TedThomas: forum

"I am for vaccinations, but I am against ignorance about them."

Me too. Like people who freak out about thimerosal but ignore the fact that it has been removed from pretty much all vaccines but the flu shot for adults.

"I am for vaccinations, but I am against ignorance about them."

Me too. Like people who freak out about thimerosal but ignore the fact that it has been removed from pretty much all vaccines but the flu shot for adults.

Not really. If it were up to Republicans we would at war in Libya, Syria, and Iran, as well as still being at full force in Iraq and Afghanistan. You might not find that a big difference, but I do.

Problem is it doesnt save innocent lives. According to the CIA's own report the torture didnt come up with really any useful information and didnt stop any attacks. You actually get more false information than you do real information.

The thing people like to forget is that torture is more useful to get people to admit to things that they didnt actually do, not as much to get information.

Thief420 [206758]

TedThomas [887131]The duck dynasty guy getting fired has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

A bakery getting closed down for not baking a cake has nothing to do with freedom of speech (which didnt happen btw).

Freedom of speech doesnt mean that you are free to say whatever you want with no consequences, learn what the hell you are talking about...

Guy says he does not agree with gay marriage, then he is "let go" buy the tv station, hmm really that doesnt have to do with freedom of speech.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/2/christian-bakers-who-refused-cake-order-gay-weddin/

They were not closed down huh.

And i did not say that freedom of speech means you can say whatever you want inciting a panic should not be allowed, however, stopping peoples religious beliefs to cater to a small number of people seems to be an infringement on your rights. Or can you not see that, you are to blinded by your personal beliefs to see what is truly right for the people. Seems to be alot of that going around

Freedom of speech has to do with the government, and what it can and cant do. It does not apply to a business deciding to fire you because they think you might damage their business due to things you said or people deciding not to eat at your place because your views. Freedom of speech doesnt protect you from other people using their freedom of speech to criticize you, sorry to break it to you.

Like I said before, try learning what the f**k you are talking about.

The duck dynasty guy getting fired has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

A bakery getting closed down for not baking a cake has nothing to do with freedom of speech (which didnt happen btw).

Freedom of speech doesnt mean that you are free to say whatever you want with no consequences, learn what the hell you are talking about...

Dekloren [900534]

buffoon [856059]

murica_is_GOOF [954894]911 was a hoax to take american freedoms and fight another petroleum war american government is GOOOOOF

i havent seen any solid proof of this... kinda like saying a bird is a fish cause ya saw a flying fish...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHNH__1PRSI



That's pretty conclusive evidence that explosives were used as it was a clear controlled demolition. Free fall speed, perfectly symmetrical fall into its own basement.

If you do a little research about building 7, there are many other "coincidences" that happen as well.

Eg. BBC reported building 7 had fell 20 minutes prior to it's actual demolition. You can even see the building in the background as she's reporting it. You can't mistake a 47 story building "collapsing due to fire."

Yeah not really. That has been debunked so many times its not even funny at this point.

I did read about the studies and from what I read, they are a joke to the scientific community and dont prove or show anything.

And if someone was able to conclusively prove that paranormal or supernatural shit actually happens, they most certainly would win a nobel prize, it doesnt matter that there isnt a category for it. It would be like proving the existence of black holes or dark energy and would be a huge discovery.

So what? It is widely held by many people that there was a guy who walked on water and later became a zombie. Doesnt make it true.

Im not necessarily saying they dont happen, Im saying that there is no scientific evidence that it happens. Anecdotal evidence about what people say they perceived some occurrence when we know that human perception is flawed (see: illusions, hallucinations, etc) and spooky stories arent actual evidence of anything. You cant prove a personal experience to me and I cant disprove it so trying to use it as evidence is completely useless.

Point being, there is no demonstrable evidence that ghosts are even real and there sure in the hell isnt any that would point to them being footprints of souls. You are just making up an answer that sounds good to you with nothing to back it up.

Highly held by who? There is no "scientific ground" for the existence of ghosts period, let alone that they footprints of souls or whatever the hell you are going on about.

Do clocks self replicate?  

Oh whats that?  No?

Ok. point irrelevant and voided.

 "I can 'prove' to you that not only does god exsist that the Christian god exists the same way I can 'prove' to you that Lincoln existed." 
I would like to see you try...

Fujiko [341315]Do you count mathematical evidence?

Sorry, taking a mathematical concept and calling it god is not mathematical evidence. I dont know how may times you have to be told this. Simply repeating your bullshit over and over doesnt make it any more valid than it was 3 years ago.

You cant disprove something doesnt exist, if it doesnt exist.

You have to prove God, not the other way around.

Venko [741841]I've had a few minor experiences over the years while I worked as a security guard. I have worked in some super creepy old buildings but most weren't 'haunted'. I'd say that of all the buildings I worked at, only 3 or 4 had paranormal stuff happening.

I've never seen ghosts like in the movies where its like a man but transparent/see through... Like, I've never actually seen the culprit, only the effect it has on things. Like noise, air moving, objects moving or lights turning on and off.

I consider myself skeptic and try to investigate before jumping to conclusions. I was able to disprove the paranormal many times but sometimes there are just no other answers.

Just because you didnt find an answer doesnt mean there isnt one and it certainly doesnt mean that it means that it was supernatural.

