this primarily goes out to other agnostics and athiests.
this week i got into two interesting conversations that i will admit that i was ill prepared for.
one was with a jw friend of mine who wanted to know why i thought jw's were wrong.
Hooberus, you obviously haven't read that site.
The author goes into great - nay, excrutiating - detail on a key topic: The world as the ancients saw it was not like our perception at all.
You try to explain away the flood and recordings of it based on how a society TODAY would do things - the world just didn't work that way back then.
n korea threatens us with first strike
pyongyang asserts right to pre-emptive attack as tensions rise over american build-up .
jonathan watts in pyongyang.
rogue nations would just get them illegally and we would be defenseless against it.
Really? I didn't know having nukes ourselves served as a DEFENSE against other nukes?
Oh, wait, it doesn't.
All it does is serve as a DETERRENT to a nation that has something to lose by attacking us. Like, you know, Russia, China or France.
Having nukes ourselves does NOTHING to deter so-called 'rogue nations' from attacking us with nukes, and does even LESS to deter terrorists from using them against us (gods forbid that day every comes).
Note that there is no 'black market' that would supply the nukes to rogue states if all nations destroyed theirs. You can't just MAKE nuclear weapons grown from the ground like drugs - it takes a LOT of time, a LOT of resources, and a LOT of technical expertise.
If every nuclear power on the planet destroyed all their nukes tomorrow, there would be no problem. That won't happen, because no other nation will do it while the US has them (strange they don't trust us - wonder why?), and the US won't do it...well, just because. Apparently, we're simply better than them or something and they don't realize it yet.
lets do the odds thingy.
i'm predicting the war with iraq will begin on 22 february 2003.. by definition the war will have begun with bombing of bagdad and or troops moving into the country.
if there is a dispute, simon will be the judge.
101st Airborne?
Yes, quite important.
Err...I spose I guess March 2 for actual attack. Perhaps a cruise missile bombardment previous day. New moon = better for stealth aircraft (IE. if the radars are down shortly after the battle starts, and you can't SEE anything in the sky, it's REALLY hard to fight them)
n korea threatens us with first strike
pyongyang asserts right to pre-emptive attack as tensions rise over american build-up .
jonathan watts in pyongyang.
Depends, do any of those things have a use other than killing people?
(And note, I never suggested we SUPPLY anyone with anything. Should an ex-prison inmate be able to BUY a baseball bat, axe, or kitchen knife when he's out? While it's probably a bad idea - depending on what he served time for - we can't morally stop it.)
n korea threatens us with first strike
pyongyang asserts right to pre-emptive attack as tensions rise over american build-up .
jonathan watts in pyongyang.
No, I answered it directly.
I think we SHOULD sell guns to them, as long as guns can be sold to ANYONE. My argument is thus not that this is a good idea, but that GUNS SHOULD BE BANNED, PERIOD, if you will take the analogy.
It's either okay for everyone, or not okay for everyone. Picking and choosing based on criteria YOU select (doesn't matter if I agree with the criteria or not) is hypocritical.
n korea threatens us with first strike
pyongyang asserts right to pre-emptive attack as tensions rise over american build-up .
jonathan watts in pyongyang.
Yes, that is correct.
Well, good to see you haven't lost your unbounded arrogance from being a JW.
its like saying that EVERYONE has a right to defend themselves with guns just because some do.
That is, of course, exactly what I'm saying.
You disagree, of course. You feel it is a good idea to only let SOME defend themselves. Based on criteria YOU set. That's immoral and hypocritical. The only people who get to defend themselves are based on criteria that *I* set, and, oh, by the way, I just happen to fit that criteria perfectly and you don't. Huh - strange coincidence that.
Let me put it this way:
If the US were to, tomorrow, destroy every nuke we have. Build up huge conventional forces again, fine, whatever. Destroy all the nukes, though.
