Town Quixote's

Sigh

Member
Hey Y'all
Question about law... Town you had a thread where we could ask about law, yeah?
I have a question about a man dying when his only offspring grew up without him in another part of the country...does that son have any right to inherit?
Also if the man did put this son in a will could his widow (who is childless and hostile toward first wife and child) claim the son has no right to receive anything on grounds the decedent had Alzheimer's?

Hope y'all are all alright TOL!
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
Hey Y'all
Question about law... Town you had a thread where we could ask about law, yeah?
I have a question about a man dying when his only offspring grew up without him in another part of the country...does that son have any right to inherit?
Also if the man did put this son in a will could his widow (who is childless and hostile toward first wife and child) claim the son has no right to receive anything on grounds the decedent had Alzheimer's?

Hope y'all are all alright TOL!
I do have that thread and I've answered you in general terms relating to the disposition of assets there. I think you'll find the information helpful. Click on this link for it.


For the rest, the Thursday Evening Gazette is a couple of posts back. :cheers:
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
The Tuesday Morning Gazette


So Tot said...
We always blamed our Grammar for everything
A saintly woman who deserves better. :plain: what?


Before trying to besmirch the poor subject...
She used to skin eels alive
Who hasn't? :plain:


Had a discussion about social Darwinism with chrys...
there have to be limits
I get that but freedom is so important
have you ever seen an area where dogs run free?
it is amazing how they all get along
someone told me that they police themselves
I find that hard to believe but I want to believe it
The difference being they are in a position to literally police themselves. I don't think the strays of the world are going to ruin TOL, but I think the concentration of it, over time, has hurt. There's a level for likely any sort of enterprise of this sort. The nature of the discourse and the constitution of the membership, coupled with what is and isn't allowed and how equitably the rules are enforced will have a great deal to do with whether the best sort remain or, as importantly, aid in the expansion and retention of membership.


While over in the why men won't marry you thread...
...Why is it okay for a man to hit another man, or a woman to hit a man- but it's not okay for a man to hit a woman?
It's not okay for anyone who isn't acting in self defense to hit anyone. It's a battery and against the law.

Well, if that is the only answer, then a man hitting a woman should be seen as no different than a man hitting a man or a woman hitting a man.
No. It should be treated, as a matter of law, the same as it would for anyone. We see it differently because we understand the physiological differences between men and women and a man striking a woman resonates with us the way a bigger man striking an appreciably weaker man would. It smacks of the bully.



Then chrys tried to blame...
...peyton can take credit for all the overpaid quarterbacks in the nfl that haven't even made it to the super bowl let alone win one
There are fifteen starting quarterbacks with bigger contracts than Peyton. If you're going to criticize the position pay you'd have to start with Aaron Rodgers 110 million, 22 mil a year, 54 mil guaranteed and not Peyton with his 34 mil contract with 15 mil guaranteed.

If you're going historically, you can go back to Green Bay, where Favre inked a 100 mil contract in 2001, the same year Brady signed a Pats contract worth 103 million. In 2002 Donovan McNabb got a 115 mil dollar deal from Philly. 2003, Daunte Culpepper signs with Minnesota for 102 mil. Also in 2003, Michael Vick signs with Atlanta for 130 mil.

In 2004 Peyton signs a 98 mil deal. So making him the poster child for quarterback salaries makes you the poster child for doofi.

the quarterback must know that his salary is preventing most teams from getting the other players that they need
So, the quarterback should take less so other players can take more.

Socialist. :)



Next thing you know...
at least knight knows that this place is a little more interesting because of me

Abd meshak said...
I think so about my presence here too but they don't seem to agree with me.

In fact, this place is a lot interesting because of my input:)
Well, I know the Humble-Off wouldn't be the same without you two.

