that it's existance shouldn't immediately be discounted just because science can't show it through a laboratory experiment. I have already addressed the similarity, both are attributed with creation of the universe, which may or may not imply power/greatness for the PC. Besides, a lot of things canÔÇÖt be measured in laboratories but can still be measured. When is the last time you heard about a hurricane, or an interstellar body studied in a laboratory? quote: And it IS a matter of faith, unless your consciously deciding that since you don't know the speicfics of the entity, you have no desire to know, and thus will never try to know, and will never know the answer or come to a probable conclusion that you BELIEVE (faith) about the answer. I'm not saying that Christianity is the only religion that makes any sense, i'm just saying that it shouldn't be immediately discounted because "you don't know". Agnostics would disagree, but the truth of the matter is that IÔÇÖm not agnostic because agnostics believe that the CP (or higher power, or whatever they call it) is unknowable as well as unknown. I make no assumptions about what is knowable. Furthermore, my interest in the CP is purely academic as I have no driving need to know how the universe came into being. quote: 1. Again, I said I was using God interchangably. 2. You implied through your last post that it was outside of science. 3. If it isn't outside of science, then something outside of science had to have created it, due to all of those laws that you keep mentioning, and the underlying factor of cause-effect. Sure, you can SAY that the universe always existed, but every other entity in science needed a cause, there's *NO* logical reason to assume that the creation of the universe was any different. 1. Covered earlier 2. Untrue, I explicitly stated that there is no way of determining either way. 3. Congratulations, you have (once again) proven that it is outside of modern science, and that is all. quote: My bad. Deism does refer to a God, but if you replace "God" with "creation phenomenon", it would probably be very close to what your advocating, since, if I remember correctly, Deism maintained that God created the universe then went bye-bye, never to effect/bother us again. Not exactly, IÔÇÖm closer to agnostic (and even closer to being a scientific materialist), but then I have just finished explaining this, so I shanÔÇÖt boar you with a repetition.

Ok, I said your posts were getting shallower, but isnÔÇÖt this taking it overboard?

quote: My only problem is the idea that non-parents have to pay for the children of parents. Why should I pay for the baby factory on welfare that wants to send her 13 kids to school? Privatize education and make the parents pay the costs, don't hand them vouchers at the expense of taxpayers. Thirteen children? Women actually do this to themselves for money? ThatÔÇÖs just disgusting. quote: Tough. Life ain't fair. Ok, so your objection to nepotism is that it isnÔÇÖt fair (thatÔÇÖs the only objection I have ever herd anyway), yet you dismiss the flaws in your plan to get rid of nepotism by saying ÔÇ£Tough. Life ainÔÇÖt fairÔÇØ. I donÔÇÖt suppose it would be too much to ask for Lothar to yell at you about hypocrisy? I donÔÇÖt have any ground to stand on in that area. quote: Dumbest thing I have ever heard. I refuse to believe that. quote: The government is not going to let go one one red cent it has already wrangled out of the populace. Good, then we can expect welfare to be permanently discontinued. quote: Who sets the standards? The States do. quote: Unfortunately they call it the help of those who don't ÔǪ..who use compassion as a tool...DL and Litvyak...who are basically laissez-faire throwbacks without a ounce of morality to share between them I should hope not, if Litvyak has any compassion he has to keep it, I donÔÇÖt want any ÔÇ£sharedÔÇØ with me. As for being a throwback, well darling, I always have had rather dated ideals, at least about some things, but IÔÇÖm hardly a throwback. quote:....who were probably neglected in their youth or something.... Untrue. I donÔÇÖt know about Litvyak, but I never suffered any neglect as a child. A little isolated, be not neglected. quote: This is a mini reality of the mainstream Republican position.... The majority of whom are honest, hardworking Americans who have mistakenly allied themselves with people (biologically speaking) who would use these people's traditionalist ideals of the free market, Christian compassion, and minimized government to further their own selfish goals at the expense of everything else...from their own supporters, to this nations moral supremacy (that we earned in blood)...to possibly the world...it is sad to see... Nice dichotomy, we have the good-but-misguided republicans and the evil-money-grubbing-parasite republicans. Now all we need is a few sentences on the wise-and-noble democrats and we will have the beginnings of the plot for a rather shallow novel. Gag me with a spoon. I donÔÇÖt see the world in such a one dimensionally manner, and I should hope that neither do you. Your writing has been getting rather shallow of late, with lots of accusations and claims, but not much support (lots of stilted pauses too, but thatÔÇÖs another issue entirely). quote: Blood for oil is the call....if you listen close you can hear it..... This is to be a bit much darling, even for you (though it makes my previous point nicely). quote: ÔÇ£If to-day [the president] should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him,--ÔÇÿI see no probability of the British invading usÔÇÖ; but he will say to you, ÔÇÿBe silent: I see it, if you don't.ÔÇÖÔÇØ ÔÇô Abraham Lincoln Oh, yea, I almost forgot about the ill-fitting quotes that are supposed to be self-explanatory, my apologies. [ 10-15-2002, 01:21 AM: Message edited by: Dragon Lady ]

