 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - - Posts by Silvershield |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 |
| User | Post | ||
Silvershield   580                  Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
Originally posted by ArwonI appreciate the sarcasm, but it's not as if this holocaust can be stopped by "lying to authorities," "stealing things," or "kidnapping anyone." The victims reside literally within the bodies or their killers, and to remove those victims would kill them just as dead as an abortion procedure would. So it's hardly a direct analogy for any other sort of holocaust you might imagine. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Rom ManicIgnoring the fact that your race analogy is ludicrous and irrelevant, you must be be just pulling my leg, no? Do you honestly believe, truly in your heart, that a fairly harmless over-the-counter drug like Tylenol is equivalent to crack cocaine or heroin? Or that I, as a regular user of such OTC drugs, am equivalent to a crack addict? To call that statement utterly absurd is an understatement. The truth of the matter is, while the "legal" and "illegal" categories are notably imperfect - something like marijuana, while illegal, is fairly harmless, while many cough syrups, while legal, can fairly easily be used for recreational effect - they serve as pretty solid guides for the differences between drugs. Most illegal drugs are harmful when used as they are intended (which is to say, when they are taken for recreational use), while most (or even all) legal drugs are harmless when used as intended (which is to say, when they are taken in controlled doses to combat ailments and whatnot). It is ridiculous for you too equate the two categories of substances, and the users within each respective category, as identical. A better set of categories would probably be "controlled" versus "over-the-counter." Plenty of drugs that are perfectly legal could be used recreationally, though they would require prescriptions to obtain in the first place. Just a small detail, but an important one. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
Originally posted by ArwonThe problem is, making any sort of dent in the number of abortions would require a great deal of such illegal activity. Which would certainly lead to the arrest of every participant before any notable effect could be seen. As it stands presently, the most realistic, practical method - the only realistic, practical method, really - would be electing politicians that support our views as well as working to enact similar legislation. And you can bet we're doing that. There's no other way to ensure changes on a large scale. Originally posted by Ogama DobeNot to be rude, but please read at least a small part of the thread before popping in here and offhandedly making a remark that is not relevant and not defensible. Just to briefly address your point, the procedure does not affect me but it does affect another human being other than the one that is causing it to happen. That is, if an abortion only affected the mother, she could hardly be faulted for it, but she is murdering a human being separate from herself by undertaking the operation. We've been arguing this point for the past two pages at least; don't presume you've arrived with the end-all solution to the argument if you haven't even read most of the thread. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580  Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Aiya"[...] You probably take drugs every now and then anyway, you hypocrites. [...] How come this doesn't affect people who take a fucking tylenol every now and then when they have a headache?" He directly says that anyone who takes a Tylenol yet calls themselves anti-drugs is a hypocrite. And by anti-drug, it is obvious that he recognizes "hard drugs" as those substances which a person is against. His words equate hard drugs with Tylenol and other simple painkillers. Originally posted by AiyaYou're resorting to semantics rather than dealing with the literal issue. The difference between the two categories of drugs is that, while uncontrolled drugs are absolutely harmless (beyond "drowsiness" or an "upset stomach," as you point out, which are not exactly life-threatening) when used as intended, controlled drugs carry significant side effects. For the most part. As I've stated previously, some drugs that are controlled really do not belong in that category (marijuana being one example), while some that are uncontrolled maybe should be. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Yoronosuku  |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
| Rutgers disgusts me. | |||
|
Silvershield 580  Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
| Rutgers is no longer "new, Cinderella season, possible national title game" Rutgers. Instead, they've gone back to "old, disgraceful, 1-12 season record" Rutgers. They had a great thing, and blew it on the most trivial of games. | |||
|
Silvershield 580  Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Rom ManicWow, 0 for 2. You're batting .000.Originally posted by Silvershield |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
I'm not here to start an argument (even though, knowing what usually happens, this will almost certainly become one), but I can't stand by without at least making some remarks.
