Locke_Superbus
-
Posts
150 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by Locke_Superbus
-
-
[hide]
[/hide]Really, jr? The plight of old people? Care to be a little more specific, perhaps even with some evidence? Again, victims rights are not an issue in the UK whatsoever. You're speaking to someone whose family comes from Sicily, where crimes used to go unpunished because of money/connections, and to an extent still do.
The problem with your argument is that there is no convincing case for stating that human rights in the UK are corrupt in any absolute sense, while, in relative terms, they rank among the best on the planet.
I added in an aside about crime statistics to counter your points on self-responsibility and how awful it is today, when in the 1970s and before - which you seem quite nostalgic about - crime was statistically higher and so presumably self-responsibility more lacking.
Croc, I'm not sure which 'UK' you live in, as if you keep your head reasonably above the water you'd have heard/seen many articles/news reports of what I've been talking about.
I guess you missed this type of article - Elderly home care failures breach human rights. So youll excuse me if it offends to not care about a criminals right to medical treatment as I think its more deplorable that an old person is denied proper access to food. Oh and there's no issues with victims of crime are there? :rolleyes:
You continually mention that you come from Sicily.....so what? Just because the corruption there is more blatant does not mean it isnt here because its not as obvious. Its the same thing except the moneys in the hands of lawyers who purposely undertake certain cases because thats where the money is (Hence why Cherie Booth/Blair was keen to bring it in and why everyone knows she lined her pockets very nicely). Cases such as this arent abuse of public money? Have you seen the backlog of cases in the human rights court? Fantastic arent we. Oh and dont forget that our wonderful human rights stops us from deporting many foreign criminals, you know, that hate us. Just for good measure, our current prime minister seems to think there's some issues with it
The thing you need to know about crime statistics is that theyve pretty much always been falling. Any guesses why? Simple. Try not recording them in the first place
This is what happens when people buy into the mass media's manufactured hysteria without questioning, they become chicken little and thus even more suseptible to hysteria as its brilliant for business and getting support for ill thought out or downright insidious legislation.
After the cause of the molehill is found then the binary thinking usually kicks in, anyone who's knee isnt jerking far enough (usually to the right, but not exclusively) must be part of the problem and needs to be disposed of too, because every situation no matter how complex can be solved instantly if you ignore all the other problems your mindless flailing creates. (which conveniently creates next months story and crusade when granny's house gets demolished while she's out shopping to make way for the new bypass. We did get rid of the human rights act after all, so she doesnt actually HAVE any right to the property she worked and paid for her whole life, but hey at least we got rid of those gypsy camps lowering our house prices, misson accomplished!)
Given the choice there are plenty of more deserving causes out there than criminals. Trying to think how to describe this but I think everyone's trying to be.....liberally trendy if that makes sense. For many it's cool to defend the rights of criminals but no-one really defends or really makes issues for those who need it. That's why it's an interesting thread. Everyone's so focussed that criminals should have rights and interested in bashing me for wanting to deny them certain things that when I threw the example plight of the elderly in the air they ignored it........such is life.
you keep making the mistake of framing it as being either/or, as if people are only capable of caring about 1 issue at a time and should only care about the 'more important' (a completely nebulous and subjective criterion if there ever was one),which presumably means if/when a 'more important' issue than the treatment of the elderly comes up (chilld protection services failing perhaps?) you'll drop them in favour of the new issue to be outraged about, to show how much you actually care about the issue.
The reason people are focusing on the rights of criminals (also that they do actually have rights, and, shock! horror! are actually human too) is because thats the topic funnily enough. But hey, we're just stupid pinko liberal hippies, because we think prisoners should have protections against such things as being raped/abused by other prisoners and staff or that rehabilitation works better than just locking people up and wondering why they reoffend when they arent equpped/able to rejoin society, it means we MUST be A-OK with the elderly being neglected. You know, makes perfect sense...
-
- As a landlord, I can't physically stop junkies from lighting up, but it is my responsibility when they're doing it on my premises.
- As the owner of MU, I can't physically stop illegal piracy from happening, but it my responsibility when they're doing it through MU.
See where this is going?
ok lets take your logic to its conclusion and prosecute walmart the next time someone makes explosives from chemicals bought there, after all they are providing access to these chemicals so are responsible for whatever happens to them.
and dont forget to prosecute the mailman who unknowingly delivers the next ransom note or letterbomb, hes responsible for aiding crime too!
