JCC Arena The Theist/Atheist Thunderdome™

the philosophy class i teach is crosslisted with film studies and it is entitled "Tom Waits in Film"

 

I teach a similar course in music: "tom raps on internet"

 

These last few pages have been really funny but also agonizingly depressing. Like reading a Cormac McCarthy novel while taking LSD.

 

Well it seems we have a lot of really, really sheltered people on these boards; and there's a staggeringly obvious correlation between sheltered and new age Christianity.

 

Because it means you believe the horse poo of your ridiculous and overhyped Constitution, that all men are created equal. Libertarianism is not simply isolationism, it's about mitigating the impact of the government on individuals. I reject collectivism like any other sensible person who realises one size does not fit all; but you need to have a social contract in place that provides an adequate safety net for the most at-risk in society.

 

Hey now... I believe in the Constitution -- even the Second Amendment -- and I'm nowhere close to a libertarian. I also believe that the right to bear arms doesn't mean that there can't be controls in place (as there are for the First Amendment) and that NSA and other data-mining programs can reasonably exist with the Fourth and Fifth (and aspects of the Sixth, Ninth and Tenth).

 

You guys have this belief in the Constitution which borders on religious. It's a document, not a very good one, written by white dudes many, many years ago. It's not special or unique or better than the laws of any other country. Shouldn't be given this level of reverence.

 

Except it's the foundation of law and rules in this country. It has very specific rules to add things to it which, after the initial Bill of Rights, has happened 17 times since. It's not unprecedented.

But I don't think respecting the foundation of the country represents anything out of line, so long as you recognize flexibility within said document.

 

Yes but how often does this happen? The document is given reverential statement which means it can't become a living document. Why does not other English-speaking nation have the same issues as America..?

 

Because they're all inferior poopyheads -- why should we care what inferior people have to say on the matter? Plus, they're likely socialist...

 

Inferior?

We have Her Majesty as head of state. You had George W Bush. It is YOUR head that is made of the poopy stuff!

 

The hell have you people done with my soulless heathen vs religious nutjob thread?

 

She can skydive next to James Bond with the best of them, it's true...

 

Look until one of the JAYZUS IS LAWD crowd come back and defend themselves we have little to talk about.

You get Skywalkernumbers, Anakin Solo Rapesthechrist or Adultmoviefan back in and we'll get back on topic.

Now, if you'll excuse me, i was arguing with dp4m.

 

Well, can you threaten to kill him or kiss him, or something? At least make it interesting.

 

This is what the kiss would approximate:

 

In the first place, it is a living document. It's simply that the American system has developed in such a way that structural changes usually happen without changes to the text of its founding documents, but rather their interpretation. Much in the same way, the UK has a pretty anachronistic monarchy that is mostly just worked around to do the business of a modern state. The adaptability of the American system and Constitution can be seen negatively in the reversal of the long-standing interpretation of guns rights from being collective to, in the last few years, a personal right for citizens to possess firearms. Positively, it can be seen in the development of a right to privacy that was at best implicit in the original Constitution.

That besides, the reasons why no one amends the Constitution has almost nothing to do with "revering" it. Both sides regularly clamor for changes that should be made in an ideal world. It's simply that it's procedurally impossible, given the number of different votes by different bodies that would be required, and the ability of a fairly small minority to play spoiler at any stage in the process. After a few notable failures, people don't try anymore because they realize its pointless.

 

A cop eating a sammich?

 

An advertisement in the Economist offensive to Jews! (and see, back on topic!)

 

I think I'm missing something... how is that offensive?

 

I'm not saying I find it offensive but it played on stereotypes on both sides (cops were typically Irish or Italian in those outfits) and the name of the bread is Levy's Jewish Rye...

 

Oh... I see (not really).

 

Can bread be religious?

 

Did you seriously just say this? Why? What does it even mean?

 

Probably. As in, I want to hear more about David's unleavened man-bread.