View Full Version : Dumb ass Cali fools. Jacko is found Not Guilty... WTF
Metallistar
06-13-2005, 06:14 PM
That boy fondling freak got off again cause them dumb asses cant tell guilty from not.
Mr Biglesworth
06-13-2005, 10:03 PM
Clearly, trial by jury is a farce. What the American public needs, nay deserves, is TRIAL BY METALLISTAR
the jury was from ca that is the problem. ca chose a meat head actoin star to be there governor based on fame and you are full of shit if you say it was based on his politics, hes a fucking republican why would they want him? of course they are going to let "the king of pop" do what ever the fuck he wants. if tried in the midwest hed be sleeping in a cell tonight.
GT2000
06-14-2005, 02:04 AM
That boy fondling freak got off again....
and again, and again, hell, he probably started flipping through his little black book of boys as the convoy drove off, doin' a little heeheeeeee as he grabbed himself.
raublekick
06-14-2005, 03:52 AM
the jury was from ca that is the problem. ca chose a meat head actoin star to be there governor based on fame and you are full of shit if you say it was based on his politics, hes a fucking republican why would they want him? of course they are going to let "the king of pop" do what ever the fuck he wants. if tried in the midwest hed be sleeping in a cell tonight.
good argument, but there are certain states where he would be doomed to be found guilty as soon as the accusation arose just because he's a freak, and freaks are from the devil.
because he's a freak, and freaks are from the devil.
omg exactly, stupid guilty demonic freak.
johnny
06-14-2005, 08:16 AM
it's safe to say that michael jackson a nutjob, but it seemed like it was tough to tell fact from fiction in that case. i didn't pay a whole lot of attention to it, but the accuser's mother seemed shifty. i heard that she had tried to exploit other celebrities for money before, so if that's true then i'm not really sure what to say.
at any rate, it's weird and most likely wrong for jackson to let kids sleep in his bed with him (even if all they're doing sleeping) and the dude needs to get some help.
testtubebaby
06-14-2005, 09:19 AM
excerpt from conversation with girlfriend last night:
her: he's innocent? so what's he going to do now?
me: i guess go back to his ranch and have a celebratory orgy with a new harem of little boys.
her: sweaty little boys?
me: oh, you know it.
Metallistar
06-14-2005, 05:14 PM
Clearly, trial by jury is a farce. What the American public needs, nay deserves, is TRIAL BY METALLISTAR
DAMN RIGHT! And death is the only reasonable punishment. Death by bleaching in his case.
Plain Old Jane
06-14-2005, 07:05 PM
Micheal Jackson has never ever hidden the fact that hes a fucking freak. If you're gonna blame someone, blame the dumbass parents for letting their lil tyke sleep over micheals.
Jacko: um... mrs. hernandez? can billy sleep over tonite?
Mom: I dunno...
Jacko: c'mon, I'll buy you a new house...
Mom: He will be there in 20 minutes!
Poor billy
Metallistar
06-14-2005, 10:53 PM
Jacko: Tickle party anyone? heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee heeeeeeeeeeeeeee
sharkz
06-14-2005, 11:35 PM
Jacko: Tickle party anyone? heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee heeeeeeeeeeeeeee
you know you wanna
i got some delicious jesus juice right here
If you're gonna blame someone, blame the dumbass parents for letting their lil tyke sleep over
Jeperel ... I agree with you! ::hell freezes::
Well, I mostly agree. I say to blame the molester and blame the mother.
Now, I'm the first to say that Michael Jackson is the most guilty man in America... and I have only a few doubts that he did what he was accused of. However, the jurors were right in this case... and I think that this is a case that should be lauded for its dedication to blindness rather than being criticized because Michael Jackson IS a freak (which he totally is). THere was not enough evidence to convict him, the prosecution had NO solid, reliable whitnessess. The "victims" weren't victims, they, and their parents, were as much criminals as Jackson is (assuming he did do what we all know he did). THe defense used every means that it could, and they had the stronger, more solid case.
Hex, you said that he'd be in prison in the midwest ... Well, that does no credit to the judicial system that you think you have in your state. If he was found guilty, it would be a greater judicial travesty than that he was found not-guilty. When we think of Michael Jackson, we think of the crazed idiot who went on Dateline, or whatever it was, climbing trees, talking about how he sleeps with his little boy friends ... We think of this lost lunatic who must be molesting children. The jury had to put that all aside ... it's nearly impossible. THe one guy who nearly every American (with the exception of the lunies outside the courtroom), over the last 12 years, has been convinced is crazy is Michael Jackson ... and these jurors had to put years of mostly true stereotypes and assumptions behind them and judge this case with what was presented to them.
What was presented to them was questionable testimony, unreliable whitnesses, and not a single shred of legitimate evidence indicting Michael Jackson. I think he did it, we all think he did many bad things, but the prosecution has to prove that in court. They did not prove it. Hence, Not-Guilty.
