Manchalivin Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Does anyone know where I could find that anti-war shirt with the gun and legs or whatever under it that says stop? I'm pretty sure it used to be up at Maple Music but it's gone now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heyrabbit Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 You don't want a shirt like that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnOceanPearl Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 That is probably the favorite MG shirt I own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reckoner Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 what shirt is this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
decomposinglight Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 It's a tank with a broken barrel. The women's version is still up if people are interested in what it looks like. I have the canvas bag of it. ^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heyrabbit Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 (edited) What, the shirt is "anti-war"? This is why nobody should buy shirts that represent MG's political opinions... The problems of war are not reducible only to war itself. Who's against war in general, irrespective of what each particular war is being fought over? Nobody is "anti police arrests", or "anti-weather". (Well, I should sya that's not totally true, but it gives you an idea of how ridiculous it is). It is analogous to being "anti-pain", when a person seeks to avoid pain, regardless of why the pain is being experienced. No matter what goal or value is to be attained by a struggle - a career, a relationship, a healthy body - it involves experiencing pain. So the implications are obvious. If pain is bad, and pain is required to gain values, then the easiest thing to do avoid pain is to renounce valuing altogether. This is the mentality of people who "don't care" about anything. That's the difference between a neurotic and a man of self-esteem, the type of person who lives to avoid pain, as opposed to the person who lives to achieve happiness. Unable to recognize what a value is or what is required to achieve it, the hippie cites "peace and harmony" as the ultimate goal and "lack of killing" as the means of achieving it. "Why can't we all just get along?". "If only we stopped killing each other..." The criterion of hte bad is pain, and pleasure the criterion of the good. Their only explanation is a negation. The good is non-war. A is Non-A. That is the mentality of the anti-war protester, who might as well hold signs saying "Pleasure is good", or "Bad things feel bad". If MG is anti-war, that would seem make sense, seeing as how he is neurotic. Edited April 9, 2008 by heyrabbit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
decomposinglight Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 What, the shirt is "anti-war"? This is why nobody should buy shirts that represent MG's political opinions... The problems of war are not reducible only to war itself. Who's against war in general, irrespective of what each particular war is being fought over? Nobody is "anti police arrests", or "anti-weather". (Well, I should sya that's not totally true, but it gives you an idea of how ridiculous it is). It is analogous to being "anti-pain", when a person seeks to avoid pain, regardless of why the pain is being experienced. No matter what goal or value is to be attained by a struggle - a career, a relationship, a healthy body - it involves experiencing pain. So the implications are obvious. If pain is bad, and pain is required to gain values, then the easiest thing to do avoid pain is to renounce valuing altogether. This is the mentality of people who "don't care" about anything. That's the difference between a neurotic and a man of self-esteem, the type of person who lives to avoid pain, as opposed to the person who lives to achieve happiness. If MG is anti-war, that would seem make sense, seeing as how he is neurotic. The proceeds to some of these items went to amnesty, which is why I assume that design was made. I'm also sure it was a little bit tongue-in-cheek as MG hasn't explicitly said he's against all wars. As for your question of who is against all wars, try Quakers for one. Seriously, though, this is the marketplace, not the "let's frack up every thread" section. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heyrabbit Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 Hey, he approved it. he's also anti-big-business, which is another symptom of being a hippie Define "frack", you know. As for your question of who is against all wars, try Quakers for one. Case in point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
decomposinglight Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 If you disapprove of him so vehemently, why are you here? frack=fuck=fuck up=mess with. Oh, I suppose you're saying Quakers are neurotic. Have you ever even met one? If you did, I'm sure you would view them as simplistic, unintelligent beings incapable of critical thought because they believe in something other than themselves. The Quakers I know got full rides to UVA and Stanford and are aeronautical engineers, computer scientists, pilots, and physicists. Too bad 85% of the world is religious, or you might actually have a case against the human race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heyrabbit Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 (edited) I used to be a huge MG fan, from way back in the day, when I "enjoyed" degenerative music that exuded a bad sense of life. I think argument is probably the most productive part of human discourse and I'm not threatened by it. My not having delusions about the nature of the world doesn't make me more intelligent than anyone who does, it means that I thought about it and they didn't. There's no apparent connection between intelligence and a person's religious or non-religious convictions. What it does point to is a genetic predisposition to faith. You can literally be so well educated that you're able to be a neurosurgeon, or a rocket scientist, and still believe in Jesus, or Allah, that you're going to an alternate universe where you'll meet with dead people, that you're going to a land where you'll get access to 72 virgins. it's not true that a person's likelihood of being religious decreases depending on how low his intelligence is. All of the 9-11 suicide bombers were college educated, intellignet individuals. People are able to reconcile their contradictory beliefs by compartmentalization of the mind. If I didn't care about the human race, I wouldn't give a damn that religion is fundamentally maladaptive to sustaining a future for us. Argumentum ad numerum: Lots of people believe it so it must be true. Edited April 10, 2008 by heyrabbit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
