Assume Nothing

Would you be implying that it shouldn't be an objective to improve their PR, based on the premise that 'nobody has [it] perfect'? I don't personally believe that it's about 'what we are'; rather, it's more about 'where we should be' - which in the case of Tip.it administration's PR, should be considerably better than what it is now.

Banned for doing it too frequently. I'll elaborate on why its an annoyance - there's far, far too many times that the 'quote(s)' you use is quite vague, so it doesn't contribute much to the discussion or activity, if at all. If you're summarizing, it takes more than a few words to be concise - so why use a short 'quote' in order to express your ideas? I personally find it obtrusive/pervasive, like one of those advertising banners that doesn't go away. It might be better to put a brief description of your character/personality in your real signature, as opposed to making a quote in every post - it would not only be more aesthetically pleasing, but more meaningful too. Quotes are typically used to express a particularly unique idea by another author - to quote yourself would seem egoistic. In addition to that, a quote like ":P" would seem slightly pointless, since it could be expressed better in words within the post itself. That's the explanation of why some users have pecked at you in various threads for it (which you may be unaware of, as it has been removed - it was done in a way that was considered ridicule/a personal attack though).

The viral campaign against Joseph Kony. It doesn't need to be perpetuated so much if people already know about it. It seems to be an emotional outcry more than anything.

Banned for the asinine signature-esque quotes.

Why would you ignore fundamentalists? I'll have to revisit the past pages to give examples of moderate Christians making ill judgements on the basis of the religion - do give me some time to find them; they're not as obvious or direct as fundamentalist immorality. I do think we can eventually learn 'the truth' - if we're referring to the origins of the universe. If we're referring to life after death, then you're right - we're unlikely to, if it's possible at all - but I wasn't referring to that. If we're referring to the existence of a deity - that'll never be possible by its very definition, so it's meaningless to criticize on this point. "[T]o assume his existence is irrational. But that's simply how religion works. In the end, whether he exists or not doesn't actually matter, as long as there's no definitive proof of either thing. Christianity or really any religion works just as well without." I don't understand what you mean - are you saying it's justified because that's how religion worked? I'm not sure what you're trying to imply. I should have clarified when I asserted that the non-existence of God(s) could be proven. I meant that I could prove that a characteristic of a God is impossible, so the specific depiction/portrayal of that God cannot exist - in other words, I'm not referring to the deity itself, but the depiction of the deity. I do realise that it's impossible to prove the non-existence of anything, unless by contradiction or by pointing out how it violates universal laws (e.g. faster than light particles, if Einstein's theory is correct - still under debate due to recent findings though). As I've said before, I believe in the importance of believing as many true things as possible, and dismissing as many false things as possible. That's why I believe we should question the existence of the purported deities as oppose to assuming the existence of them, even if its a comforting thing. On a slightly tangential note - it has too much potential to veer out of control into a brainwash programme (fundamentalism), so it's good to have some opposition against it. I'm not sure how you're getting this 'religion does more good than harm' notion. If you're referring to self professed statistics, then of course that'll be the case. The flaw with that would be the fact that its not necessarily true, and in the case of religion, this may be the case to some significant extent. What we need is revealed data on how they actually behave, and subsequently extrapolate the findings from that.

