Oligo

It's from a movie I once saw. This owner of a defence contractor company said: "And then we will have a delicious little war." Funny, I think.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (R. Gerschwarzenge @ July 12 2002,08:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I would like to have some implants under my skin some day.<span id='postcolor'> Functional implants would be cool. I'd love to have a neural interface chip in my nervous system. It would be cool to drive a car with the power of thought alone. Here is something on the subject.

So far there isn't a cure for ANY viral disease whatsoever. All we can do is ease the symptoms and let the immune system of the patient kill the viruses. If antiviral drugs are ever developed, I doubt HIV (with the nasty mutating tendencies) is the first one to be tackled.

Could it be that this starts a delicious little war...

Do you understand how much money the drug companies have invested on research and development to come up with the AIDS drugs? How the hell are they going to finance the development of the next generation of drugs, if they give the current drugs out for free?

I hope they use squash head munitions or baton rounds or something. I'd hate to see somebody blow holes through the hull of a passenger jet.

Ok, Duke already said that homosexuality is an awful sin. But what do you think, Paratrooper, as a christian? Or Ale2999, do you think like Duke on the subject? Another thing, what do you all think about divorce? It's banned in the bible, isn't it? Anyway, what Duke said just underlines my point. How can there be any moral evolution or cultural evolution, if everything is set in stone (or in the bible)?

One drawback caused by the overt reliance on bible by "real" christians is the stagnation of moral evolution. This causes real harm, for example christians here in Finland furiously oppose any "relationship registration" rights for homosexuals. Luckily a majority of people was enlightened enough not to let some book hinder their moral judgement and the relationship registration law was passed. I mean, whom do the homosexuals harm? What the hell does it matter if they can get married?

"Fly our nation's flag proudly - it represents this world's greatest hope to move beyond the pain and suffering that inflict so many across the globe." This is total bullshit. U.S. is not 'this world's greatest hope'. It's just one of many hopes and with all these extremist movements growing up inside it, I fear that something wicked might happen. Let's hope not.

Funnily, there is an old finnish saying: "Lukee kuin piru raamattua." That translates roughly as "To read like the devil reads the bible." The inherent message of this saying is that you should not take anything you read TOO literally, like the devil would of course do when reading the bible and searching for loopholes. I fear that taking the bible too literally is not a good thing as proven by Jack Chick's nice page.

1) "We're not good, they're not evil, everything is relative." Listen carefully: We're good, they're evil, nothing is relative. Say it with me now and free yourselves. Tex: I think I was trying to suggest something about the duality of man, sir. DoR: The what? Tex: The duality of man. The Jungian thing, sir. DoR: Whose side are you on, son? Tex: Our side, sir. DoR: Don't you love your country? Tex: Yes, sir. DoR: Then how about getting with the program? Why don't you jump on the team and come on in for the big win? Tex: Yes, sir! DoR: Son, all I've ever asked of my marines is that they obey my orders as they would the word of God. We are here to help the Vietnamese, because inside every gook there is an American trying to get out. It's a hardball world, son. We've gotta keep our heads until this peace craze blows over. Tex: Aye-aye, sir.

Heh. I stumbled upon this neat site. Check out all those educational comics. I especially loved "In the beginning", "The deceived", "The letter", "Big daddy" and "Doom town". And look at all that LOVE on the face of the people... Â

Paratrooper: "I'm not a fanatic, but that is one of the most offencive things I have ever heard. How dare you compare Christianity to bestiality!" I just love these modern times of ours. Just say the magic word "offended" and everybody is supposed to yield before your offended might. And I didn't even try to "offend" you. <sigh> I'm not so much comparing as I am pointing out that these both are among the many different things that people rely on to live through another day. People do some weird stuff for kicks. Also, each of these many things are often important merely to the particular person who relies on the particular thing to boost him through his days. Now when the person in question starts to enlighten other people of the thing that he does, these other people often feel bored/enraged/disgusted/tired to hear all this preaching which is mere crap to them.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ July 04 2002,14:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you want to believe what you want, that's just fine. If you are trying to pursuade people to adapt a certain view on the world then you have to show some evidence to convince them.<span id='postcolor'> Or you can also kill all the non-believers, because "idolatry is worse than carnage".

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ July 04 2002,14:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When you have faith it is important to communicate it, that is what religion is.<span id='postcolor'> I just saw a (american) documentary of people, who fuck animals. They lived with dogs and horses and whatnot and fucked the animals. They said they loved the animals and that sex (with animals) is a normal manifestation of love. Notice I wrote "they said". Because these people were indeed in a documentary, broadcasting to the entire world that they fuck animals and it is ok. So I guess when you have faith it is important to communicate it, that is what bestiality is. But a newsflash: Nobody wants to know what it is that you do for kicks! Believe in gods or unicorns, do drugs, booze, jerk off, do yoga, bang your head against a wall, pretend you're Peter Pan, fuck animals, but SHUT UP ABOUT IT. You make other people uncomfortable or sick.

