Depressed Emo Nation and the Lord's Resistance Army — Page 2

C3PX said:

I most definitely have to side with lj on this whole thing. Can hardly believe the retardedness of a lot of what I am reading. He said nothing wrong, but for some reason you are really pounding him into the ground and being a dick. I just don't get it.

I only "pounded" lordjedi at the point where I countered his earlier assumption that I was somewhere accusing him of being a terrorist. I'm sorry but that's fucking laughable. I don't care if that hurts his feelings or your feelings for me to say that since it's just the basic truth of the matter. Hah, and he now has the gall to say I was being unclear? LOL.

As for being a dick, yeah, I'm a dick quite often. :)

lordjedi said:

C3PX said:

I most definitely have to side with lj on this whole thing. Can hardly believe the retardedness of a lot of what I am reading. He said nothing wrong, but for some reason you are really pounding him into the ground and being a dick. I just don't get it.

You're not the only one.  I'm starting to wonder how we went from talking about how we don't care about what happened in Mumbai (even though I stated that I do care, just don't see a reason to talk about it) to attacks on me and my reactions to those incidents.

Seriously TipTup, what the hell?  I know it would be foolish to drop everything and run to India to help them, which is why I don't do it.  It would be foolish and dangerous.

For my part, this has been nothing more than a purely intellectual discussion of personal ethics (from the very start). For your part, however, this has been a curiously defensive, tangential, and long-winded treatise designed to purely avoid my simple question. You have been the one making this so long and so complex, lj. I've gone out of my way to try and simplify your worthless crap and bring you back to my basic, starting question (the one I think you keep purposely misunderstanding). I challenge you or C3PX to prove that my replies have been longer, or more off topic than yours have been.

At every point in this discussion I have gone out of my way to include myself as a person that possibly should have cared more about the attacks in Mumbai, so I don't know why the hell you have the idea that this is somehow about you (or why the hell C3PX thinks it's about you either). Are either of you actually trying to read what I've been asking here? :)

I'm not even certain you're doing or did anything wrong, lordjedi. (I don't even know, exactly, what you or I could have done better.) I'm simply asking you an ethical question for the sake of my own curiousity. To the degree you keep avoiding my actual question, I'm continuing to re-pose it you because I find you to be a person that fascinates me. If that offends you then don't worry about me. I'll be okay if you decide not to respond to what I'm asking. However, to the degree you keep talking to me, I'll respond so long as I see a reason of my own to do so. (Oh, and C3PX, if you're offended by my questioning of lordjedi, you don't have to talk to me either.)

To be as clear as possible, my question is this: all things being equal, you seriously don't believe there is any tiny, infinitesimal action (as a real, ordinary human being living and ordinary human life) that could have possibly been better on your part with respect to the Mumbai attack (say if you were acting on totally pure motives within a totally pure value system)?

All C3PX originally mentioned was that it's odd that we don't talk about important news when it involves a foreign part of our world. I personally think, at the very least, I probably could have paid more attention to it all. Beyond that, I don't really know what I could have done better, but I'm fairly certain that if I were a pure human being (and not such a "dick") I would probably be living a very different life right now. I probably would be living a life that would react to the recent attacks in a very different way. If you feel your every, tiny action was absolutely perfect, on the other hand, I suppose that's a perfectly acceptable answer to my question (even if I don't logically understand it). In the end I'm only curious to know how you would answer what I simply asked. Thank you.

lordjedi said:

I also wouldn't say, as you have, that Mother Theresa was obsessed with death and suffering.  I will say that she lived amongst the poorest of people so she would understand what it was like.  To suggest that a "free market" is going to help some poor individual in South Africa is, to me, a joke.  While a free market would definitely help them, there's nothing wrong with giving up what one has in order to help the less fortunate.  If you've got a TV, you've got more than most people.

I also don't understand why someone like Mother Theresa is given a hard time by you.  She felt that the best way for her to help people living in poverty was to give up what she had, live among them, and do what she could to make their lives better.  She showed the world the kind of poverty that exists.  That is exactly what God calls us to do.  See Luke 21:1-4, Luke 3:11

I know a lot of people respect mother Teresa, but, from everything I know about her, she was a horrible, disturbing person. She was obsessed with pain, suffering and death and her unhinged behavior is quite well documented. She wouldn't help sick people so much as, instead, keep them trapped in her dank, dark houses of death and then watch them die so she could be close to the "suffering" (which she strangely believed would bring her closer to Jesus . . . which is fucking crazy). Even mainstream supporters of Mother Teresa don't deny this crazy, sick behavior of hers (they simply try to dismiss it in light of what supposed good she did . . . which I don't really see).

C3PX said:

Tiptup said:

... tries to pretend a "vow of poverty" (and worthless Mother-Teresa-style shit like that) has any value in the sight of God. Hard work aimed at wise productivity in a free market is far more pure and helpful than some supposedly high and lofty individual that spends her life obsessed with death and suffering (as apposed to someone who works hard to alleviate and heal death and suffering).