Originally posted by CrayolaI am a Christian both in a spiritual and a religious sense, but I haven't "shut down parts of my mind." I think critically, I analyze thoughtfully, I behave independently, but within the morality defined by the Church. Not because I fear the Church or I've been brainwashed or I'm a mindless sheep, but because I believe it's The Right Thing To Do. You sound silly and ignorant when you say that Christians "round up" followers through trickery and deceit; certainly those might play some small role, at least in certain sects, but those methods are hardly the overwhelming theme. Originally posted by CrayolaSure you can find Jesus, you just need to think a bit more abstractly and a bit less concretely. Come on, give it a try, it won't turn you into a stupid brainwashed redneck religious nut. I promise. Originally posted by CrayolaConvince me. Originally posted by CrayolaDiscounting the notion that God enjoys watching a person suffer, we are left simply with the idea that He allows it to happen...why is that not a possibility in your mind? Originally posted by CrayolaWow, way to make an ignorant, insulting remark generalizing many billions of people at once. Originally posted by CrayolaAgain, stray from concrete thought, if only for a moment, and try to understand that "close your eyes" doesn't necessarily mean that you need to relax your eyelids and let them fall in front of those two orbs in your face. Take it in an abstract sense. Originally posted by CrayolaA great deal of the Bible is contradictory, nonsensical, or just plain irrelevant to a modern audience. What's your point? |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
| And some of the most important, respected, and just plain intelligent people in the world today are religious, spiritual, or both. It's not as if every person with any sort of education automatically sees their error of religion and suddenly rejects it. Not hardly. To be religious does not make you stupid and, conversely, to be a "free thinker" does not make you intelligent. | |||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
(Note the quotes around "free thinker" above  .) |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
Originally posted by CrayolaYou need to do more research regarding the beliefs of the various Christian sects. Some fundamentalist Christian denominations will insist that the Bible is word for word fact, absolute truth, and totally indisputable, but most of the more reasonable Christians realize that the Good Book does definitely contradict itself at times, and that a good deal of what it says does not fit with the Christian mindset. (Remember that the greater part of that unchristian thought is found in the Old Testament, while the New Testament is universally understood as the more relevant book for Christianity.) Realizing that the Bible exhibits human flaws hardly invalidates the entire religion, and I think you're drawing a ludicrous and baseless conclusion if you say that it does. Originally posted by CrayolaAs long as you look for scientific evidence that one religion is correct and all others are wrong, you'll never be satisfied and your search will never turn up anything. On the other hand, if you're looking for proof in terms of "a funny feeling when you pray," you're likewise misguided. It's not about empirical proof, and it's not necessarily about some supernatural tickle in the pit of your stomach; it's about seeing a religion's doctrines and beliefs for what they are, agreeing with them, and desiring to pursue those tenets to the best of your ability. I don't think Catholicism is the way to go because a bunch of scientists say it is, or because Jesus comes down in a flash of light and gives me a great big hug every time I pray, but because the moral concepts espoused by the Church are the ones that I think are correct and should be upheld. Originally posted by CrayolaDon't be silly. You know that no religion will claim that its god answers every single prayer by appearing in a burst of smoke and setting everything right in the world. Christians, specifically, never say a thing about our God behaving like some sort of personal servant, catering to the trivial requests of humanity like some giant butler in the sky. He provided us with free will so that, just as we can hurt ourselves, we can also help ourselves. Prayer is a nebulous and mysterious concept, but we as Christians like to believe that our Lord pays attention to those who believe in Him and takes action - what sort of action, we cannot specifically know - in response. Anyway, to understand the concept of answering prayers, you can look to that old idea of the genie in the lamp. You rub the lamp and the genie appears, you decide you're hungry and you ask him to make you a ham sandwich, and poof - you're transformed into a ham sandwich. For all we know, God answers our prayers, but not in the ways we would originally intend. Your father might be afflicted with a terrible illness, and you pray to God to end his suffering, and the next day your father dies; you wanted his suffering to end by curing the disease, but God does it by bringing your father from this life into the next. It's hardly as if each situation is that clear-cut, but don't presume that you are so wise that you can see all the possible ways in which God could answer, or has answered, your prayers. And, of course, as God is omniscient, maybe He just understands that it is for the greater good that some prayers go unanswered, while we as humans cannot see those repurcusions that would accompany our requests. The old Butterfly Effect and all that. Originally posted by CrayolaAgain, it's not about sacrificing rationality. If religion could be disproven, you would be absolutely right: to believe would be irrational. But, as it stands, it's hardly irrational to believe in a God. It might seem like a fairy tale to you, but your manner leads me to suspect that you have some sort of axe to grind in the first place, so I'm not about to question your motives. Originally posted by CrayolaWhy? Isn't the capacity to think abstractly part of what makes us human? Why surrender that ability so readily? Originally posted by CrayolaNo, the Bible doesn't say it's the literal word of God, certain humans say that. The Bible may be divinely inspired, certainly, but only the most irrational Christians will argue that is God's words verbatim. Originally posted by CrayolaYou're tired of abstract thought, but you're off to study Greek and Eastern philosophy...alright, whatever you say. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
Originally posted by ColinOh, you better believe it. Big East Champs, baby. And Rose Bowl, too. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
