Frustration.

I've been having a lengthy and heated debate with Lisa through e-mail.

The basis of it is that her view that homosexuality is wrong is based upon the fact that "god said so". So I asked her if she was a Christian or not, and she refused to answer. I asked her if she believed a number of other things stated as God and Jesus' word in the bible as fact and rules etc. No answer. I asked her to read an article that laid out quite clearly why belief in the CHRISTIAN version of God is simply impossible without being fundamentally irrational and out of touch with reality on the most basic level. Again, she doesn't get it. I explain to her that believing in a higher power, or in "god" as a "prime mover" in the deistic sense is not the same as believing in the Christian God, and that Aristotle and Plato and many other of the greatest minds in history agree with me on this fundamental point. She ignores it. She in one breath says that being gay is wrong because god says so, but then says why should she feel a certain way just because god says something is wrong? why should that affect how she feels or acts? Then why do you feel it's wrong if you don't feel obligated to put credence in it or change the way you feel because of it? OH WAIT, YOU DO.

It's like arguing with a retard. (I'd say I'm sure that comment is going to piss her off, as she pays very close attention to any possible insult I say to her, just not the actual facts I point out to her.) How can you prove your point to someone on a complex issue when they obviously cannot understand the constituent concepts, even when very clearly pointed out to them? When you explain something, and in the next breath they contradict what you just showed to them to be true, as though you never said it... how do you make any progress? How do you explain or prove something to someone who has forcefully closed their mind to the possibility that you might be right, and in the process, ignores all the concepts that are a part of actually understanding?

I do not have the patience for it. I can't help but call things as I see them, and when someone is in fact behaving as though they're stupid, I can't help but tell them so. If you don't want to be called an idiot, QUIT FUCKING BEING ONE AND USE YOUR GOD DAMNED HEAD. QUIT CRYING FOR BEING CALLED OUT FOR THE STUPID FUCKING CRAP YOU BELIEVE ESPECIALLY WHEN SHOW WHY YOU'RE WRONG FOR DOING SO.

Jesus fucking Christ.

yeah, while I'm at it, fuck you God and fuck your alleged son Jesus of Nazareth. Fuck you both. Please strike me down with lightning for blashpeming and taking your names in vain you fucking pathetic figments of the collective Christian imagination.

...

Oh look... nothing happened!

STUPID FUCKING CHRISTIANS. You're prisoners to your own ignorant delusions, and so set on maintaining that fundamentally irrational and stupid and impossible belief system, that you cannot comprehend the complexities of reality. You have convinced yourself that something as impossible as "black is white" is true because you need to do so to maintain your fantasy. It doesn't make it true, and it does in fact cognitively cripple you and make you A FUCKING IDIOT.

So go get mad and cry and point at me for calling you names now, instead of actually focusing on WHY I DO SO. On the actual evidence I presented stating the very core of why the very foundation of your religious belief system is IMPOSSIBLE AND WRONG, and hence every belief based on the authority of that WRONG and ERRONEOUS belief are therefore INVALID. MOOT.

GOT IT?

If you don't agree, then please, explain to me how that article is wrong, and how and why the Christian God IS in fact real per what the bible says he is. And we'll see who is the ignorant one here who has to fall back on ignorance and lack of understanding as their excuse for their beliefs.



Considering that almost half of all Americans believe some of the following things...

The Christmas Miracle.
Most Americans believe the virgin birth is literally true, a NEWSWEEK poll finds.

A quick note for those of you that don't know... Mary was not a virgin when she had Jesus, this is a known misinterpretation of the original texts. Also, the immaculate conception does not refer to the virgin birth of Jesus, but instead to the miraculous birth of Mary being free from original sin and therefore an untainted vessle to conceive Jesus in so that she would not impart him with original sin, as being the savior, he could not have this sin in him. (all based on particular Catholic dogma and interpretations and outright fabrications etc.) I've touched on this before... but there are different camps on the original sin issue.. the 2 main ones I'm aware of being, on one hand, that original sin is almost like a genetic legacy that we pass on to our children, so that as soon as they are conceived, they bear the taint of that original sin. This is the root of the Catholic concept of the Immaculate conception of Mary... they HAD to fabricate this to account for their version of original sin etc. The other view is that original sin was a kind of disaster that tainted the world in which we live... so that we are suffering from the fallout of that original act, but not necessarily that we ourselves are tainted.

To put it simply, sort of like a river with fish in it. On one hand, the fish are healthy but living in a polluted river which makes them unhealthy. On the other hand the river is clean, but the fish are genetically diseased from birth in spite of the clean river. (And to continue the parallel, that both of these were somehow the result of a conscious choice by the fish... as though we humans, claiming to love the fish, said "ok, you can swim in this river, but never eat this worm.". So the fish eat the worm and are fucked for eternity, but love us as perfect creators and providers in spite of the fact that we created their misery, we presented them with it and afterwards refuse to fix it, and are obviously far from loving and perfect as they think we are.)

*sigh* Enough with that silly analogy.

Most Americans take Bible stories literally.

Now mind you, Lisa is an 18 year old Canadian girl, so obviously some of this mentality stretches north of the border, although thankfully they seem to, on average, have a little more common sense up there. Considering their laws to allow same sex marriage in contrast with our governments overt attempts at a constitutional ban against them.

*sigh*

stu·pid
adj. stu·pid·er, stu·pid·est

1. Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.
2. Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.
3. Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake.
4. Dazed, stunned, or stupefied.
5. Pointless; worthless: a stupid job.

n.

A stupid or foolish person.

It's your own fault that you quite clearly match the definition. Don't cry to me for stating a fact. Instead work to no longer fit the definition.

Technorati Tags / Religion / Idiocy / Superstition / Delusion / Ignorance / Christianity / Creationism / Virgin Birth / Immaculate Conception / Irrational / Illogical / Frustrating / Stupid

Let's kill the Intelligent Design misconception and put several nails in Christianity while we're at it.

What a refreshingly verbose subject for this post. :-)

Design Yes, Intelligent No - A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory and Neocreationism.

Do yourselves a favor and read this.

I've already said a lot on this subject, so I won't bother repeating myself.

Brilliant article. Very informative.

Technorati Tags / Creationism / Evolution / Intelligent Design / Religion / Facts

Based on a true story!

The Exorcism of Emily Rose.

Hrrrmmmm.... how about... allegedly based on a story heard from some newspaper articles about a speech a priest gave to a parapsychology society about an excorcism he had supposedly performed on a 14 year old boy 20 years prior.

*sigh*

It's nice to see that they at least on the surface seem to present both sides of the story in this fictional account. At least from what I see from a cursory glance through the website.

Moving on to a little more reality based...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exorcism

"In June 2005, in Tanacu, Bacău County, Romania, Father Daniel Petru Corogeanu, a Romanian Orthodox priest who ordered the crucifixion of Maricica Irina Cornici, a 23-years old nun because she was "possessed by the devil" and "had to be exorcised", faced murder charges, and was unrepentant as he celebrated a funeral mass for his alleged victim."

