May 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

« Majority Rule | Main | Bad Things to Say to People »



RE: Anfauglir

Further on your arguement for smoking only resteraunts/pubs/clubs. The bans were introduced because of health concerns for staff, not the patrons. Every employer has a duty of care to their employees. Can you tell i'm an evil Catbert.

Mayo Call

While we do have a separation of church and state written into our bylaws, the actual separation is about as far apart as "sandwich" and "delicious". Who was the last non-christian president? Remember when John Kerry was denied communion? There is no "church of america", but believing in God (or at least saying you do) is a prerequisite for the job as president. Seriously, "I couldn't have done it without my faith" is about as common a slogan in winning presidential campaigns as "hope of america". Following those religious beliefs while in office is a different matter altogether, though.

Jack Goldman

Evil to me is having parents pay all the bills, through college, when kids lose money. When kids make money, government takes 51% of their income through debasement, income taxes, and public debt. Why do parents pay all the bills and government takes all the profits? This is an evil scheme. When people wake up and stop having kids that cost $300,000 each if the go to private school, you get immigration. We are sheep. Cities are sheep farms. We are being fleeced, milked, and devoured. Will we wake up and throw off the yoke?

Jack Goldman

The majority is usually right unless the are infiltrated by a self interest group as in Nazi Germany or Zionist, Jewish, Israel, or Communist Russia. The majority supports freedom as long as freedom is better than tyranny. When tyranny or evil becomes better, that is chosen. A tyranny imposed on me is using fake paper money. I could buy a gallon of gasoline for three silver dimes in 1964. I can still buy a gallon of gasoline for three silver dimes from 1964. I must earn six dollars, pay income taxes of three dollars, and spend three fake pretend dollars. I am forced to use this fake money regardless of my wish. If I turn in my fake paper money to get real 1964 silver money I must pay a 7% sales tax. I don't have to pay a sales tax to turn in my fake paper money for fake token coins. This is a tyranny of the worst kind. The real Dow, in real 1964 money, is $1,086, instead of a fake $12,500 in fake pretend money. When the majority forces the population to use fake pretend money the economy will eventually destroy itself. This is true evil. We have met the enemy and he is us. By accepting this fake money we harm ourselves and our children.


National Transportation Safety Board recently divulged they had funded a project with the US auto makers for the past five years. The NTSB covertly funded a project whereby the auto makers were installing black boxes in four wheel drive pickup trucks in an effort to determine, in fatal accidents, the circumstances in the last 15 seconds before the crash.

They were surprised to find in 49 of the 50 states the last words of drivers in 61.2% of fatal crashes were, "Oh, Shit!"

Only the state of Texas was different, where 89.3% of the final words were, "Hey Y'all, hold my beer and watch this!"


science blinders...

faith blinders...

sounds like two blind people hitting each other wth sticks. Entertaining, but the only people who seem to actually get hit are us bystanders.

Steven McDaniel

[What on earth has that got to do with me saying I don't think God kills the unborn?? If you must argue, Mark, stick to the point.

Posted by: Steven McDaniel]

Your only argument about God having done it is that it's too complicated for you to do it.

E.g. eyes etc.

I'll start worrying about making sense to you when you show some signs of listening.

OK, Mark, I'll go with your new argument. You are right that I am not listening to you on this blog, by the way. But figuratively, I 'hear' what you are saying. I don't argue that God created the universe on anything other than faith; that is a spiritual matter between me and my conscience, and I don't condemn you for disagreeing. However, as I read your post, to the untrained (yet God given) eye you seem to be inadvertently admitting that someone smarter than me did it. And it takes a lot more faith to think for a moment the universe just sprung up fortuitously of its own accord, unless, of course you are clever enough to blind yourself with science over the matter.


[What on earth has that got to do with me saying I don't think God kills the unborn?? If you must argue, Mark, stick to the point.

Posted by: Steven McDaniel]

Your only argument about God having done it is that it's too complicated for you to do it.

E.g. eyes etc.

I'll start worrying about making sense to you when you show some signs of listening.

Anon Y. Mous

"To qualify as evil, I think you need some evil intent."

Stealing my freedom to satisfy your own baseless prejudices is evil.

Steven McDaniel

"[I didn't actually see Him do it, Mark.
Posted by: Steven McDaniel ]
I didn't see him create mankind either.
Did you?
But you still think he did it."

What on earth has that got to do with me saying I don't think God kills the unborn?? If you must argue, Mark, stick to the point.


[I didn't actually see Him do it, Mark.

Posted by: Steven McDaniel ]

I didn't see him create mankind either.

Did you?

But you still think he did it.


