User Profile: Lesbian Packing Hollow Points

Lesbian Packing Hollow Points

Member Since: April 25, 2011

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • [-1] September 17, 2014 at 1:11pm

    Dude, I grew up Fundamentalist Baptist. I’ve spent all the time I’m ever gonna with my nose in the Bible.

    I think The Blaze changed their system around a bit sometime in the last 4 years or so so that’s no longer possible. Also, my account name isn’t actually “Lesbian Packing Hollow Points”. That’s the screenname I changed too when they started censoring my original screenname that matched the account name I created. Mouseover my screenname to see what my account name is.

  • [-2] September 17, 2014 at 11:41am

    “Therefore, if society ever deems it not wrong, then it would be permissible.”

    And that society would then begin suffering for their collective poor judgement.

    I think we’re starting to talk past each other. You seem to be thinking that a declaration that some act is “wrong”, for some ecumenical definition thereof, and a declaration that someone can be punished for performing that act are wholely separate and distinct statements. Laws proscribing those acts and setting punishments for those acts are concommitantly declaring those acts to be universally “wrong”. Conversely, just because religion X declares an act “wrong” ecclesiasticly, in no way defines a law against it. If you choose to believe otherwise, that religious doctrine has the force of human law, then I urge you to flee post haste to the IS to become a member of their Sharia Police. Oh, sorry, those douchebags are in Germany.

    The fact that lots of Christians think that gay (or any, really) sex is icky does not mean I have to stop having sex with my girlfriend or face fines/imprisonment.

    To recap, “wrong” does not imply illegal. Illegal implies “wrong”, precisely because it does damage to individuals and thereby to society as a whole. This distinction becomes blurred when we have authoritarian horses’ hindquarters passing laws other than criminal (and some criminal) against acts because they harm only the hindquarters’ personal interests, or those of their benefactors.

  • September 17, 2014 at 11:23am

    It *is* a very nice shade of robin’s egg blue, though. I’ll give it that.

  • [25] September 17, 2014 at 11:22am

    The incident that lead to the motorcyclist doing a front-flip into a roof surfing stance was snazzier.

    Responses (8) +
  • [1] September 17, 2014 at 10:44am

    And here I was hoping the answer was “a driver”. That would be far cooler than “an internal combustion engine”.

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] September 17, 2014 at 10:38am

    I’d heard of his song, but I was first hipped to it because the Iranian government cracked down on a bunch of its own citizens for filming themselves making a localized music video of it. I think “Weird Al”‘s version, “Tacky”, is better.

  • [-2] September 17, 2014 at 10:33am

    “If the laws of logic came about by chance, why should we even try to make rational arguments? Why should we trust that the laws of logic are even valid?”

    Before I can address this part, I have to ask, which form of logic are you talking about? Boolean logic? Predicate logic? There have been many different logic systems through the eons. Some more expressive and useful in various domains than others. Can you be more specific?

  • September 17, 2014 at 10:30am

    Leave it to a religionist (and apparent absolutist) to make the claim that without religion, child torture would be A-OK. *sigh* Let’s get started…

    Laws against torturing children are a quintessential *human* invention. They come about quite *rationally* for all the *manifest damage* it does. The person who does the torturing can, and often does, advance to a taste for torturing people who aren’t mere children, and that makes the torturer a manifest threat to everyone else, including you and me. Therefore, it’s in everybody’s best interests to insure against such people as child torturers being left to roam freely in human society. Finding them and punishing them, in order to prevent them from acting in the first place, is in everybody’s best interests.

    Furthermore, the children that they torture will grow up, assuming they aren’t murdered, to be very warped individuals indeed, if they live in a society that condones their childhood tortures. They will have behavioural issues of their own, and thus will such madness spread and amplify until the *human* society is destroyed. It is therefore in the interests of society as a whole to insure that its children are able to grow up to be happy, healthy, and untortured members.

