Blakey is all better and has a job here's a funny picture
-
So, you're taking the low road by pointing out that you're taking the high road?
No, I'm taking the high road by not pointing out like blakeyrat that I'm taking the high road.
And there's that tortured grammar again, only acknowledged up front so nobody can later claim it was an accident that I pretended afterwards to do on purpose.
-
there's that tortured grammar again
Easily de-tortured with a little punctuation:
, like blakeyrat,
-
-
-
So he did a lame, long, unfunny version of Chicken Boo from Animaniacs.
-
It's probably funnier if you're right. They're protesting rape.
...?
Protesting rape?
I really don't get people these days.
It's not like the criminal is going to see that and say, oh the people are mad, my position of power over the population will decline if I continue to commit crimes.
-
<img src="/uploads/default/9518/ade44e037fcf16eb.jpg" width="539" height="461">
sigh
Also in the same set of verses, along with the "10 commandments".
It talks about having sex outside of marriage, either participate being married or not, results in stoning, if consensual.If not consensual, the aggressor is stoned instead.
Wow, sounds a lot like capital punishment for rape.
Also, take the Lord's name in vain, doesn't mean just saying his name. It means doing something under his name that he doesn't want you to do. Otherwise said as, committing evil while saying God told you to do it.
-
If not consensual, the aggressor is stoned instead.
Wow, sounds a lot like capital punishment for rape.
Hey, you ever hear about this thing called "the New Testament?" This guy named Jesus came along and deprecated a shitload of those old rules. You might look, in particular, at https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8%3A11&version=KJV and the surrounding context.
-
I really don't get people these days.
It's been a standard trope for at least a couple of centuries now. All we need is enough education and we can solve everything. Don't you see? We'll just teach men not to rape!
Hey, you ever hear about this thing called "the New Testament?"
Yes, but he was responding specifically to the lazy meme that @chubertdev posted.
-
Yes, but I don't think Jesus said rape was allowed.
Not only that, the whole don't throw a stone thing wasn't for the woman's sake. The focus being the people around her.
- She could have actually been innocent, we don't have that context.
- He was addressing the fact that people had turned a punishment into a sport. There's a reason that there's ceremony for capital punishment. There's a court, a judgement, a trial. The people there were circumventing the justice system to kill a woman on a whim.
- Jesus has the authority to forgive. If he chooses and forgives not only the sin, but also the crime, no one has authority to execute punishment anymore.
People act like this is a general case to avoid capital punishment, or to exempt people from punishment for crime, but it's not. It's a very specific case. A judge also has authority to apply the sentencing however he sees fit within the bounds of a sentence for the crime. A president has the authority to pardon. This doesn't change the underlying justice system, it simply gives people a pathway for compassion so they can act on the spirit of the law, and not the boundaries of compassionless law.
-
1. She could have actually been innocent, we don't have that context.
2. He was addressing the fact that people had turned a punishment into a sport. There's a reason that there's ceremony for capital punishment. There's a court, a judgement, a trial. The people there were circumventing the justice system to kill a woman on a whim.
3. Jesus has the authority to forgive. If he chooses and forgives not only the sin, but also the crime, no one has authority to execute punishment anymore.4. * At the time, the Jews were not permitted to enact capital punishment without permission from the Romans. The people leading the mob in this case were trying to trap Jesus. They thought that they were providing two options. Either condemn her to death, in which case, they could deliver Jesus to the Romans for violating their laws; or forbid them from killing her, in which case they felt that he would alienate the Jews for casting aside the Law of Moses in favor of Roman law. He messed up their plans by taking a third option which they were incapable of seeing.
* Screw you Dicsourse. If I want a 4, I'm gonna have a 4!
-
Don't you see? We'll just teach men not to rape!
Dang, let's try that with murder and stuff, too!
Yes, but he was responding specifically to the lazy meme that @chubertdev posted.
Hah. Using something a standup comic says as life advice is probably a bad idea most of the time.
-
He messed up their plans by taking a third option which they were incapable of seeing.
Amazing how often that happens. The "render unto Caesar" answer was the same way. Not only that (this seems familiar; we may have covered it on the CS forums) but his answer may have, in context, been subversive, in that the Pharisees would have understood it to have a veiled meaning of "...but nothing is actually his, btw."