Now where's the rolling rally for the parents to throw them in the clinker?
Oh, and one last thing.
Jackson has always said that he sleeps with little boys, but does nothing sexual to them. He loves little boys, but is never sexually involved, and that's never even a possibility. If any man says this, that he sleeps with boys, you know he's molesting them. However, if there's one person who is not molesting them ... because of his shear insanity ... it's Michael Jackson.
raublekick
06-15-2005, 12:51 AM
Mike, I agree with your first post and disagree with the second.
In many cultures it is accaptable and encouraged to sleep with children, family members specifically. In his case these children probably were his family and he wanted to be close to them. I think it is very possible that he never molested them, in bed at least. However, when it comes to something this heinous it is best to err on the side of caution. If someone our age (back then) claimed to be molested it wouldn't be a huge deal, but children need protected. If there is even a sliver of solid evidence it should be a guilty charge. But like you said, the evidence in this case is not solid whatsoever.
Stormy
06-15-2005, 11:11 AM
the jury was from ca that is the problem. ca chose a meat head actoin star to be there governor based on fame and you are full of shit if you say it was based on his politics, hes a fucking republican why would they want him?
California has a growing conservative following.
Mr Biglesworth
06-15-2005, 12:29 PM
That's because liberals are everything conservatives say about them.
And conservatives are everything liberals say about them.
Plain Old Jane
06-15-2005, 03:27 PM
el oh el bigs, too true.
However, if there's one person who is not molesting them ... because of his shear insanity ... it's Michael Jackson.
ladies and gentlemen I point to exhibit A.
::points to Prince on a table humping a crucifix::
Mike, I agree with your first post and disagree with the second.
In many cultures it is accaptable and encouraged to sleep with children, family members specifically. In his case these children probably were his family and he wanted to be close to them. I think it is very possible that he never molested them, in bed at least. However, when it comes to something this heinous it is best to err on the side of caution. If someone our age (back then) claimed to be molested it wouldn't be a huge deal, but children need protected. If there is even a sliver of solid evidence it should be a guilty charge. But like you said, the evidence in this case is not solid whatsoever.
Well, in our culture, the culture that Michael Jackson lives in, it is not encouraged or acceptable to sleep with children ... especially if it is not necessary (many of those cultures have those stigmas because of their living conditions). It is generally unnacceptable to sleep with children, even if you are not doing anything malicious to them ... it is not only a bad habit (many parental counselors instruct parents that the moment your young child gets into bed with you [say if they're afraid, or whatever], you have to pick them up and bring them back to their own bed), but it's also just plain weird. I had trouble wording my point from my second post ... I meant to point that ... everybody knows it's weird, and when MJ says "This is love," we all say that he's just saying that to avoid getting convicted ... but ... if there's one person who actually thinks sleeping with a child is love, it'd be Michael Jackson. That's what I meant to say, really.
And ... I disagree with the point that if there's one sliver of solid evidence a person should be convicted. There is rarely any perfect evidence, so you'd be judging "solid evidence" by something that isn't solid, and too many people would be convicted on circumstantial evidence and false eye whitness testimony. There has to be more than just evidence of guilty, there has to be proof of guilt.
raublekick
06-15-2005, 11:43 PM
It definitely is weird of MJ to be sleeping with children, but I just wanted to show that just because WE think something is wrong doesn't necessarily mean it is. Some psychologists say sleeping with children is wrong, but when has a psychologist been absolutely right? Never. Even Freud, Erikson, and Piaget's theories are "sometimes" cases.
Jesse
06-16-2005, 04:50 AM
"Ladies and gentleman of the jury. This, is Chewbacca."
Metallistar
06-16-2005, 07:32 AM
"Ladies and gentleman of the jury. This, is Chewbacca."
HAHAHA That is the greatest, I love south park
It definitely is weird of MJ to be sleeping with children, but I just wanted to show that just because WE think something is wrong doesn't necessarily mean it is. Some psychologists say sleeping with children is wrong, but when has a psychologist been absolutely right? Never. Even Freud, Erikson, and Piaget's theories are "sometimes" cases.
If we're going to relatavise everything and say that "what we think is right and wrong may not be right or wrong" then we cannot have this discussion ... because we're talking about the courts. If there is no right and wrong, no truth, and no justice, then we cannot have a court system that judges people. That court system is dictated by ideology and public opinion.
thecreeper
06-16-2005, 06:59 PM
i really didnt doubt he would get out of this. he's famous, and no matter how much money he's allegedly lost, he can still afford the best lawyers. and it doesn't help that the prosecutors presented a story full of holes with testimony from people who changed their stories on more than one occasion.
raublekick
06-16-2005, 10:46 PM
If we're going to relatavise everything and say that "what we think is right and wrong may not be right or wrong" then we cannot have this discussion ... because we're talking about the courts. If there is no right and wrong, no truth, and no justice, then we cannot have a court system that judges people. That court system is dictated by ideology and public opinion.
