Y2HH

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 11, 2015 -> 01:47 PM) But then it is no longer your faith, it is as you described a corrupted version. Sorry, using your own example the church can't allow you to just walk away. The Catholic church is still responsible for you no matter what. Even if you leave to practice a corrupted version (or no version) you believe the church leaders and practitioners such as myself, should still have responsibility for you. So how can the church prevent you from committing a crime? You want the mainstream church to be responsible for anyone who claims to be part of that church, even those who leave to practice a corrupt version. That just doesn't make sense to me. This is more reductio ad absurdum/strawman, which is where every religious argument ends up...so I'm not surprised. By your rational, nobody should have to take responsibility for anything, ever, be it religious or otherwise. If you can't see the problem with that line of thinking, it shows exactly what Reddy is talking about. You excuse yourself, and everyone else about everything, so being apathetic to any given situation absolves you (or the group in question) of ALL responsibility. Maybe that's the f***ing problem, it's simply magnified when it comes to religion because it's not a law of the universe...it's something man invented. We HAVE to deal with nature/science, it's a reality of being a carbon based life form, living in a universe dictated by the laws of science/physics. We don't, however, have to deal with religion because it's something man invented thousands of years ago (or 50 years ago in the case of Scientology), but we do have to put up with it because of reasons.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 11, 2015 -> 01:52 PM) Point 1: if your argument is that it's too difficult to regulate them, then let's ban them. f*** it, they kill tens of thousands of people per year. Half a million dead people in 15 years is a bigger deal than people being unable to hunt. 2. You want a gun? You have a certificate saying you passed a background check. Put it in families too, these things are tools for killing. We should act like it. Try to give your child a car, doesn't the government have to know about it? 3: 20% of guns used in crimes in Chicago are purchased at 4 stores. 4. Most stores in the area on average have 3 guns tracked to crimes in Chicago over a 4 year period. One store had 1516. One single store sold guns used in one thousand, five hundred, sixteen crimes in Chicago in 4 years. If 1516 people living next to any kind of factory got cancer over a 4 year period when a normal area saw 3, we'd do something about that. We'd declare, accurately, that factory to be killing people. There are plenty of things that kill far more people and we don't ban those...so...where do you draw the line? Sterilize society so much that life is boring and nobody wants to live it?

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 11, 2015 -> 01:24 PM) We all "just accept" something, that's part of faith. Even science in this debate requires you to accept something. Usually we believe for something to be scientific fact we should be able to recreate it in an experiment, independent of anyone else. We can't do that with the origin of life. There is a theory that a never to be duplicated event happened on this planet and life began. I find that believable. If we believe that our universe has boundaries, that it doesn't go on for eternity, we accept that there is something on the other side. Is it bigger, smaller, the same? Does it have the same rules of physics? Carbon based life? Water? Gravity? We will probably never know. People that never ponder questions like this, are "just accepting" a scientific theory which also cannot be proven. I find religion as is practiced here, to have value in my life. Others do not. I believe in equality for both groups. This argument stems from whether I should have some additional responsibility to stop everyone who may commit a crime and do that in a religion's name. That is not equality. That is one group of people, naively believing that everyone in a church thinks and acts the same. That a religious leader has complete control over anyone in the world who may say they belong to that religion. Based on the comments here, if you committed some heinous crime and claim you did it because you were Catholic, the church automatically becomes responsible for your actions. I believe you are responsible for your actions. Everyone should denounce those actions. And with all the crime in the world today, some just don't have twenty-four hours a day to denounce all crimes. Instead, as a Catholic and Christian I practice my beliefs and speak out on issues that are important to me. If they aren't the same ones that you care about, why am I wrong? I think it's a bit more complicated than this, but as a whole I'd say I agree with a lot of what you said here about faith, religion and science. However, I think Islam has a bit of a unique problem in the modern world. I don't think random acts of violence should be attributed to the whole...but when your religion [islam] actually has sects that have buildings/places/countries where they teach a corrupted version of your faith, THEN I believe you, as a Muslim, absolutely have the responsibility to denounce that "version" at every turn, and the leadership of said religion, whoever they may be, must do so on a daily basis...INCLUDING turning them in to authorities, instead of harboring them (which a LOT of those Muslim countries are doing). They know who they are, they know WHERE they are, and they hide them/harbor them, and in some instances, these are LEADERS of that faith. The Catholics have their own modern issue with protecting child molesting priests by trying to cover it up...and it's ONE of the many reasons I distanced myself from said religion...the fact that goes on, and the fact that it's been shown the LEADERSHIP has helped cover it up in some instances means I needed to reevaluate and walk away.