-
Don't you see? We'll just teach men not to rape!
Then we'll just be left with the (much) smaller problem of female rapists!
-
Then we'll just be left with the (much) smaller problem of female rapists!
I'm sure it's patriarchism or something that causes you to think women can be rapists. And even if it's not, how dare you say something like that?! That's exactly the kind of statement that causes wyymyyny not to report rapes or something.
-
I'm sure it's patriarchism or something that causes you to think women can be rapists. And even if it's not, how dare you say something like that?! That's exactly the kind of statement that causes wyymyyny not to report rapes or something.
Filed Under: Counter trolling
-
This post is deleted!
-
nt
Are you still arguing even after I used the word "patriarchy"? I need to go off and lie down on my fainting couch now, or else yell at you even loudlier.
-
>xaade:
- She could have actually been innocent, we don't have that context.
- He was addressing the fact that people had turned a punishment into a sport. There's a reason that there's ceremony for capital punishment. There's a court, a judgement, a trial. The people there were circumventing the justice system to kill a woman on a whim.
- Jesus has the authority to forgive. If he chooses and forgives not only the sin, but also the crime, no one has authority to execute punishment anymore.
-
- At the time, the Jews were not permitted to enact capital punishment without permission from the Romans. The people leading the mob in this case were trying to trap Jesus. They thought that they were providing two options. Either condemn her to death, in which case, they could deliver Jesus to the Romans for violating their laws; or forbid them from killing her, in which case they felt that he would alienate the Jews for casting aside the Law of Moses in favor of Roman law. He messed up their plans by taking a third option which they were incapable of seeing.
- It's also worth noting that the crowd was only attempting to stone the woman, not the man who was also (allegedly; see 1.) guilty of adultery.
-
The lesson learned here.
Some people just feel the need to tear apart something because they don't like it, without actually taking the time to understand it.
This happens again and again. How often do I hear someone saying that the American Constitution is outdated, and that person can't even quote a part of it. Often when I ask what's in it, they quote the first line of the Declaration of Independence.
-
Are you still arguing even after I used the word "patriarchy"? I need to go off and lie down on my fainting couch now, or else yell at you even loudlier.
*cough*
Filed Under: Counter trolling
Success! :D
-
Of course I can be guilty of the same things, which is why I try my hardest to point out the contradictions that are visible.
Like for example. People saying that Islam is a peaceful religion and that we should just accept that these organizations have reasons for what they do, fail to see the paradox they've created. Most of the people who criticize criticism of Islam, fail to notice that the majority of Muslims want Sharia law in their locality, and that allowing this would be undoing centuries of movement away from religious government. But only Christianity forms bad religious based governments? They also fail to notice that these organizations make violence a part of their creed. PA from PLO which had the annihilation of non-Muslim states in their creed. Iran which had Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who felt that bringing cataclysm was a religious duty to harbinger the end times.
Libya where the "revolutionists" where just a non-collaboration of mini-warlords being sucked in by a power vacuum. Where the moderates, who would support a Democracy, are sidelined and even assaulted by the various warlords.
Where Transjordan => Jordan and Egypt have invaded others countless times.Not only that, but the rest of the world that people seem to keep believing is stable. Europe on a decline. Germany being in the same position it found itself at the start of WWI. Russia using Georgia as a test run for re-establishing the Soviet Union.
The fact that various Middle-East groups are setting their eyes on the re-establishment of the Ottoman Empire, which wasn't disbanded that long ago.
People in the relatively stable cities of the Western world are so blind to the world instability going on today.
They are convinced that Israel is the cause of aggression, but overlook that India was the target of recent terrorists attacks. I was unaware that India supported Israel?
They fail to see the oppressive trends for women in these various places in the world.
I just don't get it.
I'm beginning to think that the age of secular enlightenment is just the equivalent of politically keeping your head in the sand and pretending the world has matured past shit.
-
5a. Fixing Discurse's broken quoting is annoying. The discodevs should be stoned (or maybe they were when they wrote this B*****m POS).
