@Variable

[alvarezbassist17]

Do either of you see a potential problem with involving the potential for sex in the military through allowing women and homosexuals into the armed forces?  I mean I in no way take a stance either way on the issue, but I've heard the argument that you want the least amount of both sexual feelings and "love" feelings or what have you in the heat of battle to maintain loyalty to the force and its mission from reasonable (not crazy neocon) people and I wonder as to whether it holds water.  Note that I don't have any experience in the army and foreign policy is where I admittedly have my least amount of knowledge.

Mazzy, why do you think that Afghanistan was a "better" situation for foreign intervention than Iraq?  For the record, I am for neither and I don't want to go so far as to say that you're being partisan and/or inconsistent, but on its face it rather seems that way.

[blixa]

i do hear about women soldiers being raped and assaulted. i don't think that's cool and the men that do it usually blame the situation they are in for their behaviour. i would prefer that it was two willing partners rather than someone taking what they are not being offered. last time i spoke to my friend she was saying that the need for physicality grew stronger when she realised that she was in a dangerous environment. there's a difference between sex and love. the two are never one entity. i know she purely has sex for sex's sake. i think it's important to distinguish that before you get involved with anyone. obviously there will be fond feelings if you are having sex with someone but her work is always going to come first. i have no problem with women and homosexuals going into the army. that's a issue where you will find strong pro and con arguments for i suppose. i personally have no qualms with homosexuality so i'm probably biased. maybe other straight soldiers would have a problem with it. i don't know, someone would have to ask them, but if you can do the job then i don't understand what your sexual preference has to do with anything, but last time i checked the majority of army folk had no problem with gays and lesbians being in the army. in regards to women, i believe we all value equality and women should be allowed to participate. especially in a region like the middle east where the women there should be allowed to see other women being in a such a role. but like i said, if you put forth a strong argument for something irregardless of whether it is right or wrong, it will hold water in theory.

i think the taliban had to go and i think the major effort had to be put into making that happen. if i was living under a taliban regime, especially being a woman, then i would want someone to help me. there is no 'this place is worse - let's bomb it first' mentality here. clearly the afghani nation couldn't fight back against the taliban. with iraq, we got sidetracked. iraq was a mistake because we went to war based on a lie. due to my family's nomadic existence, i was born in iraq and my parents have lived under saddam's rule. he was an arsehole, i'll give you that, but iraq was better off with someone like him compared to the mess they're in now. my grandma lives there. she has forgotten what fresh air smells like. it's just debris and smoke. and what for? bush owes all the soldiers (dead and alive) and the people of iraq one massive apology for one of the biggest fuckups anyone has ever made. it is easier for me to understand the situation in afghanistan and why deployment there was necessary and after talking to my brother's friend who has just come back from serving there, it's going to take many more years to even fix the place halfway. it's depressing to think about. you just sit there and look over the facts and formulate an opinion. i used to be anti-war, and i still am to some degree, but i'm trying to be realistic here. if i'm being partisan or inconsistant then so be it. i still believe it was necessary to intervene in afghanistan.

[alvarezbassist17]

1. I was going to let "irregardless" slip the first time, but that is definitely not a word.  Makes you sound like Bush
2. I think you sort of missed my point about women and homosexuals in the military.  You'll never find anyone more for equal rights (and I use that term in its most genuine, Classical Liberal sense) than I, but my question was: do you think that having the potential for sexual and/or "love" feelings in the military may play a role in decaying the mindset of the military that the mission comes before any personal issues had by those who join?
3. I don't portend to know anything about the living situations in either Iraq or Afghanistan, but from my understanding, if you're going to use the oppression of the people as your basis for imperialism, I don't necessarily see a whole lot of difference between the treatment of the people in either country.  Now I agree that the Bush administration certainly wasn't honest in its portrayal of the threat posed by Saddam, but from what you're telling me, if he would've used the liberation of the people or the women of Iraq as his argument for invasion, you would have been okay with it?