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 11, 2015 -> 12:53 PM) Which Catholics am I responsible for? Ones who were never baptized but their parents were Catholic and if asked will check off Catholic? The ones whose parents baptized them in the church and they have not been back, but check off Catholic if asked? The ones who registered once and haven't been to church in years and years? Catholics that only attend mass on Easter, Christmas, or when convenient? Catholics who attend most of the time? Those who attend all of the time? Those that agree with 75% of the doctrine but not all? Those that call themselves Catholic but have been kicked out? All Christians no matter what denomination? I need to know who to denounce. It seems by your rules as long as they say Catholic, it is my fault. Ok, to be serious and NOT play devils advocate...I grew up Catholic. Baptized, confession/communion, attended Catholic school, etc...and I know there is a part of me that still believes in something, but as I stated in a previous post, I've come to call my "God" the prime mover, the creator of the universe, whatever that is or was, be it a being, or an event. I don't pretend to what it is or was, either, but I believe in it, so that's my faith, and therefore, that's my "God". Many things made me fall out of favor with that religion [Catholicism], and the older I got the more I came to despise some of it's teachings, AND the being they tell us to praise throughout the Bible. And the same can be applied to any/all other 'written' religions. I have no issues with spirituality or faith, but I do have a problem with people following something created by men thousands of years ago and just 'accepting' it. Feel free to believe in something higher than us, or better than us, or that steers you in a way to better yourself and those around you ... but whatever that thing is, it's not what they wrote about in that book, or ANY of those books. In short, I can't tell you who to denounce...only you can. I, personally, denounce anyone that believes in written religions, but especially the insane that do so in the name of evil. Edit: I usually avoid discussions of religion because I know it's not going to be productive. To those that believe, no explanation is necessary. To those that don't believe, no explanation will do. I realize and recognize I fall into the latter camp, and therefore this discussion will end up going nowhere good.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 11, 2015 -> 12:52 PM) In that area, it's the same reason it has been for decades...it's a way to keep the heat off the oil-rich oligarchies and on something else. It's the west's fault, it's Israel's fault, its this other sect's fault that there are no jobs. And frankly, it works. The west gets their oil and the wealthy still have the money for it. Those are the 2 important things. The rest, the terrorism/killings, those are minor annoyances as long as there is still flowing oil. Sadly, you are probably right -- to a degree -- but anytime you involve religion in a conversation, it complicates things because invoking it means you aren't using reason. I have nothing against believing in something. Hell, I believe in something. I'm just not sure what. A prime mover maybe? What I don't believe in, or condone, is believing in some man made written bulls***, which is exactly what all of these "accepted" religions are. They are ALL as ridiculous as Scientology as far as I'm concerned. Edit: I originally said I have nothing against the religious...and I do to a point, so I reworded it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 11, 2015 -> 12:36 PM) I'd love to make guns harder to get! Thanks for finally agreeing that part of our problem is way too many guns in this country. Now let's start with some basics, basic background check for all sales, requirement that stores register their guns so that we know which ones are being lost/stolen/sold off the books and can recognize which stores are major suppliers for weapons used in crime and close them as nuisance businesses. I can get behind ALL of that. I'm not a gun person.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 11, 2015 -> 12:47 PM) But what you still won't do is stop and ask why these places spend their time and money teaching this ideology. Something needs to be done as long as it doesn't involve anyone having to stop filling up their gas tanks. That's too big of a sacrifice. I sure as hell ask why ANYONE teaches ANY made up bulls*** religion.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 11, 2015 -> 12:33 PM) Thank you. SPUN OFF OF IT. What does off of it mean to you? To me it means not on, not a part of, it is off not on. Hmm, why would they spin off of it? perhaps IT isn't preaching what they want? So you believe that 1.3 BILLION people on the planet, 23% of the world's population, are being taught weekly to kill non Muslims and to perpetrate this acts of terrorism? Wow, how do you sleep at night? And if churches are responsible for every act of their members, even ones that spin off, who is responsible for the non religious and what they do? Or do you get off without any responsibility? Where do the non religious learn to kill and commit acts of terrorism? How about everyone is expected to not look the other way and to denounce it? Why is that my responsibility and not your? At first it's a spinoff, but if it's allowed to exist and grow, a time will come where nobody