-
<ol start="5"><li>It's also worth noting that the crowd was only attempting to stone the woman, not the man who was also (allegedly; see 1.) guilty of adultery.</ol>
5a. Fixing Discurse's broken quoting is annoying. The discodevs should be stoned (or maybe they were when they wrote this B*****m POS).Uh, God, this punishment you've prescribed, doesn't seem so punishing. The hippies just love it. They commit adultery non-stop and then get free trips.
-
Are we still arguing about works of fiction?
-
The kind of day we're having today after the new system refused to come up for a bit, but we finally got it going:
Tech#1 [11:13 AM]:
OH SNAP!
redwizard [11:13 AM]:
?Admin#1 [11:13 AM]:
Ok, in order for it to be a snap I would need to understnd what I did
redwizard [11:14 AM]:
2014: OH SNAP!
1985: OH MY GOD!
redwizard [11:14 AM]:
Same meaning.
redwizard [11:14 AM]:
I think.
Admin#1 [11:14 AM]:
I am old and tired, and it is my wedding anniversay so by kind
Admin#1 [11:14 AM]:
and I can't spell
Tech#1 [11:14 AM]:
Haha, you guys are a woot. - 1963
Admin#1 [11:15 AM]:
Hoot not woot
Tech#1 [11:15 AM]:
Sorry can't type.
Tech#1 [11:15 AM]:
woot is 2014
Admin#1 [11:15 AM]:
Hmmm maybe I am not old
Tech#1 [11:15 AM]:
hoot is 1963..
redwizard [11:15 AM]:
Really Tech#1? The H and W aren't anywhere near each other on a QWERTY keyboard....
Tech#1 [11:16 AM]:
They are if you type with your FACE... one of those days!
redwizard [11:16 AM]:
lol
-
Mistyped letters are more often word anticipation. Typing a letter from the sound the letter in the same position in the next word makes.
-
Not sure I get it. The horse is pointing it out to the bartender. But why? Is he complaining that the bar does not have ground based food and water? Did the bartender make fun of his face?
-
The joke, yes, is an answer to the implied question by the bartender, "why the long face?"
-
-
Took you 11 months to finally give up?
It's a good thing we didn't show him an
incomprehensible imageunsolvable equation. Might never have given up then!
-
What happens when an irresistable force impacts an unmoveable object?
-
What happens when an irresist
aible force impacts anunimmoveable object?Nothing. Force can't impact in discrete space like that.
In a stateless machine, it really depends on when you're observing the state, and which iteration. Also, preferential order of application of state changes. (for instance, does displacement precede change in velocity?).The answer is mu, because you can't modify immutable properties (unless they're not), but the best non-mu answer is: Nothing. The immovable object is not affected and the irresistible force moves on.
-
You're no fun.
-
You're no fun.
Indeed this statement has been made regarding myself at various times and in various places in various situations variably.
-
In a stateless machine, it really depends on when you're observing the state, and which iteration.
In a stateless machine, it matters not at all when you observe the state, as the state is unitary; you'll always see the same thing. Kind of follows from the definition of “stateless”…
-
-
-
And I need more sleep and less hangover.
Ditto, except in my case maybe I just need to stand up (slowly, so the sudden change in blood pressure allocation doesn't cause cardiac arrest)...
-
You're no fun.
Maybe if you changed the wording of the question somewhat. Something like:
What happens when an irresistible force is applied to an immovable object?
-
What happens when an irresistible force is applied to an immovable object?
You get a family fight.
-
What happens when an irresistable force impacts an unmoveable object?
They both get sucked into an alternate dimension where God can make a rock he can't move, and then move it.
What happens when an irresistable force meets an unmoveable object?
They get married. I mean, at least we did.
The immovable object is not affected and the irresistible force moves on.
AH HAHAHAHA
Nothing was said that the objects could not just phase through each other.
Maybe they're both gaseous.
-
Nothing was said that the objects could not just phase through each other.
Maybe they're both gaseous.
Nobody said anything about objects either. There are ways to apply force without using secondary objects, you know.
Maybe they're both gaseous.
Maybe you're gaseous.
-
-
What happens when an irrresistable force meets an immoral object?
-
