This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - R o c k e t
Pages: 1 ... 286287288 289290 ... 763
8611
« on: July 16, 2015, 02:49:42 AM »
better than me, so good!
8612
« on: July 16, 2015, 02:38:23 AM »
I'm starting my own podcast who wants in?
you know it
Fuck yes, what are we gonna call it?
Fuck Cheat's Shitty Podcast
Actually Yutaka's, except for this particular one it was mine : P
8613
« on: July 16, 2015, 01:49:57 AM »
I better be in part 3.
I won't forget bbe's Now PM Cozmo.
on it good sir
8614
« on: July 16, 2015, 01:48:20 AM »
Dang, my voice is still sexy
8615
« on: July 16, 2015, 01:47:21 AM »
nerd
8616
« on: July 16, 2015, 01:44:29 AM »
I skipped to the ending after the first sentence, I wish I hadn't.....kinda ruined it
8617
« on: July 16, 2015, 01:32:42 AM »
You keep pressing them?
8618
« on: July 16, 2015, 12:10:26 AM »
Servers on day 1 
8619
« on: July 15, 2015, 11:33:42 PM »
Why anyone is buying Halo 5 for the multiplayer is beyond me. Everyone I know is getting it for the story.
buying halo for the story? after h4? wat
Yes and for one reason only 
8620
« on: July 15, 2015, 11:14:00 PM »
I take Tylenol or Ibuprofen when I'm sick and stuff. well okay, not all
all recreational drugs
what would you say if i told you that i smoke pot to help deal with my crippling anxiety and insomnia
A guy who goes to my old church, did MMA his whole life. Messed up his shoulder real bad, and got surgery.
In his words, "I'd rather take something herbal, that's from the Earth, than synthetic man-made chemicals. They make me feel terrible, and I can't function well". So he buys marijuana and is able to do things normally and without pain for the most part.
Pays about the same money, but he wants something natural.
I can't really argue against that. He's not using it simply to entertain himself, he's using it to make him more productive.
There's no such thing as "man made" chemicals other than radioactive elements that decompose almost instantly. Everything in medicine is from the earth.
I think the word I meant to use was synthetic
8621
« on: July 15, 2015, 11:12:52 PM »
I have a question for you, actually Spoiler why haven't you killed yourself yet?
8622
« on: July 15, 2015, 10:16:35 PM »
Just to make it clear, I'm not saying they aren't doing something unconstitutional. I agree with that, but people are so concerned over a cosmetic breach of the constitution which doesn't threaten their civil liberties.
You could be much more concerned about legislation among other things that actually changes your life and can infringe upon your rights. That's all I'm saying.
8623
« on: July 15, 2015, 10:08:00 PM »
Rocketman is omnisexual. He'll come on to anyone, and anything.
8624
« on: July 15, 2015, 10:04:39 PM »
Rocketman doesn't care because having such a phrase on a building is in alignment with his beliefs.
I don't think you can misinterpret my posts any more than you just did. Congrats!
8625
« on: July 15, 2015, 11:24:41 AM »
You must have misinterpreted my post. Where did I say Christianity gets special treatment? Nowhere? That's what I thought. No, but you have tacitly disregarded something so blatantly unconstitutional throughout this entire discussion. You might as well have at this point.
Let me make this very clear: No faith gets special treatment. It must be nice being so blissfully ignorant.
Any of them should have had a chance of having something put up there. Doesn't mean they should be up there in the first place, but that one didn't have more likelihood than another faith. Literally no idea what this even means.
It seems to have gone over your head again so I'll simplify it for you.
GOVERNMENT CANNOT FAVOUR ONE RELIGION OVER THE OTHER
GOVERNMENT + RELIGION = NO
SECULARISM
noun
1.
secular spirit or tendency, especially a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship.
2.
the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.
Make sure you read my replies to Max as well.
A government's appearance and how it actually operates aren't always the same.