Scott, you've obviously opened a powder keg here, and I'm going to add my two cents. I consider myself religious, but wholeheartedly support gay marriage. If two people, regardless of their gender, are willing to make a legalized commitment to each other, who are we to say they can't do it because they happen to be the same gender. Marriage is not only a religious ceremony, it can also be a civil one, as in the couples who go to a courthouse to get married. The sensible solution would be to allow each church to decide for itself if it was willing to honor/allow/perform marriage between same-sex couples, and open up the civil arena to all who are interested in legalizing their commitment to each other. It's very sad to me that my best friend not only had to go to Canada to have her marriage performed, but if her wife were seriously ill and in the hospital, wouldn't even have any rights to visit her because she's not family. I've never met a gay person who has told me that I have to have the same preferences as they do, so why do we have to try and force them into being straight?


A definition of evil:

Evil (n): Serious harm, pain, or suffering caused to someone through some action.

Evil (a): A thing or person, the nature of which causes serious harm, pain, or suffering in others.

Given this definition of evil, the question becomes this: Which system of government has the potential for least evil? The founding fathers believed (rightly, in my humble opinion) that a strict majority rule had greater capacity for evil than a representative republic. Sometimes majorities feel rather than think, and this can lead to greater harm, pain, and suffering in the long run.


Okay, I did a quick word scan and didn't find the word "benefits" so perhaps no one has brought up the single most important reason against the marriage of any two or more random people: married people receive many subsidies from the government and have many rights that nonmarried people do not. To name one example: the spouse of a deceased person is entitled to Social Security benefits. The good buddy of that same person is not.

So you needn't hate gays to want to limit the notion of marriage. You only need hate taxes, since the taxes on the traditionally-married people obviously must rise if additional benefits are granted to people who are not married.


I am curious. Assuming all responsible parties are over the age of consent, mentally competent, and willing, what IS the problem with Polygamy? I am serious folks, really. What is wrong with inviting another "consenting and willing person" into your marriage?

I can see problems when you introduce bigoted, uneducated, sister kissing, mountain folk...but what about normal, unrelated, educated professionals?

More religious oppression that has been around so long, that nobody thinks about it anymore.

Steven McDaniel

LegioNofZion says: "Steven McDaniel, I hear your point but that is pretty dismissive. the idea of a holocaust maybe a stretch but its not your community that is the largest affected. It's blacks in inner cities that have the highest abortion rates..."

Hey, Legion, I am totally with you on what you say. However, I am just curious: How'd you figure out I'm not black???

Steven McDaniel

Mark says: "[... killing an unborn child in one fifth of all pregnancies per year in the United States is not a holocaust in the womb, it is 'choice', ...

Posted by: Steven McDaniel]

How many births are not carried to term? How many zygotes are reversed? Are these not a Holocaust caused by your God?"

I didn't actually see Him do it, Mark. If you ever do, let me know, and I'll go after Him with you, because it would be murder. It is an age-old quandary : does (my) God cause tragedy? Personally I don't believe He does, and as an unbeliever, you are in no position to try to teach me about spiritual matters. But whether or not abortionists purposely kill unborn babies (as I believe they are still called) is not a theological debate, is it?

West Coast Woman

Carl Spackler babbled:
"All the of sexual encounters we have as humans are a choice. Hetero, Homo, whatever. It's all a choice."

Yes,and homosexuals often find the idea of having heterosexual relations just as repugnant as straight people find the idea of same-gender sexual relations. What then - choose celibacy? Not a viable option, as the Catholic priests have continually proven.

"Or do you believe that I've a genetic propensity towards brown-eyed girls, or that pedophiles are drawn to children because of any other means?"

Nicely specious argument.

"People choose to be gay just as I choose to be straight. It's not rocket science, being gay isn't a birth defect. Why would you want to belittle it as anything else other than a choice?"

While I don't believe being gay is a defect of any kind (and I'm straight, for what it's worth), people are in fact born gay - it all depends upon when during pregnancy a certain hormone is released. On time - the baby is heterosexual. Too late - the baby is homosexual.

The only people I know who have chosen to be gay are those who were severely abused by the opposite gender.

Lastly, since marriage is a civil union as well as a religious union and religion need not be a factor in any straight marriage if the two people so choose, anyone who is bleating about their religion being denigrated if we allow gay people to marry is being a bigot, pure and simple...their argument is not based on reality. Freedom of religion means the freedom to practice your religion your own way, not to impose it on others. And religious freedom does not, for instance, permit you to freely rape or hurt other people even if it is part of your religion. In this case, religious rights must cede their ground to civil rights.


I'm sure this debate has started to bore you to tears already but I'll add my bit in anyway...

