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 - Mad Max
Pages: 1 ... 293031 3233 ... 251
901
« on: July 18, 2015, 02:29:16 AM »
Max has the right idea. Executing him or keeping him in deplorable conditions would just make us as bad as him.
Bullshit. Justice being served is never bad, plus executing one man is nowhere near the damage he caused. Don't be so foolish and sentimental.
>calling execution justice Lolol
902
« on: July 17, 2015, 09:38:43 PM »
What, would you rather they treat him like a slave and have him to manual labor for life?
It's called basic human decency.
Sorry, but after he bombs innocent people, and then goes to a Summer Camp to murder dozens more, he doesn't deserve any human decency or sympathy. He's even full of glee after murdering all those people.
Ah, because stooping to his level makes us better than him. Gotcha.
903
« on: July 17, 2015, 09:33:34 PM »
What, would you rather they treat him like a slave and have him to manual labor for life?
It's called basic human decency.
904
« on: July 17, 2015, 04:57:19 PM »
That's funny, because who the raving, fundamentalist zealots are changes depending on which side you're asking.
We generally know better than to ask Stormfront about these things, Max.
..the fuck is Stormfront?
905
« on: July 17, 2015, 02:37:36 PM »
A lot of those other conflicts are based on the same foundation: civilisation vs. fundamentalist Islam. It's no use ignoring Israel and Hamas if you can't ignore Kurdistan, Iraq, Syria, Boko Haram, the various terrorist attacks in Western countries et cetera.
And I think, both morally and for your own intellectual sake, one can't ignore any of those conflicts totally. Or, at least, you must affirm your position on the right side of the divide. Those who do not stand with us stand against us by default, there is no neutrality in this war. I don't know how I can be expected to just pick a side when
1. I don't know the entire history of the country (though you could argue that the onus is on me to educate myself, even though I truthfully just don't care at all)
2. The entire issue is so convoluted and difficult to follow, mostly because I don't know where to look, considering every single source I find is gonna have some bias towards one side--some details of every article are gonna be conveniently left out
3. Both sides seem to have a very strong case. If Israel is being attacked, they have the right to defend themselves. But if Palestine is being oppressed, they have the right to be upset about that.
4. There's still other pertinent shit to be worrying about and discussing--especially as someone who lives nowhere near the Middle East.
And even when you account for the fact that both sides have a very strong case--it doesn't matter to these people. You're a fucking idiot if you support Israel, you're a fucking idiot if you support Palestine, and you're a fucking idiot if you don't care and refuse to pick a side because no conflict should be happening in the first place. Anywhere, ever.
Though if you really want me to pick a side, I guess it would be Israel, arbitrarily, because out of all the articles I've read, I tend to sympathize with them more.
Logically speaking, if I cared to look into it more, I'd end up "siding" with the ones who are taking the least measures to harm innocent people, and whose cause is the least religiously motivated. So... Israel. I think.
You don't need to understand convoluted historical or sociological trends to understand that one side is comprised of raving, fundamentalist zealots and the other largely isn't.
That's the only dividing line you really need.
That's funny, because who the raving, fundamentalist zealots are changes depending on which side you're asking.
906
« on: July 16, 2015, 11:27:24 PM »
I've never seen any of the Mad Max films, as ironic as that is.
uh
what's the story behind your name, then
I honestly don't remember. My internet usernames have been a variation of it for years now, I've forgotten its origin.
907
« on: July 16, 2015, 11:21:13 PM »
I've never seen any of the Mad Max films, as ironic as that is.
908
« on: July 16, 2015, 11:03:12 PM »
What does Canada even contribute to the world? Besides really good musicians. It's nice and all but the taxes and pricing of goods seems terrible.
Doesn't the US get most of its oil from Canada?
I don't really count natural resources. More like cultural, scientific, technological, and entertainment contributions when I judge these things.
You don't count one of the world's most sought-after resources as a contribution? C'mon son.
909
« on: July 16, 2015, 03:28:39 PM »
The problem with the system was the system.
. . . That's just fucking facile.
That's like saying "the problem with crime is that it's crime". You either being deliberately obtuse, or you really didn't understand what I meant when I said without throwing out the whole system. I mean you could tweak it and get some very positive results without going overboard and just going down a different route entirely.
such as? the number of tweaks we'd need to make would result in a new system.
910
« on: July 16, 2015, 03:19:55 PM »
I don't think you understand how fucking shit our healthcare system was before the ACA Yeah, I do. But so what? Doesn't mean you throw it all to the wind and go single-payer "just 'cause". Hell, you could probably make several reforms to the US healthcare system to improve it drastically, without changing the entire system.
The problem with the system was the system.
911
« on: July 16, 2015, 03:01:10 PM »
Supporting single payer healthcare is lunatic-level, now?
