mererdog

Your rights have been violated. Now you simply have to decide what to do about it. In all fairness, when that happens to most people they simply take the hit and move on, because they have been taught that you can't fight city hall. But you do have other options, if you are willing to take the requisite risks.

Try googling this.... ...and then compare what you find out about Finnish education philosophy to what s-b said... They are not that different. I know that a lot of people will tell you that Finland's educational system's success is due to its egalitarian socialism, but I personally suspect it has more to do with a cultural focus on self-improvement.

Ok. Hopefully you can see how the way you describe the situation here is different from how you described it before in some important ways.I think it fair to say that I wouldn't have been bothered by it enough to do much of anything about it. Considering some of the neighbors I have had, what you describe would not really strike me as that big a deal. Keep in mind, however, that I have had pimps get into fights on my lawn. Also, I still see plenty of room to give him the benefit of the doubt, which tends to be my default position. That's not advice, it's just what I would probably do, right, wrong, or indifferent. That makes me wonder who lived there before you did and what was their relationship with this man. I've got this vague notion that he may be missing a friend and resenting you for being involved in his loss.

According to your account, "standing in the doorway, I was kind of staring open mouthed, I couldn't believe what I was seeing" and he had not yet had a chance to clean anything up. A baggy can fold neatly into a pocket, leaving no visible sign that it is there. Had you not been standing there staring at him in an accusatory manner, can you say with complete certainty that he would not have cleaned it up?Please understand that I'm not trying to blame you. I have no idea what his intentions were, or what the consequences of your actions were. I am simply offering an alternate explanation that may allow you to see your neighbor as somewhat less of a villain, in the hope of fostering a little peace and understanding.

In your initial description, your actions could be considered to be both rude and passive-aggressive. I'm not saying that they were, but just that I can see how they could be taken that way. If your neighbor took it that way, he may have been responding based on that- being rude and passive-aggressive in retaliation. If that is the case, a bit of time giving him reason to see you differently may completely clear things up. Just a thought.

Only in the same way that being a target of crime is the default position of any retail establishment in a major city. Taxing everyone the same way is the only way to prevent discriminatory taxation practices and the use of tax policy as a coercive tool.

You have it backwards, I'm afraid. Lack of taxation is not a benefit given by the government. This is proven by the fact that lack of taxation is the default position that exists without government. So what is actually happening is that religious institutions are being asked to conform to government-mandated policy in order to avoid a government-imposed burden. Put another way, tax policy is being used to coerce religious institutions into conforming to government dictates.

There is something fairly unnerving about a government agency telling a religious organization how to go about its business. And while I understand that they were not, strivctly speaking, giving you orders, they were telling you that if you did things in a way other than what is sanctioned, you would get into trouble. In my mind, that is an implied threat of governmental retaliation- intentional or not. It is like they are telling you that you should remember to only use the water fountains designated for people of your race, because you might get arrested if you do otherwise- if you see the connection....Is the reduction of legal liability as important as ensuring that our rights are not violated?

If you tell me I only have 30 days to live, I will spend it trying to prove you wrong. I am not a believer in fate, nor in the inerrancy of doctors...

I don't charge for weddings. It's one of those things where if I'm not willing to do it as a gift I'm not willing to do it. And, for some strange reason, I keep adding the words "Mr. Grainger" to the end of the topic title whenever I read it....

I lean forwards.

Actually, they don't. They promote abdication of individual moral responsibility in favor of unthinking routine. Often, that leads to quite a lot of throat ripping when two "well-mannered" people's routine behavior patterns clash... By your standard of what qualifies as "well mannered" that may very well be a simple matter of definition. But, see, all you are really doing is saying "I prefer it when people do this to when they do that". In my experience, trying to be rude can only produce rudeness at about 1/1000th the intensity of the rudeness that can be produced by trying to being polite..

Manners, etiquette and the like are nothing more than base social prejudices. They exist solely to separate the "pleasant" from the non-, and in so doing separate the "desirable" from the un-. They are, in short, some of the many ways the Man keeps everybody down. That said, the sad truth is that I am burdened with a fairly ingrained sense of gentility that is hard to retrain...

Thanks for linking the wiki page. "(particularly useful if one is challenged in the shower, a tradition in the Navy)" - Just may be the single greatest parenthetical comment I have ever read.

That is a valid point. At the same time, no one forced Rosa Parks to ride a bus, right?

Personally, I believe that the you cannot have freedom without equality. By that token, religious freedom requires religious equality. As such, qualities of a religious nature should not be compared to decide who does and does not get taxed. To do otherwise allows for using tax laws to "encourage" people to practice their religion in approved manners. As when a church is told that if it's preacher continues to say certain things they may find themselves being audited and paying tens of thousands in back taxes....

Been putting your smoke break time to slightly more productive use?

If I were to post a story about a black man doing something wrong, and title it "Looks This Is How The Blacks Do It" you would figure me for a prejudiced ass, wouldn't you?

No more than someone believing that they have a personal relationship with someone who died a couple millenia ago? Well, if you only ask the questions you think you can find answers to, you make it more likely you'll be disappointed and less likely you'll get a pleasant surprise...

To many people, science is not a method of questioning but a set of answers. Many of them use phrases like "science tells us" in exactly the same way that others will say "the Bible tells us" or will speak the names Darwin, Hayek, or Einstein with the same reverence others speak the names Moses, Krishna, or Christ.

http://www.anomalist...ies/pseudo.html We all know that global warming is both a proven fact and a complete hoax, right? And we all know that saccharine is clinically proven to both be perfectly safe for you to use, and to give you cancer, of course? So how have you gone about trying to find that healthy balance that lies somewhere between between believing everything and believing nothing?

I was fairly surprised to see that this topic had not been closed nor the topic-starter banned... murph at his least wrathful...

Sufficient for what? Because I am right. Really. Correlation does not prove causation. I thought everyone knew that. People also often lie. When I took the "Pepsi Challenge" I watched the pattern revealed by the choices of the people in front of me and picked the cup the Pepsi was in, in order to garner personal rewards. That difference between what I was actually doing and what I told the tester I was doing forms a major problem with all tests of consciousness. Absolutely. Now, note the difference between a choice being affected by unconscious forces and a choice being made unconsciously. They are totally different things. No one said otherwise. Nope. I am disagreeing with you about what the evidence indicates. That is what happens when evidence is not conclusive. I wonder what unconscious factors made you choose to move on to attacking me? Continue to simply ignore the ramifications of the inherently subjective nature of consciousness. I'm sure no one else will notice you're doing it.

Did Brother Kevin just post something?!