Welcome to Inkbunny...
Allowed ratings
To view member-only content, create an account. ( Hide )
Nightmare
« older newer »
Zorori'n'Tails
set default image size: small | medium | wide
Some silly shit I doodled up for Twitter the other week, when all that Chick-fil-A crap was flying around. Figured this thing might have a bigger audience here than on twitpic.

Keywords
male 563,931, cat 98,581, parody 2,077, sandwich 456, religion 368
Details
Type: Sketch
Published: 5 years, 5 months ago
Rating: General

MD5 Hash for Page 1... Show Find Identical Posts [?]
Stats
1,272 views
67 favorites
231 comments

BBCode Tags Show [?]
 
KevinSnowpaw
5 years, 5 months ago
....
Ok I think I love you more then before some how. XD This is Is subtle and brilliant.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
hmm, implies that god's flavor is in the pickles, which I always get removed.  *cries* Ive been missing that godly southern flavor all these years!  but damn you now im hungry....there hasnt been a chickfila near me for like 3 yrs
Rudan
5 years, 5 months ago
lol I find this hilarious
headsortails
5 years, 5 months ago
I find this to be pretty damn hillarious. XD

Also, based off of personal experience, their chicken sandwiches aren't even that good. Probably tainted by bigotry, or something. =P
RavenWelesa
5 years, 5 months ago
So the moral here is be tolerant otherwise we'll trash your entire company and all the employees that had nothing to do with the words of their lead executive.  Sounds reasonable.
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 5 months ago
The moral here is that using the proceeds of your company to support an organization that lobbies the US government to refrain from condemning legislation in Somalia that makes homosexuality punishable by death, among other bigoted things, is a disgraceful thing to do. Oh and it's also retarded to claim to be a christian organization when you turn over a profit, because Jesus hated possessions and hated commerce. But anyway, yes, anybody, never mind a corporation, who comes out with this stupid wank deserves to be mocked for it.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
wait, wut?  Jesus was a commie?  Think you are over reaching there.  he hated commerce DONE IN the temple/church etc, not commerce in general.  He consorted with taxcollectors and prostitutes, the OLD merchants XD.  

As far as personal possessions, don't think that's mentioned anywhere, closest maybe is that rich people are assholes  (I should so rewrite the bible)  

As for chickfila...I agree with the other guy....the COMPANY is not supporting organizations, its owner is, who gets a sizeable income from said ownership which he donates to causes he likes.  So are you not supporting free speech and the ability to support causes you like?  Are you blaming said person for EVERYTHING an organization he supports also?  Then blaming said company he owns and every FRANCHISE in it, of said beliefs and actions?

If so by that logic I killed Osama Bin Ladin, woot woot, go me!
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
Franchises are not like nations. The idiot at top gains from everywhere.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
Depends if its a monarchy XD  but I pay taxes, i support this government, therefore by the logic here, I am responsible for everything remotely connected morally with the government  XP
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
Yes, but the bureaucracy system of a nation is so complex that your money might never make it into the ones in charge, while Chick-fil-a's bureaucracy is much smaller and without external routes like charities, so it inevitably ends up on Uganda.
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 5 months ago
He consorted with sinners, where he thought he could do the most good, to change them. His consorting with tax collectors was not an endorsement.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
The tax collectors and prostitute line was a joke in context XD

But he clearly was not a communist or anarchist, he said give to the state what it demands, taxes, etc.  He also preached against violence, even in self defense.  This clearly goes against any revolutionary dogma, which probably disappointed many of his early followers.  Its a shame it took 1900 years for someone to try it out and he was a Hindu
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 5 months ago
I didn't mention communism or anarchy, those are terms that describe specific political and social ideologies. Jesus told his followers to leave their families, friends and possessions and walk the earth in service of God. That doesn't make him a communist or an anarchist, it just makes him stupid.
Fatman3
5 years, 5 months ago
If you're talking about that "turn the other cheek" thing, he was talking about insults and physical blows which are generally are not considered potentially lethal. He also told his followers at one point that they should defend their lives, even unto the shedding of blood, and that should have weapons with which to do so.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
No you are misinformed.  The turn the other cheek thing is literal and he never said one should defend their own lives by force.  In fact, when his life was threatened and Peter cut someone's ear off with a sword (great shot there no?) Jesus corrected him, stopped him, and healed the guy's ear and then went peacefully to his death.  Remember he died without a struggle.
Fatman3
5 years, 5 months ago
It turns out that phrase came from another part of the bible, but here is a webpage with the passage I was thinking of.

http://www.loveyourenemies.org/sword.html
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
did you read our own page?  yes, they were supposed to have a sword to fulfill some prophecy, but that same night he "rebuked" the use of it.  that's your page.

and really, this has strayed soooooooo far off the topic.  Now youre making the tired case that christianity is somehow responsible for common practices of its day, like slavery, because they did not object to COMMON PRACTICES.  

and ignore as said, that abolitionism originated within the church.  if no church, slavery would still be around.
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
Funnily enough, the "turn the other cheek" thing has a more violent meaning in greek it was written.

I would recommend learning greek before making a fool of yourself again.
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
The original greek phrase was a war act.

Irony is grand.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
since it was spoken and written in arameic......POINT?  um none
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
It was spoken in aramaic, but written in greek. Still, they probably will end up discovering a Dead Sea Scroll with the original words on it.
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 5 months ago
I also like how you imply that what I'm doing by making a drawing is somehow calling for all employees of the company to lose their jobs. Never mind a dumbfuck cartoon that nobody cares about, what about the recklessness of the company owner who would risk the livelihoods of the working people who ensure he can operate a business just so he can talk bollocks.
Wolfblade
5 years, 5 months ago
If the people running a company use the money that company makes to pay for bigotry and hatred and active efforts to restrict the freedoms of other people based on religious bullshit (or any reason, really) it >IS< the appropriate and responsible thing for people to do to stand up, talk about it, object to it, denounce it. People should make it clear that they do not support this sort of bullshit.

It's not "go harass a chick-fil-a employee." It's making sure people are aware of what they will be supporting and contributing to if they choose to work for this company or buy this company's products. So those people can make an informed decision of whether they wish to be a part of that. And if they don't care, or they do support the company's stance, then they deserve to be included in the scorn and disdain.

And yes, if someone is made aware of what the company they work for chooses to represent, it's their decision whether to remain a part of that or not. If they don't want to be criticized for contributing to what the company has chosen to stand for, then they should seek other employment (yes, I know the economy sucks, but if you're working in fast food already, that is an incredibly high turnover field and there are always more fast food positions to be filled elsewhere).

That's the point. If a company pays the bills for bigotry and hatred and the religion-fueled bullshit that is denying millions of people not just rights and freedoms, but safety - and in many countries their >lives< - that company DOES absolutely need to be called out on it and trashed. The individuals just working there or just buying their sandwiches aren't the target, but if they feel caught in the crosshairs and that bothers them, they can work and eat somewhere else, thus taking away the support and funding from the company, lessening their ability to bankroll ignorance, stupidity, and hatred.
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
Tolerance of intolerance is roughly equivalent to buy a car only to throw it in a pile of shit.

Human rights are not opinions. If you think so, go support corrective rape, fucking hypocrite.
RavenWelesa
5 years, 5 months ago
I find it amazing that when I spoke that the responses I got back were full of hate and vitriol.  Could it be that all of you that are preaching tolerance are not tolerant of other viewpoints and opinions themselves.  Perhaps one should look at their own words without such an emotional response and speak with a clear mind using wisdom and logic.  
CuriousFerret
5 years, 5 months ago
When all you hear from the other side is hate, mindless senseless hate, why should we consider them to be worth tolerating.  They can hate me all they want, so long as my rights are not infringed on.  If they have free speech to protest and thank god for dead soldiers, then I can hate on them all I want.

I long ago stopped caring about others perception about me, but when they go out of their way to take away my rights and treat me as a second class citizen, signing songs about no homos in heaven, calling for gays to be put in concentration camps, putting up bills to make being a homosexual a capital offense (Texas, Montana), and supporting other countries going out and killing people for being gay, they deserve every bit of scorn they receive.

I love the old law of the Bible, reap what you sow, so it is all fair game in my eye and in the eye of their own god.  Let them hate, they are entitled to it, but I will hate them back, and treat them as the disgusting vermin that they truly are.
RavenWelesa
5 years, 5 months ago
Because when you hate as they do, you fall into the same trap.  Do you think that Martin Luther King didn't feel the same hate or worse?  Yet did he urge his followers to rise up and spread that hate back to them?  Did Gandhi rise up to violently fight the British in India due to the hateful things and actions they said?  

This is not a fight that will be won with hate, but with understanding and compassion.  Do not hate these people but have pity on them.    If there is hatred on both sides then there can be no common ground, there can be no dialogue.  There will only be more and more hatred of either side for despicable acts that have happened.  It is on those with cooler heads to figure out how to move forward.  Both sides have become politicized instead of trying to talk rationally and with understanding.  Both sides try to find a moment to rally around to show that their side is the one to follow.

I do pity that the CEO made such actions, but I feel more pity for those that work there or for the company that have nothing to do with this.  Does the person that puts together the sandwich or cleans the tables or cleans the bathroom have to suffer for the words of one man who will not even feel the pressure of a boycott?  Does the person that is living from paycheck to paycheck and just trying to make ends meet while working there have to worry that their restaurant is going to lose enough business that they will go under or be forced to cut hours or be laid off?  

What about the many people that supply the company with their chicken, potatoes, napkins, cups, etc.  Should they be hurt in all of this simply because of the actions of one man?   If this is all about who can cause the most hurt then I want no part in either side.  

Tolerance only means they tolerate it, it does not mean they accept it.  If it did it would be called aceptance.  You all that preach tolerance and claim they are a bigot are yourselves preaching the same intolerance, the same hate as they themselves do.  Do you not see how when you do not even listen tot heir side you are just as bigoted as they are?

Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot, defined by Merriam-Webster as "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance".[1] Bigotry may be based on real or perceived characteristics, including age, disability, dissension from popular opinions, economic status, ethnicity, gender identity, language, nationality, personal habits, political alignment, race, region, religious or spiritual belief, sex, or sexual orientation. Bigotry is sometimes developed into an ideology or world view.
CuriousFerret
5 years, 5 months ago
I won't claim I tolerate any one, I suffer their presence.  I find myself in extremely stress full situations all the time behind the wheel of my big rig, yet in over 6 years of running up and down the many highways of my country dodging people texting, randomly changing lanes, cutting me off, I have yet to response in a violent manner despite my undying rage against oblivious drivers.

I have no patience of people that can't drive safely, as my own life and lively hood is on the line every time it start my truck.  It is hate, and I safely curse them out from my seat where they can not hear.  Hate is a healthly response to a terrible situation, but going out of your way to find righteous fury simply to feel in the right is self serving and does not solve problems.

There is a point to be made on self control and respecting individuals like the service staff making my chicken, but when the company is being run by a man who disparaging remarks hurt his own business, then he has to retract the statement and apologize for his inflammatory response.  He has a part to play was well as the protesters.  If he won't come to the table to talk there is no point for us to go there and sit alone.

Tolerance is a two man dance, it can't just be from one side.
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
There's a difference between compassion and pointless martyrdom.

Pointless martyrdom never truly wins wars. Wars are won through bloodshed. It sounds cruel, but it's true. Whoever wins has the right to erase the enemy from reccords.
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 5 months ago
I think you have it twisted anyway, this isn't about hate. I don't hate the CEO of Chick-fil-A and I don't hate the homophobic groups he supports. I do hate what they stand for though, which is that people can be condemned for who they are when who they are does not inherently damage society. You can't waltz in branding 'hate' around like it's even the issue, because it isn't. If you passionately disagree with bigotry that doesn't make you a bigot. I'm not calling for peoples rights to be stripped away from them because of their point of view, I'm pointing out that their religious yammering is hideous, and that's entirely different. There are a couple of verses in the entirety of the Bible that mention homosexuality and this is effectively used as a weapon against a group of people for no stated reason. There are plenty of things the Bible condemns; in fact it condemns damn near everything we do, yet it's okay to single out gay people? No, I don't think so, that isn't the kind of behavior any responsible person should allow without responding to it.

Don't act like all this shit is equal, that being pissed off with bigots makes one just as bad. It doesn't, so quit talking out of your ass. It's a response, a provoked response to a prejudiced worldview, not singling out a minority in society and campaigning to have their rights stifled. I don't think anyone should lose their job here or that they ought to be silenced or prosecuted for their views, but I wont, as a thinking human being, say absolutely nothing when people come out with the kind of shit the CEO of Chick-fil-A has.

