Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
 Protect Our Children Now

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Apr 09, 2002
 Comments:
It seems to be an almost weekly occurance. Some poorly reared child brings a weapon to school and threatens or harms a fellow student or a member of the faculty. Despite valiant efforts Zero Tolerance policies have largely failed, either through obviously ridiculous punishment or through failure to identify the real threat. Efforts to understand these misanthropes have met a similar fate. Kids are still killing or maiming one another in record quantity. What's a polite society to do?

general

More stories about General
European Union eclipses US in games market - what next ?
Why Bother?
Tax the Childless, Double Votes for Parents
US in recession. What should we do about it ?
The Science of Poetry
Kicking the Cat
A Time For Patriots
Starving Afghanis Flock to Bombing Targets for Free Food
A Penny for the Guy!
My Children Will Not Be Attending College
Media Responsibility in the Modern Era
Happy Tango-no-Sekku!
Teenage problems, teenage solutions.
Educational Initiative for Gang Youth announced
Nerdism Revealed

More stories by
Right Hand Man

Animals: Food for Thought
Complex problems such as these need to be broken down into their root causes. It is through extensive analysis that we are sure to not only relieve the immediate effects, but to prevent any future recurrence.

Issue #1: The Decline of Morality

Let students pray. It isn't all that difficult. Just because some Hindu child might be offended by the student next to him loudly praising God is no reason to allow generation after generation to slip further down the slope. Not only are we stifling the freedom of religion and speech, but we are preventing countless millions of children from leading countless millions of their peers to the one thing that will give them hope, direction, and salvation: The Christian Church.

The ridiculous doctrine of the seperation of Church and state has caused innumerable harms to our society. Relentless efforts by the left have brought us to our current state of near lawlessness. Callous disregard for human life can be seen in the eyes of many of our young people, and it is borne out in the horrific actions we often see them take. Mindless liberals try to blame bullies, sports heroes, capitalism, or society at large for not 'accepting' these misfit kids. We are supposed to bear the weight of their misdeeds on our own shoulders, supposedly because we didn't spend enough time trying to understand their problems. Stop reading this sentence if you are under 18, but I say that is bullshit.

How can we help the oddballs of our society get back in line with normality? Send them to Church. Church is where a person learns right and wrong. The Church doesn't hold individuality above all else. It doesn't blindly accept all manner of weirdness in the name of keeping an 'open mind' or bolstering a person's self esteem. Somehow, somewhere there have to be some absolute standards, nothing can provide those like Christianity. Of course we can try to teach this at home, but the professional preachers typically do a much better job of driving the message home. Coupled with a strong and pervasive Chrisrian message at school the minds of our lost sheep will be turned around in no time.

No effort to rebuild the moral character of the nation would be complete without some measures to strengthen the family. Right now, schools across the country offer daycare services. This seemingly helpful program seeks to chip away at the traditional two parent household. By offering to care for the kids before and after school they encourage women to step out of their traditional roles as housewives and enter the cutthroat world of corporate America. This movement makes the ridiculous claim that 'today's woman' can balance both a career and a family. Further eroding and victimizing women is the feminist movement, which makes the claim that the family should come second to a woman's professional goals. The results of this are plain to see: Young people all over the country are coming unglued at the seams. They cannot handle the day to day stresses that are part and parcel of growing up. A solid two parent household, that is there for them in their time of need, is an essential component in correcting this, clergy can go only so far.

Issue #2: Ill Preparedness

It is inevitable, despite the best efforts of a good society and its Church, that some wayward individual will stray from the righteous path and seek to cause harm to his peers. It behooves us all to take the steps necessary for our children to fend off attack no matter how remote the possibility. Indeed, the fact that the benefits of our long term solutions for strengthening morality and the family may take several generations to reap further reinforces the need to immediately educate and equip our young people, teachers, staff, and administrators to effectively deal with this eventuality.

The one universal rule at most schools in America is: No Firearms. This is the one common element of every single school shooting that has occurred in America over the past 10 years. Every one of the morally depraved, Godless, leftist bullies knew full well that, according to the rules, no one inside the school would be heeled. They knew that when they walked in to that school they would not be taking fire. It would be like shooting fish in a barrel, like sitting ducks, safer than knocking over a Kwikee-Mart.

Does this make any sense at all? Take a look at the response of schools all across the country in the wake of each violent incident: They all packed their buildings with armed guards! Why? People with guns deter crime. In the wake of the September 11th attacks America is warming to this fact by considering allowing its pilots to carry guns. This simple and cost effective approach will no doubt decrease the number of people who will gain access to cockpits, if someone tries a bullet in their head will be their reward. Look across the ocean, at the UK, those people are being murdered in droves because they have allowed themselves to be disarmed. Not only do they fall victim to the criminal element, but their entire society is now in the unenviable position of being ripe for government led plunder. It is beyond the shadow of a doubt the guns in the hands of the common person means freedom from tyranny, why should this not be true for our schools?

Now that the fallacy of No Firearms rules providing security for our students has been exposed we must consider how we will arm our teachers, staff, and students. Long guns are obviously not the best choice. They are unwieldy to carry throughout the day and difficult to stow in a typical grade school locker. There is also the problem of many of today's young people being a bit weak, I don't doubt that some of the younger ones would be unable to hold a steady aim when shooting a rifle offhand. For these reasons we should consider awarding our school firearm contract to a solid American manufacturer of pistols, Freedom Arms. What better source for the means by which the death grip of violence will finally be loosened from our schools? The company name fits our purpose so well, no one but the staunchest, freedom hating, secular humanist could argue. Yes, Freedom Arms will be the means by which we remove the shackles of oppression from our young ones and provide them with the tools they need to succeed.

In addition to equipping our students and administrators with fine Freedom Arms pistols, we must back up the guns with training. We cannot assume that every set of parents has taught their child proper firearm safety, much less to shoot straight. We must recognize that many families have shirked this responsibility for one reason or another. The insane idea that guns are bad, the reduction in the number of hunters, the spread of athieism, all have contributed to the removal of basic firearms training from households across America. Luckily there is a considerable base of retired military men who could provide quality instruction at a moments notice. We should call upon these men to develop a program to train everyone who spends their day in school to care for their weapon, to fire it, and to position themselves against incoming fire. Before long our young people will be as well versed in the Weaver position as they will be in the Word of God. In stark contrast to their current state, they will be safer, happier, and better prepared for a life of serving God.

With work and commitment we can finally return our schools to their lofty perch as the place children can go to not only learn the three Rs, but to learn about life. I should point out that my wife home schools our children, primarliy because the Pennsylvania area is deeply ensconced in the sort of depravity I describe above, and I cannot take the chance that one of my precious children could be murdered while waiting for reforms to be enacted. Regardless, getting the Lord back in lives of our young people, putting guns in their hands, and giving them some basic combat knowledge just might ensure that my grandchildren can safely be allowed to hop on a big yellow bus and go to school with their neighbor.

