If the teachings of the religion are ancient, how are we to know whether it's followers are getting it right or not?

The Bible says people should be stoned to death, but we don't stone people to death today, because that would be cruel whether you are a Christian or not.

So if we're judging an ancient religion based upon it's supposedly original teachings, we're probably, at least, run into era differences that totally differentiate how things should be today, and how things were taught back then.

My ultimate point is that ancient religious teachings would be considered insane if taught today, and, ancient religious teachings loose their primary source value as time goes on, because there isn't necessarily a huge amount of evidence suggesting these texts and teachings haven't changed somewhat over time.

And since the accuracy of ancient religious texts, which describe teachings, are based upon the reliability of people, whom are dead... we cannot exactly have a scientific method used here to repeatedly give us the same result that indeed tells us that modern day religious teachings are the same as when they were taught originally.

With all this considered, therefore, I can't comfortably say that teachings of ancient religions are necessarily accurate judges, because the teachings of ancient religions have been filtered and dilapidated throughout the test of time. So when examining a religion, I don't examine it's teachings, but rather I examine the results of it's teachings.

Nope. I don't have a dark side trying to get out. If anything, I have a good side that has trouble getting out and being noticeably relatable to people!

Make the brats conform and put uniforms on them. If they complain, punish them. It will teach them to not be chicken shits when they're adults.

That should be taught in regular classes

Why do that if you have a Physical Education class that teaches it, or an extracurricular activity that teaches it? Kill two birds with one stone.

It's relatively easy to learn how to cooperate with others. It doesn't need to be taught in another class, especially if it can be taught during something that physically keeps a child healthy.

Also, why are you suddenly taking the stance I was taking and explaining what belongs where? You were arguing that there was a 'War on Christmas' because Christmas movies were being extracted from classes. Why are you not trying to explain how that's bigotry and not simply the schools being objectively efficient?

Not really, its just strategy and its fairly easy.

The more you do it, the more you learn how to critically think as each turn passes. That's strategy. People who play in a chess club and never get better might not be learning anything, but that is more often then not due to them being a different learner then other students. And when I was going to public school, I recall the chess team constantly straining it's members by pitting equals against equals in ladders even during normal meetings, so everyone could learn how to improve against someone equal to them.

That teaches something.

You don't teach creativity.

As a creative person myself, yes, you do teach creativity. It's a weird thing to spell out with words, but yes, you teach it.

Moreover, people who have a creative imagination are taught how to use it properly. You can be creative, but if you don't know how to create things you imagine, you can only claim you're creative in the absence of proof, hm?

Again, can't teach creativity

You can.

Kids don't need to be taught how to emote and characterize, if they cant figure it out on their own, then that's a bigger problem.

It's a skill that could help them in a specific career area by developing their skills for it early on. Not 'needing' to teach it is a meaningless statement. It's extracurricular, so it's their choice to go and learn it.

But they're still learning something relevant to real life, unlike watching a Christmas movie.

If you are one of those "sit down, shut up and listen for the next 60 minutes" teachers then I hope you never go into education, because no one learns that way.

If you're going to be a rowdy little brat, of course I'm going to be this sort of teacher to you. If you learn to discipline yourself and be attentive and respectful, then you don't have to worry about a teacher like this being mean to you. As long as you understand cause-and-effect, you will eventually learn if the punishment you seek to avoid is harsh enough. And the faster you learn, the quicker I can get to being nice to you.

Also, I think I just may attempt to get a career in the education business, simply because you suggest that attempting to discipline children and teenagers is impossible. Pfft, there just haven't been enough strong AND moral teachers to prove it's effectiveness.

Again, you have to be realistic...

The only thing realistic about this descriptive paragraph is that the teacher has failed to teach the children to be disciplined to the point that he/she needs to show them something completely irrelevant to their education to calm them down.

It doesn't matter how things are you buffoon. This entire back and forth between you and I has been about Christmas movies being taken down as a change in how things are being done. You claim it is bigotry, and I claim it's simply the responsibility of the school to provide education and only education and only provide amusement unless it's essential to learning, which a Christmas movie is not.

The way you are going now with your argument suggests you think the school system should stay the same. PAH! Such a thing is a preposterous thing to argue, or even believe. Maybe in it's current state, the United States school system doesn't have a method of child psychology to discipline it's children at least away from being downright brats, but does that mean the school system should stay statically a piece of shit and not attempt to reform?

Nay, I say!

They should reform starting with what's easiest to reform, and create new teaching strategies starting with that, from the ground up. And it's apparent to me that they are starting with holiday movies because holiday movies teach nothing and are a failed solution to a failed problem.

You work at an educational facility. Your purpose is to educate or enhance the educational comprehension of children for the entire time children are at your facility. No exceptions (at least, there shouldn't be exceptions outside of having mental or physical disabilities). When a problem arises where you can't get the children to learn, even though this facility is no place for children to do anything but learn, do you: A, look for a method that will help them learn, or B, not do anything that will help them learn?

Because showing them a pointless, noneducational movie, like a holiday movie, is choice 'B'. And that's a stupid as hell choice. That's the LAZY choice. And schools should be reforming themselves away from that formula.

Teachers aren't weak, they are just reasonable.

There is nothing reasonable or strong about not trying to find every opportunity to teach children when they are in school. It's a school. They go there to learn and nothing else. Taking a break on a school day because it's a holiday is stupid. The students get a HUGE break every consecutive day after the day before winter break; they don't need even more relaxation, especially at school, where they are supposed to only be learning and not amusing themselves.

They should be taught discipline so that, even if they want to be out of class quickly, they have the control to pay attention in class. Just because they have to test their own ability to be distracted harder then before doesn't mean teachers should let them off that hook and let them take a break during a time of day they shouldn't be allowed a break from learning (of course, there's such a thing as too much, but last I was in public school, there wasn't THAT much being sent at students during classes, to whence they had no mental stamina left).

Now, if you're going to imply that children are mentally unable to handle such conditioning, then you'll have to provide proof to me... because such a thing would mean that children these days aren't better off then their parents when their parents were their age, which would be just a bit disturbing if they genetically couldn't deal with it...

Safegaurd our children's future? If you for on second think that kids missing out on your 30 minute period about the collective nouns for one day will actually have any impact on the skills they have for the real world, you might need to re-value the importance of your 30 minute period.

Every moment is precious.

And in all honesty, it's not that it's literally that little amount of time that's important. What's important is the idea that children need to have this distraction during a school day. That is what the problem is, and that's what needs to change.

Provided, the schools are doing things backwards, by getting rid of the amusement first before developing better strategies to make the students disciplined enough to not need the distraction. But that's better then doing nothing and letting everything stagnate.

Why don't you teach your kids a little discipline? Just because schools aren't strict doesn't mean they will grow up to be a homeless alcoholic.

What do you mean 'my' kids? I never said whether or not I had any. But I digress.

It was hyperbole, but it's basically correct. If children need to learn discipline AFTER they are out of school, with nobody to help them, they struggle through that as the hardest period of their lives. A strict school that teaches discipline doesn't need to be authoritarian, it just needs to teach natural discipline.

And if the students are naturally disciplined early on, that saves them and teachers headaches.

Self-Discipline is something you get from yourself

It comes from you because you incentivize it based on your environment.

