No arguments with that.  But note I haven't in the analogy mentioned 'excessive drinking'.  Here's another example.  Some time ago a vegetarian girl worked for me.  One day she came in sort of a dazed, dreamy look, slight smile on her face.  First thing I thought was that she'd fallen head over heels in love with some guy.  

I asked "You look happy, what happened?"

The reply...

"I just ate a hamburger..."

Solution for Person A at moment A1:  Don't eat meat
Solution for Person A at moment A2:  Eat meat

Why should just one of these be 'right'?

Something about this sounds so totally weird I think you likely need to reassess what you are proposing - in fact reassess the premises behind your positions.

Obviously where you are headed is advocating police entrapment of perverts, some kind of persuasion of them to get them to take some illegal action so that they can be jailed.  This starts with presentation of fake animation of children on some kind of internet site - bait.  The fake animations would be used because real children shouldn't be subjected to such things.

That's a pretty sick game, bud.  You might want to read up a bit on issues and problems with the concept and implementation of entrapment.

ARE YOU NUTS?

A person logs on to some chatroom with an avatar.  That's a virtual person.  A cop logs on to a chatroom with an avatar.  (in this case, of a certain age).  That's a virtual person.  There is no difference between this and what I described. 

Now let me guess - you'd ban the movie and book Lolita, right?  Or track the people that rented or bought them?

LOL...

Gee that's horrible.

I'm concerned about the abuse of digital characters by other digital characters.  All of the characters in Shrek are digital and some are horribly abused.  What are we going to do about that?  Like they get abused over and over - every time the movie is played or replayed.

Salvation, redemption and so forth may be either TO or FROM....

When he says honestly that he's made a movement to the better, I can't see why not to accept that at face value. 

Because that movement was AWAY from "Jesus"?  The problem with double talk such as "oh but that must not have been the True Jesus, try a different one" is the True Scotsman logical fallacy.  The problem with arguing that "Oh that Catholic church thats Man's creation that's not God" is that argument can be never proven or disproven, thus it can be used anywhere and anything against or for anything.

It is like if someone said "I'm doing much better since I stopped drinking".   Ok, fine.  Then someone else walks up and says "I've started drinking and I like it."  Ok, that's fine too.  The one statement does not contradict the truth of the other.

Right, but the name-of-him-who-we-call-today-Jesus was a common name.

I don't know about that.  That name "rassah" sounds, well, like the kind of name of someone who was a real troublemaker.  I know them when I hear them.  And let me tell you, you hang out around a few Roman Centurians, they say "Chump, what's your name" and you say "Rassah" and they say "What?" and you say "Rassah, SIR" and they say "Rassah, eh?"

Methinks that's like, on a slow and boring night, gonna be some trouble for Rassah...

You got to think about what it was like back then with no television.  It was the crooked dice game, or drinking, or pillaging and raping villages, or making fun and likely beating people to a pulp that had funny names.

"You betcha...."

See?   See?  See what miracles praying achieve?

LOL...

I'm willing to conjecture that there was some Jesuses around 2000 years ago.  See, Jesus was a pretty common name, so there were probably like....bunches of them, man, you could herd them around like cattle.  And with that many Jesuses, you damn sure know some of them were bad boys. And some of those bad boys were like, really bad boys.  There's always gonna be a few troublemakers. 

So you can be damn sure a couple of those Jesuses were put up on the cross and died there. 

Now let me take the opposite case.

2000 years ago there were certainly no Edgar Peabodys running around.  Not even one.  Therefore, there were no Edgar Peabodys hoisted on the cross and none dying on the cross.

There were no "just_me"s, no "pedrag", no "Spendulus" (if there twer it twat a Roman), no hawkeye, but...Rassah, dank, Vod, and Ekaros, you guys names may have been crucified.

Actually, yes you simply used an argument from authority to call him a fool.  That's a logical error.

He directly called you a fool, when you disregarded logic and reason.

