401. Mitt the Mormon

Comment #91315 by scooternyc on November 28, 2007 at 2:48 am

D'Arcy - you bring up a point I've been harping on for months since the AAI 2007 event - BOTH PARTIES are pandering/espousing religious stupidity and should be held accountable.

Just because a candidate agrees with us individually on particular issues, doesn't mean he/she will on every issue.

That said, what kind of pass are we giving these candidates? What rationalizations are voters making to look the other way when having to make this decision?

Both parties will decry the transgressions of their opposition, but will then defend the same behavior from their own side - it's hypocrisy and you'll soon read, hear, observe the pardons being given by those who have more than just mankind in mind when it comes to voting for someone into office.

One thing you can say about liberals and conservatives - they are consistently inconsistent.

402. Mitt the Mormon

Comment #91301 by scooternyc on November 28, 2007 at 2:17 am

I truly liked Richard Dawkins approach to this subject in The God Delusion and subsequently within the interviews that followed: "why should religion be given any more special treatment or respect than one's political views".

No subject should be off limits if a candidate has brought the subject up in a public forum of any kind.

I have no compulsion to speak against religion in any given situation. However, when an individual makes a "god" or "religious" comment, then he/she has opened the door to editorial from anyone now and in the future, especially if the person believes something such as religion or god is a foundation for their moral guidance.

And I agree with Diacanu, I don't need someone to flag comments as "offensive", let him or her speak freely, it's what America stands for and whether I agree or not with any particular statement, each person has the freedom to speech.

One is only offended when one is looking to be offended. There is no such thing as "offensive speech".

403. Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

Comment #89072 by scooternyc on November 19, 2007 at 4:27 pm

If you haven't seen this, it's amazing!


Ken Miller ID Presentation

404. Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

Comment #88795 by scooternyc on November 19, 2007 at 2:19 am

Flagellant - yes, here in America the President will nominate who the Justice should be; then the arduous hearings from the Senate go on. The Senate then votes yea/nay.

Yes, if a religious President gets voted in then it's implied he will nominate another religious judge, but I'm not so certain; that may be a fear tactic some are utilizing. I'm observing for now, researching and cautiously making my choices.

Even IF a President nominates someone religious, as in the case of Judge Jones, we can't be certain he/she would subvert starry decisis and/or vote religiously.

405. Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

Comment #88625 by scooternyc on November 18, 2007 at 4:54 am

Here's More Hitchens:

Hitchens FFR"

406. Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

Comment #88617 by scooternyc on November 18, 2007 at 3:49 am

If you want to hear something ironic, listen to Dershowitz on parts 1 & 2 of this debate:

Alan Dershowitz on religion pt. 1


Alan Dershowitz on religion pt.2

407. Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

Comment #88614 by scooternyc on November 18, 2007 at 3:46 am

D'Arcy - oh, go ahead, say bah humbug, it's worth it at any time during the year. : )

408. Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

Comment #88613 by scooternyc on November 18, 2007 at 3:42 am

Flagellant - I'm concerned, as well. Both Alan Dershowitz and Paul Kurtz, at the CFI Conference last weekend, made the comment about the danger of both political parties in such a hurry to pontificate and witness their religion to their constituency.

In a most astounding moment, a panelist said that Obama has been involved with Ken Hovind and some others but in spite of that she's supporting him.

Why go to a conference on Secular Society if you're willing to be a hypocrite. It was more stupidity, one of many that weekend.

Even Hitchens mentions in his video event at the Freedom From Religion Foundation on October 13th (on the web through youtube) that Free Inquiry magazine, instead of promoting secularism, gives the impression of those who uphold secularism, separation of church/state, are hard-leaning democrats; it's theater of the absurd.

BTW, I'm not sure which candidate endorses science the most, none seem to speak to the subject.

409. Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

Comment #88565 by scooternyc on November 17, 2007 at 8:19 pm

windweaver - yes, Ann Coulter, that abundance of intellect housed in the guise of "the nervousa". What "breathtaking inanity" she spits at the world.

410. Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

Comment #88564 by scooternyc on November 17, 2007 at 8:15 pm

"ROBERT MUISE: Is intelligent design based on any religious beliefs or convictions?

MICHAEL BEHE: No, it isn't.

This was an astounding statement with little light shed on it but with enormous implications.

"Is Creationism not predicated on the idea of god and the 6 days of creation or is the hypothesis based on another scientific idea?"