People provide themselves as factors to the environment, which could give you incentive to many different things, including self-discipline.

Therefore, teachers can teach self-discipline. It's not that hard to think about, really.

Conforming in the sense of not being a cannibal, being toilet trained and knowing how to talk is good. Conforming as in acting, talking and thinking like most other people is a bad thing.

You can be unique and still act, talk, and think like most people. You can conform without being brainwashed and an asexual flesh-robot. Don't be silly.

And for the most part, everyone that ever lives should be conformed into being a logical thinker. But that's not a debate meant for here.

It does not, however in most cases it does.

Please rectify.

Without an explanation, this sentence is just a claim. Why does it, in most cases? This needs to be explained for it to be believable.

Kids can understand cause and effect without a teacher telling them.

They probably can subconsciously, but consciously they can't necessarily. Not without a teacher explaining it. And if they don't consciously understand a stimulus, they aren't going to consciously react to it properly.

I agree with this with making students understand why something shouldn't be done, however, this almost always results in:

Those three results you listed have nothing to do with what I said.

And why is it indoctrination if it's logical?

"Don't put gum under things because that's mean to the janitor."

^ THAT is indoctrination? Is it indoctrination when you follow logic? What in the blazes are you talking about, minge?

Ever hear of extra curricular activities? Most of them aren't to educational.

Sports teach team cooperation.

Chess teaches critical thinking.

Art teaches creativity.

Music teaches creativity and/or an instrumental skill.

Drama teaches acting, emoting, and characterization.

Need I go on?

Most extracurricular activities are educational in some way. Those that aren't should be shafted, along with movies about Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer.

You would be one asshole of a teacher.

I would rather be hated by my students, knowing I succeeded in teaching them, then loved by my students, but miserable knowing that I was a pushover that failed to be a teacher even though I succeeded in being a friend.

It seems your point is that children should be allowed recreation at school. I don't disagree. But if said recreation is not assisting in their education, they should not be allowed such recreation. Class doesn't have to be boring (Bill Nye), but what will children or teenagers possibly learn from watching an entire movie about 'The Night Before Christmas'?

Probably nothing. At the very least, not nearly enough for it to be worth spending tax dollars on.

Actually no, they are equal, not saying kids should sit around and do nothing, however, if you make education extremely boring and impossible to get interested in, then you have failed. Children ar e bored by mediocrity.

No, not equal. Never equal. Moreover, synergistic. Mixing together so that one doesn't take away from the other. But you simply cannot start with something fun and so easily make it educational. You need methods, strategies, all of which start with education, and then adds in something fun as long as the fun doesn't make it less educational.

But, you are picking my points apart to the point of being off-track. It doesn't matter if some educational things are fun and some are not. What matters is how much and how well they teach. And Christmas movies teach nothing. Period. They do not belong in a classroom. Bill Nye the Science Guy does.

Its the day before break, if you actually think you can teach a legit class for a subject most people don't care about, you're dead wrong.

HA!

If teachers weren't so weak and easily defeated by students, I'd have plenty of examples to prove this wrong. 'Dead wrong'? Really, now? If teachers have to put up with people that act so bratty and disrespectful, then we need harsher teachers and harsher punishments. Just because you don't think someone can do it doesn't mean no one can do it, and those are the people that should be hired.

Its the last day of break, seriously, they aren't going to learn anything anyway, they will most likely be day dreaming of all the stuff they will no over break.

With the right discipline and authority figure in place, those children could either be learning, or learning.

Giving up is outright stupid if we want to safeguard our children's future.

It is not for them to do nothing, however, on the last few days before break, unless you want half the school to get detention, I suggest you give them some down time.

They get downtime when they go home to their parents every day, and when they get to have extended seasonal breaks from school. They don't need downtime during school, unless that downtime assists them in learning, like recess and extracurricular activities.

And discipline should not be taught in school.

(snorts)

It should be if you don't want your child growing into a homeless alcoholic.

If you don't conform and have self-discipline by the time you are an adult, you have nothing but what you can manage in your ignorant, lost hands. If you aren't disciplined before you become an adult, you become a teen parent who can't join the police-force because of one too many dangerous substances you took. Or, you struggle to find discipline while surviving off a job at Burger King.

My point is, yes, school should teach discipline. A child has no incentive to discipline themselves, and it's up to the parents and educational facilities to give them incentive. Because if they aren't disciplined by the time they are grown up, they have yet another problem they have to face when going out into the big bad adult world.

If a kid steps out of line, then they should be punished within reason, but in general, disciplining kids in school often gives you results similar to those of catholic or military schools, brainwashed humans with creativity (the hallmark of intelligence) removed.

Discipline does not automatically correlate with removing personality from people. Discipline is influencing or teaching people to react a specific way to stimuli upon basis of cause and effect.

"If you do A action, I will give you B punishment. If you do A action X number of times, I will give you either B punishment times X, or I will give you C punishment, which is equal to B times X."

^ THAT is disciplining someone. And if punishments weren't so piss-poor in schools, maybe we'd actually have disciplined children. It's quite simple, really! You don't even have to take away a person's love of life to make them understand such a concept.

In fact, schools would be so much better off if whenever they stated that something shouldn't be done, they truthfully explained to the students why it shouldn't be done, and then explained what punishment will happen if they do it. Perhaps if the students understood why doing something was bad, they'd have extra incentive other then the piss-poor punishment to not do it.

But no. Our schools are terrible, and do nothing of the sort.

If you won't have any choice but to join, but would receive a better quality of life if you comply early on, then you shouldn't wait to be drafted.

Unless you want to resist joining at all, of course, but I don't know you well enough.

And that sort of opinion is what brings out my optimistic gun-control side in this issue. I think it's a very messed up idea that people would all buy guns to defend themselves, and every person would carry a gun around. That just seems like bad news to me; like an encouragement of paranoia and distrust.

But, I still have to be moderately in between both opinions. Why? Because the unfortunate fact is that it is naive to think that banning firearms will prevent criminals from obtaining them illegally. It would prevent them from acquiring firearms legally and easily, yes, but if they're insane or immoral enough, they will find another way that is illegal.

And if someone is willing to illegally acquire a weapon, and another person is not, the person who isn't obviously has a disadvantage if the person who illegally acquired a weapon starts randomly shooting people in the vicinity.

This issue is hard because both sides of the issue have valid points, but both points are naive. Free, regulation-absent dispersion of guns would only be safe unless people were perfect and everyone could be trusted to not be crazy, stupid, immoral, or uneducated. A complete ban on firearms among the populace would require, on the other hand, that we have the resources to perfectly prevent guns from illegally circulating among criminals.

So either extreme in the situation is unfortunately unconventional and unrealistic. We need to find the mathematically perfect compromise between absolute regulation and absolute freedom, because otherwise, people are going to keep dying.

Murderers are no different then any other person.

Just because they may be insane or not necessarily have the same morals as others does not mean they are not human.

I'm not sure I feel sorry for them, because not all of them necessarily make themselves personally suffer for their actions.

But, I believe that capital punishment against a murderer is unacceptable, and that living in confinement until they die of old age is an acceptable punishment in case the murderer in question isn't already punishing himself.

