assassin_696

Meh, send em to the Russian gulags for a few weeks, then bring em back and see if they're still cheeky enough to demand a plasma TV :P Cheeky beggers.

I think if a life sentence actually meant life (which it should IMO) crime rates would probably be lowered. Yeah, I can see that your theory generally holds and makes sense, but the mind of a criminal doesn't work to fit statistics, even with a death penalty for stealing a bun from a stall you'd still get murderers. And either way it's morally wrong, I think a life sentence in a grotty jail would be a worse deterrent.

Lost your prozac? Either way, happy 15th birthday! :mrgreen:

Perhaps if it really was a deterrent then there might be a convincing argument for it. As it stands, the states in the US which have the death penalty also have the higher crime and murder rates. When people commit a crime they don't weigh up the potential sentences they might get, they don't plan on getting caught.

Alzheimer's is a really awful disease to have, strips you of all your dignity and awareness. Truly, my deepest condolences, if there's no chance of her recovering I hope she passes from this world in a comfortable and dignified manner, and in a way such that you and your family can recover. At least she had a shot at life, and by the sounds of it lead a good one as well. Be positive, as hard as it is, it's what she'd want :)

Thats different. That would be violating the dress code. Ah, so there's a dress code. Is that violating your right to wear what you like?

The things you bolded are completley true (except the "trash" went a little far). It does promote sadistic beliefs when followed literally. Also, i'd look up the term "discrimination" before filing that report. I'm merely pointing out saying such things will offend people who were brought up on the religion. Like me, and causing a flame war. i don't want that to happen. P.S. I know what discrimination means. I just used it wrong in this particular use of the word. They will only offend if you hold your religion in such a precious regard that you're afraid that there might be anything wrong with it. The moment you stop questioning your faith is the moment you stop thinking.

Stop making such a fuss, it's got little to do with "rights", you probably can wear what you want, but what if you wore a t-shirt covered in swearing? Or just a thong? Common sense needed.

The death penalty is wrong: 1. You're saying murder is wrong, then you're murdering a person in cold blood for his crimes. That's hypocritical and simply vengeful. 2. Human life is a right which no court system should have the power to take away without consent. 3. There are chances for miscarriages of justice. 4. It's not an effective deterrent. 5. It's barbaric and tribal, we should be ethically above killing people for their actions. 6. If the crime was heinous enough, the death penalty seems a little good for them, or might even make them a martyr.

Because they're bloody scary, that's why :uhh:

Honestly mate, my deepest condolences. Cancer is a... well i'm sure you know. Be strong, for his sake, make his last few moments as comfortable and enjoyable as humanely possible. All the best :)

Did you just try and use your faith as a justification for impinging on another person's right to criticse and hold opinion? As Satenza said, I don't quite think you're understanding the meaning of the word discrimination, but either way, religion will not be defended for religion's sake. It will stand for free and honest inquiry like any other thing.

Steak's still my favourite meal, but I can't eat it now as guilt free as I used to be able to, I won't go into the reasons, but i'm eating less meat than I used to. I don't know why, I still love meat, I just know that it's better to eat smaller quantities of better quality stuff than loads of processed or hormone injected stuff. It's kinda hard though, since I go to the gym a lot and lift weights I know I need to get enough protein to keep up with it, but i'm leaning more towards fish and chicken and soya beans than red meat all the time.

Actually, I tell a lie, I do have some problems with religious moderation. 1. Moderation provides cover for fundamentalism, by honouring the principles that respect and tolerance are sacred it prevents criticism of fundamentalism. 2. It makes the same claims about the supernatural, and the same claims to know the absolute truth. Therefore, any religion that says it is the absolute truth cannot exist peacefully with others. 3. Moderation is in a sense, bad theology. I.e. maybe Defender has a point, that he's being a more devout believer, maybe God really does want to punish homosexuals or destroy infidels. Of course, that doesn't mean those views are valid, far from it, but in the context of religious faith maybe there are. Religious moderates tend to be unaware of or deliberately ignoring the nastier aspects of the Bible. I still don't have anything automatically against individual Christians though.

Yeah, you make very valid points. I wasn't particularly trying to come across as anti-materialistic, and I suppose my proposed hypothetical situation was a little leaky. The point was more that we shouldn't intrinsically link our happiness to material goods, since they are transcendent. We also (so long as it's safe) shouldn't worry too much about when 'stuff' goes wrong. Looking back on it, John did his teach his child a better lesson, I suppose what you need to do is find a middle ground between the two views. When I said Simon shrugged it off, I didn't mean he just laughed and walked off, I meant he tried to teach his child a lesson in the context of making a joke about it, teaching his child a lesson while still maintaining her happiness. That's the key, I suspect.

I suppose you could re-iterate the point but say that Simon doesn't have the finances to replace the lawnmower, but his reaction is the same. What is the daughters lesson? Is it the value of a lawnmower or how not to drive it into a wall?