Understand that these suggestions are of the utmost importance. Every minute we waste arguing over whether solution A is the best possible one for a given situation for a given person we will lose another young life. Please end the bickering and selfishness and allow your children to be saved.

       
Tweet

The ever-reliable Countryside Alliance, huh? (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by TheoJM on Tue Apr 9th, 2002 at 10:42:18 AM PST
"Look across the ocean, at the UK, those people are being murdered in droves because they have allowed themselves to be disarmed."

Absolutely. I myself have been shot three times already this week, two of them fatally.

If the law allowed private ownership of heavy artillery, then it's a safe bet those fatal shootings would have happened to other people.


 
Sawed-off shotguns (none / 0) (#5)
by The Mad Scientist on Tue Apr 9th, 2002 at 12:13:48 PM PST
Long guns are obviously not the best choice. They are unwieldy to carry throughout the day and difficult to stow in a typical grade school locker.

Absolutely agree. A shotgun, sawed off to a suitable length, preferably with a pistol grip, offers all the short-range effectivity and stopping power you can ever need. One of its huge advantages is the very wide range of ammo available. (Check the Flame Thrower.)

There is also the problem of many of today's young people being a bit weak, I don't doubt that some of the younger ones would be unable to hold a steady aim when shooting a rifle offhand.

Here comes the place of composite frames and other lighter construction materials. Another advantage of a shotgun is its much lower dependence on accurate aiming, especially on shorter distances.


I think a shotgun is a poor, lazy solution (none / 0) (#7)
by Adam Rightmann on Tue Apr 9th, 2002 at 12:33:28 PM PST
while I totally agree that a sawed off shotgun makes a fine home defence weapon, especialy for the little woman who is to busy cooking, cleaning and taking care of the children to get adequate time on the firing range (or for perhaps a babysitter who's parents don't care enough to teach her firearm skills), I think the message that it sends to impressionable youngsters is wrong. It tells them that a quick, unskillful response is a good thing. No, I would rather my children spend hours on the firing range, learning to fire handguns and get decent target groupings. They would take pride in their marksmanship, and would feel more confident knowing they could drop a gun-toting terrorist, even if the terrorist held up a human shield.


A. Rightmann

It is. (none / 0) (#31)
by The Mad Scientist on Wed Apr 10th, 2002 at 05:52:36 AM PST
However, a poor and lazy solution is usually better than no solution at all.

Maybe it would finally shift the social ladder from who wears better outfit to who has better skills with whatever, in this case guns.

The advantage would be that nobody would pick on the bottom of the ladder (shotgun wearers), at least not for dangerous amount of time.


 
12 GA Specialty Ammo! (none / 0) (#8)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Apr 9th, 2002 at 12:34:23 PM PST
One of its huge advantages is the very wide range of ammo available. (Check the Flame Thrower.)

I couldnt get that far. All the blood in my head had emptied into my penis by the time I scrolled as far as the "Door Duster". I'll try again later when all my parts have sufficiently recuperated.


 
Yes (none / 0) (#9)
by Right Hand Man on Tue Apr 9th, 2002 at 01:22:12 PM PST
Sawed off shotguns would be an acceptable choice if, as part of their adoption, the Federal government repealed the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968. It is well past time that these unconstitutional limits on our freedom are lifted.




-------------------------
"Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

 
Old West (none / 0) (#6)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Apr 9th, 2002 at 12:25:24 PM PST
Arming kids might certainly make the school bully think twice about stealing little Johnny's lunch money.


Yes, "An Armed Society is a Polite Society&qu (none / 0) (#10)
by Adam Rightmann on Tue Apr 9th, 2002 at 01:27:41 PM PST
as the well known, right thinking American science fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein was wont to say.


A. Rightmann

 
Or.. (none / 0) (#15)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Apr 9th, 2002 at 02:53:22 PM PST
the bully just has a bigger gun and now shoots first rathers then threatens.


pish (none / 0) (#21)
by nathan on Tue Apr 9th, 2002 at 07:14:05 PM PST
Anyone familiar with the sociology of bullying knows that it is about dominance, not destruction.

As the saying goes, "God created man. Samuel Colt made him equal."

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

posh (none / 0) (#22)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Apr 9th, 2002 at 08:54:39 PM PST
The man/buly with the bigger gun has more dominance


Correction (none / 0) (#30)
by The Mad Scientist on Wed Apr 10th, 2002 at 05:39:47 AM PST
The man with the bigger gun gets shot by the man with the smaller and faster gun.

Size isn't everything.


in any case (none / 0) (#34)
by nathan on Wed Apr 10th, 2002 at 06:59:26 AM PST
It's kind of hard to shove a kid around for his lunch money if he's packing heat. It's also rather hard to stick him up at gunpoint if his classmates are armed.

I see nothing but good coming out of all these guns.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

agree (none / 0) (#35)
by because it isnt on Wed Apr 10th, 2002 at 07:02:46 AM PST
I took a nuclear bomb to school every day and nobody bullied me!
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

bah (none / 0) (#41)
by nathan on Wed Apr 10th, 2002 at 08:51:54 AM PST
Was it a fission or fusion bomb?

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

An African or European swallow? (none / 0) (#42)
by because it isnt on Wed Apr 10th, 2002 at 09:13:31 AM PST
Was it a fission or fusion bomb?

Obviously it was a fission bomb. How the hell could a schoolkid get ahold of a fusion bomb? That's just ridiculous!
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

 
That depends (none / 0) (#51)
by jvance on Wed Apr 10th, 2002 at 01:36:56 PM PST
If you substitute "lead" for "good" in your last sentence, then I concur wholeheartedly.
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

Guess... (none / 0) (#55)
by The Mad Scientist on Wed Apr 10th, 2002 at 05:17:11 PM PST
...from which the word "leader" came from.


Neither (none / 0) (#56)
by jvance on Wed Apr 10th, 2002 at 10:01:34 PM PST
The etymology of lead (Pl - plumbum) and lead (antonym of follow) is different. They're merely homonyms.
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

However... (none / 0) (#77)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat Apr 13th, 2002 at 08:29:24 AM PST
...They're merely homonyms.

I know. However, it doesn't make the idea less amusing for me.