You claim that those with a bone to pick on this issue haven't even listened to their (Chick-fil-A and associates) side. That's a laugh. It's precisely because I have listened to their side that I'm pissed off, because they're talking complete nonsense. You're naive as fuck.
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 5 months ago
Apologies, I didn't know being gay was a viewpoint.
Wolfblade
5 years, 5 months ago
My brain hurts at the notion of a babyfur on the furry cub porn site speaking against vocal opposition of intolerance. >_<

Because possibly affecting the limited number of people directly employed by chick-fil-a, making people have to find a new job or a new place to buy food is worse than the certainty of allowing a corporation like this to continue to fund discriminatory laws denying rights to gays all over the country and promote bigotry and dark-age religious ideology used to justify hatred, abuse, and murder of people all over the world.
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 5 months ago
It's a thought that certainly crossed my mind. Unbelievable XP.
Wolfblade
5 years, 5 months ago
Here's the thing.

My response to you was not simple hate and vitriol of the same sort of hate and vitriol we are opposing. Nor were the responses from others. Neither is this one.

When someone says "that person should be denied basic fundamental rights and freedoms and denied even acknowledgement as an equal human being because my personal beliefs tell me they are a lesser being then I am, and deserve to be mistreated and held in lower regard simply for who they are," THAT is baseless and senseless hatred and bigotry. That IS the message that is being stated by any group that promotes denying equal rights to gays. Even if they say "we're not calling for them to be mistreated or abused," the fact that they ARE calling for them to be denied equal rights and recognition IS mistreatment and abuse.

When someone responds to such a message with anger and intolerance, that response is NOT 'the same thing' or 'just as bad' or any such nonsense. A response of intolerance to a senseless and harmful notion is the appropriate and proper response. Showing tolerance to something that is directly harmful to people makes no sense and helps nobody. It is absolutely wrong to dismiss a response of intolerance directed at an initial unprovoked and unwarranted example of intolerance as being the same thing or even comparable.

You can't say "well think about the people just working for them, think how your actions will negatively affect their lives" because that's OUR line. WE are saying "think about the people being denied rights and freedoms by the beliefs and laws pushed forward by these companies and religious groups, think how your support of this company is negatively affecting their lives." By working for a company that spends its profits to promote bigotry, you are a small part of what makes them able to do it. If you don't support what the company is doing, you find other work. By buying the products of that company, same thing, you are supporting what they do with your money.

You're seeing this as us going "fuck all those innocent employees of chick-fil-a, they don't matter, who cares!" when that's not the case. We're going "this company has to be stopped from doing what it does to promote and encourage the discrimination against gays." If people listen to us, the unfortunate side effect is that people working for or buying from that company will have to work and buy somewhere else. But if people listen to you, and DON'T denounce the company, the unfortunate side effect is that gays will continue to have corporate-funded discrimination campaigns against them, maintaining ideas and beliefs that let people justify abuse, as well as discriminatory laws funded by this bullshit. Which do you think is worse for people to allow?



As for maintaining an open dialogue, respecting different views an opinions, trying to reach a common ground with a clear mind using wisdom and logic; that is simply not an option here at all because the only reason this is an issue of conflict at all is that there is the religious side that is NOT operating on wisdom or logic, does not have a clear mind, does not want an open dialogue and does not respect the different views and opinions of others.

You cannot expect any of that pretty stuff you say we should be working for from people who are operating on the notion that the almighty omnipotent creator of the universe has commanded them to do what they are doing, and that THEIR opinions and viewpoints are those of God Himself.

Their beliefs tell them that what they are doing is the one and only true and proper thing for them to do. Wisdom, logic, reasoning, tolerance, NONE of that will convince them otherwise. So nobody being disregarded by their bullshit should waste the time trying. When religious nonsense causes people to act unacceptably, everyone else has to stand up and make it adamantly clear that such nonsense WILL be met with complete rejection and intolerance.
Wolfblade
5 years, 5 months ago
Short version:

Point 1: If someone says "All black people are niggers, and I don't like them, and they don't deserve the same rights as me" people should NOT be expected to respond with "Oh, well, I disagree sir, but I do respect your opinion and belief." People have a right to think and say and believe what they want. They do NOT have a right to expect their beliefs and opinions to be respected or tolerated if those beliefs are hateful and stupid. If someone stands up spouting hateful discriminatory nonsense, they DO need to be loudly and firmly opposed and ostracized for it. "Gays aren't equal to me because my God says so" SHOULD get a response of "Fuck You, you stupid bigoted cunt."

Point 2: Anyone ever calling for logic and open-mindedness and understanding in an issue about religious ideology is missing the point. People acting on religious beliefs are people trained to think that "what I believe" is all they need, and "evidence" is irrelevant. All that matters to logic and reasoning is evidence. So for a logical and reasonable dialogue to happen, both sides have to be considering the evidence to be the main determining factor. That is not >ever< the case when you are arguing against groups like this acting on religious belief because "God said so" is all the evidence they need.
Zoop
5 years, 5 months ago
Absolutely, some viewpoints do not deserve tolerance. If a person pushing for the death penalty for homosexuals, while they have the right to speak their mind, not only do I have the right to trash them and not support them, it's the correct response.
ChanceProwlers
5 years, 5 months ago
Yeah, it's BS... Still... those are some tasty sammiches...
ArchipVardon
5 years, 5 months ago
I sooo hate this crap (not the pic, its cute ^^)
I hate them for standing by their bogitry and crap, but I love their food T_T
I should totally grab my twink lover and take him there in girl clothes and start smooching in the lobby. :P
Wolfblade
5 years, 5 months ago
Man, I don't know if you guys have these over there, but they really are (imho) the best damn chicken sandwiches out here.

We have one near us, but we don't go there anymore. Hopefully the current backlash they're getting will continue to grow. It's not like a normal company that will eventually cave to public criticism, though. It's a mormon company, and proud of it, so they're likely to stick to their guns, and it'll just keep getting worse for them. Sucks for the people who 'just work there,' but they're better of finding other employment rather than being part of a company that has chosen to represent that agenda.
AltheAlbinoFox
5 years, 5 months ago
Man I'm right with you here. In a sort of delicious irony, I've come to think of them as sinfully scrumptious sandwiches, now that they've left me with hunger-inducing memories, but with a message that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I had to join the boycott from that, but am making sure that if I open my mouth to speak out against it, I do so… tastefully, by contrast.
XP (Maybe I shouldn't have written that on an empty stomach… I need some Chick-Fil-Gay.)
JunkBox
5 years, 5 months ago
The title on that link made me snort my drink!
(Pretty straightforward recipe, looks like it won't have anywhere near the same salt content.)
Zoop
5 years, 5 months ago
Not to mention it's one of those brainwashing type of religions where they're trained to see opposition as an affirmation that they are in the right. I guess like most religions, but particularly strong in their case.
dimenianz
5 years, 5 months ago
I think plenty around here wanna show that angel their own kind of "fillet"

Yes...I'm talking about buttrape
anonymous27
5 years, 5 months ago
You just turned a G picture into an A rated picture for me. Thank you.
Bahlam
5 years, 5 months ago
I had Chick-Fil-A once and it was very bland with soggy breading and the bread had that texture of bread that's shipped frozen.  

This whole thing has actually been happening for a long time and there's no sign of it ending.  I'm sure the company is going to drag it on for years and become a fossil.  Given the locations and customer base they're likely to have lots of bigoted customers well into the future despite the awful way they're handled the situation.  

There's only one in NYC, in the Village, and NYU is being pressured to kick them out.  I'm not too likely to visit them any time soon.  
AlexCoon
5 years, 5 months ago
that looks very yummy, and what a cutie angel is there too ;)
TheLastGasp
5 years, 5 months ago
I'm curious what the antichrist of chicken sandwhiches.
Ketsa
5 years, 5 months ago
It's a shame their food is so good, since I really don't feel right going there anymore : /
LupineAssassin
5 years, 5 months ago
Once again, you nail it on the head. ^^ Great job!
FlashTimberwolf
5 years, 5 months ago
...And the controversy continues...

I haven't had any Chick-Fil-A since this whole mess got started. Now I gotta go elsewhere to get a chicken sandwich.
TJtheCascadeFox
5 years, 5 months ago
KFC!
Kolo
5 years, 5 months ago
Juicy juicy cock.
Ramblo
5 years, 5 months ago
Looks delicious! The sandwich is nice too!
Stitch
5 years, 5 months ago
Their sammiches are kind of meh, anyway (that damned pickle... urgh.) Can't say as I'll miss eating there. I can always hit up the local Popeye's when I want some spicy chicken.
JunkBox
5 years, 5 months ago
I concur - the food really isn't all that good.

They seriously need better pickles. Just about all fast food joints use the cheapass ones.
You listening out there, McDonald's, Carl's Jr/Hardee's, Wendy's, Arby's, Sonic, you know who you are? Get some proper Kosher Dills. Make them a separate menu item, don't put them on everything.
cashuea
5 years, 5 months ago
Mcdonadls reporting...

Hey i just sell the stuff, i do not know where corporate gets it. Its all in containers labeled 'Round Dill Pickles'. We do have the bigger pickles for the angus sandwiches but i would not call it kosher. I wish we had them though, i am a suck for them.
Blacklab1
4 years, 11 months ago
Nice MOSFET.
arkaid
5 years, 5 months ago
If they were handing these at communion instead of those tasteless wafers, I'd not have stopped going to church :3

"Body of Christ" - Chicken Sandwich
CuriousFerret
5 years, 5 months ago
Deep fried Sacrament

Mmmmm Sacrilicious....
cashuea
5 years, 5 months ago
To think i used to work for them. Glad i don't anymore. The saddest part is that it is way too common in the lobby department. Personally speaking, their should be a separation of corporation and state, just as we have separation of church and state.

far as the food, yea its not so good.
DonutGalaxy
5 years, 5 months ago
Yummy.
SSDoggy
5 years, 5 months ago
Jeebus Kites, the shit-flinging on this page...

I managed to convince my family not to go to Chick-Fil-A on that day... I'm proud of myself for doing so, though the excuse I gave was "Chicken sounds really nasty to me right now,"... Hehe ^^;
BaltoCore
5 years, 5 months ago
You pay for stuff there at the price of your soul.
SlickdickJ
5 years, 5 months ago
Glory to God and the highest be... Let us praise the fillet, for all it's wisdom and mercy. Amen.
kitaness
5 years, 5 months ago
man I'm glad that taco bell didn't decide that god hates fags because that would have been like Sophie's Choice for me
AndyBunneh
5 years, 5 months ago
Bigotry aside, I love Chick-fil-a >.>

*hangs head down in shame*
DragonPen
5 years, 5 months ago
*Rolls around laughing* Funny enough i bet some people truely think that. Good bit of humor there.
BullseyeBronco
5 years, 5 months ago
This whole Chick-Fel-A crap just makes me sick in general... I'm tired really of both sides of this crap. 1. Just because you don't support gay marriage doesn't mean you are a gay hater. (not saying that Chick-Fel-A isn't hateful or not hateful) But just because you disagree with someone doesn't automatically mean it's hate. Just sayin...
2. Christians are not accepting. Most don't see the hypocrisy of the homosexual issue, you want to call it that. They treat homosexuality as the unpardonable sin. Yet the Bible condemns heterosexual sin MORE then homosexual. Christians just don't seem to get that.
I came from a Christian family, but I am very much so gay. I came out to my parents, I felt no hate from them at all. I came out to some friends at my Church, still no hate.
What my problem with some people of the Christian faith is that they think in order to be a Christian, you have to be pure from homosexuality which is completely stupid! They all the sudden think they have to fix you, or a duty to pray out the gay...

That's just my bone picking for today... you can say whatever you want about my opinion there. but I don't care... I don't say much on here anyway. I'm just sick of both sides overreacting, and fighting when we could be dealing with more important issues then gay marriage.
1. Wold hunger
2. Find a cure for cancer
3. Stop crime
among other things...
But like I said... this is my opinion, take from it what you will... I don't expect anyone to agree with me. I'm just sick of the bickering...
CuriousFerret
5 years, 5 months ago
I'll give you that the fighting is reaching ridiculous levels of buffoonery.

But the only side actively going out of their way to cause trouble is the religious side.  If they would stop firing people cause they don't believe in god, stop investigating the girl scouts cause they believe they are prompting plan parent hood, stop burning other religious holy books, stop thanking god for dead soldiers, stop banning inter racial marriages, stop refusing to allow blacks to wed in their churches, stop supporting other countries that say gays should be killed, ect, then maybe we could work with them.

All I want is my right to contract and be allowed to form a faithful union with someone I love.  They don't have to like me, accept me or let me in their club, but they will stop infringing on my rights and the rights of others.

We do have a lot of problems and it be interesting to see what good religious organizations could do with all the congratulations donations they waste for ads and lobbying to remove abortion rights and prompting discrimination against homosexuals and turned them to feeding the poor or improving education.

I'd work with them if they bothered to do something constructive, but they don't care about helping people and rather force their 'values' onto others.

