Disqus - Latest Comments for Simian_Commerce

Re: Mine plug blows near Silverton, dumping 1M galls of waste

Simian_Commerce — Thu, 06 Aug 2015 22:54:56 -0000

Gross.

Re: Mine plug blows near Silverton, dumping 1M galls of waste

Simian_Commerce — Thu, 06 Aug 2015 22:27:17 -0000

That would be more funny if it were less true.

Re: 911 goes to voicemail: Man shoots home intruder after 911 operator mistake

Simian_Commerce — Thu, 19 Jun 2014 19:40:18 -0000

It's self defense, and defense of everyone else in the home, if the criminal broke into the home. Which he did, twice. After having previously perpetrated physical violence against everyone in the home. Go screw yourself. :)

Re: HGTV Cancels Show Because Stars Are — Gasp! — Christians

Simian_Commerce — Tue, 20 May 2014 18:30:17 -0000

Hence my use of the words "if" and "conjecture."

Re: HGTV Cancels Show Because Stars Are — Gasp! — Christians

Simian_Commerce — Sat, 10 May 2014 19:32:41 -0000

No one is questioning the legality (First Amendment) nature of the show's cancellation. Many, however, are questioning the rightness of doing so, if it is indeed the conjectured case that it was waved off due to the twins' religious activities.

Again, it is understood that many people, even other Christian groups, find the Benhams' (old and young) rhetoric offensive. The point of principle in question is why exactly one group's offended sensibilities are particularly more important than another, especially in consideration of a TV show which doesn't really have anything to do with those principles.

As far as "hatred" goes, I believe the Benhams themselves explained fairly well (in this video: https://www.youtube.com/wat... how exactly one can hold the belief that a homosexual lifestyle is wrong, even evil, and yet hold no hatred in their hearts and actions for homosexual individuals. Contrasting beliefs and the expression of those beliefs aren't "hateful." That is often the cornerstone of hate, but any moderately-adjusted, mature individual can easily hold contrary moral positions with any number of fellow humans without descending into hatred for them.

Fostering harsh and strident rhetoric aimed as weapons against those of opposing viewpoints will do nothing to advance the foment of tolerance and open discussion. To my reckoning that sort of behavior is far more "hateful," in that it maliciously seeks to injure the offensive parties, on either side, rather than rehabilitating, persuading, or reasoning with them.

Re: HGTV Cancels Show Because Stars Are — Gasp! — Christians

Simian_Commerce — Sat, 10 May 2014 03:22:10 -0000

HGTV didn't provide a reason for the cancellation of the show. Everyone is assuming that it is a repercussion of the twins' religious activity, given the timing of events. But, since the network isn't commenting further, their motivation is only conjecture.

I don't see Christians, these or others, necessarily invoking their faith as a "shield for rank bigotry." The tenements of the Christian faith have been common knowledge for millennia, The belief in the immorality of homosexual activity is rooted in scripture and naturalistic reasoning, not in the pure opinion, which is the realm of bigotry.

As Ms. Palin points out in her post, the real lament is that diversity and tolerance to all positions isn't being exercised. She points out that there are many different moral paradigms being exhibited on television (if not perhaps on HGTV), some of which are quite offensive to many Christian sensibilities. There is no attempt to shield anyone from any moral fallout, it's a petition to apply the same principles in every case regardless of creed -- especially when, as she pointed out, the show would decidedly not be showcasing the twins' faith, and this cancellation was ostensibly based in activities not linked to the show or network.

Re: HGTV Cancels Show Because Stars Are — Gasp! — Christians

Simian_Commerce — Fri, 09 May 2014 23:47:57 -0000

big·ot·ry
ˈbigətrē/
noun
noun: bigotry; plural noun: bigotries
bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

Re: HGTV Cancels Show Because Stars Are — Gasp! — Christians

Simian_Commerce — Fri, 09 May 2014 23:41:47 -0000

In that all life has the drive to reproduce, biological "intention" can easily be described as something which is advantageous in the genome to that end. In that there is no genetic advantage in same-sex attraction, it can be accurately said that a such an attraction would be contrary to biological intent. Howbeit, there is no gay gene -- it remains "elusive".

Re: David and Jason Benham respond to HGTV: 'If our faith costs us a television show then so be it'

Simian_Commerce — Fri, 09 May 2014 23:10:33 -0000

I thought ravissary79's comments to be a rather refreshing foray into an actual discussion and exploration of the issue at hand. In my experience, a dip into personal insult is a flag for the inferior nature of a position.

Re: | News - Home

Simian_Commerce — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 02:36:57 -0000

"The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question..."

This is Article 2, Section 13 of the Colorado Constitution. It is currently in force, unaltered, un-repealed, and the supreme law of Colorado. Mr. Pratt acted with a firearm in defense of his property. Armed defense of property entails the shooting and killing of people. His right and ability to do so shall not be called in question, according to the supreme law of our state. Time to let him go.

Re: The Shock Doctrine in Action

Simian_Commerce — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 04:07:45 -0000

I think I remember noting that the math didn't add up on the 85 billion. And now that I actually use the calculator, even the 700 bil comes to $3,500. Take the whole 3 trillion dollar federal budget and it's $15,000 per. Guess that's what I get for doing math in my head. Thank you Mr. Kissel.

Re: The Shock Doctrine in Action

Simian_Commerce — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 03:58:44 -0000

"...Americans should be seriously questioning how much of this crisis was purposefully exacerbated or manufactured as part of a way to fleece the taxpayers..."

