VigilVirus

I thought it was hilarious.

No matter what triggered this conflict, it is madness to bomb the civilian populations of Tskhinvali. If Saakashvili claims S. Ossetia as part of his territories, how can he sacrifice his own people in this manner? How can there be a chance of a peaceful coexistance between Georgia and S. Ossetia after all this? All that Saakashvili has done is turn this situation into one reminiscent of Kosovo.

As for the original topic, it's rather easy to explain why liberals tend to defend muslims against mockery and other such verbal attacks, while creating a double standard by saying that it's their right to chant "Death to America" all day long. It has to do with the underdog phenomenon - perhaps it gives some a moral high to defend the part they perceive to be "weaker" (think Israel vs. Palestine). Essentially, some think that because we're the developed West, we have everything, while the Middle East and Africa weren't so fortunate, and they have nothing. So, in a sense, that's almost used as a handicap - as if they have a right to be angry at us for their misfortunes, while we do not share a reciprocal right. This goes along with minority rights being hailed and nourished over the principles of the majority, which is another liberal standpoint. I believe conservatives (american) are less prone to this logical fallacy due to their belief in self-determination and social darwinism. As a liberal myself, I think it's always important to grasp this fallacy at its roots, before it affects your judgment, by generally questioning your motives, i.e. what makes you feel this way about the issue?

How is this news though? It happened in mid-1980s.

Well, obviously he had them, since US and the West supplied him with the needed materials to produce them. But it's been shown that the chemical weapons were indeed destroyed as per the '91 resolution. The pretense for the war is that Saddam still possessed those chemical weapons and has been updating his stock.

"Energy is an endless life that goes out side and beyond our universe" What makes you believe that energy is infinite?

You mixed up the point of my post when you read it. I clearly stated that we can't be aware of the operation of atoms and cells, because they are not our own creation, but God's. My ultimate point is, you're attempting to compare the relationship between a physically limited being such as a human and his invention to that of God and the universe, assuming that God has limits (as all energy and matter has a limit). I think that assumption is incorrect at the core. By assuming that God is all the energy and matter in the universe, you're also leaving out the major aspect of what God is, i.e. the creator of the universe. Without outside interference, how did the energy, or God arrange itself in the manner that it is now? That brings you back to either that all energy and matter are a single intelligent being or that matter arranged itself randomly, i.e. the Big Bang theory. The first theory is rather absurd, while the second, as Acriku has mentioned before, is just giving energy a different name.

I think what he means is that people don't worship an energy that they name God, but rather they worship a being of their own imagination/religious belief that is irrelevant to either matter or energy, but simply exists in their minds alone. There are religions that do view God as everything all at once or as oversoul (but that's more in a spiritual sense than energetic or material). But ultimately, we create the personal God that has created us, in our own minds.

Good analogy, actually. Do you think the neighbor would necessarily want you to stay in his house after you just broke down his door, even if supposedly want to help fix it?

You forget that the war enjoyed major support, because most people believed that Iraq possessed WMDs and conspired with Al Qaeda to make 9/11 happen. Both of those assertions have been shown to be false.

For what reason is a being of energy not able to have intelligence, while a being matter is able to? I'm guessing this would fall under the thought that something needs to possess some physical sort of "brain" to be intelligent? Does this mean that God would have to be made of matter to be intelligent?

Well, I'm sure you've read about examples of homosexuals who choose to deny their predisposition. Most of them are miserable, violent and self destructive people. This is different from being predisposed to alcohol, because in order to be an alcoholic, you still require that physical addiction as a part of it. With sexual orientation, I'd expect it's mostly psychological. I mean, it's clear how one would go about fighting alcoholism, but homosexuality? There's really no particular treatment or cure that I've heard of.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070104/ap_on_re_us/accidental_hanging Looks like...too much violence on TV? Heh.

It's all just politics, after all. And the overthrown dictators are symbols of their old regimes. I guess the main difference, the emotion over Pinochet, is that he lived longer than most people, yet still was never successfully punished for his crimes by a court of law.

