OK I retract what I said about this law, it sounded like it was from the 19th century and I could understand if it was passed to protect susceptible people from charlatans.
Apparently this law was first passed in 1951 and was specifically targeting the practice of Wicca. I'll concede that this law is inherently discriminatory.
I have trouble adding "realtively nice place" + "it was bad where I lived".
Quote from "LinkX" »
We even had a mansion ten or so roads down.
Having a mansion doesn't mean you have the mansion in a wealthy area.
Quote from "LinkX" »
I also said that I live inbetween the north and south. *Coughs.*
It doesn't matter where you live. What matters is your ignorance in the question of which places are bad and which are good. You lived in one spot which you don't even consider South, and you say "down there it must be worse". I think that's the most ignorant statement I have heard on this forum besides cuss exchanges... Pretty offensive, too, I live in the South, and I have lived in your North, and I lived in Ohio, and I gotta say, South was the best place I have ever been to!
Quote from "LinkX" »
Back on topic, even if this was 40 or 50 or even 80 or 90 years ago, the Constitution is the Constitution, and it still would have been unconstitutional.
Constitutionality of anything is defined by Congress, the Supreme Court, and the media/mass. Not by the constituality. The older the times, the more acceptant are the mass/media of religion, the easier and safer it is for policy institutions to impose an unconstitutional law.
If we have a law protecting a drug company from lawsuits inside the bill for the establishment of Homeland Security, which was passed, what, in 2001, there is little I can say.
I have trouble adding "realtively nice place" + "it was bad where I lived".
Realively nice refering to econimically, it was bad refering to tolerance.
Quote from "Equinox" »
Having a mansion doesn't mean you have the mansion in a wealthy area.
The word "even" was there for a reason.
Quote from "Equinox" »
It doesn't matter where you live. What matters is your ignorance in the question of which places are bad and which are good. You lived in one spot which you don't even consider South, and you say "down there it must be worse". I think that's the most ignorant statement I have heard on this forum besides cuss exchanges... Pretty offensive, too, I live in the South, and I have lived in your North, and I lived in Ohio, and I gotta say, South was the best place I have ever been to!
1) I said I don't consider it North or South, I consider it inbetween. IE niether.
2) I've lived in Tennessee, and from what I've seen for the few months I lived down there, it is worse. I understand there are areas that are nice, and there are areas in the north that are worse, but I am speaking in general.
Quote from "Equinox" »
Constitutionality of anything is defined by Congress, the Supreme Court, and the media/mass. Not by the constituality. The older the times, the more acceptant are the mass/media of religion, the easier and safer it is for policy institutions to impose an unconstitutional law.
So basically what your saying is that the Constitution is jack shit? Usually here I would say "My appologies" then go on and say why I dissagree, but I cant appologise for dissagreeing with this.
Quote from "Equinox" »
If we have a law protecting a drug company from lawsuits inside the bill for the establishment of Homeland Security, which was passed, what, in 2001, there is little I can say.
So basically what your saying is that the Constitution is jack shit? Usually here I would say "My appologies" then go on and say why I dissagree, but I cant appologise for dissagreeing with this.
I really don't get your point here. I said that if a law is unconstitutional, it can still be passed if there is no opposition against it, and the example you brought up in your first post proves that, what are you arguing against?
I really don't get your point here. I said that if a law is unconstitutional, it can still be passed if there is no opposition against it, and the example you brought up in your first post proves that, what are you arguing against?
It's an example of government corruption...?
Ahh, ok, I missunderstood what you were saying. I thought you were saying that the Constitution didn't mean anything. Kinda upset me when people don't have respect for the Constitution, and yea.
The original ideals of the constitution were sound.
It has been ammended and contorted now to a shadow of its original greatness.
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, DAMMIT!:mad:
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]"I am Legion, for we are many."
The Rotting:mad:
A proposal to repeal the Livingston Parish ordinance outlawing soothsaying died in silence last night before the Parish Council.
The council ignored the recommendation of its attorney, Blayne Honeycutt, who had advised council members to repeal the ordinance in the face of a Wiccan minister's federal lawsuit, which Honeycutt said the parish probably will lose.
