BF2S Forums illegal immigrants sue AZ rancher, (and will probably win)

-Sh1fty- wrote:

mcjagdflieger wrote:

Serious question here....is it not a felony to enter the country illegally? Not saying I advocate shooting illegals, just need clarification on specifics.

Ed. NVM, I learnededed all by meself. Apparently its a misdemeanor, and if repeated, then punishable as a felony. But at the same time entering without being legally documented, or entering legally, and overstaying your visa, is deportable. But we don't deport them (most i guess, not all). Kudos to this man, wish more disgustingly rich folk with plenty of time, would buy up all property along the border and hunt the most dangerous game. Shame they need to do it in the first place, granted.

Damn I would love to do that

/wana-be-badass

How many women and children do you think you could kill in a single 24 period?

-Sh1fty- wrote:

As many as I can

Funny thing is, you guys consider me not American, so me trying to turn away non-Americans must be a hilarious (stupid) idea to you.

No it makes you a normal person who doesn't have much going for him in life so he chooses to kick the people he perceives to be beneath him in order to make himself feel better.

11 Bravo wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

I don't dislike Muslims or Catholics in general.

i do

I dislike Catholics somewhat more.

JG wrote:

No it makes you a normal person who doesn't have much going for him in life so he chooses to kick the people he perceives to be beneath him in order to make himself feel better.

Come on, it takes a big man to threaten penniless mexicans from his mom's basement.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-01-13 18:10:01)

catholics have a lot more to be sorry for in the last 1,000 years of history

especially when it comes to retarding human development

Turquoise wrote:

Uzique wrote:

catholics have a lot more to be sorry for in the last 1,000 years of history

especially when it comes to retarding human development

If you said 2,000, I would agree.  In the last 1,000....  that's a tough call.

It doesn't really matter though, since they're all bullshit anyway.

Are you familiar with the roman inquisition?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

Turquoise wrote:

Kmar wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

If you said 2,000, I would agree.  In the last 1,000....  that's a tough call.

It doesn't really matter though, since they're all bullshit anyway.

Are you familiar with the roman inquisition?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

Yes, I am.  I'm also familiar with Islamic conquests.

I think it's pretty clear that all religions are capable of inspiring humanity to kill for asinine reasons.  Comparing brands of brainwashing is like deciding whether or not you'd prefer someone kill you with a machete or with a sledgehammer.

Tough call?

The Inquisitions only led to several thousand deaths. The Crusades led to several million.

But you have to take into account the really abhorrent sort of ways people were killed by Catholics. Just look at things like the book of martyrs, a nasty example being a heavily pregnant woman being hung above a fire so she was slowly cooked, then dropped into the fire where she gave birth and the crowd chucked the baby back into the fire.


If you're looking at numbers, the Catholics come out looking worse. If you're looking at how horrible the things they did were, the Catholics come out looking worse.

I can't think of a single positive thing about catholicism, unless you count helping africans die of AIDS.

Uzique wrote:

catholics have a lot more to be sorry for in the last 1,000 years of history

especially when it comes to retarding human development

a/ You're making all the Catholics guilty for the work of an Inquisition lunatics. This is pretty stupid.

b/ Since you said in the last 1000 years I'm going to assume you're talking about Inquisition, which started in the late 12th century.

While it holds some responsibility for "retarding human development" in that era, the main reason for that lies in decline of Roman empire and so called Dark ages which were a direct consequence of that.
Example: contrary to popular belief, most of academics in middle ages recognized Earth to be a sphere and not flat. And guess what, most (if not all) of those academics were Catholics.

I'm not trying to defend actions which were done by Catholics in Inquisition, I'm  negating the fact that human development was majorly retarded  because of these actions.

BlAiR_AgaiN wrote:

Uzique wrote:

catholics have a lot more to be sorry for in the last 1,000 years of history

especially when it comes to retarding human development

a/ You're making all the Catholics guilty for the work of an Inquisition lunatics. This is pretty stupid.

b/ Since you said in the last 1000 years I'm going to assume you're talking about Inquisition, which started in the late 12th century.