What a ridiculous exaggeration. If walmart was selling bombs that would be be a more apt comparison; but they aren't.
megaupload isnt selling copyright material, theyre providing a service that some misuse, just like in my example walmart isnt providing bombs, theyre providing things that some misuse to make bombs. if youre going to hold people accountable for the actions of others at least be consistant about it...
-
I'm fairly certain creating a deadly plague or a massive atomic weapon that could blow up the moon and fit in an aglet would be examples of bad things. Creation is not always a good thing.
Gratz on Jagex for winning this fight against the bots, but I'm personally a little begrudged that prayer pots probably won't ever fall back down to like 2k a pop and cannonballs like 250GP ea :rolleyes:
the collective is evolving, theyll be back, its just a matter of when.
-
- As a landlord, I can't physically stop junkies from lighting up, but it is my responsibility when they're doing it on my premises.
- As the owner of MU, I can't physically stop illegal piracy from happening, but it my responsibility when they're doing it through MU.
See where this is going?
ok lets take your logic to its conclusion and prosecute walmart the next time someone makes explosives from chemicals bought there, after all they are providing access to these chemicals so are responsible for whatever happens to them.
and dont forget to prosecute the mailman who unknowingly delivers the next ransom note or letterbomb, hes responsible for aiding crime too!
-
DRM is because of pirates. Freeloading scabs make legitimate user experiences horrible.
nah, its actually to stop used software sales and, in the case of games, so that they can re-re-re-re-release it 10-20-30 years down the line as all the previous legitimate versions will nolonger work as all the drm will no longer function. meanwhile the pirated versions free of all that stuff will be fully functional and still circulating.
as a legitimate customer you should stop making piracy any of your concern, thats the company's problem, then you start demanding by not giving them custom to stop with these measures that only harm you so that they have to start looking for other methods that dont negatively effect you.
-
You know why piracy ticks me off so much? It's not only the fact that part of my job is writing software and inventing things, but also the fact that pirates are the reason for all the horrible anti-piracy DRM stuff on computer games I'm interested in, all the stupid anti-piracy warnings on the movies I buy, and the reason I can't easily sync media on all the computers I own.
You, and others like you, are the reason I have to put up with all that [cabbage] even though I do everything legally. FTFY.
you know you could always pirate and not have to put up with those things, or just stop supporting and incentivising companies that employ that stuff that doesnt faze pirates in the first place and just shows contempt for customers. they wont stop with that until you make it worth their while stop, or you can keep supporting these increasing draconian and ineffective measures until everything you do is watched over by the big brother machine while the poeple it was supposed to stop just continue on unimpeded.
-
I'm not trying to be harsh, I'm frustrated with the amount of half truths put out and the attempts to obfuscate language.
It seems my summary still holds true, but you can add in "change the definition of person" to the pro-choice argument.
Certainly, but one justifies a pro-abortion stance by placing a higher value on present human life the convenience of a woman over the life of her child.
its like people have no concept of self awareness.....
-
I like how you only listed the negatives in the OP...
yea, wheres the mention of all those billions going to the military industrial complex or of the patriot act?
-
Boo-hoo, people will actually be able to profit from their intellectual property.
I, for one, like getting paid for developing my ideas.
even if this legislation were to actually work (which it wont) you wont be able to use it. The only people who will be able to use this will be the self same companies who will flagrantly steal from people not rich enough to fight them (aka you).
-
As for your third argument, people who do despicable things in the name of the Church, when the Church does not support such things, can't even be seen as reflecting Church teaching. The Church does not preach to go out and harass those who have had abortions. It is completely against it. So why should the Church be seen as responsible for such harassment? Any radical group can claim that any person/institution influenced their actions.
so when the vatican actively and knowingly financing groups that picket and harrass outside medical centres that do abortions it doesnt count as support? expressing support for laws that make it illegal to have an abortion in countries like malaysia, which further victimise the women who undergo the procedure, that doesnt count as support? blackmailing those women by preaching abortion is a sin, and threatening them that theyll burn forever in hell as a result doesnt count as harrassment in and of itself?
when the church authorities (almost exclusively old men) think they have any right over the bodies of others under the BS pretense "its for your own good", their armies of sycophants theyve trained up to hang on their every word start emulating this belief and act as if they have any right over other the bodies of others and so begins the harrassment and blackmail. your beliefs inform your actions after all, so whoever bears the responsiblity for planting those beliefs in those people (which the church is no doubt keen to attribute to itself) also bears a proportional part of the responiblity for the consequences of the actions that result from those beliefs (which is what apologetics tries to weasel out from when those actions arent favourable).
