Quote:
thats an awesome version!

How would yours go?

"After apologizing to the owner for my chickens jumping down Fi-Fi's digestive tract, I washed his feet with my hair and begged him to take my kids and half of my IRA to compensate him for the dog's gastroenteritis. I then turned myself into PETA for war crimes as I was willfully negligent in allowing the poultry to escape my field of view."

Is there some reason that you would presume that Buddha or I would not support our property rights?

No, there is no reason you have to propose that, you're just spreading more hatred of people you think are atheists. Oh, wait, maybe you're just spreading hatred for people who think social responsibility is something that is in their own best interest to demonstrate!

But in any case, if somebody's dog did in one of my layers, they'd flippin' well deal with the consequences.

Quote:

(I can't imagine you being a fan of the enlightenment movement, you are far too pedantic for that. You are a lecturer, not a discussant.

You need a better imagination, then, and I would suggest, once again, that you dispense with the fallacies of the excluded middle.

As to your would-be psychiatric analysis, you may find yourself much more able to discuss something if you bypass the veiled insults and rude fallacies.

And remember, having an open mind does not mean that one has to allow one's mind to fall out. Did you forget that somewhere along the line, when you asked me for a list of things I never claimed existed?

Quote:
But pit bulls are not, except when badly bred, terribly aggressive. They are actually rather sedate compared to some breeds, like Aussie Shepherds. YIKES, that energy.

Correct, and I've shown the proper restraint not to blame the breed entirely. The dog had no training or work to do. He was either in the backyard or tied up in the front yard all the time. He had too much energy pent up. That is the fault of his human care taker. Dogs run on energy as well as instinct. In this case both were a major factor. We had several dogs charge us in the past. They usually back off when (a) ignored or (b) if ignoring fails turn and walk in the dog's direction. It was different with the pit. He was in attack mode. He had no reservations taking on two dogs and a human. Based on my past experience I elected to not take a chance.

BTW, both my dogs are heelers. Thus, the need for long walks almost every single day.

Quote:

Correct, and I've shown the proper restraint not to blame the breed entirely. The dog had no training or work to do.

Ow. bad bad bad.

No, I wouldn't want to take on a psychotic pit bull, either.

It sounds like bad breeding, bad socialization, and then a thoughtless owner, or at least two of the 3. Ech.

Oh, and I suspect yours give you LOTS of exercise walking hither and yon, and stopping to sniff here and there and everywhere

He was a good healthy looking red nose pit. There is another one along our route that doesn't even bark when we go by. We don't even look at him. It's all about respect. Like I mentioned before about energy. If we was to walk too close to him or make too much eye contact than we may have a problem. Again, in the dog world, respect is part of survival. The deceased pit was completely different. It was in fact insane for charging us. He had a demented view of his environment to think we were a threat. You're right, no socialization and work made the dog unpredictable. A terrier is a terrier. They need a job and should know their limitations. For that they need the proper training, guidance, and motivation. My own theory is that the pit was protecting the children that live in the home since the parents let them play in the street at sunset. We were walking into the sun at dusk. The kids were about 200' west down the street and in the sun, in the street, and under the watchful eye of the pit. I had to wait until the pit was close enough so I can shoot with the children to my back.

Quote:

TLOP

terminal lack of pussy? Sorry to hear that dude.. even Jerry garcia , in his worthless, junkie state, was able to bed many a woman. of course most of them were crab infested junkie w00ks but..thats neither here nor there.

Quote:
Is there some reason that you would presume that Buddha or I would not support our property rights?

now now..don't lump yourself in with the good doc... Buddha is a different creature entirely. I suspect he is spiritual(other wise why the choice of Buddha as a forum name?) but has no idea what God is or is not..

but dude...theres something beyond this bullshit. how can you look at the world around you, nature with its perfect ratios/golden means.... this shit is no accident. it had a divine architect of some sort.

just dont know what that is.

have you ever thought about it?? i dont mean in a scientific sense..but really thought about it...i mean how we/the universe came into existence?

and...next time, I think i will just shoot the goddamn owner.

i think it would cause less of an uproar. dogs and rodents have more rights than humans these days anyway.

Quote:

Quote:

I would suggest, once again, that you dispense with the fallacies of the excluded middle.

Did you learn a new term, or something?

Middle Path, baby. Middle path.

No, I'm talking philosophy and rhetoric, not mythology.

Quote:
but dude...theres something beyond this bullshit. how can you look at the world around you, nature with its perfect ratios/golden means.... this shit is no accident. it had a divine architect of some sort.

Well, you know, I think this an observational thing. If the universe were different, there would be some other ratio or something or other that looked architected.

Any stable system, or even quasi-stable system, has to have some order, symmetry, etc, at some level.

Then we look at how humans and animals are put together, and we realize that any designer was, in fact, a rather, well, bad designer, to say the least.

But arguing faith is not useful. If you have some, that's fine. My gripe with faith is when people insist I have to share theirs or be some kind of bad thing. THAT is the problem.

It's sorta like Buddha seems to be headed, wherein he presumes for no reason that a lack of faith means that I demand others to agree. It's not that simple. A lack of faith is a lack of faith. I have no faith that the moon is made of green cheese, either, for instance.

Faith and conclusion are two different things, unless of course the conclusion is based on faith .

If you need a "ruler" it's The Laws Of Physics, or that's my own opinion, that means "how it really works", not our very limited understanding.

Quote:
The Buddha was an actual person.

Straw man, didn't claim otherwise. And you're engaging in special pleading by trying to turn a rejection of what people have laid at his feet into a rejection of the existance of the individual.

Quote:

Did not represent himself as divine, either. Pure philosophy, ethics, 'rhetoric.'

And who has been "elevated" by history, and whose name is now involked for untestable, unverifiable concepts.

Face it, if history was a bit different, we'd be saying the same things about Enkidu.

Quote:
J_J, if you think everything is reduceable to "testable hypotheses," then you live in a retarded world.

Once again, you try to come up with some kind of imaginary position to accuse me of holding.

Is there some reason you won't respond to what I actually say? It's not that hard. There is no subtle distinction here.

I can produce non-testable ideas up the wazoo. They certainly can exist. They just have no real value in the real world.

Quote:

Please tell us about the measurement of your love for your wife. Prove you love her, with testable data.

Well, aside from the fact that you're obviously way out of date in regards to modern knowlege of neurotransmitters, PET scans, and such, one does not have to MEASURE something for it to be testable and verifiable. So we have another straw man, or mayby misunderstanding on your part, to get past. You seem determined to throw out these well-poisoners, as well, in the process of trumpeting your straw men to the 4 winds.

So, yes, I can see you want to play to the crowd with "how much you hate jj". Yes, I get it. Your behavior is really pretty obvious, and seems, well, quite extreme for someone who advocates the "middle path", actually. Whatever...

Quote:

You are making us atheists look bad, man.

Incredibly.

No, you're making atheists look bad with your bizzare fallacies and projections. Maybe you should stop doing that.

Your kind of "logic" reminds me of the old "atheists do not value life", something trivially refuted on the simple fact that life is ALL atheists think exists, but that continues on and on and on, just because people need some excuse to show violent, disgusting prejudice against atheists. You, it seems, are similarly prone to bizzare accusations based on your own internal guesses of what others think, as opposed to their actual position.

Whatever....

Your "middle path" is kinda extreme, bub. I'm starting to think you meditate and your mantra is "owa tana siam".