User Profile: The Third Archon

The Third Archon

Member Since: November 02, 2010


123 To page: Go
  • September 1, 2014 at 11:58am

    Hmm, never thought waxing your chest might be a SAFETY measure. I would think your chest would have to be PRETTY hairy for it to interfere with a defibrillator, but maybe they’re more finicky than I thought–thankfully I’ve never had to use one.

  • September 1, 2014 at 11:55am

    Every living thing has processes, which need not be conscious, which tend towards their survival and reproduction–if they didn’t, they probably wouldn’t be here as their form of life would have perished long ago.

    Whether or not things “strive” or “desire”, actions which we usually think of as limited to things with minds or even minds of a certain minimal level of complexity (a sea slug may have a rudimentary “mind”, but does it do all the things we do psychologically? Does it have as rich an experience, as sophisticated a capacity for reason and morality? The answer to all of these is “possibly, but probably not”), is another matter entirely and not nearly so clear. Being “life” alone is not dispositive, for most us usually don’t show the same care for our skin cells, notwithstanding that they are indeed every bit as alive and complex as a zygote, as pro-lifers show for fetuses. Clearly something more than MERELY being alive is at issue.

    Responses (1) +
  • September 1, 2014 at 11:46am

    “In the meantime, the so-called civilized world shows no outrage in front of horrendous images of savages using their own children as human shields or as they display a series of human heads.”

  • September 1, 2014 at 11:37am

    “The violent terrorists from the Nusra Front, which had pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda in 2013 are supported by the Western-backed Free Syrian Army; they have received the help of President Barack Obama who barely a few months ago, sent ‘additional assistance to aid “moderate” Syrian rebels in their fight against the Assad regime.” Prime Minister David Cameron and other Western leaders are also active members of this pro-terror support group.”
    Don’t we all win when fascists slit each others’ throats? We’ve already flooded the world markets with weapons (between us and the Russians, access to military equipment was never an issue for either side, just a matter of degree of ease), and helped al-Qaeda get off the ground, so what’s a little gasoline on a the fascist firefight (if we’re assuming, as this article seems to suggest that neither Assad nor the Syrian rebels are exactly champions for freedom and justice)?

  • [1] September 1, 2014 at 11:28am

    “In their last year of work policemen and firemen work hundreds of hours of overtime to boost the base income against which their retirement benefit is predicated. More than 10 percent of the firefighters and policemen who retired in New York state in 2011 are receiving more than $100,000 per year in retirement.”
    Yeah, because THAT’S the height of corruption and undeserved wealth in America.

    “The role of unions in the federal government was recently exhibited in the IRS fraud against conservative groups.”
    Again, not quite accurate–the IRS was slow-processing EVERYONE’S applications for new nonprofit groups in light of the flood of political activism groups created in the wake of Citizens United. Sure, a lot of these groups were formed by conservatives, or at least seemed to have a conservative mission–but there were just as many non-conservative (either with a Leftist-bent or with a focus on things other than politics) groups formed. It should come as no surprise that Citizens United resulted in a massive increase of special tax status organizations being registered, and that THAT in turn (without increased resources for processing the applications) slowed down the whole process for everyone.

    In reply to the contribution Who's Going to the Labor Day Picnic? Not Me!

    Responses (1) +
  • [2] September 1, 2014 at 11:17am

    ” They stopped the police from frisking people because they were accused, falsely, of being racist.”

  • [1] September 1, 2014 at 11:01am

    “Also, Oban said that by 2016 America will be a Muslim State.”
    That would be a rather large growth spurt, to go from ~0.8% to the majority.

  • September 1, 2014 at 10:51am

    If this law were really calculated to improve women’s health and the quality of abortion services–as opposed to a nakedly obvious attempt to backdoor Roe v. Wade and shutdown most of the states’ abortion clinics–the bill would be markedly different. For starters, it might include resources set aside to fund the “quality/safety improvements” this bill allegedly seeks; it might also provide resources to offset, or even waive, what would probably be an increased price for abortions, IF it REALLY cared about improving quality and access.

    But that’s obviously not what these kinds of bills are about, and everyone knows it. Conservatives are fooling nobody, except maybe themselves.

  • [3] September 1, 2014 at 9:02am

    Yeah, because that’s TOTALLY why that law was passed…

    Come on man, we’re not stupid, and we weren’t born yesterday.

    Responses (3) +
  • [2] August 31, 2014 at 2:45am

    ““We will hang the flag of Allah over the White House.””
    Not even with every Muslim in the world behind you could that ever happen. I would rather be obliterated than spend one second being ruled by my inferiors.

