Log In
Register
2.47pm
10 March 2017
Offline
Good point but most employers aren’t progressive thinking leftists who want the best for their employers. Most of them are people like Donald Trump who will do anything they can to save a quick buck.
A perfect example (and this was only for $11/hr):
If you're reading this, you are looking for something to do.
3.15pm
26 January 2017
Offline Isn’t that the entire argument against UBI? That we can’t trust landlords not to just take advantage of it? Also, again, in the long term cutting the hours of workers isn’t going to benefit the employer much, given that they’ll just lose productivity that way and so make less revenue overall.
I've been up on the mountain, and I've seen his wondrous grace,
I've sat there on the barstool and I've looked him in the face.
He seemed a little haggard, but it did not slow him down,
he was humming to the neon of the universal sound.
6.03pm
18 October 2013
Offline 
QuarryMan said
Wigwam said
However, many, many, many of the people living rough on the streets and defecating there are hooked on opioids. That’s seemingly the unpalatable reality.
And yet more proof that present drug policy (criminalisation and harsh policing) simply doesn’t work. If we want to solve this we should a) take strong steps to stop people becoming homeless in the first place and b) adopt a policy like that of Switzerland where addicts can access free treatment centres to house them until they can escape their addiction, and then give them support in finding employment so they can *Ewan McGregor voice* choose life once more.
In the 80s drug addicts and those with mental problems living on the streets were taken into care and treated……Federal and the Supreme Court ruled this was against their human rights.
11.29am
26 January 2017
Offline Do you know the specific case, @Wigwam ?
I've been up on the mountain, and I've seen his wondrous grace,
I've sat there on the barstool and I've looked him in the face.
He seemed a little haggard, but it did not slow him down,
he was humming to the neon of the universal sound.
11.56am
10 March 2017
Offline My guess would be that he’s referring to the 1962 court case of Robinson v. California where it was determined that it was unconstitutional to have laws outlawing particular acts of conduct (in this case, being addicted to narcotics). However, if i am correct about the case, this is only about being sentenced for a supposed addiction. You can still be sentenced to court ordered rehab instead of prison and most would and should gladly accept this fate.
If you're reading this, you are looking for something to do.
1.00am
18 October 2013
Offline Philosophically is it ethical to allow armed congregants in church to offer protection to church worshipers?
4.33am
26 January 2017
Offline I would assume so… is there a rule or something about not having weapons in church?
I've been up on the mountain, and I've seen his wondrous grace,
I've sat there on the barstool and I've looked him in the face.
He seemed a little haggard, but it did not slow him down,
he was humming to the neon of the universal sound.
8.56am
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline
Wouldn’t it depend on the religion as to how ethical… Judaism is an “eye for eye” religion in its teachings, while Christianity (laughably) is the “turn the other cheek” religion…
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
9.16am
10 March 2017
Offline Not really, there are plenty of Bible verses that endorse violence (most notably David And Goliath) and many Christian scholars will argue that “Thou shalt not murder” and “Turn the other cheek” have nothing to do with pacifism but rather don’t kill without a good reason and obey authority figures.
As for whether or not we should have armed congregations, it’s a tough call. On one hand, i’m glad this guy was able to come in and stop that guy from committing a far worse shooting. On the other hand, what if a gay couple walks into a more radical place of worship and the congregation decides to open fire at them? Might seem like a bizarre scenario but considering it’s typically the alt right and not the left that commit these shootings, it’s certainly possible.
If you're reading this, you are looking for something to do.
9.39am
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline David and Goliath is Old Testament, @Dark Overlord, the basis of the Judaic religion, as is “an eye for an eye”; the teachings of Christ are diametrically opposed to many of the Old Testament teachings – “Turn the other cheek”, “Let him without sin cast the first stone”, etc. The Old Testament offers a vengeful God , the New Testament offers a more forgiving God . Lots of Christians claim to believe in the New Testament message while citing the vengeful God of the Old Testament when it comes in handy.
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
12.10pm
10 March 2017
Offline Good point. However, the New Testament doesn’t completely erase the old and even Jesus himself used violence (most notably when he cleansed the temple by whipping the merchants).
