The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!
Tags: Atheist, Constitution, atonement, drugs, economic, education, guns, laws, new, police, More…politics, prison, profiteering, restitution, rights, woman
Join Atheist Nexus
I thought you were editing when I got the big brother message.
Z, you dont mind if I refer to you as Z do you? Cuz Azel is az#1.
The what are you high comment may have been presumptuous but so what and who cares?
Let me say something substantive regarding you Constitution.
2. I want a license before having children. But sometimes things get ahead of schedule so this is impractical on my part.
3. Silly. we need less overlordship and big brotherness
4. Obsenity laws have made good progress in constitutional law. The problem I have is in defining obsenity with reference to contemporary community standards.
8. Would require new government
10 Agreed but I want extra emphasis on history, real history of religion, and critical thinking taught.
11. Not ready for computers. I want mandatory public intelligence testing for high office.
12. Super silly
16. Agreed Professional jurors needed. Eliminate bail. Prosecutors should not be elected.
Your ideas are not too awful awful.
@ Glen. It really boils down to the definition of "strength" and "power". I'm appalled at the amount of women that argue this with me. Where are my armies of Dikes to help defend my theory? It must be nice playing the weaker sex... the victim... Over time the master becomes the slave and the slave becomes the master.
Funny. I'm not a big fan of forcing change but I feel that the EXPOSING of weak logic and bad ideas helps to move things along. Thank you. -Z
@ John and Sam. Come on folks, just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean anything. However, that you come here and post irrelevant comments is puzzling. If you notice I stop responding to you it's simply because you have stopped responding to me. Once this "call and response" method of communication is lost, there's no sense continuing on. You folks come here and get more irate with every post. If your logic can't 1) be relevant and 2) stand up to skeptical inquiry then what are you doing? The only thing I am guilty of with you folks is failing to make you smile or to entertain you. I will not be intimidated by your passive aggressive games regardless if you mean to play them or not.
Ideas are going to be scrutinized here. If they're nonsensical ideas they'll be ridiculed. If they're bad ideas they'll be ignored. If you are rude during this exchange you will be dealt with in a hudibrastic manner. If I question your logic it's not an attack on you. If you are trying my patience I may resort to (attempting) humor. My patience is often tried by people attempting logic without following civil communication and it's simple back and forth protocol. I'll state it one more time. If you continue to ignore me then I'll be happy to end our communication.
What does this have to do with trying to improve the quality of living for us and the benefitial creatures around us?!!!! The problem with many philosophers and philosophy students is they lose command of basic common sense. I don't think it's appropriate to wax philosophical while children are starved and brutalized. Women are raped and murdered.
You say there is no agreement on common sense? You're wrong. Stop eating. Abandon your home and live homeless. Hit yourself in the face with a hammer. Go into the wrong neighborhood and get victimized. I'm certain "common sense" will all the sudden become very clear and evident and universal.
I know of some men who've been stabbed or shot in the gut who might argue about whether or not they could handle childbirth. I'm curious how exactly you know what childbirth feels like anyway. Are you secretly a woman? Or are you just saying that so you can sound pimp for the ladies? Im also curious why you think it's ok for you to say something like "What the fuck is wrong with you kitty kitty?" yet it's not ok for Glen to ask you if you're high. Hypocritical much?
I don't see how those two statements of Samhita's contradict each other. People who abide a system of laws do so because they think it promotes some kind of good, but no legal system is accepted the world over, so clearly everyone does not agree about what "good" is. No contradiction there. Frankly, I think you're grasping at straws and attacking everyone who says anything that opposes your dream of creating a perfect legal system. It just doesn't exist, man. Or, if it does, we first need to find something we can all agree is objectively true, and base it on that. Trying to make perfect rules before you know anything with perfect certainty is like a blind man throwing darts. You're more likely to hurt someone than hit your mark.
Saying women tend to be physically weaker than men is not like saying black people are poor and stupid; it's like saying black people are black. There's nothing wrong with it until you decide that relative physical weakness is wrong. I'd suggest adjusting your values rather than trying to adjust reality.
Having argued and discussed philosophy with John I think you have come close to comprehending and or stating some of his ideas although Descarte's "cogito ergo sum" is accepted by John as sensory evidence of one's own existence. Some of the other ideas you have expressed seem right on.
Now I understand your willingness to fight John.
Physical strength and fighting ability are not the same.
I dont exactly agree with your idea concerning John's conundrum because it is a non sequitur. Or at least it does not detract from a fundamental albeit overlooked key to epistemology. However I agree with the sentiment. I am frustrated talking to atheists about theology, their focus, rather than describing the harm done by religion and how we can improve matters without religion.
Welcome toAtheist Nexus
Sign Upor Sign In
Or sign in with:
© 2013 Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.
Report an Issue |
Terms of Service
Please check your browser settings or contact your system administrator.