THEN, and ONLY then, can we start dictating to other nations the immorality of possessing nuclear weapons.
there have over the years been many high profile court cases, and at times i am amazed at how stupid the jury group is.
many higher educated people in the jury pool cannot serve because of work, etc.
so there ends up many times, (not always) a group of jurors that are unemployed, uneducated, etc.
And yet, you still seem to think the country is worth defending as it is?
Curious....
An interesting thought in another thread:
I'm so sorry the Indians did not manage to unite and wipe out the pale faced ones.
It would certainly be a different world today, wouldn't it?
n korea threatens us with first strike
pyongyang asserts right to pre-emptive attack as tensions rise over american build-up .
jonathan watts in pyongyang.
If these countries were not threatening other countries
How is NK threatening other countries?
They want to join the 'nuclear club'. We keep saying "No, we won't let you". They reply "Screw you guys, we are anyway".
So what if they do?
Is it not the right of any nation to defend themselves with nuclear weapons?
If it's not, then what are we still doing with them?
My point is the nauseating hypocrisy you all still show.
Oh, WE'RE allowed to have nukes, just not THEM. After all, WE'RE simply BETTER than them.
i stumbled across this search hit:.
http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cache:krnl_hsym5uc:www.csinews.net/pdf/commencement_2002.pdf+walter+reyes+jehovah%27s+witnesses&hl=en&ie=utf-8.
within this 'file' there is this acknowledgement: (it is not allowing me to 'copy'[stand by, i will try to fix it]...please open the link and scroll to : 'special dolphin award').. it's just that a few things stated there got my goat, so to speak.. skally.
Sorry, but I've been to a number of funerals. Too many, perhaps, but, I suppose, one is too many.
Anyway, no, nobody preaches to the attendees like the JWs do. Indeed, I remember my grandfathers funeral the clearest. He was a WW2 vet. What did they talk about? Oh, sure, they mentioned he was in heaven, etc. But what they talked about almost the WHOLE TIME was what kind of person he was. What he did for his country. His family, his kids, etc.
Things that mattered. Things we should remember him for.
What do JWs talk about? I think the last 2 JW funerals I went to they mentioned the person that died by name or implication maybe twice. The rest of the hour or so (and it was) was about how WE could all join them in paradise, blahblahblah.
Certainly, NO mention of their accomplishments in this life - except, perhaps, that they were all in vain and striving after the wind - after all, the only life that matters is in the new system.
Even as a good little uber-JW boy, I thought the funerals seemed cold. And, recently, with 'worldly' funerals to compare against....well, the difference is stark to say the least.
No, I have no problems ridiculing the JWs double-standard regarding people, dead or alive, as they obviously don't care for their dead at all. (Indeed, they have and continue to put out articles on WHY we should not dwell on the dead)
there have over the years been many high profile court cases, and at times i am amazed at how stupid the jury group is.
many higher educated people in the jury pool cannot serve because of work, etc.
so there ends up many times, (not always) a group of jurors that are unemployed, uneducated, etc.
1) They take forever to come up with a verdict because our constitution is based on 'innocent until proven guilty'. IE., it is ALWAYS better to err on the side of caution. Jurors must debate on whether the party is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. Obviously, there is - there MUST BE - always SOME doubt. It's just whether that doubt is a 'reasonable' or not that must be debated.
2) We do have a permanent body of jurors. It's call the Supreme Court.
3) I do agree something needs to be done to fix the system.
a) Firstly, national law must be passed that companies are ALWAYS REQUIRED to give employees time off for jury duty. Many companies have policies like that now - but, not all. Making it national law would fix that.
b) Jurors must get paid EXACTLY what they make in their day jobs for their time off of work, or better. Right now, compensation is close, IIRC, but not exact. Getting paid better than their day job is a good persuasive tool to get otherwise qualified jurors from excusing themselves inappropriately because they don't want to lose the income.
c) Yes, definately, a minimum education level should be required. High school diploma at the very least, preferably some college required.