If they'd put down their bibles and picked up a shovel we'd get something done.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
Woah woah woah...religion is causing all this?  I dont think many businesses fire people for atheism, never heard of investigating girl scouts for planned parenthood, and like *one* crazy hick church THREATENED to burn a koran and backed down, same for the dead soldier thing, one INBRED hick church, consisting of ONE family, that's scurry on its own.  And um banning interracial marriage?  wut?  That was an actual program of evolutionary eugenist scientists in the US and Germany like 60 years ago till the whole Nazi atrocities put the whole kabosh on it, PRAISE SCIENCE!  Germany actually caused Africans and purebred germans in their colonies to get divorced.  The leader in the US, Virginia so mucked up the racial roles, that Indians there cant trace their heritage.  They also led the nation in forced sterilizations, GO SCIENCE!  60,000 neutered in the US, few million killed in Germany.  Supreme court here even said its akin to forcing immunization to sterilize the bad folk (the poor and "feebleminded")

Hm, arent those called civil unions?

It's odd you say that, because every church I've been too has a food kitchen used to do exactly that, feed the poor.  Christian organization in particular have always striven to help the poor and feed the hungry.  Its in their mission statement.  I have seen more acts of generosity, some to my own family by Christians than from anyone else.  When my dad ditched our family, it was Christian churches that helped pay our electric and provided additional food.  It is churches today that run homeless shelters and food kitchens.  No one seems to notice such things till they need them and they have done so HISTORICALLY since their beginning.  This seems to be forgotten or purposefully overlooked.

Go watch the movies back when they didnt turn every christian into a serial killer or nut job, start with Boy's town (or almost any movie with Bing Crosby in it), a real story.  A catholic priest who founded a whole town to care for orphans.

RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 5 months ago
Did you just claim National Socialism is linked with the scientific method? Do you think before you type?

You'd do well to open a history book or look at areas of the world today where religion still has a huge power base. Acting like religion isn't responsible for anything negative and linking science with Nazis is entirely crackpot. Then again I'm not surprised, coming from you.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
Wow.  Coming from me  XD  Yes, sorry, know its Godwin''s rule, but Nazi Germany was the most scientifically advanced nation on earth at the time and I am a student of history, hence I know this.  I've read rise and the fall of the German Reich (500 pages) among others.  We tend to gloss over science's role in Nazism, but it was there.  The whole reason for their atrocities was scientifically based in eugenics (Galton, Darwin's nephew founded it, and it enjoyed scientific support for 60 years in the US, England, and Germany mainly) and things we call pseudoscience today, but was cutting edge science then.  It's mentioned as a plot device in The Great Gatsby, it influenced the Supreme court of the US to justify forcible sterilizations in the US (60,000 performed, often without their knowledge...look up the name Carrie Buck).

And yes, it caused Germans not to question that there were inferior races (taught by Darwin, Stoddard, and Grant), that land was the key to power (Lebensraum taught by Ratzel & Haushofer), and that a struggle for existence between nations was justified if strong nations were to flourish (natural selection/Social Darwinism).  All of these were scientifically based theories of the time with at least marginal scientific method to formulate them.

And no, religion is not always harmless, but even then it serves a purpose.  State religions like Islam, serve to unite a people, to punish foreign powers who have done many bad things in their land, and form a cohesive state.  May be bad for minorities or foreigners but they'd still be tribes in the desert without it in continual skirmishes.  Most nations would not have formed without religion in history, just a fact.  Islam --> arab state  Roman Catholicism --> Germany and France  Christianity -->  united Constantine's Roman Empire...  Egypt, Babylon, Greece city states (Athens was friggin named after Athena)  
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 5 months ago
Science does not have a political ideology, people do. The scientific method can be used and misused by anyone, just as religion can. The difference is that you can actually demonstrate something is complete bollocks using the scientific method and you can't with religion. The fact that the eugenics movement was popular in the early to mid 20th century says nothing about science; what it does illustrate is the lack of genetics knowledge people had at the time and their individual political and social beliefs. Science is a method, it doesn't have eugenics embedded in it, or political movements. End of.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
So the people using scientific method to prove eugenics and its inherent falsehood AND its influence on society hold no lessons for us despite having caused 60,000+ to be sterilized, millions dead, a world war, and influenced our immigration policies in the US up to the present.  Hmm, and I'm daft.
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 5 months ago
It does teach lessons, such as how the eugenics movement is total horseshit. Doesn't in any way cast a bad light on science as a methodology in its entirety.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
Agreed...yet eugenics held sway for over 60 years.  Saying its horseshit now doesnt excuse the millions dead because of it.  It doesnt excuse things started by eugenicists that still exist today, like US immigration policy, excluding the brown people more.  Or how about planned parenthood, a devious thing started by one, Margaret Sanger, whose mission is coincidentally to spread birth control to poor and ethnic neighborhoods.  Sounds kinda bad when you see it directed at the brown people again huh?
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 5 months ago
Of course it's not excused, not in any sense, it's a terrible and terrifying chapter in human history. What I'm saying though is that what they were doing wasn't scientific. This should be obvious, because science has been used to demonstrate that the eugenics movements' "scientific" principles were bullshit. The lesson here is that people can invent bullshit and pretend it is science in order to lend credence to their claims. This only works because the public are generally taught that science is this spooky mysterious thing that is hard to understand, so let these boffins in white coats tell you what's what. This sort of thing is in direct conflict with scientific principle. Science isn't about authority figures, it's supposed to be about empirical studies and replicable methods and results to confirm or deny hypotheses.

If I ever see anyone, religious or secularist, trying to claim authority on a given subject I am immediately suspicious, as should be the case for everyone. Nobody should accept being told what is and isn't true without being given the opportunity to examine the evidence for themselves and even try to replicate findings if they choose to do so.

Eugenics, racism, sexism, none of these things can ever be justified by science, because science does not have an ideology, a political alliance or a sexual bias. If a scientific study demonstrates a difference between two 'races' of people it is not the fault of the scientific method if bigoted individuals use this information to justify prejudice.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
No, it was science.  Maybe bad science, but a lot of science is and was.  They did case studies, intelligence tests (the whole reason we do them now is because of that standard that was set - the original one was used to categorized mentally challenged people for treatment, another fall out of it), comparative anatomy, etc.  Geez even Darwin in Descent of Man, categorized brown (melanin) people as sub-human and white people more advanced than them by their vestigial organs of appendices and wisdom teeth, which brown people did not have a problem with (due to diet, which he even KNEW).  

But the thing you are missing is that science is not an idealistic thing, it is a tool run by flawed humans, who do have religious, political, ethical, and just plain ideologies.  This influences their science and what gets related to the world.

Stalinist biologists brought back disproven Lamarckism because it fit Soviet politics.  British people believed in social darwinism and took up the white man's burden and conquered most of Africa as a result.  Again and again we see it happening, that is the lesson.

One wonders at Global warming when a lot of people stand to make a lot of money and some seek to use it as income adjustment between poor and rich nations.  But agreed, skepticism will all things is warranted (wonder if you are are a skeptic about global warming especially amid news weve been cooling for the past decade)
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 5 months ago
Your biggest folly is acting as though science has parallels with religion. Religion is a way of life, science is a tool to obtain knowledge and information. We don't use the scientific method to choose a partner, to decide how to enjoy ourselves or to discuss morality. Science is a tool and like any tool its application is determined by the hand of the wielder. Like a kitchen knife can be used to chop vegetables or stab somebody to death. If the scientific method is used correctly, wonderful things, amazing things are possible. Or you can pretend to be scientific in order to further ideological goals.

Religion was incredibly useful in the past, the first attempt of our species at obtaining knowledge and information in a world that made little to no sense. That time has passed now and all religion can be used for at this stage is personal comfort, societal control and perpetuating the same values and superstitions of the infancy of our species. Religion does not advance society, it has to change itself to align with societies advancements. Just like Catholicism finally had to turn around and accept that evolutionary theory is actually correct.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
Totally agree with the first paragraph, science is just a tool that can be used or misused.  However many people see it as the source of all knowledge, a completely reliable source of public policy, and that its present theories are entirely correct, when history shows us this is just insane on many levels.

I would also disagree that religion is outdated.  It will always be a valid tool for creating states.  I do not know if you can form one effectively without one.  See French revolution.  Islam today may be reforming a universal caliphate, which would be great for them, not so good for us.  Although it would restrict western freedoms (we do like to impose them on people), it may be better off generally for the people.  No more dictators mindlessly offing and torturing the populace.

Religions also offer a moral compass in today's world.  Christianity in particular has an impossible moral code to achieve, but something to aspire to.  Compare that to atheist moral codes in practice, tends toward utilitarianism, the good of the many....and screw the individual.  
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 5 months ago
People who act like science is the be all and end all do not understand science or what it is for. I see that as a real shame, that the representation of science to the public via the media has been so distorted. Religion isn't essential for forming a state, power is. Religion is the most used power structure in human history, it allows self-appointed individuals to dictate the 'truth'. One, however, can not go from this to assert that it is essential. Democracy isn't religious and America was founded on the separation of church and state (the most powerful country in the world and the only one founded on such a principle).

Religion does not provide a moral compass either, people do. Religious values are cherry-picked from the source material according to the values of society at the time. Which is why Christians no longer sell their daughters to rapists once they've been assaulted. Religions and tribes throughout the world all have moral principles and many of them are universal. This is indicative of the fact that morality derives from something else. People formed religions, after all, so it took people to have moral values in the first place in order to write them down.

What people need to live comfortably are personal beliefs and we all have them, religious or atheist or agnostic. What we don't need are institutions and power structures to tell people what those beliefs should be and how to live their lives based on nothing but 'because I told you so'.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
I would agree...there are people who are using science as the basis for a new religion, even if they dont realize it.  They think it has all the answers and vigorously defend its creation mythos as fact.  I love the whole new qualification of peer review also, which tends to enforce orthodoxy.  Its all coming together nicely XD

And also agreed, it is not essential, but it makes it damned easier in any autocracy to form a state.  Even Hitler was making a state religion which held him as its head.  Democracies do not NEED a religion, but again, a single religious belief makes it a lot easier to form and survive.  America may not have formed without Christianity, our basic rights are founded on Christian belief, and violation of them led to separation from England.  Its amusing that as religion wanes in this country, those basic rights are called into question, right to life and freedom particularly in favor of a more utilitarian morality.

And yes, it does provide a moral compass.  As you stated, the alternative is for everyone to decide for themselves what is right, which inevitably will come down to what you can get away with.  When authorities no longer believe in a standard morality either, then even that standard may fail.
CuriousFerret
5 years, 5 months ago
Bishops Group to Investigate Girl Scouts

Kentucky Church Bans Interracial Couple

Mississippi Church Bans Black Wedding

Iowa teacher fired from Catholic School for not believing in God

There are more and more of these stories popping up that show the real intent and character of the institutions of Christianity.  True the organization is not responsible for every individual's actions, but when it's the congratulation voting to ban people from worshiping with them then clearly it is a systemic failure of faith and moral authority by all.

Also just cause  others not of faith do bad things does not removed the responsibility religious individuals and organizations hold for their own actions.  All barbaric unjustified bigotry should be stomped out in all it's forms.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
No I am sorry, but as I said, small stupid hick churches are not representative of the majority of Christians or even religion.  Your own articles allude to that.  The kentucky "small" church has members saying its not a church issue and shouldnt have been brought there.  The vote of the congregation amounted to what?  15 people????  Up in the mountains too, hmm.

The mississippi church banning a black wedding is solely the story of the couple, the pastor denies it, the church knew nothing about it and the pastor still performed the ceremony in a black church.  The southern baptist organization denounced racism in response and the town held a racial harmony day, so wut?  this is supposed to show evil somewhere?

On to the catholics...yes they held an investigation on the girl scouts THAT THEY FINANCIALLY supported for possibly teaching things that contradict catholic faith....why would you support any organization that taught things against what you believed?  Then they did fire a TEACHER from TEACHING catholic students who was an atheist.  Again, if I was a communist, I wouldnt wanna send my kids to communist school if their teachers didnt believe in communism.  A religious school has the right to have teachers that actually believe in what they are teaching there, go figure.

I find no dark conspiracies or outrageous things there, besides stupid little churches, stories in question, and the catholic church wanting to not support things that dont believe in what they believe in.
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
While your defense of a useless system is amusing, Christianity IS a cancer. Compare to religions like Jainism, which haven't caused anything remotely extremistic.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
so...the christianity that promoted taking care of the poor, widows, and orphans is a cancer?  wut?

and yush, jainism is great for non-violence, christianity had a more realistic point of view in doing that to HUMANS, jainist sweep their path to avoid killing bugs....is that what you really wanna suggest as a way of life?  Also it was only popularized by leaders who united India in countless wars, then spread it for its non-violent beliefs.  Call me cynical, but a religion spread by political leaders who spilled valleys of blood and then tell people once they conquered everything to be peaceful (to prevent revolt) seems a bit ehhhh
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
Considering few to no modern christians do charaties beyonf prayer, and that people that aren't sucking Yahweh's cock do charity, your argumanet is invalid.