That's for sure. :plain:



Before aCW was back on point...
...it's so very important to you that the academy awards have some "color" to them
Not if the year doesn't justify it. But as I noted, Creed was more widely regarded than a few of the movies that were nominated instead. That irks me.

instead of acknowledging that perhaps the movies nominated were nominated because they were good?
Rotten Tomatoes rating composite:
Spoiler

The Revenant 83%
The Big Short 88%
Bridge of Spies 91%
The Martian 92%
[Creed 94%]
Room 96%
Spotlight 96%
Fury Road 97%
Brooklyn 98%


That's just one example of a "What?" moment from this year among a handful.

Why must liberals see skin color in everything that they encounter?
It's probably all the black people who were omitted of late despite garnering more critical praise than some of the efforts honored.


And I'll wrap discussing marital relations with Trad...
At no point did I say that it is, categorically speaking, acceptable to beat one's wife to death.
Trad, if you're defending striking someone except in self-defense or in defense of someone else in jeopardy, your mistake is only a matter of degree. To suggest it as a privilege of one sex compounds the error.

...I wish, however, to point that I have said nothing which would not have been considered, if not commonplace, at least analogous to commonplace sentiments of the ancient Romans (in which the paterfamilias (father of the family or head of house hold) held power of life and death over his wife and children) and the Greeks (who, if he caught his wife in adultery, was perfectly in the right to sacrifice her at the family altar to the ancestral gods).
That's your yardstick? The conduct of slave owners who crucified Christ? And Greeks whose conduct was so questionable it was difficult to separate the men from the boys in more ways than can be comfortably related here?

Well...yes, you're at least their moral equals. :think:

Tomorrow? More handbaskets and handgrenades. :plain:
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
The Sunday Morning Gazette


Trad continued to try to justify beating as just punishment for infidelity...
...Is it intrinsically unjust to beat a batterer?
Yes. The easiest illustration would be found in ordering the rape of a rapist.


And, more broadly...
...Rape is intrinsically evil. Beating somebody is not.
Rather, sex isn't intrinsically evil. Rape is. Beating someone isn't intrinsically evil. Battery is.

Your whole argument presupposes a "moral equality," so to speak between State and private citizen. Again, this is a modern notion.
Not really. The modern notion of right is mostly about including the woman, though men have been forbidden to act certain ways toward their wives in antiquity and Christianity has some fairly strong things to say about how we are to behave. Ways inconsistent with berating and degrading and treating a wife as property.

Beyond that a big helping of "And?" Antibiotics are new. What, you want leeches? :plain:

...the modern description of marriage simply seems too weak to me.
So you're only partially corrupted or partially enlightened.

As always, your words are a constant testimony to legal positivism. :nono:
In the same sense a scientist is an advocate for gravity.

My personal system of justice and government has Christ at its head, literally. Absent that our imperfect form will do.


Then Cruc chimed in...
I notice that it's mainly women and feminists who make this argument time and time again. It's because the country's laws give women more privilege and promise over men, and they know it.
Well, no. You're mistaken. The law gives them a thing mostly unknown before it, equality in right. Why that should bother you should actually bother you.

We live in a society where women's issues are priority and men's are ignored and systematically thrown out.
Complete nonsense, which is why when queried for particulars, as I did not that long ago, you don't provide them.

If they were stripped of those special rights,
Which they don't have and you haven't remotely or particularly illustrated.

they'd be telling a whole different story just like during first wave feminism :rolleyes:
Speaking of stories...


Then Trad returned with...
...What does the woman deserve?
She deserves equality before the law, both in respect and protection and in punishment in violation. Any other application of the word is subjectively problematic. Her conduct has breached the contract with her husband. All sorts of remedies follow. She is no longer entitled to the marital estate. Out of Eden goes she, so to speak with commiserate penalties attaching, as noted prior.

What punishment is proportionate to the injustice she has committed against her husband and against the State?
She's going to lose her status and many of the privileges the state had set aside for her, as she should. I set out her part above and prior.

But she has not battered either the state of husband and she has killed no one.

On judging...
1. There is no question about the matter of fact.
There's almost always a question and every bald fact can have mitigation, context that changes its nature. Without an intervening authority you'll never get to that or past many an errant assumption.