All Christmas films, Christmas songs and Santa hats have been banned from the local schools of my area.

None of those things are educational. There isn't really a reason for them to be there.

You understand that school children don't watch Christmas films because they are educational, right?

Noneducational things and schools don't go together.

If children are doing things in school that don't further their education, then the school is doing is wrong. And we wonder why our children and teenagers are so shallow and stupid...

You see, when there are three days till Christmas break and all of these little kids won't shut up, they have them watch a movie.

You rack dishiprine.

A school that gives into children's stupid shit at the expense of the education of the children, then that school as failed. It doesn't matter if they won't shut up about Christmas. If they don't shut up about it, make them. Punish them.

The last thing a school should do is give in. Education comes first, fun comes second. Christmas and other holidays should only be involved in school if they encourage education instead of distract children from it... which most Christmas stuff does not do. Most of it is just recreational celebration with no educational purpose, which is supposed to happen at home, not in class.

And by the way, a movie about Quanza would be the worst thing to watch, its a "holiday" about harvesting fruit.

And, so? It would be educational in many neighborhoods, which is the point of school. School is not supposed to fun if it comes at a sacrifice to educational quality. Educational quality comes first, then amusements to make education fun and attentive come second.

It's as if your argument so far is that there's a war on Christmas because the schools are doing what they're supposed to be doing and removing noneducational things. That's completely and utterly asinine.

In case you didn't realize this yet, during the last week of school leading up to break, most teachers just have their kids watch movies.

Which they shouldn't be, ever.

Ever.

Oh, why would they do this? Because they're kids, they are going to be rowdy as fuck!

Giving into their rowdiness at the expense of their education is weak, pathetic, and a waste of tax dollars.

They should be allowed to watch whatever holiday film they want and sing whatever holiday song they want, instead of having everything banned so all they can sing is "do they know its Christmas in Africa" and other bullshit like that.

No, they shouldn't.

They should be in school to be educated first, and amused second (and only amused for the purpose of making them attentive).

If an amusing activity has no educational quality, it needs to be abolished and replaced with educational activity. If the replacement educational activity can be made interesting and amusing without creating a distraction, then it should be made interesting and amusing (like Bill Nye the Science Guy video, then a test afterwards about it).

But otherwise, amusement without educational value does not belong in a school, and any school that allows it to be in it is a failure and waste of tax dollars.

So, Christmas-focused activities being removed in bulk from school districts has absolutely nothing to do with some contrived Christmas-hatred and everything to do with making the schools better.

And if there is some sort of Christmas-bigotry going on, you aren't making a good enough argument that's it happening. Schools are not places where children are supposed to frolic freely and do whatever the want. Schools are supposed to be places where children are disciplined and taught things. So, it only makes sense that distracting holiday things of EVERY RELIGION are being and should be removed.

Unless a Social Studies class takes the opportunity of the season to teach students about other cultures, there is nothing intrinsically educational about holidays, period.

Especially not goddamn movies that were created to commercialize Christmas.

Considering guns can be illegally acquired, and therefore are always going to be immoral people who are willing to acquire guns in such a manner, then the only deterrent to criminal incentive that is purely immoral (and not stupid or insane) is the idea that the risk of dying outweighs the risk of successfully completing the immoral act.

If a bank robber intends to rob a bank and kill all the witnesses, don't you think his incentive to even try such a thing would be nonexistent if he knew that all or nearly all of the civilians in the bank had weapons to fend him off with?

That is where a lack of gun control makes sense. If civilians can defend themselves, criminals loose incentive, unless they are completely stupid or completely insane. If guns are so controlled that civilians can't access them, and therefore almost no civilians run around with guns, then criminals who acquire weapons have an upper hand against a population, and therefore they have incentive to commit the crime.

Probably, but it cannot be so restricted that trusted civilians cannot defend themselves at all times.

Gun control is one of the only issues that, with my own personal beliefs, is hard to discern a perfect, moderate answer for.

Gun supporters have a very valid point when they say that criminals would have less to no incentive to kill people if most civilians could defend themselves on equal terms with criminals, or higher terms.

But when that is said to me, I immediately think, "While that makes sense, what about the criminals that don't kill people based upon incentive and are just insane?"

Generally, that would be disputed by a gun supporter claiming that even if it wouldn't prevent psychopaths from trying to kill people, at least the people would have the ability to defend themselves from psychopaths on hopefully equal terms.

Well, that's a good point. But then the problematic idea arises, "Can you really trust civilians to freely train themselves appropriately as to not make situations like these worse?" A part of me would say, no, you cannot trust them, you have to have at least a bare minimum regulation that makes certain that every civilian with a weapon they carry around knows how to use it as safely as possible.

But then, that point is countered with the possibility that you can trust a civilian to use a firearm properly without the government making sure, because of the incentive to not make a mistake should they encounter the need to use their firearm in a drastic situation.

Which of course I would automatically counter with the argument that a civilian with the ability to own a firearm would not necessarily have the ability, resources, or incentivized foresight to train themselves to not make matters worse should they ever need to use their weapon.

And that goes without wondering whether or not we can trust ordinary citizens to have the incentive to follow laws they don't agree with if they have the ability to freely resist law enforcers on equal or near-equal terms with law enforcers (which would have the implication of law enforcers needing to outfit themselves with even more arms and armaments as to protect themselves better, which is not a good thing in any way, shape, or form for anyone, period).

I could continue on and on with points both for gun control and gun freedom, but I won't. As you can see, I can probably reason endlessly through this in circles.

My general stance is one that is moderate on most issues. You could say I believe in gun control, because I think gun control and freedom should be an equal 50%/50% in some fashion, while gun freedom proponents usually endorse total and utter free possession and use of guns without any regulation whatsoever, and gun control proponents would just think I'm softer in how I feel about gun control instead of not believing in gun control at all.

To make it simple, I do personally believe in evolutionary morality, and that humanity in our state of prosperity is more likely to be compassionate, social, and empathetic instead of malevolent, violent, and apathetic... but when it comes down to something like a weapon, a tool used to kill, I am not personally willing to risk there being absolutely no control of weapon dispersion. I want people to be able to defend themselves to the point where nobody has incentive other then stupidity and insanity to try and kill another person, but I do not want those stupid or insane people to be able to acquire weapons easily and cause need for civilians to defend themselves in the first place.

So, again, I am totally moderate, as always with issues like these... but unlike abortion, I don't have an obvious solution to this issue.

The ritual of marriage is a religious matter.

Therefore, a law disallowing a religious ritual violates religious freedom.

He's deserving of Man of the Year by Time simply because of how important he is.

His actions could determine the entire course of world development.

Just because he's probably evil doesn't mean he's not important enough to have this 'honor'.

Too many of them are atheist simply as a counter culture, not as a reasonable personal principle.

However, the holiday is called Christmas. If everyone just called every holiday: Holiday, then there would be complete confusion.

And... your point? You'd be correct to point out that everyone just saying 'holidays' during a national holiday might be confusing, but you fail to explain how that has any connection to anything I said... because all I said that was that people can call a holiday they celebrate whatever they want, and call objects of what they celebrate whatever they want. I didn't say that everyone should say 'happy holidays', I said that people can say 'happy holidays' if they damn so please, just as anyone can say 'Merry Christmas' or 'Merry Kwanzaa' if they damn so please.