 
Bull. (4.00 / 2) (#11)
by DeepOmega on Tue Apr 9th, 2002 at 01:39:53 PM PST
Yet another fine, misinformation-laden, stereotype-infested, contradiction-lathered article from the super folks here. Let students pray. It isn't all that difficult. Just because some Hindu child might be offended by the student next to him loudly praising God is no reason to allow generation after generation to slip further down the slope. Not only are we stifling the freedom of religion and speech, but we are preventing countless millions of children from leading countless millions of their peers to the one thing that will give them hope, direction, and salvation: The Christian Church. This quote makes it clear that you don't understand the purpose of seperation of church and state. It is
    not
against the law for a student to pray (yes, even loudly) in public schools. What is outlawed is
    forcing
prayer onto students, i.e. by having a group-lead prayer session before a football game. What you seem to be suggesting is forcing Christianity upon all students in public schools, which goes against the freedom of religion you yourself pledge support to. One can't help but feel that you really just want freedom for Christians, and screw the rest. You also recommend arming students with firearms as a means of protecting them. This is rediculous. First, it would provide many students with access to weapons they may not otherwise be able to get. This would open the way to not only more murders, but more suicides as well. Arming students is not a solution, it is just a Band-Aid answer to a problem. One point I agree with you on is that the problem lies with parents who do not raise their children with morals. However, the solution is
    not
forcing Christianity onto the world at large. Rather, we must seek to enforce morals in a non-denominational manner. Religion is not the sole means of conveying morals, and does not even always work as a means of teaching them. This has been proven by the amoral acts done by the highly religious over history. The key, then, is to work unbiased, non-denominational morals into the early lives of children. Oh, one final point. You may wish to look up how many acts of violence have been incurred by teenagers over the past few years. It's not as much as you think, and is actually lower than it was in the 50s. The difference? Now the media uses it as a way to catch viewers, so we are made far more aware of it. Peace and much love...


Whoops... (none / 0) (#12)
by DeepOmega on Tue Apr 9th, 2002 at 01:43:29 PM PST
Please excuse the poor formatting of my post. I blew the tags (haven't used HTML in a while) and failed to preview it.

Peace and much love...


 
"Seperation"? (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by tkatchev on Tue Apr 9th, 2002 at 02:48:25 PM PST
Remind me again why exactly we should take seriously your adolescent tripe?


--
Peace and much love...




I'm sorry tkatchev, (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by jvance on Tue Apr 9th, 2002 at 03:17:43 PM PST
but who are you replying to - the poster or Right Hand Man?

First sentence, fourth paragraph of the article. Check it out.
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

Apologies (none / 0) (#38)
by Right Hand Man on Wed Apr 10th, 2002 at 08:23:24 AM PST
In my haste to post this rather important topic it appears that I failed to spell all of the words properly. It was lengthy and the black morels have started to pop up, I am a little short on time.

Regardless, there are no excuses for shoddy work. As my computer is not equipped with a spelling checking device, I shall purchase one during my next trip to town so the problem will not come up again.




-------------------------
"Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

 
Of course! (none / 0) (#43)
by DeepOmega on Wed Apr 10th, 2002 at 10:33:58 AM PST
Well, golly gee, tkatchev, I feel so stupid now! You've really shown me the error of my ways, and thanks to your eloquently written response to my comment, I feel that everything is crystal clear. Everything I write is indeed without merit, simply because I do not agree with your omniscient self. In fact, your wonderfully crafted response has convinced me to form a new religion, called Tkatchevianity, solely for the purpose of worshipping you.

Alternatively, you could try writing something meaningful, not just saying that you don't want to listen me. Your argument in and of itself was adolescent, as it merely was an attempt to insult my own comments, lacking in any reason, logic, or particular substance. So are you going to respond to this comment by calling me a poopyhead?


moron (none / 0) (#44)
by nathan on Wed Apr 10th, 2002 at 11:09:22 AM PST
This is why I try to stay away from Jerkcity.

The ideas in your post are pretty feeble, as you would realise if you had the wits God gave a goose. tkatchev blew you off with a spelling flame, and frankly, it was more than you deserved. The Adequacy is not a remedial education service. It is not anyone's job to make up for the embarassingly obvious shortcomings of your upbringing or schooling. Expect to get slapped around if you continue posting crap.

"But it wasn't crap!" you must want to say. Of course, it is crap; it is nothing more than an expression of your prejudices against an armed populace and against religion. You dismiss religion - the very practice of being religious - with casual ease:

Religion is not the sole means of conveying morals, and does not even always work as a means of teaching them...

and you assume that guns are just bad:

it would provide many students with access to weapons they may not otherwise be able to get. This would open the way to not only more murders, but more suicides as well...

In no case do you back your claims with arguments, consider counter-arguments and counter-claims, or attack the article's reasoning. In other words, your response to an argument is merely disagreement - and then you are surprised to be flamed? Give me a break.

Your arrogant, uneducated conceit will get you nowhere at the Adequacy. Either fuck off to somewhere you're wanted, or grow up and learn that convincing a critically-thinking audience takes more than just a rude, clumsy, high-handed eruption.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Touchè (none / 0) (#47)
by DeepOmega on Wed Apr 10th, 2002 at 12:16:00 PM PST
There are several points I'd like to make her. One: I do not dismiss the values of guns, nor did I even imply such a dismissal. In the hands of an intelligent, rational, and moral person, a gun can save lives and be a powerful deterrent. The key, however, is that many people who get guns are not intelligent, and not rational. This especially applies to high school students and teenagers, who are one of the most consistently irrational groups of people commonly found in the world. Blame it on whatever you'd like, but the fact is that teenagers often act out of emotion, not reason, and expecting them to be able to responsibly wield a firearm is patently ridiculous. That is the primary danger with arming students. The irony, of course, is that a situation in which handing out firearms to all teenagers is genuinely safe is one in which it would not be necessary, namely, one in which all people are moral, intelligent and rational. In such a society, we'd have no need for firearms of any sort.

Two: I also did not dismiss religion. Religion, when taught properly, can be an excellent teacher of moral guidelines to children. However, it can also be a colossal cause of hatred and violence, as is quite clearly demonstrated through history. Notable examples are the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Flower Wars in which Aztecs rounded up thousands upon thousands of innocents to sacrifice to Huitzilopochtli, the Holocaust, even slavery in the Americas through the late 1800s. My point was that morals do not come solely from religion, and religion does not always lead to a strong moral system.

Three: It's odd that you criticize me for being rude, while supporting flaming from tkatchev. Correct me if I'm wrong, but saying

Remind me again why exactly we should take seriously your adolescent tripe?

or

Shut up, fucktard. You are fouling up the ether; save it for people with a brain, OK?

is generally considered to fall under the category "Rudeness" is polite society.

Regardless, I do appreciate your willingness to actually make a point, rather than just flaming.

Peace and much love...


"Peace and much love"?? (none / 0) (#48)
by tkatchev on Wed Apr 10th, 2002 at 12:39:50 PM PST
Tell me, why do you hate God?


