Messages

http://www.okcupid.com/profile/fnordian_slip

They're gonna repossess his trike.

Toddlers Racing Bikes On Sidewalk Struck An Old Woman, Who Later Died, And Now May Be Held Accountable For Their Negligence

(CBS)  A "bright line" has been drawn for future negligence cases by New York State Supreme Court Justice Paul Wooten, who ruled this week that 4-year-olds approaching their fifth birthday are not "presumed incapable of negligence," The New York Times reports.

Justice Wooten was referring in this case to Juliet Breitman, who had been racing her training-wheel-laden bike against fellow toddler Jacob Kohn on East 52nd Street in Manhattan two years ago when they struck 87-year-old Claire Menagh. The elderly woman suffered a hip fracture and died three weeks later.

Ms. Menagh's estate sued the children and their parents, who had been supervising the kids at the time of the accident, claiming negligence on everyone's behalf. Breitman and her mother's lawyer, James P. Tyrie, sought to dismiss the suit against the toddler by arguing that the girl was not "engaged in an adult activity" at the time of the accident - "She was riding her bicycle with training wheels under the supervision of her mother" - and was too young to be held liable for negligence, the Times reports. Kohn and his mother did not seek to dismiss the suit.

Tyrie argued that the precedent had been set by previous courts who have held that "an infant under the age of 4 is conclusively presumed to be incapable of negligence."

Justice Wooten, however, ultimately disagreed with Tyrie's arguments, noting that Breitman was three months shy of her fifth birthday at the time of the accident. The Gothamist reports that Justice Wooten's ruling stated: "A parent's presence alone does not give a reasonable child carte blanche to engage in risky behavior such as running across the street. A reasonably prudent child, whom we may presume has been told repeatedly by the age of four to look both ways before crossing a street, knows that running across a street is dangerous even if there is a parent nearby." And furthermore, the defense failed to prove any "lack of intelligence or maturity" or anything to "indicate that another child of similar age and capacity under the circumstances could not have reasonably appreciated the danger of riding a bicycle into an elderly woman."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/10/29/national/main7003546.shtml

The obvious solution

O gods I love you guys.     You're all bitches.

http://www.okcupid.com/profile/StripperClown

Aw, and here I was trying to stir interest in helping you.  You've done it now.  I know you were lashing out in hurt and anger, but you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, you know.

Wait.  No you don't. 

You admit ignorance, yet still think you're right and I'm wrong because your friend refers to his/herself as Hindu. Because obviously, your friend knows more about it than someone who studies it. Right.

Do I have to think you're wrong to think I'm right?  Here's a hint:  No.

Okay. If you say so, though I don't really see how Hinduism can be misunderstood and still refer to a single religion.

Did I state that Hinduism refers to a single religion?  And I do use the term "Abrahamic religion".

You admit ignorance, yet still think you're right and I'm wrong because your friend refers to his/herself as Hindu. Because obviously, your friend knows more about it than someone who studies it. Right.

Do I have to think you're wrong to think I'm right?  Here's a hint:  No.

I don't always mean to be.  Hinduism exists insofar as Hindus perceive it to exist.  My closest friend is Hindu.  I understand that it's a broad category though.

And there's the proof that you didn't listen to a word I said. Oh well.

It's definitely proof that I don't entirely agree with you.

Have you ever stared deep into the eyes of a Hindu? Its a life changing experience.

Only on days when my girlfriend is Hindu, and I'd agree. 

Are you suggesting that modern interpretation is incorrect because it's modern?  I haven't studied religion or philosophy in a scholarly environment for 3 years, but I've read the Baghavad Gita.  What I take from it doesn't have to be what anyone else takes from it in order to develop a consistent understanding, which it probably isn't at some points.  I don't call myself a pantheist.  That's your word, not mine.  I believe there are "finite gods" in the sense that I believe you and I are "finite".  You and I emanate from Brahman but are distinct from one another; so too are the gods.  Figuratively speaking, we are all different facets of the same citrine merkabah.  I am not an Indian Buddhist or a Shaivist or a Jain.   

No, I'm suggesting that Indopaganism is an amalgamation of ancient and modern interpretations of Vedic religions, which simply doesn't work. The Bhagavad Gita is NOT part of the Rg Veda, though it is considered important in several schools, it would be a smaller number than most people think it is. If you haven't read any other Vedic texts, then you are missing on a great deal of important background and influence on the Gita. But, if you want to be a Bhakti, that's fine with me, but your views are generally inconsistent with theirs. I did use the word pantheist. but that's because a great many more Vedic schools are pantheistic than there are panentheistic ones, and so it IS an important thing to consider before you call yourself Indopagan  because those schools are even more influential than the panentheistic ones. Aaaaaannnd then you cross the line into not knowing what the hell you are talking about. Protip: Wikipedia isn't a site on which you should base your understanding.

Indopagan is a word that I use to communicate that I practice witchcraft and follow the path of Sanatana Dharma.  I haven't read the Vedas or the Upanishads or the Ramayana or any of the other texts and I intend to.  In fact, the only Hindu text that I've read is the Baghavad Gita, so I do not generally use the term "Hindu" to describe myself.  I am interested in variegated Vedic schools, but not particularly in adhering to one.  I follow my own sense of reason, and some day I may find that it corresponds to a specific tradition, but for now I pursue spiritual understanding in the best way that I know how.  Less than one year ago I was a militant atheist.  The Gita was a major factor in changing my belief system.  Presently I'm working on learning as much as I can and establishing a framework with as little confirmation bias as possible.  So you undoubtedly know more about Hindusim than I, but my personal beliefs do not need to be consistent with tradition in order to be self-consistent.

