-

[Guest]

It is funny. You are just an idiot.

[thewake]

That's nice Kirby.

[Bob Dole]

Weswammy Wrote:

NANNASFAVOURITEBOY Wrote:pfft this is what Jesus would do if he was here today:

The first thing he would do is go into all the Christian chruches and trash the places. Then he would walk up to Benny Hinn and Cefro Dollar and bust a cap in them fools all the while saying "Dats how we roll in Bethlehem bitches!" He would have the number on Hip Hop hit titled "This is why im God" And he would spend his nights in seedy red light districts havin beers with hookers. And you know dis.

That's not funny. I am offended. You did what you came here to do, offend a Christian.

Lol. http://www.snipeme.com/archive.php?year ... t=offended

[thewake]

What does being offended have to do with the fact you don't believe in something? Seriously, it may be good for a few laughs at the "poor mislead Christians", but seriously I think it's B.S. I could care less about what other people say, that doesn't mean I can't be offended by it.

[Bob Dole]

Weswammy Wrote:What does being offended have to do with the fact you don't believe in something? Seriously, it may be good for a few laughs at the "poor mislead Christians", but seriously I think it's B.S. I could care less about what other people say, that doesn't mean I can't be offended by it.

Lol. Being offended is a sign of weakness in beliefs. If I was Christian and somebody told me that Jesus was a camel fucking dirtbag I wouldn't give two shits because I would be secure in my belief in Jesus. Here's a nice quote.



"I'm not offended by all the dumb blonde
jokes because I know I'm not dumb..."
-Dolly Parton

[thewake]

Offend: to cause dislike, anger, or vexation <thoughtless words that offend needlessly>

Now does that imply that I am not firm in my belief? No it just means I don't like what he fucking says.

[Bob Dole]

Weswammy Wrote:Offend: to cause dislike, anger, or vexation <thoughtless words that offend needlessly>

Now does that imply that I am not firm in my belief? No it just means I don't like what he fucking says.

Then just tell him that he's a douchebag and that Jesus kicks ass.

[Coma Girl]

[KittyKatBlack]

NANNASFAVOURITEBOY Wrote:pfft this is what Jesus would do if he was here today:

The first thing he would do is go into all the Christian chruches and trash the places. Then he would walk up to Benny Hinn and Cefro Dollar and bust a cap in them fools all the while saying "Dats how we roll in Bethlehem bitches!" He would have the number on Hip Hop hit titled "This is why im God" And he would spend his nights in seedy red light districts havin beers with hookers. And you know dis.

There's probably some truth to that, too.

[thewake]

You're all douchebags and Jesus kicks ass (Spiritually or something like that, but not physically. He's too cool for that.).

[KittyKatBlack]

Can't you just feel that christian love?
Kidding, kidding.

[thewake]

Lol. Sorry.

[KittyKatBlack]

Anyways, you gotta lighten up a bit. Noone wanted to offend you, we just joke around like that.
'Sides, nobody has the right to not be offended.

[thewake]

I know that, but it was kinda stupid to say that.

[SoulRiser]

NANNASFAVOURITEBOY Wrote:pfft this is what Jesus would do if he was here today:

The first thing he would do is go into all the Christian chruches and trash the places. Then he would walk up to Benny Hinn and Cefro Dollar and bust a cap in them fools all the while saying "Dats how we roll in Bethlehem bitches!" He would have the number on Hip Hop hit titled "This is why im God" And he would spend his nights in seedy red light districts havin beers with hookers. And you know dis.

That made me lol...

It's partly true. He'd probably compare most churches to the pharisee type people from way back then... and he wouldn't bust no caps in nobody... maybe figuratively The red light district thing could be true, not sure about the beer though. I mean, he did hang out with "bad" people a lot to be a good influence on 'em. "Bad" is the wrong word, but I'm too lazy to come up with something better.

Don't mind NANNASFAVOURITEBOY/Sugar Nuts/PIMP or whatever he calls himself these days... He rips on everyone and is partly sarcastic about 99.99% of the time

[SoulRiser]

Vegemite Wrote:this is what i think of anarchy.

I believe that people these days can’t be trusted in Anarchy. Law. Law enforces safety, safety to those who feel victimized by unsafe civilians. Unsafe civilians, they need the law to restrain themselves from being unsafe.

Now, if there were no law, and no restrictions to these unsafe civilians, then having them in an Anarchy would only create more trouble and chaos than what we are in right now.

In my opinion, the world’s population can be based on a 70 to 30 ratio of 70%unsafe civilians and 30% of civilians who treat other with respect and do the right thing for a human’s standard.

By taking 70% of Idiots into an Anarchy, well, it wouldn’t work, mainly because there would be stealing, murder and unsafe things, and with no law on the ‘safe civilians’ sides, then the safe civilians wouldn’t be living a happy life wouldn’t they?

To live in Anarchy, you should have the need to feel safe as a person. People need safety, and in today’s society, Anarchy wouldn’t work. Maybe in a few decades when we as people can figure ourselves out, when we can all work together and be fair to each other, when we stop killing animals for no reason, when we have our own set of morals and values that aren’t hurting anyone, then, maybe then we will be able to live in Anarchy.