will know where your version of that religion ends and the corrupted one begins. And while I don't know exact numbers, and I sure as hell don't think its 1.3 billion, I do know if you continue to let them teach that corrupted version of Islam, someday, it WILL be 1.3 million, or billion...give it enough time to let them continue teaching that bulls*** and see what happens. I don't care what they do, be it X, Y, or Z in the name of whatever made up bulls*** you want to call it, if a sub-section of people spring and begin teaching this kind of hate in countries/classrooms, SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE. You don't just ignore it and hope for the best. And it is EVERYONES responsibility, and all because you people insist on believing in fake floating men in the sky that tell you to be good, or tell you to be evil. They're not telling me anything...I'm good because I want to be...I don't need anyone to tell me to be.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 11, 2015 -> 11:48 AM) Allow me to try a different way. John Hinckley tried killing Reagan in the name of Jodie Foster. Any sane person understands that Jodie Foster didn't have anything to do with it, yet if he said he did it for Jesus Christ or Mohammed you want everyone of that faith and every church leader to condemn the attack?! It's the same s***. The people are crazy, the misinterpret a religion, use it as an excuse, whatever, that shouldn't taint the rest of the people in that church. Anymore than any other group. Boy Scouts, Elks, Masons, Democrats, Republicans, all have a shared set of beliefs, something that binds them, if someone says they are killing someone because of a group like that we all understand that isn't the case, they are just crazy. But if they say a religious group, BOOM! everyone on the group is wrong. Why can't we accept that crazy people do crazy s*** and try to justify it by many different means. Why the f*** an I responsible for something someone does just because they claim to believe the same thing I do, when in fact they do not? If some crazed individual falsely believes the Catholic faith requires him to kill abortion doctors, why am I responsible? You are taking a tiny minority of people and insulting the rest of us. These people who commit these crimes are bat s*** crazy and you want to lump me into that group?! Can you see why that is insulting? While they may claim to be Catholic and following Catholic doctrine, they are not. I don't share any of their criminal beliefs. But you want to tell me to find another life? Why? These people are f***ing crazy. You're responsible if you look away and never put a stop to it, or denounce it in a VERY loud, very official manner, repeatedly. Killing in the name of Islam isn't some fringe thing where a few guys get the wrong message carried out some heinous acts...they are literally TEACHING that s***, and certain countries around the world are KNOWN to harbor these "cells" where they're teaching/training/brainwashing people to think exactly that way. If the Catholic church had an evil faction spun off of it, and little cells of Catholic hate started popping up at random places of the world teaching that bulls***, the Vatican sure as hell has the responsibility to do something about it, and so does EVERY follower of that religion. And if you can't put a stop to it, then maybe you have to reevaluate your religion as a whole.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 11, 2015 -> 11:55 AM) Listen, a couple of young girls tried killing a friend because of their belief in slenderman. Again, we know that is crazy and there was something wrong with them. If they said they believed in Jesus, why would you think they were sane and the responsibility of the church? http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/slender-man-stabbing If it became a common occurrence, YES, that's exactly what he's saying. This isn't one or two nuts running around killing people. There is an ENTIRE sub-section of that religion that does this. If Ligue, since you brought up the example, suddenly had a devout following and on a weekly basis one of those morons stormed the field to beat up an umpire, YES, at that point I do believe the fans have a responsibility to put a stop to that s***, as well as the Sox brass. And if they refused to do anything about it, and stood around in apathy and watched it happen, I'd absolutely divorce myself from that team, and I'd no longer be a fan.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 11, 2015 -> 09:50 AM) Doesn't reducing the supply of guns do both? When something is cheap and plentiful, everyone can have one. You can't reduce the supply of something that already exists, in an area where they will continue to exist. So, you can speak in hypotheticals, accomplishing nothing, or in reality, and attempt to accomplish something in the process. This discussion requires everyone involved to play within the bounds of the rules, exactly like a game of baseball...there are rules, you can wish some of them didn't exist, but they do, so either make suggestions within those rules, or don't bother.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 10, 2015 -> 10:29 PM) I love us sometimes. The good book clinging religious around here don't.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 10, 2015 -> 08:33 PM) Then help me do something that takes guns out of the hands of people who get arrested multiple times and shoot young black kids while thinking they're being heroes. Show me that there's a difference. As soon as you help me take illegal guns out of the hands of people who get arrested multiple times and shoot young black kids for no reason whatsoever, while "keepin' it real" livin' the thug life, yo!