Yea, I had forgotten about vouchers myself, but I imagine they would work swimmingly.

lol

quote: Oh well... apparantly most poeple don't have taste Very true darling, very true. quote: quote: Working Americans who invest in our and our country's future are rooked by slick snake oil salesmen who levrage our childrens future by raiding the companies they have driven in the ground. Nobody's pissed about this? Not really... nope. Would anyone thing too badly if I agreed oh well, I agree. quote: I don't know... I have a hammer a few screw drivers and a socket set and I still agree with attacking Iraq. Well I dont even have a hammer (just a snazzy screw driver and a couple of exacto-knives). quote: Really, school children these days are more interested in drugs and shooting each other than education so why be concerned about it? Well, putting tanks and FBI personnel outside the schools might work quote: I prefer going to war before the hat drops, personally. Yea, get the drop on them so to speek War is good for a lot of things, and not just self defense or protecting our interests around the world. quote: quote: I only hope you are the right age to go over and pull you own weight instead of having someone else do your fighting for you. I'm 24 so I'm the perfect age to go over should I be needed. Damn, but I love being a woman [ 10-14-2002, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: Dragon Lady ]

Happy Birthday

quote: The idea that we will attack if we think, one day, maybe, you may be a threat is the dumbest thing Ive heard. Nonsense, it is an excellent strategy. After all, if threatening the US (or appearing to do so) is unilaterally bad for a countries health, then it wont happen too much now will it? Not very nice, but effective, and thats what counts.

