m308gunner

13 minutes ago, arch_8ngel said:

So Iran admitted to the shoot-down after their fairly ridiculous/obvious attempts to cover up the evidence before investigators arrived.

Pretty interesting.

Right?!? *puts tinfoil hat back on*

1 minute ago, Reed Rothchild said:

I think you "presume" we're fools.  That your views on homosexuality have become the minority one in the last couple decades, and to compensate for the swing in sentiments, the goal posts are trying to be moved.  Is it a coincidence that the two posters in opposition here are Christians?  That Arch's congregation is taking the most radical step possible over it?  No, I don't think so.

  Have I stated my views on homosexuality? Could you quote them for me?

3 hours ago, arch_8ngel said:

As a person of faith myself, who whole heatedly supports.gay marriage and thinks that fundamentalists and many others completely misinterpret how homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible, I don't think most of them "hate" gay people, but I do think they misunderstand them deeply.

 

My denomination is splitting this summer over the issue, so I am pretty familiar with both sides arguments within the church, beyond what views you might want to simply ascribe to non Christians.

 Well I was pretty clearly addressing Rothchild's assertion that anyone who thinks a certain way on the issue must REALLY believe what he stated in quotes. Ascribing views is all the rage these days.

  Wading into the waters of denominational interpretation of theological doctrines could get real deep real fast, never mind including the personal component. It is unfortunate, but not surprising, that the split you mentioned is happening. I must confess that I haven't been keeping track of too many of the larger denominations in detail since getting kicked out of church a few years ago... Totally not still jaded or bitter

3 hours ago, Reed Rothchild said:

Sounds like a defense cooked up over the last 20 years in order to rationalize it.  A spade's a spade.

 Look again. That spade used to be a heart. I think your presumption that you've accurately labeled those who do not agree with you has colored it black and turned it upside down.

2 hours ago, Lincoln said:

nobody says churches have to endorse gay marriage, but they get to deal with being called out as bigots if they're gonna pull that bullshit.

Because as we all know the best way to engender a stable and thriving society is to demonize and slander a huge swath of it. If all I knew of you was this line, and all I had was the dictionary definition of "bigot", I'd have to say you are what you seem to hate. 

48 minutes ago, Reed Rothchild said:

"I don't hate you, I just think you deserve less than me"

Which sounds like more false equivalency and mind reading without any nuance or real understanding of an opposing view point. 

16 hours ago, MrWunderful said:

Ive always believed People can have whatever reason they want to hate someone, just keep it to themselves  

 

But if the government is going to give two consenting adults a tax benefit for signing a contract, the gender of the two adults shouldn’t matter. 

 People can oppose same sex marriage without holding hateful intentions or opinions, and in my experience often do just that (oppose but not hate). To accept it is not virtuous and to oppose it is not evil. Are you in regular contact with a person of faith who acts in a manner that informs that opinion?

  I had assumed the government got into the marriage business with the intention of incentivizing the creation of more little tax payers (in which case the genders would play a large part), but I could be dead wrong.

15 hours ago, Sumez said:

I got mine through LRG (didn't realise it had broad international distribution before it was too late - and LRG doesn't allow cancelling orders which is crazy) so it'll probably be like another month or so before mine arrives. Really looking forward it though!

I heard they messed up the controls for some reason (different direction pressed to change gravity). Any veterans of the game able to judge the consequences of the change?

 Man it's been years since I owned the original, so my memory might be wrong, but since you mention it my muscle memory was confused when I started playing...

And another bump!

Man, that cable management...

Welcome to VGS c00p3r! Glad to have you!

12 hours ago, arch_8ngel said:

I think you are missing the point of what was said.

The Constitution, at least by the account of the guy that wrote it, was intended to be re-written on a generational basis, as society moved forward and our understanding of each other and the world evolved.

But instead, you have a group of "originalists" that view the words of the country's founders with the same reverence as if it came from God.

They act like the Constitution can't be improved upon as we know more about the people around us and grow as a culture and country.

They act like a group of guys in a pre-industrial, limited-science, world knew some absolute truth about good governance, economics, race, religion, and sexuality that could never be informed by new information.

 

It is an absurd position to take, especially given that they fairly quickly codified 10 major amendments to the document.

They knew they didn't have all the answers and didn't get it right the first time, and left the process of revision open for future generations to have their own input.

 

 

It terms of your "find me a person" comments (about people that don't want justice or want to hold others down)... surely you can't be serious.

You don't have to look very far to find clear examples of either, and they quite unfortunately are not "few and far between".

 Hmm. That is a compelling argument (in terms of the constitution). Though the founders did have a very well educated view of history and human nature, and knew that governments (because they were made up of men) tended towards corruption over time. For that reason alone I would hope we as a country would tread lightly in regards to amendments, but history is not a subject most seem interested in. Perhaps it is not so absurd as you would like to think, though some have taken it to extremes.

