Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10
71
Science / Re: On the Moon Landing
« Last post by skeptic54768 on Today at 12:19:22 PM »
Like I said guys, the jury is still out on the moon landings. That video I posted shows the astronauts acting in a deceiving way by trying to convince us they are farther away from the Earth than they really are. You saw the deception with your own eyes in that video.
72
Science / Re: On the Moon Landing
« Last post by skeptic54768 on Today at 12:13:25 PM »
I am waiting for skep to tell us about 9 11 and some sinister thing about the gov.

One question I have is why did that other building 7 fall down? It wasn't hit by ANYTHING, yet it fell down.
73
If Christians (or Jews/Muslims for that matter) find the mass killing of everyone but one family okay because Biblegod can do whatever it wants with its creation, then they're all morons. Who cares if the Ark existed, or not. It massacred almost an entire species because its toys weren't playing along to its rules. That's what we are to the Biblegod: toys.

Its funny how human morals stop at humans for some people.

-Nam

Let me ask you a question. Is it evil to kill Islamic terrorists? You will probably say, "No." Now, what if the whole world was behaving like Islamic terrorists?

(Our own gutless President still refuses to call them Islamic terrorists, by the way.)
74


Yeah, taking hormones and getting your balls cut off is a way to get (negative) attention.  Nothing serious, fo sho.


You would be amazed at the level people sink to in order to get attention. The Columbine massacre was done so those 2 kids could be remembered forever, and they committed suicide in order for that to happen. Crazy? Yes. Stupid? You betcha.
75
Since you're back with some new bullshit, perhaps you'd like to address this old bullshit?

Skep, was it okay to have sex with a 12 year-old girl in biblical times because life-expectancy was low? Yes or no please.

Good question. My answer would be that if God said it was OK, then I am OK with it. There would have been good reason for it. Nowadays, there is not a reason for it.

What about slavery?  God supported that in the Bible (or seemed to, in some instances), is that okay?  And what about killing everyone except the virgins and having them kept alive for the Israelites—true, Moses was the one who spoke about both those things, not God directly, but Moses was chosen by God, and God never refuted it.  Would you consider that form of rape "okay"? :?

"Keeping virgins for yourself" does not imply that they will rape them. I would imagine that they would have been married consensually. Besides, if a woman refused to marry a man in those days, what would her life have been like? It was easier for a woman to say "yes" back then because her options were very limited.
76
If you can't see that this new transgender fad is just a way for people to get attention, then I don't know what to say.

Yeah, taking hormones and getting your balls cut off is a way to get (negative) attention.  Nothing serious, fo sho.

Where were all these transgenders in the 1950's? it is a recent fad.

Probably terrified of being beaten to death by folks like you.

No, I would never kill anyone.

The Final Judgment is up to God, not man.

Are you saying that your belief here is the only reason you wouldn't kill anyone? :o

No, I would not kill if I stopped believing in God. When I was an atheist, I didn't kill but I realized it was a personal choice, not because "it's the right thing to do according to the universe," which is nonsense. The universe doesn't give 2 craps.
77
Science / Re: On the Moon Landing
« Last post by Boots on Today at 11:25:37 AM »
I think you guys are a little too trusting of the government. Is it really too hard to admit that they all might be Satanic puppets?

Yes.  Yes it is.  It's called a "conspiracy theory" and is usually a sign of a fearful, credulous, unimaginative mind.  If evidence (not hearsay or innuendo) can be supplied to support it, then it might have some more weight.
78
Sexuality, Reproduction, & Abortion / Re: Orlando Shooting
« Last post by Boots on Today at 11:20:53 AM »
I don't know why you would think that just because we dislike the sin of homosexuality, this means we want them dead.

because your Bible says so.

Quote
Pure nonsense.

indeed.
79
Chatter / Re: The 4th Amendment is fading
« Last post by jaimehlers on Today at 11:10:31 AM »
TBH, it was not an argument but an opinion. However, I seem to be in agreement with the majority of the judges.
The Citizens United ruling, which overturned literally decades of precedent, would be enough in and of itself to call the judgment of four of the five justices[1] who affirmed this particular decision into question.  Screwtape mentioned additional court cases, and I wouldn't be surprised to find that there are more of them besides.

Quote from: Graybeard
I suppose it is the level of suspicion. The word "suspicion" is vague. The transcript shows an anonymous tip off was the suspicion.
An anonymous tip-off, or even the building traffic, is in no way sufficient to justify the behavior of this officer in his illegally detaining this person, nor the further illegal actions he subsequently took.  You will note, Graybeard, that even the State of Utah admitted that the officer's search was illegal - its argument was that the evidence he had found in this illegal search should be permissible in court, despite the long precedent arguing otherwise, which was overturned by this decision.

Quote from: Graybeard
From the linked extract: "Officer Fackrell’s  purpose was not to conduct a suspicionless fishing expedition but was to gather  information  about  activity inside  a  house  whose  occupants were  legitimately  suspected of dealing  drugs."
If they were legitimately suspected, why did the police not go to a court and get a warrant allowing them to search individuals coming out of this house?  Answer:  Because they didn't have enough evidence to justify such a warrant.  To call something "legitimate" means that it falls within the bounds of the law, and the fact of the matter, Graybeard, is that this officer's searches did not.  At the risk of repeating myself, even the State of Utah admitted that the officer's search was illegal.  I would really like to know just how you can conclude that the police had legitimate suspicion when the action being contested was admitted to be illegal by the prosecution.

