kapkomet Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 The thread was suppose to be hijacked for support of free-speech rights to use slang in a present-day & historical context in posts as well as a general argument of it's usage in society as a whole. Yet it's now become a debate on specifically developmental biology vs evolutionary biology & generally text book vs REAL scientific knowledge. I guess I have to teach school .. again. It's so sad. I realize you're clueless on how to go about reading Sciencedaily.com so I will help you out. I probably should not even get into this, but Juggernaut, you crack my ass up. You HAVE to control every conversation, don't you, if something takes a different direction then the almighty Juggernaut wants it to. GMAFB. You don't know EVERYTHING. You just think you do. You are indeed really well educated, but are you ever wrong about anything? Is there no room for anyone else's opinions on any other subject? Just sayin'. /back out of the thread I go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Yet it's now become a debate on specifically developmental biology vs evolutionary biology & generally text book vs REAL scientific knowledge. I guess I have to teach school .. again. It's so sad. Missing something Juggs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Hey its ok that you have to twist logic and misinterpret sentences... Just keep drinking the Kool-Aid and it will be all good! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 We should just re-name this thread moral relativism because that's really what it's about. There are those on the left who pay homage & devotion to evolution, homosexuality, censorship, & other liberal causes as if they were tenets of their faith. And then there are those of us who disagree with them. Observing their debate skills & behavior in thier posts amuses me. The latest topic that surfaced was the antiquated & ridiculous notion of separation of church & state. Since they have little ability it seems to debate an issue on a macro or general concept level they will of course cling to the tenets of their faith to justify their opinion based on their moral relativism. But those of us who are capable of debating an issue on a general concept level can demonstrate how this concept amounts to discrimination. The first question to ask is what is a church? When you strip it down to it's most general definition it is simply a group of persons who choose to assemble to discuss & pay respect to their philosophy of life. Considering anything else requires specializing it & when you specialize any group to where you define specific rules & regulations that apply to only that group you are if effect disciminating against that group. How so? Again in reference to the most general definition of church there exists both secular & religious churches in America. The religious enjoy a tax free status analogous to MLB's anti-trust exemption & the secularists enjoy government grants. There is simply no purpose or need for the tax free status if you remove the discriminatory status of religious vs secular philosophies. After all the secularists are no less zealous in their beliefs as the religious are. There are simply less of them. Now there exists a phobia associated with the Roman Catholic & Anglican churches in their history with European empires of the past that leads people to believe that such discrimanatory laws need to exist to prevent such coersion & corruption between those two bodies from happening in the future. That is an antiquated phobia ignorant of the by-laws for doing business in America. Yes, that's right. When you remove the tax-free status & the specialization of religion all churches become registered non-profit businesses. Just like the secular churches. Neither the US goverment or any state or local government can endorse, promote, or support any one church over any other any more so than they can endorse, promote, or support Wendy's over McDonald's. It's why you never see a politician endorse a product, a restaurant, or any other buisness (profit or non-profit) over another. If they did, the government they represent can be sued for substantial damages. Since it has happened in the past there is case precedent on this issue. So when you view a church as a non-profit business & understand that buisness by-laws prevent the government from showing any favoritism to one business over another the conclusion is that the discriminatory practice of separation of church & state is no longer needed. Now immediately some of you are going to ask what about PPH & defense contracts? Contrary to what you believe they are not exceptions to that rule. If a competitor to PPH were to surface the government would then be obligated to show that competitor the same respect as PPH. That could be done by splitting the funding or creating a process by which to detemine the funding such that both parties have the ability to compete for it. That's essentially what happens with defense contracts. A process is created for which companies compete for funding. Now no system run by humans is not without corruption which is why situations like Haliburton always pop up. But again that is not an exception to the by-laws. A government official might make a claim that Haliburton was the only viable choice for a contract. Those who disagree can use due process against that claim & present compelling evidence against it. If they make a solid case then Haliburton loses some portion of the contract. That is exactly what happened. Which means the process works even in the defense dept which could be considered the most discriminatory agency of the government when it comes to contracts as such. In conclusion the separation of church & state is an antiquated & unneccessary from of discrimination that should be done away with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Here I was thinking the latest topic brought up in this thread was whether Bruce Vilanch ate Charles Nelson Reilly. Jugg: You've very obviously taken the Lyndon LaRouche model of argument. Wrap yourself in such intellectual, inaccessible language that maybe someone will just surrender to your inaccurate logic and premises. And even if it doesn't you'll still feel intellectually superior. Good for you! We should just re-name this thread moral relativism because that's really what it's about. There are those on the left who pay homage & devotion to evolution, homosexuality, censorship, & other liberal causes as if they were tenets of their faith. And then