I resent that comment. I have no idea why "Mother-Teresa-style" selfless living for others should be called shit. Sure it isn't for everyone, but to me it is just unbelievable that you'd claim a life is better spent living for youself and your family, working hard and productively in a free market society than it is living your life for others. Even more stupid is that you claim it has no value in the eyes of God.

Mother Teresa was not selfless but selfish . . . and crazy. Considering the way she pretended to be righteous and the way people (like you) say such wonderful things about her, she should have been working as hard as should could to produce medicine or heal sick people. Instead, when ordinary people threw a ton of money at her (money that could have been used to employ people or to help cure the lost and sick) she simply spent it to make more of her creepy houses of death.

Maybe in her craziness she still did some good somewhere (in ways that I don't know of), and to the degree that she did that there's probably some value to the work she did "in the eyes of God." But, the way I see it, God doesn't overlook evil and ultimately our actions cannot be called "good" if we knowingly do wrong. Mother Teresa was a creepy, cult-ish person that illegitimately exploited the suffering of real people so she could be close to it and I think her conscience knew that was wrong. She also wasted money designated for the poor in a bunch of ways that never went to help the poor in any way (and that was really wrong too).

Sure, I selfishly have an Xbox and a TV (as lordjedi mentioned) while people are starving somewhere, but I wasn't claiming I was some "higher" person (like you claim Mother Teresa was). Plus, while Xboxes and TVs tend to have a very vain, recreational purpose, at least people were employed somewhere to make those products for doing real work (as apposed to me just giving money to people for doing nothing . . . as you would want?).

I know that if I were to better devote my wealth to goodness that I would be behaving in many different ways. However, I try to keep my overall life centered on the best overall course of action that I can (which is not something I succeed at, but I try anyways). To be well centered in that way means I can't run off and try to do every little action I think I should have done or should be doing. To the degree I haven't done good or am not doing good, I have to accept that fact and try to improve myself in smaller ways. Therefore, to the degree that I live where I live, I deemed both an Xbox and a TV to be reasonable possessions within that. I know I could probably do far more, but I'm nowhere close to that point and it's a slow, difficult process to improve myself without destroying other good things I'm aiming for in my life.

"Vows of poverty" (as how certain Roman Catholic sects would define them) are very sick to me and I won't back down from defending that position of mine (I don't care if the truth as I see it offends people). People who elevate such a vow to the level of an ideal actually pretend that living in squalor and forsaking all possessions is a good way to help people. I, however, find that obviously crazy and illogical on the surface. The only reason United States of America has so much wealth it can then spread around the world is because its society works with a free market where people work for profit and private property. I defy you to name me anyone that helped others by having nothing (in other words, it's not possible to get something from nothing). Lastly, the poverty=godliness movement believes that the material world is evil and that was a heresy rejected by the Roman Catholic Church in its early years (so any Monks or Nuns who believe it today are believing what their own church defines as a heresy). We should not avoid productive work or private wealth, but instead devote it all to goodness as best we can.

A question for either C3PX or lordjedi: do you believe every ruler in the world should be living in the same poverty as their poorest subjects?

Also: would you rather people were given jobs where they can work for their own sustenance while simultaneously benefiting those who gave them the job, or would you rather people were just given straight charity?

Okay, and to quickly deal with some of the other tangential topics that interest me:

lordjedi said:

I'm very aware that Jesus was tempted by the same things as every other man, but he also happened to be God incarnate.  He could read other peoples minds.  He knew what they had done before and he knew what they planned to do.  This gave him a much better ability to do what needed to be done.

Real purity, much like real perfection, is completely unattainable.  If you really believe you, or anyone else, can attain real purity, then I'm sorry for you.  Jesus was perfection.  God is perfection.  No one else can hope to come close.  Purity of mind, body, and soul is a daily exercise.  We can hope to come close to it in our lifetime, but we will likely never reach it.  I don't think Mother Theresa ever reached real purity either.

According to Christian orthodoxy, Jesus did not use any of his powers as God to make the moral work of his life on this earth any easier. If Jesus had done that then his life of moral perfection would have meant nothing as a sacrifice. Jesus did not use his power as God to make morality easy for himself. Every version of Christianity that I know of keeps Christ's perfect life as a sole work of his human nature (which would therefore be distinct from his divine nature).

Otherwise, I see no reason for you to express the point your second paragraph there is making. Are you trying to say that because we can't be perfect in this life, human beings should not bother to seek moral purity?

As for Mother Teresa, yeah (yuck), she was not anywhere near moral purity.

lordjedi said:

 

How does talking about it on an Internet forum help?  Seriously, explain that to me.  I know that sending money helps.  I know that prayer helps because I've seen it work.  But how does blabbing about it on an Internet forum do anything?  As far as I can tell, it does nothing.  Our elected officials don't read it.  Maybe a passerby sees it from time to time, but for the most part, it's just a bunch of guys talking about it.  It's almost no different than a bunch of guys in a room talking about it.  After they're done talking about it, they go home and nothing changes.  Perhaps someones mind is changed, but beyond that, nothing has really been done.  It all ends up being a bunch of hot air.