That's why I called it a "shell game." I honestly believe that not a bit of it is truly necessary (except to prop up the guys who are large and in charge)--that it's all a crap farce to gin up enough vague "gee we oughta do something" panic in order to get away with the biggest political con job the world has ever seen.

Re: The Shock Doctrine in Action

Simian_Commerce — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 07:35:46 -0000

This bailout is the biggest crock of crap in the history of crocks...and crap. Enormous shell game. "Let's reward their sh** decisions with $700 Bil!"

My wife got an e-mail that said something about distributing that 700 fattie to all U.S. adults ages 18 and up. Total payout per person would be about $350,000. Responsible (and not-responsible) Americans spending that kind of money would sure as Hades eating a butter biscuit solve just about any kind of economical crisis you could come up with.

...not that I really know how sure Hades is going to eat a butter biscuit, but it's certainly more sure than tacking on BILyuns and BILyuns of dollars to the grease-slicked murky pockets of the pig slop politico-finance criminals at the top--who are by the way now laughing to the tips of their sweaty wobbly ears at the way they got to bilk hard-earned American dollars out of EARNER'S hands by way of a congressionally unauthorized ubiquitous robber's club known as the IRS tax code...and getting rewarded for it by reaping the profits from the biggest unilateral fleecing of the people who have already been dull-witted enough to gloss over the fleecing of their fleeces by the fleecers.

Unilateral?! That's right: THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DO NOT WANT THIS BAILOUT! "Awww, that's okay, you're going to fork it over hand over fist or you go to jail. Have a nice day, vote for Republicrats and Demicans!"

*heads for the mountains and begins stockpiling ammunition*

Re: Translating Spin: Wal-Mart Warns of Democratic Win

Simian_Commerce — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 05:17:08 -0000

I like the term "Plunder Capitalism." One of my favorite sci-fi books "Enemy of the State" (which is almost like a sacred political text for me these days) refers to the concept as "Economic Royalism", which sums it up for me fairly well.

-Jeremy

Re: More Americans Question Religion's Role In Politics

Simian_Commerce — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 05:03:37 -0000

Oh, and dibs on the terms "smack-ream solid" and "decantation".

-Jeremy

Re: More Americans Question Religion's Role In Politics

Simian_Commerce — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 05:02:06 -0000

Well, if you're referring to politicians using religion as a public-numbing mask for their nefarious, underhanded depredations, you'll not find a smidgen of disagreement from me.

But...that's not what I'm talking about, really. Here we have (theoretically) a rule of the people. We elect people to "represent" us. (The parentheses and quotation marks are a not-so-subtle shade of sarcasm, I'm sure you understand.) Nor was I speaking of armed rebellion, though Revolutionary times were replete with military recruitment from the pulpit. Nor taxation, though once again, it's a representative republic.

What I am saying is that modern-day Christians will do exactly as the framers of the Constitution did, whilst crafting that timeless work of genius, and living their everyday lives. They lean on the tenements of their faith, consciously and unconsciously, while making their decisions. It is their source of moral identity, continuity, and the base from which their actions are launched from. The only way this can be construed to be theocratic is to label everyone Theocrat who makes legal decisions based on a morally derived code of laws--and all laws are morally derived, whether arrived-at religiously, philosophically, or arbitrarily.

So, again, we have a Constitution that is smack-ream solid with Christian rumination and decantation, evidenced by their perpetual reference to that Bible from which their deepest philosophical and moral motivations sprang into action. Certainly there were those whose writings depart from this generally true statement. Thomas Payne, adamant deist, being perhaps the most famous--still, in the Age of Reason wrote he believed in one God and hoped for happiness in the life to come. James Madison, late in life and contrary to his earlier writings, decried any form of governmental expression of religiosity--because he believed all people would logically arrive at Christianity as a matter of certain course and so considered it (said government expression) unnecessary. Thomas Jefferson, who maintained that it was not the purview of the Federal government to establish religious holidays or official state religions--he indeed believed these things were the sole demesne of the individual State governments, and so happily signed such ordinances into law as Governor of Virginia.

So you see my original contention--as it stands, the Constitution is by and large a religiously based document. People will constantly make legal decisions based on the moral framework of their faith, and rightfully so--this whole enterprise of the U.S.A. was set up to foster and defend the individual's right to do so (among other things, yes), whilst maintaining equality of rights and security across the gamut of the population. Theocracies arise when one man or a small group seizes immense individual politic-religious power (see Church of England, medieval Catholicism, Iran, Taliban, Tibet). The U.S.A. does not and has never mirrored a theocracy of that nature, even when its government's legislators, judiciary, and executives were ubiquitously adamant Christians.

Bottom line, religion will always be in government so long as the people vote with the conviction of their faith, and so long as ours remains a representational republic. This is not an anti-secular stance--there's room and comfort for everyone in this great nation of ours.

Re: More Americans Question Religion's Role In Politics

Simian_Commerce — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 17:52:31 -0000

The Christian Bible was cited as a source of authority for the formation of laws which govern men's lives here in the U.S.A...more than any other source, as a matter of fact, when the Constitution was being written (David Barton, "Original Intent" pp. 226, Wallbuilder Press). So keep in mind if you want Christianity out of U.S. politics, you're going to have to severely curtail the Constitution, since it's one of our (Christians) documents. :)