|
I guess it was unfair to cast all libertarians in that light, though many DO endorse the idea of privatize public services as well. To a point where they dont really want the government to exist in anything but name.
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 05:56 |
|
|
Armyman25 posted:Also, using the Lord's name in vain is another way of saying blasphemy. So things like saying "Jesus tittyfucking Christ," "God drat it," etc would count as well. You could have a Zoroastrian or similar say "God Damnit" and not infringe on Christian blasphemy laws because Mainyu actually kinda is into messing with people (etc for other religions, +Satan is Yahweh's creation, blah blah). That's ignoring all the times Yahweh actually did curse and inconvenience people(s) in the bible. There's no reason someone that touchy about religious references can't force blasphemous Hollywood productions into a mental non-Christian compartment if they wish, especially when so many actors aren't devout in the first place. AFA likely isn't bankrupting any box-office smash hits to begin with, and violent trash flicks haven't been tanking enough to quell our gun culture or macho character appeal. If they want Christian movies to win in pop culture, just make some good compelling scripts with decent families. Drama doesn't have to be sexy and/or violent to be interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
sweart gliwere posted:You could have a Zoroastrian or similar say "God Damnit" and not infringe on Christian blasphemy laws because Mainyu actually kinda is into messing with people (etc for other religions, +Satan is Yahweh's creation, blah blah). That's ignoring all the times Yahweh actually did curse and inconvenience people(s) in the bible. Yeah, but these Hollywood types are throwing around curses like it's no big deal, making a mockery of God. The God of the Bible only cursed people with His vengeful murderous wrath for really important things: things like making fun of a bald guy, letting your girlfriend cut your hair, looking at a burning city, not loving your dead brother's wife, etc. Or just to win a bet with Satan.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 05:56
|
|
sweart gliwere posted:You could have a Zoroastrian or similar say "God Damnit" and not infringe on Christian blasphemy laws because Mainyu actually kinda is into messing with people (etc for other religions, +Satan is Yahweh's creation, blah blah). That's ignoring all the times Yahweh actually did curse and inconvenience people(s) in the bible. The original post was referencing The Hatfields and McCoys. I don't think you'll find many Zoroastrians in 19th century Appalachia.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
hamster_style posted:Anyone care to enlighten me as to why the following line of thinking is, or is not bad? This is a guy I've known for the majority of my life, nice guy but also really religious, and this seems to be his way of saying that gay marriage is bad without outright saying it(he has posting this or similar many times in the past). I used to think this was a clever way around the whole thing circa 2004 and then I realized it was capitulating to homophobes & doubled my commitment to making sure that marriage equality is about gay people actually being able to MARRY.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 06:02
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah, but these Hollywood types are throwing around curses like it's no big deal, making a mockery of God. The God of the Bible only cursed people with His vengeful murderous wrath for really important things: things like making fun of a bald guy, letting your girlfriend cut your hair, looking at a burning city, not loving your dead brother's wife, etc. Or just to win a bet with Satan. Hey. Seriously. It's totally cool for a bear to eat a whole village worth of children because someone godly is going bald. Reported for blasphemy. edit: a GODLY bear. gently caress off nonbelievers. bear attacks are cool when it's my dude who possibly caused them. sweart gliwere fucked around with this message at 06:07 on Jan 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
sweart gliwere posted:edit: a GODLY bear. gently caress off nonbelievers. bear attacks are cool when it's my dude who possibly caused them. No don't you get it. When those kids called the old man "baldy," God got so sad for a minute that his continuous bear-shield was lowered. God continually protects us from bears unless we forsake him. Or if the hungry bear outprays us.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 06:20
|
|
|
An actual crazy forwarded political email!CrazyGuyWhoKeepsThinkingImMyGrandfatherNoMatterHowManyTimesITellHimOtherwise@aol.com posted:Fwd: VERY GOOD LAUGHS Old man who can't keep his contacts straight, aol email address, jpeg artifacts, crazy photos, random italics and bold and caps. None of this new-fangled Facespace or Book+ or Twizzler or whatever the kids are using these days. I feel like a paleontologist who's wondered across a complete dinosaur skeleton!
