Don't insult the jews by comparing them to those gingerbread bastards.

Yeah. Nobody has any plans to put them into ovens!

...well...um, uhh...

...nevermind.

At least nobody is planning on making a museum of an extinct cookie.

Unless the house and the man were made from the same gingerbread batch ;)

Would that be siblings, or clones?

Of course gingerbread men should not be forced to live in houses made of their flesh.

If you think about it for half a moment, you will see how ridiculous the suggestion is.

Gingerbread men should live in houses made of the flesh of other gingerbread men.

Undertale,

That's kinda offensive.

1 - What you mean to say is that you FEEL offended.

No statement is ever intrinsically offensive. If that were the case EVERYONE would feel offended by such statements.

Actions and attitudes/postures can be offensive as opposed to defensive, but this is in the context of conflict where one is either attacking/advancing or defending.

The point here is perfectly illustrated in your statement, "So the name-calling died down. A few ppl still do it and I just take their arm and turn it as much as I can without breaking it."

People say things that offend you, and you respond by taking offensive action.

2 - You indicate that you are offended by the characterization of gingers as soulless" but you neither assert that you have a soul, nor that you have a clear position as to why you are offended by being called soulless.

Do you have a soul?

The appeal process is long.. Cosby won't outlive it.

Especially considering the stress he has been under, and the fact that it just skyrocketed.

The uberhumor link got me to a PAGE NOT FOUND message.

:(

I don't see anything in your posts to indicate any concern for anybody, so prove me wrong. Again, (other than taxes, if you like) how much do YOU give away. What is the percentage?

He only has so much by not giving it away.

He is already giving a ton of it away.

Remember, In the US, the top 10% of earners pay 70% of all Federal income taxes.

The top 1% pay 37% of all Federal income taxes.

The bottom 40% pay no income tax, and about half of the bottom 50% receives a larger refund than they paid in. (They pay negative taxes.)

This will change some for 2018 taxes. The early estimates are that the Top 25% of earners will pay less tax in dollars, but a larger percentage of all taxes paid. We will see. (I don't trust the estimates.)

How much of what you have do you give away?

I would like to see what he has to say to his fellow inmates.

Hell, the season opener should be an apology to all the women he drugged and raped, and for that matter, an apology to his wife.

This is just another example of what a mixed bag people are.

Cosby, who turns out to be a @#%! rapist, made the world a better place for a lot of years. His comedy was brilliant, his message was positive, and he was possibly as effective in fighting racism as Dr. King was.

I grew up watching his various TV shows (including Fat Albert) and listening to his albums, and I understood that this Black guy from Philly had a childhood remarkably similar to mine, and that the basic ingredients of his life and his outlook were the same as mine. The basic text of his artistic and cultural contributions was that race is irrelevant, and we all are funny and amazing and worth knowing.

When he was hired to be on I Spy in 1965, his stipulation was that his character was to be just a guy, not a black guy. There were to be no jokes or references to race because he recognized that it is irrelevant and incidental.

There is a whole generation of us who, because of Bill Cosby grew up with the awareness (and assumption) that racism, including racial stereotypes and categorizing people by race, is stupid because we are all just people.

I support the outrage at his criminal actions, and I am disgusted by the fact that so many people allowed it to continue for so long. Absolutely prison is where he belongs.

That does not mean we should throw away the good that he did, or the positive contributions he made.

I don't know if he is a good man who did horrible and selfish things, or if he is a horrible man who gave wonderful and valuable things to the world.

I am not even sure there is a difference. As I said, people are a mixed bag.

That seems like it could be a problem.

It would only be a problem if the art is face-down.

Of Course the Etch-A-Sketch-Art museum could be in an earthquake prone area. They could put it next to the Jell-O sculpture gallery.

(He's one of the 1% ;)

How is his income connected to his concern for others?

Near as I can tell, Kanye West actually does care about black people, which is why he supports Trump.

That is clearly indicated in his "self victimization is a disease" tweets, his support for Candace Owens and her empowerment message.