* Why can't gay people also be religious and get 'married'

* The word 'Marriage' isn't patented to Religion (tm)

* When two gay people get civil partnered, all family, friends, co-workers say "oh, so you're married..."

* How do you know for sure that there aren't more gay people than religious people who object to the word marriage?

* Why is it OK to use the word Marriage in other descriptive contexts such as "the treacle pear was married wonderfully to the warm custard" and no one minds.

BTW to the people who said they 'hate' homosexuals, you are obviously deeply religious and I'm sorry that my existence offends you. Perhaps you could ask your god to stop making us....


Dodge Fury - interesting set of definitions. Interesting perhaps why you provide a "but then why...?" question after the first two options, but not the last? Allow me to fill inthe missing question: "But why do you need to be "married" to have children?" EVERY definition has exceptions.

But I feel we are all coming at it the wrong way: two people who want to be together can be together - no law is prohibiting gay couples cohabiting (that I am aware of).

The point is, that society and the law offer particular favours to hetero couples that are denied to gay couples. "Married" allowances, the right to decide health issues, and so on. What we should perhaps be asking is why a benefit is made available to a couple who have got "married", and not to a couple who have not - of whatever persuasion.

A frequent answer is the "commitment" one - we are rewarding the commitment of the marriage. If that is the reason, then we should extend it to gay "marriage" as well - they can be just as committed, why wihhold benefits because we do not allow them to formally and legally state that commitment?

Another answer is that the benefits go to straight marrieds (and no other) as that is the single type of union the law wishes to reward. Is that fair? Is that justifiable?

No matter what your definition of what "marriage" means, the fact of its happening carry with it a range of legal benefits. To justify restricting marriage to one type of couple, you must first justify restricting those benefits to one type of couple - or dispense with those benefits altogether.


Re: the evils of the smoking ban

No, clearly the person in your analogy isn't evil for stopping the person beating him, but your analogy is desperately unsound.

I smoke a pipe, occasionally. I have very rarely pinned anyone in a corner and blown smoke into their lungs, though I must admit the few times have been fun.

The smoking ban, at least in the UK, concerns all enclosed public spaces, allowing no exemptions, you may not set up a private smokers' club. You may not set up a smoking area and a non-smoking area. I'm all for having smoking pubs and non-smoking pubs. A lot of the time I don't smoke and the option, particularly if I'm choosing somewhere to eat, strikes me as a good one.

What strikes me as vindictiveness (sorry I don't believe in evil, but vindictiveness is as close as I can get to the assumed definition in your blog) is this non-allowance of any respite for the smoker. There are even politicians campaigning to make outside smoking areas less pleasant.

What it comes down to, though, is not evil, it is misdirected good. The inflexibility of the smoking ban is designed to help smokers help themselves, and there is nothing so dangerous as a tyrant who believes he is doing things for the good of his people. Let people make their mistakes, maybe what is a mistake to you isn't to them, maybe I can eat a cream bun, drnk a bottle of wine and smoke a pipe, and live (or otherwise) with the consequence. Maybe I'm just mad, bad and dangerous to know.

Dan Walter

"You know evil when you confront it. It has a way of suppressing your spirit. You feel it as a horrible weight pressing in on you. There is a smell too, but it's not a smell you smell with your nose. It is a smell that stings your spirit." ~ King Dremel, Tibet, 1998

Michael Casey

How dare you condone stealing, Scott. Just because you're a millionaire doesn't mean sticks aren't worth something to some people. I can't believe you're so Machiavellian you'd say it's okay for someone to stop someone else from having fun just in the name of comfort.

May the Nine Squirral Gods of Osmosis spit anvils on your negligible soul.

"And then they ate, and it was nutty."
-Ten 10:10:10:10

Alan Eschenbacher

You are not evil for depriving another of enjoyment, it happens all the time whether it is being deprived of good enjoyment or evil enjoyment it just happens for all sorts of reasons. I also think evil needs defining: most evil is unintentional for example; acting in the name of some good but doing it blindly may end up promoting evil ... then there is deliberate evil, that evil which is consciously taken up for its own sake.


What an interesting topic on a largely American (I assume) board. Here in Canada, as you know by now, we have gay marriage. My best friend is gay, and married his partner of 25 years. Guess what? The sun rose the next day. Life went on, and our society didn't instantly degenerate like the nay-sayers said it would. The whole debate up here was a bit like building a tree-fort as a kid. Once it was done, we sat around and look at it and said "Um, so that's it huh? Now what?".

Oh, and to the person who said being straight was a choice - um, no. Acting on it is a choice, but realizing what is there whether you like it or not, is no choice. It just is.

Let's move on, shall we?

Thanks for the blog Scot - love yer work.

The comments to this entry are closed.