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 07:13
|
|
|
Pththya-lyi posted:You're describing anarcho-capitalism, which is a kind of libertarianism. Some libertarians, like my dad, are minarchists - they believe that a minimal amount of government is necessary, but they often disagree about which functions of government are legitimate. My dad, for example, defines the proper role of government as doing anything a private company couldn't do better. For example, private security firms are demonstrably worse at protecting all citizens than public police forces, so we should use the latter instead of the former. He also believes in a social safety net, but only for "emergency situations." How does he feel about a preventative social safety net to stop people from falling into emergency situations?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 07:39
|
|
|
You shouldn't protect people from every little thing that might go wrong, that makes them dependent.  For example, he is against food breakfast programs because he believes that even parents who are, say, drug addicts would always set aside enough money and time to feed their children if they were forced to. (And yes, I am certain that he wants the government to protect him from violence and theft.) Pththya-lyi fucked around with this message at 07:54 on Jan 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 07:51
|
|
|
Sir Rolo posted:How does he feel about a preventative social safety net to stop people from falling into emergency situations? Safety Net is really the wrong word. The Government should provide "Safety Spatulas" for scraping away the remains after a fall.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 07:52
|
|
|
I have to admit, I laughed at LMAObama.com
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 07:56
|
|
|
An old Army buddy getting upset about a year old Breitbart article.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 08:31
|
|
|
Pretty sure that was the Pentagon making some half-hearted measures where officers couldn't strong-arm others into attending religious services. That's a pretty big problem in the armed forces IIRC.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 08:35
|
|
|
hamster_style posted:Anyone care to enlighten me as to why the following line of thinking is, or is not bad? This is a guy I've known for the majority of my life, nice guy but also really religious, and this seems to be his way of saying that gay marriage is bad without outright saying it(he has posting this or similar many times in the past). I'm way late on this, but the short answer to why they say 'let's remove the gov't from this' is because the gov't is moving to ensuring equal protection for unions of different and same sex couples. Marriage has been around long before Christians were and the definition of it has changed dramatically depending on what culture you live in. They're feeding a persecution complex from judicial rulings that haven't happened yet. They're worried that all churches will be forced to perform same sex ceremonies, but from what I can tell, all legislation has been on a gov't level and it's been up to individual churches whether or not they perform ceremonies. If that's not true please let me know. I'm actually kind of worried that some groups will try to push that and it will become an issue. Partly because I think it's fine if it's a gov't thing and churches don't have to do a ceremony, and partly because I'm worried that a court will rule that they have to for some reason I haven't considered. nsaP fucked around with this message at 08:38 on Jan 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 08:36
|
|
|
That won't happen realistically. You might get some fringe groups but no political party with real power would touch that. If you need an example, churches still get to decide whom they marry. The Catholic Church is not forced to marry people who have previously divorced because it goes against their belief system. I don't see why they would make homosexuality any more likely. I certainly wouldn't want to get married in a church that doesn't want me there, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 08:56
|
|
|
Churches can't be forced to perform gay marriages, it's a clear-cut First Amendment Establishment Clause violation. Not surprisingly, no one is actually trying to make that happen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 10:02
|
|
|
Soviet Commubot posted:An old Army buddy getting upset about a year old Breitbart article. I am a CHRISTIAN. I AM NOT A SHEEP. I thought being a Christian meant that you are one of the sheep and Lord is your shepherd...
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 10:25
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:I guess it was unfair to cast all libertarians in that light, though many DO endorse the idea of privatize public services as well. To a point where they dont really want the government to exist in anything but name. Some libertarians are communalists, some are mutualists, some are FYGM objectivists. Some communists are Trotskyists, some are Bakuninists, some are Stalinists. It's almost as if you can't reduce century old political theories down to fully internally consistent 'these people all believe this', that there's a lot of infighting over which ones are the 'real' representatives of their philosophy, and that some people are assholes regardless. There does seem to be a concentration of 'I want this' babbies within fiscal-right 'privatize everything and let capitalism sort it out' libertarianism, quelle surprise, but I don't think that applies to all libertarianism any more than saying "all communists want to destroy the current government just so they can create a Stalinist bureaucracy with them at the top".
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 13:29
|
|
|
w/r/t the Marriage thing, the most complete way I've heard it described is being that 'Marriage' as far the government is concerned is just a legal equivalent word of 'Merger', so 2 entities becoming one legal entity in the same way 2 businesses would merge and become 1. When you get married at a church, you are engaging in 'Matrimony', which is not recognized by the government because it's none of their business and they don't care what happens in your wacky religious funhouse anyway. The funny thing is, throwing something like Citizen's United into the mix, you could make the far-off claim that it is legally plausible for a person to marry a corporation, because corporations are people, my friends. Furthermore, since corporations are asexual (as should all legal entities be - including people - for the purposes of basic legal consideration), it shouldn't matter who gets married. Obviously I'm only kinda serious here, but the issue will eventually come to a head.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
You're confusing a court decision with something stupid Mitt Romney said. Marriages are completely different to corporate mergers, they've been around in more cultures and for much longer than Christianity has, and all this crap about the government getting out of marriage and only recognizing legal "partnerships" is just to require interracial or same-sex families to go ask their local small-town bigots for the right to call themselves "married". Back to horrible forwards: apparently "Stand with Wendy" is all about mocking Abbott's disability.  Give it up, Texas. Wendy is a precog who deviously coined Stand with Wendy during her standing filibuster months in advance of either she or Abbott declaring for governor. You cannot resist her. The video in question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yZpr5JJGmI&t=50s I guess some Republicans have been worried enough that Abbott's campaign of deliberate sexism to insult women into voting for him is going to backfire, so they're pretending Wendy is running on an anti-handicapped platform.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
Considering Abbott promotes limits to payouts for lawsuits you'd think he's the anti-handicapped candidate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
The proper term is "negging."