Talking about things doesn't help unless the talk allows someone to change.  But if nothing is changed, then no help can come about.  I'm sure most of us read or heard about Mumbai.  If we were going to help, we would've done something.  Coming here and saying "So, what do you guys think about this terrorist attack" doesn't help anyone.  It's a mental exercise, nothing more.

Blabbing on an internet forum can help with all sorts of things. In no particular order: It can help your own thinking and the thinking of others. It can help raise awareness. It can help convince people of taking little or big actions. It can help accomplish lots of other things too (like how Obama had a lot of internet support that helped him when all was added up).

Just as we talk about the 911 attacks, or the death of an actor, or George Lucas destroying Star Wars, there can be good things that come of those actions. As such, I personally believe I should have expressed concern about the Mumbai attacks. I don't know if that's something you should have done, and if you believe that talking about Mumbai on the internet or in real life is worthless for you then that's not for me to judge. I just find it odd you think there was nothing you could have possibly done to have acted a little better and wanted you to clarify if that's what you actually believed (since I'd find that a very interesting insight into how you see yourself).

I read your response to my post about Mother Teresa and serving others. Wow, you have a very messed up view of Mother Teresa. Sounds like you've been watching some seriously biased documentaries (possibly anti-Catholic in nature) bend on making her out to be a total twisted psychopath. From the way you talk about her, you'd think she was Elizabth Bathory or something.I have never even heard the slant on her story you going off on. I'll search the internet to find your side and where it comes from when I have a little more time. Maybe you youself should look at some sources on her coming from the other side. She did a lot of good in her time, and while she wasn't perfect (she never claimed to be) she inspired many others to live selflessly and go around doing good. I have never seen any evidence that she was selfish or had a deep fixation on death or some sort of fetish that made her desire to watch people suffer and die. I never knew her, I have no idea what she was really like, all I can go by is what has been writen and recorded by others. But the account of the extremely disturbed woman you talked about, I have never heard, and even after a brief google search (I'll try harder later), I turned up nothing. 

As for the discussion with LJ, I didn't read your last two posts, just skimmed over them. I must have totally missed the part where LJ thought you accused him of being a terrorist, sounds like and amazingly humerous misunderstanding, maybe I will eventually go back and see if I can find it.

I dunno man, but it seems like sometimes you just feel like locking horns with some of us, finding something to nitpick the hell out of, and going at it until the other concedes to your views or does hours and hours of research to refute your every claim and meet your every challenge ("I challenge you or C3PX to prove that my replies have been longer, or more off topic than yours have been"). I don't really care to go around doing a word count on every post or coming up with some standard to judge off-topicness. The point is you drug this discussion off into some bizzare realm pointlessness, seemingly just to fill your own need to argue, insult, and triumph. You may enjoy it, but when it comes down to using sentences like, "I've gone out of my way to try and simplify your worthless crap and bring you back to my basic, starting question (the one I think you keep purposely misunderstanding)" a lot of us lose interest in the discussion. If LJ views are just worthless crap to you, then why the hell should he waste his time writing more of what you will simply dismiss as more worthless crap for the sake of continuing this discussion? I, for the life of me, am pretty confused as to where you are trying to take this, I seem to get the vibe LJ feels the same way. Maybe it is time to consider the fact that your posts and purpose are not as clearly represented as you'd like to think they are.

I agree with you on the idea that discussing things on the internet is not completely pointless. FF is a good example of someone who uses the internet to educate and spread his ideas. Often times when some political issue comes up, he makes a post clearly describing the problem and asking people to do their part it working against it. You mentioned the bloggers and their successful mass effort in supporting Obama. I think those bloggers have their game down pretty good. A good example would be the soldiers throwing the puppy off the cliff. If I have my facts straight, in that case people posted the soldier personal information online, and his family got continuous phone calls about what an evil son they raised and how it would be good if he was KIA, which in turn earned the incident a lot of coverage. I could very well be mixing my facts up from multiple stories, but my point is, these guys often manage to take issues that concern them and pull them into the mainstream by being very vocal and going through lengths to do things like provide contact information for where people can contact somebody and let them know how they feel. 

With my original post, I intended to get discussion going about the differences between America's youth and youth of a place like Uganda, and how the one in a seemingly hopeless plight manages to be hopeful, and the one with a whole world of opportunities open to them manage to be depessed, suicidal, and hopeless. I made this thread because it was something I had been considering in my own mind for much of the evening, and was interested to hear what others thought on the topic. Had I been more interested in spreading knowlegde and increasing awareness of the situation in northern Uganda and the Sudan, I would have taken the lead of guys like FF, and made a well written informative post giving the most important details of the situation, then informing people of how they could help, who they could contact, or what website to go to to find out more information and make donations. Even in just one or two of us had gone to that site and donated a couple of bucks, it would have made a difference. Five years from now someone could be google searching the Uganda and come across my post, read that information, and go to the website and make a donation themselves, making another small difference.

