If Jesus and his disciples had read the works of J.R.R. Tolkien, perhaps he would have said unto them:
The kingdom of heaven is like an unexpected journey, undertaken by a hobbit who until then had built a comfortable, controllable life for himself among his people, earning his respect from them through his willingness to live a quiet, peaceful, and undisturbing life without any suprises. It appeared that life was perfect; Hobbiton was a beautiful place, he never was asked to to do anything out of the ordinary, and he never lacked anything, or so he thought.
Such a life would have continued to his death if he had not been suddenly called to venture forth and perform great and purposeful deeds, though not in his own strength or initiative, for he had none. Upon returning from his journey, he found that he could no longer go back to life as he had known it, for in his travels he had discovered the true nature of the world in which he lived, and he now understood the responsibilities to which a broader knowledge of the world obligated him, but also enjoyed the priviledges that such experience afforded him, and while most every other hobbit in Hobbiton died and was laid to rest there in the ground, this hobbit was instead given the special honor of passage from the grey havens to the lands beyond.
So, if God calls you to go on an unexpected journey, do not hesitate. Ditch the American dream and report for duty as soon as possible. The rewards of obedience are eternal, and the Holy Spirit is dependable, at all times, for all things. Where the Lord has called you, he will not leave you, or forsake you.
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Nobody panic, but I'm barely still employed...
One would think Arvig would've bothered to mention this by now, but since to my knowledge they haven't:
DTV20 School and Community TV will no longer exist as we know it. It will operate similarly to Arvig's old channel 14 which has operated in the communities north of the old Diversicom stomping grounds (and DTV20 will in fact move to channel 14, and have it's name changed as well...also it's coverage will be expanded to include the likes of Osakis and maybe Wadena (don't remember) but the overall shift in station policy is that it will no longer spend money to produce content that is not previously contracted...In other words, we will still film city council meetings in towns where we have been filming them, and I think Adam Saltmarsh will still be doing Movie Reviews on Main with Main Street Theatre owner Bob Douvier, but beyond that, anything else which is not already on our filming schedule will no longer be filmed by DTV20. Note that the 2012 Sauk Centre and Melrose proms are on our schedule, as is one other community event that eludes my memory at the moment. But, no more high school activities or athletics (or graduations or proms or coronations) for Melrose or Sauk Centre. No more community events or concerts. No more original shows. Assumably no more filming of the Sinclair Lewis Days Parade Live or Santa Live. As far as Arvig and DTV20 are concerned.
However.
Though details are currently murky at best, as I understand it Arvig's policy has historically been that camera equipment can be borrowed (or rented?) from the community tv station for use in filming community events. I'm not certain that this was true for just anyone, although the impression I get is that that is the case. That said, I will now independently offer my services as a videographer for school and community events in the nearby communities, contingent upon an agreement involving free use of the station's cameras, though I cannot afford to work for free, and so my tentative rates are currently as follows:
I need $50 down (cash or check) to film any school or community event. However, I will also provide 5 DVD copies of the production to the party(s) who funded the production. Any additional desired copies will be available at the cost of $5 each. The event must be within 50 miles of Sauk Centre, MN for this rate to apply. For an additional 50 miles, another $5 will be added to the initial production charge (making it $55). Any distance beyond this is outside my operating range; talk to me if you really want it to happen and we'll figure something out. Note that I am not including performances, plays, larger productions, and the like at this rate, as they take considerably more time to edit and therefore require a higher price tag. Also I do not intend to film any performances involving copyright issues unless I know for sure that they can easily be resolved. So, no Music on the River, for example, sorry.
Anything I film can still be submitted to and played on whatever DTV20 becomes, though it doesn't have to be - it's up to the people who request it to be filmed (keep in mind, the new general Arvig policy is simply to not spend any money on content)
Also, once some of the fog of general confusion clears, I'll have a better idea of what the fate of DTV20's former sports sponsors is, and whether I'll be able to have them sponsor my efforts instead, or if I'd have to get new sponsors--doing so would for sure let me reduce and maybe allow me to eliminate the production charge listed above.
Additionally, this change may open up the possibility of streaming live video of some school events, though I'd have to work those details out with the school districts.
My phone number: 3.2.0 2.6.0 5.8.2.0
DTV20 School and Community TV will no longer exist as we know it. It will operate similarly to Arvig's old channel 14 which has operated in the communities north of the old Diversicom stomping grounds (and DTV20 will in fact move to channel 14, and have it's name changed as well...also it's coverage will be expanded to include the likes of Osakis and maybe Wadena (don't remember) but the overall shift in station policy is that it will no longer spend money to produce content that is not previously contracted...In other words, we will still film city council meetings in towns where we have been filming them, and I think Adam Saltmarsh will still be doing Movie Reviews on Main with Main Street Theatre owner Bob Douvier, but beyond that, anything else which is not already on our filming schedule will no longer be filmed by DTV20. Note that the 2012 Sauk Centre and Melrose proms are on our schedule, as is one other community event that eludes my memory at the moment. But, no more high school activities or athletics (or graduations or proms or coronations) for Melrose or Sauk Centre. No more community events or concerts. No more original shows. Assumably no more filming of the Sinclair Lewis Days Parade Live or Santa Live. As far as Arvig and DTV20 are concerned.