You invite tragedy, even before the consideration of the penalty, which is tragic enough. But even if it didn't and even if the facts were clear and asserting somehow that a beating was in any real sense more than vengeance rooted in emotional pain on the part of the husband, was in some way actually just, you invite disproportionate punishment within your context.

Why? Because one wife may endure what another cannot. One husband may inflict what anther can or will not. Regardless of the outcome threshold the administration of this "justice" cannot be uniform and therefore cannot be proportionate.

...So according to Christianity, it's not true that "a woman's body is not her own, but is her husbands," huh? Is that what you are saying?
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." One flesh, not one with flesh grafted onto him and have fun with that.

You'll tell me that a woman has a right to bodily integrity, and this precludes the possibility of her being beaten by her husband.
I tell you that she has the same right as her husband and that no one has the right to beat someone who isn't threatening their person or the person of another.


Cruc continued his run...
Homewreckers and family splitters are typically women.
Filing for divorce doesn't make you the reason for the divorce.


While Must continued to aid the "Get Must Away From There" fundraiser with...
Homeless persons have been known to take a dump in the back aisles of libraries.
I can't imagine where you live, but you really have to move away from there. :plain:


Continued to illustrate with CSlewdicrous...
The woman could strip naked and press flat against a stranger's body who is drunk and she would have no blame whatsoever in making it more likely for a rape to happen in his mind.
The moment your force yourself upon someone sexually and against their will you're a rapist. It's your action that defines you. It doesn't matter how you think to justify it. You could say she showed too much ankle, went without a bra, or danced naked in front of you.

If it makes you feel better you could prosecute the strange woman for public indecency, lewd acts, an unwanted touching, etc.


And...
You are a lawyer and you have poor.reading comprehension.
If you're going to climb on that horse you might want to pay attention to your punctuation when you make the swing.

...The woman in my example bears responsibility for making the CHANCES of a rape increase astronomically by her actions.
If I set my wallet down on on the table and walk away for a minute I'm not the reason you're a thief.


Then glory said...
I guess Rusha is unaware of the power of a Delilah. :think:

But I know for a fact she thinks men without a "backbone" can be taught to grow one. :chuckle:
Another one of your inside jokes ? :duh:
Samson has her tongue. :plain:


Tomorrow? Upheavals, politics, rape...and a Muslim somehow...go figure. :plain:
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
The Next Day Gazette


So, if I had my wallet stolen after leaving it on a bench...
...but you are guilty of losing your wallet
You could call the action careless or indifferent, but I'm not guilty of anything, because I haven't done a single thing that's wrong. I've simply had my wallet stolen.

Mothers have known this for generations. And no boy caught with his hand in the cookie jar blames the cookie.


Then CSclueless wrote...
Is it in the American law code? If not, its not worth his time reading.
Well, I read you sometimes and you're not in the American...point made. :eek:



Meanwhile, Trad was busy proving the race doesn't always go...
1. Send them all back to Africa, never again to return to Europe or the Americas
You do realize that most of the blacks you're sending back belong there about as much as I do in Norway and parts of Ireland.
2. Ensure their cultural, intellectual and economic prosperity
Why does that part remind me of Steve Martin's Christmas wish?
...I just personally don't want to have to deal with them,
Deal with them?
or else, be inconvenienced even by the mere sight of them. :)
Are you slightly less off-put by a really good tan? :plain:



Elsewhere, CS was explaining why lying then is a sign of honesty now...
You really cannot be this dense. I was pretending to be someone else to save my rear end so to speak. I probably would not have been allowed to stay if I revealed myself. It doesn't matter if other people create socks to troll. What matters is why I did it. It was to troll, but you already knew that.....I hope...or you really at dense.
Appraise the weather as it suits you. It will not make it rain an inch. :nono:


Then the Trad business came roaring back...like a fire...on a front lawn...
So the thought of it makes him sick, so what?
So it speaks to a deficiency in him that I hope he addresses one day for the better.
He has a right to his opinions and preferences like everyone else.
Sure. Everyone has the right to be a racist. And everyone else is free to note it and understand it as the context when matters pertaining to race come along.