So yeah, I most certainly think discussing things on the internet can make a difference and increase awareness. BUT, I don't think most of our discussions would make a difference to anyone, it is just mindless speculation and considerations spiced up with a heated argument here and there. I don't think anyone could go into our politics thread, read through all the pages, and come out the other end saying, "you know what, these guys are right, modern liberalism is stupid, I am going to be a libritarian or a conservative from now on." Our methods simple do not promote this sort of a conversion. Had we spent time discussing Mumbaj, it wouldn't have given anyone out there anymore information on the matter, they could easily read yahoo news and get more information than we would provide here, all they would get would be our views and opinions on the matter, which would not be likely to sway their own views regarding the matter.

Okay, so I went back to read the part where Lordjedi drove this discussion into the realm of insanity by defending himself against Tiptup accusing him of wanting to commit terrorism. Come on Tip, you are just being ridiculous on this one!! This exchange is NOTHING like you are making it out to be.

Tiptup said:
"So, you believe, then, that all your actions are completely in line with a supreme model of daily perfection? I understand you're a person that generally take things seriously, but, if you were to honestly analyze every action and attitude of your life, you don't believe that there is even one tiny change that you could make with yourself to potentially be even better? :)"

Lordjedi's response:
"Of course not, but I don't go around planning and executing attacks on people simply because of where they're from.  Hell, I don't plan and execute attacks period.  There's plenty of people I disagree with, but I would never wish death on them or try to kill them myself.  I don't believe these actions are in line with daily perfection.  I believe these actions are in line with a civilized society."

Lj simply said that he is not in line with a "supreme model of daily perfection" but that he is also not the one commiting the acts of terrorism, so whether or not he is living his life perfectly, has nothing to do with the fact that terrorist attacks are taking place in the world, because he and his actions have nothing to do with the attacks taking place. He also adds that even though he disagrees with people, he would never dream of wishing death on them, which has nothing to do with perfection, but with being civilized. In other words, the terrorists are the ones being uncivilized, they will keep doing the same kind of attacks again and again, whether or not he reads about it in the paper each and everytime wont make a bit of a difference.

I also might add that a "supreme model of perfection" is a really odd thing to bring into the discussion? Does somebody have to read every news story and weep for every death in order to live a perfect life? After all, what is a "supreme model of daily perfection" and who sets the standards for it? And when did the notion of "perfection" or "purity" become such a pivotal part of this discussion? After the above quoted exchange took place, and the topic changed to definitions of purity and perfection, the thread kind of crashed and burned, and became a long winded argument that I am still not clear as to what it is an argument about. If there is still a need to prove where this thing went off-topic, I'd say your misunderstanding of LJ's comment (which was clear as day to me) and the mention of a "supreme model of perfect" is the precise spot, but who really cares?)

Tiptup said:

kay, and to quickly deal with some of the other tangential topics that interest me:

lordjedi said:

I'm very aware that Jesus was tempted by the same things as every other man, but he also happened to be God incarnate.  He could read other peoples minds.  He knew what they had done before and he knew what they planned to do.  This gave him a much better ability to do what needed to be done.

Real purity, much like real perfection, is completely unattainable.  If you really believe you, or anyone else, can attain real purity, then I'm sorry for you.  Jesus was perfection.  God is perfection.  No one else can hope to come close.  Purity of mind, body, and soul is a daily exercise.  We can hope to come close to it in our lifetime, but we will likely never reach it.  I don't think Mother Theresa ever reached real purity either.

According to Christian orthodoxy, Jesus did not use any of his powers as God to make the moral work of his life on this earth any easier. If Jesus had done that then his life of moral perfection would have meant nothing as a sacrifice. Jesus did not use his power as God to make morality easy for himself. Every version of Christianity that I know of keeps Christ's perfect life as a sole work of his human nature (which would therefore be distinct from his divine nature).

First, I never said he used his power to make his work easier.  I said he could read peoples minds and know their thoughts.  That allowed him to convince people that he was the Messiah.  He also used the power of God to heal people and drive out demons.  Obviously he never used the power of God to fight back against his scourging or the crucifixion.  He also prophesied what was going to happen.  How else would you explain all that other than the power of God.

See Matthew 9:1-7, specifically verse 4.  How else does he know what they're thinking?  I was looking for another entry, where a woman asks about her husband and Jesus asks which one (she'd been married 3 times), but I can't find it.  However, there are plenty of places in the Bible where Jesus reads peoples minds in order to convince them that he is the Son of God.

Otherwise, I see no reason for you to express the point your second paragraph there is making. Are you trying to say that because we can't be perfect in this life, human beings should not bother to seek moral purity?

