“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#158986 Feb 4, 2013
UidiotRaceMakeWorldPeace wrote:
<quoted text>So stupid for talking about World human right, women right, peace, civil liberties, Anti-war... what kind defile Christian ( faux) are you, u mean don't stand for peace, human rights... you hypocrite you worst then NFL war mongering baboon!
The prevailing Christian view in the 21st Century, declares that women don't enjoy 'special rights'(although zygotes assuredly do; and that anyone who believes 'reproductive freedom' is a special right, is fundamentally against the Christian God, and therefore against America.

It's a mad mad mad mad world.
(JMO, of course.......)
:)
uidotRaceMAKEWOR LDPEACE

United States

#158987 Feb 4, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>The prevailing Christian view in the 21st Century, declares that women don't enjoy 'special rights'(although zygotes assuredly do; and that anyone who believes 'reproductive freedom' is a special right, is fundamentally against the Christian God, and therefore against America.
It's a mad mad mad mad world.
(JMO, of course.......)
:)
Seem, like it a right wing Christain Fundie problem! Question Is most moderate Christians talk about anti-Abortion but Stay far away from genocide and Eugenic why is that?

I'm ALL THE WAY pro-life starting with one Cell and to Sperm and Egg... And you for Pro-Choice?

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#158988 Feb 4, 2013
UidiotRaceMakeWorldPeace wrote:
<quoted text>LOL! Hey, on the other thread , most have no problem communicate with me back and forth, as most of them have master Degree or higher have no problem comprehending me and eve some agree with waht i have to say. You been debunked! BWHAHAHAHAHHA Have a hiney melon for you effort.
Geez, it's almost like you think I have a clue what 'other thread' you are discussing here.

Or that I care.

I have no 'problem' communicating with anyone.......it's a matter of preference. I prefer to interact with those who speak/write intelligibly. Very occasionally, you fall within the bounds of that category......but you seem to be making a point of falling outside them.

I find it annoying.

But hey: Commercials made with this goal in mind are actually quite effective.

Keep up the good Capitalist work.

:)
uidotRaceMAKEWOR LDPEACE

United States

#158989 Feb 4, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>Geez, it's almost like you think I have a clue what 'other thread' you are discussing here.
Or that I care.
I have no 'problem' communicating with anyone.......it's a matter of preference. I prefer to interact with those who speak/write intelligibly. Very occasionally, you fall within the bounds of that category......but you seem to be making a point of falling outside them.
I find it annoying.
But hey: Commercials made with this goal in mind are actually quite effective.
Keep up the good Capitalist work.
:)
LOL! OTHER thread is "Ron Paul goes third party"
And the "Financial Contagion"...

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#158990 Feb 4, 2013
CORRECTION:
The prevailing Christian view in the 21st Century, declares that women don't enjoy 'special rights'(although zygotes assuredly do)
...and that anyone who believes 'reproductive freedom' is a special (read: WOMAN's) right, is fundamentally against the Christian God,
and therefore against America.
It's a mad mad mad mad world.
(JMO, of course.......)
:)
uidotRaceMAKEWOR LDPEACE

United States

#158991 Feb 4, 2013
ADD! Those thread i'd mentioned SIS KAt are filled with intellectually rambling and boring , of the ol' boys club.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#158992 Feb 4, 2013
uidotRaceMAKEWORLDPEACE wrote:
<quoted text>Seem, like it a right wing Christain Fundie problem! Question Is most moderate Christians talk about anti-Abortion but Stay far away from genocide and Eugenic why is that?
I'm ALL THE WAY pro-life starting with one Cell and to Sperm and Egg... And you for Pro-Choice?
See, the thing here is, I'm of the OPINION that 'pro-life' should include being pro-ALL life - not just the fetal variety.

I'm all for gestation, as long as the woman carrying the fetus wants with all her heart for her fetus to become a baby.

I did.

Most women gestate, keep, and lovingly raise, our children. I did, and do, love my kids, from conception on. But I'm here to tell you - if a pregnancy threatens my life, I will not hesitate to deny it the opportunity to end my life. I have, and would again,'commit' self-defense.

Personhood legislation, as it's been so far written for Congressional and Public approval, does not make mention of the rights of WOMEN to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In fact, it discounts the woman entirely, in favor of the potential for life she carries.

In my view, this reduces pregnant women to 'vessel' status, and she may as well be a petri dish as a US citizen, while pregnant.

I'm well aware that this view is shared by almost no one, and certainly is mine alone in this forum.

Which is why I've declined numerous opportunities to discuss it here.