And..
Im not retarded town, i understand what you said, and disagree with you.
Disagree with what? I said his writing is objectively hard to mistake for anything else. You disagree? Okay, you're entitled, but you'd only finished saying you didn't know if he was or wasn't. :idunno:

...Now go ahead and tell me you understood that too and that I must think you've been repeatedly hit in the head with a claw-hammer. :mmph: :eek:

What different about what you think is deficient in him, and your judgement - are you God?
I don't have to be God. I only have to be able to read him speaking to shipping blacks from this country, admiring racist music and vomiting over the thought of interracial marriage to understand his position and that he's unashamed to hold it, is comfortable in it and isn't invoking grace, a thing he would eschew as Protestants understand it, to begin with.


Talked marriage with Ars...
There CAN BE the reality of rape in marriage, but how the heck can it be proven?
Testimony, signs of struggle, injuries, especially of a defensive nature, history of abuse. Any number of things can help establish the claim.

Now, in the Protestant Confessions, Marriage is pretty much no longer a Sacrament, but is a secular affair with human vows made before God, rather than a God Sanctified Union...
It's simply a continuing of the principle that the state isn't a religious instrument. Marriage remains a union of man and wife before God in any Protestant church I can think of though.

Marriage is hard...
It's work, but the sort of work you can't wait to get home to or you're doing it wrong. :)



Before glory came totting her favorite bone...
...what a pompous man you are under that mask. :think: Such delusions of grandeur.
...I think it's interesting that you believe if I actually thought I was doing or being or in some measure above you that would be a delusion of grandeur. A consideration of the natural inference is equally ironic and a bit funny.



Trad lent a helpful, clarifying hand...
Interracial couples means more black people later on down the line. :nono:

Personally, I'd rather die childless.
Yeah, I can understand why some people just can't put their finger on whether or not you have race issues. :plain:


Tomorrow? Confessions, drums, questions and chrys goes on unemployment. :plain:
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
The Camptown Gazette



Addressed the unrepentant Trad on a point of degradation...
What Zoo "takes me to task for" is my asserting that all human beings are made in the image and likeness of God, but that I don't wish to be inconvenienced by the mere sight of black people. Is that perhaps a moral failure? Perhaps. But in the same way as not wanting to be bothered by the mere sight of anyone is a moral failing.
Two things. First, perhaps? As a Christian, especially given your doctrinal particulars, that's not a thing to leave in the "maybe" category. Secondly, you know that it isn't the same as not wanting to be bothered by everyone. By its nature it carves a particular group from that everyone and that implies a particular, distinguishable problem. Are you hiding that problem from us or hiding from it yourself?

Things that bother us do so for a reason. Being bothered isn't the reason, it's the response.

Personally, I find what "accompanies" the black "brand" to be distasteful, unpleasant, etc. Aside from the fact that the "aesthetic" is off, it also carries with it the probability of a sheer lack of class, erudition, culture, education, a tendency for socially unacceptable and inconsiderate patterns of public behavior, etc. It also indicates the probability of an entitlement mindset, a deep-seated mistrust and racist attitude against white people, an unhealthy fixation on race and racial injustice, etc.
The problem with trying to speak for or pretend to have an understanding of a people you only just gave every reason to believe you spend no time among and have no serious, sustained connection to should be obvious...so why isn't it to you?

You see what you want to see and protect that projection by a lack of association. It's a neat circle you've drawn around yourself.

What would the average black person and I possibly have in common?
You don't meet the average anyone. You meet people.

...Do you really want me to talk about the correlation between blacks and crime, civil unrest, "bad" political views, etc?
I want you to understand that where education is present and poverty isn't your complaints disappear faster than a Klansman at an NAACP rally.

This is not, of course, to assert that any person should be mistreated or treated with anything less than dignity, respect and kindness.
There is nothing dignified, respectful or kind in your suppositions and want of consideration, in your disdain or the desired fruits of it.