--
Peace and much love...




No... (none / 0) (#49)
by DeepOmega on Wed Apr 10th, 2002 at 01:03:14 PM PST
Hate God? I don't hate God. What I hate is the horrible things that have been done in the name of God, as well as the fact that major religious leaders and the followers of those religions refuse to acknowledge the possibiliy that they made a mistake or did something wrong.

Peace and much love...


Yes... (none / 0) (#57)
by tkatchev on Wed Apr 10th, 2002 at 11:19:06 PM PST
I don't hate you. I just hate the way you look, the things you do, and the way you don't bathe and smell like shit, as well as the fact that you refuse to acknowlege all those moronic remarks you made.

Peace and much love...


--
Peace and much love...




 
better, but still not good (none / 0) (#62)
by nathan on Thu Apr 11th, 2002 at 10:39:59 AM PST
You are still refusing to make an argument against Right Hand Man's position, but at least you have argued in favour of your own (albeit, weakly.) So, what constitutes 'proper' use of religion? Why should extra-religious organizations or institutions be consulted? Doesn't that make religion a tool of socialization, and if that's all it is, isn't it totally stripped of any objective value of its own? You reduce religion - all religions - to something good but not essential. No religion has ever claimed that of itself.

tkatchev flamed you, but your posts are actually much ruder than his, because in them, you arrogantly and ignorantly dismissed the deeply-considered opinions of many intelligent, virtuous people. If tkatchev had failed to be angered by that, it would have been a moral failure on his part. See?

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
Indeed. (none / 0) (#45)
by tkatchev on Wed Apr 10th, 2002 at 11:23:37 AM PST
Shut up, fucktard. You are fouling up the ether; save it for people with a brain, OK?


--
Peace and much love...




 
Nice (none / 0) (#14)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Apr 9th, 2002 at 02:50:39 PM PST
A wonderfully sensible post. and a breath of fresh air in (I'll even forgive your mistake with the HTML tags :-). It is good to see level heads on here.

That people need to stop finding excuses in "society" and start having the courage to blame themselves in part for their childs upbring is a big step in stopping this.

Telling the world to embrace christianity (and I am christian) because is embraces conformity ("The Church doesn't hold individuality above all else") and teaches right from wrong (obviously by NOT teach christian history, think crusades) and forces you to doubt everything you believed in life if you were bought up believing in some other religion is hardly likely calm teens down and stop shootings (which as pointed out is not a recent thing and has been happening for many many years).




Literacy... (none / 0) (#16)
by tkatchev on Tue Apr 9th, 2002 at 03:04:16 PM PST
...will come in handy later in life, believe it or not.


--
Peace and much love...




Why... (none / 0) (#68)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Apr 11th, 2002 at 07:57:49 PM PST
...must so many people attack the grammar of a person rather than look to the argument behind the words? Does this mean that if a person could not speak English, you would refuse to listen to anything they say and keep yelling "You spelled separation wrong!" I imagine many of you conversations go like this... "Sit down, Martin Luther, you adolescent thug! You don't know how to speak grammatically correct English! My high-brow arrogance shall beat you into the ground, you inferior being! Crawl into the hole from whence you came forth! Everything you say is tripe and drivel, because you cannot speak flawless English!"


McLuhan owns your ass (none / 0) (#69)
by nathan on Thu Apr 11th, 2002 at 08:07:26 PM PST
The medium is the message, bitch.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Exactly. (5.00 / 1) (#70)
by tkatchev on Fri Apr 12th, 2002 at 12:30:01 AM PST
Why should I take seriously some jackass who cannot even put together a coherent sentence?

I mean, what could somebody as stupid as that possibly say of value?


--
Peace and much love...




Pretty funny, considering... (none / 0) (#74)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Apr 12th, 2002 at 05:48:57 PM PST
...why should people listen to a grown man (presumably) who uses words like "f*cktard" and "bitch".

In case tkatchev and nathan can't understand what I am saying, it's directed at you, you adolescent little "f*cktards".


But there is a difference. (5.00 / 1) (#76)
by tkatchev on Sat Apr 13th, 2002 at 12:31:42 AM PST
You are an idiot, and I am not.

You see, if needs be, I can talk down to your level, in concepts you can easily understand. (i.e. "fucktard", "moron".) I can also write intelligent and insightful posts, if warranted.

You, on the other hand, cannot put together a coherent phrase even if your life depended on it.

Peace and much love...


--
Peace and much love...




Request. (5.00 / 1) (#78)
by hauntedattics on Sat Apr 13th, 2002 at 12:39:06 PM PST
If you adopted that signature, it would really make my day.



For the record... (none / 0) (#82)
by DeepOmega on Sun Apr 14th, 2002 at 03:10:17 PM PST
tkatchev's new sig was adopted in response to my ending all posts with "Peace and much love..." He apparently found this ironic. Check out this post.

Oh, almost forgot.

Peace and much love...


Sorry about that. (none / 0) (#90)
by hauntedattics on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 07:43:55 AM PST
It is obviously all about you. How could I have ever thought otherwise?




 
the macadam is the massage (none / 0) (#80)
by nathan on Sun Apr 14th, 2002 at 07:25:11 AM PST
Did widdle-ums gets his precious-wecious feelings hurt? Widdums did? Oh, poor widdle oo! The bad bad mans wont hurt oo. They are very very bad mans.

Perhaps they ought to be disciplined.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Hey, quit it. (none / 0) (#81)
by hauntedattics on Sun Apr 14th, 2002 at 08:22:46 AM PST
Now look what you've done. I've got to go do work and don't have time for your furtively titillating talk.


(Can I watch later?)



 
I am not quite sure why some (none / 0) (#66)
by JoePain on Thu Apr 11th, 2002 at 11:48:58 AM PST
can spout HTML grammer yet have such a tough time with English.


And to take the obvious shot... (5.00 / 1) (#88)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Apr 15th, 2002 at 03:43:32 PM PST
I wouldn't worry about grammer if I were you, I'd worry about sphelyng.


I did you the favor of rating your response a 5. (none / 0) (#89)
by JoePain on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 10:01:34 AM PST
Well done. I am inept.


 
Amen! (none / 0) (#33)
by akepa on Wed Apr 10th, 2002 at 06:56:59 AM PST
Separation of church and state is what prevents this country from turning into a fundamentalist totalitarian state like Afghanistan was under the Taliban, or like Iran still is under the ayatollahs.

It never ceases to amaze me when Christian zealots in this country claim they are being discriminated against and repressed because they are not allowed to force the rest of America to adopt their religion, morals, and lifestyle.