Shit, random people can say 'Good tidings of St. Cuthbert onto you' and there would be nothing wrong with it. Given, it might confuse others they say it to, but that doesn't matter because people have freedom of religion in this country and can celebrate the national holiday of Christmas however they want (because the nature of a 'national' holiday is to be 'nationally' celebrated, and on a 'national' level, not everyone is Christian, nor does everyone want to celebrate Christmas in a classically Christian manner, or celebrate Christmas at all).

So, if people want to say things that confuse others, so what? If you're confused, you can politely ask for clarification to your confusion... not attempt to force the individual to celebrate Christmas how you do so you know they are celebrating the same idea you are (since winter solstice celebrations are basically the same thing, contextually, no matter what religion you are apart of).

EDIT: By the way, are you the one that downvoted me? I'm going to downvote you, at least for now. But if you aren't the one that downvoted me, I will undo my downvote against you. So if you reply to this argument, make sure you tell me if you were the one that downvoted my argument or not.

Because people can celebrate Christmas however they want in this country. That is what freedom of religion is. It's nationally called 'Christmas', but it's not enforced that everyone celebrate as literally Christmas, the Catholic restructuring of the Roman holiday of Saturnalia. In fact, it's encouraged that everyone celebrate the national holiday of 'Christmas', however they want to celebrate it, even if that's as a different holiday, or as 'Christmas', but in a different way then the original Catholic restructuring of Saturnalia.

So, it's not about being practical, and just calling it a Christmas Tree because it's Christmas. It's about letting people choose to call it whatever they want to call it, and have the right to be upset when someone tells them they are wrong to not call it a Christmas Tree... because this is America, and they're allowed to do that. Nor should culture tell them they shouldn't be allowed to do that (at least, if culture wants to not be hypocritical).

Pulling the anti-nationalist card eh? Yeah I don't see how that could be the case.

I was hypothetically pulling it. I said if I was more hyperbolic, I would actually focus on making such an argument, but I didn't. I simply mentioned it.

Oh, but alas, you're dragging me into arguing from that standpoint, so I suppose I will have to. Discretion is advised to you, because as I said, it's a hyperbolic argument even if it makes sense.

I do not have to agree or conform to their ideals. I may even freely dispute them.

And neither do they need to agree or conform to your ideals.

And they may freely dispute your ideals in turn, and they wouldn't be immoral in doing so if you were the original perpetrator. Which Christians are the original perpetrator in this flabbergasted malarkey of a 'War on Christmas'.

So long as I allow them their freedom to worship the way they wish, or whatever else it might be if not religious in nature.

You don't allow them freedom to freely worship they way they wish to worship by incorrectly claiming they are attacking your holiday by simply worshiping your holiday as different holiday, or worshiping your holiday in a different way then you are worshiping it.

You don't think you're doing that? Guess again. Saying there is a 'War on Christmas' blatantly marks non-Christian celebrators of Christmas, or another respective winter solstice holiday, as being 'anti-Christmas'. By trying to force people or the government into saying 'Merry Christmas', instead of letting them say whatever the fuck they want to say, you fight to take away their freedoms and attempt to force Christian culture on them.

If you walk outside and say 'Merry Christmas' to someone, they aren't going to get mad at you unless they're a prissy asshole. The last time I walked out of my house (relatively recently) and said 'Merry Christmas', the woman just smiled back and said 'Happy Hanukkah' like it was no big deal.

Because it isn't a big deal to most people. You're just making it into a big deal because you're either being brainwashed into thinking it's a big deal, or, you're afraid of the encroaching fact that Christians do not make up 100% of the US population and therefore Christians are not meant to control 100% of US culture.

Tolerance =/= acceptance.

tol·er·ance

Noun

1. The ability or willingness to tolerate something

2. The capacity to endure continued subjection to something

Based upon those above definitions, I'd say that tolerance requires acceptance, unless you intend to become depressed and miserable the rest of your life.

And if you're depressed and miserable, but tolerant, you have very high incentive to either become accepting of what you tolerate so you are not depressed and miserable, or you have very high incentive to cease being tolerant so you are not depressed and miserable.

So, either you're full of shit for saying you are tolerant and not accepting, because you aren't actually tolerant, or you're full of shit for saying you are tolerant and not accepting, because you are actually accepting. Because otherwise, you'd have to be clinically insane or a weak pushover to have the empathy to be miserably tolerant of people, but have the apathy to be tolerant and not accepting of the people you would otherwise miserably tolerate.

Do you understand what I'm saying? The entire phrase of 'Tolerance =/= acceptance invalidates your entire talking point and makes you look like a moron. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, though, and presume that just because you said this one extremely foolish thing does not mean you are a complete and total, brainless idiot.

It just means not being bigoted about it.

Um, what? Okay, this was also a pretty stupid thing to say as well. Almost as stupid as your phrase before it, but at least I can see why you'd reach this conclusion in a sensible manner. But it's still very incorrect.

A member of the Klu Klux Klan can 'tolerate niggers' by accepting they exist, not speaking his opinions about them in public, and not actively trying to harm them. This doesn't mean that he's not a bigoted racist on the inside, though. Accepting something does not prelude the idea that you change your opinions on certain things; accepting something preludes the idea that you change your reactions and actions towards certain things.

A Christian who accepts other people's religions doesn't have to believe that other religions are correct. He simply accept they exist, and he changes his actions from trying to deny their accuracy, to not trying to deny their accuracy, thus resulting in feeling peaceable in an absence of pointlessly conflicting with people on scales that nobody has any ability to truly 'win'.

Similarly, someone can believe in fascism, Nazism, or just some other stereotypical form of evil, but be tolerant and accepting of others to the point that you couldn't even guess that they believed in such shocking things unless you were such close friends with them that they trusted you enough to tell you without damaging the relationship. And just as well, even though such a person has a good enough heart to be so accepting and tolerant, doesn't mean they don't have a dark, bigoted side to them.

So, tl;dr for the last two replies to your points: Tolerance requires acceptance unless you are weak/insane, and acceptance does not automatically mean you are not bigoted (though tolerance and acceptance does prelude that you are not totally evil, no matter what you believe).

As for being a National Holiday, that's just the commercial secularized version.

Then why are we even having this conversation?

The only 'War on Christmas' even remotely able to be actually and accurately witnessed is the cultural resistance against the commercialization of Christmas (and every other god damned major holiday, for that matter). If you're not concerned with people disliking Christmas being forced down their throats commercially, then what is the point of this entire attempt to paint Christmas as being 'warred against'?

Well, what is the point other then you being intolerant of other cultures, that is. But again, I'll give you benefit of the doubt... and assume you are simply brainwashed and ignorant, and not ignorant and intolerant (in/tolerant by how I explained it, even).

ಠ_ಠ

Surely you understood I was being sarcastic.

Then again, you probably are as well.

I'm not glad about it, but I'm not upset either.

Big companies will either suffer for harming their workers, or, they won't harm their workers.

It's only sad that if a large, tyrannical company collapses from mistreating workers, it's those innocent workers who will suffer most because of how they don't have accumulative wealth to assist them in absence of a job.

