Recent Posts
And being rude because the computer screen gives you courage.Wow, some people will argue ANYTHING! Reaching....a lot of you are reaching. I swear these threads are the reason I stick to the fun ones. Arguments for the sake of arguments. :\You are more than welcome to return to the "fun" threads :)
Umm no.. I'd say the same thing if you were here. Why walk into a room where a discussion is underway and then complain about the subject matter? Don't you have an option not to participate? I don't even see the rudeness in that. If you do then you are more sensitive than I.
And I *did* include a smiley at the end to suggest I was being flip... Sorry if it wasn't more clear.
And being rude because the computer screen gives you courage.Wow, some people will argue ANYTHING! Reaching....a lot of you are reaching. I swear these threads are the reason I stick to the fun ones. Arguments for the sake of arguments. :\You are more than welcome to return to the "fun" threads :)Umm no.. I'd say the same thing if you were here. Why walk into a room where a discussion is underway and then complain about the subject matter? Don't you have an option not to participate? I don't even see the rudeness in that. If you do then you are more sensitive than I.
And I *did* include a smiley at the end to suggest I was being flip... Sorry if it wasn't more clear.
Maybe I am a lil sensitive. These threads have become increasingly less civil with each one and many people simply come and pick fights. I find it extremely rude to the OP.
I also have talked to many people outside of Paizo who have stated that the arguments have gotten out of hand and the threads are no longer fun, it is simply a hassle, and they no longer feel welcome.That said, I did not see the smiley, and many here are complaining of the OP's subject matter. :)
Yeah, but their nut cases have judges.Good thing there are no conservative nutcase (*COUGH* Scalia! *COUGH*) judges!
Yeah, the same nut job (Scalia) who opined that the Government maybe had to use real evidence instead of just the word of a rat trying to knock time off his sentence when determining how long a prison sentence should be (U.S. V. Booker). Or the same Scalia that opined that, perhaps, eminent domain shouldn't be used to take property for private enterprise (New Haven V. Kelo).
And before you invoke Lawrence, his dissent basically stated (if you bothered to read it), that the political, not judicial, process needed to deal with the issue. I.E., get the people behind a cause and use democracy to get rid of distasteful law.
I read a LOT of SC cases when I was locked up. Scalia isn't a nut case, by a long shot.
Maybe I am a lil sensitive. These threads have become increasingly less civil with each one and many people simply come and pick fights. I find it extremely rude to the OP. I also have talked to many people outside of Paizo who have stated that the arguments have gotten out of hand and the threads are no longer fun, it is simply a hassle, and they no longer feel welcome. That said, I did not see the smiley, and many here are complaining of the OP's subject matter. :)
Fair enough. I am exceptionally calm and don't think I've been offensive. I actually do like to engage in these sorts of discussions, so long as everyone can remain calm and civil. I may deeply, deeply, disagree with someone's views, but I see no need to get all riled up about it. I'll make my points calmly and civilly then move on.
Yeah, the same nut job (Scalia) who opined that the Government maybe had to use real evidence instead of just the word of a rat trying to knock time off his sentence when determining how long a prison sentence should be (U.S. V. Booker). Or the same Scalia that opined that, perhaps, eminent domain shouldn't be used to take property for private enterprise (New Haven V. Kelo).
Broken clock, twice a day.
The same nut job (Scalia) who in 2002 said "Government...derives its moral authority from God. It is the minister of God with powers to 'avenge' and to 'execute wrath' including even wrath by the sword."
Never mind "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" -- evidently divine right sits better with him.
The same nut job (Scalia) who in 2009 asked "Isn’t it arguable that the best place for really toxic stuff is at the bottom of a lake?"
Maybe I am a lil sensitive. These threads have become increasingly less civil with each one and many people simply come and pick fights. I find it extremely rude to the OP. I also have talked to many people outside of Paizo who have stated that the arguments have gotten out of hand and the threads are no longer fun, it is simply a hassle, and they no longer feel welcome. That said, I did not see the smiley, and many here are complaining of the OP's subject matter. :)Fair enough. I am exceptionally calm and don't think I've been offensive. I actually do like to engage in these sorts of discussions, so long as everyone can remain calm and civil. I may deeply, deeply, disagree with someone's views, but I see no need to get all riled up about it. I'll make my points calmly and civilly then move on.
Sorry, had to cook dinner.