Your use of logical error is thus proven twice.

 

So you mean Obama screwed all the little people that voted for him?  The same people that were trained like puppets to hate Bush everywhere they looked?  The people that were dazzled by phrases like 'hope and change' without even questioning what hope for what change?

Don't they kind of deserve what they are getting here?

Either with McCain or Romney all this total lying and disregard for humanity would not be occurring.  The fundamental dishonesty of this President is no longer astonishing, and it is just a dismal everyday reality. 

Granted there'd be quite a few things I wouldn't be liking about either the McCain or Romney alternatives that were presented to us as choosable alternatives...

Who, exactly told you you could stick the Christ on a Jesus mentioned by someone else?

That, it would seem to me, is mis stating pedrog. 

Because hubris reigns here?

By the way:  I always liked the water to wine trick (easy to do...)...

Does someone have a no-effort bit to bitcoin trick?

bump for that.

It appears that the Reds wearing Green are doubling down, likely before word gets out that the science has leaned down hard on the side of 'no AGW' and 'no planetary emergency' with the 5th IPCC report.  The skeptics knew this anyway, and kept telling people that 'climate sensitivity' was quite lower than was believed, that co2 did not and could not have the dramatic effect that was believed.  They've been proven right, but don't expect accolades.

As a part of this, an interesting and very positive thing has arose.  Due to the fact that the skeptics' scientific musings and articles went largely unpublished, there has developed on at least two web sites serious research being done outside the old 'peer reviewed framework' of journals.  These sites are climateaudit.org and http://wattsupwiththat.com/.

One further rather scary note is from the solar physict Lockwood, who says there is something now like a 25% chance based on observed solar activity that we are now entering a several centuries long global cooling phase.  I say scary because any sort of cooling would cause massive starvation due to limits on food production.  These same articles quoting Lockwood tend to end on the note "but don't worry it will be offset by human caused global warming so everything will  be okay".

Well, what is it, bad or good?  Or is it all just scare stories designed to get compliance with government and taxes?

Final note, what is one to read into the vision of a "clean energy economy?"  It's an attempt to build and maintain a "Climate-Industrial Complex", which in the view of greenies, should and could be as vast and powerful as the Exxons of the world.  Unfortunately, on all sides the attempts to prop up these operations are either failing or becoming increasingly expensive.  How long these people with magical thinking may take to figure out the losing proposition is not easy to say, since this would involve destroying and replacing a number of faith driven belief patterns.

It most certainly can and does.  In fact, it's inevitable that it does.  Just take the abuse of the concept of altruism for benefit of (church, government, powerful leader of one sort or another).

If the book(s) in question do not adequately explain the concept (they don't) then it is left open to fuckupification, which is exactly what will happen.  It's not impossible that such things are / were purposeful...

What?  Look if someone says "you are just shooting yourself in the foot" that doesn't mean you should go and do it.  

It means they are explaining the problem.  The problem is not the solution.  

But now that I think about it, you two somewhat differing believers can fight it out.

I've noticed, in talking to my friends about Bitcoin, that they have largely forgotten these attributes of cash.  They have been steeped in a tracable credit card economy for so long that untracable transactions and/or how to account for them is a new concept.

Unfortunately this only shows the lack of whores amongst my friends....lol..

But that makes everything so nice and easy!  And thinking is so hard!

Just consider.  Put your faith blindly in Jesus Christ.

You can stop thinking!

Life will be good.

Now everyone hold hands in a circle and sing Kumbaya.

Unfortunately, yes they did have Bibles....

The subjugation of religion as a tool of the State is exactly what Ayn Rand warned about.

Here's another look at what man can do to man, our old friend Sgt. MacKensie.  It's in the old style of talk from what was our neighbors in Scotland.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPr9g3EVz-o

LOL....

My statement was not broad, but specific to context.  Here's Sinead again, taking the opposite point of view, that England and Ireland should love each other and be at peace.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbre5Fs9m8I