From the article:
Priest unrepentent after crucifying of nun.

And a nice gem from that article:

Claps of thunder from an approaching storm were sometimes the only sounds to break the silence.

"This storm is proof that the will of God has been done," Daniel said.

*shaking head sadly*

"See!? The lightning is Zeus! He is angry with us!"

Has humanity really progressed so little in the past several thousand years?

*sigh*



(you might remember this story from my previous posts, including the original " and while we're at it... yay religion! :-D")

Wow.

After posting my last post, I was browsing the technorati tags on Gay Marriage, and I ran across a blog called "Hispanic Pundit".

This fellow really is a few crayons short of a full box. :-/

For instance, not only can he not grasp in his post "Gay Marriage Is Not About Equal Rights For Gays" that there are fundamental differences between the reasons why gay marriage is not allowed and why marrying your biological sister is not allowed, or why polygamous marriage is frowned on by the government. Now, mind you, first off polygamous marriage has actually been historically BY FAR the norm. It is actually natural and makes sense in the context of nature, and hence was up until relatively recent times, and generally everywhere outside of Europe and the U.S., the predominant form of marriage and relationships.

The government simply wanted a simple concrete standard definition of marriage, and so chose the simplest one that was in vogue at the inception of our country, based on the current European concept of marriage at the time, which was between a single man and a woman as laid out in the Bible. This was not the case for most of the rest of the world. Changing this now would require a massive reworking of everything related to marriage from the ground up to account for an arbitary number of spouses. Rather than as in the case of same-sex marriage, simply changing the wording to "between two legal adults".

As far as marrying your sister, this has to do, quite simply, with Genetics. The government doesn't want you purposefully breeding web footed deformed babies. Obviously in the case of same sex marriages, this isn't an issue. And just as a matter of stating a fact here, same sex marriages are PROVEN to provide more stable environments for children than heterosexual marriages, due primarily to the fact that most homosexual couples are affluent and well off, and that any child brought into the family is generally a well planned for and very wanted child. Homosexual marriages, for all intents and purposes, don't have "oopsies" babies.

Also, our Hispanic friend can't seem to fathom in his post "Is Gay Marriage A Civil Rights Issue?", that homosexuality is not just a choice. It's part of who you are. And just because you try to act differently, doesn't change who you are. And repression of who you are because it doesn't fit what society wants you to be, doesn't change who you fundamentally are, as many homosexuals who have finally "came out" later in life could tell you. They had felt wrong, and sick, and depressed and unhappy and all kinds of things their whole life because society had shoved it down their throats that being gay was bad. That it was wrong etc. Which we know is not true.

When finally later in life they end up getting divorced, leaving behind their family and finding someone of the same sex and simply being themselves, they feel incredible. Happy, relaxed... they just feel right. It's sad that they have to spend a portion of their lives trying to force themselves into a mold of what they think they're supposed to be because an ignorant society based primarily on outdated and just plain wrong religious dogma has pushed upon them that who they are is wrong, that how they feel is a sickness. And that it takes them until later in life when they finally can't take it any more and take that giant step and finally realize what was right all along.

Would me personally abstaining from sex make me any less heterosexual? No. That is silly to even consider. Would my sexual desires just cease to exist because I'm not physically having sex with a woman? No. Would me marrying a man and even having sex once in a great while make me gay? No. This is just a distinct lack of understanding of human sexuality and psychology on the part of our Hispanic friend.

I'm sorry to say, but it's sad that someone can be that oblivious to reality in an attempt to justify their own bigoted point of view. Of course it's no shock at all that he's a Republican. I'd hazard that he's Christian too. But that's just a guess.

(Now mind you, to be fair, having read more of his blog, I think he's generally on the right track with most things. He seems to try to keep his facts in check and rationally approach situations. Which actually puzzles me as to how he can be so clueless on this topic. I just like to give credit where credit is due, having been reminded oft times by my friends that even the ignorant people I choose to bash on about topics like this are generally a good deal more intelligent than the average person. So with a nod to Dale Carnegie, I give a nod to the Hispanic Pundit.)

Technorati Tags / Same-sex Marriage / Gay Marriage / Marriage / Dicrimination / Rights / Religion / Democracy / Minority / Ignorance / Republican / Bigot

Interesting perspective.

Oh, one more thing. In the previous post's comment box you were quoted as having said that "A government's job is to represent the majority of people. That's how they are supposed to make their decisions - by taking the general opinion of their constituents, and doing what they want." And while that is true, it is also a government's job to defend minorities.
Vanessa | 08.10.05 - 3:33 am

And Lisa's response, which I actually found quite interesting as a way of rationalizing her stance on the issue. I personally had never thought of it like that, so it came as a bit of a surprise. It made me smile at how clever it was. :-)

I agree. But the homosexuality thing isn't about defending rights, it was about changing the definition of marriage.

Up until just a little while ago, homosexuals had the exact same rights that everyone else did. No one could marry another person of the same gender. I couldn't, you couldn't, no one could. So it wasn't about defending the rights of anyone, it was about changing the definition of marriage, which is what most people seem to have an issue with.
Lisa | 08.10.05 - 8:11 pm

The difference is, heterosexuals didn't want to marry someone of the same gender. If you want to equate rights, it would be like saying you didn't have the right to marry the person you fell in love with. You've got the cart before the horse. They didn't have the same rights, because you got to marry the person you fell in love with if you wanted, because you were heterosexual and fit the old standard and religious definition of marriage, the old outdated and incorrect one that says that homosexuality is an abomination in Gods eyes and teaches you to be the bigot that you are. :-)

Thankfully, enough people aren't living in an archaic religious based fantasy world that they realize that the real difference is that there were normal adult people who were in love with each other, spending their lives together as lovers and wanted to be married as the normal people that they were, and they couldn't because of a law that did not grant them equal rights... that expressly prevented them from being like everyone else and perpetuated the stereotype that they were deviants who had simply made a sick and perverse choice in violation of Gods will.

It's like having a law against insulin. We'd both have the same rights, but it certainly wouldn't bother me like it would a type 1 diabetic, who really couldn't just make the choice not to be one now could he.

But a cute approach to rationalizing discrimination to one's self none the less. ;-)

Technorati Tags / Same-sex Marriage / Gay Marriage / Marriage / Dicrimination / Rights / Religion / Democracy / Minority

Patents are horrible redux.

Epicrealm Uses Vague Patents to sue Web Sites.

And yes, that includes this site as well. And pretty much any other blogging or journal sites.

Patents were supposed to be a very specific thing originally. A short exemption from having your product copied, sort of limited monopoly, in exchange for the information being published and after a few years (14 it seems, now extended to 20 for general patents.), then it would go into the public domain.