8--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ July 04 2002,148)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Its not a matter of proof, its a matter of an experience of God, one can not pass on experience. Intelectual arguments on the subject of religion collapse due to this, as I believe we have seen here.<span id='postcolor'> Look, intellectual arguments only collapse, because the religious side fails to follow the rules of intellectual debate. Instead, they turn to preaching. I guess I'll have to put it really bluntly. People use a variety of means to get through life happily, some more succesfull than others. Some people booze, some people do drugs, some people jerk off, some people believe in god, etc... I wish the believers would be like those who masturbate for kicks: Not cramming their "kick" down the throats of others, who do not want to hear it. So believe all you want. I do not care. But when you're in an intellectual debate, you have to follow the rules. You have to provide concrete evidence. Comments like: "Last time I did LSD I experienced the presence of John Lennon and he is like the god and is like alive and stuff. I believe it since I experienced it" do not fit into an intellectual debate, unless you can provide more proof than your "experience". SUMMARY: Believe what you want, but keep it to yourself. Others do not want to hear your beliefs no more than they want to hear you're jerking off everyday wearing a bra and a pogostick crammed up your arse. In an intellectual debate, you have to follow the rules of logic. If you want to involve your beliefs, you have to provide evidence.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ July 04 2002,12:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But this presupposes that your position is correct and his is wrong and based on non existant events(youmust surely concede that if Jesus christ actually died on the cross for the sake of our immortal souls it would not be a platitude) the burden may lie with the religionist to provide proof, but >you< cannot provide concrete proof that Jesus did not die on the cross for all of us, and indeed if that was/is the case then 'Dukes' argument would be both profound in the depth of it meaning and beautiful in its simplicity. You are presuming automatically that you are completly right and he is completly wrong, based on what? a hunch.... that Jesus did not die on the cross for our immortal souls? the bible can be interpreted from any number of perspectives but that is apparently not 'Dukes' interest. He has a firm perspective on the bible and holds certain truths to be self evident. That there is a God. That the son of God is 'Jesus', and that this Jesus fellow died on the cross 'for us'. Can you >prove< any of these beliefs in and of themselves to be wrong?<span id='postcolor'> The burden of proof lays with the one who claims that something, like God or Jesus, exists (or existed). This is not only a scientific principle, it is also a principle of common sense. An example of this: Somebody comes to you and says: "I saw a unicorn in my garden and I have here a book describing various activities by unicorns (a fairy tale book), so unicorns exist." Now is it your responsibility to prove him wrong or is it his resposibility to provide more evidence, before the existence of unicorns accepted as a fact? Both scientific principle and common sense dictate it is his job to provide more bang for his claims. Same works for religion. The burden of proof is definitely on the side of those who claim gods and whatnot exist. The only reason people use such ridiculous statements as "can you prove god does not exist?" is that the hypothesis of god's existence has been around so long that people treat it as a special case. Common sense no longer applies, which is incidentally how people act when they are doing something in the name of religion.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ July 04 2002,10:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If I was assaulted by a police canine however, I would surrender in any way possible. Killing a police dog isnt exactly helping your case.<span id='postcolor'> You can always claim that you hysterically fear dogs. Since this is a common thing, no court would give you shit for wasting that police dog.

Oh, I've read your posts, every single one. Even when they look like copies of each other.

Why using dogs to hunt people is disgusting: Dog is the first animal domesticated by man. This happened a very long time ago and thus the relationship between our two species has grown from mere symbiosis to something resembling a friendship. Man and dog are connected much more deeply than man and any other animal. That's why majority of people find eating dogs so disguting for example. Dogs, for some reason, are manifestations of loyalty. And because of that, they'll do whatever they are taught and told to do. They even participate in our petty fights and squabbles, loyally biting and assaulting whoever they are told and loyally taking the bullet. They do this, even if it is not their fight (not even a fight of their entire species). For a person getting assaulted by a dog however, this whole friendship thing makes no difference. He only observes that an animal has attacked him, it really makes no difference whether it is a dog or a mountain lion. He cannot know if the animal is trained to not to kill him. He only knows that this animal is more than capable of killing him and that there is no certainty whatsoever that is has some kind of social constraints not to use deadly force. A human police officer can of course be safely assumed to posses said social constraints, because they mostly posses them. So to sum it up: 1. It is not their fight but ours. We should handle our disputes without involving dogs in it. 2. The trauma caused by getting hunted by a dog is way greater than getting hunted by people. I love dogs. But if I was assaulted by a canine, I would do all in my power to incapacitate or kill it. I would not wait and see whether it just chews my leg or rips my throat out.

Maybe the stupid handler shouldn't have ordered the dog to attack a 12 year old girl. Looks bad to people who do not know the background of things. I say the dog was not to blame nor the officers who shot it, but the handler blew it. Besides, using dogs for hunting people is disgusting.

Denoir, you said it. The similarities are astounding.

Duke: "Why cant yall just see that Jesus loves you? I am not trying to judge yall, but help yall. I want you al to go to Heaven and not hell." Not everybody wants to go to heaven or hell. Some people do not believe such things exist, thus they are not frightened/comforted by the concepts. "Jesus died for you! Who else has done so much for you??? Jesus died to save us from eternal death and our sins." Nobody has died personally for just me, but I know a lot of males from a couple of generations back who died in wars to secure an independent state for my generation. So technically they died for me and the others. Also, I'm sure there are a lot of people out there who are alive only because somebody saved them with the cost of their own life. Thus, what Jesus supposedly did is nothing special at all. "You may ask what is the meaning of life, well the meaning of life is to do God's will, which is to accept Him and to obey Him, please ask God into your life, not for me, but for your own good." It might be your ultimate high to submit yourself to an authority figure, but again, not everybody finds this to be a bliss. Some people like to be in charge of their own life. These people do not want to be sheep, who baa to the tune of some authority figure. These are the reasons I'm not touched by your sermons. My landscape of thought is just so different from yours. What works for you, does not work for me.

Longinius, you're almost reaching my level of sarcasm!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (USSoldier11B @ July 03 2002,07:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I live it. 95% crap, 5% fun<span id='postcolor'> Ok, I have to point out that I only served in an army that last fought during WWII, but I feel exactly like you do about it. In the armed forces, 95% is crap (=parades, cleaning up stuff, kissing officer ass, classes about duty and honor and shite, etc.) and 5% is fun (=guns and ammo and the nature).