411. Onward Science Soldiers

Comment #88166 by scooternyc on November 15, 2007 at 2:49 am

I had the honor of meeting Mr. Stenger last weekend in NY at the CFI conference; I wish they had given him his own time slot to speak by himself. So much of what his recent book is about is so important.

While certainly the Republican party has hijacked it with religion, no one should be under the impression that Democrats are not in bed with this same problem.

Even Alan Dershowitz made the comment in his presentation that "both parties are pushing this agenda", they can't wait to get up there and start witnessing to their devotion. Paul Kurtz was forthright and had the fortitude to mention the importance of holding both parties accountable.

Democrats and Republicans need to get off this soapbox of sanctimony and start focusing on issues that affect ALL AMERICANS.

If you're giving a pass to your particular candidate in spite of this issue, you're just rationalizing your choice and not being responsible.

412. Bill Moyers interviews Jonathan Miller

Comment #87406 by scooternyc on November 12, 2007 at 3:33 am

"I simply was struck by the logical incoherence and inconsistency of what seemed to be a very strong feature of human mental life"

413. Excerpt from 'The Portable Atheist'

Comment #87403 by scooternyc on November 12, 2007 at 3:28 am

This book is great. I like the fact that each choice within the book is short/long enough to savor and enjoy over an extended reading time. He really did choose some amazing pieces.

414. Allan Gregg interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #87288 by scooternyc on November 11, 2007 at 4:56 pm

Not sure why I should be surprised that people are talking about Stenger having not read Stenger, but his book talks about the God of Abraham, the one most invoked, and yes, he does have sufficient, reasonable and logical arguments, scientifically based, on there NOT being a god. Anyone of any reasonable intelligence would be hard pressed to disavow or discredit his writing and research.

I met Mr. Stenger this weekend at the CFI conference. He's one of the most intelligent and underrated horsemen in this quest.

415. When Congress Interferes With Science, Who You Gonna Call? (Hint: It's not Ghostbusters)

Comment #87032 by scooternyc on November 11, 2007 at 3:53 am

"So in reality, condoms have simply made the problem worse as they project the illusion that people are safe as long as they use them.

I don't disagree with this statement. It appears that magical thinking then isn't just relegated to the religious, it's the religious and those having sex with condoms.

So what are the percentages of teens having sex who have magical thinking about religion AND that condoms keep them safe?

If you're willing to submit, subjugate intelligence, logic and reason to one sub-set of ideas like religion, then it's bound to be applied through other ideas like Santa, the Tooth Fairy, and condoms keeping you safe.

More importantly, why are the religious so concerned about teens having sex?

At what age does the religious find it appropriate then?

Who gets to decide?

Who's on the panel?

How do we credential these people on the panel?

And how many of the religious, who are attempting to interfere with their religious dogma, had sex prior to a median age or position in life, themselves?

416. When Congress Interferes With Science, Who You Gonna Call? (Hint: It's not Ghostbusters)

Comment #87027 by scooternyc on November 11, 2007 at 3:14 am

Bizarro Dawkins – I agree with your statement about motivation when it comes to killing people by flying planes into buildings, you made a good point.

The whole "prayer" thing after 9/11 was about as useful as writing a letter to Santa Claus. Unfortunately for these students who were not educated properly in an institution of higher learning, they were merely behaving in an act of futility seeing as how they didn't know what else to do. This is unfortunate, as we would hope our younger generation would not be so gullible to such nonsense and instead find ways to volunteer their time to support those who were injured, the families of those who died and other offshoots of the tragedy.

Your comments on sex education are rather sweeping and misrepresented, the very same argument you make about Ms. Lipman.

I taught sex ed to teens while working for the Office of Health Promotion and Education in Arizona. Teens might abstain from sex, not because they're frightened of it as religion would like them to be, but because they would see the value of being conservative with their bodies.

Additionally, while abstaining from sex is a great option for reducing pregnancy and a host of std's, the reality is that we live in a society that has promoted, encouraged and thrust upon our generations the seduction of sex as a enticer for relationships, a weapon against others, an act of vulnerability, an act of power through rape, an entertainment, a process of reproduction, a vice for satisfaction of drive and a few others I'm sure people can create in their minds. We all must be accountable for having participated in this; however, reality must not be abated by attempting to invoke fear and ignorance as a means to bringing this issue back to homeostasis.