Well, obvioulsy the court system isn't as black and white as it can be. How many people really think that MJ is innocent? Not many. But how many people think the people who are testifying are really truthful? Not many. So in this case there was no truth, no justice, only right and wrong. But the court had its hands tied just like in many other cases. Based on the evidence the courts made the right decision, but it certainly wasn't right or wrong.
My gripe is that the major public opinion is "Michael Jackson is a weirdo, so he just has to be guilty." This is what I dislike about much of this countries systems. A public opinion != the right opinion.
Mr Biglesworth
06-16-2005, 11:39 PM
Well the illegal thing is sexual misconduct (in this case, any sexual conduct at all). Many will argue that the highest human pursuit is love, and humans are polyamorous, they are capable of loving anything. Pedophilia, simply a love for children, should not be considered a surprising phenomenon. Children (yes, i know many would disagree, and when you're stuck on a flight with one, you'll definitely disagree) are fantasic creatures, a often unnoticed oddity in the human phenomenon, unspoiled by experiences, not old enough for the many neuroses of the average adult to have formed. I could easily see myself being enchanted by children.
In this sense, we have no right to condemn someone for following their own spiritual calling. It seems the children loved Michael, too, and not just because he bribed them to be around. Now I'm not arguing that he's not weak, pathetic, lonely, fucked up, sad, and needy. He may well be all those things. And that's why the mixture of a genuine love of children with a weak or warped sense of self, and perhaps unresolved sexual issues (i'm bullshitting together a psychology here but i think it's not invalid) is dangerous because self satisfaction through children gets confused with any occaisional sexual impulses he gets.
I personally think it's likely that in moments of closeness with children, he has touched them inapropriately and irresponsibly. I believe the state has the right and the duty to protect and act responsibly on behalf of children. If the court had convicted him (had there been more solid evidence) I would not think it an ethnocentric outrage where he was being persecuted for loving children. Rather the court would be acting on a deeply valid social norm, that children should not be exploited as objects of pleasure.
However, in the case of the children being subjects of amazement, it's not impossible that you would want to sleep with them and they would be just fine with it. And violating this social norm is just too bad for those who hold it.
Well, obvioulsy the court system isn't as black and white as it can be. How many people really think that MJ is innocent? Not many. But how many people think the people who are testifying are really truthful? Not many. So in this case there was no truth, no justice, only right and wrong. But the court had its hands tied just like in many other cases. Based on the evidence the courts made the right decision, but it certainly wasn't right or wrong.
The courts don't decide guilt and innocence, they decide guilt only... either guilty or not guilty. "Not Guilty" is a verdict that can come from many things ... weak testimony, lying "victims", and a motive-laden prosecution. There is still truth, and there is still right and wrong. The jury decided that it is wrong to convict Jackson on such evidence... Evidence that, no matter how weak, is still evidence; it just doesn't act against Jackson, but for him.
My gripe is that the major public opinion is "Michael Jackson is a weirdo, so he just has to be guilty." This is what I dislike about much of this countries systems. A public opinion != the right opinion.
I think that a lot of people are positive that he had done something before; something illegal. However, there was no evidence that showed that Jackson did those illegal things in this case. And ... I'm wondering, if public opinion does not make the right opinion, what does? (And I'm not trying to say "public opinion is the right opinion" in any way, I'm wondering what your answer is).
raublekick
06-17-2005, 12:19 AM
I think Neil hit a lot of points that I agree with. As far as public opinion goes, this is how I look at it: The majority can believe anything, but just because it's the majority does not mean it should be accepted. If the majority thought that molesting children was A-OK definitely does not mean it is right. In most cases the majority decision is fine, or at least acceptable. But there is always the possibility that the miniority has, in fact, the more valid opinion. It's all about stepping back and thinking, if only for a short amount of time, that your opinion could be wrong.
In order for something to be considered "wrong" or "right" there has to be some sort of opposite or reason for it. In this case, why is touching children wrong? Because you've been told that it is? Think about how touching children can be "right" and then you'll have a more valid answer. So in this perspective think about how simply sleeping with children is both "wrong" and "right". I don't really know much to prove either, but I've read about positives and negatives for both cases.
Another aspect is that nothing is absolutely wrong or right. If you had to molest a child to save five other children, would you? In this case should you be prosecuted if you choose to save the five children?
Granted, much of my ramblings have little to do with this specific case, but I think it's something extremely important for social and individual growth.
testtubebaby
06-17-2005, 08:11 AM
if nothing else, it makes for goood tv (i added an extra 'o' because it's so good):
http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2672935?htv=12&htv=12&htv=12
malta
06-17-2005, 09:14 AM
"If there is no right and wrong, no truth, and no justice, then we cannot have a court system that judges people. That court system is dictated by ideology and public opinion."