there are those of us who disagree with them. Observing their debate skills & behavior in thier posts amuses me. But to sit here and say that bleeding heart liberals like myself are devoted to homosexaulity and censorship is most funny indeed. And you forgot that we also apparently drown cute kittens in buckets. At this point, I shouldn't even bother responding to your pseudo-intellectual claptrap that really involve nothing more than ad-hominem attacks (like for example, your seeming obsession with a Senator who represents nobody in this discussion, as I believe noone in this conversation resides in the great state of New York) and torturous paragraphs about nothing. But I will anyway. The U.S. government provides freedom of religion. By espousing a particular religion in compelled prayer time, a public school by definition would be endorsing a specific brand of religion. Whether only one person, or several do not belong to this religion, the government is limited in its powers from compelling minorities from following or espousing a specific particular religion. A public school is governed by an elected school board which is, depending on the municipality, also governed by the city or state government to which it belongs. This would make a public school a defacto agent of the government. This doesn't mean that religious clubs couldn't be allowed in a public school necessarily, this doesn't mean that a time for silent reflection/prayer couldn't be allowed during the school day, this doesn't mean anything other than the government does not have the right to compel anyone to practice a specific faith. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wong & Owens Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 We should just re-name this thread moral relativism because that's really what it's about. There are those on the left who pay homage & devotion to evolution, homosexuality, censorship, & other liberal causes as if they were tenets of their faith. And then there are those of us who disagree with them. Observing their debate skills & behavior in thier posts amuses me. The latest topic that surfaced was the antiquated & ridiculous notion of separation of church & state. Since they have little ability it seems to debate an issue on a macro or general concept level they will of course cling to the tenets of their faith to justify their opinion based on their moral relativism. But those of us who are capable of debating an issue on a general concept level can demonstrate how this concept amounts to discrimination. The first question to ask is what is a church? When you strip it down to it's most general definition it is simply a group of persons who choose to assemble to discuss & pay respect to their philosophy of life. Considering anything else requires specializing it & when you specialize any group to where you define specific rules & regulations that apply to only that group you are if effect disciminating against that group. How so? Again in reference to the most general definition of church there exists both secular & religious churches in America. The religious enjoy a tax free status analogous to MLB's anti-trust exemption & the secularists enjoy government grants. There is simply no purpose or need for the tax free status if you remove the discriminatory status of religious vs secular philosophies. After all the secularists are no less zealous in their beliefs as the religious are. There are simply less of them. Now there exists a phobia associated with the Roman Catholic & Anglican churches in their history with European empires of the past that leads people to believe that such discrimanatory laws need to exist to prevent such coersion & corruption between those two bodies from happening in the future. That is an antiquated phobia ignorant of the by-laws for doing business in America. Yes, that's right. When you remove the tax-free status & the specialization of religion all churches become registered non-profit businesses. Just like the secular churches. Neither the US goverment or any state or local government can endorse, promote, or support any one church over any other any more so than they can endorse, promote, or support Wendy's over McDonald's. It's why you never see a politician endorse a product, a restaurant, or any other buisness (profit or non-profit) over another. If they did, the government they represent can be sued for substantial damages. Since it has happened in the past there is case precedent on this issue. So when you view a church as a non-profit business & understand that buisness by-laws prevent the government from showing any favoritism to one business over another the conclusion is that the discriminatory practice of separation of church & state is no longer needed. Now immediately some of you are going to ask what about PPH & defense contracts? Contrary to what you believe they are not exceptions to that rule. If a competitor to PPH were to surface the government would then be obligated to show that competitor the same respect as PPH. That could be done by splitting the funding or creating a process by which to detemine the funding such that both parties have the ability to compete for it. That's essentially what happens with defense contracts. A process is created for which companies compete for funding. Now no system run by humans is not without corruption which is why situations like Haliburton always pop up. But again that is not an exception to the by-laws. A government official might make a claim that Haliburton was the only viable choice for a contract. Those who disagree can use due process against that claim & present compelling evidence against it. If they make a solid case then Haliburton loses some portion of the contract. That is exactly what happened. Which means the process works even in the defense dept which could be considered the most discriminatory agency of the government when it comes to contracts as such. In conclusion the separation of church & state is an antiquated & unneccessary from of discrimination that should be done away with. :sleep **Waits for predictable attack on my level of intellect** Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 I noticed your use of "inaccurate logic & premises" & yet your faliure to provide any basis to it. Typical. The rest of what you said is completely irrelevant to the general debate of the discriminatory practice of specializing religion outside of any other non-profit organization pertaining to philosophies of life. On the subject of school customs: If there