wolfmason's Comments (147)

“Those are all great questions, but really, what precedence is there for any of this? We're "at War" with an "army" that is not technically a part of any particular nation. I'd imagine this kind of thing would have to fall more closely along the lines of laws that deal with extradition of foreign nationals than it would native criminal justice, and I doubt miranda rights play a role in extradition.

I think that any way you look at it, this will end up being a "make it up as you go" sort of affair.”

“The recent Onion headline "Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be" pretty much says it all.”

“I think the only real risk these trials run, is the possibility of convicting these men too quickly, thus allowing our enemies to brand them "show trials".

Even so, a "show trial" will probably make us look more principled and democratic than no trial at all.”

“Ok, Ok, +10 points go to Palin critics, BUT, the book is obviously intelligible enough to be criticized via direct argument, which is a feat in it's self.

So let's give credit where it's due: +1 point for the ghost-writer.”

“Sure they are, but the perspective is determined by the people writing the history books, which as I mentioned before, will depend on the victors in this battle.”

“I can't help but wonder whether 20 years from now, we'll look back at it as a "golden hayday of freedom", or as a wild-west lawless backwoods. I tend to side with the former, but I suppose the legislation passed will determine that.”

“Not to mention the fact that a lot of people in this country have very limited options so far as providers are concerned.”

“I recommend you do a search on "net neutrality" at wired's site. They have a lot of good info on both sides of the argument. There are surely pros and cons to both sides, but to say that neutrality benefits "primarily advertisers and marketing folks" is pretty far off base entirely accurate.

I for one, don't wish to see web sites, services, and bandwidth doled out in chunks like cable packages, and without neutrality, this is a likely end-game for a lot of users.”

“I saw a "King of Pop-Music" red leather jacket in a party store the other day. It would've made a nice addition to the list.”

“I can't believe you're actually going to make me ask "Why do bad things happen to good people, children, puppies, etc.?"

(Canned answer: "Mysterious god, plan, etc., etc., i.e., we don't really know for sure what's he's planning next, and we have no way of testing/predicting since god is by definition unknowable­/unpredict­able)”

“Yeppers. Bottom line is, ethics should be taught to first graders. Then again in second grade. Then in third, etc., etc.

Fact is, most of us behave as if God is the only one we hurt when we behave unwisely (and we can just ask for forgiveness anyways), because we can't imagine our impact on others, or the potential cost of others behaving as we do.

If people better understood ethics and the actual impact of their actions, I think we'd have a much healthier human society.”

“Hehe, i can appreciate the argument, especially since it renders all "Christians vs. Atheists" arguments entirely moot ;-)”

“"Chance" is a religious term. It has no place in a logical universe ruled strictly by rules of nature, absent a "supernatural" force. There is no chance, but cause and effect.

You are right to say that "What may be right for you, is not right for someone else in another culture", but you're making incorrect assumptions about the nature of atheism.”

“"information implies an observer."

Isn't that a chicken and egg argument? An observer necessarily implies the existence of prior information, or at least new information to warrant observation.”

“"Everything that happens is a chance-driven rattle-jattle jumble in the great concourse of atoms that we call time"

I suppose it would help to inform the pastor that the very idea of "chance" is a religious concept. In the naturalist­ic/atheist­ic universe, there is no "chance", but rather rigid cause and effect, logic and reason, order and structure behind everything that has happened and everything that will happen.

It is the religious universe that is ruled strictly by "chance", i.e., the inherently unknowable, inherently unpredictable actions of that all fall into God in His Plan (whatever that may entail). While all religions assume to know the eventual outcome of His plan, the mechanisms by which He works (the nature of the soul, the nature of justice, good, evil, etc) are not, and cannot be fully understood, for knowing these mechanisms, would be to know God, which is by definition, impossible for mortals. That, is "chance".”

“Come on guy, the man has an extensive record of saying very public, very negative things about the league and players (many still active) therein. Of course the commissioner would express doubts. Of course other owners would vote against his instatement. To shout "conspiracy", "bias", or "blacklist" in this case is totally absurd.

You're arguing that it's discrimination not to hire someone that has personally jeopardized your business in the past, criticized some of your employees, and deeply offended many others. To argue that he deserves the same consideration as anyone else "in the name of fairness" is like arguing that a former arsonist, who burnt down your match factory twice before, deserves a fair shot a job because swears he won't burn it down a third time.”

“Haha, I suppose I worded that poorly, that's not my intent. Obviously, the NHL wouldn't take his insanity lightly either, but let's be honest, the man has made a lot of enemies in the NFL, and a lot of enemies amongst African Americans, so I think the response in the NFL's case would definitely be greater.”

“Read the story man, the NFL didn't do anything, his partners did.”

“Actually, that's not at all similar. I didn't say "Bad for business", and neither did any all-powerful industry exec (as in the analogy you've made) with the power to "blacklist" him. His own partners branded him "bad for business", and his own potential employees (the players) confirmed it by vocally opposing his bid.

Moreover, no one said he can't bid on another team or put out an independent bid (as actual "blacklisting" might entail). He's just not a part of this bid.

Finally, the man was fired once before for offending millions of NFL fans/players and truly embarrassed the league/network. That kind of mistake would get pretty much anyone else permanently, and rightly "blacklisted" from an organization. Tell me, why should this man have a second chance?”

“And Miley Cyrus has the biggest record, but it doesn't make it worth a dang.”

“Yeah, I suppose it's entirely possible that he could be that deluded, though I'd like to think that someone as overwhelmingly successful as him would be an evil mastermind, rather than a clueless buffoon. The value of knowledge/­intelligen­ce just goes out window otherwise.”

“...And I suppose the president pressured all of those players to comment on how they were outraged at the prospect of him having a team, and how they'd never play for him.

Yes, It's alllll Obama's doing, as usual...”

“He's being "blacklisted" for extremely public "beliefs" that offend about 80% of the players, who's lives would be contractually owned by Limbaugh if he were to own the team.

If he were buying, say, an ice hockey team, I really don't think he'd have the same problem.

If you can't understand how there's a serious conflict there without drawing parallels to McCarthy or some other historical boogey-man, then I won't waste any more breath...”

“I sort of suspect he threw his hat into the ring expecting to get rejected, just so he could make a scene and garner attention. The man has a history of making offensive remarks about the league, and he lost 1 NFL job already because of such comments. There's no way that the NFL would ever let him have a franchise. That would be like McDonald's selling franchise rights to Morgan Spurlock.

Anyone in their right mind would anticipate (correctly) a public spectacle.”

“what?”