This is something i've been pondering the past few days, and I was wondering what other people would make of it. The crux of my argument which I want to put forward is this: When we, as humans, sacrifice our happiness or the happiness of others in favour of the welfare of material possessions we have failed in our aim to strive for happiness within and around us. I know that sounds a bit pretentious, so what it boils down to is this: When we get more worked up over losing or damaging some material possession to the point where we lose sight of our happiness, or someone else's, we're not doing so for any good reason. To illustrate my point, i'll present a little story which might help relate it a bit to everyday life: There are two guys, John and Simon. Simon was brought up in a well off, upper class family. He went to a private school, played sports, socialised and did well. He went to university and got a degree and managed to get a very well paid job. But he did so more on virtue of his contacts and networking than job skills. He gets married, and has a child who grows up in a comfortable lifestyle. Money problems are a non-issue. John on the other hand comes from a less well off family. He isn't given a penny more than he needs, and has to work hard for everything. He doesn't go to university, instead he does his A-levels at nightschool while holding down a job to provide for him and his wife. They have a child, who also grows up in a reasonably comfortable lifestyle, but only because John worked damn hard to make sure that his wife and child would be provided for. For argument's sake, let's say that both John and Simon earn exactly the same amount of money. Now, both these guys have children. And lets say both these guys have lawnmowers (bare with me). The children are both taught how to mow the lawn, and then go and do so. But both children accidentaly let the lawnmower run into a stone wall, breaking it. Here's where the point comes. Simon, knowing that the lawnmower is easily replaceable laughs about the issue, shrugging it off with a casual joke. He knows his child will learn her lesson, but doesn't worry about it, because it's a material possesion. Simon has placed his daughter's happiness over the welfare over his lawnmower. John on the other hand gets cross, he looks visibly disappointed and gives his child a mini-lecture on how to use it properly and look after things so that they will last. His child is visibly upset by her father's disappointment. John has placed the welfare of his lawnmower over the happiness of his daugher. Now I ask you, who did the right thing? You could argue that John did the right thing, his child will learn her lesson more thoroughly and will be more cautious in the future. But ultimately, does it matter? I think that we as humans strive for happiness, trapical's brilliant "Revelation" highlighted how material possessions rarely have the ability to make us happy since we never seem to be happy with what we've got and always strive for more. Past a certain point, as long as we can provide for our basic needs money is only something which provides some kind of false purpose for us to aim for. We don't really need it, we just think we do. Any thoughts or opinions?

What i've heard of him I really like, i'll definitely get round to checking out more of his stuff.

Don't be silly, last time I saw it it didn't have scales, more like leathery skin. :roll:

I've yet to see an unbiased media report on this either way, so i'm not really sure where to stand. Even if it is all a myth though, I think cutting carbon emmissions is probably just good sense anyway though, so I wouldn't worry too much about it even if it's false. I also wonder, even if 2000 scientific papers did conclude that global warming is a fact (which it is), I wonder how many concluded it was our fault?

Umm...no. Perhaps a change of opinion isn't too rare, but an entire change of stance or view is a rare beast indeed.

I think the reason your middle ground is often ignored is simply because there's nothing really wrong with it. It's nothing personal, I don't have anything against individual Christians at all, I just enjoy debating fundamentalist ones. I don't see the point in addressing a middle ground post because often it just supports my stance against the fundamentalist.

Defender, you've far from explained anything there. It's a contradiction, your twisting your perception to try and fit in with it though. Either way: Contradictions in Genesis Contradictions in Exodus Contradictions in Leviticus Contradictions in Numbers 1 Contradictions in Deuteronemy More contradictions, different source Inconsistencies Yet more I could do this all day Need I go on? You've also failed to address the other points i've raised.

Well that really doesn't make sense to me. If your enemy loves you, and you love your enemy, you really don't have a enemy do you? But we do have enemies because not everyone follows the Bible or its teachings and not even christians. Yes we all know what love is, but its immoral to command love? Well, love is not a feeling, its a act. Therefor, since we all have choice, we can choose to act on love anytime we wish. Therefor its not a impossible command that we cannot do, we just never "feel" like doing it except to those we like. Your missing the point. Humans are not "designed" to love one other as themselves, to do so is a rare achievement, it cannot be done universally (any intelligent designer would realise this by looking at his own plans), so urging humans to be all loving superhumans on pain of hell and torture is cruel and sadistic. You can choose to be altruistic and loving, but you cannot be compelled into it. (On a side note, your notion that we don't have enemies because we don't all follow the Bible is ridiculous, the OT is the most bloodthirsty book out there).

That's not true at all, I have far more respect for moderate or liberal Christians because it's evident that they've probably at least studied the Bible someway. If you had, you would realise the glaring contradictions, inaccuracies and absurdities mean it is obviously a work of fiction, although liberal Christians would say inspired by God. You're also hypocritical, you said you desire to know the truth, but by accepting the Bible as the literal word of God that's impossible. I really can't be a hypocrite on that because neither I or you know the truth? What if Gods word 100% is the truth? Then I can't be a hypocrite can I? Only if you believe like you do, that its contradicting, then you could call me a hypocrite. So I see where your comming from, but I disagree because no one knows what the truth is. I have read some "contradictions" that people say about the bible. Usually its a mis-type, or a misunderstanding. I want a contradiction on the bible that is ATLEAST 2 or 3 paragraphs. Most contradictions are only sentences. I found alot of stuff where I could say the bible is contradicting itself if I use only a setence or two. However, when you zoom out, read the whole paragraph or chapter, you understand the whole story, not just a part of it, and realize it was never contradicting at all. ~Defender~ 'What is truth?' is a deep question, but I believe in empirical and deductive evidence. That kind of evidence goes against most of the miracles in the Bible, and points towards a worldview which is far richer and more interesting than anything humans ever dreamt up thousands of years ago when they were writing the Bible. You want contradictions? How long have you got? I may as well start at the beginning: Genesis 1:25-27 (Humans were created after the other animals.) And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image. Genesis 2:18-19 (Humans were created before the other animals.) And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.