Oh well. Something else will happen eventually to assist the common man against greedy corporatists. This just wasn't Michigan's victory, this time. I will have hope that the corporations in Michigan don't harm the lives of their workers as badly as they have the ability to, but the last thing I'm going to do is get brainlessly upset and angry about this.

Stay indoors, like I always do.

Though, I may go visit extended family, I'm not sure.

But mostly, I going to be sitting around hoping something interesting or amazing happens on the 21st that doesn't destroy the world. (Other then the planetary and solar alignment with the galactic core)

Such as?

Which movies?

Which schools?

For what purpose and reason?

Schools should have enjoyable recreational activities in the form of extra credits through clubs. They shouldn't be showing ANY movie at school unless it's for the purpose of education. Perhaps Christian-mythology movies are being removed most often and in the highest number because there's SO MANY OF THEM? And that all of them teach children/teenagers NOTHING? At least a movie about Quanza would be very likely to teach a suburban American school some cultural aspects of Africans/African Americans.

But as it stands, Christmas movies are so heavily commercialized and prevalent that most of them don't even teach the basic themes of the holiday... not that such themes are even supposed to be taught in schools through use of video media. And as such, what is the issue with removing non-educational movies from educational facilities? As I said before, I suspect it has nothing to do with some sort of hatred for Christmas, and instead is being based upon the number and quality of the education in the film (which there are many Christmas movies with next to no educational quality).

I know, right?

Remember that last time on the news where they had another story on how that a police officer walked up to an imitation Santa and said, "Excuse me sir, I'm going to have to ask you to remove yourself from the premise, as this is a public atheism space and we must strictly enforce there being no religious imagery in this space."

No.

The supposed 'War on Christmas' is another example of Christian prissiness and imagined victimization as a religious demographic (at least in this instance, it's totally imagined).

Christmas is a national holiday in the United States. US nationalism involves the tolerance of everyone that lives here. That's the point of this country, to be a sinkhole and mixing pot of everyone from everywhere.

Meaning, in the United States, Christmas being a 'national holiday' means Christmas is meant to be celebrated freely, by anyone, in any manner they want to celebrate it. In the United States of America, Christmas is not owned by the Christians. At least, not if other people want to celebrate it however they want to celebrate it.

If I were more hyperbolic, I would even argue that believing in a 'War on Christmas' is anti-nationalistic, simply because it enforces the idea that cultures other then Christian ones are not welcome here.

I think that agelessness and death are two sides of the same coin. I think people would fear both of them, in general. Many people may even disagree with them to a point of trying to prevent others from becoming ageless.

Why would they both be equally feared? The way I see it, death looms over us, reminding us that we may waste our lives if we do not make our lives worth something. It is the fear of a your life being wasted.

Agelessness, I believe, would provide us with an opposite, but equal fear. The fear that there is no end. No end to our suffering or to the suffering of others. The fear of there being no end, ever, would give us incentive to make sure we and others we care about are not suffering, because if we are to be ageless and have the potential to live indefinitely, it would be imperative that we reduce suffering as much as possible, or else we will be eternally miserable.

With all of the above said, I have thought it over myself a lot, and I think I would probably take on the option of being ageless. This is because:

1. Agelessness does not automatically prelude invincibility, it preludes a life that will not naturally end from aging, and implies eternal youth as well. Therefore, if I were to desire to end my life, I would be able to.

2. Coming to terms with eternity would be exactly like coming to terms with an end. Being at peace upon dying is all about accepting what things have happened and knowing that you changed something. Being at peace with eternity would be all about accepting what things will happen which you cannot prevent, and knowing that you can change things within your power as time goes on.

3. I inherently feel that being able to live forever would allow me to serve others and the human species forever, which would guarantee that things I want to do for it will not go undone.

The AK-47, to my knowledge, is a weapon of convenience. It does not jam easily and can survive every planetary environment and work, save being totally submerged for a long period of time.

Does this alone make it the best firearm ever made? I don't really think so. It can't necessarily hold up short-term wise against other assault rifles, even though the AK-47 is a good weapon in the long-term.

If it truly was the best, it would be as durable as it is without sacrificing damage, accuracy, user correction, etc. But I haven't seen any evidence that it's numerically better in these areas then every other rifle.

Instead of a long-winded reply, I will be simple.

I believe in evolutionary morality.

I think that humanity will either evolve to be more benevolent and compassionate over time, or we will go extinct.

That's all I really need to say in a starting argument on this subject.

It's whatever the hell the family revelers of the holiday want to call it.

The 'War on Christmas' is bad joke.

You have the freedom to celebrate Christmas however you want to. Forcing other people to celebrate it like you do is absurdly rude. Claiming that there's a 'war' on the holiday because the government likes to accommodate more people then just Christians in their terminology is one of the stupidest, most prissy things I've ever lived to witness.

The ones that are hypocrites could be defined as not truly conservative at all, but the unfortunate fact is that the true conservatives are vastly outnumbered by the hypocrites that call themselves conservatives.

But I digress. The people you are speaking of are most definitely hypocritical.

They believe in small government and less regulation, unless you're a woman, in which case they think a doctor should be legally allowed to rape you if you want to do certain things with your body. That hypocrisy.

"Oh, but, they don't believe in smaller government in relation to criminal acts, like murder."

The belief that abortion is murder is a religious belief. It is not factually murder. For a 'conservative' to take precedence with his religious views above his political ones in this situation is to violate the standard of Separation of Church and State, which makes him a hypocrite. End of story.

The way you put that, you seem to be arguing on terms of the relevancy religion has with violence. And in a way, you're correct to question why it's relevant.

But, it's relevant because religious views, or lack thereof, effect beliefs and mannerisms, which in turn effects an individuals motivations, reasoning, and reactions to stimuli. If a Catholic devoutly believes that Muslims are devil worshipers, and are evil, and are therefore a threat, then the way he reacts to certain stimuli is totally different then, say, a non-Catholic not having such a belief.

The relevance is plain and simply motivation. If someone is motivated to be violent because of a religious view, you could construe that as religious violence, and violence that is not motivated by religious views to be non-religious violence.

Isaac Asimov's futuristic eras, of course!

He was the first to imagine fictional universes of technological singularity.

And you know me and my feelings on the singularity...

Atheists don't have a long enough history as being a dominant mindset to attest for how proportionally equal they are to the mainstay of religious people in how peaceful they are.

Though, for what little we have seen in our history of 'organized atheism', they do appear to be somewhat more peaceful then the big three monotheistic, organized religions.

They don't see to more peaceful then Buddhism and religions similar to Buddhism, but the unfortunate fact is that those religions are not the dominant ones.

As long as you keep it short and simple... but then again, abortion for most people that aren't me is very convoluted and morally ambiguous, so I surmise that a debate you'd make would be very long, and a tedious read.

I am too tired and exhausted, no matter the time of day, to care about beating that dead horse known as the abortion debate. I have given my moderate, neutral, completely sensible opinion on abortion countless times, and I have argued with both sides of the spectrum.

I don't want to come off as mean, but I can't say I'd necessarily join in on it.

Your point is sensibly flawed and reasonably unreasonable, up until you start mentioning 'northern' people being more peaceful then Africans.

Ha.

Ha ha.

HA.

