Muscle2002 Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 100% serious. I love any ruling that takes rights away from various religious groups. Mostly because those religious groups are usually busy trying to take rights from other people. So an abhorrence of those who deny rights to some is the impetus for similar action? Or are some rights more sacrosanct than others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danger41 Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 That site has potential! Tired Of ‘Chair Force’ Nickname, Colonel Bans Chairs The best part of any of those articles linked on that site are the comments left by the mouth breathers that think they are true. It's really, truly sad the level of idiocy in the general public. You morons really think some guy banned chairs? FFS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sky_king Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 That site has potential! Tired Of ‘Chair Force’ Nickname, Colonel Bans Chairs Colonel ... stressed the importance of ... The Command Chief Master Sergeant, ..., wasn’t buying it Here's the first sign that the story is fake. A true CMSgt would enforce the rule to the point of removing seats from POVs as well. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pawnman Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 So an abhorrence of those who deny rights to some is the impetus for similar action? Or are some rights more sacrosanct than others? Some rights are absolutely more sacrosanct than others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brewskis Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 That site has potential! Tired Of ‘Chair Force’ Nickname, Colonel Bans Chairs http://www.duffelblog.com/2012/06/chinese-hacker-complains-perverted-american-military/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muscle2002 Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 (edited) Some rights are absolutely more sacrosanct than others. Okay, I don't disagree with you there. I guess I should have been more specific in my question. That is, why does a worldview devoid of religion (this is an assumption), but one that purports to be highly tolerant (again another assumption) and one that thrives in a pluralistic society allow for discrimination of another worldview that espouses some sort of religious belief? I fully understand that all worldviews have adherents who fail to live out the ideology of their beliefs thereby generating bad reputations. It's reasonable (or should be) to debate ideas associated with various worldviews (i.e. to let the merits of the ideas stand alone), but denouncing a philosophy solely on the ground of the actions of its followers can be shortsighted (I'll be the first to admit that I'm culpable of said shortsightedness). It seems strange to me to relish in another group's misfortune (such as those citizens of Cologne desiring religiously based medical procedures) based solely on their religion. Had the tables been turned and the decision restricted followers of an irreligious worldview, would the support been the same? In fact, it's not a leap to suggest irreligious philosophies are but a "religion" of a different ilk. Instead of faith in a deity/deities/some other power, adherents (whether weak or strong atheism/agnosticism) adhere to a "belief" (poor word choice, I know) lacking in theistic overtones. Merriam-Webster even allocates a description befitting such an idea: "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". In short (or not, in this case), I guess that unless the most sacred rights suffer violation, people should be allowed to act according to their religious/irreligious beliefs. I certainly don't agree with a lot of what's believed by various groups, but I don't think it the place of the government to restrict people's actions solely because they were based on a worldview and not a compelling medical reason. I don't normally quote the ACLU (as they are a group whose ideas are at times incongruous with my own), but in their Amici Curae brief for Alvarez vs. the US it was wisely stated: "The First Amendment was meant to ensure that the government would not become the arbiter of truth in the marketplace of ideas; it was “designed and intended to remove governmental restraints from the arena of public discussion, putting the decision as to what views shall be voiced largely into the hands of each of us.” Cohen v. California, 403 US 15, 24 (1971)." It's dangerous (in terms of preserving individual freedom) when the government plays the role of authority on what are valid/invalid ideas. Disclaimer: just because I quoted the ACLU who helped argue against the Stolen Valor Act does not imply my support of the Court's decision. Edited July 7, 2012 by Muscle2002 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pawnman Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 Okay, I don't disagree with you there. I guess I should have been more specific in my question. That is, why does a worldview devoid of religion (this is an assumption), but one that purports to be highly tolerant (again another assumption) and one that thrives in a pluralistic society allow for discrimination of another worldview that espouses some sort of religious belief? I fully understand that all worldviews have adherents who fail to live out the ideology of their beliefs thereby generating bad reputations. It's reasonable (or should be) to debate ideas associated with various worldviews (i.e. to let the merits of the ideas stand alone), but denouncing a philosophy solely on the ground of the actions of its followers can be shortsighted (I'll be the first to admit that I'm culpable of said shortsightedness). It seems strange to me to relish in another group's misfortune (such as those citizens of Cologne desiring religiously based medical procedures) based solely on their religion. Had the tables been turned and the decision restricted followers of an irreligious worldview, would the support been the same? In fact, it's not a leap to suggest irreligious philosophies are but a "religion" of a different ilk. Instead of faith in a deity/deities/some other power, adherents (whether weak or strong atheism/agnosticism) adhere to a "belief" (poor word choice, I know) lacking in theistic overtones. Merriam-Webster even allocates a description befitting such an idea: "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". In short (or not, in this case), I guess that unless the most sacred rights suffer violation, people should be allowed to act according to their religious/irreligious beliefs. I certainly don't agree with a lot of what's believed by various groups, but I don't think it the place of the government to restrict people's actions solely because they were based on a worldview and not a compelling medical reason. I don't normally quote the ACLU (as