But not today.

True. I don't see it working anytime soon either... but your post reminded me of a quote:

"Oh, judge, your damn laws: the good people don't need them and the bad people don't follow them, so what good are they?" - Ammon Hennacy

Most people don't do illegal things, and the reason they say they don't do it is because it's illegal... Now if all of a sudden the laws disappeared, most people would still be too scared to do those things. Or they'd find a better reason not to do it. Or they'd do it anyway. I still think only a small percentage would do all that stealing and murder stuff.

Quite frankly, I'd be less scared for my safety if there were no laws. In South Africa, I've heard of cases where some nutjob attacked someone, and the person fought back, injured the nutjob, then the nutjob took that person to court and got THEM in trouble for assault. I'm not 100% sure those stories are true, but quite frankly, it wouldn't surprise me

If some wacko attacks me, I want to at least be able to kick him in the nuts without getting in legal trouble

[thewake]

It's called self defense. Which I don't believe in (most of the time ).

[SoulRiser]

I'm all for turning the other cheek most of the time, but I'm not gonna just let some asshat kill or rape me, thank you very much

[thewake]

Yeah, that's true. I probably wouldn't retaliate, but I wouldn't turn the other cheek either. I be running away!

[SoulRiser]

Running is great, unless the nutjob after you happens to be faster... Or unless he's already got a grip on you....

But yeah, self defense is only good up to the point of stopping the other person from harming you. Any more than that, and it's just plain violence.

[PIMP.]

BigWolf Wrote:It wouldn't be beer... it'd be wine, which was formerly water.

Yea in the ancient version. But the Jesus of the modern world wouldnt turn water into wine he would turn diet coke into beer.

[thewake]

Looks like your coach is an idiot. Punishing someone for something they had no part in. Some people I will never understand.

[Guest]

Vegemite Wrote:Law enforces safety, safety to those who feel victimized by unsafe civilians. Unsafe civilians, they need the law to restrain themselves from being unsafe.

People enforce safety not the law. Anarchy is against such things as a standing army but not against militias or defencive organizations. There is no reason why there couldn't be organizations set up to stop physical assaults or help a domestic abuse situation. I cannot see why an anarchist society would not have a sort of community watch system and voluntary defence organizations.

Vegemite Wrote:Now, if there were no law, and no restrictions to these unsafe civilians, then having them in an Anarchy would only create more trouble and chaos than what we are in right now.

An anarchist society would be freer in certain respects such as the freedom to use any drugs you want but there would still be restrictions. For example, when a person is considering murder they might think of the consequences. The consequences in an anarchist society may be banishment from cities because of their extreme danger. Otherwise there would be therapy and rehabilitation. There would still be the same social consequences.

[Darthmat]

Kirby Wrote:

Vegemite Wrote:Law enforces safety, safety to those who feel victimized by unsafe civilians. Unsafe civilians, they need the law to restrain themselves from being unsafe.

People enforce safety not the law. Anarchy is against such things as a standing army but not against militias or defencive organizations. There is no reason why there couldn't be organizations set up to stop physical assaults or help a domestic abuse situation. I cannot see why an anarchist society would not have a sort of community watch system and voluntary defence organizations.

defensive orginizations would have to have special privileges..sounds like governemnt ot me. and what/who would define thier boundaries on their privileges and who would define thier privileges?

Kirby Wrote:

Vegemite Wrote:Now, if there were no law, and no restrictions to these unsafe civilians, then having them in an Anarchy would only create more trouble and chaos than what we are in right now.

An anarchist society would be freer in certain respects such as the freedom to use any drugs you want but there would still be restrictions. For example, when a person is considering murder they might think of the consequences. The consequences in an anarchist society may be banishment from cities because of their extreme danger. Otherwise there would be therapy and rehabilitation. There would still be the same social consequences.

ok.. but who would make up these laws of social consequences? who would carry them out?

[KittyKatBlack]

darthmat Wrote:defensive orginizations would have to have special privileges..sounds like governemnt ot me. and what/who would define thier boundaries on their privileges and who would define thier privileges?

Defensive organizations would have the right protect people. What the hell sounds like government in that?


[
The people of that community would decide the rules (probably) and the defensive orginization would carry them out.

[Guest]

darthmat Wrote:defensive orginizations would have to have special privileges..sounds like governemnt ot me. and what/who would define thier boundaries on their privileges and who would define thier privileges?

It does not take special privileges to stop a bar fight or a rape.

darthmat Wrote:ok.. but who would make up these laws of social consequences? who would carry them out?

"Laws of social consequences"? You misunderstand me. By social consequences I mean that people would get pissed off at you for raping or murdering someone. Murderers and rapists aren't accepted well by most people therefore it would be a factor that a potential murderer or rapist would consider. The negative social consequences would be a deterrent.

[Darthmat]

all i know and this i truly believe is that anarchy=chaos and nothing will make me change my mind.

[Guest]

Then why are you even discussing this?

[Darthmat]

why are you? to rant your opinions online...same with me.

[Guest]

I am discussing this because I am trying to convince other people of something. That does not mean that I am going to completely ignore what someone else says. You said that nothing will make you change your mind which makes you an idiot.