As for prayer/religion being the cure for all of society's ills, give me a break. There are plenty of nonreligious people (atheists, agnostics, or lukewarm believers) who lead very moral lifestyles (they treat others with respect, volunteer to help those in need, and do not kill, rape, or steal). Conversely, there are plenty of religious true-believers who commit atrocities at every opportunity. Recent examples of this are 9/11, the Middle East fiasco, Hindu-Muslim riots in India, and pedophile priests. This is nothing new either; historical examples of religion-induced mayhem include the Inquisition, the Salem witch trials, and of course the perpetual Middle East fiasco (from the frequent tribal warfare described in the Bible, through the Crusades, up to the present situation). I think it is no coincidence that the birthplace of the world's 3 major monotheistic religions is in a constant state of warfare.

Separation of church and state is what allows everyone in this country to practice their own religion and live their own lifestyle as they wish (unless their religion/lifestyle involves killing, raping, stealing, or other crimes that most people, regardless of religion, agree are wrong). Those who insist on imposing their religion on others should get the hell out of this country and start their damn theocracy elsewhere.



Advice (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by Right Hand Man on Wed Apr 10th, 2002 at 08:26:45 AM PST
If you are ever blessed with a child, take care not to throw it out with the bath water.


-------------------------
"Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

 
Confused new user. (none / 0) (#18)
by DoctorGonzo on Tue Apr 9th, 2002 at 04:05:16 PM PST
As it says above, I'm new to this Adequacy.org shenanigans. But am I right in thinking that this is an exercise in provocation? Surely no-one is expected to take this seriously, are they?

The single link to the BBC news story regarding gun crime is misleading. Although gun crime may have increased after the strict controls following Dunblane, this is no proof than guns combat crime. We will never rid the UK of guns, and if you are determined to get a gun in the UK, there will be channels through which you can obtain one. The difference is this: In the US, the guns are available fairly freely, so someone who has the urge can use one. In the UK, guns aren't available so freely, so a crime committed with a gun has to be planned - it won't likely be a 'crime of passion'.

Secondly, isn't it a little absurd to claim that freedom of religion is being stifled, then claim that the one thing that can save us is the Christian church? Do no other religions offer a worthy moral code? I agree with you that moral guidance is a very important part of education, but I don't think that indoctrination into the church is an acceptable way to instil these morals.

I really hope that this story is simply designed to rile the 'loony liberals' amongst us, or to poke fun at the religious right. Nobody *really* thinks like this - that throwing guns at gun crime is a solution - do they?


Loony Liberals (none / 0) (#20)
by Icebox on Tue Apr 9th, 2002 at 05:41:28 PM PST
Any time anyone posts anything that makes sense it riles the loony liberals. It is a hazard that goes along with being a decent person.

If you can't handle the controversy, or if it makes you feel better to just assume that 'no one thinks this way', then you should probably get your news somewhere safer.


Controversy... (none / 0) (#24)
by DG on Tue Apr 9th, 2002 at 09:46:35 PM PST
wow havn't seen it in a while, just a lot of personal wanking.. whether other sites are better or not.. i like reading adequacy, i just wish they would post stuff that was controversal.. it's been very dry, the amd things were funny in all the absurditys it listed, then came the hacker stuff rather funny, but i questioned if it would have been better with more realism.. anyway thats just me
© 2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

 
Get a clue. (none / 0) (#26)
by tkatchev on Tue Apr 9th, 2002 at 11:34:41 PM PST
Since when is religion about "moral codes"?

Moral codes are taught in the cradle, not in the church.


--
Peace and much love...




Religion and moral codes (none / 0) (#28)
by DoctorGonzo on Wed Apr 10th, 2002 at 04:35:03 AM PST
But isn't the main point of religion to set down a set of rules to live your life? Look at Leviticus, the 10 commandments, the parables. The mysticism and superstition is just one part of religion.

Whether or not christian morality is a good thing is a seperate argument. Personally, I think that as set down in the new testament, it's generally good. As interpreted by the church, it's not. :-/


Religion is not Christianity (none / 0) (#29)
by walwyn on Wed Apr 10th, 2002 at 04:59:19 AM PST
Whether or not christian morality is a good thing is a seperate argument.

Christianity is a religion there is a difference you know.

Leviticus has pretty much been junked by Christians because Mosaic Law was obsoleted by Christ. Whilst certain Protestants have maintained that the 10 commandments were a mistake (which is why the Israelites hid the tablets away in the Arc of the Covenant, and lost them as soon as was practical).


Christianity is not a religion (none / 0) (#32)
by Ben Reid on Wed Apr 10th, 2002 at 06:28:15 AM PST
It's a relationship.


 
Question.. (none / 0) (#53)
by DG on Wed Apr 10th, 2002 at 03:02:13 PM PST
where does it say Mosaic Law was obsoleted by christ? i don't think it says that in the bible.. many people have come to believe that but, name the line where it says it.. i'm not trying to troll you but it's never been clear
© 2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

Through a glass darkly (none / 0) (#54)
by walwyn on Wed Apr 10th, 2002 at 03:40:15 PM PST
Start with Romans 6:14

However, there are many interpretations as there are evangelical sects. Depending on your proclivities the limits of Mosaic Law can range from dietary matters to fornication. Needless to say the hymns are not sung from the same sheet.


 
Re: (none / 0) (#46)
by tkatchev on Wed Apr 10th, 2002 at 11:27:19 AM PST
But isn't the main point of religion to set down a set of rules to live your life?

No. Not at all.

I don't want to waste time explaining this to you; arguing with liberalists is like trying to argue with a brick wall, so unless you're really serious about challenging your preconceptions I won't do it, OK?


--
Peace and much love...




I'm a librarian? (none / 0) (#67)
by DoctorGonzo on Thu Apr 11th, 2002 at 12:50:53 PM PST
No, go right ahead. You most likely wont convert me, but other people's superstitions and mystic beliefs are interesting. Challenge away!


 
CHRISTIAN, n. (none / 0) (#23)
by Illiterate Bum on Tue Apr 9th, 2002 at 09:37:22 PM PST
1. One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor.

2. One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin.


Make of this what you will. And honestly, if I have to clarify who the original author of this definition was, then you really aren't that adequate, are you?
-----

"...normal, balanced people do not waste time posting to weblogs." --tkatchev

Bierce (none / 0) (#25)
by DG on Tue Apr 9th, 2002 at 09:53:32 PM PST
i liked Bierce, very cynical fellow.. his Devil's Dictionary, turned out to be very truthful in someways, what would make you really adequate would be to name some of his short stories..
© 2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

 
One day... (none / 0) (#36)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Apr 10th, 2002 at 07:34:55 AM PST
... I decided that I had to shoot anybody who pissed me off. I recount the story here to show my efforts in trying to enforce a polite society through the use of firearms.