However.
Though details are currently murky at best, as I understand it Arvig's policy has historically been that camera equipment can be borrowed (or rented?) from the community tv station for use in filming community events. I'm not certain that this was true for just anyone, although the impression I get is that that is the case. That said, I will now independently offer my services as a videographer for school and community events in the nearby communities, contingent upon an agreement involving free use of the station's cameras, though I cannot afford to work for free, and so my tentative rates are currently as follows:
I need $50 down (cash or check) to film any school or community event. However, I will also provide 5 DVD copies of the production to the party(s) who funded the production. Any additional desired copies will be available at the cost of $5 each. The event must be within 50 miles of Sauk Centre, MN for this rate to apply. For an additional 50 miles, another $5 will be added to the initial production charge (making it $55). Any distance beyond this is outside my operating range; talk to me if you really want it to happen and we'll figure something out. Note that I am not including performances, plays, larger productions, and the like at this rate, as they take considerably more time to edit and therefore require a higher price tag. Also I do not intend to film any performances involving copyright issues unless I know for sure that they can easily be resolved. So, no Music on the River, for example, sorry.
Anything I film can still be submitted to and played on whatever DTV20 becomes, though it doesn't have to be - it's up to the people who request it to be filmed (keep in mind, the new general Arvig policy is simply to not spend any money on content)
Also, once some of the fog of general confusion clears, I'll have a better idea of what the fate of DTV20's former sports sponsors is, and whether I'll be able to have them sponsor my efforts instead, or if I'd have to get new sponsors--doing so would for sure let me reduce and maybe allow me to eliminate the production charge listed above.
Additionally, this change may open up the possibility of streaming live video of some school events, though I'd have to work those details out with the school districts.
My phone number: 3.2.0 2.6.0 5.8.2.0
As seen on facebook...
"The problem with stories on the internet involving Albert Einstein is that, like quotations, it's hard to determine their validity" -Albert Einstein
This is my response to one of those "Christian victory over the secularists" tales that came across my radar on facebook recently. It was about a student challenging a professor's claims that a good God couldn't have created a world with evil in it, and that God's existence cannot be proven by science...at the end of the story it claimed that student was Einstein, and aside from that assertion, I had a few other raised eyebrows as well, and so here's what I wrote in response:
Additionally, the professor was a very nice straw man in this story; a real secular professor would have an answer for the student's challenge about evolution (he would've surely claimed that evolution can be and is witnessed today, I mean, I'm no secular college science professor, yet I can easily point out that the current trend of bacterial mutation which is making antibiotics ineffective is an evolutionary process) and the existence of his brain (I mean, come on, how hard would've it been for him to say, "no, you can't see it now, but we can prove that it exists, quite easily."?) So in summary, it might give us Christians an oh-so-tantilizing (yet very sinful) sense of "yay us; secularists suck" to read this sort of thing, but really, if you want to pick a fight with a secular professor or witness someone else doing it, please actually go to a secular institution of higher learning to do so, and find a professor who's ready to argue. This is a cheap shot. That said, A) are we as Christians really called to pick fights in this manner? and B) I will say that secular scientists are far too quick to assume (and note that assumption is not a valid way to prove a scientific theory) that there is no physical evidence of the existence of God...this assumption requires denying the validity of many well-known historical accounts, after all, in addition to many more contemporary testimonies...and additionally, the scientific method is flawed at its core for only allowing input from 5 senses to be considered valid (as there are many reasons to believe in the presence of more than 5 "senses"...hey, might as well throw a bit of my personal experience in as evidence for that: we got in an accident (going 70 mph) on the freeway and everyone came out unharmed, and though Christians jump up and down and call that a miracle, scientists do not, however, that isn't my evidence. My evidence is that when a person in the car called her mom to tell her that there had been an accident, her mom already knew...bare minimum concrete evidence of a 6th sense for the scientific community, obvious evidence of the supernatural for Christians (yes, by faith).
This is my response to one of those "Christian victory over the secularists" tales that came across my radar on facebook recently. It was about a student challenging a professor's claims that a good God couldn't have created a world with evil in it, and that God's existence cannot be proven by science...at the end of the story it claimed that student was Einstein, and aside from that assertion, I had a few other raised eyebrows as well, and so here's what I wrote in response:
Additionally, the professor was a very nice straw man in this story; a real secular professor would have an answer for the student's challenge about evolution (he would've surely claimed that evolution can be and is witnessed today, I mean, I'm no secular college science professor, yet I can easily point out that the current trend of bacterial mutation which is making antibiotics ineffective is an evolutionary process) and the existence of his brain (I mean, come on, how hard would've it been for him to say, "no, you can't see it now, but we can prove that it exists, quite easily."?) So in summary, it might give us Christians an oh-so-tantilizing (yet very sinful) sense of "yay us; secularists suck" to read this sort of thing, but really, if you want to pick a fight with a secular professor or witness someone else doing it, please actually go to a secular institution of higher learning to do so, and find a professor who's ready to argue. This is a cheap shot. That said, A) are we as Christians really called to pick fights in this manner? and B) I will say that secular scientists are far too quick to assume (and note that assumption is not a valid way to prove a scientific theory) that there is no physical evidence of the existence of God...this assumption requires denying the validity of many well-known historical accounts, after all, in addition to many more contemporary testimonies...and additionally, the scientific method is flawed at its core for only allowing input from 5 senses to be considered valid (as there are many reasons to believe in the presence of more than 5 "senses"...hey, might as well throw a bit of my personal experience in as evidence for that: we got in an accident (going 70 mph) on the freeway and everyone came out unharmed, and though Christians jump up and down and call that a miracle, scientists do not, however, that isn't my evidence. My evidence is that when a person in the car called her mom to tell her that there had been an accident, her mom already knew...bare minimum concrete evidence of a 6th sense for the scientific community, obvious evidence of the supernatural for Christians (yes, by faith).