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 10, 2015 -> 08:50 PM) Science has created the worse imaginable ways of killing people. Bombs, chemical weapons, guns, diseases. Why aren't you condemning the evils of science on a daily f***ing basis? You should be demanding that the science leaders also condemn scientific discoveries to kill people. Or find another way of life. This is nothing more than reductio ad absurdum/strawman, and doesn't deserve further response.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 10, 2015 -> 07:05 PM) If he'd had a gun this time he'd have been fine because no one would have been able to file charges against him and he'd be able to be the hero he was last time. We already know he's a responsible gun owner. He's exactly the kind of person I think of when I think of a responsible gun owner. He's also a responsible wine bottle owner. And if that's what you think is a responsible gun owner that explains a lot about your preconceptions about people. You're better than this.

This thread has jumped the shark and is now accomplishing nothing. It's become a mindless stream of "I don't have the answer, or anything close to a suggestion, so here is the most politically correct thing I can say." I'm sure that'll solve the problem. If I was religious, which I'm not because science, but if I was, and things such as this seemed to be happening on a daily a basis in the name of my religion, I'd either leave it or I'd be speaking out against it on a daily f***ing basis, and demanding the leaders of said religion do the same. And if they refused, again, I'd have to do some soul searching to find a new way of life because f*** this and f*** them.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 10, 2015 -> 04:58 PM) Well, not the time he heroically killed that person. Too bad you weren't talking about that time.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 10, 2015 -> 12:57 PM) Did you mean to put that in green? I hope so, because his deadly weapon was a wine bottle.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 10, 2015 -> 08:46 AM) Man. Never thought I'd agree with Hannity, and I've been trying to give Islam the benefit of the doubt... I mean... I've got Muslim friends... but I just can't do it anymore. Radical Islam needs to be destroyed, and the non-radicals are refusing to speak out, and therefore are equally culpable in my mind. It's their responsibility to control and redifine their religion, but either they agree with the Islamists or they're cowards. And either way it's unacceptable. Ugh. I feel this way about ALL organized religion. At some point in time, whether in the past, present or future, some piece of those religions will commit terrible acts in the name of their god.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 10, 2015 -> 09:07 AM) I'm sorry but this is all kinds of bulls***. There are so many different sects of Christianity, and some of them are racist/prejudice/violent, it is not the fault of the rest of them for not controlling the bad ones. ...and those need to go, too. Don't point at bad example B to negate bad example A.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jan 9, 2015 -> 10:23 PM) Most recent firmware update for the airport extreme has IP issues, dont upgrade or roll it back. Certain websites cannot be accessed including some mobile applications. It also hangs and eats battery on your phone. Crazy bad I'm running v7.6.4, which is the latest available for my Extreme. Are you talking about the AC versions that are newer than this one?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 9, 2015 -> 11:19 AM) These would be correct. We agreed on something. I felt a great disturbance in the force.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 9, 2015 -> 10:48 AM) Are you saying that every media business should be required to print these cartoons? I think he's saying, in one way or another, that we -- as a society -- shouldn't tolerate them having to be afraid to print them if they choose to do so. And if he's not saying it, I am. We, as a people, and as a government shouldn't tolerate any publication having to be afraid to print this sort of thing, because some wackados may not like it. Because if it's not this they're opportunistically offended by, it'll be about something else.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 9, 2015 -> 07:48 AM) Supposedly french police have these two guys cornered in a business in Eastern Paris. A communication line has been opened and they expressed their desire to die as martyrs They also have a hostage, because they're not cowards or anything.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 8, 2015 -> 05:01 PM) Now if they printed a racists cartoon on the delivery van and send you to an area where people would be offended by it? Not quite the same as printing "racist" cartoons in a newspaper you 1) don't have to buy, 2) don't have to look at, and 3) isn't being force delivered to their homes. Also, equating this to racism? The only way this remotely the same as the scenario you put forth is if they're printing these cartoons, seeking out radical's houses, and delivering them to their doors, or hacking their computers/cell phones and making their browsers default website the newspaper in question.