Partly true, at least. But you are still being very self-contradictory, but if you can't see it by now, there's no use in me arguing with you anymore. And, for future reference, Hinduism doesn't exist. It's an inaccurate category used to by Westerners to lump together the Vedic religions. It would be comparable to calling Judaism, Christianity, and Islam "Abrahamism", but it's actually closer to collectively referring to the Native American religions as "Mississippism".

ETA: damn I am having brain problems today...

I don't always mean to be.  Hinduism exists insofar as Hindus perceive it to exist.  My closest friend is Hindu.  I understand that it's a broad category though.

Are you suggesting that modern interpretation is incorrect because it's modern?  I haven't studied religion or philosophy in a scholarly environment for 3 years, but I've read the Baghavad Gita.  What I take from it doesn't have to be what anyone else takes from it in order to develop a consistent understanding, which it probably isn't at some points.  I don't call myself a pantheist.  That's your word, not mine.  I believe there are "finite gods" in the sense that I believe you and I are "finite".  You and I emanate from Brahman but are distinct from one another; so too are the gods.  Figuratively speaking, we are all different facets of the same citrine merkabah.  I am not an Indian Buddhist or a Shaivist or a Jain.    

No, I'm suggesting that Indopaganism is an amalgamation of ancient and modern interpretations of Vedic religions, which simply doesn't work. The Bhagavad Gita is NOT part of the Rg Veda, though it is considered important in several schools, it would be a smaller number than most people think it is. If you haven't read any other Vedic texts, then you are missing on a great deal of important background and influence on the Gita. But, if you want to be a Bhakti, that's fine with me, but your views are generally inconsistent with theirs. I did use the word pantheist. but that's because a great many more Vedic schools are pantheistic than there are panentheistic ones, and so it IS an important thing to consider before you call yourself Indopagan  because those schools are even more influential than the panentheistic ones. Aaaaaannnd then you cross the line into not knowing what the hell you are talking about. Protip: Wikipedia isn't a site on which you should base your understanding.

Indopagan is a word that I use to communicate that I practice witchcraft and follow the path of Sanatana Dharma.  I haven't read the Vedas or the Upanishads or the Ramayana or any of the other texts and I intend to.  In fact, the only Hindu text that I've read is the Baghavad Gita, so I do not generally use the term "Hindu" to describe myself.  I am interested in variegated Vedic schools, but not particularly in adhering to one.  I follow my own sense of reason, and some day I may find that it corresponds to a specific tradition, but for now I pursue spiritual understanding in the best way that I know how.  Less than one year ago I was a militant atheist.  The Gita was a major factor in changing my belief system.  Presently I'm working on learning as much as I can and establishing a framework with as little confirmation bias as possible.  So you undoubtedly know more about Hindusim than I, but my personal beliefs do not need to be consistent with tradition in order to be self-consistent.

I'm a panentheist.

A simple yes would have sufficed. Though, your claims are getting more and more contradictory.

Would you like to me to clarify something?

No, because I guarantee I know more about half of your claims than you do. Would you like me to clarify why it's ridiculous for you to be an Indopagan and panentheist?

Sure.  As a bonus question you can clarify why Discordianism is ridiculous.

Many Veddic traditions are pretty clearly pantheistic. Many have finite deities. Only a relatively small number have panentheistic inclinations, and most of that is modern interpretation. Indopaganism is a grand and foolish attempt to combine all of them into one tradition. Can you simultaneously believe that there are finite gods, a pantheistic god, and a panentheistic god? You can "default" to being panentheistic and that covers all of them right? Wrong. I've meditated with Bhakti, and discussed with them Krishna's place in the universe. They are very different from say, Indian Buddhist ideas of Brahman. Or Shaivists. Or Jaina.

Are you suggesting that modern interpretation is incorrect because it's modern?  I haven't studied religion or philosophy in a scholarly environment for 3 years, but I've read the Baghavad Gita.  What I take from it doesn't have to be what anyone else takes from it in order to develop a consistent understanding, which it probably isn't at some points.  I don't call myself a pantheist.  That's your word, not mine.  I believe there are "finite gods" in the sense that I believe you and I are "finite".  You and I emanate from Brahman but are distinct from one another; so too are the gods.  Figuratively speaking, we are all different facets of the same citrine merkabah.  I am not an Indian Buddhist or a Shaivist or a Jain.    

Discordianism is ridiculous because at around the time things like Indopaganism were coming into being because of Western misconceptions about Eastern culture, there was this whole new age revival of pagan ideals. A couple dudes decided to make fun of the new age idiots and included many accurate ideals from Eastern philosophy and religion.

O. 

I'm a panentheist.

A simple yes would have sufficed. Though, your claims are getting more and more contradictory.

Would you like to me to clarify something?

No, because I guarantee I know more about half of your claims than you do. Would you like me to clarify why it's ridiculous for you to be an Indopagan and panentheist?

Sure.  As a bonus question you can clarify why Discordianism is ridiculous.

Thought forms literally do not exist.

Whatever fiddles your ferret.

I'm not Wiccan by the way.

I'm a panentheist.

A simple yes would have sufficed. Though, your claims are getting more and more contradictory.

Would you like to me to clarify something?