Sucks, doesn't it.
Yeah, raub, I didn't want to sound like I thought that public opinion determines right and wrong, because, as some have probably noticed, I'm an absolutist ... and ... an absolute right and wrong cannot be that of public opinion.
I do think, however, that our courts are dictated by the opinion of people... which is largely in tune with public opinion... though, judicial activism seems to undermine that for both good and bad.
raublekick
06-18-2005, 12:38 AM
word, i wish i could talke some morwe about this right now. meet me int he drunk thread in.. howebver long it take me to dint it!
Plain Old Jane
06-18-2005, 01:20 AM
I think our court system is more complex then being suck ass and biased towards public opinion.
While it is true, there are laws that protect everyone because occasionally, the public doesnt know its ass from a hole in the ground. Mikey took advantage of everything he could, this is not a shortcoming on his part, it just means our system isnt perfect. For instance, for every 2 latino or black people in jail for drug related crimes, theres 1 white person for the same crimes, and for every 2 latino and black person out actively doing drug related activities, there are 5 white people, free to do those same ones.
There IS a bias towards public opinion, but instead of being a part of the public, get in there and change it, thats the beauty of america, you can change shit, may cost you a lot, but it works.
A communist economy/socialist civil rights democratic-republic law making might work better for in the long run tho, if that makes any sense...
Well, obvioulsy the court system isn't as black and white as it can be.
african american, raub.
Metallistar
06-18-2005, 02:30 AM
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ = innocent
some one got paied off you fuxorz
I think our court system is more complex then being suck ass and biased towards public opinion.
Biased towards public opinion? Don't you think that they should serve public opinion? If it doesn't reflect public opinion, at least somewhat, then it reflects something universal ... And ... I don't know if you, Pinko Communist, want to get into universality.
For instance, for every 2 latino or black people in jail for drug related crimes, theres 1 white person for the same crimes, and for every 2 latino and black person out actively doing drug related activities, there are 5 white people, free to do those same ones.
You want to show us the study on this? Preferably one that isn't from the NAACP or the ACLU, but a third party. If it is true though, which it very well could be, the drug users being arrested and convicted are usually drug users living in urban areas (suburban drug users are prosecuted less, one would have to assume), and because there is a higher population of Black people in urban areas than White people in urban areas, the numbers would reflect this. And, the 'sameness' of the crime can be questionable. There is a difference between doing a drug in your house and doing a drug in an alley way. Though they are both crimes, one is a lot easier to find and convict.
A communist economy/socialist civil rights democratic-republic law making might work better for in the long run tho, if that makes any sense...
And it would be better in the long run if we could all fly, and had ice cream makers in our hands, with free electricity, and money making machines that magically did not cause inflation. We have civil rights, we have socialist policies, and we have democratic-republic law making. THere is zero evidence that a communist economy produces anything but starvation and mass murder, however.
--edit--
Good zing at the end, btw.
thecreeper
06-19-2005, 10:44 AM
african american, raub.
in my brief history of hanging out with black people at college, none of them liked being called 'african american'.
in my brief history of hanging out with black people at college, none of them liked being called 'african american'.
That was actually one of the better jokes that Jep has ever made, I think... Because the Black and White was referring to like "defined and undefined" "on / off" duality relationship thing ... and Jep was making a subtle joke about how people think the word "Black" is a swear.
Though, you're right. It's usually more Liberal White people and Leftist Jews who push the African American bull shit. I always say that I'll call a Black person African American when everybody else refers to me as European American... though I know that if any black person ever called me European American, I'd just call them a nigger.
-------
In other news, Ralph Nader used the word Nigger in an interview, and PC libs are all pissed at him saying how it's the destruction of the universe. They're only pissed because Nader pwned them in 2000 ... so it is the civic duty of every liberal democrat to smear him as much as possible (if this forum were more politically active, there'd be somebody replying to this about how much of a crazy person he is. He wasn't thought of as crazy until the Dems told us he was right before 2000).
Plain Old Jane
06-20-2005, 10:22 PM
Biased towards public opinion? Don't you think that they should serve public opinion? If it doesn't reflect public opinion, at least somewhat, then it reflects something universal ... And ... I don't know if you, Pinko Communist, want to get into universality.
Some people are smart, most people are complete morons.
You want to show us the study on this? Preferably one that isn't from the NAACP or the ACLU, but a third party. If it is true though, which it very well could be, the drug users being arrested and convicted are usually drug users living in urban areas (suburban drug users are prosecuted less, one would have to assume), and because there is a higher population of Black people in urban areas than White people in urban areas, the numbers would reflect this. And, the 'sameness' of the crime can be questionable. There is a difference between doing a drug in your house and doing a drug in an alley way. Though they are both crimes, one is a lot easier to find and convict.
Its cuz theres more cops in fucking oakland and san hose than in sunnyvale.