That's not just a red flag, that's a floodlit sign and blaring siren.   The fact that five members of the Supreme Court missed it even so makes me wonder if those justices have working eyes and ears, metaphorically speaking.

Quote from: Graybeard
I suppose that if you come out of a KFC, you might be legitimately suspected of having food.
However, the individual was not coming out of a KFC, was he?  He was coming out of a house.  You know, a place where people live.  Therefore, this analogy fails because you cannot legitimately suspect someone coming out of a house of "having food", as it were.  In fact, it fails on another level because many people who leave fast food restaurants do not take food out with them in the first place - they eat it there, known as "dining in".  If you corrected it to "having eaten food", that would answer the second fail, but not the first, because of the difference between a fast food restaurant and a residence.  Which you undoubtedly know.

Here's some information on probable cause and reasonable suspicion that you really should read, Graybeard:  http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Probable+Cause+and+Reasonable+Suspicion

Quote from: Graybeard
I suspect it might seem an anathema to some people in your society, but to others, it might not.
This is specious reasoning and therefore beside the point.  No doubt there are people in America who do not recognize the danger of decisions which undermine the Constitution, but that does not mean that the danger does not exist.

Quote from: Graybeard
Moral - don't do drugs.
That is not at all the 'moral', Graybeard.  Besides from which, do you realize just how trite and stupid-sounding the "don't do drugs" slogan is?  It's almost as bad as "guns don't kill people, people kill people".

I think you do.
Scenario: You are a police officer. Your are told by control to attend an incident of an attack on an old lady and that an ambulance has already been called. You arrive to find the ambulance and an elderly lady is lying on the ground. There is blood on her head. At a distance of 25 yards a young poorly dressed man is looking from her to you and seems nervous. Another old lady tells you "It was him! He hit her with an iron bar."

What's your next move? All the information so far is uncorroborated.
First off, this is in no way anonymous, which you totally ignored despite the fact that it was a critical part of what screwtape said.  But on top of that, it also is not uncorroborated.  The mere fact that the police officer in your example received information from a dispatcher, then upon arriving on-scene, found that the information matched the reality, means that it was not uncorroborated.  The only thing which might be argued to be uncorroborated is the accusation by a bystander - since the police officer has no additional information which supports her statement.  However, in this case, probable cause applies, at least well enough to detain the person suspected of committing the assault.

What you overlooked is that this analogy does not even come close to matching the case being discussed here.  Furthermore, this is at least the second time that you have presented an analogy in this thread which does not match the case being discussed.  The point of presenting analogies is to pick simplified, relevant examples that can be easily understood.  You seem to be forgetting the necessity of making sure your examples are relevant - because both of the ones you have presented have not been.  The first, referring to someone coming out of a KFC having food, ignores the difference between a food-service establishment and a residence.  The second, the police officer coming upon a scene which matches that which was reported to him, was neither anonymous nor uncorroborated, and demonstrated clear probable cause which did not exist in the case at hand.

You do not help your argument[2] any by presenting analogies which detract from it, as these two have.
 1. the fifth was Scalia, who is deceased
 2. whether it is based on an opinion or not, it is still an argument
80
I think Skep fails to understand why pedophilia is not in the same class as homosexuality, or bestiality, or sex changes.

Skep's Biblical law system says they are all as bad as each other, therefore, if we are prepared to legalize one, then OBVIOUSLY we would be prepared to legalize the others. Since they are all sex related, they must be roughly equivalent.

However, our decision to legalize any of them is not related to the Bible.

Therefore, it's like a child who files his books by colour, believing that Dickens is similar to Thomas The Tank Engine, because the books are a similar blue colour.

Good point. His every comment reflects this inability to differentiate moral behavior based on the well-being of an actual human, only on the approval of an invisible entity who, despite being impossible to communicate through vision, sound, touch, or mathematics, is nevertheless going to punish those who do not please him sufficiently. Skep's comments about not being the one to kill a person for this "crime" that forces his deity to clutch his pearls in such abject horror, yet fierce loyalty to the same deity who will do worse then execute such a "criminal," illustrates the "buffer effect" of moral action. Skep is acting out a real-life Milgram experiment, buffering himself against the effects of his button pressing.

The only difference is, in his real life application Skep isn't pressing a button, and he's not hearing actors scream. He's sounding an alarm, trying to convince as many people as he can to share his fears, and the recipients to his cries aren't acting. They're literally being punished. Skep is a very active co-conspirator in what could only be yahweh's evil human experiment, if yahweh were real. Skep conspires with every xian to bring undue suffering to certain communities in support of the idea that their god is concerned with our behavior in some way, and will single-handedly deliver an eternal reward or punishment according to it's approval, or lack thereof.

Thankfully, an increasing number of people are refusing to participate in this cosmic Milgram experiment. They're refusing to be told by some self-appointed authority to do this dastardly thing, assured that it's the right thing, despite good reason. I think it's because the buffer is decreasing. Decades of pride parades and public activism, countless coming out stories shared, increasingly public and legal push-back, and simply getting to know people who are LGBTQ, in no small part increased exponentially thanks to the internet, have made it harder to justify pushing these buttons, sounding these alarms, ignoring the pain of the recipients. Fortunately, the tide is turning and people like Skep are seen not as loyal factions of a noble faith, but as an increasingly small outpost of remarkably irrational, fear-driven people.
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10