quote: AHH!! This is going to be long. Maybe God will be nice and Armageddon will happen by the time I finish this so I don't need to type for hours. Well I wish he would get on with it then, then maybe I wont have to reply to all of this. quote: I'm saying that it's reentrtenching an oppress patriarchal system when it occurs. I'd expect women to be more worried about that than men. Sorry darling not worried. Perhaps Im just a little antiquated in some of my reasoning, but I have no problems with the current system. Actually, in some ways I think that womans lib has damaged a rather nice part of our culture. quote: People can easily be trained, non painfully, through experience. Yes darling, but it isnt as much fun electric dog collars mmmmm... quote: That's why you should be more careful before you get married, and yes, there are marriages with no premarital sex and they tend to stay intact a lot longer than those with premarital sex. Yep, I mean, its easy to tell if someone is going to become a grouchy old fart. quote: Ok, I still find it unnatural and pointless, but your right on a totally utilitarian level that some people do it for a purpose. My objection to it is mainly a religious one, specifically where God destroyed a city full of Sodomites. A city full of sodomites eh? Nonsense, there has never been any city whose population was primarily gay men, it just isnt feasible. quote: My reason for not doing it however, is I have no desire at all for it, and I find it unnatural and disgusting. Tell me darling, are you familiar with Social Darwinism? Because if you believe that everything that is natural is moral then it should be just your thing. quote: Depends if it's hurting society or not. Taken to the extreme of everyone doing it, it would destroy society rather easily (lack of reproduction). You can't assume that it's not bad for society just because one instance isn't bad. Oh dear, darling I just had the most horrific thought. Our civilization is on the brink of destruction, there is no hope, we are all doomed! You see, we cannot support a society comprised entirely of bankers. Thats right, we must outlaw bankers, for if we allow bankers then everyone could become a banker, and we would all starve to death. But it gets worse then this, because its not just bankers, its everyone. We must outlaw carpenters, for what would happen if everyone decided to be a carpenter, and even worse, bums. Bums should be imprisoned, for what would our society be like if everyone decided to descend into a state of apathetic lethargy? Were all going to die AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! Paranoid schizophrenic? Who me? quote: Christianity, applied to everyone, doesn't HARM individuals, nor does it harm society. I dont know, I kind of consider spreading mass lies to be intellectual harm, but hey, maybe thats just me. quote: Ticks carry lyme disease, they don't die from it. HIV is probably in other species, just not dying from it. Actually, I heard it was a mutation of a virus in monkey blood which was used for polio vaccine. Lets all apologies to those nice people in Africa who we vaccinated. Its not our fault it mutated and they got the bad batch. quote: We know that God (higher power, whatever you want to call it) existed and God creates. Actually, we dont, creation implies something out of nothing, and we do not know if this was indeed the case. quote: When you accept the existance of God, you also accept the possibility that miracles could be from God, which would increase the chance of Him existing. Yep, and I might just spontaneously combust tomorrow. No really, I might. quote: Also, we don't have any reason to believe that God stopped existing in the way He did when He created the universe. WE DONT KOW! How many times do I have to say this? There is no accurate way to discern either way, but be my guest, make a guess about something you know absolutely and completely nothing about, something that you have repeated again and again is not bound by known scientific principles. Please, I enjoy watching you make a fool out of yourself. quote: My reason tells me that someone that powerful wouldn't just stop existing, but your right, we can't be sure. Bah! Your reason tells you nothing, it is your faith that youre hearing. Reason will tell you that the blast of an atom bomb is incredibly powerful, so it stands to reason the blast should still exist today in the same form as it did when Hiroshima was barbequed. Complete nonsense. quote: True, although all monotheistic religions on this planet maintain He was. Irrelevant. Until a few hundred years ago everyone knew the world was flat, but everyone has proven time and time again an incredible ability to be utterly wrong. You will never convince anyone but the most pathetic socialite that just because most people believe something then it must be true. quote: Yes, it is virtually impossible to even make hypotheses about any existance before God (the higher power). Please darling, you are making an error in assumeing Im talking about god, Im not, god is the image portrayed by the Christian chuche, a fairly well known and at least vaugly understood mythological character. Im talking about the completely unknown phenomena that your reasoning actually supports, the difference is so vast that the two arent even comparable. Referring to this phenomenon as God implies all of the theological nonsense that various religious crazies and would be dictators have tacked on to an already convoluted idea. quote: That sort of falls under your first point, but yes, we don't know if that power still exists, although at the point you recognize a higher power that's outside of science, it's highly doubtful that the being is restrained to any sort of tangible/scientific conditions to act/create. Nonsense, get glasses. I stated only that we dont know if it will ever be explained by human science, and I never one even suggested that I knew for certain if it is outside science, should such a thing even be possible. Furthermore, conversion of energy (power as you put it) into matter is exactly that, a conversion, and it is perfectly possible that all of this phenomenons energy was used up. If, on the other hand, you state that it needs neither energy nor matter to create, then there is no reason to believe it has any power at all, seeing as it needs none. quote: I'd assume a being powerful enough to create the universe would be superior to us in intellect/knowledge, after all, He CREATED the universe. The best we've done is created nuclear weapons and skyscrapers. Nonsense, I have already covered the point that it need not be sentient, nor a single entity, nor (should this even be the case) aware of everything it created. quote: Sure, but