is no written, spoken, or any other explicit representation of a government institution compelling a student to practice a faith than such a circumstance does not exist. As long as a teacher clearly distinquishes his views from that of the goverment institution which pays his salary there is no act of compelling a student to practice a faith. As long as there is no written, spoken, or any other explicit representation of a consequence upon a student for not participating then there can be no claim of compelling a student to practice a faith. With no basis for such a claim limiting the individual rights of teachers & students to both express & practice a custom pertaining to their beliefs is censorship. To limit it to a distinct group of beliefs, practices, or customs is discrimination. It really is that simple. The only basis by which moral relativists can get away with justifying this discrimination & censorship is by specializing religious faith from other philosophical beliefs. The act of doing so discriminates against religious faith. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 i can't believe this is an argument... message boards have rules...while normal swears such as f*** s*** ass ... cock balls (ear muffs) are offensive, they're modern roots of insult aren't that of degrading another peoples. And since message boards have many peoples, it shant' be allowed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 I believe I pointed out that the logic to your entire argument is flawed: That not allowing an agent of the government to compel someone to participate in something is censorship. It is, in fact, not true. Merriam-Webster defines the verb "To Censor" as such: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable. Allowing independent non-compelled practice of religion is not censorship. Forcing someone to practice something they don't believe in is oppression. Not allowing teachers or educators to compel students to pray is not censorship. Prayer is still allowed. It has nothing to do with relativism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 i can't believe this is an argument... message boards have rules...while normal swears such as f*** s*** ass ... cock balls (ear muffs) are offensive, they're modern roots of insult aren't that of degrading another peoples. And since message boards have many peoples, it shant' be allowed gobs***e / gobshyte - potty-mouth; undesirable person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Missing something Juggs? I actually took one of these until the ignore feature is installed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 I actually took one of these until the ignore feature is installed LMFAO! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Meriam-Webster defines censor as ... Re-sorting to Webster's to provide a basis That's almost as good as choosing text book science over published research papers. I'll see your posts next year! Enjoy! Be Safe! Don't drink & drive! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Re-sorting to Webster's to provide a basis That's almost as good as choosing text book science over published research papers. I'll see your posts next year! Enjoy! Be Safe! Don't drink & drive! There are published research papers by Holocaust deniers. The fact that they are published does not give them any factual truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 (edited) There are published research papers by Holocaust deniers. The fact that they are published does not give them any factual truth. The Winter Break Movie Watch List 1. Lemony Snickets' A Series of Unfortunate Events (2004) 2. The Punisher (2004) 3. Manchurian Candidate (2004) 4. Shaun of the Dead (2004) 5. Napoleon Dynamite (2004) 6. Cool Hand Luke (1967) 7. O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000) 8. Manchurian Candidate (1962) 9. Yojimbo (1961) 10. Super Size Me (2004) 11. Batman (1989) 12. Sanjuro (1962) 13. A Fistful of Dollars (1964) 14. Bulworth (1998) 15. The Hidden Fortress (1958) 16. High Noon (1952) 17. Night of the Living Dead (1968) Which Manchurian Candidate did you like better? Edited December 31, 2004 by Texsox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 i like sinatras...this one was kind of ... stupid if you ask me/. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 gobs***e / gobshyte - potty-mouth; undesirable person. i like using the ole time swear 'Sblood Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Which Manchurian Candidate did you like better? I thought the Sinatra/Harvey/Leigh one was so much better than the new one. The new one was pretty crappy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Now immediately some of you are going to ask what about PPH & defense contracts? Yes, yes, YES! This was exactly what I was going to ask about. Uncanny... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted January 1, 2005 Share Posted January 1, 2005 Yes, yes, YES! This was exactly what I was going to ask about. Uncanny... It's called, baffle 'em in Bull s*** 'round these parts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 1, 2005 Share Posted January 1, 2005 (edited) Did anyone hear that Mariotti is out of his radio gig? I've gotta say Jay's days to graze on maze by the bays in May, is now in a maze of haze. I guess it's God's way to say Jay you're a very negative man and shouldn't be on the radio. Edited January 1, 2005 by Texsox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted January 1, 2005 Share Posted January 1, 2005 Reinsdorf is God? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted January 1, 2005 Share Posted January 1, 2005 If he was, maybe we'd win something once in a while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Critic Posted January 1, 2005 Share Posted January 1, 2005 QUOTE (winodj @ Jan 1, 2005 -> 09:52 AM) If he was, maybe we'd win something once in a while. He's just being a selfless and merciful God by giving championships to every other team in existence first....except the Cubs, of course....heh..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaliSoxFanViaSWside Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 QUOTE (The Critic @ Dec 29, 2004 -> 01:52 PM) ...THIS after I agreed that you're a great mod????? YOU BASTARD!!!!!!! ....how DARE you.....get a good zinger on me...... I hope this turns out green . As the child of unwed parents i take offense at the use of the word "bastard" We sure can take this to an extreme can't we? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.