Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Pharaoh Hamenthotep]

PH will save the dog

[jelgate]

PH is the dog

[Pharaoh Hamenthotep]

*bites Jel*

[Ukko]

There is only one solution. *Drinks beer from bacon cup* *Eats cup*

[jelgate]

We all have to put PH down. She bit a superior

[Annoyed]

http://abc13.com/entertainment/regal...ission/946401/

Regal Entertainment Group has become the first national cinema chain to announce random inspections of bags and backpacks. The new policy, posted on its website, says "backpacks and bags of any kind are subject to inspection prior to admission."

Ok, so now every female entering the theater will be subject to having their purse searched. This is going make for alot of unhappy people, slow-moving lines and such.

Another day closer to direct to home media movies, if you ask me.

[Gatefan1976]

There is only one solution. *Drinks beer from bacon cup* *Eats cup*

I hope that is machine gun cooked bacon.

[Gatefan1976]

http://abc13.com/entertainment/regal...ission/946401/



Ok, so now every female entering the theater will be subject to having their purse searched. This is going make for alot of unhappy people, slow-moving lines and such.

Another day closer to direct to home media movies, if you ask me.

I wonder what motivated that?

[aretood2]

And what days does it need to counterbalance, if I may be so curious?

Don't be daft. Don't you see that all of these ethnicity Months are an attempt to point out that people of different ethnicity throughout American history have played important and positive roles in the development of the United States, and also that people of color have played similar roles in world history? Don't you understand that for generations the only depiction of none-white people (with very few exceptions) in American History textbooks have been that of bad guys or victims or simply were nonexistent and thus to raise awareness these ethnicity months of heritage/history were made.

Don't you see how destructive and decisive that is? The mere idea that minorities as depicted in the media (as criminals or people limited to working in the service industry) is wrong and needs to be counterbalanced by dedicated a month to exploring individuals who are rarely mentioned anywhere that defy those stereotypes is atrocious.

That's the very reason we not only need white history/heritage day. But an entire month! We have to counterbalance that positive message by repeating the same stuff that has always been said and will always be said, the actions and history of white people. Because if we don't do that, there's a slight chance that people will see that none white people have contributed as much as white people in both American and World History.

We have to raise our voices and shout "white power." A phrase that originates with the same scientists that validated Nazism's theories and proved that Jews are the lowest of the lows. Let's all say that phrase as some sort of revenge tactic because we all know that the actions of the Black Panthers justifies that of the KKK and neo-Nazis. Forget God and his vengeance, who is he to claim monopoly over the concept? So what if we are called godless soulless monsters. We're not racists anyway. Let us all raise up in resistance to these notions of "good minorities" that have had "positive impact" in history and shout proudly "White Power" because two wrongs make a right.

Note that this was satire, yet it includes the reasoning behind things such as black history month and the meaning and origin of "white power."

[Gatefan1976]

Yes i have said "Hetro proud" in response to peole wearing "Gay and proud" shirts asking me if i wanted to 'donate' to some "fund drive to expand people's acceptance of Gay pride events..

Why not just say "no thanks"?

And Yes i have shouted white power a few times. All in response to someone shouting Black power..

So, the correct response is to escalate?

The issue to me on that Gatefan, is when they seem to ignore your constitutional right to practice your religion (as in all the bakery/florist etc cases),

Excuse me but WHAT?
You have no constitutional right to deny service to anyone in the public domain. Nowhere in the constitution does it state you can do this -nowhere-. As much as some people who run businesses would like to think that they can, they cannot and it is no more than discrimination. Did you know that discrimination on such a level is a legal offence? I'll get back to this later

to 'prop up the LGBT's right to be married, by forcing those orgs to have to effectively go against their beliefs and support the LGBT marriage by catering to it.

What organizations?
Businesses are NOT organizations. They do not exist to serve a special interest, they exist to make money.
Churches and charities operate to serve a specific interest, be it your spiritual wellbeing, or taking care of third world children, or animals, and sure -they- have a right to be choosy to a degree.

Or when they do things such as have gay pride days, but seem to shout down anyone ever even asking about a 'straight pride' day (like i have had happen in relation to a white history DAY, to counter balance all the history months all other ethnicites seem to get)..

Every day, every month that is not about another group that is not straight, white, and male is your day by default. What more do you want?
Let me ask you, what would want for a "white history day"?

It in effect to us, IS making that one 'demographic' seem MORE worthy of 'equality" than others are..

How so?
Please, tell me how so?

No, but neither do you give up your faith when you step out of the church and go to work.