Part of me worries that the admins will eventually get fed up with the arguing (since many times they do not remain civil) and ban anything that is off topic. Since my home thread is an off topic thread, this worries me greatly. :)
Maybe I am a lil sensitive. These threads have become increasingly less civil with each one and many people simply come and pick fights. I find it extremely rude to the OP. I also have talked to many people outside of Paizo who have stated that the arguments have gotten out of hand and the threads are no longer fun, it is simply a hassle, and they no longer feel welcome. That said, I did not see the smiley, and many here are complaining of the OP's subject matter. :)Fair enough. I am exceptionally calm and don't think I've been offensive. I actually do like to engage in these sorts of discussions, so long as everyone can remain calm and civil. I may deeply, deeply, disagree with someone's views, but I see no need to get all riled up about it. I'll make my points calmly and civilly then move on.Sorry, had to cook dinner.
Part of me worries that the admins will eventually get fed up with the arguing (since many times they do not remain civil) and ban anything that is off topic. Since my home thread is an off topic thread, this worries me greatly. :)
With a quick look a the thread stickied to the top of the OT discussions subforum, my guess is that they would just prohibit political and religious discussions.
Thailand is strongly ideological? What is their ideology? Just curious.
The King of Thailand is revered as a near-deity. Thailand is also a very Buddhist country. There have been clashes with Cambodia recently over a temple on the border. It's not so much a political ideology, though in the past few years that has come up, with the ex-PM Thaksin Shinawatra (who was ousted in a coup) causing trouble by using his political base, which is still very very strong, to protest and agitate for his pardon.
Zo
Part of me worries that the admins will eventually get fed up with the arguing (since many times they do not remain civil) and ban anything that is off topic. Since my home thread is an off topic thread, this worries me greatly. :)
I don't think the Paizo folks mind discussion one bit, so long as it remains civil. I'd be highly surprised if they banned anything "off-topic" as that would surely sour a whole lot of people who like to engage in random banter, often having nothing to do with gaming. I'd say the conversation in this thread, so far as I've seen, has been very civil. Sure many people have strong opinions but I don't think I've seen any personal insults or attacks and the tone has been pretty polite through-out. With that said, I think its all good.
Yeah, the same nut job (Scalia) who opined that the Government maybe had to use real evidence instead of just the word of a rat trying to knock time off his sentence when determining how long a prison sentence should be (U.S. V. Booker). Or the same Scalia that opined that, perhaps, eminent domain shouldn't be used to take property for private enterprise (New Haven V. Kelo).Broken clock, twice a day.
The same nut job (Scalia) who in 2002 said "Government...derives its moral authority from God. It is the minister of God with powers to 'avenge' and to 'execute wrath' including even wrath by the sword."
Never mind "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" -- evidently divine right sits better with him.The same nut job (Scalia) who in 2009 asked "Isn’t it arguable that the best place for really toxic stuff is at the bottom of a lake?"
Soruce please?
I mean it's not like he believes judges should ammend laws at will Walker or that someone who is released to seek alcohol treatment should get more treatment when he takes that time to go beat his wife United States v. Bad Marriage or the consistancy of saying Allah good, Christ bad Or my favourite, that an inmate fighting for 29 years his death penalty invalidates the death penalty because it violated the inmates Eighth Ammendment Rights.
Or our new Supreme Court Justice's hijinx in saying it's legal to discriminate against successful applicants if they're not colour coordinated
And we won't even get into such fun non-court comments like Ginsburg's campaign against Mother's day.
This is not the ‘greatest post in the world’. This is just a tribute.
Hey David Fryer,
So, I have taken some time to read through your articles. I have a few questions related to it, and a few sections I would be grateful if you would explain why you hold that belief.
I would suggest that you go back and reread the thread as I have answered many of the questions you pose already. I would just ammend my statements by saying this. First off, yes there are times when the government needs to step in and deal with situations that cannot be dealt with individually. That is the purpose of government. However, the U.S. Constitution clearly lays out what those situations are. They include national defense, dealing with and making treaties and alliances with other nations, regulating interstate and international commerce, etc.
Furthermore, the Constitution is not outdated, as you suggest, but is as relevent today as it was 200 years ago when it was written. It remains that way because the Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, added the ability to ammend the Constitution to deal with issues that they knew that they could not forsee, but also knew that would come up. While the process of ammending the Constitution is difficult, it is posssible, and that is what keeps the Constitution relavent.