My first problem was that I didn't own a firearm. Living in Manchester, UK, I didn't perceive this to be a huge problem. Air pistols are freely available without license from the Shude Hill part of the city, and there are plenty of people who would happily sell me replicas, and so forth. However, I didn't want people to think that because they couldn't see my weapon, they weren't forewarned. I therefore needed something with a bit more firepower and that I could sling over my shoulder. Walking around the city centre with a shotgun resting on my shoulder, or a machine gun in front of me was bound to get me a bit more respect from my fellow Mancunians.

So, I went to a gun shop. I have been asked not to detail which shop, in case other libertarians take exception to the actions of said gun shop (that I am about to describe), and attempt to murder the little shits. Anyway, this gun shop, I go in and and I say 'Hey! Dude! I'm the man and I need some firepower!'. The counter assistant didn't seem too enthusiastic at first - he was one of those tweedy types who probably shot his first pheasant when he is in the pram - but asked me what sort of gun I would be interested in taking a look at. I asked for a neat little shotgun - something that would 'take 'em down'. The assistant started to show me his fine collection of weapons that met the description of 'shotgun' and I saw one that I liked the look of. The model and type I can't recall but it was quite a compact model and one I was assured would be able to take out a bus driver at 4 feet without problems. They said they took Visa. I said I'd take it.

Then, (get this!), he says he wants to see my 'license' as if you need a piece of paper to kill somebody. I told him I left it at home. He told me that wasn't good enough and tried to take the gun back off me. I slugged him with the butt and he landed on the floor. I dived over the counter for ammunition and loaded up. I pumped a few cartridges into his head (it was the wish of the die). By this time other assistants were starting to look a little scared. I shouted at them that if they were nice to me and started to show some respect I wouldn't blow their "fucking heads off". They seemed to agree that being polite and calling me 'the man' was the best way to go. The plan was starting to work - it was clear that I was getting more respect than the bastard who wanted a 'license' was giving me.

As I loaded up on more ammunition and signed the credit card slip I could see out of the window that an armed response unit had turned. The bastards in the shop had betryed me and called the rozzers. Nobody would admit to who had phoned the old bill, so I shot the whole fucking lot of them. One of them tried to grab a gun and shoot back, but he missed. As that was definitely *very* rude and unpolite I shot him in the groin and let him bleed to death.

I walked out of the shop and there is the line up of armed police around me all pointing their little guns at me. Twats. They start screaming at me to put 'my weapon' down (fnar! fnar!) and shit. In short they were pissing me off. I figured as the dice had told me that morning to shoot everybody who pissed me off, I should start firing, but reckoned I'd end up dead. I didn't want to end up dead, and I was starting to see the short-comings of the idea of shooting *everybody* who pissed me off.

And that's where your theory falls down - sooner or later somebody with more firepower shows up and demands that you show *them* respect, and you can't force them to show you any whatsoever. In fact I discovered the best way to deal with somebody who annoys you is to show them the way of Jesus. Within a few minutes of talking about his love for me, most people are pretty quiet. A lot of people don't ever bother me again for some reason. It must be Jesus' love showing them that they don't need to act like such twats around me. It's excellent.


Polite society (none / 0) (#37)
by because it isnt on Wed Apr 10th, 2002 at 08:11:38 AM PST
Nobody would admit to who had phoned the old bill, so I shot the whole fucking lot of them

Thomas Hamilton! I thought you were dead!

Oh I forgot -- you are.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

 
Well (none / 0) (#40)
by Right Hand Man on Wed Apr 10th, 2002 at 08:45:29 AM PST
If the UK weren't so backward and the politicians there had any respect for a human being's basic rights, every one of those shopkeepers would have been armed. They would not have had to 'reach for a gun' and could have killed you long before you were able to leap across the counter, grab ammunition, load up, and fire a round.

Indeed, it seems that your logic of sooner or later somebody with more firepower shows up would apply just as well to a disarmed society. Possibly more so, because your armed response units are the only ones with guns (well, they and the criminals). The unarmed already have to do anything that the armed police state tells them to do, as well as anyone who can throw a solid beating on them.

You should move to the US. I don't know about the average citizen, but there are quite a few of us who own arms that are still on the wish lists of most SWAT teams.


-------------------------
"Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

 
Then ... (none / 0) (#50)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Apr 10th, 2002 at 01:05:14 PM PST
It is inevitable, despite the best efforts of a good society and its Church, that some wayward individual will stray from the righteous path
How will we protect ourselves from our children?


Easy (none / 0) (#52)
by walwyn on Wed Apr 10th, 2002 at 01:54:04 PM PST
Love the advert.


 
the only solution (none / 0) (#58)
by buridan on Thu Apr 11th, 2002 at 07:00:28 AM PST
there is only one real solution to this problem and that is the platonic one, communism of women and children. with them properly cared for by the state, the moral problems generated by our media culture in their attempt to gain access to the monetary capacities will be greatly reduced and we can do a much better job protecting children together than we can do individually where we are torn by our own consumerist tendencies.


 
Riiiiiiight.... (1.00 / 1) (#59)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Apr 11th, 2002 at 07:23:49 AM PST
#1
Sir, in case you haven't noticed, the 'church' is a big cause of dissent among young adults now days. Ever notice how many of the singers now days are angry, and sing of their dislike of God and church? You know why? BECAUSE OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU! You think your worthless church is the answer to everything.
"Hey little Jimmy, I'm going to disregard your beliefs and force you to go to church. I'm going to brainwash you Jimmy so you can be just like me!"

Whatever happened to choice, asshole? What makes you think your church is going to fix everything? Have you noticed what's been going on in the Catholic church lately? How morally right is that? Take a look back in history and look at your precious church and how righteous it is.
"Do you believe in God?"
"No" *BOOM* Dead.
"Do you believe in God?"
"Yes"
"Do you believe in MY God?
"No" *BOOM* Dead.

What the hell is wrong with you people? Why do you continue to cram this garbage down our throats, choking us with it until we can't take any more? Do you really believe that it helps? That eventually we'll concede and start going of our own free will? Don't bet on it.

#2
Are you an idiot sir? Becuase so far you're projecting that image very clearly. Guns in school... Do you realize how stupid many of the kids in american schools are? If you want a bunch of dead kids then by all means give them guns for school. "Hey fucker, give me your brownie!" 'No, it's mine.' "Fool, Imo cap yo ass!" *POP* *POP* *Kid that's faster with gun wins brownie*

I'm not saying all kids are like that, but it only takes one. What if a teacher disagrees with that student? *BLAM* Or another student? *BLAM* Sure, he/she'll go to jail, but it's too late then. Someone died because of a stupid idea like giving children guns to tote around in school.

Anyway, sir, think about real life next time you open your mouth, because we don't live in a fairy-tale land that can be patched up by the duct-tape that is the church, or controlled by arming the masses.


