Since: Mar 11

Melbourne, Australia

#620157 Apr 27, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text> Terrorism threatens us all in the same way that a lot of things threaten us all. The world is a dangerous place. We can't declare war on everything that threatens us.
"Damn liberals?" That's funny. The "damn liberals" have to defend our basic rights from the right, the party that is supposed to be about defending the constitution and advocating for small government. Yet here you are, proudly defending some of the most dangerous legislation in recent memory, as well as parroting the same old fear mongering nonsense about terrorism.
We have two issues here. The threat of terrorism/the war on terror, and the patriot act. The war on terror is in and of itself an absurdity - the war on terror is a war on a tactic, an idea, a method. It makes no sense. How do you defeat an "ism?" Perhaps that's the point - an excuse for a never ending war, an endless stream of enemies selected under the pretense of "fighting terrorism." It's nothing more than a scary word that can be applied to scary people, and it has been used to justify two wars -both military engagements and a war on our freedoms. There are no possible victory conditions in this war, no way to tell if we've "won," but that won't stop us from putting new terrorists in our proverbial scope every so often, traveling the world, and devestating entire countries and slaughtering hundreds of thousands of civilains in an effort to "defeat" an idea and "spread freedom." It would actually be kind of funny if it wasn't so horrible.
Whether you agree with the patriot act really depends on one thing - whether you think our right to privacy, our right against unlawful search and seizure, our right against unlawful arrest, and our right to habeus corpus (among many others) are immutable or if you think they are subject to the whims of the government. Because when it comes down to it, there's not much that can be done to prevent a few crazies from carrying out a plan - the only real effect this legislation has is to foster an atmosphere of fear and paranoia in the general populace. Do you think that it's ok that the government took advantage of our collective despair after 9/11 in order to rush a piece of police state legislation through the senate? Do you think it's ok that the national fear of terrorism has been used to support war?
Additionally, the patriot act can, will, and has been used against american citizens. Do you think that's ok? I mean, if the government really wants to wire tap someone, or arrest them, they should be able to get a warrant, right? Why give them easy to abuse shortcuts? The patriot act is ostensibly meant to fight terrorism, so why should we allow it to be used on american citizens, and moreover, if it really was about fighting terrorism, why was the government so quick to use it for domestic purposes?
Let's not even get in to the ridiculous new "enemy combatant" language, which makes it even easier for anyone to fall under the very wide net already afforded by the patriot act. What I just wrote could hypothetically be used to label me an enemy combatant, even though I would never consider any type of violence.
Thank you. Though I'm not an American I understand what that act can mean for American's, and their freedom.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#620158 Apr 27, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Being a rude, sarcastic bitch is not witty or funny except to another rude, sarcastic bitch.
you can quit laughing

anytime

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#620159 Apr 27, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:

I can have have a pretty good idea of how hard I'm hitting someone.
I can only guess as to how much it hurts them.
If the spanking doesn't cause pain, I don't consider it abuse.
I wouldn't even call what you are describing "spanking".
That's the only sane and safe way to spank a 6 month old. If ya gotta, ya gotta.
I'm also skeptical about the claims you make regarding the learning abilities of 6 month old babies.
Claim confirmed:

http://www.livescience.com/18469-infants-unde...

There are many, many studies that show the same. There's also billions of parents that would agree.
Babies do learn a lot, but they aren't going to learn the purpose of this action or how they should respond to it. At most, it's a distraction. It might make some babies quit crying sometimes, as well as countless other distractions would.
You don't have kids, do ya?

Spanking them isn't about stopping them from crying, it's about teaching them discipline and boundaries.
Huh?
Negative reinforcement is punitive. You do something bad, an authority does something bad to you.
That's a vague definition. I gave you a few examples of other types of negative reinforcement.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#620161 Apr 27, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe you don't understand logic in the first place.
A god that tortures people forever for not believing in it is not merciful, loving, or just. The Bible describes a god that tortures unbelievers eternally after they die, but also describes this god as merciful, loving, and just. Either someone doesn't know what mercy, love, and justice are, or this is an impossible combination.
That's one example out of hundreds. These contradictions invalidate the claims of the Bible. If there is a god, the Bible doesn't describe it. The Bible represents a clusterfuck of superstitious mythology written by ignorant men.
Yes, the ole atheist comeback "You don't understand".... Ugh

God has forgiven everyone. He resolved the issue of death through Jesus Christ. If God has given you forgiveness and you refuse to receive it, how can you say God is unmerciful or unjust?

I would highly doubt the existence of God if there were just people who believe without a question.

I believe the existence of atheists is one of the reason why God certainly does exist.

The bible wasn't written by ignorant men. Maybe by today's standards they're ignorant, but for their time, they were brilliant men.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#620162 Apr 27, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Clearly you don't know what negative reinforcement is. Spanking a child for doing something "wrong" is a textbook example of negative reinforcement.
See? "You just don't understand"

*sigh*

Why is it when someone disagrees with an atheist, that's the textbook comeback?