The only reason non-African subspecies can seem to be more peaceful and/or advanced is because Europe, Asia, and a good chunk of the Americas, are not totally inhospitable... which most of Africa is. When you have limited resources and limited ability to sustain a population, and therefore no ability to easily prosper... well, duh, of course you're going to fight and kill other people. Territoriality prevents excess starvation, for the same reason hunters in the United States practically have a duty to kill deer during deer season... because if the deer population is not thinned, then deer, as well as other animals, will starve to death.

See... if a prehistoric Asian and prehistoric African inexplicably changed places on the map... both would probably die. Why? Because gaining a new adaptation does not mean you gain an additional adaptations (not directly, at least). DNA does not grow in size and complexity (at least not on a scale we can measure), it just changes to be more efficient. The suggestion that Caucasians can somehow genetically survive in both deserts AND taigas because their adaptation to survive deserts from their African ancestors is suddenly not recessive is ludicrous.

That would be like suggesting that because someone is born with an extra chromosome, they would be super-human, because by your logic, their DNA should use every beneficial gene as a dominant gene, meaning an extra chromosome would give DNA more beneficial genes to use dominantly. But evidence shows us this is not the case... that if you are born with an extra chromosome, the entire heredity of your fetal development is broken due to the system of dominant and recessive genes working together based upon which one is the more efficient adaptation called... oh I don't know... your bloody DNA... thus, an extra chromosome results in serious problems.

Tl;dr: Your third paragraph is a bad joke at trying to appear as if you know how genetics work.

Lastly, claiming that a subspecies that branches away from Africa is somehow more learned then Africans is also silly. They do not consciously or collectively learn new survival skills that adds onto some collective knowledge of how to survive. No. Their DNA and environment causes them to relearn how to survive based upon their non-desert environment. Again, when you adapt, you do not add onto some sort of collection of dominant genes that remain prevalent forever (if evolution worked that way, we'd all be deific in power at this point). We are not the protoss; we do not share memories and experiences passed down from humans that lived and died before us. The only thing a non-African would have going for them genetically is that they have more recessive genes then Africans... but the fact that they have more recessive genes means they are less capable of re-adapting to live in a desert over time, as where Africans are perfect for a desert climate because they have no recessive genes that are ill-adapted to survive in a desert, therefore a purely unmixed African couple has literally no chance of having a child that is genetically unfit to live in the desert.

Ugh. Okay, I think I'm done explaining genetics to you now. Your argument is uneducated. I apologize for possibly sounding rude.

Tiers of evolution, in my opinion, would be described as how high a species is on a food chain in relation to the scale of where they relevantly live. On Earth, I'd say all of humanity is the most evolved species, simply because of what our adaptations have produced for us; civilization, prosperity, surplus, benevolence, etc.

With that said, Africans are not less evolved then the rest of humanity. Adaptation does lead to evolving, but it doesn't necessarily. Adaptation leads to survival and progression of the species in a given environment, the former being prime importance before the later. To be less-evolved then humanity would require you be incapable of accomplishing the things that human adaptations allow humans to accomplish.

Since Africans can accomplish the same things any other human can accomplish, they are not less evolved, or lesser then other humans. Caucasians, Asians, Aboriginals, Native Americans... they are all simply the same species as Africans, just subsets that are adapted to suit different climates, not adapted to be able to accomplish more then Africans.

And before some fool disputes me, let me stop you in your tracks. An absence of advanced African civilizations has nothing to do with the genetics of the negro subspecies. African civilizations were never prevalent because they live(d) in a freaking desert, you racist git. Portions of humanity migrated out of Africa BECAUSE Africa is a desert and is practically inhospitable! And it's the inhospitable and hostile quality of Africa that made cultural progression there slow... unfortunately, slow enough for Africans to be taken advantage of by other human races, many millennium later. The ultimate point, therefore, is that a lack of African civilization is due to their environment, and has nothing to do with genetics, because their genetics do not differentiate them from other human subspecies to the point of them being unable to accomplish what other human subspecies can accomplish.

Check, and, mate.

Communism as well as Capitalism are both perfect systems created with perfect humans in mind. But that is their issue. They require people be perfect. To be absent of evil and the temptations to behave with evil. This is what makes both systems fatally flawed, but otherwise perfect.

With that said, I think communism is good. I think idealistic realism is good. Communism lacks a quality of realism in a very important area, but otherwise is a very valiant goal to work towards. It's good because it's something to look up to and hope for.

Because the hope for communism to work is the same as the hope for humanity to cease being evil.

I don't know anything about him other then what I've heard. Which would be everything both relevant and irrelevant considering people won't shut up about him/it.

While I love both, pretzels don't get parts of themselves stuck in your teeth.

I'm not Christian either, but there's nothing wrong with Christmas as a holiday. It's what people do with it that's good or evil.

Hate the people commercializing Christmas, not Christmas itself. It's not as if Christmas can defend itself.

Of course the hybrids are real! Don't be blind! Those unholy fusions of protoss and zerg are already ravaging the countrysides of our backwater worlds! Don't listen to Emperor Mengsk when he claims they're a myth! We must take action and fight them!

Because every second we spend debating whether or not they're real, more people die...

Maybe right now it's just protoss being killed in bulk, but that does NOT make it acceptable to simply wait. If the protoss are killed, we're next. And if a people as advanced as the protoss are annihilated... what chance do you think we have to defeat the hybrids, alone?

Join Raynor's Raiders today.

Yes, climate change is real.

Scientific records of the sea levels of Venice during the Renaissance, alone, shows us that the sea level since then have risen, more or less, a foot.

I could go fish up dozens of articles to support my argument that it's real, but I'm lazy.

Instead I'm going to simply say that it should be obvious, to anyone that doesn't live under a rock on the moon, that weather patterns have drastically changed on Earth since the Industrial Revolution began. Science already tells us with evidence that the planet has climate-changing stages naturally, yes, but the evidence that human interference is causing this cycle to be disrupted or to be moving too fast is... well... vast.

Personally, I feel that humanity should be doing whatever if needs to do to survive and not go extinct. While we already are getting that wrong by clinging onto old techniques we used as lesser animals ('evil'), that doesn't mean we should not try and overcome dangers.

So, look at it this way: scientists don't really have anything to gain from believing that climate change is real, but they still try and tell us it's real. This is because, whether we know it's real or not, the theoretical threat of our climate changing into something that humans cannot inhabit is a very threatening idea. If global warming happens to not be real and most scientists are wrong (lol?), then what did we loose by trying to prevent it?

The ultimate point is, we're better off safe then sorry. Except instead of sorry... dead.

I'm not certain I'd call them debates. Discussing the end of the world between believers and non-believers is like discussing a specific religion between believers and non-believers. It's not really a debate. Neither side knows what will happen. Hell, I may not even wake up tomorrow for all the fuck I know! So why would I assume the world will or will not end on the 22nd of December?

But, with that said, they are amusing to take part in, even if they are unorthodox debates at best.

According to the dictionary, a fetus could be construed as a parasite.

Though, it could be argued that, while it would be technically correct, it is not contextually correct.

But, in at least one fashion, it would not be incorrect.

None that is yet observable.