Who is asking you to give up your faith?
If baking a cake for a gay person makes you question your faith, your problem is not the gay person, it's how weak your faith is.
I know, the response is, "why should I have to do something I don't want to do"?
How many things do you do -every day- that you don't want to do, and why is baking a cake so different?

Like you i consider a 'feteus' alive if it can support itself outside the mother, prior to that its IMO not truly alive. BUT in that case, i still see the double standard of why then is a murder of a pregnant woman in her first (or 2nd) trimester getting charged with 2 counts vice 1..

And I agreed with you, that is a case of double standards. BUT, where is the case from? Is it a state that says life begins at conception? If so, then what is the problem? The problem of course lies in the patchwork system of there being no blanket -federal- law on the issue because the states demand it must work that way.

As to the wank aspect.. I have heard that argument before, by those wanting legal abortions. My argument is that an abortion is already a conceived person. Wanking and ejaculating sperm is not, as there is no egg to fertilize to make that conception.

Again, look to the laws and some states doing all they can to ignore any federal ruling on the issue.

Yes. I do feel its viable in a modern society. I believe prisons are made to PUNISH law breakers. Not that they are there to 'rehabilitate' them. And even if they were there for rehab, certain people are beyond rehabilitation, and certain crimes are harsh enough to demand an equally harsh penalty.

Ok, Then I want all people who have discriminated against others -in direct violation- of the many, many civil rights acts to be slapped in jail. They are law breakers, and they deserve no less. As for things like Chick-a-fill, Hobby lobby, and other "outraged businesses", they should be liquidated, and all their employees thrown in jail as well. I mean, the argument -is- that they have the same rights as people, so let's treat them the same way under the law.
I think 5 years hard time in corporate run prisons, being used as slave labour to produce things like body armour for the troops, making burger patties for Mcdonald's and Wendies, Road works and the countless other uses that prisoners are used as slave labour for.
Hell, they might even rehabilitate and realise why them pesky blacks are still pissed off about slavery, but that's optional, I don't care if they learn anything. Of course, when they get out after serving their well deserved period of slavery (sorry, punishment), and when they come out, they can work for prison reform, and people can say "I didn't do it, why are you mad at me for?"

With how many people these days seem to get 20, but only serve 10 (or sometimes even less) and then get out on parole, i don't see that as proper justice.

Well, parole is supposed to be a reward for showing that you are trying to reform, so I guess if the goal of prison is punishment, you should get rid of parole then.

As to the Vengeance or Justice question. i would have to honestly say both. Justice in that they pay for their crime, Vengeance in that they die for killing someone else.

At what point do you kill people for their crimes?

[jelgate]

The last time I went to the movie theater was 2007

[aretood2]

Who is asking you to give up your faith?
If baking a cake for a gay person makes you question your faith, your problem is not the gay person, it's how weak your faith is.
I know, the response is, "why should I have to do something I don't want to do"?
How many things do you do -every day- that you don't want to do, and why is baking a cake so different?

The whole wedding cake issue is something that I have been thinking about. And I think that's a discussion that those who actually have a faith need to talk about first before the politicking of those who have no faith.

For me, my question would be "Am I partaking in an activity against my faith or am I simply providing a product for a costumer?" A defense attorney has to defend a monster even if he is guilty and try to get him the best deal. What about people who build hotels knowing that prostitutes will frequent them? Are they partaking in that sin? Then again, would a God fearing Christian put himself in a position to sin such as working at a strip club? Would a Jew work at a factory that processes pork byproducts only? A Christian could simply refuse to make wedding cakes for the public and avoid the whole thing all together.

Well, parole is supposed to be a reward for showing that you are trying to reform, so I guess if the goal of prison is punishment, you should get rid of parole then.


At what point do you kill people for their crimes?

This is another point of contention where I see Christian values not represented in conservatism. There are few things more precious in Christianity as the belief in redemption. That a sinner turn away from a sin and make a life change is something that is heavily rewarded by God (James 5:20). The whole thing about eye for an eye is meant to be about the punishment fitting the crime. You don't execute someone because they stole a loaf of bread, nor do you cut of their hand. And as far as vengeance goes, God claims it for himself and for no one else (Leviticus 19:18; Romans 12:19).

The reason I mention those things is because it's impossible to separate the values from the beliefs. The beliefs inform the values, and the values dictate the way of life of an individual. And that faith leads to beliefs which lead to values that make me say that the Justice system should not be used as a medium of vengeance. And when possible, redemption should also be the goal.