By way of illustration:
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I don't care how black that cashier is, how long her fingernails are, how pathetic her attempts at coherent speech are and how much of the "black attitude" she has

But that's a matter of taste. And who are you dispute with me about a matter of taste?
Someone who, unlike you, grew up seeing the dehumanizing fruits of it and the tragic waste on all sides.



So glory attempted to contextually defend Trad for mouthing the N word at a black woman who turned and saw him do it...
He was in a closed car and the girl turned her head and may have read his lips.
"But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." Matthew 5:28


And this is what she got out of it...
Here ya go....show me the lust. :chuckle:



Meanwhile, Cruc was having an argument with himself...
Black people aren't really offended by the word.

Black people only find the word offensive because they, themselves, have internal animosity toward whites. This is why they say it so freely among themselves but go crazy if a white person does.

So, which side of your mouth are you arguing out of tomorrow? :plain:



Had a word or two with Angel that was helpful in clarifying...
I disagree. I believe wrong is wrong and sin is sin,
We aren't disagreeing on that point. But you're just not going to tell me that you think if someone calls you a...mule and someone else throws the dreaded C word at you that you're going to find them equally offensive. Or if you do, you're unusual. With most humans, sexual profanity carries more shock and weight. So, "Go to hades" will offend, but not on the level of "Go enjoy congress with yourself".

Just so, cracker (the more offensive between honky and the like) just doesn't have anything like the weight of the N word. When I was a kid if some little cracker wanted to upset another little cracker he'd drop the N bomb, not "cracker". Cracker would get you a shrug on the order of "whatever". The reason is sort of obvious. Now redneck might cause a guy to bristle, but that was a class thing.

and just because i might 'understand' something - it doesnt magically move it into the other category.
All crimes aren't of the same weight and all insults aren't either. History and usage is contextual and impacts the impact.



And began conversation with glass on a thing or two related...
Does the mere existence of greater crimes, in any way excuse those committing lesser crimes?
No. But we don't put people to death for jaywalking and we respond and feel about rape far differently than we do speeding.


Tomorrow? A nose is a foot and similar nonsense. :)
 
Last edited:

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
The TGIF Gazette


Glass gave me the perfect window to set out a clear position on racist rhetoric...
Originally Posted by glassjester
Offense is in the ear of the beholder.
But the ear is fashioned by something other than biology in this regard. Like I noted earlier, all words don't carry the same weight and there are reasons why. I can't decide that you calling my grandmother a sexually charged and insulting thing isn't insulting or powerfully so. The insult and impact is rooted in the culture we share and in a biological truth that gives it force. She is a woman and there is a history of powerful denial and pain in the distinction of our sex.

It's the measure of truth and its nature, the thing taken and bent to perform an insult that mostly generates its power.

A word can only offend people as much as they want to be offended.
Continuing my answer, ****** is one of those words. It was used to both identify and dehumanize and is rooted in an old truth shaped into a horror.

If someone calls you a cracker, that is rooted in your race as well, but it's a race that wasn't treated like property, mutilated and raped and systematically denied the right and respect human beings should be born to--and that happened, generationally here, within much of the brief life of our nation and common culture. Some of it within living memory.

The lowest white in our culture, for generations, could sneer and feel and act and literally, after a fashion, be superior to the most powerful and deserving of praise among blacks. He could hang one for smiling at a white woman. He could deny all a vote, the ability to read or walk with their heads up and their eyes on a level. There is nothing in our experience to rival that power so we have no particular reason to think our ability to shrug off an insult that can only reflect a toothless attempt to echo that real, historic power is any statement of comparable restraint on our part.


While Cruc decided...
Originally Posted by Crucible
Black people aren't really offended by the word...Only a fool sits there and believes they are actually offended by it- or maybe one just never spent too much time around them to realize it.
...feel free to conduct this experiment. Find a place near where you live where there are large numbers of black people to be found. Go among them and greet each with, "My ******" and smile. Let us all know what happens, how amused and unoffended by the use they are. I'll even kick in a little for your recovery time.


And later, after the sand shifted, I noted...
Originally Posted by Crucible
Black people aren't really offended by the word.