decomposinglight Posted April 11, 2008 Share Posted April 11, 2008 "literally a primitive philosophy" "they should be laughed out of the room" "like admitting you talk to aliens, or that you're an astrologer; it is the admission of a psychological weak point and should be a red flag in the eyes of everyone; it is an indication that that person is incapable of basic critical thinking." "that their stupid and evil ideas might influence on their decision making" "based on the same stupid premises and the same moral code - altruism" "the evils of religion" You said these things. They imply that you think religious people are stupid because they believe in an ideology that is stupid, let alone evil. I never said that it was right to believe in a god because the majority of the world does, I know that's a fallacy; I just said you're not going to win in your lifetime. If religion fades away with secularism, it won't be soon. If you don't want to worship, don't, but insulting religious people everywhere is not going to make you many friends. Anyway, I'm bored with this. By the way, I'm not religious in the slightest. ^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heyrabbit Posted April 11, 2008 Share Posted April 11, 2008 (edited) Whenever a person expresses belief in a false god, in that instant they are being stupid. But a person is a the sum of all his actions, not just the stupid ones. I do stupid things sometimes, as does everyone else. That doesn't mean I'm stupid or smart. I'm stupid or smart insofar as I act stupidly or smartly. And as much as it seems like a contradiction in terms, it's completely obvious that it's entirely possible to be a brilliant Christian, or a genius who's a Muslim, but nobody is a genius because of their Muslimness or Christianness. You can't get an overall estimate of a person based on one action (Although, if a person is religious, it tells you nearly everything about their philosophy). it's hard to judge how much a person is at fault for being religious, because you have to consider other factors such as environment, genetics, etc. For the average person, religion is just some degree of obligatory traditions forced on them by their parents and is not something to think about. But for politicians, it is their job to think philosophically. So there is much less of an excuse for finding the wrong answers. If a rocket scientist fails to crunch the numbers necessary to launch a rocket, it's not a "personal matter of no real significance to his job". Scientists who don't believe in evolution are starting to be laughed at more regularly and are not taken seriously by any credible scientist. That's what should happen to religionists. Okay. Let me put it this way. What's wrong with being a pedophile, and why should I disapprove of them, despite the near certainty that pedophiles will exist after I'm dead? I disapprove of those who have sex with children, of anyone who conceives that idea, and of anyone who does not disapprove of pedophiles. I do not think it's right or good to be a pedophile, provided they "keep it to themselves". I'm not concerned about hurting the feelings of pedophiles, in expressing my disapproval of them, for obvious reasons. I would not want to be friends with anyone who is casually indifferent to pedophilia, in a society dominated by pedophilic philosophy. If you think all of that sounds absurd, consider that pedophilia is not only less of a problem than religion, but it's a natural consequence of it. Edited April 11, 2008 by heyrabbit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
decomposinglight Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 pedophilia is a natural consequence of religion? Either you've got some dangling modifiers or you're going to back that shit up. lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heyrabbit Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 (edited) Well, you've got the Catholic church which is a perfect recipe for pedophiles. There's an epidemic of priests who sexually repress themselves until they turn into child molesters. You've also got entire Mormon polygamous communities that systematically rape children, damaging them psychologically for life, forcing girls as young as 15 or 13 to share husbands with other girls, and much of the time it's incestuous, with sister's sharing husbands who are their grandfathers or uncles. etc As for Islam, I'm not sure how much of that goes on. But, the prophet Mohammed, on whom billions of people base their lives, was a child molester who raped 9 year old girls. Edited April 16, 2008 by heyrabbit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heyrabbit Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 I came across this article this morning http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/16/polyga...apes/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight_Graham Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 Whenever a person expresses belief in a false god, in that instant they are being stupid. But a person is a the sum of all his actions, not just the stupid ones. I do stupid things sometimes, as does everyone else. That doesn't mean I'm stupid or smart. I'm stupid or smart insofar as I act stupidly or smartly. And as much as it seems like a contradiction in terms, it's completely obvious that it's entirely possible to be a brilliant Christian, or a genius who's a Muslim, but nobody is a genius because of their Muslimness or Christianness. You can't get an overall