Also, thanks for being an hypocrite and ignorant towards history. Christianity as we know it is the result of centuries of apropriating european customs and corrupting the scriptures.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
wow, to be calling me ignorant.  You obviously havent heard of charity hosptials.  Churches helped pay my families' electric bill and gave us food when my father deserted us.  In tampa, if you need help paying utilities, social services will direct you to churches, so you are just plain wrong.

and perhaps you havent heard of something called the reformation and protestantism, which tried to get back to the basics of Christianity.  Its what the whole fundamentalist movement is about.
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
Your personal anecdotes matter ever so little, specifally in recent years. Perhaps more hilarious, most christian charaty organisations REFUSE to help people who do not serve Jesus. So, by bringing those monstruousities up, you dig yourself further.

Also, you fail at christian dogma. Protestantism, if anything, is even more of a corruption of the Bible. Bother to learn hevbrew, aramaic and greek, cunt.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
eh ad hominem attacks are the resort of those with no facts to support them.

as such will no longer respond to you as you are obviously a sick and distorted and hateful person.  Get help.

and no, you are just plain wrong.  I have seen the stockpiles of food and food kitchens that do not ask what one believes.  I have seen the charities that send food to Africa and other regions in need, that do not care what you are.  You are just plain deluded.  Get help.
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
Grea, you refuse to see the truth, so close or ears and go "nananana"

You are the sick one, and not because you fantisise over ponies. You have no ounce of human intelligence or knowledge, hence you would rather have people dying under Yahweh than to save people.

You are a sociopath, and a stupid one at that.
CuriousFerret
5 years, 5 months ago
Sorry for the delay, been working 12 hr days.

The teacher was a math teacher, so does the Catholic Church not agree with proven mathematical facts?
Shall we consider all of the south to not be Christians due to the concentration of racists living there?"
As a Christian do you personally support discrimination?
You don't believe the Catholic Church is discriminating when it fires a homosexual or an atheist for no other reason?  

Honest question for you opinion and view on it.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
One, you assume I am a Christian, already stated I am not religious.  Math has nothing to do with it.  No one does not consider either the christians in the south to be racists or accepts that there is a concentration of racists living there.

I whole hearted support discrimination.  I would never hire someone for a job they were not qualified for.  XD
And yes of course, they are discriminating by having qualifications for a job.  You may disagree with those qualifications, but personally I think every organization has the right to do so, including for race, gender, etc.  It's called a freedom that has been removed.  Personally, I do not AGREE with their point of view, but it is perfectly acceptable.  The courts should not legislate it either (as they were never intended to, but boycotts seem to work fine for larger social issues.)

And being an atheist teacher at a religious school is no where near racism.  As many know, teachers do not teach just in their subject matter and may also not teach how they are supposed to as a religion wants them too.  I do not see any problem with a religious organization making sure that teachers who teach their children agree with their ideology in total.  They could make sure they were all catholic, that makes more sense.
CuriousFerret
5 years, 5 months ago
Assumptions are lazy thinking, and I didn't read all your other posts with the others so I missed your non religion.

So I asked to find out.

I still have trouble with firing someone based one religious beliefs as we have laws that state you can't fire a worker for religious views.  A personal trait or belief should not be used to judge an individual for their ability to do their job.  If they are qualified to teach the matter they are asked then that should be enough.  Religious views and dogma are the responsibility of the parents as well as the leaders of the church, not science, math, or art teachers.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
I could easily foresee firing someone based on ideology as easily justifiable.  Say if they're a true anarchist.  If their religious belief in anyway interferes with their job.  A caregiver, say, that does not believe in medicine for example.

As far as a teacher, in public schools sure, that's the government's business and they should not discriminate on the basis of religion, race, etc.  A private institution should be allowed to do just that.  I think the laws saying you can't are unjust.  They are unconstitutional, except for an extreme justification for regulating interstate trade, which I also disagree with.  It is essentially telling people what to do with their own property.  Sorry I tend to fall well within the libertarian camp as far as government goes.
CuriousFerret
5 years, 5 months ago
That is rather slippery slop don't you think?  Most of the Amendments of the Constitution start with 'the government shall not' to restrain it from encroaching on individual freedoms.  I find restraints more usefully then excuses for bad behavior, particularly for an institution that is supports to protect us.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
well agreed....but the supreme court has upheld that they can tell us who to hire, what we can discriminate about, etc...thats tremendous imposition on our freedoms and the list keeps growing.  Its one thing for them to say THEY wont do it, which is fine and proper.  Its another to demand that we dont, either from laws, lawsuits, or economic coercion.  It is none of the government's business who are discriminate toward...

its funny how its ok to do so on some tho...smokers, fat people, the ugly.  XD
CuriousFerret
5 years, 5 months ago
There is the 14th amendment that gives the Federal Government the responsibility to protect our rights against states and local governments.  If the south after the civil war didn't proceed with Jimmy Crow laws, and continued to violate the rights of African Americans Affirmative Action won't have been needed.

But with women's sufferage and the civil rights movement too many proved they could not act fairly based on individual merits and allowed bigotry of many forms to justify un-equitable treatment.

Our country is based on equal treatment for all, and when that doesn't happen it goes against our values and will raise a stink.  I won't bother my detractors in their homes or churches, but in public they have to act with civility and respect as I must for them.  When they don't they deserve to be put in place just like I would be if I instigated them.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
Again, it doesnt apply to what I was talking about.  The 14th amendment is prohibiting government actions...not those of business or individuals.  The government has now moved under very loose grounds to prohibit actions by people and businesses.  They are in fact taking rights away from those groups to be "fair."  And life isnt fair.
CuriousFerret
5 years, 5 months ago
Your right that the 14th applies to governments institutions, where Affirmative Action infringes into private corporate and business.  And as I said AA won't have been able to be passed in the first place if enough  businesses could have shown they were not basing their employment on race or gender.

I agree they have to be qualified, but they're religion, sex, race, or personal beliefs have nothing to do with their work conditions or their ability to preform in them.  Unrelated bigotry should not be a bias of how to hire someone.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
In a perfect world, people would be wise enough not to, but it is still someone's right to be a bigot.  What right does the government have to infringe on how someone runs their own business.  That is the right of property that government should not infringe upon you mentioned above.  

Also perceived injustice and inequality does not mean actual prejudice.  You can pull pure numbers that say women and african americans make less than white men and use that to justify further infringement by the government.  However, a closer look at these numbers show that african american men make almost the same as white men do, in the bottom 80% of pay, while it is the top 20% that causes all the difference.  This also causes a lot of difference with women, but life choices, not taking demanding jobs, jobs that may infringe on family or being forced to work 9-5 only.  

Why the top 20% makes so much more whites, may have a lot to do with entrepreneurship.  Who are the richest americans?  white people who started businesses or their fathers did.  Walmart, Microsoft, Facebook, Apple, etc.
CuriousFerret
5 years, 5 months ago
Just cause perfection is a far away concept doesn't mean we should ignore problems when they occur.

A base standard is needed and each individual claim should be investigated on its own circumstances and not on public opinion alone.  People need an impartial third party to settle disputes and that role falls to the government to insure everyone has equal representation in the case so they can be heard. This is the function of the judicial branch, a vital component to our society.

On the fact white men still hold the higher percentage of wealth then black men and women you have to admit laws enforced in the passed have given them the advantage unfairly.  We enslaved and exploited black people keeping them uneducated so they would not pose a threat to their owners.  Women also had no right to sue for better pay and were ostracized for leaving the home and going to work at all even after they gained the right to vote.  They have improved as their education standards have improved and more people have come to respect women's rights and at some point we won't need AA to balance the scales.

We will never reach perfection but we can improved the standards of others by making it a fair playing field.  And that means people are hired based off their experience and merit not their superficial appearance.

And if these hate groups, and they are hate groups, don't want to be crucified by the media and the public at large for making bigoted statements then they should hold their tongues.   If they have freedom of speech so does everyone else.  If people can protest at a military funeral, then I can bad mouth Chick-Fil-A.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
The fact is that the government has no business levelling the playing field.  It is not in the Constitution, and it is frankly against its spirit.  Your assertion that education plays a role in wealth is largely untrue.  Education prepares one for a role and may in fact squash hopes of gaining any greater wealth.  Perhaps african americans buying into that lie is what keeps them "oppressed."

Sam Walton grew up poor yet his family holds 5 of the world's richest people.  And it has always been thus...Edison had 3 months of schooling.  Carnegie had no schooling and started work at age 13 to make ends meet.  Entrepreneurship is the key to wealth, not education.  This is why the top 10% are almost exclusively white and male.
CuriousFerret
5 years, 5 months ago
So basically your saying they are just not trying?  They're just lazy?
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
No, they do try...they just buy into the lie of education, work hard and you will succeed.  Rather than the truth that the only real source of wealth is working for yourself.  To start your own business and work at that.  THAT is how most people make fortiunes, not working hard for a company.
CuriousFerret
5 years, 5 months ago
It has been reported that the majority of millionaires do make their money off playing the markets, one of the reasons we want to raise the corporate tax rate.  Though saying education and hard work do not improve the conditions you live in is a flawed argument.  It is a fact the majority of people who don't have a high school diploma will make a million less then people who do.

Fate plays a role, if you are born into a wealth family it's most likely you will stay at the same level of personal wealth when you move out on your own.  But a person still need basic training and fundamental education,like being able to read the prevalent language of the country, to have any chance of moving up in the society.  Not everyone can loan 250,000 off their parents to start a business of their own so they have to acquire some trade skill to be able to even get a job.

It one of the reasons the recover is stagnant, employers are having trouble finding people that can do the jobs they need done.  Many which pay substantial money.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
I'm not saying education does not make you wealthier, although that could be debated (do the people with drive to higher education have the drive to succeed, while those who dont care about higher education do not, influence things?), but ito the point, the top 10% are largely entrepreneurs.  I think you mean increase the capital gains tax, corporate taxes are the highest in the world here, as well as paying healthcare, which overseas they do not.  Capital gains which taxes success at stock market or businesses.  Why this is an incredibly bad idea, is that those are extremely risky things.  You can lose money on them.  So increases taxes on profits, increases the risk of losing money....which means they may be more cautious....this means less investment at a time when the economy sucks and desperately needs it.  Raising corporate taxes, also means less profit to reinvest in the company...both of these ideas are bad for the economy, but democrats think government makes jobs.

The idea that they made their money playing the stock market is vague, since most people who own businesses generally put unused money in the stock market.  Also people who inherited wealth are the minority at 14%.  Most children of millionaires do not continue to be millionaires themselves, generally just living off their parents wealth and not increasing it.

And the recovery is stagnant because most recoveries operate off the same cycle...recessions fire managers (usually so they can hire cheaper ones)...they go out and start businesses which hire a lot of people.  New businesses need far more people than established ones in recoveries.  This hasnt occurred as much now thanks to Obama.  He did everything he could it seems to discourage new businesses.  Threatening to increase taxes on "the rich...those who make over $100,000 initially, then top 10% which are individuals and couples which make over $350,000...precisely the group that would be starting new businesses.....then the health care law, which increases costs on businesses either paying a fine, when they didnt have to have health care at beginning...or having costlier insurance.  Then increasing utility costs with his new regulations which will shut down 10% of power plants.....and just spouting off all this anti business rhetoric.....would you wanna risk starting a business with all that going on?

CuriousFerret
5 years, 5 months ago
It was Capital Gains, being as that's the only place people are really making any profits at this point.  When business won't hire or improve wages there will not be a recovery due to the fact we are a consumer based economy and with out workers getting paid no one can buy products.  Trickle down might keep the top 10%  afloat but it will not drive the economy as a whole because they depend on everyone else buying things.

On energy the industry is already moving away from coal and to natural gas due to the rock bottom price of the abundance of new wells we acquired from fracking, which is at its highest level every due to Obama's allowing and pushing for their licensing.  Coal costs more to mine, pollutes worse then gas, and with natural gas companies don't have to spend as much to met the new regulations.

On health care, Obama stole Romney's plan, and the individual mandate that Newt pushed back when he was speaker of the house.  Personally I would rather have merged Medicare and Medicaid into one, then allow anyone who wanted in to the national plan add an extra 5% to their own income tax to get put on it.   That's the way I would have went for health care reform.  If the health care providers in the private sector can't out preform medicare then they deserve to lose their business, but at least it would be a free choice which plan we want to have and not an over take the health care completely which th current plan doesn't even do.







Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
But you must realize that a tax on investments like stocks, bonds, etc encourages people not to invest in them.  This is because they are risky ventures.  If you have a 50/50% chance of losing money...and then the government changes the tax on the winning side from 15 to 50% then it becomes a whole lot riskier to invest in companies.  And yes, but I was giving reasons why they didnt want to hire, due to uncertainty about future costs and also discouraging new businesses from starting up.  What they have been doing is keeping a lot more cash on hand to meet these potential costs.

