vincegamer
Active member
This story has been told so many times I really doubt it was ever real, but if you can find proof....
United We Stand..
- Thread starter Torn blue sky
- Start date
As NSA said : \"the human mind has an amazing ability to cast aside critical thinking when it is hearing things it already agrees with.\"I don\'t dispute at all your sentiments, just thought that was an ill-chosen arguement.
I still have a poster left over from the \'60s that I thought put things rather succinctly:
\"Fighting for peace is like f**king for virginity.\"
DrEvilmonki
Active member
Thanks for that link, pretty amusing. I might have to try this one.
Morgenbesser was leaving a subway station in New York City and put his pipe is his mouth as he was going up the steps. A policeman told him that there was no smoking on the subway. Morgenbesser pointed out that he was leaving the subway, not inside it, and hadn\'t lit up yet anyway. The cop replied, \"If I let you do it, I\'d have to let everyone do it.\" The professor replied, \"Who do you think you are, Kant?\" The word \"Kant\" was mistaken for a vulgar epithet and Morgenbesser had to explain the situation at the police station.
vincegamer
Active member
Yes, thanks for educating me. Was the guy really that quick witted or did he plan some of those things?
I liked this one:
During campus protests of the 60s Morgenbesser was hit on the head by police. When asked whether he had been treated unfairly or unjustly, he responded \"Unfairly no, unjustly yes. The police hit me unjustly, but since they hit everyone else unjustly, it was not unfair.\"
And this one:
Another anecdote recalls Morgenbesser’s modesty. A student once interrupted one of his philosophy lectures and said,“I just don’t understand.” “Why should you have the advantage over me?” he responded.
I liked this one:
During campus protests of the 60s Morgenbesser was hit on the head by police. When asked whether he had been treated unfairly or unjustly, he responded \"Unfairly no, unjustly yes. The police hit me unjustly, but since they hit everyone else unjustly, it was not unfair.\"
And this one:
Another anecdote recalls Morgenbesser’s modesty. A student once interrupted one of his philosophy lectures and said,“I just don’t understand.” “Why should you have the advantage over me?” he responded.
I agree, each issue should be judge on its merits. I tend to be on the conservative view of many things, although being conservative is different from being one of our current batch of right wingers.
Actually, I fid my self rather disgusted by much of what the ACLU does and has been doing for the last decade or so. But i don\'t deny them their right to do what they do, but I won\'t cry if they went away either.
Words and phrases referencing God have a long history in this country. Our founders were christians and so that influence is predominant in our culture. i think the whole I idea of saying nothing in government can reference God is stupid. may as well get rid of Santa, the Easter bunny and Halloween, they all have a religious foundation. I look at it as an add for CNN on Fox news. I don\'t like CNN and I don\'t want to see adds for it, but if I see it my whole world will not come to an end and it is not an endorsment of or an establishment by Fox that CNN is the newschannel to watch. Honestly, if you have time to worry about \" In god we trust\" on a dollar, you have too much free time anyway and should do something.
Same thing goes for the nuts who obsess about Disney, \" its a freaking cartoon ppl, get over it.\" And while I\'m at it, I am a christian and I don\'t find harry Potter offensive and I like Power Rangers, UFC, Football and WWE. Again, some ppl have way too much free time....
Ones relationship with God should be his/hers and thiers alone. The whole reason Jesus came was to establish the direct relationship with God, ie his sacrifice and the forgivness of original sin. Somewhere that has become lost. There is always inevitably somebody somewhere that say he or she knows what God wants. I don\'t neccessarily believe that, but it makes lots of ppl happy so it can\'t be all bad. the lord works in mysterious ways, who are we to try and tell others how it should be. Ya just to the best you can and do right by one another. Anyhoo , just my opinion.
vincegamer
Active member
Well that utterly depends on whom you mean when you say \"founders.\"
If you mean the Pilgrims, Spanish Conquistadors and French fur trappers, you are probably right (assuming you also have a very broadly inclusive view of the term \"christian\").
If, on the other hand you mean the people who wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence, Constitution etc. then I would disagree.
For one thing, the only person to sign the Declaration of Independence, the Treaty with Great Britain, and the Constitution was an atheist.
Fair enough. On the last point especially, I would totally agree.
I\'m not so disgusted by the ACLU though I don\'t necessarily support them at all times. Short of a specific case to argue, I don\'t think we have a real disagreement here.
Now we do have a disagreement.
Note that references to God having a long history in our \"culture\" or in our \"country\" tells us nothing about their history in our GOVERNMENT. Nor does that history of what people have in fact done answer any legal questions about whether or not such statements SHOULD be made in official government actions, particularly when at least some people (such as Jefferson and Madison) were clearly concerned about those references from the very beginning. The Founding Fathers were clearly capable of pronouncing a principle and then not following it; they proved that time and again. A Christian influence is to be expected, yes, but we aren\'t talking about influence, we are talking specifically about official government business. And there is little reason to believe a predominantly Christian people need or benefit from government entanglements with religion, even symbolic ones.