People who want better lives have to make their lives better. The poor-me, and I-am-a-victim-of... mindset is self-defeating.

Kanye and others have been pointing out that this sickness of self victimization is basic to the message the Democrat party and the left consistently tell black people they are supposed to think.

This is why Owens and Kanye decry the Democrat party and leftist academic and Hollywood thought police.

If we want people to have better lives, telling them to stop blaming, and to start working with a positive mindset is a kind thing to do. So is telling them that the Democrats don't own them, their political views, and their votes.

Math Fan,

people in my generation view 'marriage' or even 'long-term monogamous relationships' very, very differently. It is becoming thought of as a bit more formalized more extended relationship, where (more likely than not), is not going to last indefinitely. Essentially, the idea is that 'true love' is a myth--and therefore high doses of sexual promiscuity is a wiser/superior life route.

The way your generation views marriage and sex is nothing new.

At all.

That has been common since the early 1970s. The casual hookup is only a new way to say it. Lots of us planned never to get married, but that ultimately yields to unexpected pressures.

Your GenX parents are going to notice when you and somebody have become exclusive, or moved in together, or have gotten pregnant. The reaction will be oriented toward some type of stability that is at least one step past wherever you are in the relationship.

The woman (man?) you are with will likewise put pressure on you (or vice versa) to stabilize the joint venture of your lives.

The ONLY thing that is different is your generation is doing things about 5-10 years later than mine (Gen X), and we were about 5-10 years later than my folks (boomers). However, we are still all doing the same things.

Just because you guys don't finish adolescence until your late 20's does not mean you won't settle down by your late 30's to get married, buy a house, and have kids.

The pressure will be there, partly to get you to "prove you are grown-ups," or "join the adult world."

That is what they did to my generation.

That is what they did to my folks, too.

As such you will notice that my previous post is entirely concerned with the creation of a strong contract.

I agree wholeheartedly with you about the need for detailed contracts. That does not change how invasive legal marriage is.

Regardless of the fact that you did not participate, if your spouse lies on an income tax form, the IRS can put you in prison. If without your permission, your spouse runs up credit card bills buying stuff for a paramour or for your in-laws, that is your debt, too. Etc., etc., all without any explicit statement of these rules being written on the marriage license.

The contract between the couple and the state cannot be amended by the couple, and in those states with common law marriage, the state intrudes without the consent of the couple and imposes these regulations upon them.

Homosexual couples still do not have to get married, though. Then, how did it tear down this advantage, you discussed?

Apparently you have never had to deal with family and girlfriend/boyfriend pressure to get married.

Almost as soon as I hit my twenties, I came to envy homosexuals their protection from these pressures that at best are awkward, and at worst are extortive.

Are you saying gay marriage should be abolished ;)

I would say that until gay marriage was legalized, homosexuals were protected from a level of government intrusion into their personal lives that heterosexuals were not.

Legalizing gay marriage removed the greatest advantage gays had over heterosexual couples.

It would have been better to illegalize heterosexual marriage.

Antrim,

Marriage helps towards establishing a stable relationship in which to raise a family and creates a feeling of security for both parties.

I agree, but there is no reason to think this necessitates legal marriage. It is useful to distinguish between the social or religious aspects of marriage, and the legal aspects.

The legal aspects are unnecessary, and support the intrusion of government in personal relationships.

Would you ever make the government a third party to any of your platonic friendships?

I seriously doubt it.

For details, read the statements I posted on the other side (some of which are responses.)

Amarel,

At the minimum, there would need to be 2 witnesses to attest to the validity of the union and some form of arbitration to settle property matters in the event the union is disolved.

What you are describing is legal marriage.

The problem is that a marriage simultaneously is a contract between the couple (my property is your property) and between the couple and the rest of the society (I will also be responsible for his/her debts).

There is no need for this. I had a roommate in college, and we did not commingle our assets or our debts.