But forcing an early move away from coal only means higher prices for consumers and businesses.  This means less money to buy goods and less money to hire new workers, which slows the economy from both sides.  Basically may be an ok idea, but horrible time to do it in.

Yeah the partisan politics sucks on both sides now....they need to get together and put together a decent program, rather than shoving something through that hasnt been fully written and whose costs are unknown.  It seems designed to force a european style system eventually.  However, bottom line is again very bad time to pull that stunt.
CuriousFerret
5 years, 5 months ago
Health care while a problem, wasn't the biggest one at the time.

As it stands I truly believe we have enough resources to do one of too things.  We ether focus on encouraging job growth and helping keep enough people with their heads above water then deal with the debt once the economy is running on all cylinders again.  Or we focus on paying down the debt over time, cause it's too big to be dealt with in anything less then a decade.  We can't do both, and I'd rather help keep people feed and invest in new tech, new resources, and education so our people have the skills needed for the jobs that will need filling.

Just getting rid of the Government doesn't mean our creditors won't come calling.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
I agree, the dems were smucks for tackling their pet projects ahead of the economy and lying that it was helping the economy when such a program could only hurt it, as it did.

And as usual both sides suck.  Republicans are hell bent on cutting government down (but not the military) while democrats are basically trying to defend healthcare, which is messed up in a number of ways, it seems like a plot to get companies to drop healthcare, be taxed for it, and force people by law into government programs, unless your rich.....and this stupid desire to increase taxes on the "rich" the top 10% etc.  Tax multimillionaires more, dont have a problem with that...but the $100,000 -$1,000,000 range?  Those are the people starting new businesses, which is what brings us out of recessions.  There's only about 200,000 people with incomes over 1 million.  (The millions of millionaires are networth, which includes their house).

I think we could do both.....it does entail entitlement reform, which means the dems are prolly gonna show more grannies thrown off the cliff, but they need to get involved to make a joint plan.....and the military i think needs to be cut as well.  10% cuts that go toward paying off the debt doesnt seem harsh...cutting corruption and overspending would go along way toward meeting that goal.  

I dont think we need to invest in new tech either, business will do that, I think government needs to stay out of that area except in key things it needs atm.  Business will invest in research in anything worthwhile and profitable.  Like we dont need to be research "green" energy just for the sake of the future.  We could just allow more oil friendly approaches here...We have enough oil to last 300 years here, and Obama lies and says its running out, while shutting down a pipeline to Canada who have another 300 years of oil up there, at current usage....the United States in 20 years could easily be the next Saudi Arabia, turn the trade deficit around, and be reaping huge tax income on it also.  Gingrich mentioned this a bit, but he was the only one.  Not to mention massive new jobs....that's what I would do if I was president.
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
Perhaps most sad is that, in your stupidity, you seem to forget that Nazis used Catholism and Creationism as justifications for their eugenics program. Not science.

Hell, christian clerics INVENTED eugenics.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
Wow again, you are just sadly misinformed.  Eugenics was invented by Francis Galton, the cousinof Charles Darwin, and directly derived from Darwinism.

It is inherently opposed to chrisitanity AND creationism.  Would love to see documentation that the nazis used actual christian doctrine to further their cause, as its opposed to doctrine.  "I will curse any that curse you" is god's response to treatment of jews...seems straight forward there.  Nazi's taught that christ was the product of a germanic roman soldier raping Mary, according to Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.  It is also opposed to teachings that all humans came from ONE source and are related.  That is opposed to Nazi and evolutionary (of the time) teachings that races are inherently different and some are subhuman.  All Nazi beliefs can be documented to Darwinism as stated, I listed the direct lines of people that can be traced back to Darwin, although I left out Haeckel.
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
Thank you, you are the single most stupid and ignorant human being I have ever seen.

Eugenics was first reccorded among brittish clergy, who classified africans as inferior as justification for slavery. Hell, Darwin himself rejected eugenics with a burning passion, while his opponents revelled in it.

Eugenics, furthermore is AGAINST Darwinism, which is about adaptation. If you even knew anything about evolution and natural selection, you can see that there's no superior organisms, just ones better adapted to their sorroundings, and Eugenics is all about notions of superiority and elimination of that which is inferior (which is ironically not only against evolution, but counter-productive).

Read the Mein Kamf, retard. Hitler claims the Aryan race descended from Heaven.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
Please...before you talk anymore, LOOK up eugenics, I dont think you know what it means.

Its founder was Francis Galton, again, LOOK IT UP!

Darwin was a racist, pure and simple.  Read Descent of Man.  I have.  Have you?  It states that the Melanin (brown) races are subhuman and less evolved than white people.  He gives wisdom teeth fitting and no problems with the appendix as evidence of this, and them being vestitigal in white people (even though he admits its because of their diet).

So before you say anything more, go research what you are talking about, PLZ, cuz you are the one spouting propaganda and falsehoods.
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
" cobramcjingleballs wrote:
Please...before you talk anymore, LOOK up eugenics, I dont think you know what it means.

Its founder was Francis Galton, again, LOOK IT UP!


Eugenics already existed before Francis Galton, moron. Also, Darwin saw his cousin very lowly at best.

" Darwin was a racist, pure and simple.  Read Descent of Man.  I have.  Have you?  It states that the Melanin (brown) races are subhuman and less evolved than white people.  He gives wisdom teeth fitting and no problems with the appendix as evidence of this, and them being vestitigal in white people (even though he admits its because of their diet).

So before you say anything more, go research what you are talking about, PLZ, cuz you are the one spouting propaganda and falsehoods.


No, he says they're closer to the baseline than white humans, not that they are inherently inferior. Hell, Darwin even disdained eugenics on principle.

For someone who accuses other's of propaganda and doing research, you seem extremely hypocrital, since you sound exactly like pastors who've never read Darwin's works.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
You clearly do not know what eugenics means.  Before you discuss it, please look it up.

To define, eugenics is the proposed controlled breeding of humans to produce a more fit (smarter, faster, we can rebuild them) species.  It did not exist in Darwin's day because he frigging made up the theory that its based on.  It could not exist before Origin of Species, and as said, his cousin invented the idea.

And really where are you pulling this stuff from, that Darwin didnt like his nephew?  Strange said nephew would strive for years to prove Darwin's theory of hereditary (it was false) cuz he knew Darwin loathed him so much, amiiright?
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
" cobramcjingleballs wrote:
To define, eugenics is the proposed controlled breeding of humans to produce a more fit (smarter, faster, we can rebuild them) species.  It did not exist in Darwin's day because he frigging made up the theory that its based on.  It could not exist before Origin of Species, and as said, his cousin invented the idea.


And, like all people who know shit about evolution, don't seem to realise that that's exactly against darwinistic evolution. What eugenicists do is control their genetic pool, rendering it vulnerable to genetic weakness. Evolution merely is the adaptation of lifeforms to their sorroundings; there's no superiority whatsoever, since what might work somewhere, doesn't elsewhere, and all organisms must breed as to make use of the availiable genes.

And eugenics, even if not by name, already existed since the Middle Ages.

" And really where are you pulling this stuff from, that Darwin didnt like his nephew?  Strange said nephew would strive for years to prove Darwin's theory of hereditary (it was false) cuz he knew Darwin loathed him so much, amiiright?


I'm pulling from discussions with actual biologists, something you can't be bothered to do. Likewise, Darwin himself disdain his nephew's line of thinking.
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
Once again, you demonstrate immense stupidity:

1- Eugeneics began i«tanks to anglo-saxonic christians.

2- Nazis used Christianity to justify what they did.

3- Nazis were NOT the most technologically advanced nation at the time.

4- That sort of reasoning makes no sense.

5- Please blow your brains off.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
1. Galton and Darwin were both atheists, not christians.

2. No, nazis HID most of what they did from the populace.  They used popular science to justify what they did and christian pastors who stood up to them often ended in concentration camps.

3.  They had the most Nobel prizes that decade and were the most technologically advanced at the time, geez study history plz, its why they came up with rockets, jet planes, etc in the midst of war AND after killing or chasing away a lot of great Jewish minds like Einstein.

4.  Sorry if reason and arguments from facts rather than your own propaganda make no sense to you.

5.  sorry, why dont you actually look up the stuff your talking about.
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
" cobramcjingleballs wrote:
1. Galton and Darwin were both atheists, not christians.


Here starts your epic fail. DARWIN WAS NOT AN ATHEIST, AND HATED EUGENICS. Fuck, even most christianfags know that! You are a walking stereotype that is long gone.

" 2. No, nazis HID most of what they did from the populace.  They used popular science to justify what they did and christian pastors who stood up to them often ended in concentration camps.


Thanks for failing at history. The German catholic church supported Nazis, and they even burned The Origin of Species. Also, read Mein Kampf, and despair at your ignorance.

" 3.  They had the most Nobel prizes that decade and were the most technologically advanced at the time, geez study history plz, its why they came up with rockets, jet planes, etc in the midst of war AND after killing or chasing away a lot of great Jewish minds like Einstein.


Obviously you forgot the Empire of Japan and the USA. Also, the Nazis invaded Scandinavia, hence the Nobel Prizes.

For someone who accuses other of propaganda, you sure are a living, breathing church pamphlet
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
1. Darwin was an atheist.  One of his friends INVENTED the term agnostic to describe him with the caveat that that's what you call someone who wants to hide being an atheist from his christian wife.  He was also DEAD by the time his cousin invented Eugenics so unless zombie Darwin told you this, then eeeehh

2. sorry student of history.  Catholic church supported Nazis over their rivals, the COMMUNISTS.  Nazis hid most of their social policies from the public like concentration camps, even the jews didnt know what the trains meant at first, being told they were being sent to grand places.  Again, recommend Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, excellent history book at about 500 pages or so.  Mein Kampf was FILLED with Darwinism.  The ideas of Lebensraum, inferior races, etc come directly from Haushofer (Hesse's mentor btw, the guy who typed Mein Kampf) who got his Darwinism from Ratzel, who got those from Haeckel, who introduced Origin of Species, with his own edits into Germany in the first place.

3.  Sorry again you are just WRONG, do you get tired of being wrong?, German Nobel prizes peaked in the 1910s and declined from there.
http://weps005.appspot.com/HRodQwMJGQQLQwkFRRMAGA8fDQg...
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
" cobramcjingleballs wrote:
1. Darwin was an atheist.  One of his friends INVENTED the term agnostic to describe him with the caveat that that's what you call someone who wants to hide being an atheist from his christian wife.  He was also DEAD by the time his cousin invented Eugenics so unless zombie Darwin told you this, then eeeehh


You  really do want to look like a moron, do you not?

Darwin had faith in God well after the publication of his book. He only became an agnostic after his daughter died.

" 2. sorry student of history.  Catholic church supported Nazis over their rivals, the COMMUNISTS.  Nazis hid most of their social policies from the public like concentration camps, even the jews didnt know what the trains meant at first, being told they were being sent to grand places.  Again, recommend Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, excellent history book at about 500 pages or so.  Mein Kampf was FILLED with Darwinism.  The ideas of Lebensraum, inferior races, etc come directly from Haushofer (Hesse's mentor btw, the guy who typed Mein Kampf) who got his Darwinism from Ratzel, who got those from Haeckel, who introduced Origin of Species, with his own edits into Germany in the first place.


Great, you even bring up sources considered to be bullshit by modern historians! Thank you for undermining yourself.

Also, once again, you fail to grasp what eugenics and natural selection actually are. As well as what the Mein Kampf says.

" 3.  Sorry again you are just WRONG, do you get tired of being wrong?, German Nobel prizes peaked in the 1910s and declined from there.
http://weps005.appspot.com/HRodQwMJGQQLQwkFRRMAGA8fDQg...


Your despair is very amusing. Keep posting sources known to lack in credibility; it will do my job much easier.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
Darwin's actual views are not well known.  He described himself as an agnostic, which was probably an excuse giving his christian wife and his perceived duties toward nobility, but had stopped going to church years before his daughter died....he also stated it was impossible to be an ardent evolutionist and a theist...seems an atheist statement there.

And sorry, a history book by a journalist who was *IN* Nazi germany at the time is very credible.  You obviously do not understand historical criticism, in which different schools of history dispute previous theories.  It only shows your continual ignorance.

and sorry if showing the ACTUAL nobel prizes by country over the years is somehow again not reputable.  Hmm, so I suppose anything that shows you are ignorant is not reputable?
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
Yet, he always talked about how his theory did not deny the existence of God, and refused and even outright condemned atheist groups.

Also, said "journal in Nazi Germany-2 is well known to be a hoax among the historian community.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
" Harpagornis wrote:
Yet, he always talked about how his theory did not deny the existence of God, and refused and even outright condemned atheist groups.
Also, said "journal in Nazi Germany-2 is well known to be a hoax among the historian community.


