Fiery_penguin_of_doom Posts

That was a stand alone news channel based out of Los Angles California. I love how people like you try to tie that in with the actual Fox News Channel that was created in 1996 headquartered in New York City. Instead of the Fox 11 channel that was created in 1949.

My Fox 11

Fox News Channel

At least provide a legitimate reason you dislike Fox instead of pulling a straw man.

Edit:Can you at least change the code so it doesn't start automatically? It's quite annoying.

Something wrong with liking O'reilly? Before you even think about it, I didn't -rep tegumi.

On the topic at hand I don't watch the daily show. I've tried in the past to watch it or the Colbert report and didn't find them funny and was rather annoyed at how people took such biased crap as actual news. I've had people come up to me repeating the gibberish they heard on either show and touting it like legit journalism despite the fact the "facts" they heard were wrong.

I get my news from what I consider legitimate media such as Fox news, CNN Headline News, N.P.R., W.S.B 750, and various newspapers (Atlanta Journal) or online articles.

Article.

yeah, it is pretty ridiculous. It just goes to show people how die hard some people's faith really is that they will trust God to heal their child (with the rather high mortality rate of such a choice) rather than seek medical care.



Whatever helps speed up the recovery process after the treatment. I just believe it's an asinine choice to choose this instead of actual treatment.

Now, a deeper question for everybody: What extent should the government be able to control somebody to seek not only medical treatment but, a specific type?

You know you love it.



Better late than never. Thanks Jacob



Loli!

There have been a few studies over the years that have linked religious people recovering quicker when they are told that people are praying for them but, that is recovering from surgery or other medical procedures. I'll dig up a link to one of them when I get home.

@Elder That was the first article I came across. These kinds of cases come up all the time. I can recall at least 5 from memory. One even included a mother and son who became fugitives from the police to avoid him getting court mandated cancer treatment.

I am so collecting pebbles. Time to celebrate


Obsessed? Only slightly

It would really suck for Prowl if Jacob reset his post count to whatever posts he made AFTER he turned 18. Not saying he should, I'm just rambling.

Nah, I'm just magical like that.

Issue: We've all heard news reports that a family doesn't seek medical care for their child and opt for prayer to healing instead. This usually results in the child's death.

Article

So the question is: Should parents being held liable for the deaths or other harm a child sustains due to the parents choice to opt out of medical treatment? This concerns only under age child or others still dependent on their legal guardians.

Where do you draw the line when it comes to the freedom of religion and the related practices?

My personal stance is that the parents should be held liable. The well being of their child is their responsibility and by making a conscious decision to avoid reliable treatment shows a lack of responsibility.

As for where do I draw the line. I stop the protection as soon as they endanger any non-consenting adults or the life of somebody in their care.

My stance remains at that the freedom of speech covers all speech unless you are committing violence, inciting violence or threatening violence. I do not believe in censoring speech as it would eventually lead to more censoring down the road. Today its slander, tomorrow its a negative comment about somebody that portrays somebody in a negative light.

As for hate crimes I think it's racist pure and simple. A group or groups of people are being treated differently based on the color of their skin. Lady justice is blind for a reason, she didn't care about your gender, orientation, race, etc. Sadly, we are far away from the vision of Dr. King when he wished for a colorblind society.

I was never really one to celebrate my own birthday. Oh well. I'll be home in the morning Ziggy.



Yes!

Anybody find it odd that the episode of Metalocalypse is the one about Murderface's birthday.

Anyways, thank you everybody for your regards about my birthday.

Ah but, I can.

@Aud1o Blood: BTW awesome sig.

I counter your dancing Asian with a fat guy.

My interpretation of the freedom of speech stops at inciting violence, actually committing violence or threatening to commit violence. Saying you'll kill the president falls under that definition.

I could call the president every insult and racial slur and it would be protected as I am not doing any of the above. If a radio host or other public figure said "I wish somebody would kill/remove/deal with person X" then that wouldn't be protected.

As far as slander is concerned it's too vague of a idea to censor it. Would the thrashing Palin got about her daughter during the 2008 election count as slander? Or does slander apply on a lower level like dissing someone in a blog? Would Perez Hilton's little spat with Miss California count as slander of her character?

Censoring what people can say is a dangerous idea.

I would have to disagree, you do have the right to say whatever you want. Society expects a little bit of grace even when you do say or express controversial ideas but, its not required. It's really a personal responsibility when using the freedom of speech. If you dislike Sprite's commercial then feel free to do some direct action.

You forget about having to register as a sex offender, barred from working (companies won't hire pedophiles), being monitored and basically told where you can live for the rest of your life.

I guess, Americans don't see children as mentally mature and stable enough to handle the responsibilities that Sweden or other countries believe their children can handle. That or due to America's insecurities about sexuality and the fact that we are bombarded by sexual images all the time could lead to increase sexual offenses which in turns creates demand for more and stricter laws.

I come to this conclusion due to the statistics that come from Japan about sex crimes per-capita being lower than in the United states where sexuality is repressed.

I was asking if Jacob just sat there or did he burst out the shinigami chop on whoever punched him?



I believe you meant this

I disliked the commercial as nothing more than shock value in order to sell the product.

As for censoring it, I can't agree with that, Though it is in poor taste that is the flip side to having the freedom of speech. Sometimes people just aren't subtle when they speak.

To me, it depends on the context of "pedo" in your statement. Pedo as in pedophile/ child molester. Then I have to disagree as she was legally of age. Appearance doesn't matter so long as legally she is of age.

If she was legally 18 then there is no problem. Lets say she had some genetic issues that caused her to have a prepubescent style body (no breasts, no pubic hair,etc) then I would find it it a bit weird but, if she was legally 18 then there is no problem.