Here's three textbook examples of negative reinforcement:

Before heading out for a day at the beach, you slather on sunscreen in order to avoid getting sunburned.

You decide to clean up your mess in the kitchen in order to avoid getting in a fight with your roommate.

On Monday morning, you leave the house early in order to avoid getting stuck in traffic and being late for class.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#620163 Apr 27, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>What other reason is there? Maybe to make a little extra money, but so what?
Paper bags are no where near as bad for the environment as plastic bags, and I'm sure you know this, but for some reason you bring it up anyway. And how are "dirty reuseable bags" bad for the environment in the same way that plastic bags are? During the production process I'm sure some damage is done, as is true with nearly everything we make, but if they are reused instead of used once and discarded, how are they bad?
The "dominion" idea is from your camp. I don't know how many people outright support it, but it's definitely not some fringe movement.
I don't know what your last paragraph is supposed to mean... do you think there is some grand conspiracy by the government to drive up the price of paper bags and cause us to pay more taxes? Because there are far more efficent ways the government has to make money off us. And who "loves" government control, and what does this have to do with it anyway? Encouraging people to be sensible with their plastic bag use is not some grand scheme by the government to "control" us.
I disagree. It's all about control. Of our money and of our rights.

The whole "plastic bags are bad for the environment" argument is a moot point while plastic water bottles are so prolific.

I see people at the grocery store, with their little "environmentally friendly" reusable bags. I watch as they stuff them full of plastic; drink bottles (of all sorts), TV dinners, candy, chips, etc.

It always makes me chuckle and I ask myself what the hell the point is.

Oh, money.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#620164 Apr 27, 2013
timn17 wrote:

And atheism is not socially supported in the way that religion is. You are either lying or you do not understand what you are talking about.
I didn't say they were socially supported the same, did I?

Don't call me a liar if you don't wanna read correctly.
You are *expected* to be religious in the US, while atheists are one of the last groups still considered ok to demonize.
You guys bring in on yourselves.

You don't wanna leave well enough alone, so we fight back.

Like how your kind tried removing a cross in my town. A cross that's been there since 1906....

Y'all lost, of course. But it leaves a bitter reminder to us how much atheists want it their way - with no regard to how anyone else wants it.

If you can't take the heat.........

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#620165 Apr 27, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>Maybe you don't understand logic in the first place.

A god that tortures people forever for not believing in it is not merciful, loving, or just. The Bible describes a god that tortures unbelievers eternally after they die, but also describes this god as merciful, loving, and just. Either someone doesn't know what mercy, love, and justice are, or this is an impossible combination.

That's one example out of hundreds. These contradictions invalidate the claims of the Bible. If there is a god, the Bible doesn't describe it. The Bible represents a clusterfuck of superstitious mythology written by ignorant men.
Speaking of justice, I just read an article in Rolling Stone about California's three strikes law.

People doing 25 to life for .09 grams of heroin or stealing a slice of pizza.

It's outrageous, but doesn't even come close to Gold's brand of "justice".

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#620166 Apr 27, 2013
psalms 23 wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, so what? Geologic time scale, is as flawed and debunked as they come. Here you all have a method that contradicts itself but ignore it as if it isnt a problem, meanwhile claiming you all have evidence about evolution!

Ask yourself, who are the truly decieved ignorant ones? Science in this department is based on a faulty and corrupt foundation, to try and give support of evolution...lol, really?

You and science just think you have debunked God..

Since when does religion or God for that matter need to debunk science?

Science and its founders are and have done a perfectly good job of that itself.
You willfully ignore any science that refutes your beliefs.

I always look for possible flaws in the science I trust.

Do you ever look for possible flaws in the bible you trust?

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#620167 Apr 27, 2013
GoodRabbit wrote:
This guy fell 8, count em' EIGHT stories to his doom and survived. YOU CANT TELL ME GOD DOESNT EXIST. It take a lot of bravery to see God in the LIttle things

http://youtu.be/4wYSfP6JokY
And some guy fell 83 floors in the wtc collapse and survived.

It's highly improbable, but that doesn't make it miraculous.

You just want it to.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#620168 Apr 27, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>I never saw a post where you said it was cool to hit a baby, just other posters saying you did. So...do you really think it's fine to hit a baby for not learning something the "first time" you've told it "no"?
...and the second time.... and the third.....
No, it is absolutely NOT "cool" or fun or pleasurable to spank a 6 month old baby.

But IMO, I think it's useful and necessary sometimes.

For example, when the little turd throws a temper tantrum because you took away a toy...

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#620169 Apr 27, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>You still aren't understanding. I have addressed this point several times - it does not matter if god is in fact controlling every detail of our lives - that he knows the outcome of every event and has the ability to change the outcome of any event necessarily removes free will from the equation. It's not that hard to understand.
God has the 'ability' to change an outcome of your life, but not the 'desire', so he never does.