That's because Darwin was a good member of the nobility.  He put off publishing Origins for a decade due to fear of it inspiring anarchy.  And I just gave you a quote that said his theory and belief in god were incompatible.  

and no, the 500 page book written by a journalist who worked under Edward R. Murrey was not telling hoaxes...It was a best seller and respected source that has been much cited over the years.  He personally was there and observed these things occur.  Sorry if you seek to discredit a well known historian who wrote many books on Germany.
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
Said quote being widely considered a hoax even among creationists. Also, you are indeed cracking: first you claim it was because of his wife (something in itself idiotic), then you claim it was because of nobility? In neither case was atheism considered bad. It is quite telling how desesperate you are, as your walls crumble.

I dare you to bring that book to a conversation with modern historians. You'll be the laughing stock.
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
They aren't just disagreeing, they're actively supporting organisations against LGBT rights as a whole.

Likewise, tolerance of intolerance is retarded anyways. This is why I ultimately end up sympathising with the muslim extremists over less insane muslims: they at least don't tolerate word twisting.
FlynnRausch
5 years, 5 months ago
Conservative religious folks are notoriously hateful of homosexuality. There's a difference between "I don't like gays, they make me feel icky" (which is okay) and "they should all be put behind an electric fence so they starve to death" (not okay). If Chik-fil-A was all like "We respect teh homosex, it's just not for us" then that's fine. But that's not what they're doing. They actively fund things that try and strip rights from homosexuals. To try and make someone less than what they are, that's downright hate, and if you don't think that's hate, I'd love to see what qualifies as hate to you.
Blacklab1
4 years, 11 months ago
It's not their sin so it's OK to go off on people who are not like them. Corner them on their sin and watch all hell break out- they will dance like it’s 1399 to get out of them admitting they have done wrong. I forget which denomination (not the Catholic Church this time) but the Head ministers of the denomination have been caught molesting children, and they are doing everything they can to get out of having the finger being pointed at them.
Blacklab1
4 years, 11 months ago
" ...
What my problem with some people of the Christian faith is that they think in order to be a Christian, you have to be pure from homosexuality which is completely stupid! They all the sudden think they have to fix you, or a duty to pray out the gay...
...


You mean you don't need to get clean up before you take your bath?- to borrow from the Jesus Camp think tank. It’s like they miss the point of their own faith which is supposed to be all about grace.  I also agree being left handed is not a sin. But not long ago it was considered a sin too, and these same nuts were going around hitting left hand people and telling they were going to hell because they are left handed.

My problem with these nuts are what they say and do to people who have a health problem that's not their fault, and blame them for their health problem because they didn't read their bible enough, or prayed hard enough. What God would make a child blind because the deity got off on seeing the child trying to please the deity but failing to be perfect in the demands of the deity?  Trade blindness with spinal bifida or schizophrenia and you might see what I am talking about. My Opinion is these people got it wrong. First of all they really haven’t a clue what’s in their text in the first place. Second, if they were confronted by their own Christ, they would kill him all over again if they got a chance to. Truth, their own God commands them to feed the poor, clothe the naked, and visit those who are in prison (whatever prison they find the person). The guy in the story who fails to do those things get’s booted from ‘heaven’ on the day of judgement**. What blows me over is these same people are fighting tooth and nail to not do anything their own God has commanded them to do. **- seems to me that more gays have fed their neighbor, clothe their neighbor, and visited more people with AIDs then most of those holy rollers have ever.
Poco
5 years, 5 months ago
Dear religion:  While you were worrying about which chicken sandwiches are acceptable, we landed on Mars.  Your friend, science.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
Dear science:  While you were worrying about modern creation mythos, and spending millions to find "life" on another planet, you forgot that religion created you.  You forgot Descartes and Newton (among others) who sought to discover science in order to find God.  You forgot your basic premises are based in faith and religion, such as having faith that things acting today will act the same tomorrow, and that belief in universal natural laws were a religious belief.  Descartes even first discovered and defined inertia as being a reflection of the immutable nature of God.  But hey, just forget all that, science doesnt need calculus, analytical geometry (you know, those Cartesian graphs named after well, you know), laws of motion (universal no doubt) or any of that religious nonsense like inertia.
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 5 months ago
Newton was a complete nutcase, an obsessive one. His theories related to gravity have been worked on and refined since his demise, because he wasn't entirely right. The fact that Newton was religious does not paint the entire scientific method as being a hunt for God.

The fact that you can find scientists who are religious does not mean you can assert that science is about looking for God. At any rate, they didn't fucking find him, did they?
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
Newton, the main founder of Calculus and Physics was hardly a nutcase.  He was obsessive, but that was a good thing for all mankind. Given the state of equipment at the time, Newton was astoundingly right.  I take it you are talking about precision of his formulae?  They are good enough to guide missiles and the Apollo program.   He was wrong about the cause of gravity, but the present theory may be wrong as well.  And I listed two founders of science, Newton and Descartes, so you have the rational and empirical sides of the argument both.

And no, they did not find god, they did not expect to, just signs of god and how he worked the universe.  They did find universal natural laws as predicted by their theory of how god would logically work.  XD  By the way, there is no other explanation for such laws now other than their confirmed prediction and theory.
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 5 months ago
No, he was a nutcase. He also practiced alchemy. He was incredibly intelligent, but still a fruitloop.
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
Ah, the "God of the gaps" bullshit".

We once thought the winds were anemoi. Give a reason why Yahweh, who is NOT omnipresent (such is an aristotelian corruption) is any more credible than the wind gods.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
Hmm, wut?  No, your analogy is wrong.  I am not appealing to a god of gaps, but a scientific prediction.  Given the postulate of god creating the universe, then a prediction was made that there should be universal natural laws guiding how the universe operated by a principle of parsimony.  It's how the human mind would create such things, given further postulate that the mind of god and humans are similar.  There should not be multiple sets of rules or even chaos.

This prediction is true.  There are universal natural laws and there are no other explanations as to why this is the case.  In fact, it is a mystery as to why.  This fulfilled prediction is then evidence for god, until you come up with another explanation for universal natural laws.
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
But ultimately, that's just a more cleverly disguised "God of the Gaps" argument, since anyone who even knows about quantum physics knows why things arrange as they do.
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 5 months ago
Also, science has its roots in philosophy, from ancient Greece, not deism. Early scientists were murdered for daring to contend with religious doctrine. It is absolutely no surprise whatever that many early scientists were religious, because back then there was no freedom from religion and disobeying its teachings was at worst lethal and at best career-destroying. You claim that science is based on faith and you offer no clarification on this ridiculous statement save for an assertion that it takes faith to believe things that happen today will happen tomorrow. I have to question your awareness at this point because a thinking person wouldn't behave this stupidly. You are implying that the universe is without consistency, rendering every theory about the way the world works as essentially moot. I guess if you take paracetamol one day it will relieve pain, whereas another day it will make you grow antlers or something, right?

Cobra, you are without doubt the dumbest motherfucker I have ever seen on a furry site. Well done, you talentless hack.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
Sigh...ALL THINGS ARE BASED ON FAITH, including science.  Science like math has several postulates that are without proof, these are based on faith.  Universal laws and consistency of nature are but two of these postulates.  

Its fun you mention newton, because exceptions to his universal laws led to a wider theory that was MORE universal under Einstein.  It is the exceptions that help advance science.  Energy was not supposed to come out of nowhere, which was an inconsistency in nature with radioactive material, which led to whole new sciences.

While you may have been taught that science has its roots in Greece, this is hardly true.  Greek thought influenced the scholastic age, not the enlightenment.  It was Islamic thought that truly inspired the scientific revolution, which made great strives in overturning greek ideas and starting to form the scientific method.  Greeks used a dialectic method, not an empirical one, and in fact loathed empiricism because they did not truly believe in a single reality for all people (Plato's cave analogy).  Belief in universal natural laws that god would run the universe by provided the idea of a single reality one could observe and laws that could be found.  Religious ideas.  Also no scientist was ever persecuted for their work (except maybe one nutcase you probably never heard of).  They were persecuted for disagreeing with the GREEKS.  Galileo was forced to recant some of his theories for contradicting Aristotle.  Same for Copernicus.  Sorry to disrupt your ideas there.

and thank you for the ad hominem attacks.  I will not stoop to that level, but remain only with rational arguments.
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 5 months ago
Nope. You are confusing types of faith. A 'faith' in an equation is an assumption about the world, not a religious faith. The underlying assumptions that enable science to work are subject to change. Ever heard of paradigm shifts? The assumptions (faith) of science are only kept when they continue to work, when those assumptions continue to function as reliable predictors of phenomena. Religious faith is entirely different ya daft prick.
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
Scientific thought has began way over in Babylon and Egypt.

Your stupidity has no limits, has it?
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
Are you fucking mental?

Science existed long before Christianity was even a concept. And lol at thinking finding life in other planets is useless. Please develop a functional neocortex, dumbass.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
No sorry, science is not ancient.  The scientific method upon which it is founded was not developed even until the 1600s.  Merely looking at things, like Aristotle, pausing a guess and declaring it true, defending it by dialectic means, like the Greeks, is NOT science.  It is only the first two steps of the scientific method, then you needs predictions, experiments, and conformation.  Ancient "science" skips the last 3 steps.

Interestingly, modern creation mythos, big bang, stellar and galactic evolution, and common descent all rely on the ancient dialectic methodology and again ARENT science.

Even the founder of the peer review qualification 50 yrs ago said common descent was not science, till he was forced to recant.  Its SOOO galileo there.  XD
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
You are using a rather absurdly specific defenition of "science", then. There's an obyious difference between the modern scientific method and science as a concept, you know.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
No there isnt.  Science is empiricism that follows the scientific method.  I'm sorry if you do not realize that other quests for knowledge like dialectism and rationalism are not science.  Its why they call the method that defines it scientific, would think that would be rather obvious.
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
Except both of those are considered social sciences.

Way to fail epically.
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
What is truly sad is that you think those mens' religions was what drove scientific discovery.

It's like saying the concept of genocide was Christianity's fault
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
sorry if you don't like history and facts.  Their religion did drive their quest for science, it's what they said.

Descartes and Newton were extremely religious individuals, created whole forms of math and pioneered science as a result.  Newton spent his spare time trying to find Bible codes at a time when you had to do it by hand.  To say religion did not cause their quest is to be ignorant of their own words and history in favor of some propaganda.
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
Newton, yes (and, as the host pointed out, he was a deluded imbecile), but Descartes was driven by what you lack: a desire to know the world better.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
When you invent calculus and modern physics like Newton...he friggin INVENTED calculus to solve physics problems, think about that for ONE second and THEN you can call people imbeciles.  Till then, it just makes you look stupid
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
Except many of his ideas had already been observed in Arabia and Persia previously.

Not very hard to develop, appearently
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
Again you have no clue.  Calculus was an entirely new invention, with only another rival coming up with similar ideas working on the same problem.  And no, his ideas of physics were based on new ideas about motion that Descartes and Galileo invented by experimentation.  They were novel, and his application of them to universal bodies was also novel.  It would also not have been possible without exact measurements of heavenly bodies performed in Germany the previous decades, so AGAIN you are entirely wrong and know nothing of history or science.
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
You can't claim originality when your works are stolen.

And again, bother to study old sumerian mathemethics. Makes whatever impact Newton had null.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
Uh, I have studied Sumerian mathematics and you have no idea what you are talking about.  A base 16 number system with no zero that was based on sections of circles.  It barely comes up with the arithmetic of the Egyptians, let alone anything complex as calculus.  Yet you call the inventor of calculus, who created it JUST TO SOLVE a problem in his spare time, an idiot.  

Wow, just wow.  If you do not admit you are wrong and just plain stupid about that, then you sir, just show to the world how profoundly ignorant you are.  Have you even taken calculus?  do you even KNOW what you are talking about?  Those 3 semester courses he MADE UP on a whim....poof, heres calculus bitches.
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
Great, you only have the knowledge of the 50's.

Keep up to date, imbecile.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
Actually, althought I knew it before, that knowledge comes direct from a college course this year, which among other things examined various number systems.  So....I'll tell that professor he's behind the times from you, the great source of propaganda and nonsense.
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
Knowing everything you said so far, I weep for your college
Poco
5 years, 5 months ago
Hi there.  Sorry I've been away for a few days and missed all this drama-laden fun.  After reading through the shitstorm my post has apparently caused, can I make a simple observation?  I think you're drawing a false correlation between the religion of these early scientists and mathematicians and their discoveries.  Isn't it perfectly possible that a person can be a brilliant scientist and also be a Christian without there being any connection between the two?  Isn't pointing out that Newton believed in God as irrelevant to his genius and my pointing out that Hawkings is an atheist?  