Agreed, which is why we should always call them out for their bullshit, not handwave it off with half assed excuses.
The big thing here is you care what the government puts in the buildings, you care about their appearance.
I dont. I only care about how it operates.
Endorsing a religion is an operation.
Not even sure what conducting "in appearance" even is, but whatever. You clearly have no intentions of recognising the demonstrably unconstitutional practice of the government.
Conducting in appearance in this case, is simply how something looks. That government building now looks like it is endorsing Christianity.
But if it actually were doing that, it would pass laws, bills and other legislation to prove it was doing so. But they wont, because they aren't favoring a faith when it comes to the law and every citizen's rights.
You are right in saying that those words shouldn't be up there, but my point is they have no effect on the policies of the government as a whole.
I just dont see this particular act as a public endorsement of Christianity by the U.S government as a whole, which is where we disagree and will continue to do so.
TL:DR
Don't care about buildings, care about the legislation that comes out of them
Oh, you mean how we just spent decades treating gays like second-class citizens and denying them basic protections because the Bible says it's wrong?
Pretty sure Christians aren't the only ones who disapprove of homosexuality. And people in general were just put off to it back then. Those people vote, and they voted "no"
Don't act like Christianity is the sole cause of that.
The prevailing argument against lgbt equality is religious.
Prevailing. But not the only one, which you implied it was
8626
« on: July 15, 2015, 11:20:33 AM »
You must have misinterpreted my post. Where did I say Christianity gets special treatment? Nowhere? That's what I thought. No, but you have tacitly disregarded something so blatantly unconstitutional throughout this entire discussion. You might as well have at this point.
Let me make this very clear: No faith gets special treatment. It must be nice being so blissfully ignorant.
Any of them should have had a chance of having something put up there. Doesn't mean they should be up there in the first place, but that one didn't have more likelihood than another faith. Literally no idea what this even means.
It seems to have gone over your head again so I'll simplify it for you.
GOVERNMENT CANNOT FAVOUR ONE RELIGION OVER THE OTHER
GOVERNMENT + RELIGION = NO
SECULARISM
noun
1.
secular spirit or tendency, especially a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship.
2.
the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.
Make sure you read my replies to Max as well.
A government's appearance and how it actually operates aren't always the same.
Agreed, which is why we should always call them out for their bullshit, not handwave it off with half assed excuses.
The big thing here is you care what the government puts in the buildings, you care about their appearance.
I dont. I only care about how it operates.
Endorsing a religion is an operation.
Not even sure what conducting "in appearance" even is, but whatever. You clearly have no intentions of recognising the demonstrably unconstitutional practice of the government.
Conducting in appearance in this case, is simply how something looks. That government building now looks like it is endorsing Christianity.
But if it actually were doing that, it would pass laws, bills and other legislation to prove it was doing so. But they wont, because they aren't favoring a faith when it comes to the law and every citizen's rights.
You are right in saying that those words shouldn't be up there, but my point is they have no effect on the policies of the government as a whole.
I just dont see this particular act as a public endorsement of Christianity by the U.S government as a whole, which is where we disagree and will continue to do so.
TL:DR
Don't care about buildings, care about the legislation that comes out of them
Oh, you mean how we just spent decades treating gays like second-class citizens and denying them basic protections because the Bible says it's wrong?
Pretty sure Christians aren't the only ones who disapprove of homosexuality. And people in general were just put off to it back then. Those people vote, and they voted "no" Don't act like Christianity is the sole cause of that.
8627
« on: July 15, 2015, 11:11:20 AM »
You are going to die
8628
« on: July 15, 2015, 11:09:38 AM »
You must have misinterpreted my post. Where did I say Christianity gets special treatment? Nowhere? That's what I thought. No, but you have tacitly disregarded something so blatantly unconstitutional throughout this entire discussion. You might as well have at this point.
Let me make this very clear: No faith gets special treatment. It must be nice being so blissfully ignorant.