A Wiccan woman asked the council to repeal the ordinance, which she said makes unlawful a practice of a recognized religion.
When the council failed to act on his recommendation, Honeycutt advised council members to hire an attorney who specializes in such matters to handle the case.
At a previous council meeting Honeycutt advised the council to repeal the ordinance, saying he was unaware of soothsaying or fortune telling presenting a problem in the parish.
The suit, filed in U.S. District Court Middle District of Louisiana, seeks to have the ordinance declared unconstitutional, seeks a permanent injunction prohibiting the parish from enforcing the ordinance and asks the court to assess damages.
I don't have the verbatim of the actual law/ordinance, but I'm sure it can be found somewhere.
I agree with Stonebreaker. We are one national crisis away from being ruled by a dictator. People these days seem quite willing to give up a few 'minor' rights to protect themselves from 'terrorism', see the Patriot Act. Also, as some of you may or may not know, in times of national emergency, the president is granted right to bypass congress and suspend the constitution.
Yes... actually suspend the constitution. During that time he can command the army fully in any way, change the laws as he pleases, and do whatever he wants in the sake of 'national security'. The length of time that this national emergency lasts is also decided by the president. The ideas of being protected by a document and granted total freedom in everyway is sadly an illusion easily broken by any government conspiracy to create a national crisis, turning your free-elected president into a dictator.
This is coming someday, all we can do is try to keep honest and non-power hungry presidents elected.
I could be wrong, but this is what I have learned from my Government class, I'm sure you could also find this information on the internet somewhere...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only once they understand will they know what the truth really is.
This is my Tale.
Try making your own Leap Of Faith... You might save more than just your life.
Strawman? Not so much anymore, I'm just stating my opinion.
I know for a fact that you are being videodromed. :rolleyes:
The government is guided by the media. The media is guided by the public. Make your conclusions.
I must say I dissagree with this. If the media was guided by the public then I highly doubt there would be this many reality telivision shows.
I would say that the government is guided by both the public and, more so, the media, and that the public is, in large part, guided by the media.
I know that the entire public is not, we are examples of that Equinox, however I do feel that a vast majority is guided in one way or another via the media.
I must say I dissagree with this. If the media was guided by the public then I highly doubt there would be this many reality telivision shows.
You're kidding yourself. That's the biggest reason to prove that the public guides the media. A stupid idea like reality TV should never have taken off unless people started to watch the crap. Why do you think there are sooo many cop shows around in various forms? That's right, because people like to watch them.
I must say I dissagree with this. If the media was guided by the public then I highly doubt there would be this many reality telivision shows.
You cannot disagree with a fact. Media is a business. If you actually disagree with that you need to take this class called "AP US Government". :rolleyes: Or, just, READ. Internet. The vast source of info. Use it. Please.
What you are doubting is that the public likes reality shows. Well, if they are aired, that means more than enough people like them, simple as that.
The television broadcasters get more money from viewers. Therefore, the television broadcasters try to get something on TV that would get more viewers. If people will watch realtity shows, the broadcasters will put on reality shows. If people watch Discovery, 70% of the TV would have been Discovery. In fact, currently, Discovery channel is what they call "narrowcasting". Aka channel specifically for a demographic group. Pretty big one, it seems, but still a narrow one.
Quote from "LinkX" »
I would say that the government is guided by both the public and, more so, the media, and that the public is, in large part, guided by the media.
Yup. And who are the voters? The "more" part of the public.
Quote from "LinkX" »
I know that the entire public is not, we are examples of that Equinox, however I do feel that a vast majority is guided in one way or another via the media.
So, what's your argument?
It's always the competition between one mass of people controlled by a few intellectuals vs the other mass of people controlled by some other intellectuals. Aka democratic vs republican party. Or Obama vs Clinton. Or w/e you want. But it's not the voters competing, it's the people who know the difference guiding the voters to compete, because people who know the difference are too few to influence the elections.
Of course, it's not like people watch someone say "vote for Clinton" and they go vote for Clinton. It's not that dumb. But it is as dumb as people looking at tracking polls and believing in them. Why did Gore lose in the 2004 election? Media predicting results incorrectly and democrats deciding it's all done and republicans deciding that it's not done yet and Bush is losing so they need to vote and, suddenly, Bush wins, hahhahahahha... Would he win if it wasn't for that? Who knos. Tracking polls usually have like 10% margin of error or so... srsly, want to talk about government, learn something about it, take a class or read books.