Originally Posted by Crucible
Black people only find the word offensive because they, themselves, have internal animosity toward whites. This is why they say it so freely among themselves but go crazy if a white person does.
So, which side of your mouth are you arguing out of tomorrow?


While glory's steady attempts to paint me as a mocker of AS required the quote she wouldn't post...
Originally Posted by Town Heretic
No. One of the limitations of people who suffer from Asperger's is a difficulty in understanding inference. You appear to suffer from the same limitation, if without the understandable excuse.

I'm not making fun of people with Asperger's. And as it pertained to you I mean it, literally. Your response to my scripture about lust was a fine illustration of precisely what I'm speaking to.


Glory stopped by, again and again...
Originally Posted by glorydaz
Such a feeble attempt....I'd be embarrassed were I you.
If you were me you'd at least be capable of it.

Elsewhere, Cruc continued his white man's burden victimy tour...
Ever think that it may have a bit to do with the fact that those like yourself are so paranoid about offending minorities that it starts to tread on other whites and they get angry?
Riiiight. It's the liberals and blacks who force poor, decent, hard working white people to dress up in bedsheets and drop the N bomb. :plain:

I didn't think it was possible, but you just topped yourself.

Of course not, because white people don't have the right to be angry or act out on anything.
Rather, they lack the same thing you demonstrate a want of here: sufficient reason.


And...
I read an article about a group of black men kidnapping a mother and her son. They went to a house where they then beat and raped both of them. Afterward, they made them drink chemicals to hide the evidence of being orally ravaged before killing them. Guess what? Didn't get passed local news.
I don't know that any of that's true. Who were they and where did it happen? Let's see what was reported and by whom. It's hard to believe on the face of it, because, you know, the sentence for murder and rape would be enough to basically get them the maximum sentence for their crimes. But, criminals aren't always that smart, so just give me a couple of the particulars, town, victims, so I can pull it up independently.

He never did.


Glass said...
Originally Posted by glassjester
I'm having difficulty deciding whether or not to be offended. :)
Then you aren't.


Before glory came back with...
Originally Posted by glorydaz
For those who have missed my intent, it's to rub Town's nose in his bigotry ...He's such an intellectual snob
But from your perspective who isn't?

He had hoped to say how stupid I am without actually saying it.
No, I can honestly say I have no idea how stupid you are. I'm mostly wondering how stupid you have to think everyone else is to try this bit.

But it backfired[/B], because he has ended up belittling those with Asperger Syndrome by insisting that must be why I'm so "thick" as he put it.

Except that I didn't do that or put it that way...

Saying people with Asperger Syndrome are too thick to get his inferences

Which I literally never did.

is worse than Trad's racism....at least Trad admits he doesn't like blacks.
I really think the N bomb dropping and musical choices made that one of the most anticlimactic moments in TOL history though.



And then Climate found the party...
Originally Posted by ClimateSanity
For such high learning, his rhetoric is the opposite of articulate.
Not if you understand the meaning of articulate.

...The motivation to create this style of rhetoric is to be to insult
Now that was inarticulate.

and then be able to act like it was the furthest from his mind.
Well, no. But thanks for thinking of me, again.


Then glory, fresh off a last word gambit...
Originally Posted by glorydaz
Priceless. He simply can't keep himself from showing his bum.
I understand why you'd rather have a clear shot free from answer, but it's adorable that you try to make the answer the problem.

Else, which of you three is my bum again?

And all I have to do is make a post for everyone to see you, apparently.

Tomorrow? More locked threads, maybe... :plain:
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
The Phoenix Special Gazette


Spoke to Cruc a little more about the vagaries of race relations...or his posits...
...You will say 'of course they are responsible too',
I've said that anyone who uses racist rhetoric and who is a racist is wrong. Unless we're addressing a particular individual and incident, as with Trad, there's not much more to say.

But by your own volition, you open fire on anyone white.
You are so close to calling me a race traitor, aren't you?