Lately these have proliferated to such an extent, crossing boundaries into software and other areas, that they are stifling any kind of innovation because every tiny idea is being patented, no matter how obvious, trivial or otherwise that it has been. It's nearly impossible to create anything today without infringing on several patents held by other companies, putting you at the risk of later being sued, or having to pay expensive licensing fees etc.

Copyrights have gone horribly wrong in a different direction, by repeatedly extending the term they cover (And RETROACTIVELY applying this extension backwards to previous copyrights that would otherwise be expiring, the obvious main culprit being Disney's massive lobbying efforts in order to maintain control of the Mickey Mouse image.)

There was a statement not long ago that I think might have been Bill Gates (it was from Microsoft) saying that the future economy would not be in creating products, but instead licensing ideas. All ideas would be owned as Intellectual Property and in order to actually create anything, you would have to pay these warehouses of ideas.

Chilling if you ask me. That is not a world I want to live in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-copyright

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark

I am not completely against the idea of Intellectual Property. I don't think it would be unreasonable to allow a period of 2 or 3 years where you would have exclusive rights to produce your specific invention to recoup the costs of investment production and development and personal effort etc. Then allow the idea to move into the public domain where it could benefit society and also promote actual competition, either replacing the product with a better one, or forcing you to come up with a new innovation or to advance that innovation to match pace with your competitors etc. All around good for society as a whole.

Locking away ideas for over a century is detrimental to society to say the least.

"If creativity is the field, copyright is the fence". --John Oswald

"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property." --Thomas Jefferson

Technorati Tags / Politics / Patents / Copyright / Trademark / Freedom / Intellectual+Property / Copyleft / Anti-Copyright

A great quote.

There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.

Henry David Thoreau

(Found as a sub-heading on Strike the Root, thanks to koden.)

I strive to strike at the root, and teach others to do the same, at the very least by learning to tell the branches from the roots. (And this goes as much for myself as for anyone else... I spend at least some time almost every day expanding my knowledge to help me better understand the world around me. I will still hopefully be learning until the day I die.)

Also, I should note that I'm always wary of any use of the word "evil", as I've discussed in several older posts. (For instance, my June 3rd post entitled "In response to Lisa's "the nature of man" post.")

Another example of ignorance.

I ran across a site today that piqued my interest at first glance, but as I read through the article, I simply had to laugh at how outrageous some of this guys assertions were. I mean, some of the points are true, generally regarding ties to Freemasonry... but beyond that, as far as what freemasonry is, or as to what the spiritual relevance of certain symbols are, or whether or not things were built for certain reasons... I mean... this guy must be smoking crack. :-)

Freemasonry and Washington D.C.'s Street Layout.

For instance, he claims that the 5 points of the pentagram stand for Fire, Water, Earth, and Air, with the bottom point representing Lucifer himself.

*ahem*

BULLSHIT.

It stands for the spirit. In almost every religion ever to use it. Not to mention the fact that it was regularly associated with Christianity for centuries, including in it's upside down variation. Which he'd know if he did any real research.

Or his assertion that the streets were laid out in a giant satanic pentagram for the following reason:

The symbols that were interwoven into the design of Governmental Center, communicate tremendous power to the occultist while at the same time they hide the true meaning from non-occultist. These symbols take on a life of their own, in the mind of the occultist, possessing great inherent power to accomplish the plans of the occultist.

However, if we look at the following image, we see that there is a section of the perceived pentagram missing.


Not only that, but if we refer back to the original plans themselves, we see that this was the case from the beginning.


Now, if you were intent on creating a giant pentagram whose symbolism was highly important, wouldn't you make the simple effort to continue 1 street to complete the symbol? Not to mention that given it's Pythagorean roots, it's generally made a point to draw it geometrically correct.

Have a look at this page page for much more on that:
"Washington, DC - A secret satanic plot revealed?"

Or how about where he says the following about the Washington Monument:

The Federal Government informs us that the visible height of the Washington Monument is five hundred and fifty-five feet, and the foundation depth is an additional planned twenty percent of the visible height.

Thus accurate figures for the foundation depth in feet, the overall total height in feet, and also the visible height in inches, can be arrived at.

Which according to his erroneous calculations, come to 666 feet and 6660 inches respectively.

However, if he would have actually done any research whatsoever on the subject, he would have discovered the following FACTS about the height of both the above ground and below ground portions of the monument:

Height above ground: 555 ft 5 1/8 in
Depth below ground: 36 ft 10 in

Which gives us a grand total height of 592 feet 3 and 1/8ths inches and an above ground height of 6,665.125 inches.
(and 7107 and 1/8 inches grand total, just to be thourough)

Funny how when you actually stick to facts, ignorant conspiracy theories start to fall apart. Life starts getting a lot more interesting when you start to realize that an awful lot of things are like that.

Feel free to dig in further and see what else you can find out about that article, I guarantee you'll learn a hell of a lot in the process. ;-)

(I actually did a lot of studying on Freemasonry not too long ago, thanks to Jen's roommate Gabby lending me a book on the history of Freemasonry before the supposed origination in England etc, so this really jumped out at me as bullshit once I started reading it and saw the references to Lucifer and Satanism.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Monument
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagram
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baphomet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism

Technorati Tags / Conspiracy Theories / Politics / Washington Monument / Religion / Freemasonry / Satanism / Lucifer / Baphomet / Pentagram

Balloon Pirate rocks my socks.

Head on over to his excellent blog and read his post " The New Silent Majority".

Then read the rest of his blog.

Then bookmark it.

Then add it to your blogroll or whatever the hell you people call that...

Then remember to check back and read his blog periodically. :-)

Thank you.

I know I said I'd post more...

But I've been busy all evening playing with satellite photos.

I was reading about how pretty much any satellite photos you can get your hands on now have the White House, the Capitol Building, the Dept. of Treasury, and surrounding office buildings all modified, pixelated, obscured etc.


Google Map of the White House, Dept. of Treasury and surrounding buildings.

The United States Capitol Building and surrounding office buildings.

Here is the Lincoln Memorial at full 0.25m:1px resolution. These are only thumbnails linking to full size images. Be sure to follow the links to view the full size images.


So I started playing around and created a merged together 1m:1px ratio composite of the 2002 images with the 1988 black and white images.


Here is the original new degraded image:


And here is the original old non-degraded image:


Here's an example of the resolution difference between 1m:1px and 0.25m:1px.


Personally I think these alterations are complete appeasing bullshit that accomplish nothing in the way of additional safety. People were whining about sattelite images being available, so they alter the images to make your average Joe on google maps feel more safe. Sorry folks, do you suddenly think that they can't figure out where the building is now!? *gasp* "Muhammad! We've lost the U.S. Capitol! Our terrorist efforts have been thwarted by their making the building a little more pixelated! The Jihad is over my brothers!"

And for a few kicks:
WTC Site, New York.
"Area 51", Groom Lake, Nevada.
Makkah (Mecca), Saudi Arabia.
Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq.
The Statue of Liberty, Liberty Island.