  And speaking of "the guy who wrote it" (I assume you mean Gouverneur Morris) he has some rather striking quotes, such as "I believe that religion is the only solid basis of morals, and that morals are the only possible support of free governments", among many others. Even if one has no interest or belief in the faith of the founders, it would benefit one greatly to understand the context in which the constitution was crafted, and that apparently it was meant for a society that held said morals. But that is a subject for another time.

  And I am serious. And don't call me Shirly  But I will lean towards disagreeing much along the lines of our previous disagreement on the common characterization of Trump supporters. You have your sample sizes, and I have mine, but I think it might have more to do with one's own interpretation of human nature than anything else (which I recognize cuts both ways). 

20 hours ago, MrWunderful said:

Dont bother on my account, I have zero patience for anyone trying to convince me of “god says this” or “the bible says that” because I dont believe in any of that. If other people want to believe in it I support them, but I personally find it insane that people think same sex couple shouldnt enjoy tax benefits because “god says so”. Im sure God really wanted states to get that extra tax revenue. 

 Heh, well to be fair that is probably the last line in the list of reasons a person of faith who does not support same sex marriage would give you, if it were even on the list. But as you indicated, your mind is already made up, so I shan't elaborate.

2 hours ago, coffeewithmrsaturn said:

Even if that guy could convince me that he knew what was intended by the founders, who cares?  I don't understand the bizarre obsession with idolizing the founders and their vision.  We should have our own progressive vision for the country.  I mean, our society as a whole is really not some glorious beacon of equality and prosperity.  We should want to do better as a country...as a world, really.

  With regards to the founders, in terms of the lives they led, what they were facing, where they came from, what they went through, and what they ended up crafting... They were the genesis of why people got it into their heads that our leaders should be looked up to. 

  Is what they crafted perfect? Nope, but I think they knew that when they crafted the line "a more perfect union" (emphasis added). 

  Too many are in the habit of shitting on our society as of late without any hint of gratitude for what we are living in and where we came from. You can only think our society is not a glorious beacon if you ignore the absolute F@$!&# horror show that most of human history has been and focus solely on one or two parameters that don't match up to some imagined utopia. Find me someone who does not want to do better or does not want some form of justice. Find me the person or people who are twiddling their fingers at the thought of holding someone else down for evil's sake. They will be few and far between.

  Now find me the figures for how many people have been lifted out of abject poverty, received some form of life saving procedure, and invented some miraculous new device that benefits all of mankind in the last decade alone.

  MAN I need to go to bed!

3 hours ago, MrWunderful said:

Holy mother of word salad with quotes on the side

 

That incredible response was more than I could’ve ever asked for. 
 

@arch_8ngel is probably Still working on his response to that guy’s first seven part thesis.  Nah hes too smart to waste time responding

  Mr. Connoisseur is doing a very poor job at articulating very complex ideas (that apparently not many are familiar with). Given the time I could probably elaborate on his points more clearly in a broader theological and historical context so that they make a bit more sense to the casual observer, but it would turn into a bloody novel (which I couldn't blame anyone for not reading).

  One point I think I can make relatively quickly and succinctly would be that the society the founders were a part of and engaged in (as shown rather well by spacepup's post of Thomas Jefferson's letter and so VERY many of the writings of the time) was profoundly Christian in it's morality, while the theology was (largely) left up to one's own agency. There were, of course, exceptions (from state to state for example), because nothing in life or history is as simple as we were taught in school.

  Moving on to more recent events: (Dons tinfoil helm)

  I'm kinda sorta of the opinion that:

  A - Someone high in the Iranian government saw Soleimani as an eventual threat to their power and "dropped a dime" on the man so that their position would remain secure. They then launched the missiles so that they wouldn't appear weak to their people, but that also didn't require a US response in force. Or...

  B - That hypothetical high official saw all the damage Soleimani was doing and figured it might be easier to broker a deal with the US in some respect if the guy wreaking havoc all the time was out of the way. Kinda hard to make nice if there's a highly popular war monger that the people love (given the crowd at his funeral) raising hell every now and then through proxy militias. 

  1 cent for A, plus 1 cent for B equals... a straight to DVD episode of a 24 knock off :P.

Re-released Metalstorm! Digging the Japanese cut scene.

Welcome to the new hotness!

Sell! Sell! Sell!

Badumpabump!

Ahhhhhhh..... feels good.

Welcome to the fold.

Well done man... 

Welcome to VGS!

Welcome to VGS Chris. Going to be checking your software out!

Welcome to VGS Duke!

Welcome to the party mang!