Your post is the first assertion I've encountered of the early scientists' experiments being a "search for God".  The enlightenment, from my college history classes, was exactly the opposite: a move away from ancient, religious answers to the mysteries of the universe to a more scholarly, scientific approach.  Again, I don't dispute that the fathers of modern science were religious; only the relevance of that fact.  It seems inconsequential to their discoveries.  
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
Unfortunately, history is corrupted by propaganda.  I mentioned this earlier about the "fall" of the Roman empire, which didnt end till 1453.  The loss of their west was considered renamed its fall by the new empires of Charlemagne, when they wanted to proclaim themselves as a continuation of Rome.  The Roman emperors in Constantinople I'm sure would have been amused.  (They actually reconquered Italy in the 500s for a 100 years, which further pissed off the Roman Catholics (they brought eastern popes in).

That the Enlightenment was somehow a turning away from older things and religion is more propaganda by the later half of it.  Originally those who started it in the 1600s had their paradigm deeply influenced by religion.  They were departing not from religious belief, but from Greek that had hampered them (Aristotle and Plato).  Galileo as stated was harassed because of challenging Aristotle's belief in a nonchanging cosmos, not because of religion, as example.  They were challenging the status quo of Scholasticism.  Their paradigm believed in natural, universal laws that god created to run the universe.  That belief is still one of the fundamental postulates of science btw although they remove god and just go meh cosmic laws exist for unknown reason.  

This was integral to their thought allowing Newton and Descartes to get the idea to and apply laws of motion to the universe.  It also allowed them to apply Galileo's simple observations of motion to every object.  That was a big step and only possible due to the paradigm.  It further believed ALL things were governed by such laws and a search to find them began, which spurred science.  It was so integral that they did based human rights as coming from god.  Descartes defined inertia as a property coming directly from god.  Descartes even had an instrumental role in his rationalism coming from god....he proved he existed, then his next move was to prove god, and then from believing in god, he claimed belief in the rest of the universe could derive.  That's how central these beliefs were.

Now in the 1740s on, this changed in France.  The Philosophes decided the nobility and monarchy must go.  One leading figure Voltaire, who was a driving force behind this (all because a nobleman had him flogged) but they had to get rid of divine right to rule, so the catholic church had to go...their campaign was designed to use education to make this come about...the Encyclopedie was their grand work...and history was rewritten to advance their cause.  Most atheist propaganda comes from this period 250 yrs ago.  Religion is the source of all wars, all suffering, religion is an evil force in the world, religion and science/reason are at odds.  Religion is a destablizing force (Gibbon making the case that it caused the Roman empire to fall (misguided since again it didnt even fall) etc.  These are the people who made up all this stuff for political propaganda.  It worked too, French revolution overthrew the nobility AND religion and they got 20 yrs of bloodshed for it.
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
This text is so full of epic failure that all your dismissals of "propaganda" suddenly become pure, undiluted hypocrisy.

Do a favour and participate in historian forums.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
What do you deny?  the stated goals of the philisophe?  Their actual overthrow of the institutions they hated?  it was a political campaign that worked....to deny it is just crazy.  The French Revolution HAPPENED, sorry to break it to you, but conspiracies do occasionally work.
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
Mostly the philosophical goals, as well as the blantant misinformation in regards to circumstances.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
Voltaire signed his letters, crush the infamous thing, believed to be the church, yet it was the nobility he loathed.  As stated because he got flogged by one for essentially slander.  That incident was also why he started writing in a pen name (Voltaire).  Their general goal was to rebuild society, and the nobility had to go in order to do that, which meant that religion had to be at least discredited to remove the divine right to rule, which was installed in France.
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
That he loathed nobility above everything else, nobody denies. But an anti-church desire was present. The closest thing to accepting the church Voltaire had been was to utterly reform it into an unrecognisable Christianity.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
ok, point?  one must remember that the church was run by nobles at the time in France, the 2nd estate.  And that they in turn supported the power structure by claiming divine right, any system of removing the nobility had to destroy the church also.
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
Not really. Nobility was independent of the church, and the church was among the few places where social ascension could occur. Cleric higher ranks were connected by blood to the nobility, but they acted very independently and even frequently clashed unless their common interests (like power) were threatened.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
kinda tired of arguing over history...do you deny that the church made a divine right to rule in france and do you deny that it was common for the siblings of nobility, who could not inherit the titles of the family to go into the church? (aka many many nobles in the church hierarchy)
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
Only an idiot would deny said things. However, neither of them prevented the fact that the church had outlived its purpose and was on it's own a corrupted entity that Voltaire found distasteful.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
You may believe it had outlived its usefulness, but that does not make it true, considering its still working charities today.  And voltaire's main motivation seemed to be revenge for being whipped, little nuts there.  

And if christianity was so outdated how come 200 years later it was thriving in england and the US, was used as the justification for human rights. AND formed that abolitionist movement against the slavery you seem to despise, to name just a few.

So to recap, if they had gotten rid of it then, still have slavery, America may not have revolted, and no human rights.  

One wonders what good religion will produce in the future as well.
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
On other words, your argument boils down to "everyone else is doing it, let us be sheep".

1- There are tons of secular charity organisations, more so than christian ones.

2- You fail epically at history (though, given what you have posted so far, it is not surprising). Christianity OPPOSED human rights as we know back then, and the main drive force was secular people. Even modern christians acknowledge that (that aren't batshit crazy evangelists, that is).

3- You seem utterly blind to the damage Christianity has caused. Since you claim to be gay, and now that Christianity is fighting tooth and nail for LGBT rights to be gone, your demise at the hands of christian policies will be a fiting, karmic end.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
hmm, dont believe I suggested that at or or that people be sheep.  Simply that religion is not a great evil and has done a ton of good in the world, especially Christianity.

1. That is a recent phenomenon and how does it negate the good that religion does?

2. Actually I got straight A's in my college history courses and often set the curves for the entire classes, but thanks for ANOTHER ad hominem attack because I show facts that disagree with your own preconceived notions of how things work.  And no, historians widely acknowledge that human rights originated because of Christianity.  Perhaps you should research their founder John Locke.  Do not know any christian groups who opposed the idea of  human rights once developed.

3. I am gay, but also Libertarian in many of my views.  I do not believe in LGBT rights, I believe in human rights.  Dont really care if theyre gone, as they are extra rights and have no validitiy, but propose to take property rights from other people to establish them.  Since I have the established right to life, doubt anyone will be killing me.  sorry but your worldview seems rather odd.

Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
Religion is good, but Christianity defenitely is not. Perhaps the biggest evidence is that countless religions never produced any sort of evil, while the Bible has incited never previously seen extremistic behaviour. Helps that it is a morally despicable book.

1- Not a new concept, as the first appeared in Greece.

2- Given your country's history (hurrhurr) in regards to the education system, I am not the least bit surprised. Again, for someone so hellbent on accusing others of propaganda, you seem to have fallen to every conservative bullshit stereotype. The greatest inovators of human rights were nearly all secular; even the christian ones were branded heretics by the church in their time period.

3- It explains a lot, given that modern libertarians are naught but conservative-anarchists. It appears that you seem oddly restricted in information gathering, or else remarkably lazy at research, since if you even knew the extent of human rights attributed to LGBT people in your country, you would heavily regret calling them "priviledges". And lol at your ignorance. The number of conservative groups calling for agressive measures against gay people have increased by at least 40% between 2008 and 2010, so you are not going to meet people abiding by that right.

Besides, standing against social progress as you do is morally depraved. If you desire to be treated like crap, sure, but if you apply the Golden Rule based on your philosophy, you'll ironically spread the suffering you claim to not exist.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
1. no you are flat out wrong...natural rights did not appear in ancient greece, natural law did from the Stoics and christians.  The difference is the latter refers to duties of the person, not to protections from society.  

2. Dont really care for "innovators" of rights, rights dont change.  The originator is good enough for me, without him there wouldnt be much of a conception of them.  

3. and no, there is a range of liberitarian belief.  Hardly anarchist, just believe government shouldnt interfere with personal rights.  The problem you dont understand is creating privileges for people takes away from established rights of others.  It may be more fair to special interest groups, but not to the property holders that are being told who to hire, what can be done on their land, etc

It's funny how you think depriving people of property rights is not depraved, how people are being told what to think, how businesses like the one above are being punished for their owner's religious beliefs.

Its odd how LGBT "rights" are more important than religious and property rights, but that's not depraved.
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
1- "Natural rights didn't appear in ancient Greece". You appear to have failed epically at the history of philosophy.

2- The originator matters only so much as providing the spark. Alan Turing was relevant to the modern notion of computers, but his relevance is no more than that of subsequent inovators

3- There is a wide range of libertarian beliefs, but since the 90's that conservative libertarians dominate the field, to the point that non-conservative and ambivalent libertarians are labelled "democrats" nowadays.

I believe in prommotion of altruism in all levels of society, up to the government. Capitalism is naught but glorified social darwinism without socialist influences.

Religion serves the people, not the other way around; to do so demands it's extinction. Henceforth, if you consider LGBT rights lesser than religious rights, than you are pathetically adhering to a code and not the people, rendering you selfish by default.

But alas, by all means be stupid. It will be sad to see millions opressed, but karmic punishment is always amusing.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
1. sorry if you disagree with with history.  Locke originated them.as explained.  There was no right to freedom or liberty in greece.

2. This isnt tech, so false analogy, you dont improve on rights to life, liberty, and property.  Sorry you just dont.  As also explained, "improvements" only transfer rights from one group to another and you have tyranny again.

3.  Dont care about political party labels for a political belief.  The government should have as little impact on persons as possible.  That is the founding principle of the United States.

While I dont agree with everything Rand said about altruism, forced altruism is abhorrent, because then its just a label for tyranny.  It is again taking things from one party to give to others.  That is not freedom, and infringes on property rights at the least.  For the government to perform "altruism" as you like to mislabel it, is a frightening concept.  If one is intelligent, should they be forced to work on problems for the public good?  Intellectual slaves?  If one is able bodied, should you be forced into the army for so many years for the public good also?  (There is no reason for that to happen in any free country, except in times of war or countries in fear for their lives, like Israel).  Your altruism could easily mean slavery....you prolly will scoff at that...but is that not the same as taking 75% of one's income that they worked for?  You will prolly scoff at that too...saying the rich can afford it....If they did it to the poor, would that also be justified?

then you say a bunch of nonsense that is incoherent.

and yes, millions are going to be oppressed, because I have freedom of thought.  And I suppose whole worlds will be destroyed also, get a grip.
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
1. So you resort to shifting. Freedom and liberty weren't consistent, but the issue was charity, which was. If you want an ounce of credibility, do not resort to evasion.

2. Rather pathetic excuse. Notions of life, liberty and property are not stactic, and ultimately will always be in need of refinement.

3. Ultimately it depends on how you view the dichotomy between freedom and peace. You can't have one without the other. However, state altruism is always going to be a boon. If altruism is forced, yes, it is opression, but it can just be encouraged, as in healthcare.

Ironic someone so obsessed with moral rehtorics is so utterly selfish. You imbeciles complain about Wikileaks, but when your bigotry is shoved, you get all defensive about "freedom". Grasp this, subhuman maggot: all people who complain about LGBT rights ultimately attack freedom itself.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
ok, degenerating to name calling just shows your character and the weakness of your arguments.

Have a nice day.
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
Rather hypocrital of you to say that.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
not at all, when you become uncivil, do not expect a civil conversation to occur.  If you can not show respect to others, you must sit in the corner...next time, attack ideas, not people.
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
Again, hyporital of you to say that, since you resorted to the same in the past.

Likewise, it is quite the sign you are desesperate.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
Hardly, read what you called me, and ask yourself, if you would deign to respond to that in a civil conversation.  That is the point at which civil people leave.  I know how people of your country are considered rude....so I will excuse it (lolz intended)
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
Last time I checked, there was no such stereotype attached. And if you go by stereotypes, it just proves my point further, does it not?

But alas, civil conversations with societal cancers are a waste of time.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
It's called an ad hominem attack, so old it was first written in Latin,....hardly new
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
Indeed. My finest ad hominems are inspired by former insults against my persona from people also hypocritally defending "freedom".
pj22
4 years, 3 months ago
Ooh, burned...
CrinkleCorgi
5 years, 5 months ago
The one near us actually got a bomb threat called in
AlexWolfx
5 years, 5 months ago
Suddenly I'm hungry for some Chick-fil-a.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
I know right????Ive been craving chicken biscuits in the morning!
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
Let the fucktards consort with the fucktards indeed.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
Ya know...why is it that antireligious people are just rude and ANGRY sounding all the time.  Any reason for that?  be civil dude, get a life, stop being an ass
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
Why do you all sheep act holier than thou and deny reality, then?

You are the one in a desesperate need for a life. I don't believe one second you wouldbe such a moron if you spent two minutes outside of your chapel.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
Uh, gay and dont go to church....so nice stereotyping there.  Just loathe you people who deny history and spread propaganda, just here for the truth.  Religion is not evil, is not the source of all evil, is not a cancer, and throughout history has probably advanced civilization and peace more than any other force.
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
Religion isn't, but Christianity and Islam are. To defend their existence will be an ironic and karmic death to you.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
Rather easy to do.  Without christianity, modern France and Germany would not have formed (Charlemagne).  You'd have barbarian tribes and small kingdoms constantly fightly still probably.  Without Islam, the Arabs never would have unified and THEY would still be warring tribes also.  They also would not have conquered the middle east and north africa, and that would still be small warring kingdoms.  Both of these nations foundings spurred centuries of literary, philosophic, architectural, artistic, cultural, and knowledge growth.