Technorati Tags / Washington D.C. / Politics / Satellite Photos / Freedom of Information Act / Safety

This one speaks for itself.

Bacteria froze the Earth, researchers say.

Having studied the history of Venus and Mars and their atmospheres etc, I probably get a little more nervous than the average person about how frail our own planet is in that regard.

Technorati Tags / Ice Age / Global Warming / Greenhouse

"Top 10 Tech We Miss" from C|Net

Top 10 tech we miss.

I couldn't help but think as I read this list that it might be a little shorter if not for the wonders of our incredibly screwed up copyright and patent systems.

But on further examination of the actual list, I realized that a lot of it was simply great innovations being squashed because of MONEY on the very bottom line. Take #5 for example. This isn't a simple matter of them phasing out a vehicle... this is a matter of them quite fervently stomping out a truly revolutionary advance in automobiles. And this isn't the first time this type of thing has happened. While I was working at GM, I started paying a little more attention to the auto industry, which I normally don't, and noticed other cases of this happening where people who had leased other electric vehicles and loved them, were forced to return the vehicles so that they could be destroyed rather than allowing the interested parties to buy them. However, I think that in the story I read, at least 1 gentleman did get to keep his truck... and possibly a few other commercial fleets, but when they die, they're dead.

Now I can't speak for the exact reasons why this happened, but whenever I hear about something like this... where a truly pollution free vehicle is not only quietly taken off the market, but where the vehicles are forcibly recalled and destroyed with no other option given, and not for safety reasons, as to the best of my knowledge the only real safety issue has been high voltage lines in the cars causing a danger to rescue workers who might need to cut through the frame in case of a crash. This issue is present in modern hybrid vehicles, which also require gasoline to run and in real world use offer a barely marginal improvement in fuel economy. Points such as this lead me to question pressure from political or business groups with considerable investments in fossil fuels taking precedence over environmental concerns or the possible market available for "zero" emission vehicles.

I feel like I'm getting a little close to "conspiracy theory" territory, so enough on that point. ;-)

The rest I think I've generally touched on in the past.. the only one I feel the need to revisit momentarily here is the Manned Space Flight issue. I've felt for awhile now that because of the media attention on space flight, and the way the death of a single person is considered an earth shattering catastrophy to be avoided at all costs, how manned space flight has truly been relegated to a pathetic series of short hops into space and back. The historic advances in manned space flight made in the 60's and 70's was due to a concerted effort by dedicated men (and women) willing to put their lives on the line for the advancement of humanity. These people knew the risks and chose to take them. This is just a little more fresh in my mind due to my post a few days ago; "A few links on manned space flight."

Other than that... I'm not sure why the Concorde flights were shut down. It's been several years since I read on that topic... and now, with a review of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde, I see why I didn't have a concrete memory of why they were taken out of service. :-)

As for Napster, it was great, but unfortunately, illegal. I mean, it's hard to argue that it had any other purpose than the sharing of mp3's, the vast majority of which are illegal (and essentially just about all of them were at that time).

Now, I'm all for telling the RIAA and it's ilk to go suck on mufflers, but I don't agree that blatant copyright violation (which is not theft for the record) is necessarily the route to take. However by the same token, I don't agree that artificially maintaining an outdated commercial system through threats and quetsionable lawsuits (suing for thousands in damages for songs that cost less than a single $1 to purcahse or are free etc), or more specifically, trying to sue for lost sales on sales that would have likely never occurred anyway. Something about as logical as 2 stores on the same street suing each other because a person bought a can of pop (or soda) at the other store, thereby depriving the first store of the sale.

Not to mention that you're not even dealing with a phsyical commodity. You are dealing with bits of data on a computer which are infinitely reproduceable with no loss of quality (beyond initial encoding with a lossy codec like mp3).

Hence copyright infringement. It's like photocopying a book. Just because you photocopied the book, doesn't mean you were going to buy the book in the first place. You're just making a copy without permission... which in and of itself is a bit questionable. À la Richard Stallman's "The Right to Read".

blah. Before I have to get into some deep discussion on Free Markets, I'm just going to move onto something else. This is all giving me a headache. Although I really do need to sit down and study this... as it ties into a lot of what I deal with. I need to really do some serious studying here and get a better understanding of where I stand on the issue.

"Cyber-terrorism"

Terrorists Turn to the Web as Base of Operations.

While this is nothing new to me, reading articles such as this one always worry me for a different reason than you might expect.

This type of information is increasingly being used to justify legislation criminalizing anonymity, encryption, privacy etc. An "If you've got nothing to hide, then what are you worried about?" type of argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy

Another facet of this story that I feel the need to note is the pervasive presence of Islam throughout the post as a fundamental justification and cause of this movement. Remove the religious aspect from the equation, and how strong do you think the movement would be?

Which brings me to my next point. Trying to restrict privacy and freedom to battle the "terrorists" on the internet is like treating a corn on the toe of a foot of a leg that is about to be amputated due to gangrene. The governments desperately need to address the root of these problems and stop trying to fight the symptoms. They are starting to realize that they're fighting a losing battle. You can't prevent the transmission of ideas. You need to remove the cause for these people to want to learn those ideas... remove the justifications for their actions.

What they don't seem to realize is that in their myopic fight against terrorism, they are actually making the situation even worse... just pouring fuel on the fire. Until they stop and actually address the root causes and stop trying to avoid the REAL religious underpinnings and political and military history that have caused this, they will NOT make any headway, and as we have seen... things will just get worse.

This brings to mind one of my previous posts on the London mayor Ken Livingstone and his comments on the real reasons for the causes of the current explosion in terrorism. (no pun intended. ;-)

Technorati Tags / Cyber Terrorism / Islam / Religion / Privacy / Ken Livingstone / Al Qaeda / Anonymity

Let's start this out softly...

Now this first article, I'll have to say that I'm taking it with a grain of salt, but if by some odd chance it is correct in it's assumptions, I can only say that I'd be quite thrilled. :-)

Federal Whistle Blower Claims Chicago Grand Jury Indicted Bush And Others For Perjury and Obstruction Of Justice; U.S. Attorney's Office Says 'No Comment,' Refusing To Confirm Or Deny Alleged Indictments.

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation into the Valerie Plame-CIA leak has now spilled over into Bush administration lies involving 9/11 and the war in Iraq, according to sources close to the Chicago probe.
August 2, 2005

And here is an update to that story:
Prominent Chicago Judicial Watch Dog Claims U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens In Chicago To Mediate Resolution Concerning Grand Jury Indictments Against Bush And Other High-Level Officials.

And be sure to note it's follow-up:
Journalist Stands By His Story That Bush And Others Indicted But Retracts Story About Potential Firing Of Chicago Special Prosecutor.

Or you can just go to the main site itself and browse the articles for yourself. :-)

The Arctic Beacon - The Last Frontier of Truth.