Religion, in all its forms, is nothing more than a tool for manipulation. Religion adds nothing any longer to our civil society, but it does take away logic and reason, only to invoke wishful thinking.

If you're a responsible person, you're a responsible person. If you're a good person, you're a good person. Religion will not give you that which is not inherently from within.

One cannot be responsible if one is involved in religion.

Any reason you could attribute to god for having invoked a particular behavior, is, in and of itself, reason enough. We don't need god to further it along. If man has thought of it then that's enough.

417. When Congress Interferes With Science, Who You Gonna Call? (Hint: It's not Ghostbusters)

Comment #86056 by scooternyc on November 8, 2007 at 2:48 am

On a short personal note: thank you to the many people on this site that offered their condolences on the passing of my father last Friday. Your ability to separate our healthy debates from life situations was encouraging and appreciated.

Those that chose to use it as an opportunity to make a passive-aggressive remark to me only revealed themselves as the low functioning individuals that I suspected they were already. It didn't offend me, it just revealed who you are to the core of your own humanity.

418. When Congress Interferes With Science, Who You Gonna Call? (Hint: It's not Ghostbusters)

Comment #86055 by scooternyc on November 8, 2007 at 2:43 am

There's a silent danger in politics that isn't being mentioned with regard to the church/state separation issue that is of the Democrats who are endorsing religion. If the stats regarding those who believe in a god here in the U.S. are correct, some 85% +, then it must be gleaned that a great deal of them are Democrats, as well. These people are not supporting the church/state separation nor gay marriage/civil unions, do not be fooled by these people.

As a citizen here in NY I can tell you that a great many people who identify as liberal dems are indeed, highly religious and these people are dangerous to the separation issue.

ANY POLITICIAN who speaks religion of ANY LEVEL is disenfranchising AMERICANS across the board - either those who don't espouse the same religious belief or those who are faithless.

Endorsing a candidate just because they're a dem or a rep thinking they are supporting church/state separation is a mistake. They are drenched in religion and caution must be taken before just throwing your support behind a candidate.

419. AAI 07

Comment #84680 by scooternyc on November 3, 2007 at 7:17 am

Comrades,

I must take leave of this thread for a couple of days, my father died last night at 1:26am, he was 83.

I remember having copied this down from another blogger here and appreciated reading it this early a.m.

"We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born.

The potential people who could have been standing here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Sahara or the atoms in the universe.

Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively outnumbers the set of actual people.

In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here, we are privileged to be here, privileged with eyes to see where we are and a brain to wonder why.

We are privileged to be alive and we should make the most of our time on this world."

I shall return and engage forthwith into our debate in a couple of days.

I say with all honesty that my shift of understanding in life, supported by the past year on this site and others like it have given great solace and strength to what would have otherwise in years gone by of religious stupidity, been a very unnerving event in my life.

Gracious thanks to all who have contributed to my understandings; always humbled, ever grateful.

Cheers,
Scooternyc

420. AAI 07

Comment #84487 by scooternyc on November 2, 2007 at 6:48 am

" It presents an evidence based critique of acupuncture"

I would never tell another person which road to pursue when it comes to deciding which aspect of medical treatment that suits them, I can only account for my own personal experience where my ACL was not functioning at full capacity with little flexibility. After 3 treatments of acupuncture and 2 follow ups, I've never had a problem, I'm able to run, workout, dance, etc. things I couldn't do for about 10 years post surgery without pain and swelling.

It worked for me, that's not to say others would seek a different opinion or treatment. To each his own.

And yes, I paid for those treatments all myself. LOL!

421. AAI 07

Comment #84476 by scooternyc on November 2, 2007 at 6:02 am

" This is a term commonly used by anti-science supporters of the alternative health industry. It is regarded as a derogatory term by the AMA"

I use it to differentiate between the fact that I've gone to an acupuncturist for my knee injury; a chiropractor for my back, etc.

I LOVE SCIENCE! I am second to none in this admiration and awe of science.

You're just looking for something to ferret out to victimize yourself and attack myself or others.

422. AAI 07

Comment #84472 by scooternyc on November 2, 2007 at 5:56 am

NMcC - enlighten us all about how you acquired your wealth?

423. AAI 07

Comment #84471 by scooternyc on November 2, 2007 at 5:52 am

brian - here's the manipulation in the statement:

"Couldn't we work to inculcate a sense of personal responsibility without killing people?"