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Monday, May 9, 2011
Friday, January 7, 2011
I posted this elsewhere, but got censor-wishes everywhere I went.
My question is this:
By what authority is it determined that everyone’s opinion has equal validity?
The answer: by the authority of the doctrine of Relativism.
my second question:
Why should we all be required to hold Relativism as our belief system?
my second answer:
It is imposed on us to keep us pacified, because by Relativism nobody’s beliefs ultimately have any authority, and therefore the holders of those beliefs have nothing to fight about, because they (ought to) know that no matter how much they argue they will be able to prove themselves neither right nor wrong to those with whom they are arguing.
my third question:
Is everyone then a Relativist, and if so, what point is there in arguing about anything?
my third answer:
No. Not everyone is a relativist. Nor should anyone be forced to be one. Some people (like me) ascribe to one or more of a number of existing belief systems that they truly believe transcend human opinion, and see fit to make arguments based on that assumption (much to the chagrin of relativists)…but as to the second part of the question…from my understanding relativists have nothing to gain by arguing. That is part of the problem here; Relativism cannot effectively state that piracy is wrong, let alone convince those who partake of it that it isn’t right for them.
Time for a non-relativist declaration:
God **** relativism.
Now, if you’re offended by that, may I ask why? And if you’re a Relativist and are offended by that, may I ask how you can justify being offended by it, to the point of forcing me to take it back? After all, the declaration was right for me.
My question is this:
By what authority is it determined that everyone’s opinion has equal validity?
The answer: by the authority of the doctrine of Relativism.
my second question:
Why should we all be required to hold Relativism as our belief system?
my second answer:
It is imposed on us to keep us pacified, because by Relativism nobody’s beliefs ultimately have any authority, and therefore the holders of those beliefs have nothing to fight about, because they (ought to) know that no matter how much they argue they will be able to prove themselves neither right nor wrong to those with whom they are arguing.
my third question:
Is everyone then a Relativist, and if so, what point is there in arguing about anything?
my third answer:
No. Not everyone is a relativist. Nor should anyone be forced to be one. Some people (like me) ascribe to one or more of a number of existing belief systems that they truly believe transcend human opinion, and see fit to make arguments based on that assumption (much to the chagrin of relativists)…but as to the second part of the question…from my understanding relativists have nothing to gain by arguing. That is part of the problem here; Relativism cannot effectively state that piracy is wrong, let alone convince those who partake of it that it isn’t right for them.
Time for a non-relativist declaration:
God **** relativism.
Now, if you’re offended by that, may I ask why? And if you’re a Relativist and are offended by that, may I ask how you can justify being offended by it, to the point of forcing me to take it back? After all, the declaration was right for me.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Censored, more or less...but it was in the rules, I now see.
This is from elsewhere, for those of you who are wondering what it's doing here.
The movie "Avatar" got me thinking about this stuff more, and this story got me thinking about it again, so I thought I'd share my thoughts on it:
I'll just point out the movie "Avatar" foolishly assumed that it was the brain which could be transferred to a new body. GmMkr's conclusion, though allegorical and alluding to the potential for multiple accounts in an online forum environment, is a much more accurate assessment...that without a mind, the soul cannot think, and, might I add, without a soul, the mind lacks a "controller", as does the rest of the body. Those who believe in reincarnation say the soul always occupies a new earthly body after death. This seems a bit odd to me, since the number of living things on earth is not constant...if the earth's population decreases, what do all the "left out" souls do? And if it increases, where do the new souls come from to occupy the increased number of bodies? But, eastern religion and philosophy doesn't hold the only opinion on souls and bodies. Christianity has it's own explanation. That being, that after death, some are given new bodies upon entering heaven...the controllers are given new avatars, so to speak. As for those who go to hell...it is described as a place of torment and fire, but what if it was simply a matter of souls not being given a new body...or being destroyed? This would mean that Athiests would get what they're expecting, at any rate, that being nothingness at death. But I'd like to go back to the point about souls without minds and bodies not being able to think...or at least not be aware...it apparently is this way before birth, otherwise we would remember emotion from before we had a body to inhabit...the word "remember" is telling, since it would seem thatremembering is a function of the mind and not the soul. And I don't know about you, but I have never remembered anything from before birth. And who knows when souls are, or were, created. And a final point about Christianity along these lines: Christianity's belief is that God placed his own soul into the body of a man, who was known by mankind as Yeshua. If there was ever an Avatar in this world, by the true definition of the word, it was him-- a deity's soul in a man's body. God Incarnate, as he is more officially known by the Catholic church and such. And mankind killed him as a criminal, when he had done no wrong. And so he became a sacrifice for the sins of all mankind...which would be more meaningful to me if I better understood the value of sacrifice, and of that sacrifice in particular...what do I know about it? Just that anything and everything that we do that God doesn't want us to do is what is known as "sin" (an invention of God, not an intrinsic value, so far as I can tell...except that it is said that God cannot sin) and God has determined that the automatic penalty for sin is death, ie, no heaven, while the reward for going out of one's way to obey him and find out what he wants from and for us is life, ie new bodies in heaven after death on this earth, and that the death and resurrection of God as a sacrifice somehow wiped the record of all our sins from God's memory, for all practical purposes, should we choose to swear fealty to Him and Him alone. I don't understand it, I don't know that anyone does. But I think it's here that belief is more important than understanding, and that's what makes it faith.