As for why I assert the greatness of the United States, I would simply point to two facts. One is that the United States is the destination for the majority of the world's immigrants today. You can quote statistics all you like, but the fact remains that people are willing to die to come to the United States. Furthermore, many of the statistics that you quote, such as scientific literacy is a result of nations, such as India, sending their best and brightest to the U.S. to be educated and then having them return to their home country with that education. Therefore it could be said that all your statistics really prove is that other nations are better at taking advantage of the opportunities provided by the United States then Americans are.
The fact that humans can be influnced by outside authority and other factors does not alleviate their responsibility for their actions. Sure, it takes a strong person to say no to authority, but the fact that they were given an order to do something does not eleminate the responsability that each person bears for their actions. The ongoing pursuit and prosecution of World War II war criminals is proof that "I was just following orders" is not a free pass.
As for Article V, perhaps exported is notthe best word to use. Perhaps encouraged is a better word for what I was trying to say.
Source please?
1. Scalia, Antonin (2002). God's justice and ours. First Things, May 2002.
2. 07-984: Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (2009).We've also got judges like Roy Moore, who states, "It is encouraging that so many of our youth are not ashamed of the gospel of Christ. Like our forefathers, they know America is a Christian nation." (Moore, Roy, "Are We Ashamed": May 13, 2009 post on his blog Our Moral Foundation.
Examples of liberal judges don't refute anything about Conservative ones, and indeed help prove my point, that there are whack jobs on BOTH sides. No one gets a "free pass" on things.
Since the slurry is repeatedly referred to as non-toxic, less toxic, and EPA approved I find your putting words into Justice Scalia's mouth less than convincing.
As to the quote about God, well the 10 commandments are in several court rooms, and the declaration of independance does refer to our 'Creator given' rights. So its' safe to assume that he can hold that opinion. Doesn't seem to have influenced his court decisions though.
Since the slurry is repeatedly referred to as non-toxic, less toxic, and EPA approved I find your putting words into Justice Scalia's mouth less than convincing.
Approved slurry -- fine. "Really toxic stuff" (Scalia's words, not mine, by the way) -- not fine.
Both ideologies have good points, and some bad ones -- fine. "My side is flawless and perfect, but the other one has never done anything right" -- not true.
The fact that humans can be influnced by outside authority and other factors does not alleviate their responsibility for their actions. Sure, it takes a strong person to say no to authority, but the fact that they were given an order to do something does not eleminate the responsability that each person bears for their actions. The ongoing pursuit and prosecution of World War II war criminals is proof that "I was just following orders" is not a free pass.
I agree with you, if for no other reason then there does not really seem to be a viable alternative. However the reality seems to be that we don't actually persecute our own side if there is significant evidence that the people involved were following orders and our definition of what constituted a punishable atrocity has always been flexible.
Good example of this was during the Nuremberg trials when they tried Doenitz for war crimes but were forced to drop some of the charges when it became clear that the U.S. submarine force had essentially waged the exact same style of interdiction campaign against Japan as the Germans tried with Britain. Since it was inconceivable that American officers and men were committing war crimes it would seem that Doenitz could not be guilty (of this exact crime he was found guilty of other crimes). My point being not that the U.S. was committing war crimes but that our definition is very flexible and never includes anything our side happens to get up to.
I would suggest that you go back and reread the thread as I have answered many of the questions you pose already. I would just ammend my statements by saying this. First off, yes there are times when the government needs to step in and deal with situations that cannot be dealt with individually. That is the purpose of government. However, the U.S. Constitution clearly lays out what those situations are. They include national defense, dealing with and making treaties and alliances with other nations, regulating interstate and international commerce, etc.This is not the ‘greatest post in the world’. This is just a tribute.
Hey David Fryer,
So, I have taken some time to read through your articles. I have a few questions related to it, and a few sections I would be grateful if you would explain why you hold that belief.
And one might argue considerably more than your view point would like it to, if the preamble is to be taken seriously, 'Promote the general welfare' after all.
Furthermore, the Constitution is not outdated, as you suggest, but is as relevent today as it was 200 years ago when it was written. It remains that way because the Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, added the ability to ammend the Constitution to deal with issues that they knew that they could not forsee, but also knew that would come up. While the process of ammending the Constitution is difficult, it is posssible, and that is what keeps the Constitution relavent.
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Tell me again how the constitution is keeping up. Because it seems to me that slavery has been abolished for some time now, and that the continued inclusion of details on how to allocate representatives based on slave numbers, is poor house keeping at best and more likely a sign of the documents archaic nature.
