A_Pickle

- friends
85 link karma
11,036 comment karma
send messageredditor for
what's this?

TROPHY CASE


  • Three-Year Club

r/atheism, how old are you? (Single question survey) by ddamin atheism

[–]A_Pickle 1 point2 points ago

Some people didn't exactly "de-convert," though. I was brought up Catholic, but I'll be damned if I could tell you one tenet of Catholicism before the age of 15... when I knew I was an atheist.

r/atheism, how old are you? (Single question survey) by ddamin atheism

[–]A_Pickle -9 points-8 points ago

Same...

And the plot thickens . . . Motorola makes Apple pull iPads and iPhones off shelves by Electroniwhatin gadgets

[–]A_Pickle 0 points1 point ago

Say what you will, my Palm Treo Pro was awesome -- but admittedly, awesome in some respects that were competitively arrived upon after the iPhone's arrival.

My Mother In Law: (True story, don't think too much on it or your brain might melt like mine just did) by dturner0413in atheism

[–]A_Pickle 0 points1 point ago

We have absolute evidence that decentralized power is a bad thing...

Oh really? Must've missed the book on that one.

Look at the cluster fuck of every "decentralized government" nation in Africa.

Every state in Africa has a fully centralized government. Each of those governments is full of corrupt jackasses who get into government not to improve their society, but to steal as much wealth as they possibly can before "leaving" or being ousted by some bloody coup.

The idea that "decentralized government" is specifically at fault for Africa's situation as a whole is a very bold claim. Since you seem so content calling me on evidence, could you provide some for that?

That leaves centralized government or anarchy, and of the two I prefer the one that limits the ability of the person with the most weapons from abusing the weak.

ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS? Because the government, they would never abuse their gigantic stockpile of weapons and willing men to abuse the weak, never!

My Mother In Law: (True story, don't think too much on it or your brain might melt like mine just did) by dturner0413in atheism

[–]A_Pickle 0 points1 point ago

The US constitution guarantees the right to bear arms.

In the 2nd Amendment, which could be repealed... via amendment. In a day and age where Congress makes laws in the U.S. Code which flagrantly violate other amendments in the Bill of Rights (NDAA 2012, for example) and the President willingly enforces them, you place an extraordinary amount of faith in this government of yours.

The purpose of the constitution is not to tell citizens what they can do but rather the converse, to tell the people that would otherwise be kings, emperors and despots what they can not do.

Fully aware of that, the question is:

1.) Are most of the people aware of that?

2.) Are the people in government aware of that?

Operation: Impeach Lamar Smith launched in Congressman's District - San Antonio! by codymike90in politics

[–]A_Pickle 0 points1 point ago

Well, that adds nothing to the discussion.

Operation: Impeach Lamar Smith launched in Congressman's District - San Antonio! by codymike90in politics

[–]A_Pickle 0 points1 point ago

Violence begets violence.

Agreed.

Call this video what you want, but I say it supports violence.

Is this video, itself, violence?

Operation: Impeach Lamar Smith launched in Congressman's District - San Antonio! by codymike90in politics

[–]A_Pickle 0 points1 point ago

Not saying that's going to happen, but some people out there are that stupid, and the creator of the video can be held liable.

Freedom is dead.

My Mother In Law: (True story, don't think too much on it or your brain might melt like mine just did) by dturner0413in atheism

[–]A_Pickle 0 points1 point ago

I agree wholeheartedly, however conveniently, that had absolutely nothing to do with your post which I replied to.

The disagree with your idea that the "over-privileged" among us (non-Americans, gathering from your post) "don't need" firearms is laughable.

The society you describe in your second post arguably had as many firearms in it as it's descendant society of today -- was it not civilized? Do you not think of Switzerland as civilized?

Operation: Impeach Lamar Smith launched in Congressman's District - San Antonio! by codymike90in politics

[–]A_Pickle 3 points4 points ago

Uh, no. Interpreting Sarah Palin's ad to have inspired Loughner to shoot Gabrielle Giffords was a stupid, stupid play by the left. Gunshots stay, because Freedom of Speech says so. That she used crosshair jpegs on her website, or that this video uses gunshot sound effects does not make the creator of the content at fault if someone gets shot.

