Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:


The court may draw an adverse inference whenever a defendant invokes the 5th... especially during Civil Cases as well.

Then the jury is not being instructed very well by the judge, and if the judge was any good and thought the jury was influenced by pleading the fifth, s/he would dismiss the case.

Just testing out my new powers of quote editing, Whembly.

Edit: looks like I did it somewhat right. Too many spaces, but pretty close. Thanks again.

 whembly wrote:

It's not an admission... it's also not a denial.

Lerner explicitly denied that she violated any law or regulation, and was correct in doing so, this fact caused Darrel Issa and Trey Gowdy to claim that she waived her 5th Amendment rights.

At least one of my Senators is doing something productive...

While it certainly "makes sense" to extend the debt ceiling to 2017, you know what makes even more sense? Directly tying the debt ceiling increase into the annual budget legislation. The debt ceiling is an artificial crisis every year that shouldn't happen to begin with. You pass a budget, you commit the government to spending X amount of money, and then bicker and argue when the bill comes due about how you're going to pay for what you've already committed to spending? Certainly, there needs to be cuts to government spending, but you do that in the spending bill(s). You don't do that after you've already made the commitment, otherwise it's like going to a restaurant, eating a big meal, and then telling the cashier on the way out "oops, I know the bill is $30, but I've only got $20 left on my credit card, and I'm not going to call my bank to increase the limit, sorry."

I was going to keep ripping on Hillary, but that thread got locked, so....

So the thing about Hillary is that the only reason I'd vote for her is if I supported a war hawk corporate lapdog. Except if those were things I support, I'd just vote for Jeb instead, because I'd also be the kind of person who would want to keep women out of office when possible and he's isn't leaking email to god-knows-where as a side job.

#feelthebern (or flee the country)

I forgot to mention that she has also the personal appeal of someone spliced with a combination of the worst parts of Margaret Thatcher and Mary Whitehouse.

Hillary was also a component in the Tipper Sticker monstrosity of the 1990s, IIRC.

Urban Dictionary wrote:
Tipper Sticker: Warning labels placed on CDs that are deemed to be offensive by a group of white Christian grandmothers.

The woman is a menace in almost all ways, and a social conservative in the blue sports teams colors.

That is all.

More proof Carlson is a whackjob...

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2012/05/02/dr-ben-carsons-religious-beliefs-stirs-controversy-at-emory-university/

That he equates the acceptance of evolution with a lack of ethics and morality.”

I... I...


That's so stupid it's not even funny anymore.

Evolution has been the basis for some of the most terrible racism ever. Its how you can justify your opponents being subhuman.

And religion has been the basis of some of the most horrible sexism ever, I guess beliving in a religon makes you "lack ethics and morality", huh?

Not really, because there are hundreds of religions. You'd need to be very specific to doctrine and what interpretation you are referring to.

OK, Christianity, especially looking at the old testament.

You're Christian (IIRC) does that make you morally bankrupt because your religion has been used to justify sexism? No. The point being that it's a stupid argument.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
And religion has been the basis of some of the most horrible sexism ever, I guess beliving in a religon makes you "lack ethics and morality", huh?

Religion has also been the basis of some of the worst genocides in human history as well.


But usually the argument I see from religious folks is that because I lack religion, my "ethics and morality" are based on nothing.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
OK, Christianity, especially looking at the old testament.

You're Christian (IIRC) does that make you morally bankrupt because your religion has been used to justify sexism? No. The point being that it's a stupid argument.

In the past, people's willful misinterpretation and/or inability to actually read the scriptures has led to that yes. Does the Bible actually have that in it, no.

But we are off-topic now.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
OK, Christianity, especially looking at the old testament.

You're Christian (IIRC) does that make you morally bankrupt because your religion has been used to justify sexism? No. The point being that it's a stupid argument.

In the past, people's willful misinterpretation and/or inability to actually read the scriptures has led to that yes. Does the Bible actually have that in it, no.

But we are off-topic now.

And "Social Darwinism" is willful misinterpretation of what evolution is. The point is that is the same thing. Ya get me?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
OK, Christianity, especially looking at the old testament.

You're Christian (IIRC) does that make you morally bankrupt because your religion has been used to justify sexism? No. The point being that it's a stupid argument.

In the past, people's willful misinterpretation and/or inability to actually read the scriptures has led to that yes. Does the Bible actually have that in it, no.

But we are off-topic now.

And "Social Darwinism" is willful misinterpretation of what evolution is. The point is that is the same thing. Ya get me?

Not really. Its the logical conclusion of the idea that certain creatures in the same species evolve better traits over others, which leads to them being the superior individuals. Its then logical to speed the process up to where only the superior individuals are reproducing till they replace all the inferior individuals.

That's not Evolution, that is Natural Selection. And it a perverse reading of it, since interfering with the process like that makes the process not do what it was going to do naturally.

It's starting from the assumption that you are the superior species, just like religious versions of the same thing start from the assumption that they are following the only right religion.

Regardless, Evolution has nothing to do with morals or ethics. It simply is what it is. It is rather scary that the people who say that they need religion to have morals or ethics are basically saying that the only reason they don't go out and hurt people (well, excluding people that they disagree with) is because they are afraid of the punishment for doing that.

But that's how you are if you don't believe in an absolute morality. You only care about following x if you are worried about the punishment/reward for doing so. Someone who doesn't believe in that still only follows a code because of what they gain or don't. Nobody follows a code just to follow the code.

