The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!

Doolittle's Constitution

Woman's Rights. The real ones.
Procreative Responsibility. If you don't have the time or money, you can't have a puppy child.
Universal Surveillance. We can all watch each other.
Reform Obscenity Laws and Victim-less Crimes. Stop profiteering from crime.
Mandatory Gun Ownership.
Criminalize Religious and Celebrity Indoctrination of Children.
Abolish Mono-cropping. Make rich the soil.
Replace Land Ownership with Responsible Land Stewardship.
Socialize Basic Necessities. Food, shelter, education, transportation and health care.
Reform Institutionalized Education. Make Math, Science, History (includes theology),Economics and Physical Education primary.
Replace Politicians with Computers and IT's.
Disarm The Police. (see #3)
Legalize All Drugs.
Legalize and Subsidize Prostitution.
Criminalize Anti-Human Behavior. Pollution, genocide, war mongering etc...
Reform the Judicial and Prison Systems. Rehabilitate and/or Appropriate via Vocational Assessment.
Replace Marriage with Civil Unions. Stop giving procreating couples privileges, reward single people.
Enact 1st and 2nd Generation Restitution and Atonement. Wealth accrued through crime (see #'s 1-17) must be given back to the victims or become public property.

Comment

You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by Glen Rosenberg on May 27, 2011 at 11:38pm: Z,

I thought you were editing when I got the big brother message.

Comment by S.F. Zeigler on May 27, 2011 at 11:36pm: @ Glen. I just had my response (a long ass one) erased by the computer gnomes. Shit. I will reply.

Comment by Glen Rosenberg on May 27, 2011 at 11:11pm: 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.

5. Silly

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.

Comment by Azel Praer on May 27, 2011 at 9:10pm: if only this could be passed great subject

Comment by S.F. Zeigler on May 27, 2011 at 8:40pm: Since when has it become acceptable to put words (ideas) into peoples mouths and then argue your own case? Funny. You have to be ready at any moment to defend things you've never stated. I think people sometimes neglect reading what they've written. Or re-reading what was posted. They're more like on the side-lines waiting to jump in and use words that they learned in high school and college. No context. All argument. Mental masturbation. Intellectual treason. There is no such thing as common sense you say? OK then this shouldn't hurt too much. FUCK YOU - YOU SPOILED UNDESERVING ASSHOLES! Pardon me. I was abandoning common sense. I'll try not to let it happen again.

One more for Adsense... FUCK YOU!

Comment by S.F. Zeigler on May 27, 2011 at 8:23pm: @ 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

Comment by S.F. Zeigler on May 27, 2011 at 8:07pm: @ 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.

-Z

Comment by John Camilli on May 27, 2011 at 6:26pm: 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.

Comment by John Camilli on May 27, 2011 at 3:09pm: Yeah, she said it better than I did. Samhita you totally got what I was trying at. So well said, in fact, that I don't even have anything further to add. Too bad this guy is still convinced that his ideas should be everyone's ideas. If everyone were just like him, laws would be easy to write. Alas, the world is full of individuals, with their own idea of "common sense," and laws remain a futile attempt at peace, or worse, an effective attempt at control.

Comment by Glen Rosenberg on May 27, 2011 at 2:59pm: Samhita,

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.

S.F. Z.,

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.