-
It's an innocent child, nonetheless. It cannot control how it was born, and we should hold none of that against it. We should especially not hold the child's father's crime against it.
An unborn child (fetus) still has no life nor rights. It's not a person in the eyes of the law. So if in the eyes of the law it's not murder i don't see why anyone one else should classify it as that."The law says this, so I don't know why anyone else would say differently."
Wasn't trying to be disrespectful. It just seems like you completely trust the law. If I offended, I did not mean to.
Again, I'm not saying that anything about the situation was a good thing. I'm just as angered as you are about it. But taking a human life is wrong.
This is off-topic. Take it to the other thread. You know the Church's stance, you do not agree, fine.
oh irony, know you no bounds? the person who seems to completely trust the vatican sees fit to critisize someone for seeming to completely trust the law? do you honestly not see the blatent double-think that such a position requires?
Also, like mostly everything else in this thread, the Church claims to know things through Sacred Scripture and Tradition. Half of the things we're discussing in this thread (baptism, heaven, hell) assert that God exists for the sake of discussion. You're basically coming into this thread while we are all clarifying and discussing Church doctrine, and saying, "hey, by the way, the church can't prove god exists." It's adding nothing, really.
so pointing out even given that such assumptions are true for arguement that theres inherent contradictions that undermine the whole arguement adds nothing. oh wait i forgot, theyre not contradictions because the person making the arguement says so, this is backed up by this same person saying that this book that they says is always correct says they are correct, they know this book is correct because they say it is correct. circular logic and sycophantic subservience to authoritive fiat, arent they just grand? what exactly was your problem with trusting the law in the last quote again, and just why do you think your authority is exempt (other than that they just say they are)?
Demonizing? I don't see it. Preventing children from growing up in poverty? There's adoption. Plus, there's thousands of charities and organizations which will help women who have had a baby and cannot provide for them. Also, a C-section is a safe procedure and would've prevent disability or death of the 9 year old. It's a standard procedure and doesn't show anything about hating women. And you don't think it's been proven that there are drastic psychological and physical side effects to having an abortion? Oh, and I want to see an instance in which the authority of the Church will harass this child. There will always exist those followers who feel the need to harass people who had abortions, but I can assure you, no authority figure of the Church is going to (under full support of the Pope in Rome) harass a person who had an abortion. The doctrine says it's wrong, but does not say 'make so-and-so's life miserable because they did it anyway.'
theres these little things you might have heard of called implications of what you preach and you are responsible and need to be held accountable for them whether you intended them or not. when you proclaim yourself an authority and preach that abortion is equivilent to murder and people follow you, do dispicible things then use things you have actually said as justification you bear a part of the responsibility for what happened.
and you know whats even safer than invasive surgery after several months of gestation (which have their own risks) and is backed up by evidence from across the developed world and avoids the majority of those drastic side effects you claim follow abortion? properly administered abortion by trained medical professionals.
-
Yes, I do feel for the girl and the girls' family, but when you think about it from the view of the unborn child, it was morally wrong. People seem to think that killing the child will make it seem like the rape never happened; others even associate this very innocent child with whoever committed the rape, and see killing the child as a sort of 'payback'. But what it boils down to is that a life was taken, a life that could honestly have been just as good as any other life.
EDIT: And that's just stupid to think that the Church hates women/girls... Really, let's try to be intellectually competent here.
oh my, speaking of irony....
so lets get this straight.
Demonising people for exercising control over their own bodies,prevent children from growing up in poverty as their parents cant afford them, or like in this case to prevent almost certain perment disability or death due to her being 9 years old because hey, more babies need to be pumped out DOESNT count as haterd of women? to add to the horror of the rape shes going to have to endure people harrassing her and calling her a murderer for the rest of her life because of the dogma you and they subscribe to, if that doesnt register as hatred to you then quite frankly youre beyond reasoning. so congratulations on having such a lack of self awareness that you prove exact what you were trying to deny.
-
Honestly, your paraphrase is completely wrong. And frankly, I don't like your attitude at all. It's people like you who think the Church is a joke that piss me off, and I have no respect at all for said people.