I guess that's the fundamental point where we disagree. I believe that holding more true beliefs are better than holding false, but comforting ones. I base this on the idea that accepting the truth is the most meaningful objective, and the vast majority of flawed beliefs has had some effect on veering towards making poorly judged actions/decisions, with religion being no exception (we can go into examples if you wish). I console in the idea that although we don't yet know about the facts so relevant, but so unanswerable - that we may eventually know the truth. To assume Yahweh's existence on the basis that the idea is comforting seems a little irrational to me. It takes much distortion and careful manipulation of theology to make it morally permissible - which is why I also contend moderate Christianity. I don't think you fully understand the notion of agnosticism. It's in reference to self-proclaimed knowledge (in the case of agnosticism, the lack thereof) - so to express that you're an agnostic would not answer 'Do you believe in God'. On the other hand, atheism/theism/ignosticism/apatheism/pantheism all refer to belief in the existence of a deity. I claim I make no theological assumptions because when I say I'm an atheist, I mean I'm an agnostic atheist. I can't be sure that Gods don't exist, but I can logically deduce that a specific one doesn't by verification (e.g. checking Mount Olympus for Zeus), or for the more recent Gods - contradiction in definition. Contradictions would always be logically invalid because to accept the truth of one position within the contradiction is to also admit the falsehood of the other position presented by the same author. Logic, rationality, and reasoning has always served the purpose of attaining the truth - or what's closest to it. I'm not sure what relevance the humanity point really has, so I'll leave no comment on that. Here's a relevant video to have a brief look at. Yes, the author is a male->female. [hide=The video transcription]If you're not a believer, you may be perplexed When you see how they treat their most sacred of texts Interpreted, twisted, distorted, and flexed, Their exegesis leaves us feeling quite vexed For whenever you quote what their holy book said, They'll claim that it doesn't - you must have misread If you think you've found something to leave their face red, They've reasoned it means something different instead. Six days made the earth? Just a metaphor, fool We're allowed to buy slaves? That's no longer a rule And Adam and Eve, with a literate snake? It's only a parable, make no mistake Does it preach death for gays? No, they're just damned to hell You can let witches live, but they're hellbound as well And all of those laws that regard menstruation? An old, obsolete, bureaucratic creation! Excuses abound, with their long-practiced skill They can write off most anything - you know they will But then comes the twist in this splitting of hairs: Their comrades have much different answers from theirs! They've rationalized it a whole different way You won't get a straight answer, I'm sorry to say For the doctrines of everyone other than they Are the very beliefs against which they inveigh. From Catholic to Baptist, Messianic Jew, Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran too, LDS, Christian Science, they all get their due As each one insists that the rest are untrue So who's figured out the correct world view? Which one do we follow? Which ones to eschew? Who among them is right? Have they even a clue? There's so much to sort through. So let's start our review... Can women be clergy, or only the men? What happens when Jesus comes back here again? Was he even a god? Or a man, nothing more? Was he stuck to the cross with three nails or four? Could this holy wafer be part of his head? A leg or a thigh, or just plain old white bread? Did humans evolve? Were they made in a week? Is Hell full of screaming, or nary a squeak? Is the pontiff the antichrist? Some say it's true Is salvation by faith, or are works needed too? Are gays really sinners? Just maybe, they're not Should saints be ignored, or petitioned a lot? Must priests remain celibate? What's the result? Should infants be baptized, or only adults? Is the Bible correct to the very last letter? Did Joseph Smith Jr. write something much better? And let's not forget the apocalypse lore, With horsemen and dragons and angels galore Do we all have our own resurrection in store? Or just one-hundred-forty-four thousand, no more? Do we even know when it might happen, if ever? Like 2012, on the fifteenth of never? You might be surprised, because some people say That the world ends once there are too many gays. And that's just a slice of the faith smorgasbord, The diversity's simply too vast to record But if you cite the Bible, you won't be ignored You'll be set upon by a devout, raging horde From every direction, in mob and in throng, They'll rush to accuse you of reading it wrong Though they shouldn't be shocked when this doesn't hold sway For they all would be wrong, if they all had their way. You can see how it makes for a frustrating time When this mishmash of faith has no reason or rhyme It's enough to make atheists throw up their hands And tell Christians to go figure out where they stand But amidst all the turmoil, confusion and stress Something very revealing comes out of this mess For these plain contradictions, dissensions and shouts Give us great ammunition for our kind of doubts. In particular, one frequent question you'll see Can be answered quite swiftly - if you've got the key "So God's not your thing," pounds the old Christian drum, "But where do you get your morality from?" Yes, it's common enough to make anyone ill Do they really believe that we'll swallow this pill? As if no one could possibly know wrong from right Without putting their faith in a myth that's so trite Nope, I'd have no idea just what I should do If I hadn't read tales from around the year 2 I'd be paralyzed, frozen, bewildered and lost Without moral advice from some guy on a cross. To claim this sincerely is silly enough Yet it raises a question that's really quite tough You're telling me that's how your ethics were seeded, But how did you know it was this that you needed? Just why did you think that the Bible was true, And not the Qur'an, or the Mormon books too? And once you'd picked out your religion of choice, How'd you find the best church with the right faithful voice? What made you decide contraception was bad, And the Catholics are right when they get very mad? Why did you believe that God loves all the gays, And the liberal churches have found the true way? What made you dismiss all that snake-handling crap? Does your church say religion's a self-righteous trap? On origins, sexism, Hell, and the pope, What made up your mind? Tell me, how did you cope? It's clear that you couldn't be morally impotent You picked your own favorite brand of omnipotent! That was your ethical judgment in action And we have that, too - it's not owned by your faction We use our own judgment to filter beliefs, We just don't make religion our ethical chief While you claim your morals are guided by scripture, I think we all know this is not the whole picture. No matter your faith, and no matter how strong, You use your own sense of what's right and what's wrong Meta-ethically speaking, your god's not a plus, So please don't pretend that you're better than us. [/hide] EDIT - to make a further point - consider why there are so many denominations of the same religion. I consider the multiple interpretations to be deliberately manipulating the scripture to fit one's personal philosophy, because it's simply comforting to 'believe in something' than to allegedly 'believe in nothing'. I don't believe it's necessary, and it functions more as a burden than it does an enlightening spiritual thing. It's also a false dichotomy since atheists don't 'believe in nothing' - they typically believe in humanity, hence why they affiliate themselves with secular humanism.