You wouldnt have the modern world without them clearly, no science, no industrial revolution, we'd be in the dark ages still.
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
Without Christianity, the Roman Empire would not have fallen in the first place, thus rendering your argument null, while without Islam the cult of the Three Goddess of Mecca would have taken over instead.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
Woefully ignorant.  You take your assumption that the Roman Empire fell due to Christianity from Gibson's propaganda piece that followed the antireligious fervor of the time, which was an attempt to destabilize the Catholic church in an attempt to overthrow the French Monarchy through the Encyclopedist movement.

PS - The roman empire did not fall till about 1450.  It was entirely Christian till then also.  The mere idea that the Roman empire fell in the 500s was also French propaganda so that French and then Holy Roman Empire kings could claim the Roman crown of empire.

They renamed the existing Roman Empire as the Byzantine empire, but they themselves considered themselves Roman.

Your assumption that Islam would have been replaced by a cult that existed for hundreds of years is also ignorant of history....
Mohammed unified the people under one religion, one rule, and one language.  It was he, not the religion, although that was a tool, that created the nation.
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
You talk an awlful lot about propaganda. Not a good sign of your mental health.

Likewise, yes, the Roman Empire fell due to the Catholic Church. And that's the conservative view; new evidnce shows that it was doomed since earlier christian uprisings.

Also, bother to study levantine religions. The cult of the goddesses was on it's way to unite the peoples until Muhammed rose to power.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
Propaganda is a fact of life. not mental illness.  if you think it does not exist, you are deluded.  People have been spinning things for centuries.

And no christianity did not cause the fall of the WESTERN part of the roman empire.  As stated, the Roman empire continued under Christian rule till @1453 AD.  Even then, it if anything extended the life of the Empire.  Christians before their acceptance were a persecuted minority that served as a scapegoat for poor emperors.  Their impact was little besides that till their acceptance, being only about 6% of the population.  After their acceptance they served as a unifying factor during a time that the empire was previously split into quarters under different competing rulers.  The WESTERN roman empire fell due to overextension, the army being hired from foreigners rather than Romans, and bad emperors, not religion.  The remaining empire fell due to expensive wars that drained their resources till Islamic armies could easily chip away at them and the Parthians whom they were fighting with.

And no, that cult had been around for centuries and did not unite them, how much longer in your infinite predictive abilities would it take to unite the arabs then?  XD  Mohammed did it a few decades.
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
Ever heard of Hanlon's Razor? That alone renders conspiracy theories null.

And Christianity caused the fall of the Roman Empire on a sliding scale. The uprisings augmented the lack of unity among the factions, and with the formation of the Catholic Church and subsequent pagan hunts, this friction among the factions of the western half caused it to be ill prepared for european invasions.

The cult of the three goddesses began to become proselytistic in the later decades, so it was expanding and uniting the sorrounding peoples.
AlexWolfx
5 years, 5 months ago
I say I'm hungry, someone agrees, and now it's a huge argument about religion. You could have let the sarcasm sit there, but you threw words at people.
KodaO
5 years, 5 months ago
I'm sorry, but I'm gonna have to agree with the above statement. Organized religion have done nothing but tear societies apart since history began. It's stupid and idiotic, There are 600 denominations of Christianity for Petes sake, and the only reason they don't dissolve away from each other and become independent is because it would destroy the US as a whole. I'm a Christian but do not associate with the church in the least as it hs caused to much grief in my life.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
I know this is the propaganda you were probably taught, that religion is a destructive force, but its historically untrue.  Most religious "wars" were political struggles, not religious ones.  The fact is that religion is a key unifying force, which is why politicians have always siezed religion to unifying kingdoms and empires under them.  Charlemagne joined with the Catholic church to unify France and Germany.  Ancient Indian empires were united under Buddhism and Jainism (nonviolence works great after you just unite India by war, now everyone be peaceful and accept these new religions).  The historic fact is that religions have always promoted peace and unity within a nation.  They typically point to the leader as either a god, son of the gods, or god's representative on earth.  

That's why the lead up to the French revolution sought so heavily to discredit religion by education (Voltaire, Rousseau, and the Encyclopedie) to remove the religious justification for monarchy.  Strange THAT would be one of their main goals toward establishing political change.  It is also their propaganda that makes people not realize that civil wars generally have to take a different religious point of view or else you are fighting against god....examine the political motivation behind the wars of the Lutherans vs Austrians or the Hugeunots vs the French crown.  Austrian and French crown are used interchangeably with Catholics. With newly Protestant nobles can be exchanged with the other side.  It was purely politics and propaganda.
KodaO
5 years, 5 months ago
I'm not talking about wars ya ignorant ass, I'm talking about the damages it causes in present day society. And I haven't been fed propaganda, I've FUCKING WITNESSED IT TEAR MY FAMILY APART. Now of you wanna sit here and spread your fucking religious beliefs then GET THE FUCK OUT. Its not welcome here.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
Uh you need to get a grip.  If you cant discuss things without emotion and personal attacks, then really?  And since Im not religious and have stated no religious beliefs, then I'm hardly trying to spread anything than historical facts.

As for your family, I sincerely doubt that religion forced people in your family to tear apart their relationships.  Let's ignore their philosophies, personalities, faults, psychologies, prejudices, etc...it was all religion and only religion that did it.  In fact, Im sure someone had a vision in which god came to them and told them, tear thy family usunder.  Yup, sure its all religion's fault.  But some people like simplistic answers, however false.  

I suspect many more causes and religion is a scapegoat, just as someone could blame religion for slavery because slave holders justified their position from the bible (as well as antislavery people).  The fact people were making money hand over fist had NOTHING to do with it.

And my point stands, whether wars, or your family, there are often many other causes for things other than religion.  However for those who like simple and wrong answers, religion is a good scapegoat, when one wants to ignore all the good things it has done.
KodaO
5 years, 5 months ago
Whatever. Go ahead and think you are right.
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
Actually, yes, slavery in the western world was largely thanks to the Bible. Historians agree it was in decline in the Roman Empire until Christianity became the state religion
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
So the fact that the Roman Empire was dependent on slave labor was christianity's fault?  I would need sources to suppose any historian claimed that it was declining in the empire and christianity somehow brought it back to life.  Christianity has always been for slave's conditions, saying that they must be treated well and it was an act of charity to release them.  Slaves have been and always will be caused by economic reasons.  There was a shortage of labor in the Roman empire that slavery filled, mostly by conquests of war.  One could easily claim that slavery declined in the later empire because Roman borders became rather fixed.  I hardly think slavery increased due to shrinking borders and less wars, although that could be the case later in the East after the 500s as wars of conquests started again for 100 years.  I think that much more likely a cause of resurgence, not religion.

Your statement also ignores the fact that abolitionist elements eliminating both slavery and slave trade was caused by christians, which eventually caused the elimination of slavery from the world for the first time ever in history.
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
The fact that slavery suddenly increased en mass after Christianity became common pretty much proves it.

And lol at Xianity supporting early slaves. The first anti-slavery movements were secular roman ones, admitely out of pragmatism, but you take what you get.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
And no...tying one cause (increase in slavery) to another (christianity as state religion) is a logical fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc.  Same thing, the increase in highway constructions in the 1930s CAUSED the increase in totalitarianism, right?  its proven.  XD

and yes, proper treatment of "slaves" is required by the Bible even.  Of course the slaves in the Bible are indentured servants, not true slaves.  Roman law by contrast assumes u can rape, beat and kill your slave, but you could also do that to your own children.
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
The fact that the usage of Leviticus verses to justify it seems to have flown over your head does not surprise me the least.

All archaeological evidence points out that the "they weren't true slaves" excuse is bullshit of the highest magnitude; the caveats used for roman slavery were also present in semetic slaves, except with "nicer" treatment.

Really, for someone so obsessed in calling people who don't suck Yahweh's cock "misguided by propaganda", you fully embrace propaganda that any historian would laugh at.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
No.....No again....sorry, you are wrong.  There are levels of servitude.  The "slaves mentioned in Leviticus were indentured servants.  Those scriptures blatantly say you have to release them after 7 years.  This is perhaps the justification for indentured servants in America in the 1700s or even the contracted workers today....serve or die..muahaha.  These *IN* Leviticus had many rules about treatment, welfare, etc.

Compare that to 1500 yrs later with Romans who could kill, rape, maim and torture their slaves without consequence, which were slaves for life.

THAT is the difference.  It was this Roman law that was the foundation of slavery in Europe, not christianity, any christian slaves would have to be released after 7 years.

(granted unless they were female with a male to take care of, then they were the "owners" responsibility.  How horrible.  
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
Release dates do not slaves unmake. Hell, several contemporary civilisations also had release dates for slaves, even among parts of the Roman Empire, but they still get properly recognised as slave drivers.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
I'm sorry, we disagree.  A release date, means you are not property and not a slave.  Indentured servants that worked for 7 years to pay for their voyage to Virginia in the 1600s were not slaves, had their full english rights, etc.  Today, contract workers that are bound to work for a period for a company are not slaves either, but they must do their work, although they are not physically, but financially bound to the work now.  Very similar things.
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
Except for the whole "treating you as property" thing. Should I be weary of the fact that you can't distinguish between work contracts and relationships that are essencially what owners have with their pets?
rolandguiscard
5 years, 5 months ago
When you want bland, cheap fast food with your homophobia, you know where to go!

I never ate there as a kid because they don't hire non-whites or non-Christians, and as all of my friends were neither white nor Christian, I didn't feel it was appropriate.

That and their food is so bland.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
Hmm, my first job was chickfila.  I worked with a black supervisor (she chewed my head off when I called her black, claiming to be hispanic and people would die for her skin color.  wut?  we also had 2 full blooded italians in florida, scurry, a hispanic and an albanian who opened (she was old and actually taught me several things I still use today  TIME AND MOTION)

So yeah, hardly a racist group.  and really their BBQ sammiches are bland?
rolandguiscard
5 years, 5 months ago
Maybe it's just the ones where I grew up, then. But they had a strict "whites only" policy on both employment and the customer base, and gave me the death stare the one time I brought in a black friend of mine. Then again, most of them were shut down since last time I went home. So maybe Corporate had someone fired.

As for bland, it's the inevitable result of mass production. They try, certainly, but they can't beat even what I can make myself. I rate them higher than anything McDonalds or Burger King, but lower than the sort of places I usually eat at.

And anyway in the end I don't give a shit because there aren't any Chik Fil A franchises in New Hampshire because there's some issue in their franchisee contracts which conflicts with local law. I doubt it has anything to do with race, religion or sexuality and everything to do with the tax code which prevents local franchises from being declared out-of-state corporations and thus exempt from local taxes.
MystycCheez
5 years, 5 months ago
Things like this just make me want to burn down churches and kill all Christians even more than I already do. I HATE Christianity. HATE HATE HATE IT. Hope they all die in a fire.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
throw in capitalism, freedom of religion, and well god dammed america too woot woot, let the fire buirn!  XD
KodaO
5 years, 5 months ago
It took me seventeen minutes exactly to make my way down to the commenting box. Fun stuff you caused Roarey, I applaud thee :33

-hugs-
ChrisTull
5 years, 5 months ago
One man's bigotry is not going to stop me from eating that sandwich, after all, he didn't make it. Yum.
Harpagornis
5 years, 5 months ago
How about the fact that said man is supporting organisations that prommote violence against LGBT people, and that some of said organisations are within the US?

I suppose a mere sandwich is worth self-dstruction. If only more people had self-preservation instincts...
HaydenSlaive
5 years, 4 months ago
tl;dr comments / discussion, but lol'd at the pic. nonetheless. :P
Lyserdigi
5 years, 4 months ago
omg what a wall of text. i have to crawl through this and read it with thought...
...
all i have to say is..
according to biibel, cod created adam and eve, who had two sons... then they populated the whole earth....
...
to anyone who reads this.. just let that thought seep in for a while ^^
Harpagornis
5 years, 4 months ago
Some christians claim that there were other people around, since the Bible has basically two creation myths
kiwakiwa
5 years, 4 months ago
tee-hee.
you silly raccoon, i like this,
and silly furs, some take this too seriously..
^ᴥ^
cooncub
5 years, 4 months ago
I finally got to try this chicken last week down in Georgia, It was ok but not something I'd eat much. Just had to see what all the excitement is about, lol
AlexanderPony
5 years, 3 months ago
God this is so funny and Damn sandwitch looks good can I have a bite hehe
pj22
4 years, 3 months ago
I want to burn religious people to death and rape their children because of this post

YOLO
New Comment:
Move reply box to top
Log in or create an account to comment.