- On 15 May 2013
in
Please Accost: '1 percent moms who hire disabled guides to cut lines at Disney,
leo707 said:
I see more people in the the Disney Land hotel lobby checking in with those temporary strap on foot casts than the number "injured/crippled" people checking into all other hotels I have checked into combine. Rent a wheelchair, and wha-La! access to the wheelchair access lines.
Yes, people from all socioeconomic backgrounds can be selfish assholes. I guess for the rich it is worth $1k+/day so that they themselves don't have to appear handicapped.
From what I understand Disneyland used to have a problem with groups of teenagers renting wheelchairs to "cut" in line. I believe that they have curbed that.
- On 29 Apr 2013
in
Fort Knox has no gold in it.,
leo707 said:
I heard these guys heisted it:
Unlikely. To them gold is worthless unless its pressed with latinum
I hate to nit-pick, but the gold is still worthless. It is essentially just a "container" for the latinum.
- On 19 Apr 2013
in
No left wing terror deaths in the USA in 30+ years.,
leo707 said:
But I've done a 180 on this, the grey areas and straw sale is a very real problem.
Straw sales are already illegal.
Yes, straw sales are illegal and a very real problem.
- On 19 Apr 2013
in
Islam,
leo707 said:
We need to start charging clerics as accessories to crimes, if they explicitly endorse violence from their pulpit. Or at least seize their church's assets.
Careful now...we would have to word that law so it does not accidentally snare real Americans like Michael Savage and Glenn Beck.
- On 19 Apr 2013
in
No left wing terror deaths in the USA in 30+ years.,
leo707 said:
They make it sound like you can legally buy any gun w/o background check on some website and have it legally shipped to your front door.
Well, you can buy some guns, but this is kind of like they way they call all scary black rifles "assault weapons."
Are you in support of being able to buy any gun without first running a background check?
- On 19 Apr 2013
in
No left wing terror deaths in the USA in 30+ years.,
leo707 said:
Unlike what many people think, including some Senators, civilians CANNOT easily buy a full-automatic weapon; while they are legal (in most states), their purchase is expensive and requires time consuming paperwork.
Right, but Dorner, not being a "civilian", was able to obtain them relatively easily and with no background check.
Here is how he said he did it in his manifesto:
"Unfortunately, are you aware that I obtained class III weapons (suppressors) without a background check thru NICS or DROS completely LEGALLY several times? I was able to use a trust account that I created on quicken will maker and a $10 notary charge at a mailbox etc. to obtain them legally. Granted, I am not a felon, nor have a DV misdemeanor conviction or active TRO against me on a NCIC file. I can buy any firearm I want, but should I be able to purchase these class III weapons (SBR’s, and suppressors) without a background check and just a $10 notary signature on a quicken will maker program? The answer is NO. I’m not even a resident of the state i purchased them in. Lock n Load just wanted money so they allow you to purchase class III weapons with just a notarized trust, military ID." - On 19 Apr 2013
in
No left wing terror deaths in the USA in 30+ years.,
leo707 said:
Agree. He basically wasn't grown-up (read "cynical") enough to survive career path he has chosen for himself.
Yep, at some point in his carrier he was going to run into the exact same problem. It just happened sooner rather than later.
- On 19 Apr 2013
in
No left wing terror deaths in the USA in 30+ years.,
leo707 said:
I think I know what Class 3 dealer is, and what Title II weapon is, but I'm not sure what class III weapon is.
Class III (3) weapons are what a Class 3 dealer sells, so yeah essentially title II weapons.
, but Dorner was a moderate Republican.
Nope, support for AWB knocks him right out of that category. Nowadays AWB is a leftist issue, nobody on the right (or even moderate left) would touch it with a 100ft pole.
He draws his line a little differently than you or I. So, what. No ones political views matches 100% with their party identification. Gun control is but one issue and drawing ones line in a different place hardly disqualifies someone from just about anywhere on the political spectrum. The only exception of-course being the far right.
If you were talking about a politician whose job is on the line -- then yeah no-one but the farther left would actually vote for a Regan style AWB. *hint* I am thinking that Regan was actually Dorner's favorite president. Much of his anti-gun rant could have been pulled right from old Regan quotes.
- On 19 Apr 2013
in
No left wing terror deaths in the USA in 30+ years.,
leo707 said:
Do you know what a class III weapon is?
It means you have to be at least a level 5 dark wizard or level 7 paladin, or you have to have the Use Advanced Weapons perk or a scroll of +2 dexterity. Right?