estimate of a person based on one action (Although, if a person is religious, it tells you nearly everything about their philosophy). it's hard to judge how much a person is at fault for being religious, because you have to consider other factors such as environment, genetics, etc. For the average person, religion is just some degree of obligatory traditions forced on them by their parents and is not something to think about. But for politicians, it is their job to think philosophically. So there is much less of an excuse for finding the wrong answers. If a rocket scientist fails to crunch the numbers necessary to launch a rocket, it's not a "personal matter of no real significance to his job". Scientists who don't believe in evolution are starting to be laughed at more regularly and are not taken seriously by any credible scientist. That's what should happen to religionists. Okay. Let me put it this way. What's wrong with being a pedophile, and why should I disapprove of them, despite the near certainty that pedophiles will exist after I'm dead? I disapprove of those who have sex with children, of anyone who conceives that idea, and of anyone who does not disapprove of pedophiles. I do not think it's right or good to be a pedophile, provided they "keep it to themselves". I'm not concerned about hurting the feelings of pedophiles, in expressing my disapproval of them, for obvious reasons. I would not want to be friends with anyone who is casually indifferent to pedophilia, in a society dominated by pedophilic philosophy. If you think all of that sounds absurd, consider that pedophilia is not only less of a problem than religion, but it's a natural consequence of it. Ya but t-shirts are fucking cool. PWN'D!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenous megin-sane Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 are you people serious? this is a thread about a tshirt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hum-an-ole Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 I think it's interesting dialogue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
decomposinglight Posted April 19, 2008 Share Posted April 19, 2008 I think rabbit has too much time on his hands. If religion distinctively bred pedophilia then all religious people would be pedophiles, no? Or be repressing pedo tendencies? Now, what makes the people you listed pedophiles? Their own nature and their sexual repression (the fact that they did it in order to be a priest does not make religion the cause of pedophilia). You have no way of proving otherwise; your evidence is made up of things you link as casual without any backing. Give me a study that says 99.99% of religious people want to fuck babies, dream about fucking kids, and get it on with any little one they can - then I'll buy your argument. Until then, know that anyone can be a weird fuck. And anyone can repress their sex drive. As you should also know, the majority of convicted pedophiles are just regular dudes who can't get some. Then again, a surprising amount of people on those state pedo databases are just dudes who touched a younger girl or peed in public in front of some kids. Now they're sex offenders. Oh snap. You prove nothing with that article except that there is injustice in the world, and things suck. I've seen too many articles (and Oprahs) like that to care about the situation. I don't care if their free will has been repressed by beatings and scripture alike - grow some backbone and you'll be able to get out of marrying your daddy. Apparently hiking and cocaine also help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noise_pollution Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 So yeah..umm how about them t-shrts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heyrabbit Posted April 26, 2008 Share Posted April 26, 2008 (edited) I think rabbit has too much time on his hands. If religion distinctively bred pedophilia then all religious people would be pedophiles, no? Or be repressing pedo tendencies? Now, what makes the people you listed pedophiles? Their own nature and their sexual repression (the fact that they did it in order to be a priest does not make religion the cause of pedophilia). You have no way of proving otherwise; your evidence is made up of things you link as casual without any backing. Give me a study that says 99.99% of religious people want to fuck babies, dream about fucking kids, and get it on with any little one they can - then I'll buy your argument. Until then, know that anyone can be a weird fuck. And anyone can repress their sex drive. As you should also know, the majority of convicted pedophiles are just regular dudes who can't get some. Then again, a surprising amount of people on those state pedo databases are just dudes who touched a younger girl or peed in public in front of some kids. Now they're sex offenders. Oh snap. You prove nothing with that article except that there is injustice in the world, and things suck. I've seen too many articles (and Oprahs) like that to care about the situation. I don't care if their free will has been repressed by beatings and scripture alike - grow some backbone and you'll be able to get out of marrying your daddy. Apparently hiking and cocaine also help. Sorry about the late reply. I'm not always busy, but I have been, and I also had a concussion that scrambled my eggs and put me out of commission for a little while. My argument is obviously not that all religious people are pedophiles but, rather, that there are aspects of certain religions that predispose people to pedophilia. I've heard different numbers on the amount of Priests who are abusers. Some say 4% of priests are accused of abusing. Others say 0.2% of priests in America are proven abusers. Whatever the number actually are, it's reasonable to say that a lot of priests have been pedophiles. Just why that is, I can only speculate. It seems like a reasonable inference to make, that living a life of celibacy, combined with a position of close proximity and trust with children, is something that at the very least creates a strong opportunity for that crime. We know many take advantage of that opportunity. So is their motive