National Dialogue on Terrorism

[Texan]

It doesn't take a genius to spot the goat in the herd of sheep.

Sometimes people just need an ass whoopin to put the world into perspective for them.

BTW Freedom isn't free, people have died and will continue to die in order to perserve the freedoms we so much enjoy.

 

[moxdevil]

It doesn't take a genius to spot the goat in the herd of sheep.

What animal congregates together within a sizable pen on a regular basis, is encouraged and accepts to do as the others do without thinking for itself and is led by a 'good sheperd' ? Answer: sheBelieverep

 

[mindido]

Tex,

"Sometimes people just need an ass whoopin to put the world into perspective for them."

In certain situaltions I understand this statement, but the little tale of yours certainly doesn't qualify. It would be straight to jail.

 

[Texan]

Tex,

"Sometimes people just need an ass whoopin to put the world into perspective for them."

In certain situaltions I understand this statement, but the little tale of yours certainly doesn't qualify. It would be straight to jail.

Would you punch me in the face if I called your mom and your wife both dirty crack whores who have sex with animals for drug money. I hope that you would. Same perspective here.

I am one of those guys who will confront someone who spews bullshit out of their mouths. If I was in the same situation as that SEAL I would have pulled a waterboy on the prof's ass and gladly suffered the consequences. I suffered many a F in college because of liberal profs. I guess this is another example of the difference between the red and blue. You see one of the rules I live buy is that when you believe in something you must stand up for it no matter what the cost.

 

[Gibson]

Both the professor and the seal are close-minded and intolerant of other people's beliefs.

Tex, I'm not trying to offend you, but have you ever considered the possibility that what you believe in is wrong?

 

[cableguy]

too many lawyers, too much "nuance," no sense of humor, a belief system that refuses to accept that right and wrong can be applied to almost anything, and a feeling that one has a "right" to not be offended... yep, the holier than thou indignants ride again...

the story was brilliant, tex, though sadly i dont believe it is true...

gibson, if tex even halfway thinks the way i do, he has considered that he migh tbe wrong, he has assembled arguments fron all sides, sifted through the bullshit (fron all sides), distilled what is left through a set of morals, values, and ethics, considered the consequences, and has come up with what he believes is right... this is called a thought process... when the majority of an argument depends on feelings, you should be more concerned about its veracity...

since when is tolerance of a belief system that is completely contrary to ones own required for anything?? under what circumstances is this type of tolerance considered a good or noble thing?? most importantly, why is this thing called "tolerance" so important?? i am completely intolerant of the belief that r@p3 is fine and justifiable... i would sincerely hope you are as well... each of us has things that we can not tolerate, and that doesnt make us bad people... the typical lefty will bray incessantly about the "intolerance" of conservatives, but will fail to, as bill cosby said, "turn the mirror around" and apply that same argument to themselves... am i intolerant?? damn right i am about some things... a small bit of introspective will shine that same light on you, and anyone else as well...

back to the story, given the premise that the commie asked to be knocked off the platform by god, and that the seal claimed to be sent from god, i believe the argument could be made that no crime was committed... if one was, it would be rather two faced of the commie to pursue it... he simply got the same result he asked for... if granting ones desire is a crime, we are truly in bad shape as a society...

note to resident leftys, you know who you are... i am fully aware that someone will bring up murder or some other crime.. i wont even add a qualifier to my statement on this one... if someone truly asks for harm or death, knowing the full outcome, and still desires it, my inner libertarian has a problem finding fault with an individual granting that wish... i also dont think murder or assault are the correct terms for these actions, but that is best kept for a different thread...

 

[moxdevil]

back to the story, given the premise that the commie asked to be knocked off the platform by god, and that the seal claimed to be sent from god, i believe the argument could be made that no crime was committed... if one was, it would be rather two faced of the commie to pursue it... he simply got the same result he asked for... if granting ones desire is a crime, we are truly in bad shape as a society...

note to resident leftys, you know who you are... i am fully aware that someone will bring up murder or some other crime.. i wont even add a qualifier to my statement on this one... if someone truly asks for harm or death, knowing the full outcome, and still desires it, my inner libertarian has a problem finding fault with an individual granting that wish... i also dont think murder or assault are the correct terms for these actions, but that is best kept for a different thread...

cable, how did the prof. become a communist? he's an atheist and a member of ACLU. Do you take senator McCarthy as your role model?

In the story when did the prof. asked to be planked one by a navy seal? he asked god, a human being took it upon himself to act and speak on god's behalf- this is the fundamental problem with societies around the world; human's acting or claiming to be acting on god's behalf- any claim can be made because god is seemingly incapable of communicating by means which rational-minded people would accept- instead he opts for burning bushes, clouds, signs in the sky, the dreams of lunatics, war mongers, power mongers, etc...

Oh and i agree with you about lawyers.

 

[Gibson]

since when is tolerance of a belief system that is completely contrary to ones own required for anything?? under what circumstances is this type of tolerance considered a good or noble thing??

When a particular belief is grounded entirely in faith or the lack thereof and cannot be proven beyond doubt, then tolerance is necessary. Otherwise, discussions about said beliefs will easily degrade into bickering, insults, and possibly violence.

i am completely intolerant of the belief that r@p3 is fine and justifiable... i would sincerely hope you are as well...

r@p3 is a crime, religion is not.

back to the story, given the premise that the commie asked to be knocked off the platform by god, and that the seal claimed to be sent from god, i believe the argument could be made that no crime was committed... if one was, it would be rather two faced of the commie to pursue it... he simply got the same result he asked for... if granting ones desire is a crime, we are truly in bad shape as a society...

