 |
|
xposted to  Power·to·the·People &  The·Argument·Clinic
9:31 AM 7/30/08 · The head of the Pittsburgh Cancer Study recently was quoted as saying that there's enough information available about cellphones to state for certain that parents should not allow their children to have them. This isn't news exactly, there's been information stating that cellphones were potentially cancer causing since shortly after they first came out...
...so then why are they still out there in increasing numbers?
Cigarettes & Alcohol.
It is an established fact that both Cigarettes & Alcohol are bad for us. One causes varying kinds of cancer and emphezima (bad bad bad breathing issues) and the other rots our livers and makes people crash their cars into each other on our roads. However, we still have Cigarettes & Alcohol and that's because they make so much money. A brief bit of American history that showed the realization of the badness of Alcohol, it was made illegal...
...ultimately it was decided that it should be made legal again given how much crime erupted to make it available again.
Strangely, this logic hasn't hit a number of other illegal substances. Like narcotics, which if you were unaware...alcohol is one of these too.
Cigarettes & Alcohol are still legal and in abundance, killing people daily, because they make money. We're killing off our atmosphere by burning fossil fuels yet that's legal even though there's healthier alternatives. There's actually fact to that urban legend about a car, that was made a couple decades back, that ran on water...but that would've stolen money from the oil industry so they killed it off fast.
It's not about what's good for us.
It's about what makes money.
Most of the people that support this stuff, that are in power positions, are going to die not too long into the distant future (possibly taking the rest of us along with them by killing the planet) and probably figure the more money they can have, before they kick the bucket, the better. Anyone left after they're gone...well, they're gone at that point so why should they care?
Let's see all that fundage keep them cool when they're burning in Hell!
*ahem*
Cellphones make money and damn the consequences.
le sigh...
2 Comments  Post A Comment Add to Memories Tell a Friend Link
 |
|
...or "this is the kind of thing I think about when I have insomnia".
 It's really not as far fetched as you might think. Also, it does lend itself to why there have been so many arguments and fights between Iron Man & Captain America; the fact this came into my head while thinking about my Cap community had nothing to do with this. It's just, the man takes such a stand against so many free thinking ideas that his falling in step with the superhuman registraction act that led to the Civil War and really...it seem to all go towards him being a communist.
Okay, really, it doesn't have to make sense.
Let's go with appearnace. Contrary to the origin displayed in the movie, Stark was actuall in Viet Nam when he was injured and captured and made his first armor in order to escape. At the time he went with a basic gray and while this may've been due to a lack of available paint, it also sort of gives you the sense that his popular view of America was damaged and had bucled from it's positive stance. Then he comes back to the United States and upgrades to an all yellow armor which may've subconciously been a slam against all people of Asian decent...
...not a view I share but comics many years back, in a very non·PC standard, tended to display anyone from Asia...or more specifically from China...as having yellow skin. Really quite sad but humans tend to express some forms of prejudice in subtle ways.
Mocing right along: Eventually Iron Man took on the more classic red and yellow look and despite several upgrades over the years he pretty much stuck with that color scheme. There may be many reasons why the added red came into play, don't pretend to know any of them, but it's interesting to me that one particular flag shared this same color scheme at the time.
The most popular flag of Russia, the good ol' USSR! Quite possibly the largest face of communism of that time. Yes, they're not communist now but at the time he switched to the red & gold they sure were.
 Coincidence?
I think not!
Post A Comment Add to Memories Tell a Friend Link
 |
|
text in italics ganked from  Whitney:
The California Supreme Court has announced that they will release their ruling on same sex marriage tomorrow (5/15) morning. The Court will post their decision online at 10:00 am. The anticipation in the community is palpable. Whatever the outcome, tomorrow promises to be an historic day.
My Turn:
Relatively speaking if the judgement of the courts comes down as it usually does ("you still cannot be married but may have civil unions") then I'd like to officially nominate the day as National Kick Judges In de Booty Day!
When I first enquired what exactly marriage was, inquisitive lil' thing that I was, my parents told me that went two people lvoed one antoher they often would desire a more permanent union. Now, it's possible they actually meant to say "a man and a woman" but they didn't; even if they thought that way bakc then they certainly don't now...