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
Allen West has recognized the truth of evolution, but in his typical fashion has drawn horrible and incorrect conclusions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
Radish posted:Considering Abbott promotes limits to payouts for lawsuits you'd think he's the anti-handicapped candidate. Oh man I never realized he was the guy that got a smash of money in a lawsuit then made it so no one can bring forward similar lawsuits.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
Grem posted:Oh man I never realized he was the guy that got a smash of money in a lawsuit then made it so no one can bring forward similar lawsuits. Yeah like virtually every Republican nowadays he's a hypocritical piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
Grem posted:Oh man I never realized he was the guy that got a smash of money in a lawsuit then made it so no one can bring forward similar lawsuits. Radish posted:Yeah like virtually every Republican nowadays he's a hypocritical piece of poo poo. Typical Democrat, mocking him for his disability. Looks like you're the real ablist for opposing a handicapped person who loves loving over poorer handicapped people. EDIT: Goddamn, I guess everyone I know is eating crazy-pills this week. Apparently letting Sikhs wear turbans in Army will make them do a Sikh 9/11 on us...or something. 
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:07 on Jan 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 16:59
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Typical Democrat, mocking him for his disability. Looks like you're the real ablist for opposing a handicapped person who loves loving over poorer handicapped people. I want to be friends with Sil Antro, he knows what is up. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
 That was me. Also I just swapped it out with this.Whose gonna gently caress with America when they see this? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
Beards make men look manly, I thought you wanted a macho Army, America? Why do you hate manliness and what your Nancy-boy baby faces?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
Seriously what says big scary man more than a military uniform, a gun, and a beard? Oh, right, it's a dude they assume is foreign being manly, and that's terrifying to them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:EDIT: I like the two saying that they'll be killed in friendly fire because who can tell the brown people apart if they're wearing a turban. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
And for a more modern example, show them how manly these Kiwis are: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:EDIT: "desifer" is a pretty good misspelling.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
My whole understanding on the ban of beards in the military were combat readiness related. Supposedly gas masks can't make a good seal if there's facial hair around the areas of the face where it needs to be airtight. Has something changed with modern gas masks and their ability to form a seal, or has the military just said gently caress it, you're on your own if the tear gas makes it in?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Typical Democrat, mocking him for his disability. Looks like you're the real ablist for opposing a handicapped person who loves loving over poorer handicapped people. I'm wondering about Morta Della's comment. How do these people interpret "allowed to wear religious dress" as "the rest of us suffer". Who suffers when someone wears a headscarf?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
Fandyien posted:I'm wondering about Morta Della's comment. How do these people interpret "allowed to wear religious dress" as "the rest of us suffer". Who suffers when someone wears a headscarf? They have to look at it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
NatasDog posted:My whole understanding on the ban of beards in the military were combat readiness related. Supposedly gas masks can't make a good seal if there's facial hair around the areas of the face where it needs to be airtight. Has something changed with modern gas masks and their ability to form a seal, or has the military just said gently caress it, you're on your own if the tear gas makes it in? Danish, New Zealanders, Spanish, Netherlands etc allow beards. Italy's cool with stubble. It's just outdated traditional stuff to keep perfectly shorn, I doubt the PMs and congress from half of Europe would give a thumbs-up to chemical weapons vulnerability after actually going through that in two world wars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_hair_in_the_military is a bit funny to think of mutton-chop UK soldiers forced to shave their chops narrow for perfect seals.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
The proposed regulation changes are subject to approval by the command on a case-by-case basis. Presumably if, say, a Sikh soldier was going to be in a place where he needs to be wearing a helmet, he'd wear a helmet instead of a turban, and if he were in a place where he might need to wear a gas mask, he'd have to shave.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 05:56 |
|
|
Anyone that doesn't want a Sikh on their side (much less against them) is a crazy motherfucker.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 19:09
|
|