*steps down from soap box*
Friday, October 9, 2009
What? an update??? It's been a while...
dang, blogger ate my post.
let me sum up.
-working at pizza place
-looking for "real job"...having trouble finding one...
-have an apartment
-still modding Star Wars Battlefront 2, working on Mustafar map...taking a while 'cause it's all curstom models and textures, hooray for Blender and Photoshop.
-going to work at 5:00
-so bye.
let me sum up.
-working at pizza place
-looking for "real job"...having trouble finding one...
-have an apartment
-still modding Star Wars Battlefront 2, working on Mustafar map...taking a while 'cause it's all curstom models and textures, hooray for Blender and Photoshop.
-going to work at 5:00
-so bye.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Friday, March 20, 2009
Response to "N.H. pastor houses child killer, riles town"
Is it not true that people form lynch mobs to take the focus off of their own legal and moral insufficiencies? Well, among other reasons, but that's always a hidden motive for it.
Also, not to say that the crime was ok or anything, but it seems to me that it's being a bit overblown. The boy was killed by the guy...and in the same moment some other kid across town died of an unknown heart defect, and 6 women had abortions, and two people committed suicides, and one guy got hit by a bus... Death happens, people, and it happens sooner or later to everyone. The crime of killing is not in ending a life, but in determining when to end it. If someone is old enough, we call it assisted suicide. If they are young enough, we call it abortion. Yes, hypocracy is a central theme to this discussion, in more ways than one.
-
I'm reminded of the Old Testament system involving "cities of refuge" to hold criminals...to keep them away from "decent" and "innocent" society while allowing them to remain human. Of course, that seems too logical and easy to be implemented in a modern context.
Also, not to say that the crime was ok or anything, but it seems to me that it's being a bit overblown. The boy was killed by the guy...and in the same moment some other kid across town died of an unknown heart defect, and 6 women had abortions, and two people committed suicides, and one guy got hit by a bus... Death happens, people, and it happens sooner or later to everyone. The crime of killing is not in ending a life, but in determining when to end it. If someone is old enough, we call it assisted suicide. If they are young enough, we call it abortion. Yes, hypocracy is a central theme to this discussion, in more ways than one.
-
I'm reminded of the Old Testament system involving "cities of refuge" to hold criminals...to keep them away from "decent" and "innocent" society while allowing them to remain human. Of course, that seems too logical and easy to be implemented in a modern context.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
response to: "Recession F-bombs: Why swearing feels great"
You are teaching anger to your children when you do this. They don't care what word it happens to be. They just care that they've seen you being angry so that means that they can be angry too. If I recall correctly, when I was young, younger than 5, my dad still swore. I picked this up until they told me not to do it. I did the typical monkey see, monkey do: My dad got angry fixing the car. I heard him say something, and it sounded impressive: Gaaaahdammit! So I started saying it whenever I was frustrated for a short time until I was suppressively corrected. Now, at that age I knew about God. However, I made absolutely no connection whatsoever between that strange new phrase I had learned and the name of God. What my dad had said sounded like one distinct word. But I did understand that the strange new phrase was to be used against something when I was frustrated with it. So, don't ask the shrinks how swearing affects children, ask those who can actually remember what it was like being a child.
Really, it isn't about what word is being used. It's about the emotion behind the word. And chances are that you don't know what emotion really is. Emotion is our true language. It is what we process directly from inputting stimuli before we translate it automatically into our artificial learned language (e.g., English.) Since information tends to get lost in translation, deliberately or otherwise, your emotional state will always be a truer assesment of your stance on an issue, your values, your hangups, your frustrations, your misgivings, your beliefs, and so on than what you tell yourself in your learned language. The benefit of a learned language is that it can solidify the knowledge held in emotional language so that it can be more easily studied, understood, and, especially, discussed with others.
An interesting side note to this: do animals think in a form of this "emotional" language? I find it apparent that they do. You may draw your own conclusions from this revelation.
But back to the anger thing, since that's what a lot of this swearing is about. We see more swearing than in the past because we have become a different people than we were in the past. What, may I ask, has become of the dignity of being a unique person? Who of us loves others not because they can do stuff for us, but because they need love? We are all empty, and feel worthless, because all we can do to attain satisfactory worth in this age is be perfect. And that is something no one can do. Our families are spread out and separated and everyone works in an emotionally isolated bubble, with business relationships that are focused on ignoring and working around emotional needs rather than meeting them, because they interfere with the task on hand. What we lack in self-worth from acceptance we try to make up for with financial security. Now that that has been removed from us, our frustration is becoming more pronounced.