...and as to permanent, let's just say I think that gay people deserve to be just as miserable as straight ones :P
I'm all for gay marriage. Really can't see anything wrong with is so I hope this decision (1 more hour to go) goes in their favor. Only 2 pressing arguments I ever hear, everytime this comes up, is that gay marriage goes against God and it's not natural.
To the first I usually respond that if de Big Guy was so opposed to homosexuals than clearly It would stop making them...as I'm of the mind that while there are those that choose the path, there's also those that're born to it.
As to the against nature one? Please! There's a tonnage of species on this planet that'll boink just about any gender if the mood suits them, not even of their own species in some cases. You think dogs much care the gender of the leg of the person they're humping? Off the top of my head I know that chimps specifically and many other apes, closest species to humans, will bang just about any gender that comes there way (no pun intended). rats do it too as do dolphins. Hell, anyone that's seen Jurassic Park knows that frogs are nature's favorite little transgenders and, after poking around (not to be taken literally) a bit I've found this is true of a lot of amphibians as well.
So gay marriage is fine by me. More power to 'em!
this will likely be xposted liberally
1 Comment Post A Comment Add to Memories Tell a Friend Link
 |
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) evilgrins |
| March 12th, 2008 |
| just a quick little thing before I get into this... |
| Public |
| 94306 |
 content |
| NCIS |
| chrisians, christianity, demi-gods, dictionaries, egyptians, end of days, garfield, god, god of the jews, jesus, jews, judaism, messiah, movies, pantheons, polytheism, the crusades, the devil, the spanish inquisition, transmogrification |
|
...I don't actually believe what you're about to read. It's an interesting little thought that wandered into my head a few months back and I just kept putting off actually writing it up. Till now anyway.
No idea why.
8:25 PM 3/11/08 · If I have any one failing (DON'T YOU SAY IT!) it's that I watch an unholy (yay subtext) amount of movies. A rather popular theme among some of the more vaguely religious ones is "the greatest trick the Devil ever played was convincing humanity that he does not exist". I've heard this in a bunch of different movies, though only End of Days comes to mind right now, and it's the kinda thing that makes a mind as warped as mine wonder...
...was that really the greatest trick?
Polytheist by philosophy, there are certain patterns to religions and the pantheons they follow. Granted, I'm not sure the term "pantheon" actually applies to monotheistic religions but I'm lacking another word to use right now so let's apply it unless one of you knows the singular.
Hmmm, just consulted my Garfield Dictionary (if you didn't know I was odd by now) and it says a pantheon is a temple for Gods and not the place upon which they dwell.
Regardless, in the early days (way de fuck back when) the Jews were polytheists. A little slavery with the Egyptians and then freedom with the help of a guy who knew a really neat transmogrification for sticks into snakes, and they followed a new God. The one that became known rather quickly as the "God of the Jews".
Be it gods or a singular god, as a general rule they tend to be associated with one particular group of people...and by "group" that's usually like the people of a country or region. God, for whatever reason, focused It's attention on the Jews and thus they were under that reign...
...up until Jesus.
My personal, but unpopular theory, went along the lines of an old joke. There's a lot of Christians, though not all of them, that don't believe Jesus was simply God's offspring but literally God in human form. While that may make a body wonder who was up in the High Seat at the time God was doing the skinsuit bit on Earth, or maybe just me, there's really no way to know for sure. Regardless, there are those that believe this and thus (use that word a lot in religious posts) when they're praying to God they're actually praying to Jesus. Although, there are those that don't believe God and Jesus are the same person but they still pray to Jesus and God equally.
In most polytheistic systems where the deities have offspring with mortals, the children are often considered to be gods as well; or demi·gods depending. However, Christianity and Judaism have the 10 Commandments, as they're 2 faiths drawing on much of the same source materials. You're not supposed to pray to anyone or anything except God...
... and Jesus isn't God.
It's kind of a sore point with me seeing as I've noted Christians also tend to pray to angels, saints, etc. Praying to Jesus, the resident demi·god/Messiah in question isn't a huge leap really. Still, it strikes me odd regardless of whether or not he was God or is the heir apparant.
I'm wandering.