Hostess didn't liquidate because of their Union strike, they liquidated because their executives shoved their pockets full of raises worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

QQ, let them unionize. It's not going to stop the corporate higher ups from brainwashing people with propaganda to make outsiders believe it's all the evil union's fault that they don't have enough money to stay afloat.

I didn't trust teenagers to be responsible when I was in highschool myself, and I don't trust them much now either.

If they want to express their affections, they can do it when their parents are responsible for them, not when the school is.

As long as they aren't being drowned, what is the harm?

This isn't like circumcision. The baby isn't having a part of it's body mutilated. Instead, it just has water doused on it for a reason it does not understand.

If they wish to be baptized, yes.

It depends on whom you are blackmailing.

Humans vary in degrees on value upon things around them and upon themselves.

What you may assume to be important to someone may be completely insignificant to them.

If we are to assume that you are intelligent and have picked up all the loose ends of your blackmail attempt... then yes, it's very effective.

It can able be morally justifiable, but this debate doesn't seem to be about morals, and moreover, the effectiveness of blackmail (even though I could argue that immoral things are ineffective, I won't derail the topic that is supposed to be debated).

Answering on one side is not necessarily conducive to having evidence. This website is not merely a debate website, but a debate forum. Because of the nature of the topic 'do you believe in apparitions', it has leeway for people to speak of beliefs on basis of personal evidence or logical evidence, since the nature of 'believing' means that others can be convinced into 'believing'. Convincing someone through logic or the sensibility of a belief is the essence of debate, absolutely.

But that's why I said in my answer I'm just answering on this side and I am not going to try and debate why. I'm answering on this side, and I have no interest in convincing people of why I believe in them. I simply do. I am choosing to not explain myself; I am instead choosing to simply state my position.

Whether you find that lazy or however you find it to be is your choice. I simply wanted to state my opinion, not try and get into a long argument about whether or not my opinion is sensible or stupid.

Also, my brain is tired. Perhaps rapidly aging. I personally believe many things for sensible reasons, but I simply cannot remember the reasons, nor do I have the energy to try and remember. If I do, I wouldn't start off my reply as being 'I'd rather not try and explain my reasoning.'

Now... perhaps I am totally confused though, as I made this reply to you not totally knowing if I understand what you're saying. Oh well. I am a human vegetable.

Science is not about knowing. Science is about believing. It just has a more logical train of conjecture then "I do not know, therefore deities."

If science was about knowing, then it would be impossible to nullify hypothesis, but we already know this is not true. The only scientific discoveries around that are empirically true are laws, and they are very few and very old.

Otherwise, though, science is about using a logical train of thought to convince yourself and others through use of proof that a hypothesis is true... which ultimately involves a lot of belief that the proof is empirical and the results are accurate.

The only reason scientific laws are considered empirically true is because scientists over the course of CENTURIES have all been able to reproduce the results of scientific laws, thus proving throughout the the test of time that they are true. But for most science, this is not the case.

It's a fun idea to entertain the idea of artifice, the mix of science and magic. But that is purely fiction.

Though, outside fiction, belief in magic and adherence to science is not out of the question. Magic cannot be reproduced, so belief in it is as simple as belief in any other religion.

Now, is it impossible for someone to have a religious belief and still be a swell scientist? Of course. So then why would someone believing in magic mean that they cannot, at least, believe in the efficiency of science?

I believe.

Just believe.

I don't debate authenticity of beliefs, though.

I just do.

Human ancestors needed to compete to survive. We are evolving to a stage in whence we do not need to compete to survive, but the innate nature is still there. Therefore we struggle against one another for no good reason.

Buddhism. It has many traditions I am not familiar with, but as I understand, I would fit will with it.

More heterosexuals practice anal sex then there are homosexuals that exist.

Also, I don't think I would mind being pegged by my wife.

>inb4tmi

You deserve too much information for being an apparent bigot.

Who doesn't listen to their intuition?

Crazy people, that's who.

Foreign music.

If you can't understand the lyrics, you will find yourself enjoying the fact that they don't give off a stupid message, thus meaning you can enjoy just the beat.

They don't.

I am simply wise enough to not mix them, unless simply using one as the inspiration of the other.

Do not try. Only do, or do not. There is no try.

With that said, it's imperative that we stop ruining the environment. If we don't, we will destroy ourselves. Even if we do recolonize the population on a new planet, what is it worth if we'll just destroy that planet as well?

Plus, should we ruin the landmasses where we live, the oceans could provide us an alternative living space that's actually not nearly as damaged.

But, the best part about this, is that it will all be much easier to accomplish this then to learn how to bypass the speed of light. Priorities, I say, priorities!

While I greatly respect Professor Tyson, I think it would be more prudent for us to fund ocean exploration and settlement, and green energy, then to fund even more space exploration and study.

Space is great, but I feel we need to use what we have here before we fly away to a different planet.

Actually, wait no, THIS is it.

Love is accepting and supporting someone full-heartedly, and desiring to do so in close proximity to the person.

It can take on many forms, all of which aren't too different. Romance, friendship, familial, empathetic, etc. All of them are the same feeling, but with slightly different subthemes.

Also, love is the future of mankind. We are destined to either absolutely love or absolutely destroy ourselves.

Oh, how nice, a downvote without disputation. Lovely.

Coward.

I don't like how his sex appeal is used to increase his fame among young women. It's shameful.

No, I don't love him.

I've never played or even heard of Roblox.

So I pick Minecraft.

Which I adore.

Improve the economy by making people suffer. Yeah, that's a great idea. Definitely.

No. We can find a solution to our economic crisis that doesn't make the already miserable Middle Class more miserable.

Who ever was trying to legalize it?

And I am supposing this isn't a debate upon the age of consent.

But I could be wrong, as this debate is extremely ambiguous.

This would be a fantastic idea. I wish I had learned Spanish when I was younger and still able to learn things well. Now I can't understand it for the life of me!

They would rather euthanize animals then allow them to be pets.

It's fucking sickening.

Um, hello, the atrocities committed during the Crusades were not committed by true believers in Jesus. How is that so difficult for folks to comprehend?

Well, considering it was Pope Urban the Second that ordered these Crusades, I find your argument lacking evidence.

I mean... come on. It was the Pope. To say the Crusades were not caused by Christians is to pick and choose the definition of 'Christian'.

The problem with that though is that it's a contrived argument. A Christian is: "A person who adheres to Christianity, an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as recorded in the Canonical gospels and the letters of the New Testament."

Are you going to try and dispute the idea that Pope Urban the Second was not the above definition? Because if so, you're going to loose.

It is better for an evil abortionist to die than it is for him to kill thousands of innocent babies...

So you believe that soulless masses of flesh are worth more then human lives?

I'm calling it: Saturday, November 24, 2012, at 7:50 PM - I have just met a psychopath.

... just like it would have been better for Hitler to die than for him to keep killing Jews, Christians and others.

Hitler killed living, breathing, conscious people.

Abortion doctors rarely kill people conscious people. And they shouldn't, but it is by no means anywhere near the brutality that a genocidal mass murderer committed.

Abortion doctors prevent people from ever living. They do away with potential humans. But as a human corpse is not human, and a potato is not human, a potential human is just that: not human. They do not have humanity unless they have a consciousness, because the presence of a consciousness is the only measurable proof of a soul.