Not at all.  What I'm saying is that it's unattainable.  We should seek to do good and be good people.  But we also need to understand that we can never be perfect or achieve complete moral purity.  Complete moral purity would be never having an evil or impure thought.  So if you see a woman on the street who is not your wife (or gf or whatever) and you think about her boobs or having sex with her, that is morally impure.  I don't claim to be morally pure either.

Tiptup said:

As for Mother Teresa, yeah (yuck), she was not anywhere near moral purity.

I also don't know where you've read the accounts that you're giving on Mother Teresa.  When I said he probably never reached moral purity, I was simply referring to the fact that no matter how pure one attempts to be, that they can never reach moral purity.

Just as we talk about the 911 attacks, or the death of an actor, or George Lucas destroying Star Wars, there can be good things that come of those actions. As such, I personally believe I should have expressed concern about the Mumbai attacks. I don't know if that's something you should have done, and if you believe that talking about Mumbai on the internet or in real life is worthless for you then that's not for me to judge. I just find it odd you think there was nothing you could have possibly done to have acted a little better and wanted you to clarify if that's what you actually believed (since I'd find that a very interesting insight into how you see yourself).

I did express concern about the Mumbai attacks, I just didn't do it here.  I did it at home with my wife and my mother, to the tune of "Bunch of assholes!"  I saw no reason to discuss it here, just like I see no reason to discuss the myriad of terrorist attacks that take place all over the place everyday.  Just because this one was carried by the mainstream media does not mean it's any more worthy of discussion than any other attack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2008#December

Why are the Mumbai attacks more worthy of discussion than any of those?  Because more people died?  Are their lives worth more discussion than any of the other lives in any of the other attacks?  Do you see my point now?  Why don't we discuss all of these attacks?  Because we'll have pages and pages of posts that all say the same basic thing "Yeah, these guys are jerks/assholes/dicks".

Tiptup said:

A question for either C3PX or lordjedi: do you believe every ruler in the world should be living in the same poverty as their poorest subjects?

No.  I believe every "ruler", as you put it, should do everything they can to make sure their citizens have every opportunity for advancement with as little interference as possible.  But since most "rulers" are assholes, they typically want to retain their power at everyone elses expense.

Also: would you rather people were given jobs where they can work for their own sustenance while simultaneously benefiting those who gave them the job, or would you rather people were just given straight charity?

Why does it have to be either or?  I think people should be able to either work for themselves or work for others in order to get ahead, but I also don't have a problem with people in need seeking charity.  "Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day.  Teach him to fish and he'll eat for the rest of his life".  But again, not everyone is raised the same way, so some people have a harder time than others.  That doesn't mean they deserve charity more than anyone else, it just means they have to work harder to get ahead than other people.

C3PX said:

So yeah, I most certainly think discussing things on the internet can make a difference and increase awareness. BUT, I don't think most of our discussions would make a difference to anyone, it is just mindless speculation and considerations spiced up with a heated argument here and there. I don't think anyone could go into our politics thread, read through all the pages, and come out the other end saying, "you know what, these guys are right, modern liberalism is stupid, I am going to be a libritarian or a conservative from now on." Our methods simple do not promote this sort of a conversion. Had we spent time discussing Mumbaj, it wouldn't have given anyone out there anymore information on the matter, they could easily read yahoo news and get more information than we would provide here, all they would get would be our views and opinions on the matter, which would not be likely to sway their own views regarding the matter.

This.  This is why I saw no point in discussing it.  If you want to send money, there's plenty of places out there to do it.  I'm sure a Google search will turn up something.

Also, since none of the discussions around here are ever simple, someone would have to read through pages and pages of crap to find the real nuggets.  It'd be easier to walk up to someone on the street and ask them what their position on something is then it would be to try to wade through all the posts on here.  And to be perfectly honest, I don't care that much what your guys opinions are on the Mumbai attacks.  I'm not saying they aren't valid opinions, I just have no desire to know what they are.  If I wanted opinions on a subject, I'd post a link to something and ask what everyone thought (just like I did with the liberals not liking Obama story I read).  That is why I didn't bring up Mumbai, that is why I didn't discuss Mumbai.

Some discussions can be helpful.  A discussion on terrorism in general can probably be helpful.  In my mind, a discussion on Mumbai is to specific to be helpful (in this case).  If it were terrorists attacks made by citizens against their own government, that would be a completely different story and that, in my mind, would be worth discussing at great length.

Lordjedi said:
I was looking for another entry, where a woman asks about her husband and Jesus asks which one (she'd been married 3 times), but I can't find it.  However, there are plenty of places in the Bible where Jesus reads peoples minds in order to convince them that he is the Son of God.

 

That is the story of Jesus and the Samaritan woman at Jacob's Well, it's in John chapter 4, I think.

Yes, John 4:16-20.

Tiptup said:

According to Christian orthodoxy, Jesus did not use any of his powers as God to make the moral work of his life on this earth any easier. If Jesus had done that then his life of moral perfection would have meant nothing as a sacrifice. Jesus did not use his power as God to make morality easy for himself. Every version of Christianity that I know of keeps Christ's perfect life as a sole work of his human nature (which would therefore be distinct from his divine nature).