If anything, the seal is guilty of assault. God did not knock the professor off of the platform.

gibson, if tex even halfway thinks the way i do, he has considered that he migh tbe wrong, he has assembled arguments fron all sides, sifted through the bullshit (fron all sides), distilled what is left through a set of morals, values, and ethics, considered the consequences, and has come up with what he believes is right... this is called a thought process...

I'm glad we can agree on this.

 

[mindido]

Tex,

"Would you punch me in the face if I called your mom and your wife both dirty crack whores who have sex with animals for drug money."

That would entirely depend on the situation. If I was drunk, more than likely I would clock anyone saying such things. If I wasn't, then further assessment would be necessary (as the charge is ludicrous), but probably not since verbal assault is not the same thing as physical assault. It would depend entirely on the situation (I know, thats one of those grey areas that the right doesn't seem to recognize exist).

As far as the rest, I have to agree with Gibson,

"Tex, I'm not trying to offend you, but have you ever considered the possibility that what you believe in is wrong?"

My experience with students indicates that if they're receiving F's, they're either:

Not trying at all.
Are way above their capabilities for that level of a class or school.
Or just not willing to learn reason.

I have had both types of prof's (although ultra conservative profs are almost non-existant) and was able to make it through. I think you need to rethink why you actually received those F's.

 

[Texan]

I have examined both sides of the religion spectrum and my conclusion is :

1. You can not prove that GOD does not exist
2. I can not prove that GOD does exist.

I choose to believe that GOD does exist. As far as evolution goes, it is a fact everyone just needs to accept, now hold onto your hats, I believe in creation as well. The Bible simply states that GOD created man in is own image. Where the problem for creationist exists is that word image, they assume it represents the image of modern day man. My theory, GOD created life in his image, which is energy, the basic building block of all life.

Now as far as my academic record is concern, those F's I received where not deserving. I retook the same classes with a different profs and received passing marks. One of the prof's that failed me was a man of color who believed that I owed him for slavery. Bullshit on that. The other was a radical leftist who tried to mold the brains of mush before him into his image. The incident that set me off where his comments on Vietnam and the First Gulf War. We wont go into details but it involved the term "baby killers". I called his hand and embarrassed his hippy ass in front of the lecture hall.

 

[Gibson]

Mindido, I think you misunderstood me, or I wasn't clear enough. I was referring to this:

You see one of the rules I live buy is that when you believe in something you must stand up for it no matter what the cost.

not to anything concerning school or grades.

 

[mindido]

Tex,

" 1. You can not prove that GOD does not exist
2. I can not prove that GOD does exist."

Agreed. The problem is that creationism (or whatever they want to call it) should not be taught in a science class, period. Teach it in a religious studies class, church or at home and you won't hear a peep out of me. Does god exist? Don't know and really don't care. There are too many other more pressing and important issues to do something about.

The academic issues? Well, I don't know why you'd have a problem with "baby killers". That has happened in every war on all sides. Its one of those unintended consequences that are the very basic nature of war. It is one of the reasons that most of those that have been to war, never want to see another. It is also why chickenhawks (Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, etc.) cannot be trusted to wage a war.

 

[Texan]

I agree with you creationism should not be teached in a science class.

Do babies die in war, of course it happens, but when you sterotype everyone who was involved in the war as baby killers I have a major problem with that.

 

[mindido]

Tex,

Well, it looks like we agree on something anyway. And I don't know what happened in your classroom, but I do remember the "baby killer" arguments very well. It seems that you must have mistaken something that the Prof. said as I sincerely doubt that any serious academic would characterize "all" soldiers as "baby killers". Anyone, with any intelligence, would know that to be incorrect.

 

[Duke E. Pyle]

Oh no you used chickenhawks, thats Gov. Ventura's word. :crazy:

 

[mindido]

Duke,

I've known of the term "chickenhawk" since Viet Nam. It wouldn't surprise me that Jessie also used the term as I believe he is a vet from that debacle (although I'm not positive of that).

 

[t3sqr]

It seems that you must have mistaken something that the Prof. said as I sincerely doubt that any serious academic would characterize "all" soldiers as "baby killers". Anyone, with any intelligence, would know that to be incorrect.

mindido, you must not have gone to school in the 70's or 80's. A large number of my Prof.'s called anyone who had any connection to anything regarding the military "Baby Killers". Even if you had never served in the service and were clean shaven or had short hair you were automatically labeled Baby killer. But then again I would question centers of higher education with the likes of Ward Churchill and that wacko from NCState, Kamau Kambon, that wants to kill all white people. It is amazing that it is OK for them preach this kind of B.S. from their pulpit. But then again, being isolated behind their Irovy walls, thaey are a little isolated from the real world.

 

[mindido]

t3sqr,

As a matter of fact, I did go to college both in the 70's and 80's so I do remember very well the vehemence and prolonged use of the term "baby killer". And I went to a school (the University of Wisconsin-Madison) where it was used alot. The thing is that I don't remember any faculty that I had use it, but I remember many a student spouting it. I remember many discussions in many different classes where, one way or another, the war injected itself. Could some faculty somewhere have used it? Given the situation at the time I'd be surprised if they didn't. But faculty use of the term (at least in a classroom setting) would've been rare and subject to reprisals. Virtually all academics I know are smart enough to avoid that trap.

 

[Gibson]

A large number of my Prof.'s called anyone who had any connection to anything regarding the military "Baby Killers". Even if you had never served in the service and were clean shaven or had short hair you were automatically labeled Baby killer.

Any person in the music industry is a drug user because some musicians have used drugs.

Illogical, sweeping generalizations rule.

 

[mindido]

Eeeeyup,

Iraq is getting to be just like Viet Nam more and more:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051123...BXQ2wwi;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Its getting kind of scary about the similarities.