completely unrelated from their beliefs? I doubt it, but I can't prove it. For some denominations of Christianity and most of the main religions, pedopihlia is an integral a part of life, because there is no strict age limit on marriage. Both Islam and the Church of LDS uses puberty as some vague guideline for the acceptable marriage age. And because these customs are part of these religions, people live accordingly. These girls and boys are indoctrinated from childhood to believe that a celestial marriage is required of them. And for anyone isn't successfully brainwashed, are threatened with dead if they leave. Pedophilia is something that is just not prevalent in every occupation. There is no epidemic of pedophile architects, or radio broadcasters who systematically rape children all over the country. You don't hear thousands of sexual assault accusations made against lawyers, or mail men, or bus drivers, or accountants. Why would that be? There is just nothing in the world-view of a molecular biologists that makes them more susceptible to molesting children. Edited April 26, 2008 by heyrabbit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
decomposinglight Posted April 27, 2008 Share Posted April 27, 2008 Sorry to hear about your concussion. In response to your second paragraph, I can see where our opinions may not have meshed. By U.S. law, Canadian law, or that of most democratic nations, the age of consent and legal marriage age are often higher than the age at which a person experiences puberty. We could all go around saying "Egyptians married and popped 'em out at 12! It's all good!," but you and I both know that's bullshit. While these actions can be physically done, and puberty is a technical and biological determinant that someone has "come of age," we must recognize that in today's world (and I'd wager the world of most time-frames) 12 year olds are mentally incapable of a lot of things and highly susceptible to a slew of hogwash. You've got me there; Islamic churches and Mormons are employing some wacky logic when they say 11 year olds are A-OK to be married off. I certainly didn't have the intellectual chops to make financial or family planning decisions when I was that young. It doesn't make you right that religion breeds pedophilia, but it makes you right on something, at least. Now, when you say priests have been accused of abusing, let's remember that anyone can accuse anyone of anything. Just because some priests have been accused doesn't mean they did it (ever read John Patrick Shanley's "Doubt"?). You say that "many" take advantage of the opportunity placed before them to abuse young people and that it's "reasonable" to say that "a lot" of priests have been pedophiles. With between 0.2 and 4% accused, is this really something "we know"? Additionally, making an analysis of the microcosm and transferring assumptions to the macrocosm is illogical and fallacious. The fact that a small number of celibate, religious people enact pedophilia upon others doesn't mean religion breeds pedophilia. It only proves that a religious person who choses to be celibate can become frustrated and commit these acts with the readily accessible altar boys. Frustrated celibate people could also go get themselves a hooker or fuck a nun, but is anyone reporting that? Nah. It could even be that neither religion nor celibacy are the determinants here, as I'll discuss later. I'd wager celibacy is more of a determinant, though, not religion; it's just that most celibate people chose to be so as a result of their religious beliefs. If you're going to say that "religion caused them to be celibate, so it's religion's fault," then say that all you want - it doesn't make it true. The margin of any religious persons to be pedophiles is hardly large enough to say there is a propensity for pedophilia to occur, or that it is common. All of this is like saying that I know one douchebag from Ontario, thus all people from Ontario must be douchebags. Likewise, some black people adore fried chicken, watermelon, and Kool-aid (as the stereotype perpetuates), so all black people must adore these things. In reality, neither are the case. Taking the smallest minutia to the aggregate level without proper research doesn't get you any kudos. I'm not going to touch on your last paragraph, because it's obvious that someone in most other professions doesn't have the requirement of celibacy. We can determine that without your help. Finally, let's debunk everything you just said. Do you think that homosexuals chose to be homosexuals? Just woke up one day and said "dude, I like dudes!"? On the contrary, it has been proven that there are genetic links. Accordingly, it has been proven that pedophilia is a mental disorder with biological determinants. That's why rehab programs for pedophiles rarely work. These people are biologically attracted to children and the only proven way to suppress their urges entirely is to castrate them and/or inhibit their sex drives with medication. People who are pedophiles would have acted on these tendencies whether they became priests or not. If Pedophile A is a CEO of Apple, he's still gonna fuck kiddies. Lastly, what doctrine states, "God came down and told the people 'RAPE CHILDREN!'"? Again, just because some sects of Christianity or Islam do the nasty with youngins' doesn't mean that the religious doctrine says it's ok, or that the religion itself breeds pedophilia. Pedophiles are predisposed to these things, they act on them - it happens. It's the people, not the religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrs jesus Posted April 28, 2008 Share Posted April 28, 2008 I think rabbit has too much time on his hands. what's YOUR excuse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
decomposinglight Posted April 28, 2008 Share Posted April 28, 2008 I've decided that since very few people actually value his existence, I might give him the time of day. Also, I get bored sometimes. Might as well use my brain. Use it or lose it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrs jesus Posted April 29, 2008 Share Posted April 29, 2008 so you're a boring twat, that's awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