That said, if capital punishment is meant for vengeance then it should be done away with. Ancient Israel didn't even make a wide use of it. The Sanhedrin (Jewish high court) even declared that one execution every so many years to be excessive. You can't divorce Christian values from ideas of rehabilitation. The idea that a sinner can be turned away from their sin and thus become God fearing individuals is a tenant of Christianity...the whole point to Jesus' crucifixion. I am baffled by people who claim to be Christian and refute the idea of rehabilitation. In my eyes, they are heretics if not apostates. The willingness to forgive Dylan Roof that the families of the 9 he killed shouldn't have shocked a true Christian.

That said, justice does demand to be served. But I don't see anything just about sending a father or a mother 55 years to federal prison with no chance of parole for carrying an ounce of an illegal substance while someone convicted of manslaughter gets only 20 years with a chance of parole. It's not statement against the latter case, but against the former.

[Annoyed]

Just who is minding the store?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015.../?intcmp=hpbt1

Capitol Hill opposition to the Iranian nuclear deal was stoked Wednesday by a bombshell report that Tehran will be allowed to use its own experts to inspect one of the country's most controversial nuclear sites.

I remember reading about this part of that treaty when it was in the news a month or two ago.

And our lawmakers are just noticing it now?

[aretood2]

Just who is minding the store?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015.../?intcmp=hpbt1

I remember reading about this part of that treaty when it was in the news a month or two ago.

And our lawmakers are just noticing it now?

No one was listening to Bibi when he mentioned that. Then again, no one really listens to Israel anymore.

[Gatefan1976]

The whole wedding cake issue is something that I have been thinking about. And I think that's a discussion that those who actually have a faith need to talk about first before the politicking of those who have no faith.

Mmmmm
Murky as you don't define -what- faith, but judging from the rest of the post, we will assume some brand of Christianity.

For me, my question would be "Am I partaking in an activity against my faith or am I simply providing a product for a costumer?" A defense attorney has to defend a monster even if he is guilty and try to get him the best deal. What about people who build hotels knowing that prostitutes will frequent them? Are they partaking in that sin? Then again, would a God fearing Christian put himself in a position to sin such as working at a strip club? Would a Jew work at a factory that processes pork byproducts only? A Christian could simply refuse to make wedding cakes for the public and avoid the whole thing all together.

I feel that is the crux of the discussion. I -feel- that one is "active discrimination" (I won't make a wedding cake for a gay couple because they are gay) whereas the other is far more "passive", and probably more in line with the whole "avoiding sin" (bad analogy, I know) kind of thinking.

This is another point of contention where I see Christian values not represented in conservatism. There are few things more precious in Christianity as the belief in redemption. That a sinner turn away from a sin and make a life change is something that is heavily rewarded by God (James 5:20). The whole thing about eye for an eye is meant to be about the punishment fitting the crime. You don't execute someone because they stole a loaf of bread, nor do you cut of their hand. And as far as vengeance goes, God claims it for himself and for no one else (Leviticus 19:18; Romans 12:19).

This is why I am a fan of Jesus (even as a non Christian), but not churches (any church to be clear, not just Christian ones).
As for the rest of this, I concur. I feel that a lot of church blowhards could do with the whole "remember thou art mortal" as practiced when approaching the Roman Emperors...........

The reason I mention those things is because it's impossible to separate the values from the beliefs. The beliefs inform the values, and the values dictate the way of life of an individual. And that faith leads to beliefs which lead to values that make me say that the Justice system should not be used as a medium of vengeance. And when possible, redemption should also be the goal.

True, but there are some jobs, especially governmental ones where you should at least -try- to separate the two. That way lies a theocracy, and that brings a whole raft of other problems.

That said, if capital punishment is meant for vengeance then it should be done away with. Ancient Israel didn't even make a wide use of it. The Sanhedrin (Jewish high court) even declared that one execution every so many years to be excessive. You can't divorce Christian values from ideas of rehabilitation. The idea that a sinner can be turned away from their sin and thus become God fearing individuals is a tenant of Christianity...the whole point to Jesus' crucifixion. I am baffled by people who claim to be Christian and refute the idea of rehabilitation. In my eyes, they are heretics if not apostates. The willingness to forgive Dylan Roof that the families of the 9 he killed shouldn't have shocked a true Christian.

Never shocked me, they walked the walk, not just abused the talk.

That said, justice does demand to be served. But I don't see anything just about sending a father or a mother 55 years to federal prison with no chance of parole for carrying an ounce of an illegal substance while someone convicted of manslaughter gets only 20 years with a chance of parole. It's not statement against the latter case, but against the former.

Mandatory minimums, a relic of a bygone era that not even the people who promoted them to begin with agree with anymore...........