Those passages are hardly contradictory at all. And I may just be guessing, but seeing as that is Part I Section I Article I, I bet you just started at the beginning and tried to look for the first instance in which you could claim there were contradictions. (has absoultely no effect on the validity of my arguement, it could be the first example or the millionth)
I glean from those passages that 1) The Church is confident that we can (we have the ability to) speak about Him and of Him because of our intellect 2) Our knowledge of God is limited, and so will all our explanations/ideas/descriptions: "Our human words always fall short of the mystery of God...Admittedly, in speaking about God like this, our language is using human modes of expression; nevertheless it really does attain to God himself,though unable to express him in his infinite simplicity. (infinite simplicity? thats a logical impossiblity right there, besides were it possible then god would be the easiest thing to explain because he'd be, well, simpler thean the simplest thing possible.)
I still am dumbfounded at how you came to the conclusions you did from these passages. I dunno how I'm going to keep up an intellectual conversation with you...
then theres also the fact that none of the assumptions made are backed up by any evidence, theyre just flatly asserted.
"God transcends all creatures."
"on what basis do you claim to know this?"
"....."
so if god is "the inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the ungraspable" as the catholic church proclaims just how on earth can they possibly claim anything about god at all. either something is incomprehensible in which case you cannot know anything else about it by definition, or you can know things about it in which case its not incomprehesible. Seeing as the catholic church is claiming to know things about god then they are also claiming that god isnt incomprehensible.......while claiming that god is incomprehensible.
nevermind that in order to be able to properly judge something as incomprehensible (as opposed to just 'I cant comprehend this') you would have to comprehend that something first in order to make that evaluation, which would mean its not incomprehensible.
-
But I assure you that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is not contradictory.
from http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c1.htm#I AKA the offical vatican website.
IV. HOW CAN WE SPEAK ABOUT GOD?
39 In defending the ability of human reason to know God, the Church is expressing her confidence in the possibility of speaking about him to all men and with all men, and therefore of dialogue with other religions, with philosophy and science, as well as with unbelievers and atheists.
40 Since our knowledge of God is limited, our language about him is equally so. We can name God only by taking creatures as our starting point, and in accordance with our limited human ways of knowing and thinking.
41 All creatures bear a certain resemblance to God, most especially man, created in the image and likeness of God. The manifold perfections of creatures - their truth, their goodness, their beauty all reflect the infinite perfection of God. Consequently we can name God by taking his creatures" perfections as our starting point, "for from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator".15
42 God transcends all creatures. We must therefore continually purify our language of everything in it that is limited, image-bound or imperfect, if we are not to confuse our image of God--"the inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the ungraspable"--with our human representations.16 Our human words always fall short of the mystery of God.
43 Admittedly, in speaking about God like this, our language is using human modes of expression; nevertheless it really does attain to God himself, though unable to express him in his infinite simplicity. Likewise, we must recall that "between Creator and creature no similitude can be expressed without implying an even greater dissimilitude";17 and that "concerning God, we cannot grasp what he is, but only what he is not, and how other beings stand in relation to him."18
so basically "we think that humans can understand god and explain him to others, but we think humans cant possibly understand god or explain him to others because he is incomprehensible. We shall nevertheless claim to know what this thing is, what it wants and what it does even though we just said we cant possibly know. we shall say that we can know these properties of god because he is similar to what he makes, but however similar he is he is even more different so we really cant know his properties. hes also a cubic sphere, the colour 4 and a car made of blue. also mystery as we havent met our daily quota of that word today."
[/snark]
-
i suppose our characters are already
- the 'prophesised one' in like 20 different prophecies of several different races
- the rediscoverer of a skill and several different altars lost for centuries/millennia
- the unsealer and/or destroyer of several dozen ancient evils
- seem to be involved somehow with every important figure throughout history.
all the while being utterly incompetant and as thick condensed molasses, so hey whats 1 more contrived plot twist, its not like the 'twist' is exactly what we expect...
- the 'prophesised one' in like 20 different prophecies of several different races
-
my mistake, i keep forgetting sarcasm and snark dont work properly on the internet.
when duff said
"And I say Catholicism because it's one of the most longstanding , organized religious institutions out there, and it's Catechism is extremely detailed and... well, non-contradictory (so, well founded)."
the implication behind the longstanding clause is that age and truth are correlated, which is utterly fallacious, and if he didnt want to imply it then he wouldnt have written it. As for the non-contradictory part, thats just bunk, the doctrine of limbo is a perfect example of this, one pope says its correct because hes the pope and therefore infallible, then the latest pope says its not correct because hes the pope and therefore infallible. they cant both be right, which calls into question on what grounds they can claim to always have the 'correct' interpretation.