Dissent is natural for children (none / 0) (#60)
by Adam Rightmann on Thu Apr 11th, 2002 at 09:48:06 AM PST
With their lack of experience and pragmatism, and being overly influenced by hormones, they tend to see the world through polarized, rose colored glasses. The world seems very simple to those youngsters, and they instinctively rail against respected institutions.

Children don't have the necessary experience with the world to be true judges of society and it's values. Good parenting will shelter them from the most egregious manifestations of evil, and thus, popped into the world, they expect the world to treat them like a family does. Sadly, it will not, there is evil afoot in the world.

Hoever, after a few years, or even a decade or so, most people have confronted evil, and appreciate what a bulwhark of protection the Church, the military and the government are. Dear sir, print out your screed and read it when you are in yoru 30's, you will find it most amusing.

Children also tend to rail against respected institutions like the Church and government, because those institutions have the wisdom to forbid various sinful acts, like anal sex, premarital sex, oral sex, marijuana usage and underage drinking. The child, not having enough willpower to avoid Satan's temptation, wants to try all the previous bad things, and resents any institution which tries to protect him. Again, look at this article when you are in your 30's, and think of all your friends and acquaintances who have become lost in bestiality, drugs or homosexuality, and thank God you were spared.


A. Rightmann

Axl Rose. (none / 0) (#61)
by because it isnt on Thu Apr 11th, 2002 at 10:15:20 AM PST
because those institutions have the wisdom to forbid various sinful acts, like anal sex, premarital sex, oral sex, marijuana usage and underage drinking.

Please name the government institutions which have placed an explicit, outright ban on oral sex.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

All of them? (5.00 / 1) (#75)
by RobotSlave on Sat Apr 13th, 2002 at 12:06:47 AM PST
Sodomy, including oral sex, is illegal in the state of Virginia, even between married couples.

Sodomy, homosexual or heterosexual, is also illegal in the states of Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, though specific acts covered by the laws vary.

Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas outlaw sodomy, including oral sex, between people of the same gender.

There are rather vague anti-sodomy laws on the books in Michigan and Massachusetts.

Penalities for these laws range from $500 fines to a life sentence in prison (that last in Idaho).

But that's just the US. Oral sex is illegal in nations all over the world, from Angola to Zambia, particularly male-on-male oral sex (lesbianism is still a "crime that dare not speak its name" in many parts of the world).


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

Alabama Law (none / 0) (#83)
by First Incision on Sun Apr 14th, 2002 at 05:54:05 PM PST
Here's the law in Alabama. Sodomy is legal for married couples, but the sale and purchase of sex toys is banned. (I think it's legal to buy your sex toys in other states)
_
_
Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

 
Indeed (none / 0) (#63)
by Right Hand Man on Thu Apr 11th, 2002 at 11:32:08 AM PST
It appears that Mr Rightmann has already adequately addressed your contention #1, I will limit my comments to your contention #2.

If your read the article carefully you will note that I am not advocating handing out guns to children willy nilly, like Planned Parenthood hands out abortions. Proper training is absolutely indispensible to prevent the behavior you describe above. Unlike you I do not believe that children are incapable of handling responsibility (or of speaking proper English), as long as they have guidance. Possibly you have been exposed to too many poorly reared young people?


-------------------------
"Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

Bang on the money! (none / 0) (#64)
by because it isnt on Thu Apr 11th, 2002 at 11:44:01 AM PST
Possibly you have been exposed to too many poorly reared young people?

This is absolutely what the problem is. It's not simply a disarmed classroom, it's the fundamental difference in upbringing between country kids, raised in an environment where they are at one with nature and city kids, raised in an artifically made folly of man's own doing.

Country children learn from a very early age what the real world is like - barbaric, yet breathtakingly beautiful. Every animal and plant has their place in nature. Food does not mystically appear on the table in front of them. Moral and social constraints do not seem false to them, as they can plainly see the purpose of such constraints. Town children are living in a confusing world of abstraction, where "right" and "wrong" are not fixed goalposts, but weasly, wormy areas.

I think the solution is obvious. Disperse the townies to the real world. My only worry is that they would not understand it, and would seek to destroy it.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

Intruiging (none / 0) (#84)
by DeepOmega on Sun Apr 14th, 2002 at 07:06:15 PM PST
Hm. An interesting idea... Of course, such dispersion of the cities would be impractical at best. Moving the masses to the country would require large amounts of space currently unavailable. Corporations would not be able to work nearly as efficiently with their workforce dispersed over a large area. Shipping would be greatly complicated by the lack of focal points. Of course, an advantage would be that terrorism would be ineffective, as there would be no concentrations of people to attack, nor would their be key points in the infrastructure that supported massive areas (again, as this would be ridiculously inefficient).

Peace and much love...


 
Poorly reared young people. (none / 0) (#86)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Apr 15th, 2002 at 10:56:50 AM PST
Yes I've been around a LOT of poorly reared young people. It's called public school. I know there are children that can handle responsibility, but not a lot of them, and even fewer that could handle the responsibility of owning a gun.

Why not educate them to NOT bring guns to school? Wouldn't that be a lot easier and a lot safer? Why not try teaching your kids tolerance and acceptance so that they don't end up driving the other students to kill? How about training the teachers to spot problem children?


Confused (none / 0) (#87)
by walwyn on Mon Apr 15th, 2002 at 11:57:13 AM PST
In your first paragraph you say kids in public schools are poorly raised and unable to handle responsiblity. In your second paragraph you say that schools should educate them to not shoot each other.

If schools haven't been able to do so in the past and present, why should we believe that schools will be able to do so tomorrow?


 
In short > (none / 0) (#65)
by JoePain on Thu Apr 11th, 2002 at 11:45:01 AM PST
Brainwash 'em, keep 'em on the tit, and give 'em guns.

Perfectly obvious solution.

I don't know why this took so many words to explain.


 
morailty and ignorance (3.00 / 1) (#72)
by minyard on Fri Apr 12th, 2002 at 12:12:05 PM PST
These relatively few kids* don't sufficiently appreciate the horror of a human dying violently. I think they don't realize it until they've done it or seen it for real. They don't fully appreciate the consequences of a shooting rampage beforehand.

We talk about parents talking to kids about sex and drugs, but there isn't any dialog about violence and murder. Of course, any of those dialogs aren't any good without parents who maintain a strong presence and influence (for better or worse) in their kids life.

One interesting lesson for kids is to take a field trip to a slaughter house to witness the reality of death first hand. I bet none of those kids kill without fully understanding what violence will occur.

Happy bickering.

(* Of course these "few" are way too many for everyone's tastes.)