  • August 31, 2014 at 2:40am

    ““Harry Reid will attempt to block it. We’re going to force a vote, and every member of Congress should be held to account,” Sessions added.”
    …held to account on a vote on a bill to prevent Obama from doing something he has no power to do…right.

    “But Sessions said voters have a chance to fight Obama’s planned amnesty program in the mid-term elections this November.”
    Again, what amnesty program? Deferred action doesn’t change one’s substantive legal rights, it can be changed at a moment’s notice and without any hearing or right to contest, and it’s just what it sounds like–deferring taking legal action that one COULD take. Just as police officers and prosecutors have to prioritize how they enforce the law, so to, INEVITABLY do ICE and CBP. The only way to “repeal” this is any meaningful sense would be to provide the resources necessary for these agencies to reach whatever level of “enforcement” you’d consider NOT to be “amnesty.”

    “Sessions laid the blame for the immigration mess at the feet of Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, who he accused of serving a political function, not a law-enforcement function.”
    Hmm. Well that’s naive, unrealistic, and just plain stupid to a degree that’s staggering. There isn’t any such thing as a human being who is apolitical–who can just nicely box off everything they believe about the world when they go to work.

  • [2] August 30, 2014 at 11:35pm

    I agree–let’s expel all the fascists to North Dakota and see what they can make of it.

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] August 30, 2014 at 11:32pm

    I just want to point out that your classical era examples are stupid beyond belief–these were, AT ALL TIMES, pagan peoples immoral by Christian (at any point in history) standards. Moreover, in the case of the Romans, they were MASSIVE practitioners of slavery LONG before their decline. So, ESPECIALLY considering what conservative Christians call “morality”, these examples DO NOT SUPPORT your silly slippery slope fallacy about the “moral decay of society leading to its destruction.” While you are INDEED correct that the mass suffering of humankind IS because of a dearth of morality–a lack of BASIC human compassion and reciprocity–it is HARDLY accurate to say that we USED to be SO MUCH MORE moral and ONLY RECENTLY are suffering due to a “decline” in morality. Those empires were NEVER moral by most peoples’ standards (and more importantly DEFINITELY not by Christian conservative standards), and while we STILL are fighting for the kind of morality we need to SURVIVE as a People, you DEFINITELY cannot say we’ve been any closer to that morality IN THE PAST–like when ownership of SLAVES was totally legal (and to many, even more horrifying, MORALLY acceptable), or when HALF THE COUNTRY didn’t have the right to vote?! No–our morality, our values, need to improve a lot if we are to survive let alone thrive, but it is ALSO true that few if any time has ever been closer to a just and true morality.

  • [1] August 30, 2014 at 11:19pm

    Being required to host ceremonies without discriminating between those that are “heterosexual” and those that are “homosexual” is not the same as officiating those ceremonies–you aren’t being forced to be a witness, marry them, or participate in any other way.

    All that the decision says is “if you accept money from the public writ large to host an event, you cannot discriminate on who you will host and who you won’t on the basis of sexuality.” Other lawful reasons for discriminating are still permitted, as is choosing not to offer goods/services that you would not be okay with offering without legally prohibited discrimination.

  • August 30, 2014 at 11:14pm

    I don’t think that counts as a business (in other words, subject to anti-discrimination laws), and I also think that you because it’s a political event the organizers don’t have to accept anyone and everyone–do Tea Party rallies HAVE to accept a big float of Karl Marx if they were asked? I’m PRETTY SURE they wouldn’t.

  • August 30, 2014 at 11:13pm

    Well first you’d have to find a gay-owned bakery.

    And they probably would bake it–it isn’t HOMOSEXUALS who started this myth of heterosexual “normalness”, who are calling heterosexuals vile immoral people just because of their sexuality, who are making laws treating homosexuals and heterosexuals unequally, who are members of religions that stigmatize and dehumanize HETEROSEXUALS–no, that’s just heterosexuals with their absurd belief that THEIR sexuality ISN’T a choice, but homosexuals’ IS.

  • August 30, 2014 at 11:10pm

    Churches are already exempt from most of these kinds of rules because they’re religious institutions.

  • August 30, 2014 at 11:09pm

    So we want to abolish any legal benefits or recognition of marriage?

    I might not have a problem with that, but I think it’s probably less likely than polygamists eventually getting the right to marry.

  • [1] August 30, 2014 at 11:08pm

    Well first you’d have to FIND a Muslim-owned business–Christians ONLY outnumber (taking everyone at their own words with respect to their religious identities) Muslims in this country by ~70-80% to ~0.2%, so duh Christian-owned businesses are more often the target of anti-discrimination litigation (just like they’re probably subject to more litigation, compared to Muslim-owned businesses, in general).

  • [1] August 30, 2014 at 11:05pm

    Because he’s a fascist?

123 To page: Go