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#158993 Feb 4, 2013
Roberta G wrote:
<quoted text>
I can hear some of you now: "Ah, but most of the world thought/thinks the Holocaust was wrong! Besides, Hitler was a special case, since he was a megalomaniac. And since more people thought it was wrong than thought it was right, then it must have been wrong!"

Uh uh. You can't have it both ways. If right and wrong are only subjective values, then even if YOU think Hitler was wrong, you cannot criticize him for having different standards from your own. Nor can you criticize Osama bin Laden and 19 Muslim extremists for hijacking four jets and using them to kill 3000 people. THEY were only exercising THEIR values, weren't they?

Now, I'm not saying that little ol' me is the expert on what is right or wrong in any or all cases. I'm not that wise. What I am saying is this: even if we aren't always sure what is right or wrong, THEY EXIST. Denying that will only allow evil to flourish, because if there is no right or wrong, nothing can be considered evil either.
Or at least not until it's too late.
It must lie in a difference in personalities. For me, if we can't know a thing for certain, what's the point of addressing it at all? What good does it do us to assert an absolute must exist, while acknowledging we may not know for certain what it is?

I don't think it follows that if there are no absolute truths than anything goes. Actually that's pathological thinking. Back up now - not saying you're pathological for proposing so, you're just formulating an argument for absolute truth. I just disagree with your path to that conclusion. Societies agree in concert the basics of right and wrong. Those societies that disagree over those basics, generally don't play well together.

It might seem to be an absolute truth that murder is wrong. Some things are universally agreed upon, at least at core. At it's most basic concept, taking a life is murder. Recognizing murder as a wrong is universally realized to be, if not "truth", then at least socially beneficial. But we quickly add qualifiers to that concept, and equivocate what constitutes "murder". We ourselves cause this absolute truth to be relative. I don't think it can be both things at once. Very few societies have managed to reject the taking of life in total, at any time, for any reason. No major society, philosophy, or religion has done so. Therefore it seems that murder as a concept is universally recognized, but what exactly constitutes "murder" is relative.

If I lived alone on an island, there would be no reason to elaborate sets of rules. I am free to decide for myself what is right and wrong. It's when people chose to live together in groups that a social structure became necessary. It's a fundamental of society to decide together what is right and wrong. They decided that taking a life within the group was detrimental to that society. Taking a life from that group over the hill? That's where it gets murky, and little has changed over the years, no matter the "absolute truth" each allegedly adheres to. Nonetheless, a basic concept of murder has been universal across all time, and all societies, from the savannah to the city. Thus we can say with validity that flying a plane into a building is unacceptable to society at large, no matter the certitude of the perpetrator. It's not an absolute, because we can and have rationalized the taking of life ourselves as the situation arises. But it is an accepted truth.

There are certain absolute truths - we need air to survive, gravity sucks, the actual cost of a repair is always more and never less than the estimate, the phone always rings just as you sit on the pot, and so on. But I've yet to see an absolute truth in social structures. Just accepted conventions.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#158994 Feb 4, 2013
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>It must lie in a difference in personalities. For me, if we can't know a thing for certain, what's the point of addressing it at all? What good does it do us to assert an absolute must exist, while acknowledging we may not know for certain what it is?
I don't think it follows that if there are no absolute truths than anything goes. Actually that's pathological thinking. Back up now - not saying you're pathological for proposing so, you're just formulating an argument for absolute truth. I just disagree with your path to that conclusion. Societies agree in concert the basics of right and wrong. Those societies that disagree over those basics, generally don't play well together.
It might seem to be an absolute truth that murder is wrong. Some things are universally agreed upon, at least at core. At it's most basic concept, taking a life is murder. Recognizing murder as a wrong is universally realized to be, if not "truth", then at least socially beneficial. But we quickly add qualifiers to that concept, and equivocate what constitutes "murder". We ourselves cause this absolute truth to be relative. I don't think it can be both things at once. Very few societies have managed to reject the taking of life in total, at any time, for any reason. No major society, philosophy, or religion has done so. Therefore it seems that murder as a concept is universally recognized, but what exactly constitutes "murder" is relative.
If I lived alone on an island, there would be no reason to elaborate sets of rules. I am free to decide for myself what is right and wrong. It's when people chose to live together in groups that a social structure became necessary. It's a fundamental of society to decide together what is right and wrong. They decided that taking a life within the group was detrimental to that society. Taking a life from that group over the hill? That's where it gets murky, and little has changed over the years, no matter the "absolute truth" each allegedly adheres to. Nonetheless, a basic concept of murder has been universal across all time, and all societies, from the savannah to the city. Thus we can say with validity that flying a plane into a building is unacceptable to society at large, no matter the certitude of the perpetrator. It's not an absolute, because we can and have rationalized the taking of life ourselves as the situation arises. But it is an accepted truth.
There are certain absolute truths - we need air to survive, gravity sucks, the actual cost of a repair is always more and never less than the estimate, the phone always rings just as you sit on the pot, and so on. But I've yet to see an absolute truth in social structures. Just accepted conventions.
Why are we still up? It's late.