If Saddam actually meant anything to the insurgency anymore, it would be a victory. But since he was toppled, his own party didn't seem to care that much for him. So, it'll just be another event they'll use to promote violence, with little to none demoralizing value.

That actually isn't even close to being true. Humanity doesn't function according to principles of natural selection anymore, because of comparatively low mortality rates in developed countries due to improvement in medicine, habitat, etc. Even lethal genetic traits, such as cystic fibrosis aren't breeding out, as you put it, but flourishing with the improvements in treatment. Though improvement in medicine does not have anything directly to do with this particular case. But the point is, if traits do breed out of humanity, it would be on an evolutionary scale, due to the fact that a large percentage of genetic data is passed on by carriers that do not necessarily express the trait. As for it being genetic or not - there are few traits, if any, that do not have contributing genetic influences and I strongly doubt that sexual orientation is one of them. But there are also very few traits that are pure genetics. So, I guess the argument is whether nature or nurture is a greater influence. But why does that even matter? Just like genetics is not a choice, most of the times, nurture isn't either.

You don't need a degree to be able to apply common sense to situations and recognize threats - you just need police training. It doesn't matter how dumb they are, it was their choice to pursue this career and they should be held accountable for their actions if they are out of line. And I'm not saying that police should not be able to use physical force when the situation calls for it. I'm saying they should not assume that it calls for it before they have a chance to evaluate the situation (there are many telltale signs, that I have no doubts cops are trained to detect). If someone disrespects a cop, a stern warning would be appropriate, or threat of arrest. Lashing out with a baton at someone who flicked you off, however, is immature and out of line.

Like I mentioned in the thread that you quoted, they are the campus police. It's their job to deal with students. Judging from the video you posted of a cop beating up a guy with a baton after getting flicked off, you believe that to be acceptable behavior. Apparently, in your mind, cops are supposed to be intolerant, aggressive and prone to violence at the slightest hint of provocation. That's bullshit. I don't want cops like that, and I'm sure many would agree with me. It's pretty easy to determine if someone is a threat - and someone lying prone on the ground after getting tasered isn't one. Cops deal with people, not dogs or cattle. People shouldn't be cattle prodded when they don't move along at the required pace. Oh, but I guess it's immature to believe that cops should be held to a higher standard than a guy in a drunken bar fight. It's their job, they knew what they signed up for and they chose to do it. If you make a choice for a career as a policeman, you must have patience, be polite, follow the job requirements and regulations. I don't believe that beating the shit out of every impolite suspect because they may or may not be a threat is part of that.

They're campus police, they generally just sit on their asses and don't do shit. They aren't detective solving murder cases. It is very rare that they even have to deal with situations that are this "severe". This is their job - dealing with unruly students. And don't forget, students pay to be there and police get paid for being there.

Ever heard of excessive force? It's one thing tasing someone who's getting aggressive and physical with the police, but it seems some officers believe it's acceptable to tase anyone who doesn't immediately comply to the most trivial of requests. That's a blatant violation of human rights. This is a problem. It's a problem illustrated by the Chris Rock video, as well. The police have a duty to restrain and arrest you if you're not complying, but they don't have the right to deliving excessive physical harm and pain if you're not fighting back, which that student was not. A simple dragging him out of the library would have done - and don't tell me that two police officers couldn't have handled restraining a single guy, because that's what they're trained to do. But for some reason, some idiot thought tasing as an acceptable everyday substitute to simple restrain.

Those officers should've been mob rushed and beaten to within an inch of their lives for that shit.

Woah, way too many trite expressions in that post, even if it was intended to be an inspirational speech. But otherwise, your point seems to be that all opinions should be considered, evaluated and replied to rather than censored. What censorship are you referring to anyway? And while in most cases, this is true, some opinions can inherently and unchangeably incite violence, which in my opinion shouldn't be acceptable in a public debate. These arguments are based on emotions, rather than facts and therefore carry no inherent validity.

All of this falls under the assumption that God is perfect in every way. If God wasn't omnipotent or morally perfect, would any of the following points still be true? I think not.