Completely Official Study (http://www.carlosmencia.com/)
And it would be better in the long run if we could all fly, and had ice cream makers in our hands, with free electricity, and money making machines that magically did not cause inflation. We have civil rights, we have socialist policies, and we have democratic-republic law making. THere is zero evidence that a communist economy produces anything but starvation and mass murder, however.
its only been around for a short time compared to the 2000+ years that republicanism and democracy has been around.
mikes a crazy nigger
I love bob dylan
Some people are smart, most people are complete morons.
Thank you, that undermines socialism. I completely agree.
Its cuz theres more cops in fucking oakland and san hose than in sunnyvale.
Chicken ... egg ...
its only been around for a short time compared to the 2000+ years that republicanism and democracy has been around.
That still doesn't change that there is absolutely zero evidence that communism is a viable alternative to capitalism, and that a socialist 'government' is a viable alternative to a democratic republic. On the other hand, there is a host of evidence that capitalism and democratic republics are fine selections of government and economy. Though, in regards to your comment, you'd be hard pressed to find the republic anywhere outside the walls or Rome, despite the vastness of the empire. You'd also be hard pressed to find democracy anywhere outside of Athens, despite the vastness of that empire. Conversely, the entirety of the Soviet Union had the same structure... no part any better than the other. The same can be said for China, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, and Juische Korea.
malta
06-20-2005, 11:45 PM
"I love bob dylan"
No doubt that he pulled the trigger.
If I was black, I wouldn't like to be called african american. I'd be muslim, so you'd call me God.
Regardless of what race I'm born as, I'd prefer you just call me by my damn name, which is way too often confused as 'christian' and 'justin' at sub shops...
Plain Old Jane
06-21-2005, 12:04 AM
Thank you, that undermines socialism. I completely agree.
yay
Chicken ... egg ...
okay, all i hear is "im a tool and bush rools."
omigawd, jay kay, i lurve you mikey.
as much as I'd like to say that that isnt true, it is to some extent, tho if we were all living in the same conditions (communism!) the problem would be clearly visible, nature or nurture.
But it's proven that its easier to change one self rather than the environment, so we all have to keep fucking eachother til we're all the same color.
(same reason terraforming mars is unconventional, it'd be easier to teach humans to breath methane, benzene, CO, and the small amount of O2 in the air there.)
That still doesn't change that there is absolutely zero evidence that communism is a viable alternative to capitalism, and that a socialist 'government' is a viable alternative to a democratic republic. On the other hand, there is a host of evidence that capitalism and democratic republics are fine selections of government and economy. Though, in regards to your comment, you'd be hard pressed to find the republic anywhere outside the walls or Rome, despite the vastness of the empire. You'd also be hard pressed to find democracy anywhere outside of Athens, despite the vastness of that empire. Conversely, the entirety of the Soviet Union had the same structure... no part any better than the other. The same can be said for China, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, and Juische Korea.
Thats like saying (if it were 70 ad) that since christians keep getting fed to lions that its not going to catch on. and to promote it at all would be a complete waste of time. (fun factoid: the image of christ was in many ways inspired by the image of zeus)
Btw, you completely missed my point about bob dylan, you should be ashamed and should commit seppuku immidiatly.
malta
06-21-2005, 12:07 AM
"Btw, you completely missed my point about bob dylan, you should be ashamed and should commit seppuku immidiatly."
Clearly you don't know what song I'm thinking of.
okay, all i hear is "im a tool and bush rools."
omigawd, jay kay, i lurve you mikey.
Ok? Typical, you can only see this as "Jep vs. Bush bi-proxy."
as much as I'd like to say that that isnt true, it is to some extent, tho if we were all living in the same conditions (communism!) the problem would be clearly visible, nature or nurture.
... communism has nothing to do with it. It's like saying "If we were all millionaires (COMMUNISM!) then everything would be great!" Falsely associating communism with something good does not make communism good.
But it's proven that its easier to change one self rather than the environment, so we all have to keep fucking eachother til we're all the same color.
(same reason terraforming mars is unconventional, it'd be easier to teach humans to breath methane, benzene, CO, and the small amount of O2 in the air there.)
Haven't we already realized that it's not a race issue? You said "Obviously there's more cops in Oakland than Sunnydale." If a white person in an alley in Oakland is shooting crack there's a higher likelihood that he'll be arrested than a black person shooting crack in his house in Sunnydale. Its just that more Black people, by way of their economic situation, tend to live in Oakland, not Sunnydale.
And it's nothing like Mars, but if you'd like to continue to bring up obscur points that do nothing but muddle your arguments, feel free. if your points cannot justify themselves with realistic examples, then they are probably not good points.
Thats like saying (if it were 70 ad) that since christians keep getting fed to lions that its not going to catch on. and to promote it at all would be a complete waste of time.