You are a psychopath if you cannot understand this. To compare Hitler, LITERALLY, to an abortion doctor is a demonstration of a lack of connection your mind has to reality, and thus, you belong in a looney bin.

Wow, I'm shaking my head in disbelief over your lack of logic.

The whole world is crazy, not you, huh? Yeah... no.

To believe that a doctor should be killed for not even murdering human beings, makes you a sociopath.

This is it.

If we're being unrealistic, I would like to be the most powerful superhero possibly conceived.

If we're being realistic, I would like to be a best selling author that owns a massive franchise of fiction.

I'm willing to bet that every 1st world education system is better then the United States one... and perhaps some 3rd world education systems as well.

There are countless people in prison for possessing and selling marijuana while tobacco and alcohol CEOs lay around with harems of men and women while a dozen gold-plated Ferraris sit in their square-kilometer, underground garage.

I mean really.

Mary Jane doesn't even come CLOSE to harming as you as bad as traditional cigarettes, or alcohol. You can't even overdose on Mary Jane! And yet people who deal in it are in prison while the real murders are glorified businessfolk?

What a disgrace.

At least if we free people in prison from marijuana crimes, we'll be less hypocritical a nation, which I feel is a vast improvement.

The last time I checked, children were treated very, very specially in this country, perhaps all of 1st world society (other then totalitarian countries).

And while I don't totally disagree with the idea of treating children softly and better, I find it detrimental to their growth to enforce this idea that nobody looses and everyone is a winner and everyone is special, etc.

I was beaten when I did bad things as a child, with a wooden spoon, until my ass was scarlet and throbbing. And I didn't grow into a horrible person because of it! In fact, I think I have a very solid understanding of reality and the way things are.

But what about a child who grows up being spoiled and told that they can never loose and never be the wrong and that they are a unique in every way? I don't know... that just seems to me like a very bad idea.

For one thing, I don't think his beats are terrible, but I don't enjoy the messages of his lyrics. I'm not going to elaborate as to why. It's just how I am in my musical taste.

Secondly, I wouldn't say I hate him, but I don't like his fanbase. Liking him and hating him are both a bandwagon, and while I try and not jump on a bandwagon, I just cannot help but jump on the hate bandwagon out of pure annoyance with all this little girls frothing at the mere sight of him.

ಠ_ಠ

I am going to assume that by 'Agree', you refer to 'agree with their lifestyle'.

In which case, yes, I agree with them. Why wouldn't I? That would be me like disagreeing with a black man being black. It's a stupid thing to disagree with.

I am very creative, if I am able to use the tools given to me efficiently.

I believe in evolutionary morality, or the theory that morality is evolved for the purpose of advancement of the species.

To make my point short and sweet, I believe selfishness, self-priority, maliciousness, malevolence, were all things that were and are used by primitive or misguided people, thinking that they need or needed to behave such ways to advance the species, as the survival of the self does help the species perpetuate.

But, evil such as that is now, well... evil, and for a reason.

Group-priority, selflessness, benevolence, compassion... I earnestly think these are all vastly more effective for an advanced civilization to grow and prosper as it evolves. Thus, good and evil are both factors of our existence, and I think we will overall become more 'good' as time goes on... or we will destroy ourselves.

If there was no reason, why do we do things as we do them? Perhaps there is no reason tied into that either, but then what if the reason is that we are supposed to make reason?

It's a belief after all. I'm not here to debate it. I know it's not entirely or necessarily logical, but that is why it's a belief and not a debate subject.

Since I believe in evolutionary morality, I'm going to argue under the pretense that the aliens wish no harm.

With that said, if an alien race has the knowledge and understanding to traverse the speed of light, they will obviously have the capability to measure the perfect balance between risk & reward, thus knowing the perfect time to reveal themselves to us.

If that requires that we evolve, culturally, another few hundred years to the point that we are much more benevolent as a people, then so be it.

That we exist because we are supposed to. If we were not meant to live, then why do we? Why do we strive to learn and live if we were not meant to do these things? If there was no purpose, then why do we give it purpose naturally? Obviously there is a reason, and we search through it through science and philosophy.

You didn't really dispute my point.

My point is that a space-faring race of creatures would be totally benevolent.

If they couldn't approach us without harming us, then they wouldn't.

And if they could without harming us, then they would.

Well, it doesn't, really differ much from reverence of nature, per say. Saying that they are God(s) is just a good analogy to help people understand.

It's not science because I have faith that isn't necessarily logical. It's based in belief and feeling and experience, not experimentation (and not always observation, either).

Selflessness is selfish. I am selfless, therefore I am also selfish.

Mind-fucked yet? Good.

I would wear fur simply because PETA are a bunch of hypocritical lunatics. They euthanize more animals then... normal euthanasia centers!

Also, there's nothing cruel about killing unintelligent animals as long as you A. Don't decimate their populations, and B. Don't make their deaths long and painful (you sick fuck).

The biggest problem I have with the theory is the people that study it. They don't generally go through the scientific method properly; they make vast assumptions, if you will... leaps of faith. "I do not know, therefore aliens." It's quite mind boggling that they would assert is as truth without actual evidence.

I don't find it totally out of the ordinary, as the theory precludes the VERY plausible ideas that because aliens could be millions of years ahead of us in technology, they could very well feel like going around random planets, performing uplifting experiments, and easily have the capability to hide themselves from future generations.

If human, of course.

If not human... no. I'd say they could be trusted.

This is because I believe in evolutionary morality. I don't believe any advanced species of aliens will be evil, as we'd define evil. I think they would be totally benevolent and compassionate. I think they'd be able to be trusted if they came bearing gifts.

Which I think doesn't make any sence at all. How can you win a debate, by showing the person against you something he or she doesn't believe in?

Because debate is not about belief. Debate is about logic and reasoning.

The atheist or non-theist would win the debate because a Bible verse is not proof of anything. If you want proof, show proof that relates to the scientific method, which is totally governed by logic and reasoning.

Because quoting the Bible to prove God is like quoting Peter Pan to prove fairies. You can believe in God or fairies, but if you cannot prove their existence with logic and reasoning, then you have no business asserting that they are factually real.

It can be if you want it to. Otherwise, nothing is inherently religious about sitting down with family and eating a big meal and socializing.

God defines murder. Gha! For a fetus to be killed by a doctor does not follow God being the one who gives and the one who takes away! Gha!

If we are all governed under God, though, then he gives and takes through us just as he gives and takes through other aspects of nature.

And you seem to believe this, as evidenced by: My belief in Jesus necessarily drives everything I do. I cannot compartmentalize my life.

So then Jesus, one of the avatar's of God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit), drives all your actions? Then perhaps he also drives the actions of murders (the Crusades), including abortion doctors.

If this is so, how can you claim that it's against God's will to abort? If he didn't mean for it to happen, then why did the abortion doctor even do it?

I am a Pantheist. The very universe and presence of existence is my idol of worship. Life, love, laughter; these are what matter most as we drift through the cosmic shit-storm known as the universe whilst riding upon this fragile space rock we call home.

Dolphins have greatly superior intellect. They may even be as intelligent as primitive humankind.

I am thankful for simply existing, and having the potential to live a comfortable, maybe even pleasurable, life.