-
Not when the point he's making is an explanation of church doctrine. Basically all you're doing is saying "you can't prove that" to every point he brings up, which doesn't make for a useful or constructive discussion.
au contraire, pointing out glaring flaws in arguements is essential to constructive arguments, and the most fundamental of flaws is not being able to back the arguement up with proof.
-
Okay, but nobody is sure that they'll go to heaven. We don't even actually know if heaven or hell exist.
Nice straw man. Part of the reason I've stayed away from the thread thus far....
I didn't intend to use any straw man fallacies, could you point it out for me?
there isnt any, though its curious that duffy hasnt been called out on his numerous appeal to authority fallacies throughout his posts, along with more flip-flopping than a bus of tourists at Ibiza.
for example
Fundamentalist Christians = take the words in the Bible literally. You can see the various problems with this. If not, I suggest reading the short pamphlet on Fundamentalism written by Eugene LaVerdiere. It goes through why fundamentalism is a pastoral, social, theological, and personal problem.
Catholicism = inerrancy of the Bible: "the Bible solidly, faithfully and without error teaches the truth which God wanted put into sacred writings."(one has to ask if the bible is without error it can be taken anything but literally) In other words, whatever was written down, through this writing God intended to help us attain eternal life.(Sharpshooters fallacy) (Dei Verbum paragraph 11, from the Second Vatican Council). straight appeal to authority
And I say Catholicism because it's one of the most longstanding (which means if truth is proportional to age as this person asserts then zoroastrianism is more that twice as true as catholicism) , organized religious institutions out there, and it's Catechism is extremely detailed arguement from complexity and... well, non-contradictory (so, well founded). both of the last 2 are unproven assertions
I can continue with just about any post if neccessary.
-
I think any person in the Black Knights could be the person since they sent them, not just Lucien. Hope it isn't like Void quests and be a random guy...
OMG, Romily Weaklax, the piemaker, is the secret cook for a Black Knight gathering, poisoned them all, and took over it. :rolleyes:
close, but needs more "and romily is also a secret member of a super secret order/race/family of [whatever]who are so secret that we've never talked or even alluded to them before even though theyre behind everything. until we make the next set of character to be behind everything next week"
-
Wouldn't it be the other way around since glacors are ancient beings?
They were spawned from the effect the stone of jas had on the ice in the cave. seeing as he didnt have the stone for all that long timeline wise, no, theyre not ancient.
-
Also NOTHING he said remotely confirmed lucien as his master, it was all just pure speculation of Nomad has a strong master; lucien is epic it must be him.
Theres also the fact that nomad talks about his master coming to get him rather than sending assassins, when earlier in the quest in a cutscene he dispatches the group of elite dark warrior/ranger/mage, who were explicitly being controlled by Lucien in WGS.
Not that it really matters, jagex makes it all up as they go along then akwardly mash contrived silliness in when a storylines next instalment comes about to retcon the story into whatever the developer feels like that day. "the penguins are plotting to take over runescape!" RETCON "the penguins are being controlled by the sea slugs!" (after Pillar On The Queen....... I mean Salt In The Wound) "the penguins werent being controlled, they just thought they were".
As a certain white haired sage once said "you're not thinking 4-dimensionally!"
-
What about Zaros?
[hide]Also what's this about Zamorak returning from banishment, and did Saradomin return too (cause he was on Gielinor)? What does this mean? Guthix pissed off? Zaros???[/hide]
Reposting this as it's very interesting to know and no one has said much about it in the thread.
that scene was a vision from the stone of jas about the god wars
-
could i have a hint please?
just what is it im supposed to be looking for with this strange device? ive put the 4 tetras in the holes so i know f = 1 c = 2 etc, but i dont have anything to go on as to where to dig
-
Okay, Dragonkin hiding for thousands and years of they decide to hold a conference on Karamaja where anyone can see them? :rolleyes:
youre expecting logic in fan-fiction/service? can i have some of what ever it is youre smoking please?
price of the new flasks?
in General Discussion
Posted
jagex can make it so that you can only decant from 1 flask to another (possibly only from bob barter at ge) and any emptied flasks still shatter, that way 'loose' doses after trips can be combined while flasks are still removed from the game by use. If i were a betting man id wager that jagex will make it so you have to add all 6 doses at once anyway, much like how you can make magic pyre logs from 2 sacred oil(2)s if theyre both in inv when making them but you can put 2 doses on a log then bank and put 2 more doses on it.