Who's killing anyone? Because a person doesn't take reponsibility to be self-reliant some people automatically think we're the ones killing them. It couldn't be further from the truth.

As a society it our responsibility to educate our children with some of the most simple aspects of life concerning sex, work, responsibility, accountability and ownership of self-reliance.

Do people get cancer? Yes.

If they had a job could the job provide insurance as part of the remuneration package? Yes, and quite a few do.

If I have a job that doesn't, who is then responsible to provide that need?

I have choice:

I can find another job

I can save and purchase it on my own

I can go without it

Never confuse a difficult choice with no choice at all.

424. AAI 07

Comment #84453 by scooternyc on November 2, 2007 at 4:18 am

"Everyone who can afford it."

But this is my point.

How bad do you want it? What are you willing to do to get it?

We don't even look at the fact that many DON'T want health insurance. They have purchased perhaps long-term disability or emergency only insurance but are taking care of themselves and not desiring such.

I've not visited an allopathic doctor in over 15 years. I'm rarely sick and when I am I take care of myself. I've saved my resources to take off work if my job doesn't offer sick days as part of the job package I've negotiated. I exercise. I eat well. All CHOICES I've made over the years.

"Well, you're fortunate enough to not be one of those who isn't sickly".

No, in fact I was near death as a 7 year old; had asthma most of my adult life; tore my ACL; had chicken pox at 40. I'm not immune to these things.

425. AAI 07

Comment #84450 by scooternyc on November 2, 2007 at 4:11 am

"The difference between you and me, however, is that I'm the kind of unemotional realist that you only pretend to be."

Actually, I'm the kind of responsible person that you wish you could've been.

If you think that being wealthy means you're not a victim, think again. Being a victim isn't about wealth, it's about accountability/responsibility. Wealth can add to or distract from both of these precepts.

Yeah...you're still a victim as I correctly guessed.

You could try to hide or masquerade it but you can't help yourself in revealing it through you writing. A person who ISN'T a victim can easily recognize it without so much as a cursory glance.

You probably think that you've developed quite the face of denial to yourself over the years so that others of a lesser energy can't spot it, but there's no doubt, you've got it. Victim with a capital V.

What you can't stand is after all these years of thinking that you've covered it up; made well of yourself to distract and deflect from it, someone on a thread unmasked your fraud so easily and entertainingly so. Your secret's safe with us. LOL!

426. AAI 07

Comment #84444 by scooternyc on November 2, 2007 at 3:58 am

"Not really, since I'm pretty well off myself."

Yes, do enlighten us all about how you acquired that wealth. Let's start with that one.

427. AAI 07

Comment #84443 by scooternyc on November 2, 2007 at 3:54 am

epeeist - no, I'm asking about private insurance. If you're saying that he paid taxes which allowed for him to utilize welfare healthcare, what's your question? If he paid this tax and your country gives this welfare healthcare there isn't a question in there.

If you're asking if I agree with welfare healthcare, I think I've answered that question in spades.

428. AAI 07

Comment #84442 by scooternyc on November 2, 2007 at 3:50 am

"I do, it's just not that simple. Stuff happens, one cannot prepare for every eventuality."

It actually is just that simple.

Stuff does happen, you're right. We can't prepare for EVERY eventuality.

One can, though, be self-reliant to the extent that one prepares for certain situations. Save monetary resources. Purchase insurance, if nothing at least long-term disability insurance. Have a game plan in mind regarding how you would survive a job lay-off. Continue education if required or desired.

One can develop the self, if encouraged, to acquire skills which can be utilized wherever one goes to seek employment. If work is unavailable in this city, then research will tell me where to prepare to move to in order to get a better situation for myself.

How bad do you want the life you desire to live?

Do we not pay Unemployment Insurance for example? Yes. We negotiate a salary that takes those resources from our paychecks and places them into account so if we need it we can access it when 'stuff happens', it's there.

Dependence on others for your welfare is never a good idea. An exchange of services for money, as in the case of a job, creates independence by which people can freely choose to live the life they want and desire.

At this time EVERYONE can purchase one form of insurance or another. It would be worthwhile to allow insurance companies more freedom of competition by allowing them to sell to other states rather than just their own. The greater the competition, the greater the savings.

