lord of flies

it's not really a matter of definitions, it is a matter of magnitudes. most christian religions, most religions for that matter, allow their worshippers to come and go as they please (though they clearly don't want you to leave). you are not harrassed to the point of fear for your life if you choose not to continue to follow. they are also not specifically concerned with taking money from their flock either (though clearly all religions would like something in this regard). you can worship all day, and take advantage of the services they offer, without donating a single penny. neither of these is true of scientology, not even remotely. cults operate at the detriment to their followers and to the benefit of only their leaders. this is not true of most religions. certainly all religions have some cult-like aspects (any worship fits the definition of cult), but they simply do not meet the conditions generally thought of as a true cult. it's like shades of gray. some are a bit more extreme, mormon and/or latter day saints, for example (no, they are not the same thing), and others are very extreme to the point of actually being what we would normally refer to as a cult, jehova's witnesses, for example. generally, it comes down to the level of control over followers' lives that is in place. taks Wrong, the definition of the word "cult" is a religion with a charismatic founder who teaches a way of life very different from the cultural norm. By this definition, Christianity is a cult, or at least was while Jesus was alive. And L. Ron Hubbard is not alive. The word "cult" has nothing to do with how whiny they get when you don't donate or leave the church.

Scientology is no more a cult than the Catholic church is (it's up to you if you believe that the Catholics are members of a cult; it's really a matter of definitions), and the Catholic Church has caused objectively more harm in the past decade. (Just a quick reminder on some things the catholic church has hurt in the past decade: anti-condom position, sexual abuse scandals, child abuse scandals) The only difference between Scientology and Catholicism is that Scientology isn't heavily entrench in western society and thus does not automatically get the "benefit of the doubt" and get excused for its excesses. By the way, I made up a new religion: Christianity. The point of it is that God (who "talks" to me, also, I'm God) has killed himself, but not really, so that he can save you from your own sins (no matter how minor) if you choose to pronounce the magic words correctly (failure to comply will result in your soul being eternally damned to burn in fire forever and ever). Anyone care to join? The expected* donation is only 10% of your gross income. *: You better donate mother****er. How weak-willed does one really have to be in order to seriously believe in any of this ****? Talking animals, worldwide floods, towers which reach heaven... it's like something an illiterate goatherd would come up with.

Please don't make jokes about the Congo Free State. Thanks in advance.

So being an "plausibly denied" agent of US imperialism is better than being a unaccountable murderer and enemy of the people? Oh... wait... they're the same thing. Anyway, that video is old, I've seen it before.

Of course, the government "doesn't know what you're doing." What would spy fiction be without unaccountable murderers and enemies of the people as the protagonists?

If I had to guess, zero. There will probably be some that die while I request it, of course, but I hold no responsibility for it (because I asked for a modified picture of Trotsky; I have probably, by my very existence, been a negative influence on the Third World).

Could you do one with Leon Trotsky, as in this image: Then the same image w/o Trotsky (just the background and ALPHA PROTOCOL).

You said that anti-gay factions are a "very small minority." This is simply not true. You claimed that anti-gay bigotry is a minority position - if it's a minority position, why is held by the pope and cardinals??? Gays are not legally protected against discrimination for the purpose of housing and jobs at present. It would obviously be pro-gay to grant them such rights. Durr. Hate crime legislation is both ways If I pass a hate crime law which protects people on the basis of sexual orientation, that applies the other way around - if a bunch of gay guys get together and beat up a straight man (because he's straight), it's a hate crime. If a bunch of black teenagers go out and beat a white kid into a coma (because he's white), that's a hate crime too.

Um, I'm pretty sure they say Christianity is the reason they're anti-gay Republicans? Just FYI. Why don't you show how they're wrong? You see, the pope is really a powerless figurehead of the Catholic Church and does not really represent its various bishops and archbishops, despite the method in which he is selected. Furthermore Repealing DOMA, extending hate crime protection to sexual orientation, making gay marriage law at federal level, guaranteeing that homosexuals will not be discriminated against in business or housing = discrimination. Oooookay...

Thank you for admitting I am correct. No, hate crime laws punish people who commit hate crimes. If I kill a black guy because I want his money, that is not a hate crime; if I kill a white guy because he is white, that is a hate crime. Happy to help. Bluh, dunno validity, but here's one source. It's easy to find data on the fact that American transsexuals are ludicrously overrepresented in murder rates, even if that particular number is wrong.