Um, no, it's nothing like saying that. Communism has obviously caught on, because there are millions of people who seek to defend it despite the horror that has been self-inflicted by every political system that has ever employed it as the focus of their economic system. The question isn't about "what will catch on," it is about what is good and what is bad. Christianity was OBVIOUSLY bad in 70 ad because you would be ostracized and often murdered for being a Christian--but you were not murdered by Christians, but rather Jews and Romans. 70 AD is probably a bad time to make your point though, because it was when the Romans began to sac every religion that was not Roman in the empire ... starting with Judaism after the second book of Maccabees. You'll be hard pressed to find the earliest Christians murdering other Christians, or murdering anybody. That is not the case for Communism and Socialism.
(fun factoid: the image of christ was in many ways inspired by the image of zeus)
Fun Factoid: You're wrong. Many people think that the idea of Christ was inspired by Mythrais, Zoroastor, or Thor who all shared tragic ends, representing themselves as self-sacrifice. Many Jews, despite contrary Jewish law, intermingled with Zoroastrians and Baalists, and borrowed their tradition (the book of Job is thought to be an ancient Zoroastrian fable). However, Christ was a man and Christians worship the Son of Man, not the image of the Son of Man (though, I have criticisms of some denominations who I believe do worship an image of the Son of Man, though it's probably not what you're thinking). Christ is nearly nothing like Zeus. In every way that you would refer to Zeus, it is in contrary to nearly every way that you would refer to Christ. If you meant Mysthrais, Zoroastor, or Thor then it is not a "fun factoid" and you're not offering something that people don't know. Anybody who has studied Christian theology knows that.
Btw, you completely missed my point about bob dylan, you should be ashamed and should commit seppuku immidiatly.
I don't know if this is for Tristan or Me ... but I really don't care. Your references to Mars, Japanese suicide practices, and pop-music make your already lax arguments weaker.
Plain Old Jane
06-21-2005, 04:14 PM
Ok? Typical, you can only see this as "Jep vs. Bush bi-proxy."
no, it was supposed to make you laugh.
... communism has nothing to do with it. It's like saying "If we were all millionaires (COMMUNISM!) then everything would be great!" Falsely associating communism with something good does not make communism good.
you really need to put two and two together here, I sort of assumed you'd see the long term effects of communism. I had hoped to avoid these long posts, so cummunism is defined as: Communism is an economic and political system based on the principle "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need. " It stresses that the control of the means of producing economic goods in a society should reside in the hands of those who invest their labor for production. In its ideal form, social classes cease to exist, there is no coercive governmental structures, and everyone lives in abundance without supervision from a ruling class. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels popularized this theory in their 1848 Communist Manifesto.
Read as it is, capital is owned by the government and the people live with relativly the same amount of financial power as the next person, hence no social structure. We can see in our own culture, bits of communism. People who have the same amount of money live in similar environments. West Beverly people live in lavish houses, with pools and never go hungry. Po' black folks in the projects who make 300 bucks a month live in shitty holes in the sides of buildings and have hep C.
I'm saying that a communistic economy with the financial backing of a country like... saudi arabia, would be beneficial for all its citizens instead of the to and fro with capitalism.
btw, el oh el, I said cummunism up there.
Haven't we already realized that it's not a race issue? You said "Obviously there's more cops in Oakland than Sunnydale." If a white person in an alley in Oakland is shooting crack there's a higher likelihood that he'll be arrested than a black person shooting crack in his house in Sunnydale. Its just that more Black people, by way of their economic situation, tend to live in Oakland, not Sunnydale.
I was agreeing with you... dip shit...
And it's nothing like Mars, but if you'd like to continue to bring up obscur points that do nothing but muddle your arguments, feel free. if your points cannot justify themselves with realistic examples, then they are probably not good points.
HOWEVER, race is not a prereq for future actions, the problem lies in people who think it is, racists. So instead of changing racists, change the race. I say that cuz I think its right and I'd really like to date an eskimo.
Take microbiology or something, and you'll see that its easier to have bacteria (through micro pilli or translocation of genetic material) feed on the calcium casienate in milk plates than to have a continuous source of glucose dripped on the plate and then hire someone to make sure the osmotic pressure doesnt lyse everything. It costs more to change the environment then to change the inhabitants. thats my point.
Um, no, it's nothing like saying that. Communism has obviously caught on, because there are millions of people who seek to defend it despite the horror that has been self-inflicted by every political system that has ever employed it as the focus of their economic system. The question isn't about "what will catch on," it is about what is good and what is bad. Christianity was OBVIOUSLY bad in 70 ad because you would be ostracized and often murdered for being a Christian--but you were not murdered by Christians, but rather Jews and Romans. 70 AD is probably a bad time to make your point though, because it was when the Romans began to sac every religion that was not Roman in the empire ... starting with Judaism after the second book of Maccabees. You'll be hard pressed to find the earliest Christians murdering other Christians, or murdering anybody. That is not the case for Communism and Socialism.
i didnt say christians murdered christians, tho they do plenty of that now.
so you're saying the ideals are to blame for communisms downfall?
can I see a study on that, pooky?