Made a point about the location of the sky with chrys...
did it occur to you that once the software was created it could be available to others?
Like the formula to Coke? :plain:


Underscoring the point for glory et al...
So, there are secrets, all sorts of important trade secrets, that corporations and individuals manage to keep guarded and they're worth billions of dollars of economic power. If Apple knows or can ascertain a way to comply with a court order relating to discovery of a known criminal enterprise utilizing its product then it should do so. There is no consumer/corporate privilege. But there is a corporate/citizen responsibility to aid law enforcement in discovery.


Waxed the boards about love...
I love...
Spoiler


an ice cream cone on the beach in summer
chili and a good sandwich on thick
homemade bread in the winter
a great movie in a darkened theater
a good book and a chair large enough to curl up in
and comfortable enough to want to
music that takes away everything but the moment
a crossword puzzle clever enough to make you laugh
the sound of a river or the sea
the feeling of warm sun on your face on a cool day
a cool breeze on a hot one
the smell rising up from a dirt road as the rain comes on
chasing the moon along a backroad late in winter, windows down
cold air streaming through, Kinda Blue wrapping around me
the dome light on, the heater pouring warmth around my feet
and feeling like a bubble of light in an ocean of emptiness
discovering a new joy
recalling a forgotten one
a word of encouragement from a friend
the way a piano feels under my fingertips
the satisfied silence at the end of every good thing
fine chocolate
the embrace of someone you've been to war with
sunsets from the water
sunrise on a mountaintop
scars that matter
laugh lines
gratitude
joy...


Then Cruc had a few more choice words about...
...You all are incapable of having a real conversation that goes into the depths of men's issues as it pertains to women- just stick to what you're good at and rail against men.
Seems more that you want to spend all of your time talking about the victimization of a group that's largely responsible for the thing being condemned and do so at the expense of the groups mostly victimized by them.


Before chrys was back with...
apple has already told us they don't have the means to do it
That's not the same as saying they can't do it. It's a very clever bit of lawyer generated denial, which is why the government isn't happy.
so should they be forced to create it?
Should a bank be "forced" to mine its records and turn over statements relating to the financial dealings of terrorists or drug smugglers? Of course they should. Now given the nature of the request they should be compensated for the time and work it takes to comply.


Ending with...
just to put this in perspective
would you give up your guns if obama promised to protect you?
That's not putting it in a rational perspective. Would you comply with a court order to turn over business records on someone who had been convicted of conspiracy and racketeering? That's much closer to the case here. Because no one is asking Apple to turn over their property. No one is asking them to even divulge trade secrets.


Then Cruc said...
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Crucible
:) Definition Time With Crucible :)

Racist- a white man who does not subject himself to self loathing
Thank you for admitting that you simply make up most of what you believe. :thumb:


Had a close call with a dangerous newbie...
Can you not create a poll if you are a newbie and don't have enough post counts?
Yes, you cannot if you haven't...I mean no, you can't unless you have...I mean...


iGTVR.jpg



While in another sealed record...
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Angel4Truth
Why does it bother you if people wish to live around others of their own races and or beliefs?
For the same reason I find it objectionable when Trad drops the N-bomb. Segregation carries with it some fairly ignorant and hostile premises...I'd say there's a profound difference between wanting to be around people who think and believe as you do and desiring to exclude. Make no mistake about it, however gentle the phrasing in reverse, the reality is one of exclusion and disdain predicated on irrationality, when it comes to racism.

Beliefs are a choice we make. Race and gender aren't. You can be Catholic or Baptist, conservative or liberal and be poor or rich, white or black, male or female, etc. That is, ultimately we include or exclude ourselves. It denies our neighbor nothing more than our agreement and will only impinge on his mood, if he insists on contemplating the divide.

Do you think all those people are "racist" or deficient because they just desire to live and work around others like them?
Do I find people wanting to live in communities and work in environments that exclude minorities deficient and racist. Yes. I do. Because that's the reality behind segregation. A divide along racial lines isn't much of a divide along meaningful ones. White isn't a culture and white's are a disparate bunch absent that collective uniformity of pigmentation, which itself voices no particular opinion.



The question came up again...