Any of them should have had a chance of having something put up there. Doesn't mean they should be up there in the first place, but that one didn't have more likelihood than another faith. Literally no idea what this even means.
It seems to have gone over your head again so I'll simplify it for you.
GOVERNMENT CANNOT FAVOUR ONE RELIGION OVER THE OTHER
GOVERNMENT + RELIGION = NO
SECULARISM
noun
1.
secular spirit or tendency, especially a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship.
2.
the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.
Make sure you read my replies to Max as well.
A government's appearance and how it actually operates aren't always the same.
Agreed, which is why we should always call them out for their bullshit, not handwave it off with half assed excuses.
The big thing here is you care what the government puts in the buildings, you care about their appearance.
I dont. I only care about how it operates.
Endorsing a religion is an operation.
Not even sure what conducting "in appearance" even is, but whatever. You clearly have no intentions of recognising the demonstrably unconstitutional practice of the government.
Conducting in appearance in this case, is simply how something looks. That government building now looks like it is endorsing Christianity. But if it actually were doing that, it would pass laws, bills and other legislation to prove it was doing so. But they wont, because they aren't favoring a faith when it comes to the law and every citizen's rights. You are right in saying that those words shouldn't be up there, but my point is they have no effect on the policies of the government as a whole. I just dont see this particular act as a public endorsement of Christianity by the U.S government as a whole, which is where we disagree and will continue to do so. TL:DR Don't care about buildings, care about the legislation that comes out of them
8629
« on: July 15, 2015, 11:03:00 AM »
Pdq's fries are bomb af
OMG STOP SHILLING ONLINE SO YOUR MANAGERS WILL PROMOTE YOU LIKE HOLY CRAP MAN YOU KNOW THEY DON'T COME ON HERE RIGHT?
8630
« on: July 15, 2015, 11:02:13 AM »
Jack in the Box has the best curly fries and Burger King has the worst fries overall.
I disagree on burger king
8631
« on: July 15, 2015, 11:00:41 AM »
A government's appearance and how it actually operates aren't always the same.
But it should strive to be the same. Appearances that are clearly contradictory to their actions should be done away with.
Well that is politics for you
The "meh, oh well" attitude is really fucking annoying. I wouldn't expect you to understand, though.
Awwww don't be passive aggressive mang
8632
« on: July 15, 2015, 10:59:20 AM »
You must have misinterpreted my post. Where did I say Christianity gets special treatment? Nowhere? That's what I thought. No, but you have tacitly disregarded something so blatantly unconstitutional throughout this entire discussion. You might as well have at this point.
Let me make this very clear: No faith gets special treatment. It must be nice being so blissfully ignorant.
Any of them should have had a chance of having something put up there. Doesn't mean they should be up there in the first place, but that one didn't have more likelihood than another faith. Literally no idea what this even means.
It seems to have gone over your head again so I'll simplify it for you.
GOVERNMENT CANNOT FAVOUR ONE RELIGION OVER THE OTHER
GOVERNMENT + RELIGION = NO
SECULARISM
noun
1.
secular spirit or tendency, especially a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship.
2.
the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.
Make sure you read my replies to Max as well.
A government's appearance and how it actually operates aren't always the same.
Agreed, which is why we should always call them out for their bullshit, not handwave it off with half assed excuses.
The big thing here is you care what the government puts in the buildings, you care about their appearance.
I dont. I only care about how it operates.
Openly favoring a religion by putting its words on your wall IS operation. They're spending time voting on this. They're spending money putting the words up. This is operation.
... I'm talking about laws and bills that actually affect the country here
8633
« on: July 15, 2015, 10:55:28 AM »
You must have misinterpreted my post. Where did I say Christianity gets special treatment? Nowhere? That's what I thought. No, but you have tacitly disregarded something so blatantly unconstitutional throughout this entire discussion. You might as well have at this point.