Christ's perfect life is a model for us to strive for.  However, knowing that we're all sinners and "all fall short of the glory of God", we can never attain perfection.  That is why Christ's life was sacrificed once for all of us.  By accepting him as our saviour, we can be allowed into Heaven, something none of us deserves.

Now, something else I just remembered that I think is really worth discussing is this:

http://www.boingboing.net/2007/09/21/mit-student-arrested.html

I know it's US centric and I don't care.  I don't expect it to be discussed in this thread because it's already veared to far off-topic.  I heard about this story from a friend when we talked about wearing LEDs on a shirt.  The summarized version is this: MIT student hangs a circuit board with LEDs and a battery on her sweatshirt.  She goes to the airport to pick up her boyfriend.  She walks up to the counter to ask a question, not even bothering to hid the LEDs (she saw no reason to hide it).  A woman at the counter, who barely spoke english, starts to freak out.  The student tries to explain it and then gives up and decides to walk out (the counter woman actually told her she had to leave).  At that point, she's surrounded by police and they use a bomb detecting device to check the LEDs.  It's reported all over that an MIT student played a hoax (totally false) and caused a bomb scare.  The reality is that the stupid woman at the counter couldn't understand what it was and freaked out.  From the news articles, it would appear that everything turned out ok.  Well, it didn't.  It took 10 months for the entire thing to be resolved.  That's 10 months that this student had to wait in order to continue her school.  Most of this wasn't reported, just that some student at MIT played a hoax at Logan airport (which is completely false).

So you want to talk about something worthwhile?  Let's talk about the batshit crazy ass paranoia that goes on at our airports.  Let's talk about the stupid ass security people that don't know shit about anything (I once had a guy ask me about a hard drive "What's this?", then he just accepted "It's a hard drive...for a computer" without further questions).  Let's talk about the freaking morons that use the 20 million dollar x-ray machines to look at empty bags and then ask "Is your bag empty?" (happened to me at LAX).  WTF?!

If we want to take this further, I would ask why anybody with a PDA/Smartphone is even allowed into airports.  You might say "Well, everyone knows what those are".  To that I would say "Everyone knows what they look like, which makes them even more dangerous."  Terrorists have brought things through in shoes, liquids, and luggage.  They haven't recently brought actual bombs that look like bombs.  Our airport security needs to get a clue.

I know. I travel quite frequently. Most of this is painless, but flights in America are total hell. I always breathe of sign of relief when I am finally boarded on and buckled into that international flight, symbolizing the last of the total crap I'll have to deal with until my return journey. Outside the US I have always been treated with respect by airport workers, while in the US I feel constantly treated with disrespect, I feel like a kid back in kindergarden again, "Uh, do you think we could hurry this up a bit? I am awfully close to missing my flight." "Sir! We will get done when we get done! If you miss your flight, then you miss your flight!" as they thumb through every single page of every book and magazine in my bag.

The whole thing LJ said about the guy asking what the hard drive was, then accepting that when told without further question is exactly right. It almost feels like a big show to reassure us we are safe. What if LJ had had a bomb in his bag, and told the guy it was a hard drive? "Oh, its a hard drive. Okay, cool. Go ahead."

In Europe I sill feel safe, but I don't feel on edge the entire time going through the airports. The whole atmosphere is more laid back. Outside the states I really enjoy traveling. In America it feels like the policy is to treat everyone like a terrorist, regardless. 

It also seems the big international airports suffer from a large amount of employees who barely speak English. Even in foreign airports the employees often speak very good English, and even if they don't and I don't speak their language, they are usually patient and willing to use hand signals or gestures in order to help people around the airport or give instructions. The last time I was coming back into America, I came through Washington D.C., as soon as I got off the plane and was heading toward customs, a Chinese woman was all up in my face yelling "bagasheeee! bagasheeeee! bagasheeeee! See yo bagagasheeee!" Had no idea what the hell she wanted. Finally she started waving a baggage claim ticket around and we realized she wanted to see our claim tickets in order to determine who to send to the first of the line so they didn't miss their flights. A while later I heard her talking to another airport worker and she was easy enough to understand even though she had a thick accent, but whenever she'd start yelling she'd start dropping whole syllables and words out of her sentences. It was just frustrating people and making the whole painful process of feeling like cattle while going through customs even more painful. Seems like they should be more careful with that, communication in such a situation is important, and yelling "bagasheee!" at people instead of "We need to see your claim tickets!" is hardly communicating.

C3PX said:

In Europe I sill feel safe, but I don't feel on edge the entire time going through the airports. The whole atmosphere is more laid back. Outside the states I really enjoy traveling. In America it feels like the policy is to treat everyone like a terrorist, regardless.

That's because that is the policy in the US.  The ACLU and other "civil rights" groups has seen to it that the police can't profile.  So grandma gets treated the same way as Mohammed, even though Mohammed is more likely to commit a terrorist act than grandma.  Hell, sometimes grandma gets treated worse than Mohammed.