Jesus fucking science.

Where in the Universe it is the darkest? by ombxin askscience

[–]A_Pickle 1 point2 points ago

There'd be plenty of light, actually.

/Libertarian has more than twice as many subscribers as /Democrat, /Republican, and /Progressive COMBINED. by 34679in Libertarian

[–]A_Pickle 0 points1 point ago

I'd argue that this goes both ways, but that reddit overall has a pro-progressive, anti-libertarian stance. IE, Obama praise gets more upvotes, Ron Paul denigration gets plenty as well. There are some moderates in /r/politics who, while they still wouldn't vote for him, admire his character and like it when he does good things and don't foam at the mouth to try and characterize him as worse than Michele Bachmann.

The most flawed argument against legalization by i_inhale_repellentsin trees

[–]A_Pickle 2 points3 points ago

Don't know if it made any difference, but I clicked really hard when I upvoted this.

My Mother In Law: (True story, don't think too much on it or your brain might melt like mine just did) by dturner0413in atheism

[–]A_Pickle -1 points0 points ago

I know youre American (and therefore somewhat underprivildged) but you dont need firearms in the civilised world.

The irony. It pains me.

My Mother In Law: (True story, don't think too much on it or your brain might melt like mine just did) by dturner0413in atheism

[–]A_Pickle -1 points0 points ago* 

I wasn't positing that to ask what the states could do about it, it was positing it to ask you if that was right. If the Federal government bans something, it's as good as gone. How many people died before they ever saw marijuana legalized, seeing as how it's been effectively illegal for 70 years?

Also, I wasn't talking about "automatic weapons." I was talking about firearms, as in, all of them. Plenty of governments worldwide have issued such bans, even in first-world countries. What are their citizens to do to change that? How long will it take before (and if) their government succumbs to public pressure?

I'm really not convinced that a centralized power is a healthy thing. I'm also not convinced that the central authority would know what's best for states thousands of miles away -- I think that there are a myriad of issues on which the local public would best decide for themselves, and I think that carries into social issues, as well. I don't think the Federal government is a particularly good thing.

My Mother In Law: (True story, don't think too much on it or your brain might melt like mine just did) by dturner0413in atheism

[–]A_Pickle -1 points0 points ago

2, Right to bear arms. Why should a state or locality limit where I can carry a firearm?

Suppose the national authority doesn't permit you to carry one at all?

Free Market Provides An Incredible Product For Free, Gov't Says It's Illegal (xpost from r/Technology) by charlie_pin Libertarian

[–]A_Pickle 1 point2 points ago

You should be up top. Free and open-source stuff, keepin' the companies honest.

...

If only people EVER used that shit. You can lead a horse to water...

"Use OpenStreetMap? GUFFAW. I WOULD RATHER DIE (or be a whiny bitch and complain to le government)!"

Free Market Provides An Incredible Product For Free, Gov't Says It's Illegal (xpost from r/Technology) by charlie_pin Libertarian

[–]A_Pickle 0 points1 point ago

As far as technology-related stuff, goes, though, interoperability is a pretty key component. You don't need to be interoperable with other players if... you've got everything -- which puts you in a very powerful position.

My Mother In Law: (True story, don't think too much on it or your brain might melt like mine just did) by dturner0413in atheism

[–]A_Pickle -1 points0 points ago

All the money that was previously wasted paying the endless shitpile of state level politicians...

Which, by the way, is next to nothing.

...can then go toward building roads, bridges, fire and police stations and staff for said stations, primary schools, and social safety-net programs to encourage the unemployed to strike out on their own as entrepreneurs.

I don't think the Federal government should be building infrastructure or providing public services for a local jurisdiction. I think the states definitely know better where they need a road built, or where they need a bridge built, or which of their cities desperately needs a better fire station, or more police officers. The Federal government already has it's hands in building infrastructure for the states in the form of earmarks, which are colossal wastes of money. It'd be better if the projects that earmark money were set aside for were simply given to the states -- or better yet, not taken from the people in the first place.