Really, it isn't about what word is being used. It's about the emotion behind the word. And chances are that you don't know what emotion really is. Emotion is our true language. It is what we process directly from inputting stimuli before we translate it automatically into our artificial learned language (e.g., English.) Since information tends to get lost in translation, deliberately or otherwise, your emotional state will always be a truer assesment of your stance on an issue, your values, your hangups, your frustrations, your misgivings, your beliefs, and so on than what you tell yourself in your learned language. The benefit of a learned language is that it can solidify the knowledge held in emotional language so that it can be more easily studied, understood, and, especially, discussed with others.
An interesting side note to this: do animals think in a form of this "emotional" language? I find it apparent that they do. You may draw your own conclusions from this revelation.
But back to the anger thing, since that's what a lot of this swearing is about. We see more swearing than in the past because we have become a different people than we were in the past. What, may I ask, has become of the dignity of being a unique person? Who of us loves others not because they can do stuff for us, but because they need love? We are all empty, and feel worthless, because all we can do to attain satisfactory worth in this age is be perfect. And that is something no one can do. Our families are spread out and separated and everyone works in an emotionally isolated bubble, with business relationships that are focused on ignoring and working around emotional needs rather than meeting them, because they interfere with the task on hand. What we lack in self-worth from acceptance we try to make up for with financial security. Now that that has been removed from us, our frustration is becoming more pronounced.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
News article title: "Study: 1 in 31 U.S. adults in prison system"
The title says all...absolutely incredible. And completely unacceptable. The newsvine comments included many, many murmurings of "police state," "prison nation," and "because of the failed war on drugs." Fortunately there is hope for all this. Someone suggested googling "restorative justice." Really, that seems to be what we need instead of lock-ups in most situations. And it looks like there's quite a few places taking that approach--(google it yourself)
Also someone provided a link to this interesting site:
www.leap.cc/
Also someone provided a link to this interesting site:
www.leap.cc/
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Response to: "Dobson resigns as chair of Focus on the Family"
Chuck_454
With this much love it is clear he quit too soon or realizes there is no hope for some people.
John Ball
Huh?
Jason Anthony Gieske
I detect intense sarcasm from one who hasn't been brainwashed by the forces that brainwashed the strong majority here...if we must refer to upbringing as such...
With this much love it is clear he quit too soon or realizes there is no hope for some people.
John Ball
Huh?
Jason Anthony Gieske
I detect intense sarcasm from one who hasn't been brainwashed by the forces that brainwashed the strong majority here...if we must refer to upbringing as such...
Response to: "Vick OK'd for home confinement, official says"
This article is about the football player arrested because of his dogfighting ring.
Jail for life for killing animals is somewhat equal to jail for life for lying, in my opinion...so just because we don't eat what we kill it's a crime? Cruel, yes, and would I recommend it, no, but legal penalties? Come on, dogs aren't anywhere near being an endangered species...pets are actually overpopulating right now. Hence all the "have your pet spayed or neutered" campaigning...which I would think PETA ought to see as animal torture anyway...
Now, making lots of cash off an operation like that is a bit dirty, yes, but unlike so many people who always cry "there ought to be a law..." about just about everything that isn't perfect with the world according to their point of view, I am more in favor of limiting the power of government so that if it goes corrupt it won't do as much damage.
-
But really, all the gloating over his downfall going around on this forum is equally inhumane and rather hypocritical as well, don't you think? Surely you don't think the rest of us are perfect...and those of you who are "basically good," know that you'd keep telling yourself that if you ever got involved in anything illegal, because you'd still be able to rationalize your actions.
...And what good does it do anyone for you to take up a judgemental position against a fellow man for the sake of heaping guilt and shame upon his head? A bad person can only get worse with such input. If you used such self-appointed authority, while still acknowledging the severity of whatever crime was commited, to try to improve his position through rehabilitation in the interest of improving humanity, perhaps such self-appointment would be tolerable. I was under the impression that the notion of simply removing bad people from society without trying to make them good first was supposed to be left in the Dark Ages...I guess I was wrong.
...And no, actually dogs don't need to depend on humans. There are plenty of wild dogs out there. And they do a pretty good job of doing what they are designed to do--kill stuff to stay alive. Just like everything else.
-
The following is an excerpt from the debate, with my response...it highlights the prevailing tone of the debate quite well actually. Scary, isn't it? People are awful.
bopdaddytoo
I have owned several dogs from rabbit dogs to house pets and have had to put several down. I didn't go to a vet but used a 12 gage shot gun a lot cheaper and the dogs never complained.
Stella, Tucson
I wish you the same exact fate. Today.
SkiCO267
Well, I certainly wouldn't feel bad for you if your head got blown off with a shotgun. I can only assume that you A) don't give a crap about animals, or B) are a cheap [vulgarity removed]who won't go pay to have an animal humanely put down. Get a life, hilljack!