429. AAI 07

Comment #84435 by scooternyc on November 2, 2007 at 3:33 am

"You wouldn't like to try and tackle a few specific issues, see were we get to? No?"

Certainly discussion surrounding how to resolve these issues is worthwhile. Yet if each one is predicated on the idea of a person's self-responsibility, do each of the issues not lead to the same conclusion?

430. AAI 07

Comment #84433 by scooternyc on November 2, 2007 at 3:31 am

epeeist - your father didn't pay for or have opportunity to purchase health insurance?

431. AAI 07

Comment #84431 by scooternyc on November 2, 2007 at 3:29 am

brian - my statement about responsibility isn't about loving OTHERS, it isn't about OTHERS at all - it's about SELF - your SELF.

I'm not discounting the use of stats, etc. I'm pointing to the simplicity of getting caught up in the detailing, which people like to use as a deflection, from the bottom line question:

Are you a person of accountability who would take responsibility for your actions and choices, or not?

Truly you see how EVERYTHING stems from this simple question of self, self-reliance, self-evaluation, self-respect.

432. AAI 07

Comment #84429 by scooternyc on November 2, 2007 at 3:25 am

Just making sure I've found the question:

"What would your decision on my father be?"

433. AAI 07

Comment #84426 by scooternyc on November 2, 2007 at 3:18 am

..."That's a bit rich coming from you..."

There you go again - not taking responsibility and deflecting to someone else.

"You seem convinced that because I disagree with you that I must be a sponger myself."

No, you are making the case for yourself that IF you're in the situation of having made a stupid decision that you want an exception made in your case. When you're a victim, you identify with other victims and want for yourself and them.

I say, don't make the stupid decision. But that takes learning how to evaluate one's decisions, observe the outcomes, adjust the process.

You can't be a victim when doing that and you're too invested in being a victim to WANT to do that behavior.

434. AAI 07

Comment #84422 by scooternyc on November 2, 2007 at 3:13 am

brian - my post 84421 is the only question worth asking of me, to you or anyone else.

435. AAI 07

Comment #84421 by scooternyc on November 2, 2007 at 3:11 am

"Some of the most advanced societies in the world provide health care, education to 3rd level, and adequate housing and food for those unable and even unwilling to work."

So what?

Lots of societies do lots of things - it doesn't mean that their behavior is responsible.

I don't need miles of stats to justify something.

I don't need years of gleaning numbers to rationalize.

You just ask yourself the question:

Are you a person of accountability who would take responsibility for your actions and choices, or not?

Saying 'yes' and then rationalizing every decision for exception is not being responsible.

If I made a bad decision in my life - then it's my life - but if that decision cost others - then I'm responsible and accountable for that decision and must understand how to rectify that situation as best as I can, learn from it and NOT do it again.

If every individual would ask him/her self the question - live by it - we wouldn't be having this discussion. We don't need to worry about 'the rest of the world', they're all asking themselves the question and living by it.

Wow - look how independent that turns out to be?

Look at how that lifts problems from every area of life?

Do I need to fix the world? No, just myself, be the example, encourage others, and at some point the collective might just hit the precipice that then sends the action everywhere. Imagine if MORE people would just have that idea.

436. AAI 07

Comment #84415 by scooternyc on November 2, 2007 at 2:53 am

"you haven't very satisfactorily addressed my points"

Just because YOU'RE not satisfied doesn't mean I haven't addressed something.

Additionally, you nor any of your comrades, have ever addressed the questions posed early on:

How bad do you want it?

What are you willing to do to get it?

What are you willing to give up to discipline yourself to create the life you want to live?

among others....


What are the salary caps then on all professions?


Should we then dissolve the stock market?


Should we then use only a barter system of service/goods and eliminate paper money?


Who gets to decide what the salary caps are for all professions?


All goods/services should be GIVEN to everyone then so we can all be EQUAL?

Are any here that are in favor of socialism, currently housing the poor, indigent, homeless?

How many?

How are you paying for them?

It is presumed that your computer that you are working from was donated, can you say from whom so we can force that company to give EVERYONE a computer?

What clothing prices should we place a cap on?

What food stores should we place a cap on?

If we fail to place a cap on prices, which capitalism encourages price raising based on what the market will pay, then we'll not be able to afford food. So can someone say what those caps should be?

What should be the price cap on automobiles?

What should be the price cap on education?

