14 posts tagged “scary opinions”
Dear Elio Guidarelli:
Your logic is messed up.
Cows: The tracking of cows is a safety concern to the millions of people in the United States (U.S.) that eat the cow’s meat and drink the cow’s milk. I do not believe the eleven million illegal aliens (using your data and terminology) do not pose the public health threat that a herd of tainted cows does. While I am not an immigration expert, I am willing to bet that the majority of those eleven million people are working at jobs, not just aimlessly wandering around the U.S., as you tend to believe.
The Constitution: Well, Elio, which is it? Does the U.S. Constitution work? You are making opposite claims here. First, you say the document has worked for two hundred years. Then you say we are not using it anymore. If it works so well, then why are we not using it? I am not so sure we are ignoring the Constitution. I think you are being dramatic.
I also think you are being presumptuous and ethnocentric with your idea that we give the people of Iraq our Constitution. Why would they want it? Why should we be the ones to tell them how to govern? Who are we to determine what type of government should be employed in Iraq? Isn’t that a job for the citizens of Iraq?
Just because the Constitution “was written by a lot of really smart guys” does not make it a good enough to use as a universal template for government on a worldwide scale. There are plenty of holes and ambiguities in the Constitution to draw its effectiveness into question. A look at the several disagreements over the Second Amendment’s interpretation is a good example of the problems created by the document’s ambiguities.
The Ten Commandments: We finally get down to the real purpose of your letter. Your true colors come out in a slanderous attack against lawyers, judges, and politicians. Why would posting the Ten Commandments create a hostile work environment for these people? Your letter makes the overt suggestion that people in these professions are thieves, adulterers, and liars.
Your judgments against lawyers, judges, and politicians do an immense disservice to the thousands of honest public and private officials that work each day in this country. There are many of lawyers, judges, and politicians that are not thieves, adulterers, and liars. These same people are doing all they can to uphold the very Constitution you claim we are not using anymore. Your slanderous attack on these people is shameful, shortsighted, and ungrateful to the many honest people that work hard each day to make this country better.
Dear Donald Kahn:
As a mathematics professor at the University of Minnesota, I would expect you to be familiar with situations that do not add up. I would also expect you to have a respectable ability in logical reasoning.
With this being said, I am dumbfounded by your letter. You are offering what is, in my opinion, the strangest method for explaining the collapse of the I-35W Bridge. Your method was to compare the noise of construction to the noise of collapse. Your laboratory was a shop on Fourth Street. Your evidence was the testimony of a shop worker.
From this type of inquiry, you were able to determine that the construction done at the time of the collapse had a major impact.
With all due respect, I think your conclusion is crap.
Just because your witness thought the noise was simply the construction does not mean anything. The structure of the shop might have good soundproofing. Did you research that before making your conclusion?
Just because there was construction on the bridge does not immediately make that a cause. Millions of construction workers do work on bridges every day in this country. The simple presence of construction does not immediately cause the bridge to collapse. It may be a factor in the collapse. However, I think your conclusion that much of the blame will fall at the feet of those that authorized the heavy construction is both simplistic and hasty.
I would guess there are many factors and issues surrounding the collapse of this bridge. For you to ignore all of that and simply point to the construction is foolish. It is foolish because the only evidence you have is your interpretation of noise.
I am no math wizard. However, I do know that one needs to have all parts of an equation before one can solve for its solution. It sounds to me like you need to brush up on both your math and logic.
Dear Bob Ragsdale:
Here is a clue to help you deal with your bloodthirsty revenge: Michael Vick has not yet been convicted of a crime. Vick has merely been indicted. No punishment has yet been handed down by a court of law. There are many differences between an indictment and a conviction. You should familiarize yourself with this distinction.
Since you brought up the Constitution of the United States (U.S.), I believe it would be wise to look at what the document says regarding a person's rights when faced with both criminal proceedings and punishment.
Amendment V of the Bill of Rights says:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI of the Bill of Rights says:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment VIII of the Bill of Rights says:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Despite all of this, you already appear to have determined his guilt. How can this be? Are you the judge assigned to this case? Did you sit on the jury that convicted Vick? Is the evidence you used to reach your verdict the same that is found in the media? How do you know that evidence is accurate?