they are a group whose ideas are at times incongruous with my own), but in their Amici Curae brief for Alvarez vs. the US it was wisely stated: "The First Amendment was meant to ensure that the government would not become the arbiter of truth in the marketplace of ideas; it was “designed and intended to remove governmental restraints from the arena of public discussion, putting the decision as to what views shall be voiced largely into the hands of each of us.” Cohen v. California, 403 US 15, 24 (1971)." It's dangerous (in terms of preserving individual freedom) when the government plays the role of authority on what are valid/invalid ideas. Disclaimer: just because I quoted the ACLU who helped argue against the Stolen Valor Act does not imply my support of the Court's decision. Well, HOSS beat me to it. I would like to add, I have never understood why religion affords so much more protection than other reasons. For example, if a Native American tribe says that they want to use peyote or marijuana for a religious ceremony, then they will generally be protected. If I want to use marijuana for medical purposes, under federal law I am subject to prosecution. If an Amish community keeps their kids out of school and doesn't allow them access to modern medical procedures due to religion, they are generally in the clear. If my kid were to get sick, and I just did nothing, I can be dragged into court for child endangerment. Basically, I feel like you can believe whatever you want on your own time, in your own house, and in your own church. But don't force those beliefs on me, either by injecting them into the courts, the elections, or the schools. Just think of every time there's a Fox News article where they complain that Islam is taking over America...that's pretty much how I feel about Christianity all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17D_guy Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 I'm waiting for the underground circumcisions to begin. Outlaw Rabbis destorying the body integrity of little boys all over Cologne! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muscle2002 Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 (edited) No. The absence of belief is not a belief. I'll never understand why religion seems to be the only area where this basic concept becomes very confusing for people. Not confused...my perspicacity was wanting for a better word choice, but I couldn't find one. I don't completely agree with your statement as it depends on whether you adhere to strong/positive or weak/negative atheism, but I understand what you mean. That's just it, the courts in Cologne contend that a child's most sacred rights do suffer violation when he's irreparably mutilated without an opportunity to give his consent. Okay, if that's the reason, then fine. It seemed antithetical to what we fight for, however, when one gloats over the decision in part because it restricted the rights of religious groups. It's not lost on me that you argue that imposing a religiously-based procedure on minors is also antithetical to our country's values...these issues, at least IMO, are far more complex than they first appear. Again, it's not about suppressing a "worldview." People are trying to make this ruling all about religious freedom when it's actually all about protecting human rights to bodily integrity. One human doesn't have the right to permanently remove a part of another human's body without his consent. The term "Religious freedom" doesn't get to enter the conversation when it violates basic human rights, and the Germans feel like circumcision falls in that category. If you disagree, great, but that's the subject you need to disagree about. You're right that basic human rights should not fall to second place behind religious liberty. I think the argument you used regarding the inviolability of another human body, though, when applied to a different, but far more controversial topic falls on deaf ears...however, as this is the "WTF Thread" I don't think we need to open that can of worms. Basically, I feel like you can believe whatever you want on your own time, in your own house, and in your own church. But don't force those beliefs on me... I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment here. Edited July 7, 2012 by Muscle2002 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 I love any ruling that takes rights away Noted. Some rights are absolutely more sacrosanct than others. Wait, what? I would like to add, I have never understood why religion affords so much more protection than other reasons. Really? You can't understand this? I know you want to be taken seriously so you must be kidding, right? It is clear to me that you are hostile to religious protection. It is also clear that any religious protection would feel to you like it would be "more" than other reasons. Be honest with yourself. You seem interested in individual liberty and the right to think and believe as you wish as long as you are not causing harm or injury to another A reason is a reason. You can be opposed to some and not other reasons but one is not more than another, right? Basically, I feel like you can believe whatever you want on your own time, in your own house, and in your own church. I don't believe you really feel this way. But don't force those beliefs on me, either by injecting them into the courts, the elections, or the schools. Interesting that you feel beliefs are forced upon you. Also interesting that you feel like beliefs are being forced upon you basis the reasons someone else chooses to cast a vote. Just think of every time there's a Fox News article where they complain that Islam is taking over America...that's pretty much how I feel about Christianity all the time. I don't watch Fox but no one needs a comparison to see your concern about Christianity taking over your life. You are effectively presenting that to everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bronxbomber252 Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 That's opinion, not fact: http://www.doctorsop...tatement03.html THat source, although citing others is a biased source, although it did prompt me to look into the issue further. The American Association of Pediatrics (AAP) says that there is evidence to support the health benefits but that it is small and not completely proven. THis caused them to drop it from "Routine" to "elective" citing that there may be benefits but the evidence is not strong enough to make it a routine procedure. Basically they say from a medical stand point it may be beneficial but there is not enough risk in not doing it to require a medical reason to not do it, and that it should be up to the parents, and if done, the earlier the better. But in the end, the most important issue is religious freedom. There is no evidence of long term harm from properly conducted circumcisions, no