Just posting the title of that site makes me question the use of the word "truth", is so much as that a lot of what is posted on both that site, and in a sense on my sites, which has the subtitle on the official site of "A Beacon of Truth In Dark Times." Facts are generally not subjective... but I'd have to say that the Truth is a tiny bit more hazy than that. Also before I get into some philosophical rant again... I'd say that "The Truth" is really no more subjective than Facts, but the Truth, being comprised of a multitude of facts, and factoring in a multitude of peoples personal feelings and beliefs, is far more complex. The truth isn't a binary question of true/false, like a fact is. The truth is like the end of a long journey, where the cobblestones beneath your feet are the facts. Wander off the path and lose the truth.

Technorati Tags / George W. Bush / Truth / Facts / Chicago Grand Jury / Perjury / Obstruction of Justice / Indictment

A flood approaches.

I just woke up, so I'm still clearing the cobwebs out... listening to "Alison Krauss & Union Station", who I loooooove love love love love love.

Anyway, as I'm browsing the net and whatnot, I've come across a slew of articles that I feel the urge to post on... so, over the rest of this evening, there should be a steady stream.

But first I need to get some ramen in my belly.

A quote on "dark ages".

An age is called Dark not because the light fails to shine, but because people refuse to see it.
      -- James Michener, "Space"

Open your eyes.

Yes, I'm polemic. :-) Accountability for Islam.

I was browsing Chris' blog again and noticed a comment from one of his readers, Herge Smith:

I was listening to Radio 4 yesterday, and I think it was Nick Clarke interviewing a Muslim group and he said something along the lines of 'Do you fear a backlash?', and this guy quite rightly answered, 'what do you mean, 'backlash', that implies that we had something to do with it in the first place."

If our media can't make a distiction, what chance does the common (and think) man and woman have.

Hello politically correct ignorance! :-D

YOU DID HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH IT. It was your idiotic religious beliefs that fueled this fire. You choose to be a part of, and promote, an archaic religion that promotes ignorance. This religious fervor and ignorance is what has been used primarily to fuel terrorism and conflict in the middle east, and now throughout the world. Justified resentment towards the United States for their imperialistic foreign policy is the other main ingredient... but we can't ignore the fact that ISLAM AS A RELIGION IS A VITAL AND FUNDAMENTAL INGREDIENT TO THE MAJORITY OF ALL TERRORIST ACTIVITY TODAY.

So, in fact you, AS A MUSLIM, DO share some responsibility for these actions.

For a little bit of background on the logic behind this, please read my previous post entitled "and while we're at it... yay religion! :-D". Please make sure to read the comments, as that is where the meat of the discussion is.

Technorati Tags / Islam / Muslims / Religion / Terrorism / Accountability

A few links on manned space flight.

A Rocket To Nowhere.

Some key quotes:

But NASA dismisses such helpful suggetions as unworthy of its mission of 'exploration', likening critics of manned space flight to those Europeans in the 1500's who would have cancelled the great voyages of discovery rather than face the loss of one more ship.

Of course, the great explorers of the 1500's did not sail endlessly back and forth a hundred miles off the coast of Portugal, nor did they construct a massive artificial island they could repair to if their boat sprang a leak.

and

The Soviet Shuttle, the Buran (snowstorm) was an aerodynamic clone of the American orbiter, but incorporated many original features that had been considered and rejected for the American program, such as all-liquid rocket boosters, jet engines, ejection seats and an unmanned flight capability. You know you're in trouble when the Russians are adding safety features to your design.

hehe ;-)

And another link that was a bit disheartening:
Cosmic rays may prevent long-haul space travel.

And a list of other links just because they're interesting (about the new "planet" discovered at the edge of our solar system):
Distant object found orbiting Sun.
Much ado about Pluto.
Java applet visualizing the orbit of 2003 EL61. (took a minute or two to load on my computer)

Technorati Tags / Mars / Space Shuttle / Manned Space Exploration / The Internation Space Station / Space Travel / Pluto / 2003 EL61

Further comments on ID.

I was reading over that article on Bush again, and felt compelled to comment on this particular comment:

"With the president endorsing it, at the very least it makes Americans who have that position more respectable, for lack of a better phrase," said Gary L. Bauer, a Christian conservative leader who ran for president against Bush in the 2000 Republican primaries. "It's not some backwater view. It's a view held by the majority of Americans."

This DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACTS. When are people going to get that through their heads? Intelligent Design is NOT Scientific. AT ALL. It does NOT deserve, even remotely, the same credibility which Evolutionary Theory has SCIENTIFICALLY EARNED.

The majority of Americans believed that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction. The majority of Americans believed that Saddam was behind 9/11. The majority of Americans hold many MANY ignorant views about the world based on a lack of research and a lack of understanding. They naively take the word of people like Bush or of their Pastors, Preachers, Fathers etc. FACTS have since proven that Saddam did NOT have WMD's... Saddam did NOT have ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do with 9/11 or with Al Queda, nor was he harboring or supporting terrorists or ANYTHING. Those were and ARE the facts... and the majority of ignorant Americans believing otherwise didn't suddenly alter reality and make their fallacious misunderstanding and ignorant beliefs true.

And humorously enough, given enough time for reality to settle in, guess what? The majority of Americans believe otherwise now. Gradual Illumination of the Mind.

This isn't an argument about keeping it out of schools... it's an argument against pretending that it's a remotely scientific claim. It's not. If you want to mention Intelligent Design AS WHAT IT REALLY IS, and NOT as a remotely scientific belief... be my guest.

John G. West, an executive with the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank supporting intelligent design, issued a written statement welcoming Bush's remarks. "President Bush is to be commended for defending free speech on evolution, and supporting the right of students to hear about different scientific views about evolution," he said.

Intelligent Design IS NOT SCIENTIFIC. It's that kind of bullshit rhetoric from the ignorant Christian Fundamentalists that is really the root of the problem here. The failure to remotely comprehend what actually seperates religious belief from scientific reality.

Bush's comments were "irresponsible," said Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. He said the president, by suggesting that students hear two viewpoints, "doesn't understand that one is a religious viewpoint and one is a scientific viewpoint." Lynn said Bush showed a "low level of understanding of science," adding that he worries that Bush's comments could be followed by a directive to the Justice Department to support legal efforts to change curricula.

Followed by another gemstone of ignorance:

In comments published last year in Science magazine, Bush said that the federal government should not tell states or school boards what to teach but that "scientific critiques of any theory should be a normal part of the science curriculum."

Say it again with me now... Intelligent Design is IN NO WAY Scientific.

Starting to understand the root of the problem here?

I hate to keep reposting the following quote by Stephen J. Gould, but it's so pertinent that I feel compelled to.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. [...] In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
   - Stephen J. Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"
     Discover, May 1981

Why is this so hard for them to understand? As I said before, it all boils down a rather simple point... if you posit that the universe must have a creator, because complex things cannot exist without one, then the creator himself must have a creator, ad infinitum. This is the true definition of Irreducible Complexity. Being irrational and illogical, those of us with functioning brains move on to consider the next scientific possibility actually dealing with reality and not fantasy.