    I think that’s the best nutshell explanation for the evils of child torture and the rectitude of laws against same without relying on gods or random chance. What’s next? Laws against kicking puppies? It’ll be more of the same.

  • [1] September 17, 2014 at 9:31am

    Honestly, neither is arrogant at all. Mere personal belief does not arrogance make.

    The arrogance comes in when a person begins to actively promote one (or the other) without any proof, and gets offended by other people stubbornly sticking to one belief when the proof for the other is piling up.

    It gets really hairy when the promoter (almost said “evangelist”) starts getting militant about it and actively tries to interfere in the communications of those who hold to the other of your two views, or even those who hold to their own view, but who make changes to the details of that view that differ from the details the interfering promoter holds.

    That would be arrogant and pompous.

  • [15] September 17, 2014 at 9:24am

    And will it pick up drivers texting on wi-fi-only tablets through someone else’s phone, or does it just pick up the phone? Lots of variables in play.

    Responses (1) +
  • [7] September 17, 2014 at 9:05am

    What’s “incredibly pompous and arrogant” for a person to do is to make a claim for the existence of a thing, unicorns, gods, or other fairy tale creatures, with absolutely zero rational basis for those claims and then to compound that error by getting offended when people who do not already believe in their existence demand more than their word, i.e. proof.

    Responses (3) +
  • [4] September 16, 2014 at 12:20pm

    That’s the “killer app” for this app. You don’t have to download the footage to a PC before uploading it to the `net. Just edit in the phone and you’re done. FCP can’t do that for its $300 price tag.

  • [13] September 16, 2014 at 11:51am

    Viva le Capitalisme!

    I don’t know why I said that in French, when the French are bedwetting Socialists.

    Responses (3) +
  • [3] September 15, 2014 at 9:41pm

    Now, we know where the flying Ford Anglia from Harry Potter ended up.

  • [-1] September 10, 2014 at 12:08am

    Thank you.

  • September 9, 2014 at 10:40pm

    I think that Tony Perkins would like to erase my kind from history, if not from the planet, and many people on The Blaze would be delighted to wield the erasers for him.

    Responses (1) +
  • [2] September 9, 2014 at 9:05am

    Frat boys are one of the lowest orders of human life, outdone only by politicians, used car salesmen, and pedophiliacs.

    Responses (1) +
  • [44] September 8, 2014 at 12:29pm

    Dude in the blue shirt took care of bidniz! Yeah!

    Responses (3) +
  • [4] September 8, 2014 at 11:51am

    You want to quote the Establishment Clause, quote all of it. “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.” While the State setting itself up as god itself would certainly be encapsulated by that clause, and hence anyone in America today who actually holds that as a goal is a mouth-breathing illiterate, it is by no means the lower limit of government action that would run afoul of the Establishment Clause. Allowing government property (Let’s be clear, there’s no “public property”. There’s property owned by private individuals and organizations, and there’s property over which the government has sole say. That is government property, but call it public property if you like. I’ll know what you mean.) to be host to perpetual, or even merely long duration displays of religiosity which favours one religion, or group of religions, over any other religions, or groups of religions, is also verbotten under the EC. This includes stone monuments with explicitly religious messages enscribed upon them (10 Commandments, anyone?) and a crèche at Christmastime.
    If your use of government property is limited to what you can carry by hand and set up at the break of day, and break down and carry off, leaving the area as clean as it was when you arrived at day’s end, provided it does not interfere with anyone else’s use of government facilities, then mazel tov! Speak whatever you have on your mind in the “public square”.

  • [3] September 8, 2014 at 11:22am

    I am in the camp that would behead (or at least snipe from long range with high caliber rifles) those that would behead anyone for their religion. And I have no problem with Christians expressing their viewpoints, even and especially in the public square, provided they are not using the organs of government paid for by all taxpayers to do the expression. It’s a shame you as a Christian have a problem with me expressing my Atheist viewpoint.

123 To page: Go