What do you mean when you say 'bad person'? If you are referring to morality (or lack thereof), then I'd say it would depend on how you would define morality. I would personally take the consequentialist route since it bares more weight (it's focus is on the consequences of actions), and is more meaningful and thus serves a better purpose than say... deontology. I'm personally very unsympathetic - whilst I have empathy, I don't express it in emotion. It's just not my preference. I don't think that would make anyone a bad person really. I'm not sure why you would even pose that question - as though it would make someone a bad person.

It depends on what the users are claiming. If they are saying 'It is morally righteous to shoot a laptop when he could have simply destroyed it with a hammer and thus minimized the risk of endangering oneself', then I'd certainly hold contention. I don't agree with what the child did. I'm saying that the parent's act of shooting the laptop, recording it and subsequently posting on Facebook/YouTube was not justified. I don't believe that the notion 'bad actions should have consequences' should justify what I believe to be excessive, unnecessary force with a firearm. What had the laptop got to do with it in the first place? Why was that destroyed, exactly? I find his methodology to be barbaric, like religious logic. Oh wait, that operates on faith.

Banned for not understanding my post.

Banned for attempting to shift the responsibility to unrelated correspondences.

The Price of Civilization by Jeffery Sachs.

What relevance does that question have?

I do feel that there's too much makeup in that particular photo though. The juxtaposition of the red lipstick against her pale skin does no favours for her smile.