G'nite, Hip.

:)

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#158996 Feb 4, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>Why are we still up? It's late.
G'nite, Hip.
:)
G'mornin' Sis. Wife and I both took too long a nap yesterday, so as not to fall asleep during the Super Bowl. Then we paid for it by not being able to sleep after the SB. Arrgghh!

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#158997 Feb 4, 2013
Roberta G wrote:
<quoted text>
Bless your heart! Thanks, and you're no slouch with words yourself, Pernie :)
I HATE moral relativism, and have since my early 20s. When I first read "MERE CHRISTIANITY," about 15 years ago now, it really helped me put into words ideas that I had believed for many years, but had been unable to express effectively.

Why, why, WHY don't people understand that if a particular worldview/philosophy, etc. can ultimately be used to justify the most horrific, evil events the world has ever seen, THEY HAD BETTER EXAMINE IT VERY CAREFULLY before taking it seriously?
I've asked the same question, perhaps not in just those words. I suspect that my question might have been more all-encompassing of ALL worldviews/philosophies and their potential for mis-use? However, I am clear that just because that is so of all humans when in possession of any and all ideas, not just in the abstract but historically, that's no reason to throw them out just due to that potential for abuse.

Wondering also, are morality and truth synonymous terms for the same idea?

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#158999 Feb 4, 2013
Roberta G wrote:
Special to Catcher: Don't bother mentioning David Hume, Bertrand Russell or the others to me. I know what they believed, and I reject it.
Aw, now, is that fair? For meself, the reason I keep coming back is because people here tend to be well-read and know things like, oh, like, who these people even are.

;)
Roberta G

Duluth, GA

#159001 Feb 4, 2013
White Pride Is Not Racism wrote:
...your eyes!
Reported for being racist crap.
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#159002 Feb 4, 2013
White Pride Is Not Racism wrote:
If you think I am crazy....

Here's what I think........

Someimes I wish survival of the fittest and natural selection in it's most raw form were still employed by the human species.

Had you been a member of a neanderthal tribe tens of thousands of years ago I think you would probably have been considered mentally unfit and clubbed senseless.
rider

Gwinn, MI

#159003 Feb 4, 2013
Roberta G wrote:
<quoted text>
Rest assured it isn't. The World Idiot has different ways of being stupid. I think it's rider, just using a different nick.
Please note: I do NOT mean Rider on the Storm, a.k.a. Larry, who lives in Minnesota. I mean the other one. He's posted long swathes of cut&pasted like this before, although this particular batch is a particularly long one.
Not many will read all that stuff. It just goes to show how many sheep inhabit the good old US of W(WAR). History is long and to the sheep looking for the answer in one sentence I say go back to watching and listening to Beck, Hannity, O"Reilly and the rest of the fox nuts!
rider

Gwinn, MI

#159004 Feb 4, 2013
am completely supportive of homosexual relationships between consenting adults; this argument is the presence of an univestigated prostitute at the White House during business hours and the larger story of a child prostitute ring ordered univestigated by the CIA:

"I was advised ... of circumstances which indicated that the investigation in the activity of the FINDERS had become a CIA internal matter. The MPD [Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department] report has been classified secret and was not available for review. I was advised the FBI had withdrawn from the investigation. The FBI Foreign Counterintelligence Division had directed MPD not to advise the FBI Washington Field Office of anything that had transpired. No further information will be available. No further action will be taken."
http://www.examiner.com/article/pedophilia-an...

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#159007 Feb 4, 2013
Conservative commentator and author Ann Coulter refused to stay on board a Miami to New York commercial airline flight today after learning the pilot was a woman of African-American descent.
According to witness reports Coulter was concerned the experienced, decorated pilot in question may have gained her position as a result of affirmative action and wasn't fully qualified to fly.
The incident began when Coulter boarded the American Airlines flight and took up her first class seat. After a trip to the bathroom, she noticed the pilot was a black woman and became immediately distraught.
According to passengers, at that point Coulter stood at the front of the cabin and began screaming her concerns to the entire flight as they finished boarding.
"Aw come on people, a black woman flying a plane? You know she got that job through affirmative action. Am I the only one worried about this? I mean hello? Our lives are at stake here..."