Making your life full of choices and free will.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#620170 Apr 27, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Really? Afghanistan, Iraq, Patriot Act (as well as many other examples of absurd legislation ostensibly passed to "protect our freedom," ie the military commisions act, also CISPA which was introduced by a repub), our incursions in latin america during the regan administration, the support of saddam prior to, during, and after the iranian revolution, etc. etc. etc. The left bears some responsibilty too, both for being full of lame ducks and for, lately, actively supporting this kind of crap. But the conservative base is full of war hawks who jump at the opportunity to "defend our freedom" from the threat of the week. They are, as a group, much easier to get riled up about some "evil force" that finds itself in the proverbial scope.
They've got to keep their rich buddies in the military industrial complex rolling in green.

I think some of those people breathe money.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#620171 Apr 27, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>I like how you don't even address the point I was making. Just "wrong." Lol. Seriously though, I don't think you are understanding what is meant by approval. I'm not saying that god must "like" sin (although it is strange that a god would create a universe filled with things he doesn't like), but I am saying that if he knows what will happen and has the power to change it, then anything that happens necessarily has his tacit approval. He knew, from day one, exactly how everything would turn out, exactly which sins would be commited and by whom, and he could have adjusted the variables to prevent any sin from occuring with a snap of his fingers. And he didn't. Therefore, sin has his tacit approval, or else sin wouldn't exist.
I understand what you're saying, totally. I'm trying to get it through your thick skull that God allows you free will.

He allows everyone free will - including Satan.

I don't know why you feel the need to add the word "approval" into it...

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#620172 Apr 27, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Holy fking hell! How many times do I have to tell you guys that a "virtual particle" is not really a particle?

http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-pos...

The disturbance does not "come" from *nothing*, there is no such thing as *nothing* existing in the quantum world.
No particle is really a particle.

They are positive mass with zero volume. They are energy.

That's why their masses are referred to in electron volts.

But thank you again for you infinite patience in dealing with us morons.

Your care, understanding and tolerance for those of us so far beneath you is truly inspiring.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#620173 Apr 27, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
They have to cry to get what they need before they learn to talk. What's wrong with a baby wanting to be held?
Nothing, I wasn't saying babies shouldn't want to be held. I was saying a baby needs to learn to be on their own, sometimes they feel the need too much that they want to be held - so much that when mom puts them down, they cry. Everytime. Children need to learn to be on the parent's terms, not the parents on the child's terms.
They do learn very quickly that crying gets them what they want and some babies do go to the extreme but they don't deserve a smack for being manipulative.
Sometimes they do. It depends on the sitiuation. If the kid is out of control and won't listen to you......well...
Not that duct taping them to a wall doesn't sound appealing when I hear some brat screaming bloody hell in a store. ;)
Usually a crying baby is a baby that doesn't get enough *good* attention. A clean, dry, well fed baby should be a happy baby.
Absolutely. I agree.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#620174 Apr 27, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>RR, dude. No. You are projecting the way you think on to a baby. They don't "manipulate." They might learn to associate certain behaviors with certain responses, but this is simple conditioning that any animal is capable of.
If they cry, it's because that is pretty much the only way they know how to communicate, and they are trying to tell you something. They do not have ulterior motives, and they do not consider *why* you respond to them the way you do. If you spank a baby for crying, it will become scared to cry. It will not understand "I was crying at a bad time for 'no reason' and I shouldn't do that again." It will simply associate the act of crying with the result of getting hit.
Seriously, I recommend you learn a little bit about infant psychology, because you clearly are just making shit up as you go.
You have kids?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#620175 Apr 27, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>First of all, dogs do not understand the concept of discipline in general no matter the age, but that's neither here nor there.
Second, no, babies do not understand the concept of discipline. At all. To understand the concept of discipline requires the ability to think abstractly, which is not something babies can do. I really can't believe you think this.
What the f_ck is it with this generation that thinks babies are stupid?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#620176 Apr 27, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Ride 'em hard, cowboy! ;)
Yee-haw, cowgirl!

Don't ride a horse, ride a cowboy!

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#620177 Apr 27, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>No, man, you aren't understanding what I'm saying. Babies are not capable of learning the difference between crying "for a reason" and "crying for attention/no reason." If they get hit for crying, all they know is they got hit for crying. All they can do is make simple associations like that.
And what in the world is wrong with a baby crying for attention in the first place? They aren't being "bratty" when they cry, that's just one of the only ways they know how to communicate. Sometimes babies need attention. They are babies. They don't manipulate.
HA HA HA!!

Ya, dude. OK...... "babies don't manipulate"....

HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!

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
Wake up, Black America!! (Sep '13) 3 min yon 4,845
Scientific proof for God's existence 9 min HipGnosis 40
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 20 min guest 560,144
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 25 min Epiphany2 605,278
Why Iím no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 31 min Dolphin 441,808
*** All Time Favorite Songs *** (Dec '10) 1 hr Classic 1,921
Gay snapchat names 4 hr Sxybest11 163
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 5 hr onemale 265,377
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 8 hr Freebird USA 175,775
More from around the web