I was thinking more about his minimum wage proposals, but yeah single-payer is pretty fucking crappy at the end of the day. If Britain can't administer a single-payer system with any competence, then the US government sure as shit can't. SHI systems like those in Germany have much better outcomes, usually for lower costs.
I don't think you understand how fucking shit our healthcare system was before the ACA, and we've only taken a baby step since implementing it.
912
« on: July 16, 2015, 02:56:54 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.
Having religious motto's on government buildings is enough to path way to more religious things being in something they don't belong in. One day it's this motto and the next day they're forcing it by teaching about the bible in public schools. Religion shouldn't have any appearance on or in government related things and if it does it shouldn't be targeting a single one out of all the religions we have in this country.
Yet when Christians say stuff like this, it's a "slippery slope fallacy"
Less slippery slope, more turd in the kiddie pool. One little poop and it ruins the whole thing.
913
« on: July 16, 2015, 02:55:37 PM »
For people who don't believe in God atheists sure are afraid of him.
"Your shit doesn't belong on government buildings" =/= afraid of God
914
« on: July 16, 2015, 02:53:44 PM »
Sanders calling for single payer healthcare and raising the minimum wage.
Sanders is still a fucking lunatic for both of those things.
And then of course there's all the HURR DURR WALL STREET rhetoric that he doesn't stop with, and his bullshit infrastructure and tax plans. Trump is just par the course when it comes to the Republicans, and so is Sanders with the Democrats. Trump is no doubt more reprehensible as a person, but that's just because he's picked the conservative poison; Sanders' liberal poison is no less toxic.
Supporting single payer healthcare is lunatic-level, now? holy shit fuck. I give up.
915
« on: July 16, 2015, 02:20:56 PM »
What does Canada even contribute to the world? Besides really good musicians. It's nice and all but the taxes and pricing of goods seems terrible.
Doesn't the US get most of its oil from Canada?
916
« on: July 16, 2015, 02:01:27 PM »
There's "I disagree", then there's "HOLY SHIT Y'ALL HAVE GONE OFF THE DEEP END" which the GOP clearly has.
Yeah, but when I look at it, both sides have gone off the deep end. You only think you haven't gone of the deep end because we're discussing your chosen candidate, which exactly the same thought process Trump supporters have.
2016 is just looking to be a shit election year all round at this rate (although, as Icy said, it could all change), because neither side can see just how fucking nuts they are. If it ends up with the presidency being a race between Sanders and Trump (which I highly doubt, but I wouldn't rule it out, per se) and were I American I'd just vote for a third party.
Pretty tough to equate the two. Trump, who is calling illegals rapists and such, is far from the same as Sanders calling for single payer healthcare and raising the minimum wage.
917
« on: July 16, 2015, 12:03:11 PM »
And republicans talk shit about democrats supporting hillary or bernie.
lol.
Sit the fuck down.
How does one wrong justify another wrong?
Both sides are being fucking dumb at the moment.
There's "I disagree", then there's "HOLY SHIT Y'ALL HAVE GONE OFF THE DEEP END" which the GOP clearly has.
918
« on: July 16, 2015, 11:21:27 AM »
And republicans talk shit about democrats supporting hillary or bernie.
lol.
Sit the fuck down.
919
« on: July 15, 2015, 07:21:08 PM »
I got a new bat in the mail today... 
920
« on: July 15, 2015, 02:53:51 PM »
Rocketman how are you not getting this.
U.S=secular
Christian words do not belong on government buildings.
Christian guys want "in god we trust" to be put on government building.
Max=atheist
Max does not believe in the Christian faith and does not want his taxpayer money wasted on something that he doesn't agree with and doesn't belong there anyway.
Rocketman doesn't care because having such a phrase on a building is in alignment with his beliefs.
921
« on: July 15, 2015, 12:24:42 PM »
We still need to get rid of the religious text on other shit. Hopefully this doesn't pass.
It will. My pocket of Orange County is super republican and super religious.
922
« on: July 15, 2015, 11:32:29 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
Well when an overwhelming majority of your country is Christian, and Christians are against gays...well...you do the math.
923
« on: July 15, 2015, 11:23:55 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.
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.
924
« on: July 15, 2015, 11:12:35 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?
925
« on: July 15, 2015, 11:04:05 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
Literally every action our government takes effects our country. Even moreso at the state and local level.
926
« on: July 15, 2015, 10:57:25 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.
927
« on: July 15, 2015, 10:56:33 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.
928
« on: July 15, 2015, 10:53:52 AM »
A government's appearance and how it actually operates aren't always the same.
But it should strive to be the same, or as close as possible. Appearances that are clearly contradictory to their actions should be done away with.
929
« on: July 15, 2015, 10:48:51 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.
Of course you aren't, because the government appears to favor you. You'll give a shit when it doesn't.
930
« on: July 15, 2015, 10:45:17 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.
Pages: 1 ... 293031 3233 ... 251
|
Show Posts