Here's the thing. Say you're the Devil and you, mischievous lil' evil thing that you are, are highly motivated to shake the faith or otherwise mess with the people that God has worshipping It. By taking them away from God, regardless wherever they wind up, you score a point in your win column; why wouldn't the Devil have a quota? The Jews love, worship, and adore God and you're not liking that set of circumstances because it just looks bad on your annual review. You need to find some way to detract away from that, something very effective that you know will convince everybody that there's another way to go...
...like say a son of God who can show an even truer path to paradise.
God has a rather longstanding tradition of not interfering, with the occasional miracle or direct communication to someone of faith, and the Devil is really big with throwing the proverbial monkey in the wrench (never sure I've got that term right). Hypothetically it wouldn't be outside the Devil's power to create Jesus and lead a large number of people away from God, if only in the sense that they think they're still following God but none the wiser they're not. Sure, there are those that didn't buy Jesus was the son of God or the Messiah or really worth listening to and they stayed true to their faith.
Discord really kinda puts another mark in the Devil's win column. Maybe not a full point but why mince the details?
Then you've gotta consider the rather interesting twists of Christian history. The Crusades & The Spanish Inquisition being biggies! If you didn't study your history in any detail, or just glazed over the unpleasant parts, missionaries trying to spread the Christian faith back in the day often used torture and food deprivation for those less than willing to come on over to the "true path"; standard cult recruitment methodology. Now, does this kinda behavior sound more like the living up in the clouds Godly thing to do or more along the lines of a certain horny headed naughty boy that lives down below?
What's the greater trick? Proving you don't exist to the masses or leading them away from salvation and just off in any old direction that suited whatever whim was in that diabolical lil' pointy eared head of his?
I don't believe this but you gotta admit, minus my excessive ramblings and colloquial references, it is an interesting train of thought.
So...what do you think?
( the aforementioned joke )
4 Comments Post A Comment Add to Memories Tell a Friend Link
...but let's go with the basics.
 1) Superman can't aim for spit at close range. 2) Superman tends to barrel into situations without much foresight. 3) Superman ain't the goddamn Batman! 4) Superman actually gave Batman a kryptonite ring.
6 Comments Post A Comment Add to Memories Tell a Friend Link
 |
|
So, I post to a Smallville community every so often, as I do other fandom type places, to post my observations and whatnot. Do this all the time, occasional argumenments but all in good fun and geekery. One such recent post, regarding the replacing of Clark by a very crafty Bizarro, got a lot of good following and one idiot. The guy didn't comment to anything regarding my post but instead went to my profile and copied the entirety of my interests list to the community...
...maybe within the confines of my post but still, What the fuck?!?
I went to ask why but it seems he (assuming banalust actually is a "he") deleted the comment sometime after making it. I'm guessing so as to hope it went to my email before anyone else saw what a bastard move it was for him to make. Naturally, me being me, I went to this person's journal to be more direct: 1) do not post my interests list anywhere other than my own journal if you've got an issue with it
2) why did you do that? I don't care that you deleted it...I wanna know why.
Seemed reasonable and it's not like I was presented with much more in the way of options.
Got the following response: What's wrong with you coming on to my private LJ.
YOU
ARE
A
PERVERT
You are disgusting. Go away now.
So, it's wrong for me to goto this person's journal to discover why he did such a bizarre, dare I say predatory, thing. It's okay for him to do this but label me disgusting and perverted even though I in no way presented such to him? Sure, my interests list is in my journal for all the world to see that wishes to...but it's not like that has anything to do with the situation regarding that episode of Smallville or anything else for that matter.
Am I wrong to let this get to me? I don't think so.
Feel free to browse my profile and interests list to see what banalust saw if it helps your perspective any.
2 Comments Post A Comment Add to Memories Tell a Friend Link
 The basic flaw with the whole I did not knowingly argument is this: either the player that claims this is a total moron...or he was drugged without his knowledge. Which is why, except in the obvious idiot cases, I pretty much feel anyone that says this is full of shit.
Post A Comment Add to Memories Tell a Friend Link
|
|
|
|
|
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif){kind=small}
Hic!
confused
sick
drained
thoughtful
naughty
pensive
determined
pissed off
peaceful
annoyed
sad
Parents are constantly seeking new ways to protect children from online predators when they should actually be spending more time trying to figure out ways to prevent children from advertising themselves to online predators.
ah, lamour...