 
They shouldn't be protected, I should be protected (1.00 / 1) (#73)
by araym on Fri Apr 12th, 2002 at 05:07:59 PM PST
I'm sure this has happened to you all as much to me. I like to go to the park, take a leisurely stroll, read a classic book, and perhaps feed the ducks, the sort of thing any 20 year old would be doing on a Friday or Saturday night. Then suddenty I am accosted by bible-wielding hooligans who beat me mercilessly until I acknowledge the one truth faith while the police stand by helpless to stop their god-powered rage. I have read many stories (can't remember the links off the top of my head) that suggest this is a growing trend, beware!


 
As a concerned parent... (3.00 / 2) (#79)
by Sir Suave on Sat Apr 13th, 2002 at 09:45:06 PM PST
I find this article to be brilliant, the fact is that our children and their schools are in danger of collapsing due to the children of liberal parents who do not take it upon themselves to properly raise their children. These liberal children have no respect for authority, no respect for their parents, no love for their country and worse of all many of them do not even love the all mighty lord. The liberal parents of these children enforce upon my children policies such as no prayers in the classroom, the right to not pledge allegiance, the removal of the teacher's right to punish the students by a good old whipping, and various other irrational liberal ideas. When I was growing up, we pledged our full undying love and allegiance to our country that loves us, protects us and gives us the freedom we enjoy. After pledging our allegiance we would follow in a prayer to the lord all mighty led by the teacher, students who refused to pray were administered some good old fashioned punishment by being whipped in front of the class, they quickly saw error in their way and prayed from that day on. Is this too much to ask? To go back to these simple days where we loved our country, our god, and respected our teachers? These liberal children are corrupting the very HEART of America, and I see it affecting our children.

Not only do I support bringing guns to class and training students, I feel that these liberal people who continue to change the U.S. of A to their little utopia should be removed from the school system. Their children should be forced in to mandatory military service and re-education, while their parents should be sentenced to a prison sentence for such neglect and the harm done to my children. This has gone on for far too long, these liberals are corrupting MY CHILDREN.

I feel strongly about the issues I've brought up, my children deserve to grow up in the country I did. My children deserve the right to pray to our god and thank him for all that he has blessed them with. Everything we have is due to the love and blessing of god, yet our school system rejects the lord and refuses to let our children learn the truth at the very place that's supposed to educate them. These liberal sinners who reject teaching god, and preach such blasphemy as Darwin are committing a sin far greater than murder, and when judgement day comes we will walk in the divine light with the lord, while they meet their creator and burn for eternity. None the less, my children deserve better than what they're given.

God bless you all and god bless America


--All American Patriot-- "Bring back the good old fashioned American Values, toghether, united, we can defeat the red menance." --Sir Suave.

lol (none / 0) (#91)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 10:05:36 AM PST
I'm sorry but I mainly come here to laugh at the people who post articles here. However, here is the reason I disagree with you sir.

1) I do not believe in god yet I am more moral then some who go to christian church every Sunday.
2) I am capable of leveling a school if I found it nescary. Explosives are more dangerous than any handgun.
3) Teenagers are emotional creatures for the most part and as such are likely to act irrationally and shoot each other over something we would view as trivial meaning that a dozen or two lost a year would triple because these gunmen are A LOT MORE ANGRY. Have you not ever said or heard say, "I'm going to kill you" and for a few minutes the person might do just that? Give them a gun at their side and they will.
4) By forcing prayer you are violating the Constitution and as such you are a traitor to this country. You are violating freedom of religon by forcing Christianity down our throats.
5) The 'good old days' were horrible. America was NOT a super power and the average lifestyle was work sleep church.
6) 'True Believers' hate more than any other segment of the populace.
7) The Communists defeated themselves by being stupid enough to try to compete economically with a nation with superior economic capabilites and a society more conducive to invention and money making.



at this point, (none / 0) (#92)
by nathan on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 10:07:00 AM PST
I would like to officially announce my campaign to be appointed an Adequacy editor. If I were, I would be able to delete posts such as the parent - something of which this fine website is obviously in need. The mere existence of the parent post demonstrates the urgency of the situation.

The Adequacy editors, a stalwart bunch indeed, must clearly be exhausted by their ceaseless labours on our behalf. I beg to be allowed to help. I would like to give something back to the community. I would like to shoulder my share of the burden.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

I agree wholeheartedly. (none / 0) (#93)
by tkatchev on Sun Apr 21st, 2002 at 05:57:35 AM PST
The Adequacy editorship is long overdue for a palace coup -- the current editorship has either completely left the scene, or is resting on its laurels, too lazy or afraid to cull the bad sheep from the flock. This site desperately needs fresh, progressive blood.

"Viva la revolucion" or something like that. We have nothing to lose except our chains.


--
Peace and much love...




It's quite easy. (none / 0) (#95)
by because it isnt on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 07:32:59 AM PST
All you have to to do become an editor is click on this link and fill out the form there.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

Yeah? (none / 0) (#97)
by tkatchev on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 03:03:40 PM PST
And spend all that time typing all those letters?

No thanks.


--
Peace and much love...




Let me guess, (none / 0) (#98)
by because it isnt on Thu Apr 25th, 2002 at 03:28:47 AM PST
you're one of those Frenchmen who protested Le Pen, but didn't bother to vote the day before.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

quite so (none / 0) (#99)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Apr 25th, 2002 at 10:29:20 PM PST
The French form of the name, though, is "Tkatcheff."


 
Your Daily Saracasm (none / 0) (#85)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Apr 15th, 2002 at 10:11:59 AM PST
Great Idea, Right Hand Man!

Except, why don't we load the kids up on sedatives, first? Surely, this will make them more cooperative when preachify to them on how they should behave in a free society.

Thank you for your wonderful reactionary viewpoints. It just makes me wish I were living in the Spanish Inquisition.


 
LOL (none / 0) (#94)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Apr 21st, 2002 at 04:31:45 PM PST
We are expected to believe this bullshit?


Nope. (none / 0) (#96)
by hauntedattics on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 01:04:27 PM PST
And you aren't expected to hang around, either.



 
Supreme court (none / 0) (#100)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Apr 28th, 2002 at 01:15:53 PM PST
The supreme court ruled that sodomy laws (and all other morality laws) were unconstitutional and could not be legally enforced. those states that have not removed them from their books and continue to try to enforce them end up losing in appellate courts.


Really? (none / 0) (#101)
by RobotSlave on Mon May 6th, 2002 at 02:51:56 AM PST
What is your precedent?

A misreading of Bowers v. Hardwick, perhaps?

Sodomy, to this day, bears a potential sentence of life in prison in Idaho. Please, enlighten us. On what constitutional basis might a resident of Idaho appeal a conviction for sodomy?


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

 

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.