Tolshortte [648554]well I hate to quote those in favor of the ACA since its inception but, exemptions are the law. have been longer than the ACA. so there is that.

you claim this is enormous, yet without any real ramifications happening in the way you seem to think they will I have to call b.s. until it actually happens. why? because the SCOTUS already said it wasn't going to because certain things must be met. sorry the Hobby Lobby's case met those requirement and some don't like it. doesn't make it less applicable.

also, you should consider all the exemption in place now that, following your post, that would be removed. you think that makes the country better as a whole? allowing a religion to practice in a way that others don't because it isn't part of their culture doesn't place one establishment of religion over another. these overly generalized statements that seem poignant aren't. they lack thought, consideration and reason.

whatever argument you think you can mount for disallowing exemptions have already been made by those a lot smarter than either one of us that performed far more research than we have. yet they have deemed by the highest court in the land to not only be constitutional but practical and without performing an undo burden for the government to function.

*facepalm*

Your so called "hurdle" is Hobby Lobby saying that they believe that morning after pills cause abortions, which flies in the face of all medical science which says it does not cause abortions, so they want exemption from following the law. Any religion should be able to use the same pathetic argument Hobby Lobby used for any number of their kooky unfounded beliefs to argue the same exact thing when it comes to medical care covered under the ACA. The fact that the supreme court has said they wont approve of other religions making the same argument for other things is exactly the problem because they are clearly showing favoritism for Christian's stupid beliefs over other religions stupid beliefs. I dont see any difference from letting Hobby Lobby use an anti-science argument to say that they shouldnt have to cover morning after pills because of their beliefs and Scientologist's using an anti-science argument say they shouldnt have to pay for psych meds because of their beliefs. It is you that has the bias that apparently makes you unable to see that they are both equally stupid arguments. The difference (and the problem that you are unable to comprehend) is that supreme court is saying one is valid and the other ones arent.

Any example of an exemption you can come up with doesn't say that this only applies to one certain religion and not to any others. Even with your Santaria example, any other religion that uses animal sacrifice in their rituals could use the same exemption to apply to them as could any religion that has to pray at a certain time could use the same exemption Muslims use. If it was part of Christians doctrine that they had to pray at certain times of the day they would get the same exemption, but it isnt.

It doesnt matter if there is a difference between psych meds and the day after pill, the argument is that it is against their religious beliefs. If you are going to make an exception for certain medical care that violates one religion's beliefs, you have to make exceptions for medical care that violates all religions beliefs.

This is exactly why they should never put up religious displays on public land (like the 10 commandments, or nativity scenes) because then they have to let every religious organization put up a display if they want to which just turns into a clusterf**k.

No not exemptions that apply to all religions, exemptions that apply to only a certain religion. Its not an issue if all of them are included. Santaria is not exempt from animal cruelty laws, it was ruled that animal cruelty laws didnt apply because they were not being cruel to animals. Not anymore than a farmer killing a chicken for dinner.

The way this case was ruled on, scientologists should be able to deny people for psych meds, jehovah witnesses should be able to deny blood transfusions, bapticostals should be able to deny covering immunizations, Christian scientists should be able to deny all coverage besides prayer, etc, etc... If they dont let ALL religions deny things that they are against, they are not following the constitution.


No its not a big difference. Hobby Lobby used the RFRA to argue their case and the Church of Satan is claiming that informed consent laws go against their closely held religious beliefs, just as Hobby Lobby's said that "paying" for "abortifacients" (which is a complete bullshit term by the way, they do not cause abortions) is against their closely held religious beliefs. Its the same excuse Hobby Lobby used to say they should not have to follow the laws set forth in Obamacare.

DrUniverse [539612]

TedThomas [887131]

MadameButterfly [1035358]

TedThomas [887131]Because its obvious you just made all that shit up, thanks for admitting it though.

But I don't understand, if I gave you a citation you would just say that person "made that shit up" and then if they gave you another citation you would just say the next person "made that shit up" hence why I fail to see how a citation would validate it. Everything is eventually made up by someone and it's as good an explanation as any given the subject matter, it doesn't matter where I got the idea from it's what I believe to be the truth about "ghosts"

The point being is do you have any evidence that anything that you said is true, and the answer is no. Its made up and no more useful than any other random made up BS about "ghosts". I know that it is made up because there is no possible way for you to test whether what you claim is actual true or not. We cant even verify that it is an actual phenomenon, much less what exactly it is.



Its one thing to say you have seen Bigfoot, its a whole other layer of bullshit to claim that you know what his favorite food is and what he likes to do on the weekends for fun.

Actually there has been a bit of research into these things. A lot of ivy and pre-ivy schools have published peer reviewed periodicals into the supernatural. Penn state is the one closest to me (they tend to go the ghost route), I think it was Princeton that did their research into clairvoyance. I'd suggest reading them, you'd be surprised the things that were peer reviewed that show some results contrary to what one expects.

Yes there have been studies, none of which have found anything of any significance.



Let me know when any of them win a nobel prize for proving anything paranormal or supernatural, ill be waiting...

KingYoda [1658484]1. The universe came from nothing.

2. The universe created itself.

3. Or the Universe was created by an entity.

HAUNTED.

I'll go with number 3 any day.

Those arent the only options...

The actual honest and rational answer really is "we dont know" (yet). "We dont know therefore magic" is not an answer worthy of discussion.

What other religions get special exemptions to break the law? Do you have any examples?

The point is the Church of Satan is challenging the law using the same reasons that Hobby Lobby did, but they will ultimately be denied because the supreme court doesnt care about them. Just like in Oklahoma when Christians were allowed to put up a statue of the 10 commandments on public land, but the same request was denied to the Church of Satan.