We should then eliminate the tax system or is there a set tax rate for everyone?

Remember there are caps on salaries, no one is allowed a raise based on merit since that would place one person over the other in terms of earnings and what that person could acquire.

437. AAI 07

Comment #84412 by scooternyc on November 2, 2007 at 2:43 am

"You haven't answered mine."

Perhaps I've missed it while scanning the thread, please re-ask the question and I'd be happy to answer.

438. AAI 07

Comment #84410 by scooternyc on November 2, 2007 at 2:42 am

Here's a great example of not taking responsibility and being accountable -

"I can agree to a point and maybe some of my posts have been on the 'ad hom' side, but..."

You can agree 'to a point' (which means you still think you're right by attacking someone instead of focusing on the issue)

'but' - is where you want to justify, rationalize and excuse your inappropriate behavior towards others by invoking the idea that the ends justifies the means.

Rather than just admitting and accepting responsibility that your behavior has at times been uncivil to people who have done nothing to you nor took anything from you, but desired civilized debate and discussion.

There is no 'but' except attempts at saving your ass in a comment like that when not taking responsibility.

439. AAI 07

Comment #84407 by scooternyc on November 2, 2007 at 2:36 am

Comets - I haven't dodged ONE question on this thread, but nice try. I've said before I'm happy to address the things I've stated and defend my posts.

"I think your 'on the take' comment sums it up really."

A person who has, "made a mistake" isn't someone we're talking about - I've already made this clear. Someone who finds him/her self unemployed for no cause of their own and needs some TEMPORARY assistance isn't what we're talking about. You just won't get that through your head, you want to just see it all as extreme, through the eyes of your emotional instability.

And YES, someone is "on the take" if they aren't looking for work, aren't getting educated to get off welfare, aren't doing everything possible to be more responsible to self and their family.

What meme do you think it demonstrates to others when a mother or father or both, won't work, find reasons to not work and sponge off society all the while having children?

What meme do you think it perpetuates when parents aren't accountable for their actions and their children are watching the very rationalizations made along the way?

Finally, I don't need a crystal ball I can see it right in front of me in your posts about what kind of person you are by the language you use and the statements you make.

Everyone wants an exception made in his/her 'special' case. Everyone wants to spew this 'gray' crap so their particular situation is given credential, so they won't be 'left out'.

You wouldn't need it if you were being responsible in life because you'd be too busy living your life and not sucking off the society's hard earned money.

Either you are a person who is self-sufficient, is accountable and takes ownership of your reality thereby being response-able or you are not.

Being dependent on others for your welfare in life is not being accountable and taking responsibility.

You spend more time finding reasons to justify people NOT being responsible than finding reasons they should - that ought to say something to you about yourself instantly!

440. AAI 07

Comment #84339 by scooternyc on November 1, 2007 at 7:57 pm

"end up like sea-squirts who digest their brains after finding a nice rock to root themselves to"

Sounds like some have already reverted to this from their species existence as humans to sea-squirts. Now if they would just stop sea-squirts from voting.

LOL!

441. AAI 07

Comment #84338 by scooternyc on November 1, 2007 at 7:54 pm

"You simply assume that there is a wilful intent to defraud taxpayers

Really? So her staying on welfare and NOT working isn't defrauding the system? Right.

"Her son is a very clever lad with a bright future

Well, then let's hope he's smarter than she and doesn't go down the same stupid road she did - genetically/memetically he is determined to do so thanks to her irresponsible examples provided.

442. AAI 07

Comment #84337 by scooternyc on November 1, 2007 at 7:46 pm

"Why is she irresponsible? As you have no idea how she came to be in the circumstances she finds herself in now how DARE you say that it was through her irresponsibility!"

I GUARANTEE you that there was more than one irresponsible choice along the way for which you, nor anyone else, will hold her accountable, but ought to do so.

HOW DARE YOU insult her by thinking she can't fend for herself; can't support her children; can't sacrifice priorities to raise her children, to have children - A CHOICE she made.

If you have the guts and courage, spell it out and we can all then see it for what it is - irresponsible decisions made time and again which have led to this situation she now finds herself burdened.

But you won't, as with all these situations presented here, no one dares open up honestly about their choices because they fear the revelation of their own irresponsible behavior for which they are accountable, that it would be revealed for the scam that it is and the sham that's been hidden.

