 |
|
 |
|
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 15:28:15 -0400, gemjack <...@yahoo.com
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 08:47:38 -0700 (PDT), Temporary Like Achilles
<...@hotmail.com
Well, yes and no.
-GJ
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 12:28:23 -0700 (PDT), Mark Scalise <...@gmail.com
On Apr 22, 11:47 am, Temporary Like Achilles
<...@hotmail.com
If someone says, hey, there's this video where an Asian woman stomps a
kitten to death with her stiletto heels, would you need to see it to
form an opinion, presuming it's real?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 21:38:26 GMT, "M. Rick" <...@columnist.com
kitten to death with her stiletto heels, would you need to see it to form an
opinion, presuming it's real?
Yes, if she were on trial and I were a member of the jury. Otherwise,
probably not. As a fictional film I would need to have more information
about the context. The film might be condemning that act. Or maybe it's a
comedy and the woman is dressed up as a giant mouse, taking revenge on
behalf of her species. "Stiletto Mouse" coming to a theater near you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Apr 22, 5:38 pm, "M. Rick" <...@columnist.com
Or what if it was a series of cartoons or section of a book that have
been condemned for insulting the Prophet? Should you actually look at
the cartoons and read the words before concluding the person(s)
responsible should be killed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Apr 22, 3:28 pm, Mark Scalise <...@gmail.com
That's a good point, especially the part about whether or not the
video is real.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 15:38:43 -0700 (PDT), Rachel <...@aol.com
I'm not sure I see the difference. Can you explain it to me?
(seriously)
I mean, how is that funny or entertaining just because it might be a
simulation?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Apr 22, 11:47 am, Temporary Like Achilles
<...@hotmail.com
......
Do I think it's valid for someone to express the Bible to be "fiction"
after reading 20 pages of it? His opinion certainly has no validity,
if that's what you mean. It is just an uninformed
opinion...essentially gossip.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
That was the starting point for my reflections, certainly. But I'm
really interested in the general proposition. That obviously requires
mentioning specific examples, but I was hoping to concentrate on
general, underlying principles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
....
You're starting point was: "someone posted a comment about the
validity of
opinions regarding a topic when the person expressing an opinion had
not read the source for the topic in question."
This seems like a no-brainer to me. I guess I'm missing something in
your question since I don't understand why you'd raise it to begin
with. You seem to be suggesting by asking the question that opining
without reading the source in question can equally valid to the
opinion of the person who read the source. Why?
But I'm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:14:35 -0700, really real <...@shaw.ca
I don't believe that that Islamic martyrs get 70 Virgins when they get
to heaven. Do I have to read the Koran before I'm entitled to the
opinion that Islam has some crazy concepts?
It turns out that the 70 Virgins might have really been 70 grapes, and
it was all a bad translation.
My opinion of the Bible is based mainly on what I've read about it. It's
true, I don't know everything in the bible. I was reading Castro's
biography and Fidel commented on how the son of Noah was turned black
and made into a slave. Surely the bible isn't racist like the Mormon's
book is? I haven't read the Mormon's book but I know it's racist.
How can anyone claim to know the bible without reading it in its
original languages?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Apr 23, 1:14 pm, really real <...@shaw.ca
Yes, because you don't know what the Koran says specifically about
this, nor what its context. You have zero frame of reference to
interpret.
....
Stop embarrassing yourself.
....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 07:06:08 -0700, really real <...@shaw.ca
Wait a minute. Are you saying that the Book of Mormon isn't racist?
What's the matter? Do you have to read it first?
I think you have to face the fact that the people who wrote these old
holy books suffered from all the racism, sexism, and superstitions of
the age in which they wrote them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Apr 24, 10:06 am, really real <...@shaw.ca
I hoped you would stop embarrassing yourself, but in vain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Apr 22, 11:47 am, Temporary Like Achilles
<...@hotmail.com
Valid? Well it's dangerous and commonplace. I've noticed it for
years with people who attack Rush Limbaugh but have never sat and
listened to an entire program, much less a bunch of his programs. It
also happens with entire genres of music.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 17:10:05 -0700 (PDT), Rachel <...@aol.com
Like country music?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Apr 22, 8:10 pm, Rachel <...@aol.com
Thank you, yes. Like country and rap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 02:38:22 GMT, "M. Rick" <...@columnist.com
never sat and listened to an entire program, much less a bunch of his
programs.
Over the years I've probably listened to 20 hours of Limbaugh while driving
around, though never a full program. I don't think people need to listen to
Limbaugh everyday to render a negative opinion, nor do they need to study
Genesis to realize it isn't factual. If you personally enjoy Limbaugh and
the Bible, that's fine with me. And if you spent your life smoking dope, or
drinking, that's really none of my business until it becomes a political
issue. Marijuana is political because it's illegal, and it should be
legalized and regulated like cigarettes and alcohol. Religion is highly
political because many people impose their religious beliefs as scientific
and historical fact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Apr 22, 10:38 pm, "M. Rick" <...@columnist.com
Twenty hours in twenty years of being the country's no. 1 (number one)
broadcaster isn't enough to render an informed opinion, especially
considering that he broadcasts 15 hours per week. It means that
you've listened to less than a week of his broadcasts of over a
thousand weeks, a tiny percentage, statistically insignificant.