Well, ideally but in today's legal climate just claim you have the prerequisites and the DM does not do any checking.
Also, I feel it my moral duty to steer you in the right direction before you destroy your life:
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/robertson-demonic-dungeons-dragons-literally-destroyed-peoples-lives - On 19 Apr 2013
in
No left wing terror deaths in the USA in 30+ years.,
leo707 said:
I didn't miss the part where he express his pro-Obama and pro-gun-control views.
That is called cherry-picking. That lets you confuse a respect for the office of the President of the United States of America with support for the current person holding that position. I know...it is confusing and I don't expect you to understand and having respect for the office, regardless of who holds it, probably makes him a RINO in your book. *pssst* he was also pissed that people disrespected Bush...
I suppose you missed this quote from Dorner's manifesto also:
"The honorable President George H.W. Bush, they never give you enough credit for your successful Presidency. You were always one of my favorite Presidents (2nd favorite). I hope your health improves greatly. You are the epitome of an American and service to country."Please find a quote in the manifesto that gives anywhere near that kind of praise for Obama.
I know it may be a tough pill for you to swallow, but Dorner was a moderate Republican.
pro-gun-control views.
Everyone is pro-gun-control -- well unless they are insane, a gun manufacturer or the NRA (the official lobbyists of the gun manufacturers) -- the difference is where we draw the line. I am sure that if you were to actually read Dorner's manifesto there is probably some gun control in there that you think is a good idea. Like, do you think that someone should be able to get a hold of class III weapons without having had a background check? Do you know what a class III weapon is?
- On 18 Apr 2013
in
How the Media Blew the Gun Control Debate,
leo707 said:
The talk about how many Americans support gun control measures come from liberals who don't know anyone who owns a gun and have never handled one - why on earth would anyone listen their opinion on a subject they know nothing about?
You may be shocked to know how many "liberals" own guns.
- On 18 Apr 2013
in
Good One Morpheus,
leo707 said:
Actually I am repeatedly amazed at how thoroughly compassionate MLK was, time after time. I can't recall him "bashing" anyone.
Yeah, this is about as close as he comes to an outright insult:
"I have a dream that one day in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification..."However, I was referring to "bashing" as it has been used in this thread for when an atheist states an argument against religion.
The careful dignity and calm adherence to observable facts contrasted totally with certain PatNet posters, for example.
Ha ha, true.
- On 18 Apr 2013
in
Good One Morpheus,
leo707 said:
His Birmingham Jail letter (because it is a direct response to critics)
The fact that MLK was jailed is a great shame on the U.S. and a powerful indication of just how bad bigotry is. I suspect that Marcus would jail atheists if he could.
Only the uppity ones.
- On 18 Apr 2013
in
No left wing terror deaths in the USA in 30+ years.,
leo707 said:
You can blame any ideology based on how you cherry pick your data - for instance, see the attached photo currently circulated on some conservative sites:
Instead of posting some made up stuff, at least they should be making a list of liberal equivalents to Jim David Atkisson, Byron Williams, or Martin Hohenegger. You know people who picked up a gun thinking, "I hate liberals, and I am going to kill one today."
"Conservatives" today seem to be very fond of profiling Muslims because Muslims are indeed more likely to commit a terror act. We should also keep in mind that if today in the US someone is trying to kill someone else because of their political beliefs (or what they think your political beliefs are) it is most likely a conservative trying to kill a liberal. Yet, the conservatives wail and gnash their teeth at the mention that one of there "own" might be responsible. Hell, they even go to such lengths as making up bullshit graphics to try to prove otherwise. Funny how that double-standard works.
- On 18 Apr 2013
in
No left wing terror deaths in the USA in 30+ years.,
leo707 said:
You can blame any ideology based on how you cherry pick your data
Um--exactly...or you can just make up lies, put them in a graphic and distribute it on the internet as "proof."
With very little effort I can see several problems with your graphic:
- Only two of the people on the list were perhaps motivated by any strong religious or political ideology: Nidal Hasan, and Wade Michael Page. Regardless of any alleged party registration they both were right-wingers Hasan an extreme Islamist, and Page was an active white supremacist.-Dorner was not an Obama "supporter", he was a moderate republican (funny the graphic does not mention his party affiliation). A supporter of Jon Huntsman, Dorner did not vote for Obama. It says it right there in his manifesto. Also, Dorner was not motivated by any political ideology.
-Harris and Klebold -- while not motivated by an ideology -- were documented admirers of the nazi movement. You know that right-wing organization that instigated some trouble in Europe a while back.
-The others were not motivated by any political agenda, but by severe mental illness.