Let me make this very clear: No faith gets special treatment. It must be nice being so blissfully ignorant.
Any of them should have had a chance of having something put up there. Doesn't mean they should be up there in the first place, but that one didn't have more likelihood than another faith. Literally no idea what this even means.
It seems to have gone over your head again so I'll simplify it for you.
GOVERNMENT CANNOT FAVOUR ONE RELIGION OVER THE OTHER
GOVERNMENT + RELIGION = NO
SECULARISM
noun
1.
secular spirit or tendency, especially a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship.
2.
the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.
Make sure you read my replies to Max as well.
A government's appearance and how it actually operates aren't always the same.
Agreed, which is why we should always call them out for their bullshit, not handwave it off with half assed excuses.
The big thing here is you care what the government puts in the buildings, you care about their appearance. I dont. I only care about how it operates.
8634
« on: July 15, 2015, 10:54:32 AM »
A government's appearance and how it actually operates aren't always the same.
But it should strive to be the same. Appearances that are clearly contradictory to their actions should be done away with.
Well that is politics for you
8635
« on: July 15, 2015, 10:53:38 AM »
8636
« on: July 15, 2015, 10:51:55 AM »
You must have misinterpreted my post. Where did I say Christianity gets special treatment? Nowhere? That's what I thought. No, but you have tacitly disregarded something so blatantly unconstitutional throughout this entire discussion. You might as well have at this point.
Let me make this very clear: No faith gets special treatment. It must be nice being so blissfully ignorant.
Any of them should have had a chance of having something put up there. Doesn't mean they should be up there in the first place, but that one didn't have more likelihood than another faith. Literally no idea what this even means.
It seems to have gone over your head again so I'll simplify it for you.
GOVERNMENT CANNOT FAVOUR ONE RELIGION OVER THE OTHER
GOVERNMENT + RELIGION = NO
SECULARISM
noun
1.
secular spirit or tendency, especially a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship.
2.
the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.
Make sure you read my replies to Max as well. A government's appearance and how it actually operates aren't always the same.
8637
« on: July 15, 2015, 10:47:24 AM »
We literally have God on our currency. Doesn't belong there, either.
I'm not sure why religious folks feel the need to plaster their religious shit all over buildings, money, etc.
It's been around since 1864. And even so, it's still not a big deal. The U.S isn't making an announcement that Christianity is the official religion of the United States, or giving special treatment to Christians.
It's just a quote on a building, it could be one from a past President, Gandhi, anybody. But because it is this particular phrase......it matters?
America was founded on the principle of secularism.
Secularism means the separation of church and state so we don't end up devolving into a fascist fucking theocracy.
So yes, it is kind of a big deal seeing as how the government is disregarding the entire premise on which America was founded upon.
I'd imagine you wouldn't appreciate "In Allah We Trust" being printed on your dollar notes, so let's all buck up and start acting a little bit more consistent.
Yeah secularism. But that means Religious freedom for everyone, not an atheistic view of disapproval on all religious things.
Read my post above this one. I'm arguing that any phrase should have equal opportunity for being up there, not just one of the Christian faith.
As for it being a government building, how would you feel if the quote in place as instead a philosophical quote about Justice or something of that nature?
Exactly how is the state endorsing Christianity religious freedom? The government is NOT supposed to pick and choose which religion gets state approval. That's the antithesis of secularism.
Religious freedom is the right to practice religion without intervention of the state, both in a positive or a negative light. It does not mean state endorsement. This is not a difficult concept.
Not a difficult concept. But having this big of an issue over 4 words that don't affect you or how government operates is just silly to me.
So again, you wouldn't have a problem if it was a quote from Buddhist, Islamic or Jewish scripture? It's just 4 words, isn't it?
I actually wouldnt. But you stated earlier that I would have a problem with that since I'm a Christian. So you've already made up your mind on that.
Government favouring a religion that you don't adhere to doesn't bother you in the slightest? Sure thing bucko.