Fun Factoid: You're wrong.
::inserts photos::
http://www.thetesttube.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=45http://www.thetesttube.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=46&stc=1
I said the image, the ideals are made up by the people, and they imprint them on their messiahs or rather their views of their messiahs, not the other way around.
Jee-Zeus Christ ::laughs::
I'm so not using this as a reason, I just find it funny.
Though all these crap religions that have ties to messiahs and all powerful gods and commandments and precepts, books, floods, and all manners of other BS have their roots in the crib of humanity and all the wars and persecutions that took place 4000 years ago. you can trace the flood stories of most religions back to babylons libraries and babylons conquering ofall the tribes and monarchies there, you can trace the idea of Sons Of God back to zoroastrainism. you can trace the idea of holy war way the fuck back, to even before zoroastrainism cuz zealots cant stand the fact that everyone doesnt think like them. and before you ask me to prove it, why dont you start coming up with reasons why my reasons are bunk instead of asking me to prove them all the time, sometimes you can be really annoying.
so yea, eskimos're hawt...
I don't know if this is for Tristan or Me ... but I really don't care. Your references to Mars, Japanese suicide practices, and pop-music make your already lax arguments weaker.
I wasnt making an arguement, just saying my views but you always seem to take them so seriously, I wasnt looking for a fight, I just wanted to add my input and perhaps make someone chuckle, but if you're anti-chuckle we can fight right now!
in all honesty, i dont care about jacko, i dont care about christianity, i dont care about communism, and i dont care that you disagree with everything i say just cuz I'm the one saying it. you gotta lotta growing up to do.
Plain Old Jane
06-21-2005, 04:23 PM
ohhhh, lookie here, god loves communism
No one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common...There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold...and it was distributed to each as any had need. Acts 4:32
you really need to put two and two together here, I sort of assumed you'd see the long term effects of communism. I had hoped to avoid these long posts, so cummunism is defined as: Communism is an economic and political system based on the principle "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need. " It stresses that the control of the means of producing economic goods in a society should reside in the hands of those who invest their labor for production. In its ideal form, social classes cease to exist, there is no coercive governmental structures, and everyone lives in abundance without supervision from a ruling class. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels popularized this theory in their 1848 Communist Manifesto.
We all know the definition and the history of Communism ... so it's really useless to list it and expect anybody to take this as having any sort of chance at being a veritable method of society. Marx also offered six predictions in the Manifesto, all of which were wrong. Why under any circumstances would the rest of his work be somehow good, when under practical application it results in starvation and mass murder, and under philosophical observation, it is riddled with holes? Furthermore, when ALL of the predictions of the text (1] The Revolution would occur in his lifetime; 2] The Revolution would occur in a heavily industrialized country; 3] THe revolution would occur in Germany; 4] Under Capitalism, working days would get longer; 5] Under capitalism, conditions for laborers would get worse; 6] Under Capitalism, laborers would continue to earn less and less) ARE WRONG ... why is it that we feel compelled to give credence to the rest of it? So the text is wrong, the practical application fails worse than any economic plan in modern history, and the philosophical application does not righly apply to the human condition. I don't understand the addiction that people have with communism and socialism.
Read as it is, capital is owned by the government and the people live with relativly the same amount of financial power as the next person, hence no social structure. We can see in our own culture, bits of communism.
You cannot have "bits of communism." That's anti-communist. Or are you going to give the history of the Manifesto and then not mention the parts where Marx is completely against labor unions and a give and take of socialist policies?
People who have the same amount of money live in similar environments. West Beverly people live in lavish houses, with pools and never go hungry. Po' black folks in the projects who make 300 bucks a month live in shitty holes in the sides of buildings and have hep C.
The number of "poor" people in America is inflated. 98% of Americans have color telivision. 83% have air conditioning. Less than 1% of Americans, in the 2000 census, said that they feel that they don't have enough food sometimes.
I'm saying that a communistic economy with the financial backing of a country like... saudi arabia, would be beneficial for all its citizens instead of the to and fro with capitalism.
Saudi Arabia? One of the richest governments in the world? Employ Communism in Saudi Arabia and the country falls to shambles. There one of the few countries in the Middle East with a stable economy.
I was agreeing with you... dip shit...
Then why would you say that we need to change race and eliminate the races? Does this go along with your eliminate the classes idea, the eliminate society idea, and then, finally, eliminate the citizen idea? Well, I guess if your goal is to eliminate human beings, Communism would be the best approach.
HOWEVER, race is not a prereq for future actions, the problem lies in people who think it is, racists. So instead of changing racists, change the race. I say that cuz I think its right and I'd really like to date an eskimo.