Jason Anthony Gieske
Watch out, bopdaddytoo, it's getting a lot less safe to admit that sort of thing in this wonderful, free country of ours...everything in the justice system is now decided by whether it offends someone, and someone is sure to be offended by pretty much everything, so we all should be losing all of our freedoms in 3...2...1...
The only thing slowing down the process is the government's inefficiency and failure to communicate effectively with itself.
Jail for life for killing animals is somewhat equal to jail for life for lying, in my opinion...so just because we don't eat what we kill it's a crime? Cruel, yes, and would I recommend it, no, but legal penalties? Come on, dogs aren't anywhere near being an endangered species...pets are actually overpopulating right now. Hence all the "have your pet spayed or neutered" campaigning...which I would think PETA ought to see as animal torture anyway...
Now, making lots of cash off an operation like that is a bit dirty, yes, but unlike so many people who always cry "there ought to be a law..." about just about everything that isn't perfect with the world according to their point of view, I am more in favor of limiting the power of government so that if it goes corrupt it won't do as much damage.
-
But really, all the gloating over his downfall going around on this forum is equally inhumane and rather hypocritical as well, don't you think? Surely you don't think the rest of us are perfect...and those of you who are "basically good," know that you'd keep telling yourself that if you ever got involved in anything illegal, because you'd still be able to rationalize your actions.
...And what good does it do anyone for you to take up a judgemental position against a fellow man for the sake of heaping guilt and shame upon his head? A bad person can only get worse with such input. If you used such self-appointed authority, while still acknowledging the severity of whatever crime was commited, to try to improve his position through rehabilitation in the interest of improving humanity, perhaps such self-appointment would be tolerable. I was under the impression that the notion of simply removing bad people from society without trying to make them good first was supposed to be left in the Dark Ages...I guess I was wrong.
...And no, actually dogs don't need to depend on humans. There are plenty of wild dogs out there. And they do a pretty good job of doing what they are designed to do--kill stuff to stay alive. Just like everything else.
-
The following is an excerpt from the debate, with my response...it highlights the prevailing tone of the debate quite well actually. Scary, isn't it? People are awful.
bopdaddytoo
I have owned several dogs from rabbit dogs to house pets and have had to put several down. I didn't go to a vet but used a 12 gage shot gun a lot cheaper and the dogs never complained.
Stella, Tucson
I wish you the same exact fate. Today.
SkiCO267
Well, I certainly wouldn't feel bad for you if your head got blown off with a shotgun. I can only assume that you A) don't give a crap about animals, or B) are a cheap [vulgarity removed]who won't go pay to have an animal humanely put down. Get a life, hilljack!
Jason Anthony Gieske
Watch out, bopdaddytoo, it's getting a lot less safe to admit that sort of thing in this wonderful, free country of ours...everything in the justice system is now decided by whether it offends someone, and someone is sure to be offended by pretty much everything, so we all should be losing all of our freedoms in 3...2...1...
The only thing slowing down the process is the government's inefficiency and failure to communicate effectively with itself.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Response to: "Owner of New York Post apologizes for cartoon"
"People making dumb comparisons like Bush depicted as a monkey are clueless and have no comprehension whatsover of what racism is all about. The comparison between Bush and a monkey was his level of intelligence- not something that he was born with and has no control over." -DSVet
You need to take another look at what you just said there, in relation to the context. This cartoon was clearly discussing the very qualification you just said is legitimate--intelligence. It says nothing about race, and nothing about Obama.The cartoon is mocking the people who wrote the stimulus bill...that's a sizeable group, definitely not a black majority, and all that Obama did with it was sign it. I highly doubt that he read even a tenth of it...the whole thing took a book cart to move it was so huge.
-
Ok, America, you must choose one of two options. Which will it be? Cultural pride and seperate but equal or melting pot culture where all are just human? The reason there is so much chaos and confusion regarding racism is that the black community identifies themselves as just that--a specific community of humans that supports each other in dealings with dissimilar humans, thereby implementing the first mindset, while white (or whatever color the rest of us are...and most black people aren't black either...) people have been thouroughly indoctrinated to go with the flow in whatever group of people we find ourselves being a part of, thereby being more consistent with the second mindset.
So, to all the people of African origin, know this...you can't have it both ways. You can't be a distinct group while being truly on the same level as everyone else (whatever level that is...) because even if your intent of supporting one another is good, doing so still causes division, and that division is based soley on race. To identify by race is in fact to be racist, for the only way to not be racist would be to ignore race entirely and judge not by color of skin, but by content of character. The U.S. Government would be equally wise to know this. ENOUGH! Enough of the race surveys! Enough of the categorization according to race! Enough of the statistics comparing the livelihoods of various people by RACE! I know they often lame-duck it by saying it's "culture" instead, but that is equally foolish. I thought we were supposed to be done with seperate but equal in the '50s. All I know that it was not my generation's idea to make these distinctions (gen Y). It's all the black establishment and the US government keeping the chaos going. And holidays? Having a black holiday is just asking to have every race wanting thier peice of the pie, which requires that they realize that being a distinct race matters, which creates racism. Racism, as in the belief that race matters when distinguishing between people, not as in "ooohhh she said something mean about me because of my race." But, if no one cares about distinguishing by race, then no one will insult according to race. It's about time everyone figures this out.
-
Oh, yeah, and the Media needs to shut up about race too.