Originally posted by CrayolaI believe in most of the tenets put forth by the Catholic Church. I justify it because I believe that the greater bulk of those values are simply declarations of what is truly, objectively "right." Originally posted by CrayolaThis isn't about me being right, you being wrong, and me proving all of that to you. This is about you stomping in here and declaring that the Almighty Crayola has all the answers in the world even though he's still a lowly teenager. I'm not here to convert you, I'm here to answer your childish and ignorant remarks. Originally posted by CrayolaDo you not get it at all? I don't have proof, and I never claimed that I do. None of us can. But...neither can you, eh? The fact of that matter is, you should believe what you believe because those values are what appeal to you. You shouldn't believe a specific religion (or disbelieve a specific religion) on the grounds of hard evidence, because there is rarely any such evidence at all. Originally posted by CrayolaOf course. Originally posted by CrayolaYou hit the nail on the head. Look at it this way: - My religion contains those moral teachings that I believe to be true and right. - God must be, by definition, the champion of what is true and right. - Therefore, since a religion that stands by all that is true and right is a religion that believes in a God who espouses those values, I believe that my religion has "found" the true God. The logic is a bit more convoluted that I had originally intended, at least when placed in that format, but I think I'm giving a good picture of the thought process. Originally posted by CrayolaConversely, a great deal of Greek philosophy deals with things that are absolutely abstract. The World of Forms versus the World of Matter, for example. If you were to leave out anything that is even the slightest bit abstract, you'd be neglecting a great deal of history and a great deal of valuable thought. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
Originally posted by CrayolaOk, clearly either I didn't explain my point of view clearly enough. Let me try again. By definition, God must be perfect and He must encourage and espouse all those values that are Good. A religion that follows God must similarly follow those values, because naturally a deity's followers would adhere to whatever principles that deity has set forth. I believe the religion that I follow acknowledges those values that are Good, and so it logically follows that my religion believes in the "real" God because it goes by a righteous code of morality. In contrast, I would not follow Religion X because that religion believes in eating kittens, and I know eating kittens is wrong, so clearly Religion X does not follow a true god; since their perception of God allows the devouring of kittens, and the true God would not allow that because it is clearly an evil act, that religion cannot be true. Better? And no, it's hardly about being blind to new occurrences to the point that I would believe whatever my church tells me just because they say so. I believe that Catholic Church is generally right in just about every doctrinal tenet, but I'm not a deaf dumb and blind sheep. The Vatican is full of human beings, and they're perfectly flawed just as you and I. Originally posted by CrayolaA minority of Christians take the Bible as God's word verbatim, and a minority of Christians say that the Bible is the end-all of doctrine. I am a Catholic, and while we seek a Scriptural precedent in forming our doctrine, we understand that the book was created by the human hand and that it cannot be the sole impetus for our values. Originally posted by CrayolaGod gave us free will, but he also gave us His Church and His Bible and our human consciences, all of which are tools that lead us to the right path. If you are a Jew or a Muslim or an Atheist or a Protestant or a Catholic, you are doomed to Hell. Unless you are a good person. It's not about picking the right religion - I am fully aware that there are so many out there with so many conflicting messages that it can be difficult - but about living a good life. Belonging to the Church will certainly make that journey easier, but it's not the only path. Originally posted by CrayolaBut here you are, as an atheist, swearing to be completely sure that there is no god. Why is it alright to be positive that no god exists, but not alright to be sure that God does exist? |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
Originally posted by skrenename1337No, it's proof that the class is hard, or that the students are not qualified for that level of work. Any "proof" that same-sex classrooms are ineffective, at least in your scenario, is purely circumstantial. That said, I can see both sides and I really have trouble placing myself firmly on either. On one hand, private schools have had single-sex classrooms for years, and they're touted as America's best secondary schools. Conversely, removing gender socialization from children at a young age, or even through adolescence, might certainly be counterintuitive as far as providing a "realistic," real-world environment. After all, if the purpose of education is to prepare a student for a hypothetical real-world application, why not simulate that hypothetical as fully as possible and include the need for socializing with the opposite sex? There is some research that suggests males and females learn best in different ways and within different environments, so that's not necessarily in question, but you must first ask whether those advantages are as strong as the disadvantages imposed by a child receiving, essentially, only half of the "picture" as far as his future real-world relationships. You can't expect every student to be hanging out with the opposite sex outside of school, so school is sometimes the only place that a male will be consistently exposed to a female, and vice versa. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
| Rutgers got screwed. Plain and simple.
I don't know HOW they didn't review that play when the runner CLEARLY fumbled the ball, because that would've given Rutgers the win. But then a receiver dropped an easy catch, Ito missed a field goal (which was admittedly from pretty far out)...whatever. I'm just mad. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Dr_Death16Yeah, that's the story of the Rutgers program...  |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
| Thought I might as well submit my picture for the photo album. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
| Well, that was promptly done . |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - - Posts by Silvershield |