I'm not saying grandma should be given a complete pass.  I'm saying they need to use some common sense.  If I'm coming through with my wife and child in a stroller and I have a bottle of water and a can of formula, I'm more than likely a parent with food for my kid.  But instead of being able to keep the water separate and feeding my son on the plane, I have to mix the formula before going through security.  I guess they think the formula might actually be explosive material.  If it is, then I would have just blown up the whole damn terminal.  It's totally ridiculous.

Instead of putting real security measures in place, we put on this show that does nothing for security.  It makes the average person feel safer, but what good does that do if terrorists can still get through and cause damage?

I'm starting to get a better picture of the kind of person you are, C3PX. If I had to guess, you follow the emotional expressions of people to understand the context and motivations behind a discussion. (I don't know if that guess is correct, but it seems like a good guess none the less.) Since I tried to avoid using emotional outbursts in this thread (so as not to offend either of you or lordjedi) it seems (to me) that you then had trouble understanding where I was coming from. Unfortunately, though, in response you tried to pounce on me and attack me (for some reason) by accusing my arguments of being weak (or some simple example of nit picking). If you ask me, however, that was an error on your part. Simply because I try to discuss these issues in a way that is reserved (because I previously respected you and lordjedi) does not mean that my arguments are weak.

I knew I really didn't want to continue debating in this thread. I knew it would just make me angry. I don't like getting angry with people I mostly agree with on issues (since I'd rather be encouraging with them if anything). As a result, I tried to be patient, logical, and cold with you, C3PX, and with lordjedi (for the most part). However, this approach of mine seemed to only make things worse (either for the reason I outlined in my above paragraph or for some other reason) and so I got bored and had no desire to continue.

But, C3PX, you pressed the issue in the video game thread . . . of all the fucking places. For all your talk above that tries to accuse me of being some evil imp that simply wants to argue useless points until I can somehow "triumph," you clearly show yourself to be an empty hypocrite who, in my opinion, can easily be argued as going after the same thing. So, to answer the earnest wishes of your petty little heart, here you go (I hope this makes you happy because I'm not happy anymore):

C3PX said:

Okay, so I went back to read the part where Lordjedi drove this discussion into the realm of insanity by defending himself against Tiptup accusing him of wanting to commit terrorism. Come on Tip, you are just being ridiculous on this one!! This exchange is NOTHING like you are making it out to be.

Tiptup said:
"So, you believe, then, that all your actions are completely in line with a supreme model of daily perfection? I understand you're a person that generally take things seriously, but, if you were to honestly analyze every action and attitude of your life, you don't believe that there is even one tiny change that you could make with yourself to potentially be even better? :)"

Lordjedi's response:
"Of course not, but I don't go around planning and executing attacks on people simply because of where they're from.  Hell, I don't plan and execute attacks period.  There's plenty of people I disagree with, but I would never wish death on them or try to kill them myself.  I don't believe these actions are in line with daily perfection.  I believe these actions are in line with a civilized society."

    Lj simply said that he is not in line with a "supreme model of daily perfection" but that he is also not the one commiting the acts of terrorism, so whether or not he is living his life perfectly, has nothing to do with the fact that terrorist attacks are taking place in the world, because he and his actions have nothing to do with the attacks taking place. He also adds that even though he disagrees with people, he would never dream of wishing death on them, which has nothing to do with perfection, but with being civilized. In other words, the terrorists are the ones being uncivilized, they will keep doing the same kind of attacks again and again, whether or not he reads about it in the paper each and everytime wont make a bit of a difference.

lordjedi said:

Tiptup said:

I'm not saying the world is an easy place to figure out, and I'm not even sure where we would start acting better, but when I honestly look at myself, I know I'm not working with pure motives or pure judgments. To automatically assume I have achieved perfection when it comes to caring about people that face the evils of this world is not something I can do.

I'm not even going to suggest that all of my motives and judgments are entirely pure, but nothing about them involves wanting to take the lives of others simply because of their ideals.  What I said was that those muslim terrorists deserve what they get because they are terrorists.  Just like all terrorists deserve what they get.

C3PX said:

I also might add that a "supreme model of perfection" is a really odd thing to bring into the discussion? Does somebody have to read every news story and weep for every death in order to live a perfect life? After all, what is a "supreme model of daily perfection" and who sets the standards for it? And when did the notion of "perfection" or "purity" become such a pivotal part of this discussion?

C3PX said:

After the above quoted exchange took place, and the topic changed to definitions of purity and perfection, the thread kind of crashed and burned, and became a long winded argument that I am still not clear as to what it is an argument about. If there is still a need to prove where this thing went off-topic, I'd say your misunderstanding of LJ's comment (which was clear as day to me) and the mention of a "supreme model of perfect" is the precise spot, but who really cares?)

lordjedi said:

Tiptup said:

lordjedi said:

Other than that, it's yet another terrorist attack.  What more can be said?