So people are trying to defend an idiot saying idiotic things by simply pretending that evolution = eugenics?

Just more of the usual then I guess.

Well, sometimes what is gained is a bit different. I help people, simply for the feeling of helping others, not for any reward after death. One does not need a god or other deity to have a moral system, the system is just dictated by society, instead of a religion.

And even if what you say is true, many people believe both in a god and evolution. They simply believe that it was that god that allowed evolution to take place, that they work through that.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
OK, Christianity, especially looking at the old testament.

You're Christian (IIRC) does that make you morally bankrupt because your religion has been used to justify sexism? No. The point being that it's a stupid argument.

You know the primary teachings of Christianity are in the New Testament, right?

 Hordini wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
OK, Christianity, especially looking at the old testament.

You're Christian (IIRC) does that make you morally bankrupt because your religion has been used to justify sexism? No. The point being that it's a stupid argument.

You know the primary teachings of Christianity are in the New Testament, right?

Yes, but the old testament is still very much used.

Edit: besides the NT isn't free of it either, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-15 are examples.

This article was posted by Ghazkuul in a separate thread on Hillary Clinton, but reds8n suggested we discuss it here instead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
OK, Christianity, especially looking at the old testament.

You're Christian (IIRC) does that make you morally bankrupt because your religion has been used to justify sexism? No. The point being that it's a stupid argument.

You know the primary teachings of Christianity are in the New Testament, right?

Yes, but the old testament is still very much used.

It's still read, yes. But the New Testament supersedes everything that conflicts with it in the Old Testament.

The New Testament also features strong female leaders among Jesus' followers. In addition, there were female priestesses in Christianity prior to the creation of the Catholic church. I understand what those verses you posted say, but there are literal examples in the Bible of women in leadership roles even among men.

If we want another idiotic religion vs science thread I think there are better places. It has been done to death here and isn't what this thread is for anyway.

 Ahtman wrote:
If we want another idiotic religion vs science thread I think there are better places. It has been done to death here and isn't what this thread is for anyway.

I wasn't offering any comment on science, and certainly not science vs religion.

But we can talk about that Hillary Clinton article instead if you want.

 Ahtman wrote:
If we want another idiotic religion vs science thread I think there are better places. It has been done to death here and isn't what this thread is for anyway.

Well, it's not really religion vs science, I'm just using religion as an allegory to explain why just because these things have been used to justify bad things doesn't mean that the ideas themselves, or the people who believe in them, are bad.

 Hordini wrote:
I wasn't offering any comment on science, and certainly not science vs religion.

Yeah I know, the other kid started it, you just took the ball and ran with it. Since there was no quote and no name I'm not sure why you think I singled you out. Guilty conscience maybe?

 Hordini wrote:
But we can talk about that Hillary Clinton article instead if you want.

People don't have to stop talking about religion, science, or religion v science if they don't want to, but the mods will end it if we don't, as that isn't what this thread is supposed to devolve into.

 Hordini wrote:
This article was posted by Ghazkuul in a separate thread on Hillary Clinton, but reds8n suggested we discuss it here instead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
OK, Christianity, especially looking at the old testament.

You're Christian (IIRC) does that make you morally bankrupt because your religion has been used to justify sexism? No. The point being that it's a stupid argument.

You know the primary teachings of Christianity are in the New Testament, right?

Yes, but the old testament is still very much used.

It's still read, yes. But the New Testament supersedes everything that conflicts with it in the Old Testament.

That's much more of a modern reading. Through at least the 17th century, Psalms was used to justify the massacre of civilians in war (notably Psalm 137), and numerous Old Testament laws were used to justify all sorts of awful things throughout history.

...and lets get on track.

Hillary is still the top dawg... I think only Biden can bump her out.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
I wasn't offering any comment on science, and certainly not science vs religion.

Yeah I know, the other kid started it, you just took the ball and ran with it. Since there was no quote and no name I'm not sure why you think I singled you out. Guilty conscience maybe?

 Hordini wrote:
But we can talk about that Hillary Clinton article instead if you want.

People don't have to stop talking about religion, science, or religion v science if they don't want to, but the mods will end it if we don't, as that isn't what this thread is supposed to devolve into.

I wasn't necessarily thinking you singled me out, I was just trying to clarify that I wasn't taking a position in regards to religion vs. science.

But yes, on with the politics. That article about Hillary Clinton, well, I don't find it particularly surprising. If the content of the article is true, I wonder on one hand whether or not being a jerk to people necessarily means that one would make a good or bad President. On the other hand, I do wonder about the leadership of someone who would be needlessly rude to subordinates.

 whembly wrote:
...and lets get on track.

Hillary is still the top dawg... I think only Biden can bump her out.

I will have to disagree with you there... Sanders is eclipsing fund raising records set by Obama, in a fraction of the time O did them.

IF that is any kind of metric of future success, then I think anyone ignoring Sanders, does so at their own peril.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:
...and lets get on track.

Hillary is still the top dawg... I think only Biden can bump her out.

I will have to disagree with you there... Sanders is eclipsing fund raising records set by Obama, in a fraction of the time O did them.

IF that is any kind of metric of future success, then I think anyone ignoring Sanders, does so at their own peril.

Sanders is playing really well in blue state locations.

But, that's not going to be enough for the General Election... mortgaging your kids's kids future of free gak now isn't a good General Election strategy.

I don't see Sanders as a real viable candidate to win. Maybe as a VP... yes, but not at the top of the ticket.