The question is why would someone feel the need to fake up a list trying to attribute mass killings to "liberal" Democrat ideology and even go to the extreme of putting clear right-wingers (or even a moderate republican) on that list?
- On 18 Apr 2013
in
Good One Morpheus,
leo707 said:
What everyone else understood but you didn't is that those pictures of MLK and Edith Windsor say that the mere fact that African Americans and homosexuals have stood up for their rights is what the bigots call "bashing their beliefs"
I believe that MLK advocated for equality, in a way that didn't even give any recognition to ignorant white supremacists and what they believe. No bashing of those ignorant idiots and what they believed was necessary.
Fighting for a groups equality, and civil rights is best done without even acknowledging the existence of a group of fools who think it is undeserved. That would imply that there is even the slightest plausability to their ignorant beliefs.
Forget the white supremacists, MLK was going up against the long held beliefs of an entire nation. Yes, he did occasionally answer critics directly and almost every word that came out of his mouth was a "bash" against the beliefs held by a large majority of Americans. Just because he was more eloquent and diplomatic about it than dan, it does not change the intent and substance of MLKs message.
You may want to read the following from MLK:
His dream speech (because everyone should be familiar with what it says)
http://www.archives.gov/press/exhibits/dream-speech.pdfHis Birmingham Jail letter (because it is a direct response to critics)
http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/frequentdocs/birmingham.pdf - On 18 Apr 2013
in
Good One Morpheus,
leo707 said:
(now please try your hardest to not understand what I just said)
Please try your hardest to communicate in a civil -- and perhaps even friendly -- tone, and I will do the same.
If they are not mutually exclusive and if there is anything positive or even "good" behind the existence of religion, that is if human "good" is in part a reason why religion even exists, then I don't know how one can say we would be better off without religion.
OK, let's assume that they are not mutually exclusive...
OK, let's assume that there is positive ("good") behind the existence of religion...
Let's even say that innate human "good" is tied in some way to the drive most humans feel towards the spiritual...
How can we say we would be better off without religion?
We don't live in a binary world, "good" "bad" is a continuum with very few absolutes -- if any. As with every aspect of evolution, mental and physical, ones that last provide more "good" towards their species than "bad". As time marches on the "bad" may begin to outweigh the "good" and a trait becomes a net negative for a species, and as a result can be eliminated/reduced (humans are riddled with vestigial characteristics).
We may be better off without religion because humanity has reached the point where the "bad" had begun to outweigh the "good." While good may have given rise to religion, the religion is not necessary for humans to act good. Is the social structure provided by religion still needed? Here I will say I don't know. Right along side the drive towards spirituality evolving in Humans, for millennia the ability to exploit and abuse this innate spirituality has been refined as well. Is the good of religion enough to outweigh the abuse, manipulation and evil committed through religion? Probably not, especially because we don't need religion in order to perform the same good that religion provides.
Let us pretend that 60% of humans still grew a vestigial prehensile tail. Maybe some people who grow the tails have a special bond with each other. They can get into groups, weave their tails together, and it brings some of them to a profoundly ecstatic state that bonds them to other humans. But what if the tails occasionally have an involuntary primitive reflex of grabbing for a branch, and as a result children, babies and small animals are occasionally strangled to death. We would be better off without the tails, even though they played a large part in our evolution and even today provided some good and comfort to their owners?
The non-tail humans (NTH) would have a difficult time convincing the tailed humans (TH) to all cut off their tails, and cut the tails off all their children. The NTH would have to accept the fact that they are going to share a planet with TH, and as such they need to find a way to get along with them. Should the NTH ignore the dangers that the tails present? No, they should feel a responsibility to keep everyone informed of the dangers of tails. The TH should not only feel the same responsibility to raise awareness of tail dangers but take measures that their tails and the tails of other TH are kept under control. All humans NTH and TH should expose and prevent any tail joining ceremonies that in anyway advocate the freedom of tails to do what they want.
In other words if by chance good causes religion to exist. Then no religion implies no good.
No religion could imply no good only if it was religion that caused good to come into existence.
Good causes many human characteristics to exist. Even if it caused religion to exist, then good can still exist in the absence of religion. If no religion were to imply no good, then the humans that were built without a biological drive towards the spiritual would have no good in them, and I don't think this is what you are implying.
- On 18 Apr 2013
in
Good One Morpheus,
leo707 said:
not the science worshippers who believe everything is known
Which 'science worshippers' would those be?
I think those are the ones stuffed with straw.