You are in absolutely no position to complain when government starts infringing on your rights then, seeing as how you have no problem with them infringing on others. Gonna hold you to this in the future.
You must have misinterpreted my post. Where did I say Christianity gets special treatment? Nowhere? That's what I thought.
Let me make this very clear: No faith gets special treatment. Any of them should have had a chance of having something put up there. Doesn't mean they should be up there in the first place, but that one didn't have more likelihood than another faith.
Which is exactly why this is dumb. Either the city council chambers observers EACH and EVERY religion that could possibly exist, or they observe none of them. The former is a waste of time, space, and taxpayer money.
I don't disagree. I'm just not concerned with how a government appears, I suppose.
8638
« on: July 15, 2015, 10:46:18 AM »
We literally have God on our currency. Doesn't belong there, either.
I'm not sure why religious folks feel the need to plaster their religious shit all over buildings, money, etc.
It's been around since 1864. And even so, it's still not a big deal. The U.S isn't making an announcement that Christianity is the official religion of the United States, or giving special treatment to Christians.
It's just a quote on a building, it could be one from a past President, Gandhi, anybody. But because it is this particular phrase......it matters?
America was founded on the principle of secularism.
Secularism means the separation of church and state so we don't end up devolving into a fascist fucking theocracy.
So yes, it is kind of a big deal seeing as how the government is disregarding the entire premise on which America was founded upon.
I'd imagine you wouldn't appreciate "In Allah We Trust" being printed on your dollar notes, so let's all buck up and start acting a little bit more consistent.
Yeah secularism. But that means Religious freedom for everyone, not an atheistic view of disapproval on all religious things.
Read my post above this one. I'm arguing that any phrase should have equal opportunity for being up there, not just one of the Christian faith.
As for it being a government building, how would you feel if the quote in place as instead a philosophical quote about Justice or something of that nature?
Exactly how is the state endorsing Christianity religious freedom? The government is NOT supposed to pick and choose which religion gets state approval. That's the antithesis of secularism.
Religious freedom is the right to practice religion without intervention of the state, both in a positive or a negative light. It does not mean state endorsement. This is not a difficult concept.
Not a difficult concept. But having this big of an issue over 4 words that don't affect you or how government operates is just silly to me.
So again, you wouldn't have a problem if it was a quote from Buddhist, Islamic or Jewish scripture? It's just 4 words, isn't it?
I actually wouldnt. But you stated earlier that I would have a problem with that since I'm a Christian. So you've already made up your mind on that.
Government favouring a religion that you don't adhere to doesn't bother you in the slightest? Sure thing bucko.
You are in absolutely no position to complain when government starts infringing on your rights then, seeing as how you have no problem having them infringing on others. Gonna hold you to this in the future.
A Christian in the US isn't able to understand what it's like to see your secular government favoring religion, because our government currently favors Christians. Everything a Christian here sees is a happy confirmation of their beliefs. They basically run our country, and make up 3/4 of our population.
They simply don't know.
I'd be lying if I said that Christians haven't gotten special treatment t in the past. That particular faith has been very large in this country since the beginning really. So it's not just seen as a faith, but a heritage and tradition for the country. Doesn't make it right. And that is slowly changing.
8639
« on: July 15, 2015, 10:43:25 AM »
We literally have God on our currency. Doesn't belong there, either.
I'm not sure why religious folks feel the need to plaster their religious shit all over buildings, money, etc.
It's been around since 1864. And even so, it's still not a big deal. The U.S isn't making an announcement that Christianity is the official religion of the United States, or giving special treatment to Christians.
It's just a quote on a building, it could be one from a past President, Gandhi, anybody. But because it is this particular phrase......it matters?
America was founded on the principle of secularism.
Secularism means the separation of church and state so we don't end up devolving into a fascist fucking theocracy.
So yes, it is kind of a big deal seeing as how the government is disregarding the entire premise on which America was founded upon.