...
To be taken seriously with any opinion about Genesis requires having
read it.
...
Whether it should be legalized isn't for me to say, although the irony
of a marijuana day when states are justifiably trying to get people to
stop smoking completely is inescapable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 09:40:58 -0400, gemjack <...@yahoo.com
As to its entertainment value, I'd agree. But you hardly have to read
the Genesis/the bible to know it's a book based on superstitions &
faith and not fact. I put it up there with Aesop's fables and Grimms
fairy tales. It (the bible) does have very good moral teachings and
ethical lessons if you pick and choose carefully, that's what I do
when it's storytime around here.
I think it's an issue of the government telling us we're not allowed.
That in itself is insulting and arrogant. I don't smoke cigarettes
either, hate em. Avoid being in smoky areas like it's plague
infested. But I don't think there should be a LAW prohibiting
smoking.
Indeed.
-GJ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:07:54 -0700 (PDT), Rachel <...@aol.com
On Apr 23, 6:40 am, gemjack <...@yahoo.com
But I don't think there should be a LAW prohibiting
Why not? We have laws against suicide (don't we?), for speed limits,
and wearing seatbelts, and no talking on the cell phone while driving,
why not laws prohibiting smoking, since we know for a fact that it
kills people?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 14:38:46 -0400, gemjack <...@yahoo.com
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:07:54 -0700 (PDT), Rachel <...@aol.comwrote:
And then we'd have to make being exposed to the sun (ours) without
sunblock illegal. Then bacon.
-GJ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:40:58 -0700 (PDT), Rachel <...@aol.com
On Apr 23, 11:38 am, gemjack <...@yahoo.com
For me, that is the same reasoning that homophobes use against gay
marriage. They say if we let homosexuals marry, what next? Letting
people marry their dogs, and then doorknobs?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:16:51 -0400, gemjack <...@yahoo.com
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:40:58 -0700 (PDT), Rachel <...@aol.comwrote:
I dunno. There's a line that's crossed once you get into life-forms
other than people. And there's no *need* to marry the doorknob.
-GJ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:20:52 -0700 (PDT), Rachel <...@aol.com
On Apr 23, 12:16 pm, gemjack <...@yahoo.com
I don't even know what that *means*, there's "no *need* to marry the
doorknob."
Also, homophobes would argue that there is a biological line that is
crossed when you put two men or two women together, that they don't
"fit." It is exactly the same argument used by racists against
interracial marriage, because of the color of their skin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:34:30 -0400, gemjack <...@yahoo.com
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:20:52 -0700 (PDT), Rachel <...@aol.comwrote:
Ask your knob.
I hear ya. Who's to say what fits though. Some men and women don't
fit together. I say the best way (other than marriage licenses that
expire, something I believe I've mentioned before) is to do away with
marriage. Then it's a non issue.
-GJ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:35:29 -0700 (PDT), Rachel <...@aol.com
On Apr 23, 12:34 pm, gemjack <...@yahoo.com
I say let's just do away with smoking, which causes lung cancer and
emphysema.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:38:08 -0700 (PDT), Rachel <...@aol.com
On Apr 23, 12:34 pm, gemjack <...@yahoo.com
Oh believe me, my "knob" wants to get married in the worst way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Apr 23, 3:20 pm, Rachel <...@aol.com
No it's not. That's political rubbish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Apr 23, 2:40 pm, Rachel <...@aol.com
Good question. A friend of mine got dumped by a sheep who he'd had a
6 year affair with. He was incredibly distraught...obviously. He
woke up in the gutter with a bottle of Woolite in his hand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Apr 23, 9:40 am, gemjack <...@yahoo.com
Here's a fine example of a worthless opinion from someone who hasn't
read it, no doubt educated in a fine American educational institution
that promotes this kind of non-reading but feel-free-to-comment
approach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 09:35:04 -0400, gemjack <...@yahoo.com
C'mon now, you've posted intelligently before, don't stop now by
resorting to the flame-war-starting, baiting, bottom-feeding, trollish
tactics of... others I've seen.
I've read the bible many times thank you. It used to be a once-a-year
thing until I moved on to more practical philosophies (for me anyway).
And while I feel the supernatural aspects of it (the bible) are a bit
much to swallow, you may find that you (you-figuratively) can benefit
from some of the more reasonable, life lessons particularly of the new
testament concerning Jesus, who was a good and wise man (on the level
of Buddha) unfairly promoted to be the son of an imaginary God of a
desperate people. It's one thing to mindlessly scan the pages,
agreeing because you're trained to believe or else. It's quite
another to read and try to understand how it fits into the real world
& your reality. But I suspect that you find that last statement
blasphemous.