- On 18 Apr 2013
in
Good One Morpheus,
leo707 said:
Christians helped end slavery, because they were good people, not because of the morals their religion taught
But what comes first, "good humans," or is it whatever the root primitive impulse that causes a super majority of humans to have some kind of religion or spirituality in their lives ?
First off what came first is immaterial to my statement about Christians taking part in ending slavery.
Yes, the majority of humans do seem to have some sort of biological impulse to believe in the supernatural. That drive is not exclusive to Christianity, and is very much tied to whatever religion is popular, "within their current, historical, cultural, and evolutionary context."
If the religion du jour had actually been anti-slavery, or at least not pro-slavery (like Christianity), then good people would have had an easier time at ending slavery, and would not have to made any religious compromises with themselves to do so.
You seem to know that these things are mutually exclusive, and that historically as well as now, one can (could have) exist(ed) without the other.
What makes you think that I "know" the biological spiritual drive, and being "good" are mutually exclusive? When did I ever make a comment like that?
Sure they can exist without each other. Being a good human and being religious can exist either together or apart. I am not sure what your point is, because...
(even if I do know that individuals within their current, historical, cultural, and evolutionary context are obviously capable of "being good" without religion).
It seems that you know the drive towards spirituality is not necessary for someone to be "good."
- On 18 Apr 2013
in
No left wing terror deaths in the USA in 30+ years.,
leo707 said:
Chris Dorner was a leftist according to his manifesto.
You must have missed this part of his manifesto:
"I didn’t vote in this last election as my choice of candidate, John Huntsman, didn’t win the primary candidacy for his party."Anyway, Dorner was a moderate politically and his attacks were not motivated by politics.
- On 18 Apr 2013
in
Good One Morpheus,
leo707 said:
But it is interesting that you note the way that people used religion to rationalize slavery (correct), and yet totally ignore the extent to which religion was involved in the movement to end it.
Christians helped end slavery, because they were good people, not because of the moals their religion taught. In fact they had to cherry-pick and "soften" their biblical interpretations (that overwhelmingly support slavery) in order to justify their opposition to slavery which is contrary to what the Christian God of the bible demands.
- On 17 Apr 2013
in
How I see athiests who wish to prosthelytize,
leo707 said:
If atheists don't proselytize, how can they be sure they'll get into a heaven they don't believe in?
- On 17 Apr 2013
in
Good One Morpheus,
leo707 said:
I am assuming that this thread is marcus' final atheist bash.
It's not an atheist bash. I guess you missed the point.
It is entirely an atheist bash. I am sorry that you missed that.
Few atheist speak their mind when confronted by religious, and very few (none I have seen on this board included) "constantly" are bashing the religious. Even amongst people famous for being atheist there are not many that are "constantly" bashing religion.
It seems to me that this graphic is effectively telling atheists to sit in the corner and shut-the-fuck-up if they disagree with religion, because you-know to disagree with a religion is a very offensive bash. With the attitude expressed in this graphic it encourages every religious person to dismiss any atheist criticism of religion because "those people" are always bashing religion. To me, and probably to any atheist, that kind of image comes off as a smug and self-righteous bash against all atheist.
Anyway, this is all about you and dan. I swear if you two were ever to meet in person, within 30 seconds, it would probably devolve into a silly slap-fight or hot make-out session.
You two probably agree with each other on most issues non-religious, but you can't find it in yourselves to communicate like civilized human beings. Can dan be an offensive boor? Hell, yeah. But, that is something that you both have in common. I have noticed though that you two can also be decent civil individuals as well, just apparently not to each other.
- On 17 Apr 2013
in
Lamorinda Home Prices Back Above Peak Levels,
leo707 said:
Disclaimer: I'm not happy about this. I'm not a fan of this. And I don't want this trend to continue.
Just reporting the facts.
Yeah, this is one of the market areas that I keep an eye on and the trend does seem to be increasing prices. Above peak levels? I don't know, it will be interesting to see your data, but with such a low inventory the sample size of properties is also very low.
6-8 months ago is seemed like almost anything in that area priced above $650K would sit on the market a long time (weeks/months) and sell for below asking. Now, everything seems to be going above asking.
- On 16 Apr 2013
in
California may ban plastic bags,
leo707 said:
I am in Alameda County also, and I thought they were 10 cents. Not that it really matters.
You are right, but some places are charging 25 cents.
I think once they can somehow justify that the bag is sturdy enough for "multiple uses" hence "reusable" then they can charge what they want. So most places are buying sturdier bags and charging the upcharge.
The bastards. I have not yet run into a 25 cent bag charge yet.