I'd imagine you wouldn't appreciate "In Allah We Trust" being printed on your dollar notes, so let's all buck up and start acting a little bit more consistent.
Yeah secularism. But that means Religious freedom for everyone, not an atheistic view of disapproval on all religious things.
Read my post above this one. I'm arguing that any phrase should have equal opportunity for being up there, not just one of the Christian faith.
As for it being a government building, how would you feel if the quote in place as instead a philosophical quote about Justice or something of that nature?
Exactly how is the state endorsing Christianity religious freedom? The government is NOT supposed to pick and choose which religion gets state approval. That's the antithesis of secularism.
Religious freedom is the right to practice religion without intervention of the state, both in a positive or a negative light. It does not mean state endorsement. This is not a difficult concept.
Not a difficult concept. But having this big of an issue over 4 words that don't affect you or how government operates is just silly to me.
So again, you wouldn't have a problem if it was a quote from Buddhist, Islamic or Jewish scripture? It's just 4 words, isn't it?
I actually wouldnt. But you stated earlier that I would have a problem with that since I'm a Christian. So you've already made up your mind on that.
Government favouring a religion that you don't adhere to doesn't bother you in the slightest? Sure thing bucko.
You are in absolutely no position to complain when government starts infringing on your rights then, seeing as how you have no problem with them infringing on others. Gonna hold you to this in the future.
You must have misinterpreted my post. Where did I say Christianity gets special treatment? Nowhere? That's what I thought. Let me make this very clear: No faith gets special treatment. Any of them should have had a chance of having something put up there. Doesn't mean they should be up there in the first place, but that one didn't have more likelihood than another faith.
8640
« on: July 15, 2015, 10:40:46 AM »
We literally have God on our currency. Doesn't belong there, either.
I'm not sure why religious folks feel the need to plaster their religious shit all over buildings, money, etc.
It's been around since 1864.
And this justifies it because...?
And even so, it's still not a big deal. I think it's a big enough deal to talk about when a group of people force their religion on an entire country.
The U.S isn't making an announcement that Christianity is the official religion of the United States, or giving special treatment to Christians. So putting Christian scripture in government buildings and on currency isn't special treatment?
It's just a quote on a building, A government building. It represents the country. It makes America look like a Christian nation. It isn't. Your religion is irrelevant and it isn't wanted or needed by America. Keep it to yourself and your churches where it belongs.
it could be one from a past President, Gandhi, anybody. I don't know about you, but if a quote from an Indian man was in an American government building, I'd have a problem with that.
Phrases need to be secular. No people or religion should get special treatment.
But because it is this particular phrase......it matters? It matters that it says "In god we trust" when in fact, no, we do not all trust in your imaginary sky wizard.
I don't even know why I'm bothering with you, you're biased beyond belief and you're a die hard Christian who (like every other Christian) puts on the tolerant act but then has no problem forcing his religion into other people's lives.
I'm more of appealing to the whole free speech argument. I didn't say only Christian things should be allowed, I'm saying that everybody's word should have its stat.
But the whole free speech thing doesn't apply to the government. It doesn't have a religion. It doesn't have speech to protect.
The thing is, you have an issue with an appearance, not a function. The government put this phrase up, but is that affecting how the government is treating you because of it?
Again, it's like hating the color of a building but loving the work done inside. It's an appearance problem.
You can't be secular with phrases about God on your walls, your money, etc.
Is whether the government is secular or not determined by the way it's buildings and currency look, or by the laws and actions it carries out?
Both equally, obviously.
I disagree. A government can appear one way and operate the other. I'm sure other governments have done this in the past. Should a government endorse a religion? No. Is the government doing so by putting this phrase up? No. But it looks like it is. That's my point. The government won't change how it operates overnight due to this happening. So not a big deal. And that's all I've really got to say on that.
Pages: 1 ... 286287288 289290 ... 763
|
Show Posts