It is disturbing to see someone ignorantly invoke the Constitution without actually believing in what the document actually says. It is also alarming to see someone advocate for a punishment that is clearly cruel and unusual (the chaining of a human being to an axle and depriving that person of food) to be inflicted on a human being.
You need not worry, Mr. Ragsdale. I am confident the National Football League (NFL) will issue the appropriate punishment if Vick is convicted of a crime. However, they are a private organization and will do what they believe is appropriate.
Obviously, you believe the cruel acts inflicted against the dogs depicted in the indictment (providing he actually read the indictment) are wrong. However, you clearly believe it is acceptable to inflict such acts on human beings. Does anyone smell a hypocrite here?
Dear MaryEllen Weller:
Are you one of those paranoid United States (U.S.) citizens that claim our country is being destroyed because of language? Are you one of those psychotic people that want to proclaim English as the official language of the U.S.? It seems to me that you are because of the inference made in the last sentence.
Here is a hint: English is not the official language of the U.S. Here is the latest information from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). If you happen to scroll down to the U.S., it lists several other languages besides English. The interesting fact here is the lack of any official language for the U.S. An example of a country with an official language is the United Arab Emirates (Arabic).
You sure are quick to point out the faults of other people. Yes, the spelling error you pointed out is somewhat amusing. However, do you really expect people in France to be perfect in their usage of the English language? How ethnocentric of you to point out the English faults of people that probably do not speak the language all that much. Are you still in high school? Do you make fun of accents and dialects also?
Before you start knocking the English skills of people in other countries, you may want to look at your own grammatical problems. Do you know anything about conjunctions?
Conjunctions are, “The part of speech that serves to connect words, phrases, clauses, or sentences” (Dictionary.com). Remember the acronym FANBOYS? It helps middle-school students remember the following conjunctions: for, and, nor, but, or, yet, so.
Conjunctions should not be used to begin a sentence. Take a look at your last sentence. You are guilty of a grammatical faux pas by starting your sentence with a conjunction. Although this practice is not really followed much today, it can still be labeled bad grammar. Your letter ripping the English skills of other people is certainly not a model of proper English usage.
Perhaps you should look at your own grammatical errors before ripping down the grammar of other people. If you are going to rip someone, at least make sure your house is in order.
Dear Harley Karvonen:
While I commend your desire not to object to the Free Thinkers because they are following the constitution (although I am not sure one ought to issue judgments of other groups based on their adherence to the Constitution), I despise your views on who you think should receive communion. Your ideas about who can or cannot be called religious are disturbing. Who are you to say that Democrats, people that support abortion, and supporters of same-sex marriage cannot be religious? Are you an expert in such matters?
Judging by your logic, you are not.
Not all Democrats are pro-choice. Not all Democrats support abortion. Not all Democrats support same-sex marriage. There are Republicans that are pro-choice. There are also Republicans that support same-sex marriage. What are you going to do about these people? Are you going to call for petitions against these people as well?
I vehemently disagree with your statement that all religious people believe these prohibitions (abortion, same-sex marriage) are God's law. There are plenty of religious people that are both pro-choice and support same-sex marriage. Take a peak at the United Church of Christ.
Let's face reality. Your letter is nothing more than an attack against people that are both pro-choice and support same-sex marriage. Your tactic is to isolate and exclude people with views and beliefs you do not like. Your idea is nothing less than religious segregation. Your methods and tactics help create division and schism.
Perhaps these people cannot be called religious, based on your narrow definition. Fortunately, it is a free country and people can define themselves as they so wish. Fortunately, we do not have to listen to people like you.
Dear Elio Guidarelli:
Settle down, now. You are being hysterical about this situation. No one is denying the facts about the Washington Monument you write in your letter. Only a fool would do such a thing. However, your conclusion in the last sentence is way out in left field. You have been listening to way too much conservative rhetoric.
The problem is, and always has been, when governmental agencies and projects seem to endorse a particular religion. Taxpayer money is at stake. So are our rights guaranteed in the First Amendment.
Just because these places and things cite Biblical verses does not make it right. No one is denying the influence of God in the early years of this country. However, you need to realize there are people of other religions living in the United States. There are also people that do not believe in religion. Think about how these people feel when they see the apparent governmental endorsement of the Abrahamic religions. Think about how hypocritical it looks when a person of a different belief system first sees the words "In God We Trust" on our money, then turns around, and reads the First Amendment.