Technorati Tags / Creationism / Evolution / Intelligent Design / Religion / George W. Bush

KEEP IT IN IT'S PLACE.

Bush Remarks On 'Intelligent Design' Theory Fuel Debate.

Simply put, "Intelligent Design" is not a scientific theory, it is a religious belief and nothing more. It does not belong being taught under the false guise of "science" anywhere near a science classroom. Period. You're welcome to discuss it in a religious studies or philosophy class or something... but having nothing to do with sound science, it by no means belongs in a science classroom and is ridiculous to be even considered as such. Frankly I personally would rather it wasn't "taught" anywhere, but rather discussed frankly as what it is, a religious belief held primarily by Christians with no factual or scientific basis, and as I stated in my previous post, a belief that lacks any logical or rational foundation whatsoever.

Technorati Tags / Creationism / Evolution / Intelligent Design / Religion / George W. Bush

Here we go again...

It's things like this that actually made me a little sad to see Pope John Paul II die... I think Catholicism is ridiculous, and religion in general stupid... but within those bounds, he was a progressive and intelligent man. With him gone, I unfortunately see the Roman Catholic Church regressing in dangerous ways. :-(

For instance, take this article by the Archbishop of Vienna, Christoph Cardinal Schönborn, entitled "Finding Design in Nature".

As further food for thought on this general topic, I have a few additional pieces; the first from Wikidpedia's article on Creationism:

Plea to reject nonsense

In his work The Literal Meaning of Genesis (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim), Saint Augustine (354-430), embarrassed by Christians who would not accept this implication of the Doctrine of Creation, wrote against them. This translation is by J. H. Taylor in Ancient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41.

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, [..] and this knowledge he holds as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?" [1 Timothy 1.7]

I'll add in the actual verse from from New Revised Standard portion of my bible for 1 Timothy chapter 1 verse 7, which Augustine references: ... desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are sying or the things about which they make assertions.

Another point here to consider, which deals a hefty blow to both Augustines views on the proofs for God's existance and of Intelligent Design etc... is the other side of the double edged blade of Irreducible Complexity, which while originally attempted as a validation for belief in god and creation and a rejection of evolution, in the ends up being turned against the very point it was meant to bolster when you consider that if you try to avoid Irreducible Complexity by introducing a God, ala Deus Ex Machina, you are actually introducing Irreducible Complexity into a system which was only previously highly complex. If you introduce a God, then who created that God? It is no more a relevant solution than evolution, and unfortunately, because it is not based on scientific inquiry and facts such as Evolutionary Theory is, it is inherently less credible to begin with.

Again, Wikipedia sums it up in a nutshell: The "chicken or the egg" argument states that if the Universe had to be created by God because it must have a creator, then God, in turn would have had to be created by some other God, and so on.

---------------------------------------------------

Also, after noticing the Technorati Tags on Chris' blog, I think I'm going to try them out. I've been looking at ways of getting my blog some more exposure lately, like the TTLB Ecosystem etc... and this one seems interesting. So here goes:

Technorati Tags / Creationism / Evolution / Intelligent Design / Religion / Catholicism / Christoph Schönborn

I learn something new every day.

So I was over reading a post on Chris's blog (a blog friend of Lisa's), and ran across a reference I didn't quite recognize, so I went researching.

Robert Kilroy-Silk.

Interesting reading... one of those things that while not terribly important, does factor into the social context and is therefore something that I should at least be aware of in order to better understand the social nuances of UK pop culture etc.

Also, it's always nice to get a view of things firsthand on the other side of the pond. Most of my friends are in Germany over there, so I don't hear much straight from the UK.

Aaaand... in light of the recent London transit bombings, it's even more interesting hearing about the peoples reactions... such as the post I linked to above.

As for Robert Kilroy-Silk, the more I read what he has to say, the more I somewhat I agree with him... while he's a bit off base, his opinions are rooted in the truth, as the following article explains;
Kilroy-Silk is right about the Middle East, say Arabs.

Technorati Tags / Robert Kilroy-Silk / Arabs / London / London Bombings

More bickering with Lisa and company...

Lisa can't seem to get it through her head that just because supposedly (see the bottom of this post for more on that) the majority of Canadians are against same sex marriage, that it still does not justify depriving those people of a basic right and respect granted heterosexual couples.

Her argument rests on the fact that if the majority of the people are against it, then it doesn't matter what the minority thinks... that seems to be her view of "Democracy".

I finally got sick of her ignoring all my data and points to solely focus on her terribly narrowminded, ignorant and flawed "argument", and decided to hopefully clarify to her exactly what I and others like Chris were referring to when we said that it was the right thing to do, regardless of whether or not the majority of Canadians were against same sex marriages. Based on the scientific facts that I've laid out in previous posts, the following should sum it up pretty succinctly.

A few points from Principles of Democracy: Majority Rule, Minority Rights:

On the surface, the principles of majority rule and the protection of individual and minority rights would seem contradictory. In fact, however, these principles are twin pillars holding up the very foundation of what we mean by democratic government.

Minorities -- whether as a result of ethnic background, religious belief, geographic location, income level, or simply as the losers in elections or political debate -- enjoy guaranteed basic human rights that no government, and no majority, elected or not, should remove.

Acceptance of ethnic and cultural groups that seem strange if not alien to the majority can represent one of the greatest challenges that any democratic government can face. But democracies recognize that diversity can be an enormous asset. They treat these differences in identity, culture, and values as a challenge that can strengthen and enrich them, not as a threat.

And in summary, a few links to consider. With a nod and a wink to Lisa. ;-)

Same-sex marriage bill must stand, "majority" says.

Canadians And Same Sex Marriage As The Supreme Court Of Canada Makes Its Ruling: 71% Support Concept, 27% Don’t.

As the Supreme Court of Canada issues its opinion on the federal government's legislation to legalize same-sex marriage today, a poll of Canadians finds that a full majority (71%) support the concept of same sex marriage. However, these Canadians are split in how they would like the union recognized: four in ten (39%) believe same-sex marriage should be “fully recognized and equal to conventional heterosexual marriages”, while and 32% believe it should “be allowed to exist in civil law but not have the same legal weight as a conventional marriage”. In the alternate, the poll found that only a minority of 27% believe that “it is wrong and should never be lawful”. Two percent “don’t know” which of these views they have on this issue.

I think that about sums it up.

Technorati Tags / Democracy / Canada / Same-sex Marriage / Minority Rights

*yawn*

Well, I've foolishly stayed up all night chatting, screwing around, and working on actually getting a real live phreadom.com site online. I updated PHP and MySQL on my server, installed the latest Wordpress stable release and went through doing configuration and such... started digging into the themes to familiarize myself with the code and figure out how I'm going to port my phreadom.com design over to a Wordpress theme.