[blixa]

1. I was going to let "irregardless" slip the first time, but that is definitely not a word.  Makes you sound like Bush
2. I think you sort of missed my point about women and homosexuals in the military.  You'll never find anyone more for equal rights (and I use that term in its most genuine, Classical Liberal sense) than I, but my question was: do you think that having the potential for sexual and/or "love" feelings in the military may play a role in decaying the mindset of the military that the mission comes before any personal issues had by those who join?
3. I don't portend to know anything about the living situations in either Iraq or Afghanistan, but from my understanding, if you're going to use the oppression of the people as your basis for imperialism, I don't necessarily see a whole lot of difference between the treatment of the people in either country.  Now I agree that the Bush administration certainly wasn't honest in its portrayal of the threat posed by Saddam, but from what you're telling me, if he would've used the liberation of the people or the women of Iraq as his argument for invasion, you would have been okay with it?

according to webster it is a word arrogantly used by people like me hahaha at least i know how to pronounce nuclear.

the answer to that question depends on who you ask and i think it should be something determined primarily by the people who are fighting said wars because they are in the thick of it all. i kind of think (lol, just go along with this) that it shouldn't happen, but it will. it's human nature i suppose. plus if you push the whole 'don't have sexual relations' and 'don't fall in love', it might just push people to do that. maybe trey can answer that question more eloquently. i would think it would liven up the soldiers a bit more, give them more of a reason to survive. i don't know if that makes any sense. all i know is that my mate is having a lot of casual sex and it's helping her deal with the reality at hand. obviously the army doesn't enforce the concept of love and sexual feelings, but seriously, who wouldn't fuck one of those bomb disposal unit guys? come on!

to answer your question, you are asking me to do something i'm not comfortable doing and that is, i can't compare iraq and afghanistan to each other. they are/were nothing alike. i had a pretty nice time living there minus the wars and that time i got hit by a car the day before christmas. if there was a legitimate reason that everyone agreed upon as being sound enough to go to war in iraq then i would reconsider my position, but there wasn't a legitimate reason and the reason given was a lie. that is why i cannot agree with the war in iraq. the taliban were an imminent threat. i'm pretty sure that america and everyone else didn't invade to liberate a bunch of women. it's well documented that al-qaeda was using afghan territory as base and that the taliban regime was supporting them. if the taliban had been operating in iraq then, yes, that would have been a legitimate reason but iraq had no link to al-qaeda. i was confused as to why and how this whole war started. it kind of felt like we were going backwards. even though i only lived in iraq til the age of 6-7, i never felt oppressed even though i was because i belonged to a minority race that had 0% rights. it never occured to me. whereas girls of my age did feel it in afghanistan. they realised that once they turned 8 they will no longer be able to go to school and once they developed as women they will be made to wear a burqa against their will. the taliban enforced those things, and i have to take that personally as a woman. it took me a long time to realise that there are levels of oppression. there's oppression you are able to live with because things could be worse and then there's the oppression where everything has gone to shit and things just couldn't be worse.

when you say that you don't see the difference between the treatment of the people in both countries, that is something i have to disagree with. i don't want to be like, 'oh, look at me. i know what i'm saying. i've lived in iraq blah blah blah', and i don't know how i can say it to try to make you understand and i can't say it to try to make you understand, but there is a difference. it would be an injustice to say that iraqi's have suffered as much as afghani's have under the taliban. i'm not discrediting iraqi people's suffering, i'm just saying that there is a different degree to which the two nations have suffered because they've been oppressed on different levels. saddam was obsessed with arabisation, not with enforcing sharia law in the sickest sense. there is a difference.

[Variable]

You two opened up so many subjects that I seriously don't even know how to respond. 

[alvarezbassist17]

Oh, you sally.

P.S. lol@ your conversation about being up too late on FB.  Pretty jealous because I had to wake my ass up for school/work before you guys were done bitching

[devilinside]

Hay Fran! Time for a takeover?




I'll bbl for that,gotta go kick some ass real quick.

[Variable]

Oh, you sally.

P.S. lol@ your conversation about being up too late on FB.  Pretty jealous because I had to wake my ass up for school/work before you guys were done bitching

I thought about breaking it down and responding one sentence at a time.  But then I got drunk instead. 

