Don't fuck it up.

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on September 30, 2014, 01:14:09 AM

Damn gurl, is that in Glendale?

Nope, it's actually on Mill Ave. In one of the alleys there's a gazebo that we decorated with just some lights and candles.

Any non-imgur pics? My computer hates imgur and won't show any pictures linked to it.

Sure, I just host them there to get rid of EXIF data from Facebook. Give me a sec, I'll edit this post.

In order:

Go on a triple date with Mr. and Mrs Charlie and Mr. and Mrs. Brute

I totally would. Max can come along as the seventh wheel.

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on September 29, 2014, 10:40:11 AM

Quote from: Risay117 on September 29, 2014, 10:33:26 AM

Do not make it to pompous and keep it sentimental. Her characteristics i am not sure but sometimes doing too much will make it cringeworthy.

Maybe something private maybe at your place, something special or on a lake at night or make the snow a part of the setting for when you propose, if it snows soon enough.

We're in AZ so it definitely won't snow. It's still in the 90s here. It's going to be small and private, the gazebo is hidden behind some shops and is really low-traffic.

Perfect.
Does she know?

We're already planning the wedding, but so far this is a surprise.

Do not make it to pompous and keep it sentimental. Her characteristics i am not sure but sometimes doing too much will make it cringeworthy.

Maybe something private maybe at your place, something special or on a lake at night or make the snow a part of the setting for when you propose, if it snows soon enough.

We're in AZ so it definitely won't snow. It's still in the 90s here. It's going to be small and private, the gazebo is hidden behind some shops and is really low-traffic.

Mr. and Ms. Turkey, circa 2009:


Mr and Ms. Turkey, Fall 2013:


The ring: Heart-shaped .41 kt diamond in white gold (moderate visibility, low inclusion):


Sorry for potato quality on the ring picture, but you get the jist. It's going down in a gazebo we used to go to all the time, friends will be there and they'll have candles and decoration. Shit's getting real, Sep7.

We're planning on December, a few days after I commission into the Navy and graduate college. Any advice would be great, but I really just wanted to share this with people.

Unity sounds fun in the sense that they're bringing back a lot of stealth and assassination, supposedly. But it's also got this weird RPG feel that I'm not super happy about.

I'm pretty active in a couple churches and really disagree with the idea that fundamentalism is growing — in fact, I'd assert the opposite. You see a ton of compromise and watering-down of doctrine in modern churches.

The point is, I can identify that which is socially undesirable without needing a divine superintendent.

Seems like you're on a bit of a Bertrand Russell kick lately, so I like seeing you post this. Here's an excerpt of a speech from a favorite speaker of mine, Ravi Zacharias:

Let me narrate an interaction I had with a student at the University of Nottingham in England. As soon as I finished one of my lectures, he shot up from his seat and blurted out rather angrily, "There is too much evil in this world; therefore, there cannot be a God." I asked him to remain standing and answer a few questions for me. I said, "If there is such a thing as evil, aren't you assuming there is such a thing as good?" He paused, reflected, and said, "I guess so." "If there is such a thing as good," I countered, you must affirm a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil."

I reminded him of the debate between the philosopher Frederick Copleston and the atheist Bertrand Russell. At one point in the debate, Copleston said, "Mr. Russell, you do believe in good and bad, don't you?" Russell answered, "Yes I do." "How do you differentiate between them?" challenged Copleston. Russell shrugged his shoulders as he was wont to do in philosophical dead ends for him and said, "The same way I differentiate between yellow and blue." Copleston graciously responded and said, "But Mr. Russell, you differentiate between yellow and blue by seeing, don't you? How do you differentiate between good and bad?" Russell, with all of his genius still within reach, gave the most vapid answer he could have given: "On the basis of feeling-what else?" I must confess, Mr. Copleston was a kindlier gentleman than many others. The appropriate "logical kill" for the moment would have been, Mr. Russell, in some cultures they love their neighbors; in others they eat them, both on the basis of feeling. Do you have any preference?"

If you're going to claim that an act is moral or immoral then you have to take the consequence with the propriety.

Again, this goes back to whose philosophy is defining your morality. Kant would wholeheartedly disagree with your statement here.

Thus, you've failed to answer the question of what a religious person can do, which is moral, which an atheist cannot do. Conversion simply doesn't count because lying to people isn't a moral act.

Of course I've failed. You want me to explain from your moral perspective why my moral perspective justifies something, and that's incredibly difficult without having a very long time to study your views. From my perspective, it's good to educate people on the reality of God, though I assert that in a more general form, many world views would consider it good to educate others on what is right because of the consequence of such actions and its contribution to that person.

Your question is irrelevant, though. As I said, I don't believe conversion to a religion magically turns you into a moral superhuman; an atheist is capable of the same deeds, in rhetoric and in action, as a religious person. There are numerous examples in the Bible of non-believers conveying the truth of the scripture. My example was just showing how being a believer would be conducive to the goal. If it's good to teach someone of morality, then that could be true for Kant, or Hume, or Russell. It's a pointless question because it presumes that religious people claim they have access to more good actions than atheists, which isn't true.

It's just rhetoric; convincing somebody of a viewpoint. This cannot, in any real, meaningful sense, be considered a moral act. As far as it goes, it is, at best, perfectly amoral.

Imagine you're walking across the Golden Gate Bridge late at night, and you see someone standing next to rail. You walk to them and ask if anything is wrong. They tell you they are seriously considering killing themselves that night. You explain to them the value in life and the joy of living that outweighs any temporary suffering, and far outweighs immediate death. They turn away from the rail, thank you, and return home to seek counseling in the morning.

Now by your account, this may not be considered a good, moral act. It'd merely be amoral, as it's simply rhetorical. Of course it depends on which of the myriad philosophers you're allowing to define what is a good, moral act for you, but I don't see how rhetoric can't be good.

Are there no adoption contracts that you sign to ensure that this doesn't happen? Something assuring you of the adoption and of set payments for certain things?

“Materials should promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free enterprise system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights. Materials should not encourage or condone civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law.

I largely support all of this. 

Instructional materials should present positive aspects of the United States and its heritage.”

I don't support whitewashing history. Yeah, it was right to protest this.

So... did he raise his latte to them or something?

Or do a Nazi Salute whilst drinking one?

If I'm to believe the media, he splashed the searing hot coffee on one of the officers, then flipped off the other while goosestepping and shouting 'sieg heil' to the tune of Muslim prayer music.