I know that it's at least partially possible, but it might require either a few sacrifices, or some heavy duty additional coding.

On that note, it's time for bed (or was about 12 hours ago).

(I'd "unveil" what I'm working on... but I want to have something impressive to show when I do that.)

In the meantime, the following links are some of the old mockups I did for some of the functionality I wanted in the site... these were just some of the basic parts.

http://largo.phreadom.net/phreadom.com-work/phorum.html
http://largo.phreadom.net/phreadom.com-work/phorum2.html
http://largo.phreadom.net/phreadom.com-work/issue.html
http://largo.phreadom.net/phreadom.com/story.html

It seems like I'm going to have to sacrifice some of that vision to fit the mold of a blogging package like Wordpress though. :-( We'll see how it goes.

Songs that inspire despair.

Tomaso Giovanni Albinoni - Adagio in G minor (Berlin Philarmonic / Karajan - for strings and organ c-moll)
(You can find more information on the composer and piece here.)

Clint Mansell (featuring Kronos Quartet) - Winter: Lux Æterna

Both tracks are purely instrumental... but through melody alone just make my heart sink... they just drain the happiness out of me. I don't think I really need to go into more detail than that... but while they are some of my favorite pieces of music (Albinoni's Adagio being by far one of the foremost)... I don't dare listen to them on repeat very often.

(I'm not sure how long those tracks will be available, I just googled for them and linked what I found. The first is not the actual version I prefer to listen to, but should give you an idea none the less.)

Like I was saying...

I've been telling people about this since the Abu Ghraib scandal hit the news, but people don't seem to pay attention. Nice to see it getting another mention in the news.

Amnesty: Two men held in U.S. secret detention.

I believe I covered in a post not too long ago how the US had a number of other secret bases around the world where interrogations and human rights violations were being committed, and that Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay just happened to be the ones that had made it into the news so far... and that possibly they would be phased out or used as distractions from the other bases... and that down the road we would probably hear about some of these other secret bases coming to light.

WTC Memorial.

I was reading a bit about the plans for the memorial again... and had a few thoughts.

This memorial should be for the people who lost their lives, and to commemorate the firemen and policemen who gaves their lives in the line of duty trying to save those people. This should absolutely NOT be used as a tool to promote patriotism and freedom and all the other things that have been used as propaganda tools to promote illegitimate wars overseas and restrictions and basic rights and freedoms domestically.

I don't see why this is so hard for people to understand. Sure the memorial can be a place of free speech... but those people didn't die for freedom, and neither did those civil servants who gave their lives. They were innocent and unknowing victims and good men and women doing their job to serve and protect. They didn't die for the war on terror... that was an after the fact invention of the government to justify their narrowminded and ignorant pursuit of childish, dangerous, illegal and ultimately greatly damaging to the entire world, REVENGE.

Don't sully the memories of the victims in the memorial itself. People are going to be more than happy to bring in their American Flags later, and I'm sure there will also be the people who will want to distribute flyers about "the truth behind 9/11!" or whatever other beliefs they might have. That is a matter of their personal expression... it should NOT be built into the memorial itself. I don't think I can make this any clearer.

The Great Ground Zero Heist.

Take back the Memorial.

updates

I wrote some rather extensive updates to the Thoughts post... and now I'm going to bed for real. I think...

Todays word is brought to you by the letter P.

I ran across a word today which seems to describe me rather well.

It appears that I am a Polemicist.

I really don't think anyone here is going to argue with that assessment.

I learn something new every day.

I side with the Muslim calling homosexuality a perversion.

Read the following article to understand what the heck I'm talking about.

University rebukes employee for e-mail decrying lesbianism.

See if you can figure it out. ;-)

Update on the Gay Rights Marriage blah mess.

Sean, from the #Phreadom channel decided to argue his point of view in a comment on my earlier post bitching about Lisa's bitching. ;-) That led into a spillover into IRC... so I'm pasting it here so that you can follow the discussion and see what the guys in my channel regularly put up with from me. Smart guys, but I'm pretty stubborn and bitchy... so they have to work to make their points. :-P