-
Wow, MLIL, that's an excellent angle you just brought up. I feel I have become much, much more racist due to what I've learned about race in the public school system--not less, as is their intent. Before public school, black people were just humans with darker skin to me. Now, they are black people. The schools keep rubbing salt into the sores of the past by bringing it up again and again, saying how awful it is to behave that way towards each other...don't they know that humans are always tempted to behave in whatever way is forbidden to them? And that in informing people of a sin previously unknown, they have given new life to an otherwise eradicated illness? Kids will experience certain groups' disdain for each other in their own social interactions. Teachers would be much, much better off working out the basic solutions to this kind of thing using the situations at hand as examples. Building good character in that way would prevent strife between factions later in life rather than emphasize it.
-
The "doomed to repeat it" line is a popular one...but from what I've seen, bad things repeat themselves in history whether we know about them or not, because they always take a slightly different form which people don't recognize. It is core values that must be changed; more education does NOT automatically solve the world's problems, contrary to VERY popular belief.
You need to take another look at what you just said there, in relation to the context. This cartoon was clearly discussing the very qualification you just said is legitimate--intelligence. It says nothing about race, and nothing about Obama.The cartoon is mocking the people who wrote the stimulus bill...that's a sizeable group, definitely not a black majority, and all that Obama did with it was sign it. I highly doubt that he read even a tenth of it...the whole thing took a book cart to move it was so huge.
-
Ok, America, you must choose one of two options. Which will it be? Cultural pride and seperate but equal or melting pot culture where all are just human? The reason there is so much chaos and confusion regarding racism is that the black community identifies themselves as just that--a specific community of humans that supports each other in dealings with dissimilar humans, thereby implementing the first mindset, while white (or whatever color the rest of us are...and most black people aren't black either...) people have been thouroughly indoctrinated to go with the flow in whatever group of people we find ourselves being a part of, thereby being more consistent with the second mindset.
So, to all the people of African origin, know this...you can't have it both ways. You can't be a distinct group while being truly on the same level as everyone else (whatever level that is...) because even if your intent of supporting one another is good, doing so still causes division, and that division is based soley on race. To identify by race is in fact to be racist, for the only way to not be racist would be to ignore race entirely and judge not by color of skin, but by content of character. The U.S. Government would be equally wise to know this. ENOUGH! Enough of the race surveys! Enough of the categorization according to race! Enough of the statistics comparing the livelihoods of various people by RACE! I know they often lame-duck it by saying it's "culture" instead, but that is equally foolish. I thought we were supposed to be done with seperate but equal in the '50s. All I know that it was not my generation's idea to make these distinctions (gen Y). It's all the black establishment and the US government keeping the chaos going. And holidays? Having a black holiday is just asking to have every race wanting thier peice of the pie, which requires that they realize that being a distinct race matters, which creates racism. Racism, as in the belief that race matters when distinguishing between people, not as in "ooohhh she said something mean about me because of my race." But, if no one cares about distinguishing by race, then no one will insult according to race. It's about time everyone figures this out.
-
Oh, yeah, and the Media needs to shut up about race too.
-
Wow, MLIL, that's an excellent angle you just brought up. I feel I have become much, much more racist due to what I've learned about race in the public school system--not less, as is their intent. Before public school, black people were just humans with darker skin to me. Now, they are black people. The schools keep rubbing salt into the sores of the past by bringing it up again and again, saying how awful it is to behave that way towards each other...don't they know that humans are always tempted to behave in whatever way is forbidden to them? And that in informing people of a sin previously unknown, they have given new life to an otherwise eradicated illness? Kids will experience certain groups' disdain for each other in their own social interactions. Teachers would be much, much better off working out the basic solutions to this kind of thing using the situations at hand as examples. Building good character in that way would prevent strife between factions later in life rather than emphasize it.
-
The "doomed to repeat it" line is a popular one...but from what I've seen, bad things repeat themselves in history whether we know about them or not, because they always take a slightly different form which people don't recognize. It is core values that must be changed; more education does NOT automatically solve the world's problems, contrary to VERY popular belief.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Response to "9-year-old pleads guilty in shooting death"
"He is completely rehabilitatable..."