443. AAI 07

Comment #84330 by scooternyc on November 1, 2007 at 6:32 pm

Diacanu - once again you've exampled the intelligence of those liberals who are anything but.

Notice that NOT ONCE on this thread have I complained about what a person called me; nor flagged anything as offensive as though I shouldn't hear it; I've welcomed it all because I'm an adult, I'm not victim to anything in life, I take responsibility for what I say/do and don't need to be "emotionally offended" by anyone.

I let the over-emotional liberal types, joining their religious right types, do all that since they enjoy being victimized.

Notice how often you can't control your emotions and lash out at others.

Observation - it's a powerful thing...entertaining, too.

444. AAI 07

Comment #84327 by scooternyc on November 1, 2007 at 6:26 pm

Stuart Paul Wood - so who is accountable in the situation, the state for setting her up or the mother who placed herself in the position to begin with.

You've given another great example of how this disgusting system re-enforces people to NOT work.

Why should she work when you're footin' the bill.

Why don't you instead have her go off welfare and you contribute 100% of her "need" since you're so jolly into it and stop burdening those that don't care to contribute to such an irresponsible person.

*crickets chirping*

I figured as much.

*now come the rationalizations, justifications, and vitriol of intolerance*

445. AAI 07

Comment #84325 by scooternyc on November 1, 2007 at 6:20 pm

"So, yes, I DO want such a cycle. I want people to be able to be lazy, to waste their lives, to dream. I think that enriches humanity. I don't want to live in the dull, barren, puritan society that you desire."

What you mean is "I want to be lazy, I want to waste my life, I want to dream".

Certainly no one cares if you do, but why must it be at a cost to others?

You've done nothing but dance around the important question of holding others accountable -because you DON'T want to be held accountable.

You've danced around the important question of being responsible - because you DON'T want to be responsible.

You've danced around the importance of understanding choice as freedom, because you DON'T want others to have a choice.

You just want to be accepted for who you are, warts and all. You're just angry because no one really gives a shit about you with any depth, they just tolerate you because they don't know how to tell you to shut up or go away - they're too afraid they'll hurt your "feelings".

446. AAI 07

Comment #84323 by scooternyc on November 1, 2007 at 6:14 pm

LOL!

"We have plenty of functioning societies that seem to strike a balance and manage very well."

Yes, why aspire to anything greater, no need.

Why did that blasted Darwin have to talk about anything evolving anyway? It's not like people ever get smarter.

LOL!

447. AAI 07

Comment #84322 by scooternyc on November 1, 2007 at 6:12 pm

steve99 - yes, you make the point quite clear that suffering is what you find virtuous.

Much like the religious of our world, it's a pity you don't join them.

Oh, too late, you have, you just have a different face then they do. Same words; different sheep's clothing.

448. AAI 07

Comment #84318 by scooternyc on November 1, 2007 at 6:10 pm

Diacanu - no one is forcing you to be on this thread. Why victimize yourself by returning.

Why not just make a "choice" to do something different or speak to a different topic and others will join you while some continue on other subjects.

This is why you are who you are, because you enjoy being a victim. If you weren't, who would feel sorry for you, who would care about you, who would commiserate with you.

449. AAI 07

Comment #84317 by scooternyc on November 1, 2007 at 6:07 pm

"Do you love your job? If you could re-train might you change? Whats the risk of trying for something better? Something more fun?"

Yes, I love my job and the work I accomplish.

Your question is to assu that I'm not having fun.

It doesn't matter what job I'm choosing to do, I'm always having fun. I've been a banker, a counselor, a manager, an actor, a bus boy, a waiter, a bartender, a sales clerk, a cashier, a fast food cook, a typist, a promoter, a housekeeper, a home-health aid to the elderly, a worker for hospice with AIDS patients, worked with the homeless, runaway youth, outreach for health/human services, a teacher, a coach,...the list goes on.

I'm always having fun.

450. AAI 07

Comment #84312 by scooternyc on November 1, 2007 at 5:53 pm

"There's a question for you at 471 above.

Yeah, that's not a question, that's a presupposition predicated on a thought process already indoctrinated masquerading as a question in order to manipulate the information or "answer" supplied.

You already hate the rich; are victim to their choices or Darwinian fortune in life, so nothing anyone says to you would affect your high grand ideas of life.

"Answer" your question? Please, what for, you've already supplied your own narrow view of life upon everything.