<largo> koden: ah, so that was you. :P
<koden> yes
<largo> I was hoping you wouldn't get pissed that I bashed on you a little. :-/
<largo> I couldn't tell if you were pointing the finger at me or not for being a "sheep".
<largo> and when I wake up, I'm grumpy usually. ;)
<koden> i was
<koden> actually
<koden> i was pointing it everyone that takes part in the gay marriage argument :)
<koden> it's a wedge issue on a non-important topic if you understand the history of marriage as a legal contract
<koden> :)
<koden> i bashed you in my last comment too :)
<largo> one that involves the government.
<largo> are you saying that you get NOTHING beneficial from the government in exchange?
<largo> because as far as I know, that's just a stupid and ignorant thing to say.
<largo> if indeed, you get NOTHING from the government in exchange... no tax breaks, no additional legal rights etc... (which you DO..), then I would completely agree with you.
<largo> however, in light of the facts as I know them, you're wrong.
<largo> now if you would care to prove to me that I'm mistaken, I would LOVE to be enlightened and correct my fallacious impression of the facts.
<largo> because I'm completely open to the possibility that I could be mistaken here. :-)
<koden> largo: what i think is that any aid for the contract relationship with the government is in exchange to having it stipulated by the government
<koden> WHICH IS BAD
<koden> marriage is a legal formality not a "Right"
<koden> i would rather see contractual marriage abolished then the stupid argument over gay marriage
<largo> in that sense, I agree.
<koden> because all the gay marriage argument is, IS just a WEDGE issue
<largo> marriage works as a way to arrange the property rights of cohabitating couples.
<koden> ie. distraction from REAL issues of government
<largo> it clarifies legal issues that arise as a result.
<koden> you can manage property rights outside of marriage with ease
<largo> yeah, with a long court battle.
<koden> no
<largo> instead of "you were married. it's community property. split it in half value wise. everything is 50/50."
<koden> wills, living wills, incorporation, llc, rights of attorney all suffice
<largo> incorporation!?
<largo> *sigh*
<koden> YES
<koden> if you are really hard up on your property arrangement that would be the best option
<koden> but this isnt about that, it is just a talking point issue
<largo> this is just getting ridiculous.
<koden> it is ridiculous from the start
<largo> I don't agree with the church/state hybrid because of the result it's had.
<largo> I DO agree with marriage as an institution.
<koden> it isnt church/state hybrid, it is government control of who can marry who
<largo> it IS a hybrid.
<koden> remeber marriage licenses were created to prohibit inter-racial marriage
<largo> that's silly of you to say that it isn't.
<koden> it is so PEOPLE CAN CONTROL MARRIAGE FROM THE START
<koden> so i say f marriage
<largo> I never disagreed with that part of it.
<koden> i dont need the government to decree such things
<largo> I don't say fuck marriage... I say fuck that kind of control of it.
<koden> then you should see the rest of the issues as mute
<koden> you can have things both ways
<koden> err
<koden> can't
<koden> "i want the government to control marriage, but i want them to control it my way"
<largo> which is why I am pro gay marriage... because it's the common sense solution, rather than the wholesale disollution of a meaningful ceremonial contract between 2 people.
<koden> that is what you are saying and is the same argument that the anti-gay marriage people say
<koden> you just want to control the definition of the control
<koden> which is the same as anti-gay marriage, so you are both wrong
<largo> they want it to remain religious and ceremonial historical american and european defintion, I want it to be the common sense legal reality of what it actually is today.
<largo> which is why I have a problem with the blend of church and state.
<koden> you both think you are "right" but you are both "wrong" because it is the control that is wrong, not the exclusionary system that, IT WAS DESIGNED TO BE FROM THE START
<largo> you're approaching this from an entirely different angle.
<koden> of course i am
<koden> if i didnt i would be playing into the systems perspective
<largo> MARRIAGE WAS AROUND LONG BEFORE THE FUCKING 60'S SEAN.
<koden> YES I KNOW THIS
<koden> post civil war
<koden> as a state/governmental institution
<koden> before then it was adhock and up to the indivuduals the state/government was not involved, like it should be
<largo> so yes, bitch about the government control of marriage... sure... while I think it's more complex than you state, I somewhat agree... but in the meantime, as it stands, FIX IT IN THE IMMEDIATE, EASY AND OBVIOUS WAY.
<largo> then worry about addressing the deeper, more complex and more far reaching issues.
<koden> you are saying "i want your control, but on my terms", but welcome to a democracy... unless you are the majority you dont get what you want
<largo> like I said... it actual boils down to a libertarian type argument about personal liberty etc.
<largo> which I also agree with.
<largo> but in light of the fact that you've got a fat chance in HELL of deregulating Marriage... fix the system in the meantime.
<largo> no reason to bleed to death from a cut while you're fighting cancer.
<koden> it isn't a fix
<koden> it is you thinking you are right, and they are wrong
<largo> no, I think in their sense they're right.
<koden> which is always a stupid conflict
<largo> but they're approaching it ALSO from a different viewpoint.
<koden> because it is mute in a democracy
<largo> theirs is from the religious aspect.
<koden> doesnt matter what their view is
<koden> people are allowed to be religious
<largo> which is why the canadian law specifically exempted churches from having to have anything to do with gay marriage.
<largo> because it was the civil aspect of it.
<largo> they wrote the appropriate law to correct the appropriate aspects of marriage as it stands.
<koden> and as long as you want access to a government controlled institution you are going to have the decision made by a majority
<largo> and you're being ridiculous to say that it shouldn't have been fixed while you try to completely abolish any government interference AT ALL with marriage.
<koden> fixed and broken is subjective the majority of the population
<largo> I agree.
<koden> i deny both, since they are both sheep mentality
<koden> fighting for the government to control something the way you want is wrong
<largo> christians are sheep, but I support the freedom to believe and to worship.
<koden> most people are sheep religion or not
<largo> I just don't want it legislated onto me that -I- have to do it.
<koden> ACLU are sheep, any gay right organization are sheep, etc etc
<largo> in a sense, it's the same thing. you're saying that people are free, but only these people can get married, and these can't because we say that our GOD says it's bad, or WE don't agree with it... so we want to make that into a law.
<koden> as long as you accept control through legislation in a democracy you are going to have things you do not like legislated against you
<largo> ok, stop paying taxes then.
<koden> democracy is a two wolves and sheep voting what is for dinner
<largo> jackass.
<largo> quit being so fucking extremist.
<largo> it's happiness in slavery.
<koden> exactlly
<largo> benefits for submitting to control.
<koden> i am a slave, but i see a better world possible
<largo> so do I.
<largo> but that doesn't mean there isn't a good reason to fix the system as it stands while you get there.
<largo> THAT is the flaw in your thinking.
<largo> yes, strive toward that goal...
<largo> but don't just ignore everything along the way.
<koden> not a flaw, i choose not to be part of wedge issues with no good outcome
<largo> gradual illumination of the mind type thing.
<koden> people that jump on this issue without being objective are just playing a role that was drafted for them
<largo> like darwin said... it's like trying to convince a christian they're wrong directly... it's not going to happen...
<largo> but if you upgrade the world around them... they get carried along eventually.
<koden> you think it was a mistake that all of those states had anti-gay marriage resolutions on the same election for president in 04?
<largo> think about it. it's not that I don't agree with you, I just disagree with your approach to it.
<koden> the upgrade is not by changing control, the upgrade is by avoiding it
<largo> I need to go to Scotts for dinner.
<largo> tacos are waiting for me.
<koden> i need to get back to packing
<largo> who knows, maybe I'll turn into a Libertarian, buy a gun and start a Phreadom community in Montana and get us all killed for sticking up for basic freedom and liberty.
<largo> yay.
* largo --dinner &

Thanks for your point of view Sean. :-)

And dinner was great... I'm STUFFED... we had soft taco... things. They were yummy and huge. :-) I started watching "The Sixth Sense" on TV there... but I really need a nap if I'm going to go out with Dan for a bit tonight... I'm exhausted after only around 4 or 5 hours of sleep. I do not function well on sleep deprevation. :-/

That, and watching an alternating 5 minutes of show... 5 minutes of commercials... it was really getting on my nerves.

UPDATE:
hahaha Sean is irritated that I'm posting IRC logs... so I thought I'd share that with you guys as well as the final summary of that conversation that we did for yath before I lay down for a short nap before my outing this evening.

<koden> grrr
<koden> largo posting irc logs
<largo> did you say something incriminating? :)
<koden> no
<largo> or are you being paranoid about your name being on a website?
<yath> heh heh
<koden> for some reason it just bothers me on some weird level :)
<yath> what are you guys going on about anyway? It was very long and I just wanted someone to summarize it for me.
<largo> yath: Sean thinks any government involvement in marriage is evil and therefore arguing about gay marriage rights is not only moot, but it's stupid and evil as well.
<koden> yeah i think it is just a wedge issue because it is irrelevant since it is bad in the first place :)
<largo> I think that while he's partially right, gay marriage rights are common sense and should be implemented now while he goes chasing his windmills.
<koden> i agree with largo on a certain level, if you stipulate to marriage regulation they should just allow it because we all know in another 20 years it will be changed anyways
<yath> k
<largo> considering that most people want to trade government control for security and recognition and any other "benefits" as they perceive them.
<koden> but i stick to my guns that regulation of marriage is bad and dumb, and at this point it has turned into a karl rove wedge issue :)
<largo> basically Sean and I agree on our specific points, but they don't mesh well into one cogent view. :)
<koden> "most people" are sheep :)
<largo> koden: again, I agree. :)

Hopefully he'll see the humor in this. ;-) hahaha

OK, naptime. (Thanks again Sean!)