Well, this brings up some interesting thoughts. In reality there is no way to know if that is true or not without trying rehabilitation. His crime seems to be like many crimes...I really don't care if it's adult crimes or kid crimes, by the way, since I prefer to view kids as younger humans and adults as older humans...the mandatory division between kids and adults seems unhealthy in some ways...as does the division between generations...but anyway, this was apparently a crime with a reason behind it. As opposed to a crime for the sake of crime. Was it a legitimate reason? Well, in the eyes of the murderer, yes. In the eyes of the law, no, since vigilante justice is only legal in the movies, and for good reason, since a reasonable-to-the-perpetrator excuse can be made for doing literally any crime. Even, "'cause it felt right." In this case, the criminal apparently sought to solve whatever problem he was having by removing it's source... apparently without thinking about the implications of doing so much...or maybe he realized that since he wasn't legally human yet (18, 21), he could get away with it without getting punished severely, and going to juvie seemed like a better option than his current situation anyway. It's interesting, our society's take on murder and the value of human life. We are extreme on both ends simultaniously. On the one hand, we see the ending of a life as a terribly shocking occurance that must be dealt with with the greatest possible degree of care, fear, and media hype. On the other, we kill foreign enemies of the government without remorse, as they do to us, we throw the lives of the accused and convicted in the trash and forget about them forever, and we could care less about how many people are dying in Africa at any given moment. Also our entertainment industry has a mysterious fascination with death. So much death and negligence that I don't even need to mention abortion (oops, I just did.) It seems we only value about the lives of humans we care about (our good, upstanding citizenry, I guess) and could care less about the rest. The plight of our prison occupants leads us back to the original comment that I am responding to. Rehabilitable? Surely this does not apply only to children. Unrehabilitable? Surely this does not apply only to adults. Rehabilitation simply is the process of getting the criminal to view things as the justice system views them...a justice system which tends to change it's mind on things over the years, I might add...since it's judgement is not anchored in anything greater than human reason. So some criminals will see the "error of their ways" and become conformist to society (if we give them a chance, anyway), while others will not. Also I feel that our society doesn't realize the importance of authority and the responsibility and accountability that ought to be attached inseperably to it...that is, regarding the placing of one human's will over another's or others', when all are legally created equal. So basically, to those who work in the justice system, please observe the golden rule above all else, especially to those who obviously don't deserve such treatment, for they are the the hardest to do so with but also the most in need of such treatment, and to those who believe it, keep in mind that you will be held accountable to God for your influence in the lives of others when your time to die comes. That's another interesting twist on the topic of death...everybody dies sooner or later.
-
Born with a clean slate? Ok, it's time to ignore the old dead philosophers who did more thinking than was good for them and the airheads who don't take any time to think at all and use our own powers of observation to figure out the obvious:
a) humans are born with the "programming" necessary to recieve and interpret stimuli from all available sensory organs.
b) humans have a completely self-centered outlook on life upon entering the world, and therefore are inherently selfish until trained to be otherwise.
c) selfish ambition typically translates neither as "clean slate" nor "basically good."
(ah, it felt good to finally have an excuse to release that tidbit of wisdom into the thought pool)
Well, this brings up some interesting thoughts. In reality there is no way to know if that is true or not without trying rehabilitation. His crime seems to be like many crimes...I really don't care if it's adult crimes or kid crimes, by the way, since I prefer to view kids as younger humans and adults as older humans...the mandatory division between kids and adults seems unhealthy in some ways...as does the division between generations...but anyway, this was apparently a crime with a reason behind it. As opposed to a crime for the sake of crime. Was it a legitimate reason? Well, in the eyes of the murderer, yes. In the eyes of the law, no, since vigilante justice is only legal in the movies, and for good reason, since a reasonable-to-the-perpetrator excuse can be made for doing literally any crime. Even, "'cause it felt right." In this case, the criminal apparently sought to solve whatever problem he was having by removing it's source... apparently without thinking about the implications of doing so much...or maybe he realized that since he wasn't legally human yet (18, 21), he could get away with it without getting punished severely, and going to juvie seemed like a better option than his current situation anyway. It's interesting, our society's take on murder and the value of human life. We are extreme on both ends simultaniously. On the one hand, we see the ending of a life as a terribly shocking occurance that must be dealt with with the greatest possible degree of care, fear, and media hype. On the other, we kill foreign enemies of the government without remorse, as they do to us, we throw the lives of the accused and convicted in the trash and forget about them forever, and we could care less about how many people are dying in Africa at any given moment. Also our entertainment industry has a mysterious fascination with death. So much death and negligence that I don't even need to mention abortion (oops, I just did.) It seems we only value about the lives of humans we care about (our good, upstanding citizenry, I guess) and could care less about the rest. The plight of our prison occupants leads us back to the original comment that I am responding to. Rehabilitable? Surely this does not apply only to children. Unrehabilitable? Surely this does not apply only to adults. Rehabilitation simply is the process of getting the criminal to view things as the justice system views them...a justice system which tends to change it's mind on things over the years, I might add...since it's judgement is not anchored in anything greater than human reason. So some criminals will see the "error of their ways" and become conformist to society (if we give them a chance, anyway), while others will not. Also I feel that our society doesn't realize the importance of authority and the responsibility and accountability that ought to be attached inseperably to it...that is, regarding the placing of one human's will over another's or others', when all are legally created equal. So basically, to those who work in the justice system, please observe the golden rule above all else, especially to those who obviously don't deserve such treatment, for they are the the hardest to do so with but also the most in need of such treatment, and to those who believe it, keep in mind that you will be held accountable to God for your influence in the lives of others when your time to die comes. That's another interesting twist on the topic of death...everybody dies sooner or later.
-
Born with a clean slate? Ok, it's time to ignore the old dead philosophers who did more thinking than was good for them and the airheads who don't take any time to think at all and use our own powers of observation to figure out the obvious:
a) humans are born with the "programming" necessary to recieve and interpret stimuli from all available sensory organs.
b) humans have a completely self-centered outlook on life upon entering the world, and therefore are inherently selfish until trained to be otherwise.
c) selfish ambition typically translates neither as "clean slate" nor "basically good."
(ah, it felt good to finally have an excuse to release that tidbit of wisdom into the thought pool)
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)