But you're right about ONE thing, the American educational system
leaves a lot to be desired. Mostly due to the narrow vision and lack
of understanding of the world around it (and the acceptance of other's
beliefs) that sadly you seem to share. Ironic eh?
-GJ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Apr 24, 9:35 am, gemjack <...@yahoo.com
How is this flaming? I guess I completely made up the comment, "But
you hardly have to read the Genesis/the bible to know it's a book
based on superstitions &
faith and not fact. I put it up there with Aesop's fables and Grimms
fairy tales. It (the bible) does have very good moral teachings and
ethical lessons if you pick and choose carefully, that's what I do
when it's storytime around here." This is the comment you provided as
your summation of the Bible. And I'm bottom feeding, baiting, etc.?
These are not very bright comments of a once-a-year reader of the
Bible. Nobody worth his salt would let them pass without calling you
out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:11:40 -0400, gemjack <...@yahoo.com
More bait than flame I guess. And to be fair, I didn't properly give
Aaeop and the Grimms their proper due either. Be careful with all
that salt, they say too much can kill you.
-GJ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:44:08 GMT, "M. Rick" <...@columnist.com
broadcaster isn't enough to render an informed opinion, especially
considering that he broadcasts 15 hours per week.
Twenty hours is sufficient for me, and I suspect for most people. I'm well
aware of Limbaugh's ideology, personality traits, method of discourse, areas
of interest and level of knowledge. If there's a specific issue you want to
discuss by all means bring it up.
The problem, it seems, is that "Bible science" is not taken seriously as
science.
marijuana day when states are justifiably trying to get people to stop
smoking completely is inescapable.
The better parallel is marijuana - liquor. Cigarette smoking is
predominantly a daily addiction: the act and taste of smoking is the kick,
more than the effect of the nicotine. On the other hand, few people smoke
pot to feed a smoking fixation. They smoke pot to get high, like they drink
to get high. And while there are no shortage of addicts, plenty of folks
recreationally use pot and alcohol. If the moral stigma of banning pot
creates a healthier society, then that should apply to liquor as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:08:24 -0700 (PDT), Tif <...@gmail.com
On Apr 23, 1:44 pm, "M. Rick" <...@columnist.comthe moral stigma of banning pot
You may have, purposely or inadvertently, hit the nail on the head.
What if the conversation were to shift from a focus on the pot//liquor
stretch to - maybe - what's a moral society? ( not sure that the term
moral is the main one to use, it is so easily abused.)
and/or get closer to examining this question :
Is the choice one makes when one attach moral stigma to any human
behavior a helpful one. And if so, helpful to whom?
M. Rick, I appreciate your ways of being at this communal round
table. A great place to get a refill of Dudley's Exotic Coffee.
For now I'll take mine on the go, black with a bit of sugar please.
Mr. Tif.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:10:25 -0700, "badlands420" <...@hole.com
You're saying there's such a thing as a pot addict?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 07:18:14 -0700, really real <...@shaw.ca
Pot addicts are like television addicts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 08:24:30 -0700, "badlands420" <...@hole.com
It's worth noting that video game addiction is considered a legitimate
diagnosis in some circles of the medical community, while cannabis addiction
is not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Apr 23, 4:44 pm, "M. Rick" <...@columnist.com
....
That's a weird comment, that 20 hours in 20 years is sufficient to be
aware of ideology, personality traits, methods of discourse, areas of
interest, level of knowledge and then form an opinion about someone
who is that big and controversial. It's a living definition of bigot,
which for all I know you're fine with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 14:37:15 GMT, "M. Rick" <...@columnist.com
Twenty hours of direct listening, along with information from the media and
the internet, seems to meet the criteria for an informed opinion about a
radio show, especially a show as predictable as Limbaugh's. Now perhaps
dittoheads have their own standards about what comprises "valid Limbaugh,"
and I'm happy to consider those standards should they be brought to my
attention. In the meantime, accusations of ignorance and bigotry while
avoiding the specifics points the finger right back at the accusers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Apr 24, 10:37 am, "M. Rick" <...@columnist.com.....
From the very agenda-driven, big, Democrat party-leaning, main stream
media, is what I think you mean. I'm just surprised that you stand by
such strong opinions made with such little information and that you
take your cues from the "media." I can give you about 15 other
examples of where the "media" has led you down the garden path if
you're interested. Contempt before investigation is my definition of
bigotry. The original post asked whether one doesn't have to "read"
something before opining. I believe yes. Nevertheless, I think that
this is the best film preview of the year (so far):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJfeWWQZXLU&feature=channel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 21:24:57 GMT, "M. Rick" <...@columnist.com
media, is what I think you mean.
My media sources are varied and they include some of Fox News. And I should
mention having watched about ten hours or so of Limbaugh's own TV show. In
my view the show and its effects are more serious than the "just
entertainment" dismissals often heard in the media. So what you may
consider to be a biased opinion against Limbaugh, I might consider a rather
tame evaluation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|