I assume you are aware of the fact that the introduction of \"under God\" in the pledge is a McCarthy era development. Does this practice too get the benefit of the historical legacy argument? Or shouldn\'t it work in reverse in this case? Perhaps the innovations of the Cold War shold have yielded to the long history of restraint on that issue. All special pleading anyway, as none of this actually addresses any actual Constitutional provisions.
On the Easter Bunny and Santa, no-one outside a mental institution worships these entities. Whether or not they have a religious origin is beside the point. The question is whether or not they are religious entities now. They are not. Halloween is closer to relevant, given the role of modern Wiccans, but it would still be stretching the truth to suggest that the mainstream celebration of Halloween is a religious event. Same goes for XMas.
Now your statement about not being too bothered when CNN appears on your television is probably the most important. It shows that you are answering a concern that has nothig whatsoever to do with the Establishment Clause. That clause is not there to protect people from insults or offensive speech, and that is not the central objection to ANY of the alleged establishment violations mentioned earlier. I\'m not offended by those things either, but I do oppose them. Offensiveness is simply not the concern at hand, and your claims to the effect that people are being overly sensitive suggest that you have missed the point of those who oppose these things. The view which you are currently dismissing as stupid is one which you have yet to actually address.
You are stilling kicking the daylights out of a straw man here, but I don\'t see the point of demeaning these people, even the Christians who object to Harry Potter. Such concerns aren\'t necessarily evidence of excessive free time or frivolous sensitivity. It is the logical conclusion that follows from a certain range of assumptions about the nature of the world and the people in it. I don\'t agree with them either, but I take no comfort in dismissing them like this, particularly when that dismissal is coupled with equally dismissive comments about positions I do care about.
Fair enough, but all I am asking is your first stament should be taken literally and be put into practice. All of the things I am objecting to are instances in which people\'s faith has been made a public matter. And in many (if not all) instances it has been made a public matter for highly political reasons. If one\'s relationship with Jesus is a private matter, then one shouldn\'t need official government statements supporting it and enshrining it in public discourse. Like I said, this is one area where I really wish a lot of Christians would take their own faith more seriously.
Fair enough. We obviously disagree on at least one critical issue. Don\'t know how hard our heads are going to butt over this, but my own posts are similarly just my opinion..
Torn blue sky
New member
Brimshack I\'m not going to get riled into an argument. As I read it you seem a bit antagonistic, weather it\'s to provoke a creative response or not, I don\'t know.
But I\'m not wearing any of it.
But I\'m not wearing any of it.
vincegamer
Active member
My posts aren\'t my opinion, they are the TRUTH!lol
philologus
Subgenius
Brimshack: If you insist on posting term papers please include footnotes and a properly constructed bibliography (MLA not APA please)
vincegamer
Active member
I think it was Kant who said you can\'t truly \"know\" anything.
However,
I know what I like
I know art when I see it
I can\'t say what pornography is, but I know it when I see it
However,
I know what I like
I know art when I see it
I can\'t say what pornography is, but I know it when I see it
TBS, I haven\'t gone after you in any way. I did make one post in which I tried to allay a concern of yours, and frankly it looks to me as though you responded with an insult. I do disagree with you, and I have made that clear. But I have not attacked you, as I believe you have me. If I misread your comments about me falling from a height, then I am sorry. But I must say, it is a little hard to read the charge that I am being antagonistic after that.
You don\'t wish to be drawn into an argument. I will not press the discussion with you any further.
You don\'t wish to be drawn into an argument. I will not press the discussion with you any further.
Originally posted by philologus
Brimshack: If you insist on posting term papers please include footnotes and a properly constructed bibliography (MLA not APA please)
Be careful what you ask for. :twisted:
Who am I kidding, the last time I answered an evidence press with actual sources, the guy proceeded to dismiss them as made up. Of course he was a Nazi. And I don\'t mean a nasty guy that I didn\'t like, I mean an actual Nazi. An hour of work answered in 2 lines. Nah, no footnotes from me.
vincegamer
Active member
I thought Brimshack was having his intellectual discussion with GAR, not Torn Blue Sky, while I was interjecting occasional bits of great wisdome (and frequent smart-ass remarks).
Torn blue sky
New member
It read as a sacastic and antagonistic comment to me. The last thing I want is bad blood.
All this from a daft round robin?
All this from a daft round robin?
Just found this, sounded quite clever:
When we dream we are often blissfully ignorant that we are dreaming. Given this, and the fact that dreams often seem as vivid and \"realistic\" as real life, how can you rule out the possibility that you might be dreaming even now, as you sit at your computer and read this? This is the kind of perplexing thought Descartes forces us to confront. It seems we have no justification for the belief that we are not dreaming. If so, then it seems we similarly have no justification in thinking that the world we experience is the real world. Indeed, it becomes questionable whether we are justified in thinking that any of our beliefs are true.
But thats enought threadjacking from me, hehe.
(hey poeple lighten up, twas a joke, some laughed some didnt, just chill man, Bbbbbrrrrriiiiiiilllllllliiiiiiiaaaaannnnt!!!)