Also, as you have said, many Christians don’t truly follow the Bible. They might look at a phrase like “man shall not lay with mankind, nor woman with womankind” and use that as an excuse for their bigotry yet will ignore their holy book when it comes to issues like charity and non-violence. Of course, not all Christians are like this but many still are.
If you're reading this, you are looking for something to do.
12.36pm
15 November 2018
Offline ^There’s an excellent scene in the West Wing in reference to that. Wish I could remember what episode it was.
Edit: Found it!
Love one another.
- - -
(I'm Fiddy, not Walrian)
- - -
2018:
2019: 
2020:
4.20pm
10 March 2017
Offline What are your thoughts of edgy jokes jokes like the ones Kathy Griffin and George Lopez made regarding Trump (doesn’t have to be about Trump but these 2 just happened to be).
Before i continue, let me make this explicitly clear. While i don’t like Trump, i don’t wish death upon him and i think any SERIOUS threats against him should be condemned and prosecuted. However, neither of these comments were serious and therefore fall into the category of free speech.
In the case of the former, Kathy posted a photo online of her holding what appears to be Trump’s bleeding decapitated head. However, this is clearly shock art meant to cause shock value while making a powerful statement and not a genuine threat, which means it’s protected by free speech.
In the case of the latter, George responded to a eulogist unofficially placing an $80M bounty on Trump by saying “We’ll do it in half”. Again, this is just a really immature joke that you’d expect from a 16 year old 4Chan troll, also landing it under free speech.
If you're reading this, you are looking for something to do.
4.38pm
Moderators
15 February 2015
Offline 
I’m pretty firmly pro-free speech, so as long as it’s not a direct threat of violence, I don’t care. Though I personally find such jokes distasteful, they’re not dangerous. The latter example does edge into murky territory, I’ll have to research it more.
I quite like edgy and dark humor most of the time.
The following people thank Beatlebug for this post:
lovelyritametermaid([{BRACKETS!}])
New to Forumpool? You can introduce yourself here.
If you love The Beatles Bible, and you have adblock, don't forget to white-list this site! 
5.12pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline I don’t get offended so all jokes are fine by me. Whether or not they are funny is another matter but, like Beatlebug, I have a very dark sense of humour. I didn’t find Kathy Griffin’s joke (if you call it that) funny but neither was I offended.
As said elsewhere, I’m fully in favour of free speech (tho there are limits like hate crimes) and strongly believe it’s better to let people have their say, show the world what their true opinions and challenge them than just shut them down immediately (Nigel Farage is one such detestable person). There is a cut-off point, however, and with some people, they are so close-minded and unwilling to consider a different viewpoint there is little point and it’s better to walk away.
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
5.22pm
26 January 2017
Offline I guess a lot of people were offended by Ricky Gervais’s golden globes monologue last night… I thought it was pretty funny.
The following people thank sir walter raleigh for this post:
lovelyritametermaid, Beatlebug"The pump don't work cause the vandals took the handles!"
-Bob Dylan, Subterranean Homesick Blues
"We could ride and surf together while our love would grow"
-Brian Wilson, Surfer Girl
9.20pm
5 December 2019
Offline sir walter raleigh said
I guess a lot of people were offended by Ricky Gervais’s golden globes monologue last night… I thought it was pretty funny.
I thought it was funny too….especially Tom Hanks’s reaction to it. He did get a bit…passionate though.
"....When I cannot sing my heart, I can only speak my mind...."
"....This ain't no party, this ain't no disco, this ain't no fooling around...."
||She/They ||
9.24pm
Moderators
15 February 2015
Offline I thought it was the first best thing of 2020. 
Also, mmm, hate crimes are not speech, they’re criminal acts. The only kind of speech not covered under the idea of ‘free speech’ is incitement of violence, causing a nuisance, public nudity, etc.
([{BRACKETS!}])
New to Forumpool? You can introduce yourself here.
If you love The Beatles Bible, and you have adblock, don't forget to white-list this site!
5.28am
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline Beatlebug said
I thought it was the first best thing of 2020.Also, mmm, hate crimes are not speech, they’re criminal acts. The only kind of speech not covered under the idea of ‘free speech’ is incitement of violence, causing a nuisance, public nudity, etc.
Folk use the free speech argument as a way to justify their right to say whatever they like, obviously it’s wrong but they do. That’s what I meant.
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