That if the world were a better place . . . we might care a little more? :)

But who says we don't?  Just because we don't talk about it here, doesn't mean we don't care.  There's plenty of things I care about that I never discuss here.

If the world were a better place, terrorists assholes like that wouldn't exist.

C3PX said:

Tiptup said:

lordjedi said:

Other than that, it's yet another terrorist attack.  What more can be said?

That if the world were a better place . . . we might care a little more? :)

I don't think it is an issue of mankind as a whole (or the world), caring is something that has to be worked out on a more personal level.

Tiptup said:

I'm starting to get a better picture of the kind of person you are, C3PX. If I had to guess, you follow the emotional expressions of people to understand the context and motivations behind a discussion. (I don't know if that guess is correct, but it seems like a good guess none the less.) Since I tried to avoid using emotional outbursts in this thread (so as not to offend either of you or lordjedi) it seems (to me) that you then had trouble understanding where I was coming from.

I think I am starting to get a better picture of the kind of person you are, tip. A lunatic! Hopefully I am wrong (seriously, I really hope I am. I like you, just sometimes you start acting like a total ass for no reason and wont give it a rest until you prove yourself right), but are you kidding me??? I can't believe you spent this much time to bring back up this "issue", I had really thought you saw the error of your ways and gave up. 

Anyway, I don't have any games where I read people's emotions and get totally lost when people hide their emotions or any silly over the top ridiculous stuff like that, the issue here was plan and simple... v

 

Unfortunately, though, in response you tried to pounce on me and attack me (for some reason) by accusing my arguments of being weak (or some simple example of nit picking). If you ask me, however, that was an error on your part. Simply because I try to discuss these issues in a way that is reserved (because I previously respected you and lordjedi) does not mean that my arguments are weak.

I didn't try to pounce you or attack you. It is not unfortunate. I don't have any sort of rivalry against you where I must prove myself the better man. I just found the way you took the discussion, made a 90 degree turn with it and out of nowhere and for no reason starting picking on Lordjedi, to be confusing, pointless, and disgusting.

I knew I really didn't want to continue debating in this thread. I knew it would just make me angry. I don't like getting angry with people I mostly agree with on issues (since I'd rather be encouraging with them if anything). As a result, I tried to be patient, logical, and cold with you, C3PX, and with lordjedi (for the most part). However, this approach of mine seemed to only make things worse (either for the reason I outlined in my above paragraph or for some other reason) and so I got bored and had no desire to continue.

Why does it make you angry when people disagree with you? It doesn't bother me in the slightest when you and I or Lj disagree with one another. Why should it? I bet just about every one in the world disagrees with you about something, do you find that upsetting? Seriously, what can you do about? At the end of the day if you are so certian you are right about something, why should it matter that some goofball on the internet (who could be a freaking twelve year old for all you know) disagrees with you?

But, C3PX, you pressed the issue in the video game thread . . . of all the fucking places. For all your talk above that tries to accuse me of being some evil imp that simply wants to argue useless points until I can somehow "triumph," you clearly show yourself to be an empty hypocrite who, in my opinion, can easily be argued as going after the same thing. So, to answer the earnest wishes of your petty little heart, here you go (I hope this makes you happy because I'm not happy anymore):

I didn't mean to press the issue in the video game thread, and it is not like I just pulled the issue back out of my ass and put it back on the table. What you were doing in the video game thread was very similar to what you were doing in this thread before, that is why I mentioned it.

I never accused you of being an "evil imp", but obviously you do enjoy arguing or you feel the need to prove yourself right. Maybe I do "go after the same thing", I certianly don't mean too. I enjoy a decent debate where both sides remain civil, maybe some slight verbal jousting is permissable, but once it gets into the vicious and angry name calling, the fun kind of goes out of it for me.

Go back to the video games thread, and read the posts from just before you and I butted horns in there. Jay and I disagreed with each other several times, but we never got into a huge name calling debate over it, we just argued our cases and went on. I was just enjoying a fun discussion on video games, and suddenly you put on the boxing gloves (go back and read out posts again, this page is where the conversation fell apart, http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Video-Game-Thread/topic/1456/page/162/) Chaltab's post following yours in which he says, "No need to get hostile..." pretty much sums it up.

My "petty little heart" never wished for this discussion to be reopened, nor did I wish for you to be unhappy. I can certianly say I am not happy, as I rather liked you and valued your friendship on these boards. Sorry to see you feeling this way toward me.

I haven't read the rest of your wall of text yet, just don't have the time at the moment. Since you went through all the trouble to write it, I will take the time to read it, but I don't expect to respond to it. I said how I felt in this post, and I have very little interest in arguing the topic at hand and absolutely no interest in fighting with you anymore.

EDIT: Okay, I know I said I'd eventually take the time to read the rest your post, but never mind. I read a few more sentences and it is just you cussing your head off and insulting me. I don't need to read that crap. And seriously, calm down. I can tell you were really pissed off ehen you wrote that post, I have no idea why you see it worth getting worked up over.