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by glorydaz
I failed to pass TH's new Asperger test.
For those who love a technical challenge here's that test again: do you have Asperger's?

:plain:



Tomorrow? Eyewash...lots and lots of eyewash... :smack:
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
The Post Hump Day Depression Gazette



On one of the latest memes floating about...
Although not Catholic, I think [the Pope] is justified in trying to influence who people vote for. (And..... I think I disagree with the Pope about "walls". Didn't God help Nehemiah with a wall? Does the Vatican have walls to keep outsiders out?)
The Vatican walls were put up around 850 after Saracen pirates damaged St. Peters. A lot of places put up walls back then. It wasn't about immigration...unless you take a creative view. :)


And...
foreigners who are the head of an organization that 22% of americans belong to and from whom they take their marching orders?

do tell
People already tried that approach before Kennedy was elected. It was a silly argument then and it's not any better now.

The fact is that the Pope isn't commanding American Catholics on the point and isn't trying to...he's speaking his mind and Catholics will do the same thing that Protestants do about it, which is make up their own minds.


That momentarily morphed into...
so you're saying that the pope doesn't influence the decisions of his flock?
A far cry from your initial, alarmist "take their marching orders" approach. Keep that up and you'll have a rational point to put your eye out with before you know it.


Chyrs was back trying to polish a bit of questionable fruit...
...when [the government] asked [Apple] to break in the phone they politely replied we can't do that for many good reasons
Well, as long as they obstruct justice politely...that's a really different story. :rolleyes:


And glass asked a question half-full of suspicion...or was it half-empty of trust?
Why shouldn't an OSAS believer kill himself?
Because we are no longer our own.
Because there is value in life and a purpose in witness.
Between those two poles you have enough reason to life as an ambassador and example.


While Eeset felt inclined to consider...
Too many people on this planet. So who cares? :idunno:
Quoting Gandhi again? :plain:


Over in the shutdown thread, questions were whirling...
Is the shutdown over?


Until Steko said...
No one knows the day or the hour.
But in our case it's mostly because the larger readership can't tell time. :plain:

...or read.


Gave a one sentence movie review...
Specter: shaky and I wasn't stirred. :plain:


THall combined the worst of chrys with the worst of Crucible...
The Feds have multiple cases
and are trying to force their way in
in multiple jurisdictions, pay attention.
Cite two.

And he never did...


Speaking of...
He reserves criticisms for Protestants and America while extending his arm to Muslims and Jews. It's cut and dry, I don't need to post any kind of citation.
Not in the quotes I've noted. And you just saying a thing is so isn't enough. Heck, you aren't always consistent even inside of that approach.
Spoiler

Originally Posted by Crucible
Black people aren't really offended by the word.

Originally Posted by Crucible
Black people only find the word offensive because they, themselves, have internal animosity toward whites. This is why they say it so freely among themselves but go crazy if a white person does.

There's only one reason why the Pope is against a southern border, and it's because everything south is Catholic.
And he's from there.
From "there"? You do realize how many countries are "south" of our border, I hope. And they don't all even speak the same language...and most of them aren't trying to enter the U.S., legally or otherwise. But the Pope is the head of the Catholic church, so I'd imagine he would be concerned with his flock and with larger issues. He thinks that for some Christians to consider a wall and rejection of people in need isn't particularly Christian. Given support for those isn't an orthodox "Protestant" position, it isn't really fair to frame it that way.

Saying it's about charity is just plain bogus- America is not some dumping ground for everyone's problems, especially when she has her own to solve- if you can't take care of that homeless man under the bridge around the way, why act so concerned for people elsewhere..
It just isn't an either/or either.


Tomorrow? Mostly settling in, I imagine...You?
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
Well, other than making broad claims, some actual pointers behind said claims would have been useful, no?

AMR
You'd think, but that's just sod's pretend outrage of the moment so he can talk about and/or to me. Crucible has developed a bad habit on the point. I've asked him for particulars, citations, etc., and the response is usually along the lines you saw in the Gazette I published earlier today.
 
Top