What is the ethical difference between beating a man to death because he is black, and beating a man to death because he is gay? There is none. Yet many in the United States do not want to see the same protections granted to homosexuals as is granted to blacks, and as a consequence they still aren't. "Equal protection" means that the law will punish just as harshly - obviously, if we're talking about actual protection from murder, we are ludicrously out of whack, since 1 out of every 12 transsexuals are murdered, cops make "jokes" about their status, et cetera.

this is a ****ty post. sorry mate. "Ah, yes, the 'gay-haters' and 'anti-sex education factions' are a very small minority." That'd be why there is an entire political party in the United States which focuses heavily upon this? And why even "progressive" Obama has yet to pass any serious pro-gay reform? And why the official position of the Catholic Church (a centralized organism) is that homosexuality is a sin and so is using a condom? And why there is serious resistance to offering homosexuals equal protection from being beaten to death???

height of debate right here, resorting to ad hominem/red herring/dodging the question. It might not really matter to you, maybe you enjoy typing this stuff out, but I don't take any of your posts seriously, you are kind of like a cartoon character to me. So feel free to keep responding to stuff I post, but know I will never respond to it again nor will bother reading anything you write anymore. Oh, look, can't back up his points so he resorts to random, nonsensical attacks.

height of debate right here, resorting to ad hominem/red herring/dodging the question.

Really? What a coincidence, I find it the height of arrogance and stupidity to claim that things can't be explained by examination and systematic study. Believing that 60+% of the world's population is going to burn in hell forever and ever = hopeful? Wrong.

"Might makes right."-Killan Kalthorne "Might makes right." -Adolf Hitler I am not silent on these things, they are disgusting, horrifying actions that should be condemned and dealt with via diplomatic channels, that should appear on every news broadcast until these problems are fixed, that should not be ignored by the media and the government just because we trade with these countries, or just because we feel like we should target Iran because apparently we just can't hit the target. There should be a real plan with goals and timetables and such, made clear to the public and the world, on how we plan on reforming Afghanistan, its government, and its populous. At the moment, we are just trying to seize "control" of a ****ty country from the Taliban. These problems are too complex to be solved in a half-minute internet debate, buddy. Recognizing the problem is the important first step.

"No one has a gun to their heads, figuratively speaking." L-O-L. Did you forget about the attempted 2002 US-backed coup d'etat of Chavez in Venezuela? The fact that Saddam Hussein complied, in every possible way, with the UN inspectors and yet was still brutally ousted in a war of aggression because of Bush's... God only knows? The "War in Afghanistan," which has no clear goals or ends to reach, and has the backing of the "liberal" Obama? Do I need to remind you that the United States has determined to maintain its hegemony over the world? And that the method for this is - you guessed it - the one thing they lead the world in by a vast margin: military might? Et cetera.

Of course let's compare criticism of neo-colonialism and western imperialism to "all sex is wrong" Victorian-era prudery. This doesn't make sense, since the value of a second-hand good will always be less than that of a first-hand good, so it wouldn't make sense for companies to respond to used purchases by altering their price (assuming they even track them, which would require quite a bit of resource distribution). The miner in India is a wage laborer, and his job does not contribute to the expansion of India's living standards. A case can be made for the purchase of "sweatshop" goods, in that they service the industrialization of second-world countries allowing them to, eventually, reach first-world levels; however, this does not apply to raw resources like coltan.

I don't know. Probably someone in Ethiopia or the Congo. Happy now? Did you buy the computer used? If so, you are morally "in the clear," though you still probably have a connection to African children.

This computer was produced, marketed and sold without my involvement. Buying used things has no influence on their rate of production.

You assume that I actually purchased this computer, and further that I own it. I have never bought a new computer. I am studying actuarial science.

Ad hominem? I find it fascinating that (some of) those who are arguing against LoF accuse him of being a troll, yet keep their own comments on this kind of level. Could this subject be so hard to discuss in a civilized way? Actually, that's tu quoque, not ad hominem. "Yes, my people killed some browns in a brutal campaign to create a colonial empire, as did yours."

Who do you think mined the Coltan to produce your computer, PS2, et cetera? Hmm? Bad news, Reagan was a terrible monster who caused many, many deaths and supported Apartheid. Your respect for him is thusly despicable in context. Uh, you do in fact benefit from the third world, just FYI. Oh look, tu quoque, and combined with a justification for imperialism to boot? What do you think that every single conquering empire thought of its deeds throughout history? If you read their literature, it's clear that every last one of them thinks they were doing what was right, protecting the natives from themselves. Apocalypto was not a documentary.

We were done with killing American Indians in 1890. Took you until 1949 to give up in Indonesia. Maybe you should think about that? Neo-colonialism is not the sole purview of the US, either, I just know more about it because I live there. I accept your apology. There, happy now?

"If you give people universal health care, you'll create a culture of dependency." "If you give people unemployment subsidies, you'll create a culture of dependency." Some things are worth the cost. But the machinery was obsolete, so we'd have thrown it away otherwise??? This doesn't make sense... Then the companies will use their enormous influence on local economies and their ability to easily manipulate the US congress and make them give concessions in terms of the locals' workers rights, et cetera. Then, when the locals inevitably realize the one-sidedness of their situation and rightly seize the industries, they will use their influence on the government to create yet another CIA backed coup. Like that'll happen :roll: Honestly though, the problem is that USAID targets countries with jerkoff rulers. Why? Let me explain. USAID targets countries which are good places for corporations. Places without workers' rights and union suppression are good for corporations. Places without workers' rights and union suppression are generally ruled by corrupt kleptocrats. There. I explained it.