News:

The End of the World is Coming, and YOU MAY DIE

Main Menu
Menu

Show posts

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.

Show posts Menu

Messages - Internet Jesus

#1
I'm just pissed that out of all my efforts to make the place a toxic cesspool all it took was a relatively mild discussion about gun control to kill it off.  I mean c'mon throw a brother a bone for fucks sake, at least say that the place had become a cesspool and that discussing gun control was the last straw.

But no, Jesus doesn't love me that much.
#2
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 03:41:52 PM
So long, Zero.  You were a titan among men, but in the end you were just another putz.

In the end that's all we ever are.
#3
Quote from: Cain on November 18, 2012, 02:43:49 PM
Someone has a foot fetish!

QuoteI first saw President Reagan as a foot, highly polished brown cordovan wagging merrily on a hassock. I spied it through the door. It was a beautiful foot, sleek. Such casual elegance and clean lines! But not a big foot, not formidable, maybe a little ...frail. I imagined cradling it in my arms, protecting it from unsmooth roads.

That is none other than Peggy Noonan, speechwriter for Reagan and the first Bush, and syndicated columnist.

If you listen closely, you can hear the BZZZZ BZZZZ of a certain marital aid, going to town.
#4
Frolocaust.
#5
You guys do know that the TX state bar has a website with a searchable database of attorneys licensed to practice there right?

http://www.texasbar.com/am/template.cfm?section=simple_search

Just doing my best to throw gas on the fire.
#6
Quote from: CAKE on November 11, 2012, 12:25:33 AM
... who question your most mundane actions, and give you unsolicited "advice" that inexplicably seems to assume that you don't know the most rudimentary aspects of adult survival?

I don't even know what to do when people do this. It puzzles me.

I do, but since I'm just making this shit up as I go along, I usually try to take it in the spirit it's offered.  The level of esteem I hold that person in also plays into how seriously I take their advice.

We're not in each others head and what may be common sense for you may be hard fought knowledge for me after all.....
#7
 :lulz: Why am I not surprised? Maybe if they get serious financial backing their movie can star Bruce Willis.
#8
Quote from: CAKE on November 11, 2012, 04:56:20 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on November 11, 2012, 03:56:52 AM
SHe's "not racist". But she's fired. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/09/denise-helms-california-woman-hopes-obama-is-assassinated_n_2104184.html

I think she's an idiot, but I also have a problem with the mob mentality that accompanied this story. She and thousands (at a guess) of other ignorant rednecks have said stupid, racist, threatening shit about the President on networking media sites... haven't we been laughing about this for the last four years? But people jumped on this particular stupid redneck, formed a screaming monkey mob, and engaged in what I could only describe as harrassing behavior until she was fired.

What concerns me about our (by which I mean the Left's) acceptance of this completely shitty sequence of events is that we are making a statement that we find it morally and ethically acceptable to take someone's words off an ostensibly hidden portion of the Internet, take them to their boss, and apply pressure to get them fired, even after the words were removed and no longer visible to even the limited audience they were intended for.

We all know (or should know) that Facebook isn't really private, regardless of privacy settings that prevent bosses or strangers from seeing the retarded and often overly personal crap we post there. However, I feel that this crosses a big line, and I am actually outright horrified at the general Liberal endorsement of actions that can and you better believe will be used against all of us in the future... especially when you consider that we have things like states that allow employers to fire women for using birth control.

Ook ook, motherfuckers.

You're ultimately right, Nigel, but how are the stupid among us going to get that 1. there's nothing private on the interwebs and 2. While political expression is free, there are some things you just don't broadcast to the world, if a few examples aren't made?

Not that for the current breed of conservative any lesson can ever be learned but hey, hope springs eternal.
#9
It's all fun and games until this gets presented as serious evidence for time travel on a show on the History Channel.
#10
Teal Deer?  In this thread? NEVER!
#12
Two vast and trunkless legs of stone / Re: "Atheism+"
November 05, 2012, 05:31:03 PM
Quote from: Cain on November 05, 2012, 05:04:29 PM
That's probably part of it.  But even fundamentalists tend to rely on formal arguments and "proofs" for the existence of God, disbelief in evolution etc.  The fundamentalist paradigm is a fairly modern one, and like most fairly modern innovations, has a bedrock of rationality running through it.  This makes sense when you realise fundamentalism isn't just a rigid restatement of past orthodoxies, but a complex strategic interplay that seeks solutions to the problems of evidence that runs counter to scripture.