Another plus is that single unified nation would be much easier to manage and change the laws of than 50 non-sovereign states.

Marijuana has been illegal for 70 years, based on no solid science whatsoever -- at the Federal level. The Federal government made the decision to invade Iraq. The Federal government failed to shut down BP before the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe. I used to think that we ought to have a single government as well, and I used to be a proponent of a single, global government -- but now I'm vehemently against both ideas. Let countries and states make their successes, so that the countries and states that make mistakes can emulate them. I'd argue that, overall, such a system would be the quickest vehicle for effective change.

My Mother In Law: (True story, don't think too much on it or your brain might melt like mine just did) by dturner0413in atheism

[–]A_Pickle -5 points-4 points ago* 

The Department of Education was established in 1980 -- it is the second most well-funded, Cabinet-level Department after Defense. Student performance has not improved since then. What's the justification in keeping a centralized, one-size-fits-all education system?

As far as slavery goes, yes, that was fucked up. I'd say that was an area where the Federal government actually properly did it's job (securing the rights of human beings), even though I also agree that the South had every right to secede (for the wrong reasons, admittedly, but they had the right nonetheless).

So, you bring up women's suffrage. A good, good chunk of the Union already permitted women to vote and hold public office (the West, mostly), and the Eastern states were slowly moving in that direction. One could argue that the 19th Amendment was pretty unnecessary, that those evil "States' Rights" were well along the path towards full, nationwide, women's suffrage. I'd be very surprised if, by the time Hawaii and Alaska were added to the Union, that any state would prohibit women's right to vote.

I'm actually alright with letting states make decisions. Yes, some of them are going to allow Creationism to be taught in schools. All of none of them would ever prohibit Evolution from being taught in schools, unless they wanted to be the absolute last choice that biotech/pharmaceutical companies choose to seek talent.

Take a look at the libertarian utopia of states rights, Somalia. It doesn't work so well.

Over the top sensationalist.

My physics teacher. by D-rizzlein atheism

[–]A_Pickle 7 points8 points ago

...a CATHOLIC priest came up with the big bang theroy.

And then Robert Woodrow Wilson and Arno Penzias discovered the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation signature predicted by the theory. It's consistent with the redshift of the galaxies all around us, and numerous other measurements.

Creationisim is NOT apposed to Evolution.

What about Adam and Eve? The idea that the entire human race could've been started by a single pair of humans is mutually exclusive to the idea of Evolution.

Backbones come first. by Rainfly_Xin darknetplan

[–]A_Pickle 0 points1 point ago

I'm down. I'm decent with electronics, and would be happy to work with some of my tech-competent friends to set one up. We'd be doing it in Cheyenne, WY... what are some ideas for such a backbone? And, who/where would the other endpoint be?

r/atheism's position on a historical 'Jesus' - Results (updated) by honestchristianin Christianity

[–]A_Pickle 3 points4 points ago

Far more likely that a mythology was built around an existing person than the person was invented from scratch.

I'll give you that.

I found this in the hallway on campus today. It is too amazing and funny for words. This person needs some Reddit love via email! by neURologism_wildfirein atheism

[–]A_Pickle 1 point2 points ago

Scan that shit, sir or ma'am. That's great ammunition that can be brought to a debate.

r/atheism's position on a historical 'Jesus' - Results (updated) by honestchristianin Christianity

[–]A_Pickle 13 points14 points ago

An atheist scholar did an AMA in r/atheism a while ago and explained why historians as a whole reject the Jesus Myth hypothesis.

Yeah, I looked at that thread. Maybe those of us in /r/atheism weren't understanding the gravity of the support he had for the existence of Jesus, but... he did not show much evidence for it. Just testimony, and just Paul's, at that. I'm quite undecided on the matter, I mean, honestly historians can say whatever they want... from what I've been researching, it doesn't look there's terribly much evidence to speak of.

view more: next