And yeah be jealous of our awesome lives on facebook.  I would be mad if I knew someone was that much cooler than me too. 

[Variable]

Hay Fran! Time for a takeover?




I'll bbl for that,gotta go kick some ass real quick.

OH yeah, I forgot that was supposed to be yesterday.  I guess I'm a day rate and a dorrar short.
I had a DR.s appt.  if that counts as an excuse in the e-world too. 

[White Pwny]

There was supposed to be a takeover?!   And I missed it too?!  WTF?

[Variable]

Dude, you were part of the conversation. 

And not a takeover, a comeback.  A revival if you will

[devilinside]

Tell me a time and I'll try and be here!!

[Variable]

yeah, I'm all talk apparently

[Variable]

So for the first time ever, I left the poker room tonight without losing any money.  I didn't win any, I just broke even.  But I'm for sure getting better.  I mean I have only played 4 times so its not like I have this HUGE losing streak.  But just like blackjack and craps and everything else I like to play, I figure you have to pay to learn how to play and figure the game out.  So I have just been taking the loses in poker while trying to get better.  And I'm pretty happy that I think I have upped my game a bit.  World Series of Poker look out!

[Variable]

Does this sentence make any sense? 

"The passing of legislation to make immoral acts (by definition of the church) federally illegal, is the true last ditch effort of the church to remain relevant in a world where their moral teachings have proven to be anything but socially relevant and philosophically correct by a free thinking, educated, and intelligent society.  "

I just wrote it, but I'm drunk and can't tell if I'm speaking correctly.  Corey, I'm mainly looking at you.  Although anybody's imput is greatly appreciated. 

[alvarezbassist17]

The sentence makes sense grammatically, but I'm intrigued about what you were referring to.  I've always kind of had thoughts about the church in the back of my mind, mostly because of the soft spot in my heart for private charity and private moral institutions (for lack of a better term), but have noticed a trend in recent years.  At my church (I'm a Lutheran in a fairly wealthy area), they're all fucking lefties that talk about going green and all that shit and I think that it's a burgeoning class, but there's also the hillbilly Republican class of churchies that I think you're referring to, all of the ones who base their entire political stance on abortion and all that.  I don't really know where I'm going with this, but I have a hard time standing up for today's church for just those reasons, and I also wonder what led the church to these frames of mind because I don't really think they were always that way.  I tend to think it has something to do with tax-exempt status (or some other government-granted benefit) inhibiting competition, but don't really know how to draw the connection between tax exemption and more competition, or between competition and better churches if that makes any sense.  I also wonder what is making it so that they do try to appeal to these lowest common denominators (greenies and rednecks), if it's something inherent in our society and the faith market, or if there's some artificial incentive in place that would cause this to occur.  Thoughts?

In the sense of the church trying to make federal laws to remain relevant, I can see some truth to that, although it seems more like a trend in our overall society as opposed to just the church.  Fuckin everybody wants to lobby the feds for a new law or regulation rather than put out a product that people actually want, and I can't really draw a line between what churches produce for people and every other product on the market.

[Variable]

Yeah I'm going to have to get back to you when I have more time.  I forgot I even posted that.  Apparently I got really drunk and terrorized the internets one night.  Uber lame.  I don't like that sentence though.  It doesn't really get my point across.

I pretty much just wanted to say that the reason the church rallies against laws legalizing gay marriage, abortion, drugs,prostitution etc etc, is because they have failed as an organization.  If they were as they were hundreds of years ago, they would be the leaders of our society.  They would be the leaders and the authority on morals and people would just listen to them.  They wouldn't have to make their moral beliefs into laws because they would still be relevant in our society and people would still be buying into their product.  

But they aren't.  People have pretty much figured out that the church is largely full of shit. And I would even say that a large majority of people that go only go out of tradition.  But deep down inside they know its bull shit.  Which is why they continue to sin even though they go to Church on Sunday morning.  