The constitution has not kept up. This is not an attack on the constitution, but i cant help but wonder how it is that you can refer to it as an 'Inspired' document. Hey, even knowing who you consider it to be inspired by might be a start.
outstanding or brilliant in a way or to a degree suggestive of divine inspiration
Where in this document, written by arguably great men, do you see the hand ofthe divine? What about it is suggestive of that, and why exactly couldn't men have come up with it on there own?
What makes you think that a briliant group of men could not top it tomorrow?
As for why I assert the greatness of the United States, I would simply point to two facts. One is that the United States is the destination for the majority of the world's immigrants today.
The UK does not have a land boarders with south america, is further from china and south east asia in general, and have other countries between us and africa, russia and the near middle east, the vast majority of whom have a legal responciblity to take in those migrants.
And you know what, we get migrants from all of them.
Oh and your 16th most popular.
You can quote statistics all you like, but the fact remains that people are willing to die to come to the United States.
Here is the thing. You can sneer at the facts, you can behave as through what people think about the way the world is, is more important than the way the world really is, but here is the thing. It is easy to get people to die for things. You can get people to die for bronze aged myths and the promise of heavenly virgins.
Don't confuse having a good PR department with actually being the greatest. What makes you the greatest, give me facts please.
Furthermore, many of the statistics that you quote, such as scientific literacy is a result of nations, such as India, sending their best and brightest to the U.S. to be educated and then having them return to their home country with that education. Therefore it could be said that all your statistics really prove is that other nations are better at taking advantage of the opportunities provided by the United States then Americans are.
Yeah cause no one ever travelled to study in our schools and university. The chinese students studying at essex, just down the road must be an aberation. It isn't like four out of the top six universities in the world are in the UK. But all that is irrellivant really, because this whole point is irrellivant. Sure people travel here and to you guys, but what they do with that knowledge when they get home is different to what you do and they get better results. So tell me again how that makes you the greatest?
The fact that humans can be influnced by outside authority and other factors does not alleviate their responsibility for their actions. Sure, it takes a strong person to say no to authority, but the fact that they were given an order to do something does not eleminate the responsability that each person bears for their actions. The ongoing pursuit and prosecution of World War II war criminals is proof that "I was just following orders" is not a free pass.
Don't confuse the heady mix of justice and vengance with proof of what really occures. Both Milgram's authority studies and Asch's work on conformity provide use with pause to think maybe it is a little more complicated than your political philosophy suggests.
If you where put in to a chair and run through the milgram experiment tomorrow, without fore knowledge, the evidence is that you would also likely knowingly end up 'killing' the other participant. I'm only just starting into learning about psychology properly, but i have to say to me if all it takes for me to turn you into a murderer is a little ignorance on your part, a white coat and a general air of authority on mine, i question how much you are in control of your actions.
As for Article V, perhaps exported is notthe best word to use. Perhaps encouraged is a better word for what I was trying to say.
It really shouldn't need it. Let the market do the work for you.
Furthermore, the Constitution is not outdated, as you suggest, but is as relevent today as it was 200 years ago when it was written. It remains that way because the Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, added the ability to ammend the Constitution to deal with issues that they knew that they could not forsee, but also knew that would come up. While the process of ammending the Constitution is difficult, it is posssible, and that is what keeps the Constitution relavent.Tell me again how the constitution is keeping up....
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments is how the Constitution is keeping up. You would know this if you were half as smart as you think you are, particularly since in the quoted setion of my remarks, I specifically mentioned the Ammendment process.
Let me share with you what the Founders felt about that section.I would suggest that you go back and reread the thread as I have answered many of the questions you pose already. I would just ammend my statements by saying this. First off, yes there are times when the government needs to step in and deal with situations that cannot be dealt with individually. That is the purpose of government. However, the U.S. Constitution clearly lays out what those situations are. They include national defense, dealing with and making treaties and alliances with other nations, regulating interstate and international commerce, etc.This is not the ‘greatest post in the world’. This is just a tribute.
Hey David Fryer,
So, I have taken some time to read through your articles. I have a few questions related to it, and a few sections I would be grateful if you would explain why you hold that belief.
And one might argue considerably more than your view point would like it to, if the preamble is to be taken seriously, 'Promote the general welfare' after all.