The expense of divorce both to the couple and to the taxpayers is the result of this assumed commingling. Were the husband/wife to enter into all contracts separately, own all property separately, etc., then we as a society would avoid this unnecessary complication. At that point, divorce court judges could hear other cases (criminal, torte, immigration, etc.)

As in any other roommate relationship, each pays whatever portion of the bills they agree upon between them, and each owns whatever percentage of the property agreed upon at purchase. For example, if each pays half the mortgage, then each owns a half share in the house, adjusted for percentage of the down payment each paid. At divorce, each recovers the same percentage of the sale price of the home that he/she paid.

Likewise at dissolution of the relationship, neither would have any claim on the other's retirement/ 401k/ pension or future earnings.

As in my roommate relationship, however household chores are allocated is a private arrangement not subject to any consideration (as it is currently in divorce proceedings).

That is how it works in any other roommate relationship. Who does what chores is nobody else's business, especially not the government's business.

Removing government from involvement in marriage would have no effect on child custody and support, which are dealt with separately, just as they are for the 26% of American kids who are already raised in single parent situations, most of which never had married parents.

There is no rational reason for people to allow the government to be a party to marriage.

The foundation for the argument for legal marriage is basically that adults need the government to be involved in our interpersonal relationships. We know this is unnecessary and invasive in marriage for the same reason that we would know it to be unnecessary and invasive if people were to suggest the same government involvement in our platonic friendships.

I think marriage should not be a legal institution, but I think it would still exist were the government/law uninvolved. In fact marriage appears to have predated law (and possibly even government) by centuries or millennia.

In general, I am against government involvement in most aspects of human life, especially our personal relationships. We do not involve government in our friendships or roommate relationships, so I see no reason to involve government in our marriages.

The fact that we have to pay the state to "validate" the relationship, and then pay the state to leave the relationship is foolish, especially because it implies that it matters that the relationship has been approved by the state.

I see nothing that justifies making the state a third party in our social relationships. If children are able to establish social relationships on their own, it makes no sense for adults to pretend we need some parental interference in our intimate relationships.

Wow. Are there no Christians capable of clearly explaining the cornerstone of Christianity? Is an agnostic required to step in to do the job?

.

Because Christians see the Crucifixion as the quintessential expression of God's love for humanity, the day commemorating this act of love is Good.

Christians believe that the crucifixion of Jesus was God sacrificing himself (simultaneously God's Son) to pay for each person's sin, making it possible for people who believe in this to be cleansed of their iniquities, saved from eternal damnation, and reconciled with God.

For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John3:16)

I like this as a template, largely because it is not a debate so much as it is a conversation wherein people are sharing their own views and trying to understand each other's views.

Generally, conversations have none of the competitiveness of a debate. This makes it easier and more likely for people to acknowledge things on which they agree, and the validity of ideas with which they disagree. Moreover, it it encourages charitable interpretation of each other's statements.

Hell, I hate that the US is a welfare state. It weakens both individuals and the people as a whole, and dissipates our freedom.

I definitely don't want the US ever to be socialist because I value freedom and accomplishment.

Despite leftists categorizing socialism as "liberal", it limits people's freedom by:

-- Granting the state unreasonable power

-- Confiscating money and power (and thereby freedom from individuals)

-- Discouraging accomplishment by relieving individuals of responsibility and accountability for their own needs

-- Discouraging accomplishment by taking too much of the rewards for personal success

I am a free market capitalist because:

-- It creates the most wealth.

-- It encourages the greatest (and stupidest) accomplishments.

-- It provides the most effective non-violent and non-coercive social controls.

-- It encourages the greatest personal freedom.

In a truly free market all social/economic relationships are completely voluntary, and unfortunately we are moving away from that (wedding cake requirements) and as freedom is truncated, justice is curtailed.

There is no indication that he did not know how to love.

In fact, the indication is that he loved deeply and passionately. This would seem to be why he reacted so violently against the things and ideas he perceived as threats to those he loved, particularly his nation and the German people.

Certainly he loved beauty and art.

I might go to Vienna and try to market his paintings better. Had he been a successful artist, he might never have gone into politics.