I'm all for getting rid of Racists, but that means all of your friends in the NAACP and just about 30% of the Liberals in America.
i didnt say christians murdered christians, tho they do plenty of that now.
so you're saying the ideals are to blame for communisms downfall?
can I see a study on that, pooky?
That the ideals of Communism are it's downfall? You need not a study... Take a look at Soviet, Chinese, and North Korean agricultural policies from their respective histories. There's hundreds of books written on this topic, even many by self-serving liberals. I'll get a book list for you in a little bit.
http://www.thetesttube.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=45http://www.thetesttube.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=46&stc=1
I said the image, the ideals are made up by the people, and they imprint them on their messiahs or rather their views of their messiahs, not the other way around.
You do realize when somebody says "The Image of Christ" they are referring to something completely different than "A painting of Jesus."
Jee-Zeus Christ ::laughs::
I'm so not using this as a reason, I just find it funny.
Um ... ok? There are images of Charlie Chapman that look startlingly like Adolf Hitler. Don't you find that funny, shouldn't you post that instead?
Though all these crap religions that have ties to messiahs and all powerful gods and commandments and precepts, books, floods, and all manners of other BS have their roots in the crib of humanity and all the wars and persecutions that took place 4000 years ago. you can trace the flood stories of most religions back to babylons libraries and babylons conquering ofall the tribes and monarchies there, you can trace the idea of Sons Of God back to zoroastrainism. you can trace the idea of holy war way the fuck back, to even before zoroastrainism cuz zealots cant stand the fact that everyone doesnt think like them. and before you ask me to prove it, why dont you start coming up with reasons why my reasons are bunk instead of asking me to prove them all the time, sometimes you can be really annoying.
These "crap religions" have their roots in the birth of humanity? So what exactly makes them "crap" religions? Because they all share similar stories?
"Idea of Sons of God." There is a stark difference between Son of God and Son of Man. I could be considered a Son of God. There is only one Son of Man.
"and before I ask you to prove it, why don't I start coming up with reasons why your reasons are bunk, instead of asking me to prove it."
First, I dejustify your claims all the time ... just about in every conversation we have. I really don't have to though, because the burden of proof is on you. Furthermore, I'm not going to aks you to "prove" that they have those ties because it's common knowledge. When you make assinine assertions about Communism and that all of these religions that have ties to humanity's roots are "crap," it is your duty to supply the proof, because all other evidence suggests otherwise.
I wasnt making an arguement, just saying my views but you always seem to take them so seriously, I wasnt looking for a fight, I just wanted to add my input and perhaps make someone chuckle, but if you're anti-chuckle we can fight right now!
all honesty, i dont care about jacko, i dont care about christianity, i dont care about communism, and i dont care that you disagree with everything i say just cuz I'm the one saying it. you gotta lotta growing up to do.
I know Jep, and I do it in love. Honestly ... out of everybody here, after we have our arguments, you're one of my favorite people at these forums. I value your membership more than many others ... because you're willing to at least get into a dialogue about it. I am just militant with my anti-communism and my arguments against anti-Christians. It's not you that I take a problem with, it's some of your remarks ... but I love them, as I love you. I have to run really quick, brb./
thecreeper
06-21-2005, 06:06 PM
if you make these replies any longer, my head's gonna explode. someone just call the other a lying asshole liberal or conservative and be done with it.
thecreeper
06-21-2005, 09:18 PM
oh, alright then carry on.
Plain Old Jane
06-22-2005, 12:03 AM
although mike, it really is because we each know that the other is wrong. Remind me to buy you a drink if theres ever a meetup.
---
i dont remember if i posted this or not, did you guys hear about that black guy that mailed himself across the united states. like oregon to socal. got caught at the last second cuz he popped out too soon or something and the delivery guy called the cops. you know this means that there's unchecked freight all over and these airport precautions are just bullshit, i mean, cmon, just check the arab guy and lets get to florida already!
"Okay, the following people must be checked... completely random... no profiling at all... Hassin Mussad, Hassen Bin Laid, Kalim Muhammed, and Neil Hyman."
seriously, I ALWAYS get checked, this is Gypsy Profiling!
Isn't that a standup comedians bit?
They actually usually let the Arabs on the plane because the airlines are too scared to get sued. Every time my dad flies ... he gets checked ... because he's just the most white, non-lethal looking person in the world.
I will accept your drink, but anything that I drink from you Jep will be riddled with bitterness. In other news, I saw Guster playw ith the Boston Symphony Orchestra tonight. Cool!
raublekick
06-23-2005, 01:18 AM
When I flew to AZ last fall I was pulled aside to be checked. I had long hair then, but other than that I think I look pretty wussy and innocent. But right behind me were two men from somewhere in the middle east who were speaking broken english to each other. Not that I think it's good to assume that they might be suspicious, it just caught me offguard because they would obviously be more suspicious than me.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.