Then its a shame your not arguing with a dictionary. You might find it easier to understand what people are saying if you allow the context of words to help convey the meaning, because while English has an incredible number of words that allow you to convey the same things with very subtle differences in meaning, it does not actually have a word for everything. This more of a general point though. My point was that it would be easier to understand the arguments people make if you had some understanding of why people (can) believe in things without evidence, rather than just going "that's stupid" and walking away. You are either unable, or unwilling to comprehend the whole concept. Also, by using the pure believing in things unconditionally definition, you are inadvertently painting moderates as fundamentalists since moderates do ask questions. As it applies to death, I don't see how it makes a difference. False hope is only an issue if the possibility of finding out that hope was false actually exists. Either I am right and the hope wasn't false, or I am wrong and I'll never find out (since as it stand now, the question can't be answered for me until I die, and if I am wrong, I won't exist to know I am wrong). And Malevolent plan? Again, assuming we are talking about death, then its neccesity, not malevolence. People need to die. If we were immortal in so far as we never grew old and died, then we would all eventually starve or suffocate as our population consumed all the resources available to us. If we we're immortal, then we would also essentially need to be sterile, and you can't have a species like that since there would be no way to start it, except artificially. And that's not a religious point so don't mistake it for one. Doesn't matter if you like it. We all do it. Religion comes from humans, so all the assumptions are of human origin anyway. I'll use Evolution as an example. You don't need religion to assume that humans have always been humans. It's actually the logical conclusion unless your either 100,000 years old, someone who studies bacteria, or someone who studies archaeology and has found the right evidence. Even when Evolution is working as fast as it can (and it can work quite fast, such as African Elephants being born noticeably more often tuskless as a result of poaching), its probably going to be a few lifetimes before you can really notice it. It is unobservable unless you have been alive for way to long, you study something that reproduces incredibly fast (such as bacteria), or you have access to fossil records. Religions (plural - since I think this applies to pretty much every religion ever) assume that the creator made us as is because for thousands of years, there was no way to observe otherwise. At this point I should probably mention that I believe the works that make up the Bible were all written by humans, not God. You didn't need to believe in anything to come to the logical conclusion that humans had always been humans, and always would be humans. As for a curiosity stopper...for some people I suppose its possible, but only for those who need to know everything about the world (and to think you know even close to that would require a terribly small imagination anyway I think). I have a drive to know how things work, be it a mouse climbing something (they have fantastic grip), that camera that broke and I can finally take it apart, or how skates move so easily on ice. My curiosity and drive to know things is greater than anyone else I know. When I say it answers questions that science can't, don't make the mistake of thinking that I am filling in blanks like the grand unifaction theory with religion. I don't know how to quantify what I mean, and its a very individual thing anyway. Some people look to religion to tell them how to live(running the gambit from 'be kind and forgiving' to 'these are the absolute rules you live by', others to tell them what the meaning of live is. I guess it depends on what the questions are. You've completely misunderstood my post. It seems that the strong level of bias has some surmountable effect, but I digress. I use well accepted, dictionary definitions because it conveys the correct message. Arguments are meaningless if we're not agreeing on what we're referring to. What meaning does it have if I'm referring to a purportedly omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator god when you're referring to a God that's the equivalent of say... energy? I'm not accusing you of doing so - I'm posing a hypothetical, or an analogy as such. I think I was referring to fundamentalists in my little rant about not questioning. But, even if that was a given (i.e. it's actually true and not simply proclaimed) - what use is it if you're simply going to accept it? I don't quite know the workings of moderate Christianity, and since people have evidently been reluctant to clarify precisely what they refer to, I feel this conversation is becoming a little moot. If you're not believing things unconditionally - then what are you basing it upon? I'd like to know, instead of being told that I don't understand the concept - because that's meaningless and does nothing to help resolve the conflict. I express contention with false hope not because it's false - but rather, we base our decisions and actions upon those hopes. I believe that believing a comforting lie is more destructive than an inconvenient truth. We know little to nothing for certainty, but we can deduce the likelihood of it being false by analysing the claims that's being made. If they're contradictory and thus cannot both be true at the same time, then obviously something must be false. It is evident in Christian fundamentalism - but I'm not sure what, precisely, Christian moderates believe so I won't comment on those denominations as of yet. I called the plan malevolent in reference to unnecessary suffering in the world. We should be able to agree on that point that unnecessary suffering exists. I don't quite follow your point on 'we all do it' - were you implying that because we do, we ought to? Are you suggesting that this is a good thing? What precisely are you trying to suggest? It seems to be a moot point at best. Oh, and since we're at it, what defines a creature to be human, and what defines a human to be a person? The curiosity stopper statement was not aimed at you - as you are not representative of the group I'm aiming at. Rather, I'm aiming it at the typical (predominant) group, aiming for a consensus ideal as opposed to personal philosophy. I'm not sure how you mean when you say 'fill the blanks' - care to elaborate?