Settle down. No one is going to restrict a person's right to talk about
religion.
Dear Ron Krause:
I also share your disdain for the way many smokers use the world as their ashtray. I noticed this the other day when I was in my car. While stopped at a stoplight to make a left-hand turn, I happened to look at the curb next to my car. Lying in a wind-blown pile were thousands of cigarette butts. Yuk!
However, I do not share your enthusiasm about forcing everyone to pledge allegiance to both the flag and to the United States.
There is something mindless and Nazi-like regarding the whole idea of blindly pledging allegiance to a country. Don't get me wrong, I do like the United States and am grateful for being a citizen here. However, I will not stand by and blindly follow the United States simply because it is the United States. I will not sacrifice my freedom of thought and conscious in the name of patriotism.
I do not think that in order to create the great melting pot you describe one should be a blind follower. I also do not think it is necessary to create a melting pot. I do not think is a good thing that people believe we need to create an environment that forces people to give up their own unique cultural heritages to form this supposed model of the proper United States citizen.
I believe we can have a successful country if we do not require our citizens to conform to the idea of a melting pot. I believe we can live together despite our differences.
Do not tell me how to be a citizen. I can figure it out myself.
Dear Maryann Shores:
Who in the hell are you to rebuke me for not going to church on Sunday? Who appointed you God's attendance taker? My church attendance is an issue between God and me. It is none of your business. I would concentrate on your own issues and failings. I doubt your closet is clean enough to start worrying about the closets of other people.
I also think your theology is weak. In many churches, weekly attendance is required. However, I very much doubt that God will only look at your church attendance when determining your departure and judgment. I tend to think God will look at a person's entire being when making these decisions.
Besides all of this, your logic is contradictory. For example, you said we should to go to church weekly to avoid a premature departure. You then go on to say that the flight (death) is already scheduled and will not be canceled.
Well, which is it? On one hand, you are saying we will die prematurely if we do not go to church weekly. On the other hand, you say the date of death is already determined.
Moreover, do not tell me how to worship, especially when in church. You are neither qualified nor in any position to tell me how to worship God. People worship in their own manner. Instead of being so concerned with the worship styles of other people, perhaps you should direct that extra time at your own worship's shortcomings.
Dear Robert Siegel:
You need to let go of your passions and embrace logic and critical thinking. Your blind passions lead you to make obscene claims.
You said, “The courts took "public prayer" out of the Constitution, and now, the "Atheist Anti-Christian Liberty Union" is targeting the Pledge of Allegiance and our currency. What had happened to "unalienable rights"?”
When was public prayer ever in the Constitution? What is the AACLU? Is this a new organization? Oh wait, you are referring to the ACLU. Not all members of the ACLU are atheists. Not all atheists are against Christians or Christian liberty. Why do you hate the ACLU?
Our unalienable rights are still in the Declaration of Independence. Here is a transcript of the document. Look in the second paragraph.
Olaf Wing was held captive by terrorists. Your choice to label them as Islamic seems to indicate a bias against that religion. Do you often label all terrorists by their religion? Do you hate the Islamic faith? Why is it necessary to call them Islamic terrorists? Why not call them male terrorists?
You quoted an unknown patriot saying, “I regret I have but one life to give for my country.” What? You do not know the identity of this patriot? Why put a quote in if you do not know who said it? Are you making this up?
Finally, you said, “Freedom is not free! God bless America.”
Perhaps you should stop listening to the right-wing rhetoric and slogans and instead embrace in some critical thinking and self-evaluation of internal biases. You might be surprised at what you find.
Dear Rev. Buchs:
It really is not so strange that the deaths of the three babies in the Mississippi River receive more attention than the abortions you describe occurring in Olmsted County.
The murder described in this case is against the civil law. Most forms of abortion are not. While you may object to this fact, it remains fact.
I doubt many people consider abortion acceptable. I would be hard pressed to find a person that likes the option of abortion (despite what you or your pro-life friends may believe). However, it is a legal option in this country.
You said, " It seems we have adopted an arbitrary, though convenient,
definition of evil without logic." Aren't all definitions of evil
arbitrary? Isn't evil essentially illogical?
I also doubt your slippery slope of abortion opening the door of corruption.
Corruption existed before Roe v. Wade and will continue to exist despite
abortion.
Yes, there is an answer to sin. It is to choose not to sin.