evidence that it reduces quality of life at all, nor that it reduces sexual pleasure... therefore there is no credible reason as far as I see, to stomp on a religious freedom. Female circumcision (brought up by someone else) does cause quality of life/sexual pleasure issues, and is not mandated by any religion as far as I know. Thus should be banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guineapigfury Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 (edited) Female circumcision (brought up by someone else) does cause quality of life/sexual pleasure issues, and is not mandated by any religion as far as I know provides no health benefits whatsoever and is only done to appease religious fanatics with a medieval view of the world and a preference for the company of small boys and goats. Thus should be banned. FIFY Edited July 7, 2012 by guineapigfury Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zrooster99 Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 Hey everybody lets have a big fucking argument about religion. I'm sure we'll finally sort it all out this time. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muscle2002 Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 (edited) No, you don't. Wow. I do. That my answer didn't meet your standard of rigorous proof for understanding is unfortunate, but the prospects of writing a tome on BO.net regarding epistemology and ontology is a fruitless effort as ZRooster99 attested to in his post...there will be things I don't understand according to you; and there are points I've tried to elucidate that I don't think you understand. Or at least neither one of us feels inclined to spend all day trying to convey our points via BO. We disagree...but that's the beauty of living in America where discourse is generally possible. There's no scale of non-belief. There's no "positive" or "negative" non-belief in the tooth fairy. You either believe in the tooth fairy or you don't. If you don't, that's it, you don't. There's no "strong" atheism or "weak" atheism. There's just atheism. Maybe I've studied the incorrect texts, but I've gathered that there is a delineation between strong and weak atheism. Accordingly, some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Simply lacking a belief in gods is considered the weak atheistic position, whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as strong atheism. In all honesty, however, I'm not an expert in this field, so my understanding of the deeper ideas may be immature. With that, I'll relent from further discussion as I think our points have been made and we could go round and round discussing semantics of belief/non-belief without either side conceding. Furthermore, I don't want to piss off the rest of the forum. Thank you for providing a spirited discussion. Edited July 7, 2012 by Muscle2002 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitty Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 Bo Duke lives. http://jalopnik.com/5922904/heat+buckled-highway-causes-wild-dukes-of-hazzard-jump?popular=true Seeing a sign that reads "bump" instead of "jump," the SUV takes the crack at too high a speed, leaps into the air, comes down and slews all the way across the other side of the highway, coming to rest in a field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discus Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 I was thrilled to see this ruling. Anytime the state overturns a purely religious reason for doing something, especially what amounts to minor surgery, I'm all for it. Start of a big fucking religious debate that has ruined a fairly entertaining thread: WTF? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muscle2002 Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 Start of a big ######ing religious debate that has ruined a fairly entertaining thread: WTF? If this were a real squadron bar, I would bring the requisite handle as penance. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tinker51 Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 Bo Duke lives. http://jalopnik.com/...mp?popular=true No extra points awarded. Didn't stick the landing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M2 Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 No extra points awarded. Didn't stick the landing. Nor did Waylon Jennings narrate it. It also didn't it freeze in the middle of the jump for a commercial break! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BitteEinBit Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 I wonder why they always froze the jump for a commercial break keeping us in suspense as if they weren't going to make the landing....did they ever not nail the landing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExBoneOSO Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Think this guy set the world kayak speed record? Probably had to hose out his seat, too... http://www.capecodon...EWS11/120709828 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17D_guy Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Hey everybody lets have a big ######ing argument about religion. I'm sure we'll finally sort it all out this time. Start of a big ######ing religious debate that has ruined a fairly entertaining thread: WTF? Yea, sorry I brought it up at this point. Noted for future additions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swizzle Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Just the top of the fin, but what about the rest? *not the same photohttp://www.gofishn.com/gofishn/14531-seal-saves-shark-attack-victim-in-africa/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M2 Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 WTF? Ted Nugent's drummer flees police in golf cart According to the police department, Mick Brown, 55, reportedly stole a golf cart after a Bangor concert featuring Nugent, Styx and REO Speedwagon at Bangor's waterfront pavilion. Brown, who was reportedly intoxicated, evaded several people who tried to stop him and somehow picked up two women along the way, the department says on its Facebook page. "As (officers) attempted to stop Brown, he accelerated past them, past a third officer and when a security officer got close enough to stop him, Brown allegedly shoved the officer," the police reported. "At that point two other security officers physically removed Brown from the cart and placed him on the ground." Brown was arrested and later released on $4,000 bail, and faces a court date of Aug. 15 for charges of operating under the influence of alcohol, driving to endanger, theft, and assault. Shouldn't that have been Sammy Hagar's drummer?!? (Don't ask me which one is him!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuggyU2 Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Wait... ... Dokken broke up? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now