Pretty much I don't like it that people think it's OK to force their moral beliefs on other people  If the Muslims rallied together and make pork illegal in the US everyone would be furious.  But oh, make gay marriage illegal and it's God's work.  Especially when the laws that they are creating are hurting our society ( like the war on drugs ) and you provide people with evidence that it is really hurting our society and individual people, but they still justify keeping it illegal because " I don't want to send the message that smoking pot is OK, because the bible says its not.  How bout fuck you and your message.  You would rather create an illegal industry where people are murdered and literally sold into slavery to grow pot for other people ( yes, this actually happens.  I know from a first hand experience ) You think its worse for someone to get a little high than to send a pretty all around good and innocent 19 year old kid to prison for selling some pot.  Exposing him to gangs and violence that he will more than likely have to join in on in order to survive?  Introducing him to a system to which he will probably fall into a perpetual spiral and never escape from?  When all he did is the same exact thing that the guy at the 7 11 did when he sold me a beer?  No, I don't buy that at all.  And its bull shit. Especially in a free society and a society where we supposedly have separation of church and state.  

anyways, I want my sentence to say something like that.  

[Variable]

I also wonder what is making it so that they do try to appeal to these lowest common denominators (greenies and rednecks), if it's something inherent in our society and the faith market, or if there's some artificial incentive in place that would cause this to occur.  Thoughts?

Well the way I see it, there are two large groups of people who are attracted to the church ( beyond just going because of family tradition )
1. People who are ignorant/uneducated.  Not stupid, just ignorant to information.  The kind of people who pretty much say "I don't know how things work, therefore god exist."
2.  People who have hit some kind of bottom and seek redemption.  In the 1900s the church changed its message from fire and brimstone if you sin to love through Jesus Christ.  So broken people who either need love or need to feel redeemed for something that is broken in their life are very attracted to the Church.  Many of them being very emotionally unstable. 
And of course the Church tells people that the urges and instincts that are ingrained in our DNA are sins.  They do this because they know for a fact we will do it, because its only natural to us.  Then they convince you that GOD says your natural instincts are sin, and this guarantees revenue.  It keeps people coming.  It keeps people thinking that they need redemption for their actions. 

So as you have observed, Churches really do attract some of the "lowest common denominators" in our society because it offers a product that these kinds of people (either ignorant or broken) need in order to be happy.  Where as it's a lot more rare for highly educated and happy people to attend church.  Almost the entire scientific community dismiss the idea of God.  At least as we define it in most modern religions.  It goes beyond scientist too though.  Lawyers ( people who are not only highly educated but also had to take a test that scores their ability to think logically and comprehend what they are actually reading and hearing ) also tend to be Atheist.  Almost all of the Doctors that I have worked with are Athiest.  I know they are technically scientist, but they are obviously very different than physicist.  Also to my surprise, I have met more people in the military who are Atheist or Agnostic than I thought I would (sometimes due to hanging out with me too much)  But I have noticed a huge trend of people who were Christians when they joined the military, then they went out and saw a lot of the world and observed a lot of different societies.  Then they go to war and experience some of the best and worst that life has to offer, and it all goes against everything they were taught in sunday school, and their faith gets rocked.  So most of then still say that they believe in God, mainly  because they just can't let the fairy tale go because they and their families have bought into it for generations.  But they really don't believe in modern Christianity and they are very unsure about the existence of god and really just want God to be real so bad that they continue to hold on to the idea even after they know its bull shit.
my point is that the people who are most educated and who experience some of the most culture and unique life events, tend to be Atheist or Agnostics.  People can draw the conclusions at to why this is true for themselves.  My Christian friends say that people like me are "too smart for god" and that it's sad.  Too smart for god, what does that even mean?  Doesn't that mean that they are dumb enough to believe in god and they just admitted that through their own words?

[blixa]

you two should get married.

[Variable]

Well we can't.  The religious right has forced their religious beliefs on us and made gay marriage illegal in the U.S.

I'm pretty sure Jesus wasn't about discrimination and prejudice against certain groups of people. But hey, what do I know?

And I didn't say that EVERYONE who goes to church falls into that category.  My entire family is uber Christian as well as a lot of my friends.  And I know that some very educated and cultured people continue to go to church too.  I was just speaking of the Majority.