Much like economics, it's a matter of really smart people finding really smart ways to continue to be stupid.

I hadn't seen that particular angle yet, but now that you mention it, I can see it.

But then wouldn't that argue for the conclusion that even if the Jesuits introduced rationality, that humanity as a whole saw its usefulness and just adopted it without the Catholic trappings?

I mean yeah, it's ironic, but only in the same sense that the Torah was compiled during the Persian exile, so you have Jews following a faith that has direct influence from Persian (Iranian) sources.

(The Persians are the ultimate trolls, having managed to troll themselves 2,000 years after the fact)
#13
Two vast and trunkless legs of stone / Re: "Atheism+"
November 05, 2012, 04:58:22 PM
Quote from: Cain on November 05, 2012, 04:54:02 PM
There is a great amount of irony in people calling for more rationality, directed at people who successfully adopted it nearly 500 years previously.

Probably way more Amerocentric than I need to be, but couldn't it be argued thatits more accurate to say that the folks that the calls for more rationality are directed at tried rationality, and gave it up?

I mean - yeah the Jesuits are all rational and shit, but only up to a point.  Which isn't even grappling with the folks who can find mentions of Dinosaurs in the bible.
#14
Two vast and trunkless legs of stone / Re: "Atheism+"
November 05, 2012, 04:54:59 PM
Quote from: Cain on November 05, 2012, 04:38:57 PM
That aside, I can only agree with Internet Jesus, that this looks to be an attempt to bring atheism under the banner of liberalism, which in America means the Democrats.  It's questionable logic (one of my favourite writers on science is a self-confessed conservative, Ayn Rand was an atheist), questionable philosophical linkage (the Soviet Union was "scientific", except, you know, Lysenkoism) and more to the point, there's already this movement called "Humanism" which, regardless of the religion affiliation of its adherents, is very keen on secularism and using knowledge to advance human society and enrich people's lives. 

There's also the idea that they're trying to rebrand their own little subset into something greater (like what the GOP base did with the Teabaggers) - which irritates me to no small degree.  Re-branding is stupid and insulting when businesses do it (I get why they go in for the whole "branding" issue in the first place, and even though it makes sense, I still think its kind of insulting), but when political movements do it .......

Well let's just say that it makes me wonder how much we actually are individuals and not just the reflection of the societal pressures we self select for.

(Prediction:  This will go over like a Led Balloon, just like the idea of rebranding themselves as "brights" did.  If there's one good thing about Atheists in general, it's that they don't really have a party line except the lack of belief in one specific thing.  There's no one who can honestly say "X is not an Atheist, because he's not pro-choice")
#15
Two vast and trunkless legs of stone / Re: "Atheism+"
November 05, 2012, 04:31:47 PM
Quote from: Reverend Roadkill on November 05, 2012, 04:18:45 PM
Quote from: Internet Jesus on November 05, 2012, 04:14:59 PM
I don't know about that.  I understand the idea behind a "safe place" concept, and while it frequently does turn into just another echo chamber where you can tune out WRONGTHINK - al la FR or DU for the political junkie - it can be useful as a controlled discussion.  Whether it becomes the former or the latter is up to those who run it.  I have seen both, they do exist.

I'll take your word on it.  My own experience is that any sight with the words "safe place" associated with it is ban-happy, with the ban trigger being "disagreeing with the group in an effective way."  They're there to slap-ass and high five about how much smarter they are than other people who believe things they can't prove.

It's a tricky line to walk, and generally it's more useful for very narrowly defined groups where a "safe place" is vital to the group being able to explore the singular topic at hand (rape survivors, addicts, ect.) than it is for larger, more broad reaching groups.  And even then it's tricky because there has to be a willingness on those running the group to allow for questioning of the group's doxa.

Which is why I'm agnostic on this effort.  That all of the listed political beliefs would emerge from a singular lack of belief seems a bit too broad to effectively do anything but become an echo chamber where the inmates just howl at whomever happens to be Emmanuel Goldstein this week.