The confused passengers weren't sure what to make of Coulter's outburst, and remained completely silent.
"Really? So we're just gonna let this happen? We're gonna let political correctness determine our safety? Is this what we've come to in Obama's America? Letting just anyone fly a plane out of fear of being called a racist?"
"Oh come on don't be coy. I know you're all thinking it! I just have the courage to say what everyone on this plane is thinking. Am I right?"
"I mean what's next? Are we gonna let Mexicans become doctors now? Jesus Christ people!"
Realizing her efforts to provoke a mutiny had come to naught, Coulter then took her carry-on bags and bolted back up the jetway towards the gate against the orders of the flight attendants.

In reality the pilot of the plane was trained by the U.S. Air Force and was a decorated veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where she flew aerial refueling missions for transport and reconnaissance aircraft.
She has been flying for American Airlines for four years, and is one of that airlines most experienced 737 pilots.
After the incident Coulter was taken in for questioning because violating the instructions of flight attendants is a federal offense. Law enforcement officials, however, say no charges will be filed.
"Clearly this woman has some sort of mental illness," explains TSA spokesperson Dirk Diggler, "We recommended against pressing charges, and mandated a full psychiatric evaluation."
Coulter, however, is unapologetic about her actions. In a statement released on her official Tumblr she defended her decision to stay off the plane.
"I made the best decision I could with the information I had at the time. I'm not gonna risk my life for the sake of some liberal fantasy of equality. "
rider

Gwinn, MI

#159008 Feb 4, 2013
Chris Clearwater

Clearwater, FL

#159009 Feb 4, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
Conservative commentator and author Ann Coulter refused to stay on board a Miami to New York commercial airline flight today after learning the pilot was a woman of African-American descent.
According to witness reports Coulter was concerned the experienced, decorated pilot in question may have gained her position as a result of affirmative action and wasn't fully qualified to fly.
The incident began when Coulter boarded the American Airlines flight and took up her first class seat. After a trip to the bathroom, she noticed the pilot was a black woman and became immediately distraught.
According to passengers, at that point Coulter stood at the front of the cabin and began screaming her concerns to the entire flight as they finished boarding.
"Aw come on people, a black woman flying a plane? You know she got that job through affirmative action. Am I the only one worried about this? I mean hello? Our lives are at stake here..."
The confused passengers weren't sure what to make of Coulter's outburst, and remained completely silent.
"Really? So we're just gonna let this happen? We're gonna let political correctness determine our safety? Is this what we've come to in Obama's America? Letting just anyone fly a plane out of fear of being called a racist?"
"Oh come on don't be coy. I know you're all thinking it! I just have the courage to say what everyone on this plane is thinking. Am I right?"
"I mean what's next? Are we gonna let Mexicans become doctors now? Jesus Christ people!"
Realizing her efforts to provoke a mutiny had come to naught, Coulter then took her carry-on bags and bolted back up the jetway towards the gate against the orders of the flight attendants.
In reality the pilot of the plane was trained by the U.S. Air Force and was a decorated veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where she flew aerial refueling missions for transport and reconnaissance aircraft.
She has been flying for American Airlines for four years, and is one of that airlines most experienced 737 pilots.
After the incident Coulter was taken in for questioning because violating the instructions of flight attendants is a federal offense. Law enforcement officials, however, say no charges will be filed.
"Clearly this woman has some sort of mental illness," explains TSA spokesperson Dirk Diggler, "We recommended against pressing charges, and mandated a full psychiatric evaluation."
Coulter, however, is unapologetic about her actions. In a statement released on her official Tumblr she defended her decision to stay off the plane.
"I made the best decision I could with the information I had at the time. I'm not gonna risk my life for the sake of some liberal fantasy of equality. "
No, Ann Coulter Did NOT Refuse To Board A Plane Because Pilot Was Black

http://www.mediaite.com/online/no-everyone-an...

Reminds me of the Rush/Nfl thing. Most media reported words he never once said. A few days down the road a joke of an apology was offered when the truth came out. When have nothing make it up I guess.
Chris Clearwater

Clearwater, FL

#159010 Feb 4, 2013
Btw Catcher, you just gave a wonderful example of why many people in flyover county don't pay much mind to the news anymore. Too many examples to list of how news is in such a hurry they don't do much fact checking. You said you went to one of the best schools this nation has to offer. So did our Pres. While I do see value in college this truck driver is thinking I may not have missed much after all!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Why Iím no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 5 min Paul Porter1 442,606
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 8 min Aura Mytha 826,472
There is Everything Wrong with Abortion (Nov '07) 11 min guest 221,789
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 12 min oxbow 583,184
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 17 min lil whispers 611,786
*** All Time Favorite Songs *** (Dec '10) 32 min lil whispers 2,253
Do hot women poop or fart? 33 min mutherfuckiamdrunk 1
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 41 min Paul Porter1 98,921
More from around the web