While it holds some responsibility for "retarding human development" in that era, the main reason for that lies in decline of Roman empire and so called Dark ages which were a direct consequence of that.
Example: contrary to popular belief, most of academics in middle ages recognized Earth to be a sphere and not flat. And guess what, most (if not all) of those academics were Catholics.

I'm not trying to defend actions which were done by Catholics in Inquisition, I'm  negating the fact that human development was majorly retarded  because of these actions.

There is simply no way of knowing how many people were killed, imprisoned, tortured, or just refused to talk about things, like the copernican theory, for fear of being branded a heretic. The catholics placed many scientific writings and books on their forbidden list. It's hard to think that doing that didn't seriously impede human understanding of the world.

Their leaders supported it. They did stand in the way of science, in the most sadistic of all ways. That is without question. Galileo's teachings were condemed before he even had a chance to speak in front of the the catholic leadership. That isn't to say they haven't also contributed. We have the big bang theory (Georges Lemaître) for example. The fact that there has also been contributions does not erase the past.

LoL

Kmar wrote:

Their leaders supported it. They did stand in the way of science, in the most sadistic of all ways. That is without question. Galileo's teachings were condemed before he even had a chance to speak in front of the the catholic leadership. That isn't to say they haven't also contributed. We have the big bang theory (Georges Lemaître) for example. The fact that there has also been contributions does not erase the past.

The point is, it was not the only one which stood in the way of science. Feudalism reigned over Europe at that time, wars were fought constantly, Muslims were pretty much present on Iberian peninsula the whole time, etc. etc.
The Church (not the Catholic scholars) didn't really give a crap about most of the scientific progress that went on. It was interested only in progress which could imply some heretic notion. You mentioned Galileo, he was very religious, the problem was he was also very fond of Reformation (Martin Luther). The whole argument between him and church isn't as simple as "omfg you heretic earth is the center of the universe now go and live in your house for the rest of your life".
There were so many factors involved in the development of science at the time that pointing the finger at Church at saying "It's your fault we aren't in star trek era yet" makes little sense.

Bertster7 wrote:

The vast majority did. That's why they stood around cheering when then tortured and burnt people.

The vast majority of people feared Inquisition like hell. Public executions always attracted lots of people but I wouldn't go as far to say that everyone there was a bloodthirsty maniac who enjoyed that kind of stuff.

Last edited by BlAiR_AgaiN (2011-01-15 09:47:46)

BlAiR_AgaiN wrote:

Kmar wrote:

Their leaders supported it. They did stand in the way of science, in the most sadistic of all ways. That is without question. Galileo's teachings were condemed before he even had a chance to speak in front of the the catholic leadership. That isn't to say they haven't also contributed. We have the big bang theory (Georges Lemaître) for example. The fact that there has also been contributions does not erase the past.

The point is, it was not the only one which stood in the way of science. Feudalism reigned over Europe at that time, wars were fought constantly, Muslims were pretty much present on Iberian peninsula the whole time, etc. etc.
The Church (not the Catholic scholars) didn't really give a crap about most of the scientific progress that went on. It was interested only in progress which could imply some heretic notion. You mentioned Galileo, he was very religious, the problem was he was also very fond of Reformation (Martin Luther). The whole argument between him and church isn't as simple as "omfg you heretic earth is the center of the universe now go and live in your house for the rest of your life".
There were so many factors involved in the development of science at the time that pointing the finger at Church at saying "It's your fault we aren't in star trek era yet" makes little sense.

Bertster7 wrote:

The vast majority did. That's why they stood around cheering when then tortured and burnt people.

The vast majority of people feared Inquisition like hell. Public executions always attracted lots of people but I wouldn't go as far to say that everyone there was a bloodthirsty maniac who enjoyed that kind of stuff.

I know the events around galileo. He was religous, his daughter was even a nun. She ended up helping him with his penance. Galileo was trying to save the church from embarrassment. Poor chap. I doubt he would have made the effort if he knew his reward. Galileo was sentenced to house arrest because the pope thought he was mocking him by putting his words into a character he called simplicio in his book. The pope, which was his personal friend, gave him permission to write the book so long as it was presented as a discussion, and not a matter of scientific fact.. It is doubtful the the pope even read the book.