What is one statement that you stand by but might get unpleasant reaction from others?

no_front_teeth · 2012-05-23T18:23:40.766122+00:00

It's Emotion Porn. Unrealistic and hyper-idealized, like porn on the internet.

mepper · 2 days

Apartment? As in shared domicile? Yeah, you're wrong.

TrueWarrior · 6 days

His feet. Obviously.

rOfLRfLolrfoLRfL · 7 days

My mother's family is Abingdon/Greendale. I feel your pain.

Crazybay46913 · 21 days

Nope. Lack of belief is not a belief. That's why you and I are both atheists. That's like saying not-collecting stamps is a hobby, or "off" is a TV channel. Theism is belief. A-theism is lack of belief. You are an atheist my friend, whether you like it or not.

Here is the definition of theist for you.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/theist

Crazybay46913 · 22 days

I lack the belief god exists

Your words, kid. You seem to be unaware that agnostic atheists can lack the belief that god does not exist. You are the very definition of an agnostic atheist by your own admission. I'd say you are the most accurate definition of an agnostic atheist, as a matter of fact. Welcome to the family!!!

Crazybay46913 · 22 days

Hey this guy knows what deism is! You lack a belief in a god, you are an agnostic atheist. Done and done. Sorry kid. Definitions, words have meanings, etc.

Crazybay46913 · 22 days

Atheism has nothing to do with worship or religion

Exactly. So if you do not have anything to do with worship or religion, you are an atheist. Understand?

An agnostic could be a theist, atheist or neither.

I didn't think I had to point out the obvious. Unfortunately, you cannot simply be neither. You either worship something, or you do not. You either practice a religion, or you do not. Which are you?

Crazybay46913 · 22 days

If you don't worship a god or practice a religion, regardless of whether you believe it is possible to prove or know whether a god exists, you are an atheist. Agnostics are agnostic atheists, by definition. Sorry to break it to you kid.

Rigurun · 22 days

They seem pretty happy in Oman, too (not that they couldn't be happier without Islam).

Directors_Cut · 22 days

I disagree. They are not limited in how they can practice their religion. Not even in the slightest. They can worship and follow it as they wish (in so far as it doesn't hurt anyone else). They are only limited in how they can impose it upon other people.

They can still proselytize and preach and spread the Gospel. They just can't do it with government backing. It's a lessening of political power not religious practice.

Directors_Cut · 22 days

We are talking about 21st century Evangelical Christianity as practiced by the majority of U.S. Representatives, not the Crusaders. Are you sure you aren't thinking about Islam?

This is the other verse I am speaking of:

Matthew 6:5 "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.

EDIT: In all honesty, they are being forced to practice their religion more fundamentally. ;)

EDIT 2: and yes, I am aware of The Family and their fascist agenda

Directors_Cut · 22 days

My point being, they are actually being allowed to practice their religion less.

They are not being allowed to practice it any less. They can practice it as much as they want to. Their religion even makes a point of telling them they can't practice it in public. They can continue to practice it as they should and as much as they want in the privacy of their communities and not within the public sphere. This is not a reduction of their religious rights or practices it is a limitation of extra-ordinary reaches of their practices.

There is a distinction between what you said and what I am saying that you are failing to see.

Directors_Cut · 22 days

Wrong. They just aren't getting special privileges as often as they used to. They are going to have to practice their religion as equals to the rest of America. Like Muslims and Jews and Hindus do. Without special privileges and in private.

http://uberhumor.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/IEfyw.png

EDIT: yes, absolutely right, I should have quoted the sentence I took issue with which is that Christians are somehow being allowed to practice less. They can practice as much or more, just within the appropriate boundaries. My bad.

nycrisp · 27 days

haha! because we are pasty geeks that will have to wait in line after all the bro's?

nycrisp · 28 days

I would love to look into getting a set put up in South Beach (Miami). I think it might actually be feasible! Should I start a petition or go to City Hall? Any info/ideas on where/how to start?

ZeroMercuri · 1 month

To death, you say? How biblical of you.

whimmy_millionaire · 1 month

Not all cases. I don't think I said or implied all cases...sorry if it came across that way though.

I think Isaac Asimov's quote, "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" could perhaps be improved to say, "Violence is the first refuge of the dangerously incompetent".

whimmy_millionaire · 1 month

Go back and read my comments. I clearly said violence is to be used a last resort or in defense only. You obviously need violence to defend against and destroy Nazi Germany.

I also added an explanation to the other guy's last reply if you care to hear my reasoning.

whimmy_millionaire · 1 month

It was an explanation. There wasn't one insult in that reply.

whimmy_millionaire · 1 month

I can't believe I have to explain this.

Let's say OP finds the liar and gives him a good old fashioned ass-whopping.

OP is now liable for felony assault and battery. He can lose his right to vote, he can lose his freedom, he can lose his money, he can lose his job, he can lose career prospects.

Liar has already proven he is willing and capable of resorting to underhanded tactics. Liar trumps up the charges, exaggerates the abuse, and then goes on a character assassination rampage in revenge. He informs OP's ex-girlfriend and she again believes him, especially with his charges and evidence of physical abuse. Liar could also act out physical revenge, so OP is now at danger of physical harm as well.

The best possible use of OP's time and intelligence is to evaluate the Liar's mind-state in this scenario.

If Liar now suffers from guilt, USE IT. Use the Liar's guilt to either inflict more guilt (best possible way to teach Liar), ascertain the truth of the matter with the ex-girlfriend, and use the knowledge gained from Liar and even use Liar himself to either win ex-girlfriend back or at least show her that she made a mistake and misjudged OP.

Having Liar contact ex-girlfriend and admit his cruel intentions and deception is a double whammy and will help everyone involved, all while making OP look mature, reasonable, and intelligent.

OP beating up Liar would only be about OP exerting his physical dominance over Liar and temporarily boosting OP's ego. It's the dumbest move he can make.

whimmy_millionaire · 1 month

you continue to say it over and over.

You know nothing about me except for this conversation.

I can't even believe I am having this conversation. I keep saying it in direct response to the increasingly stupid things you yourself have said in this conversation.

I don't need to know anything more about you other than this conversation to know that you are someone to be avoided at all costs. Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.

Ever stop and consider that you might be a sociopath? In all seriousness.

whimmy_millionaire · 1 month

Committing violence is nothing more than the use of brute force rather than one's mind. It should only ever be used as a last resort or in defense. It is uncreative, it counterproductive and leads to further escalation, it the realm of the powerful dominating those weaker than themselves, it the tool of they bully and the tyrant. Violence is the answer of the weakest of minds. In any conflict analysis model, this is shown to be true. I am not calling you dangerously stupid to insult you. I am calling you dangerously stupid because your ignorance is quite literally dangerous. Objectively speaking.

whimmy_millionaire · 1 month

Personal morals? Not committing violence against another human being is a personal moral?? If you are a rational human being then you understand that not committing violence against another human being is about as objectively moral as you can get. You are dangerously stupid and, in all seriousness, you likely need psychiatric help.

whimmy_millionaire · 1 month

some people just need some good old-fashioned physical violence so they remember

Advocating violence when there are numerous other ways to communicate effectively (conversation, debate, social pressure, speaking to the offending person's "spiritual authority figure" or parents about what they've done, even mockey, ridicule, or public shaming) is the definition of dangerously stupid.

Perhaps you're just feeling cavalier at the moment, but please do us all a favor and stop. You are an embarrassment to yourself, your friends, and this subreddit.

Four-Year Club	Verified Email
Charter Member	Best Comment 2010-02-26
Secret Santa 2009

Differentiate

TROPHY CASE

Differentiate

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login