That's why you've got to be a skeptic. That's why you've got to question everything. You've made far too many assumptions and now it has screwed you over. I've finally turned up on time on two consecutive days. I hope it lasts. My attendance has been down the gutter recently - I'm simply waking up too early or too late.

Children (non-adults, under 18) by law cannot own property. It doesn't matter who payed for the laptop, if it was a gift, or even if somehow she built it out of sand herself. Legally, her parents own everything she has. Where does this apply? What kind of property does it entail? Is it limited to just property? Does it include a right to withdraw a child's funds from their bank accounts if they so wish - regardless of who earned it? Does this somehow justify the moral stance of shooting the laptop? Was it necessary at all? I don't see how shooting the laptop would have benefited anyone here, except for the egoistic father. It does not justify the stance to 'teach them a lesson' if the lesson isn't likely to be effective, or that the purported 'lesson' may have adverse effects in the long run thus making the entire purpose of such a redundant, if not counter-effective, activity. I personally believe that shooting the laptop achieved neither effective teaching (merely appeal to consequences, loss aversion which falls into the second category), and was likely to have adverse effects to the child. To reiterate - I consider this punitive punishment, tantamount to corporal punishment, except as a psychological tool instead. I shall clarify that I'm arguing on a consequentialist standpoint - as opposed to a deontologistic standpoint.

I do wonder how you compose your Resume. Could you provide an excerpt of your personal profile?

By natural understanding, I don't mean an innate ability - rather, a developed sense of morality. I wouldn't tell a child it's merely wrong - I would explain why, and the consequences of poor decisions/actions. That in itself should be the reason. Do take a note of the video I've posted - it's a more cohesive form of my ideals. I'm not sure what ages you're referring to either. Are we still referring to ~ 14 year old teens, or toddlers?

What do you mean when you say 'punishments'? I'd say a natural understanding of why misbehaving is unacceptable is stronger in the long-term than a man-made punishment that does nothing but instill fear. The human mind doesn't work the same way as say, dogs do when they respond to incentives. Here's a video of my basic mindset: EDIT - I submit that I believe its a dichotomy because fear and understanding seem contradictory to me.

Loss aversion is not a strong incentive to behave well. It takes a great deal of harm (psychological or physical) before any surmountable effect is evident. EDIT - Do we really want to teach out of fear rather than out of understanding?

It's a fabricated consequence - and disproportionate to say the least. Utilitarianism says if harm > benefits, then its an unwise decision. In this case, it appears to me that the likelihood would be that the harm would supersede the benefits. EDIT Here's the questions to consider when we analyse acting in one's best interests: Does it promote health, happiness, or wellbeing? Does it mitigate or otherwise reduce harm/suffering? Is it an effective method, and is there a better alternative? I consider the 'teaching of consequences' benefit as negligible, and flawed at best. It illustrates that if they cannot resolve it through discussion, then violence would be necessary. I don't believe that to be the case.

Banned for not being as depressive as I am right now.

I'd rather have it resolved. Please provide an example of how it could be in the best interests of the child, and illustrate how in this scenario, its more likely than not to be the case. I fail to see how very minor exceptions should be considered above whats ultimately the most likely scenario. To do so would be special pleading.

I've misread into the lines of punishment. I still don't think psychological ploys, or damage to property would be considered loving or nurturing when its to act against the best interests of the child.

I define loving and nurturing to be to act in the best interests of the child. Given that severely beating and punishing would not act in the best interests of the child, it cannot then, by definition, be considered loving and nurturing. They may want to, and they may have all intentions to - but objectively, they aren't. I've yet to respond to the long 'rationality' post because I'm still a little tired from my poor sleeping patterns. Bah.