there's no reason to assume multiple entities, or entitites over the rest of the course of reality, especially since we only know about one universe. Of course not, there is no reason to assume anything, but that hasnt stopped you. Im simply saying that WE KNOW NOTHING. Nada, zip, zilch. Guessing is preposterous as we have no way of determining of were right. quote: It seems impossible with our current understanding of Science that any creator would ever be able to be explained by us. Ok, let me get this straight. We cannot explain this unknown phenomena, therefore we never will. This is optimism at its finest. quote: Yes, but it also can be used to explain a lot, and a lot can be attributed to it. Yea, and I can explain anything with anything else, but that doesnt mean its the case. God (not the phenomenon, which is most certainly not god in the Christian sense) has been traditionally used to explain everything unknown, so I can understand why you would be inclined to try to do the same with this phenomenon, but if we are to be logical about this then we have to admit that there is no real way for us to prove a connection there is no reason to believe a connection exists. Its like explaining mechanical problems on gremlins. Amusing, but of no real value. quote: Good, this is evolving. Isnt it though? I hate arguing with people who never give an inch, its utterly pointless. quote: So why aren't we going around doing whatever we want? Why do humans/civilizations have moral codes if it's not for some repect/fear for/of a higher power? Covered this a half dozen times at the least, both in this thread and in previous ones. quote: Also, can monkeys contemplate God, religious, morality, motivations of people, etc? You mean to say that were better then monkeys so there must be a god, oh please. quote: It's a theory of progressive moral development, and has 6 levels or stages, and if i remember correctly, the first two levels are based in personal pleasure/gain, and punishment vs affirmation (aka, you don't do stuff because it'd be personally harmful to you, you do what you get away with. I won't kill because I might get killed.), the second two are based on an ordered society and acceptance by society (you do or don't do stuff because of cultural norms and the law. I don't kill someone because it's the law.), the last two are for ultimate moral goods and higher ideals (I fight in this war for freedom from oppression. I don't kill because it infringes on rights, etc). Well, I have the first two anyway quote: But the whole concept undermines an moral/ordered society, when the entire point of long term relationships is for sex with multiple people with no firm commitment to anyone. Oh, Im sorry; you should have simply told me that you didnt understand. I was talking about having multiple long term, committed relationships. Clearly you didnt know what I was talking about, so I can forgive you error of reasoning. quote: I'm going to explain this in regards to Catholic/Christian theology, since it's the only basis I have to work with AND because it's impossible to KNOW for a FACT through EVIDENCE what God intended. Then there is no way to determine that he intentionally destroyed the city full of sodimites, and thus no reason to believe there is anything wrong with sodomy. quote: To put it brief, if someone goes into the womb and cut's off a baby's arm while it is developing, God didn't create it that way, just like if biology makes someone homosexual, GOD didn't make it that way. Try again darling, there is a difference between a developmental error and biological sabotage. quote: Just because it's a popular belief system, and it's a HELPFUL belief system (utilitarian level), and a LOT of people follow it, doesn't mean that it's controlling. Yep, but the reason it is so utilitarian is because its function is to control people. quote: Anyway, at the point you recognize there is a Higher Power/God, it comes down to an issue of what you believe in, what your faith is. First of all, draw no comparison between my unknown phenomenon and your mythological figure, for surly there is no valid comparison to be drawn. The only similarity is that both are attributed for causing the chain reaction that ended in the universe being how it is, nothing more. Furthermore, it is not a matter of faith, simply one of nomenclature. You didnt like the phrase I DONT HAVE A CLUE, so I made up a theory that basically said I dont have a clue. quote: Pascal's wager. Yea, that sounds like Pascal. quote: Nope, I'm assuming there's plenty of logical minded people that could make such a determination. Of course, I wouldn't mind being the one... it would actually be rather fun. Yea, I agree we could take bribes too quote: Sure, there still may be reproduction, but there could be a huge population loss. Yahoo! Lets dance! A population loss, darling that is a wonderful idea! quote: If it's the 21st century, they get enough to live (and the people donating the money know where it's going), and most money goes to poor/needy, etc. It's not some secret and corrupt organization, people who give money know where it's going. So preachers are basically bums who live off of handouts? Nice. quote: Every effect has a cause, and science can't be true unless the ultimate cause (a higher power) is outside of science. If you don't accept it, fine, but Dragon Lady's arguments about not knowing the specifics of God are a lot more valid (and still allow the potential for an "immoral" (under christian morality) life) than rejecting the concept of cause-effect. Nonsense, I never necessitated that this phenomenon was outside of science, and I have never claimed that it was god or comparable in any way. If you put any more words in my mouth I think Im going to choke. quote: 2. You accept science and cause and effect and realize there had to have been an original cauase. Thus you admit the existance of a higher power, but can also maintain that there's no effect on our life now (deism). I think deism refers to a god, which I do not. Thus my position doesnt match up with this one. Furthermore, Im object to calling this pheomonon a higher power as this leads to the assumption that it must be like what is conventionally known as a higher power, and thus I will heretofore refer to it as the creation phenomenon, or the CP. quote: True, we exist... that makes a big difference. Besides, we can blow up a hell of a lot more cities then god ever was accredited with quote: I fail to see a population loss as a problem. My stance exactly. quote: Pacifying the population has enormous benefits to those in control. To give a detailed description of why, though it should be common sense, would take more time than I have right now. Absolutely correct again.