With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. If the words obtained so readily a place in the "Articles of Confederation," and received so little notice in their admission into the present Constitution, and retained for so long a time a silent place in both, the fairest explanation is, that the words, in the alternative of meaning nothing or meaning everything, had the former meaning taken for granted.
The Founders never intended or saw the General Welfare clause as a blank check, but as a guideline within the bounds of the Constitutional powers of the government.
Another quote, since it is related to the current social welfare debate in Congress.I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
A bunch of stuff
It is clear that you and I will never see ey to eye and that you just love every chance you can get to down play the role the United States plays in the world and tell us how bad we are. It is also clear that you will simply ignore anything I say that doesn't fit what you want to think and take my words out of context to try ad prove your anti-American agenda, Therefore I tip my hat and say Good Day sir. I have nothing more to say to you.
I didn't get an impression of anti-Americanism from Zombieneighbours at all. I'm American and I didn't see it. You'd probably consider me an anti-American commie liberal though so I'm sure my opinion is generally worthless.
I did see, however, someone taking exception to someone else saying how they were better than everyone else. If you want to translate that into downplaying the greatness of the U.S. then go to town, but I didn't get that. I am in agreement with Zombieneighbours by the way.
If you want to be done talking, then I too tip my hat at you. It's depressing though when people give up so easily. Try to have a conversation, raise points to support your position, and then the other side walks away saying "its obvious we'll never agree". Well in truth you're right, we won't, but it is entertaining seeing people attempt to defend such positions, at least for me.
David Fryer wrote:
You can quote statistics all you like, but the fact remains that people are willing to die to come to the United States.
Here is the thing. You can sneer at the facts,
STATS ARE NOT FACTS! Stats can be manipulated to look any way you want them to be.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."- Mark Twain.
A few words to the wise.
The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments is how the Constitution is keeping up. You would know this if you were half as smart as you think you are, particularly since in the quoted setion of my remarks, I specifically mentioned the Ammendment process.
Furthermore, the Constitution is not outdated, as you suggest, but is as relevent today as it was 200 years ago when it was written. It remains that way because the Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, added the ability to ammend the Constitution to deal with issues that they knew that they could not forsee, but also knew that would come up. While the process of ammending the Constitution is difficult, it is posssible, and that is what keeps the Constitution relavent.Tell me again how the constitution is keeping up....
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
How smart do I think I am David? Please enlighten me. Do you have some measure of how smart I think I am? Some measure of how smart I actually am?
I am certainly not as knowledgable on the constitution of the united states as i would like to be, what with being english and only having taken a relatively cursery hobby interest in it, but i also don't use language which suggests i believe that when asked why they forged the constitution, the framers answered 'god made me do it'.
I am trying to be respectful to you david. I don't agree with your politics or certain elements of the foundations of them. Rather than attacking you or your politics i have asked WHY you feel that way, asked you to justify your position. You answer well and change my mind, i don't bug you on them any more.
Ignore my questions, answer them, point out where i am wrong..but please, do not insult me as i try not to insult you.
For the record, i don't think i am smart. I can barely string a sentence together. I struggle to form a coherrant written arguement yet here i am trying, and in the company of people some of whom make me look like a babbling child. But you tell me, how much do you know about allopatric and sympatric speciation, the constitutional matters of the united kingdom, Joint European Torus experiment in nuclier fusion, the relative performance of the US and UK on numerous issues, the LHC, the poetry of Carrol Ann Duffy, the game theory, game theories applications in behavioural modeling, defensible space theory, french cinima, the lyrics of scrubbias Pip and the reproduction of the cowpea weevil. I've learned stuff about all these things and more because i don't want to be dumbest person in the room and when you can't physically understand the rules of punctuation, the only way to avoid being totally worthless is to know stuff.
Now, i am going to go re-read the amendments you cite, decide if i agree with your point or not, and either prepare a rebuttal or conceed the point to you.
Oh as a P.S.:
Anti-American? I am a british republician who considers the american constition to be a fine starting point in the formation of our constition when we finally get it.
I pointed to whole chunks of your article and said, i agree with this.
I think america is a great country and have said so more than once in the past. I have lorded the fact that america puts truely huge sums of money into basic science research. Friends tell friends when they are getting something wrong. Critism is the highest form of patriatism. You think i give your country a hard time, i think it is a national disgrace that the UK is 4th on scientific literacy and 19th on literacy.
I say all this stuff to you guys because i care, because your country is special. It is a beacon. I want it to live up to its promise.