You CAN influence government, but voting is just not enough. Voting is the least thing you can do, but if you really want to make a difference, you gotta get a bit more involved. Aka, join some interest groups, encourage people around you, class lawsuits, etc. Despite what people usually say, the American system is an actual working democracy.
And, Constitution is a very powerful government for the SUPREME COURT. The Supreme Court, along with the Federal Reserve, is a very liberal and not-so-biased an institution. And, thanks to them, we are not in total shit right now. The Supreme Court cares about everything, and they want to do things right because no one really bothers about bribing them or w/e. They also get like 1% of the media coverage, which means the media doesn't affect them, either. I respect the Supreme Court and I believe those guys will support this country for many years to come, and that they, among others, actually do believe in the Constitution. Why is that law no longer there? The Court. The laws were passed by Congress, a much more biased and corrupted insitution, and not until a group of people collect and say "no" to that law may the Court pay attention to it and decide it's unconstitutional.
To say it short, laws are easier to pass because they are not tested for being constitutional at the time of passing, but afterwards, if the public DOES go against them, they may get thrown out. If the public is fine with an unconstitutional law, why would the Court bother with it? Would they even know about it?
The reason I find laws like that hypocritical
(and maybe that was the wrong word to use) is because America was founded
on certain beliefs and freedoms, yet state governments are taking it upon
themselves to tell people what they may or may not do as far as religious
beliefs are concerned. It's like saying that you're allowed to like any
color you want, except you can only choose been blue and green (not the
greatest example, but I'm not a very good debater, so bear with me, lol).
Maybe 'too restrictive' was the phrase I was looking for.
Exactly, let's take another look at Waco, Texas. A guy made a religous group of about 100
people, stockpiling guns, food, ammo, and water, for an apoctolyptic setting which
he believed would happen. He said he was the "sinful Jesus" so on judgement day he would
know all the sinful things people had to go through. He taught he was sumpreme ruler
(not much different then the pope imo). Time went on, and no apparent reason other then
complete suspicion that they were turning legal weapons into illegal fully automatic
weapons and that he was inopropriately messing with young children. There was no
evidence whatsoever and what do you know, what happens?
No, the local police didnt check it out, not even someone like the FBI, although neither
had a reason or imo a legal right to invade, the ATF of all people invaded his "fort"
which was actually his church builidng. And the gunfighting started. You all know the story
probably, and thats the jist of it, the cult fell apart pretty much, im not to sure what
heppened to him, i think he went to a mental institution? Eh anyways...
Now im not saying i believe his teachings by any means, but, if that can happen then it can
just as easily happen to Christianity or any other religous group. Your probably thinking,
no way, he was a small "cult" and that could never happen. Well if the ATF can do that
and not have any charges against them, then what would stop the government? such as FBI.
Although this is different than the small prohibiting of things such as palm reading,
it could be the beggining of another Waco situation, going farther, and stretching out to
"mainstream" religion, if you can call it that.
"oh but they are just doing it because it's a scam" Well was this so-called "cult" of Waco
a scam? For some people out there doing palm readings and such, they truly believe they are
real and true.
Exactly, let's take another look at Waco, Texas. A guy made a religous group of about 100
people, stockpiling guns, food, ammo, and water, for an apoctolyptic setting which he believed would happen. He said he was the "sinful Jesus" so on judgement day he would know all the sinful things people had to go through. He taught he was sumpreme ruler (not much different then the pope imo). Time went on, and no apparent reason other then complete suspicion that they were turning legal weapons into illegal fully automatic
weapons and that he was inopropriately messing with young children. There was no evidence whatsoever and what do you know, what happens?
No, the local police didnt check it out, not even someone like the FBI, although neither had a reason or imo a legal right to invade, the ATF of all people invaded his "fort" which was actually his church builidng. And the gunfighting started. You all know the story probably, and thats the jist of it, the cult fell apart pretty much, im not to sure what heppened to him, i think he went to a mental institution? Eh anyways...
Now im not saying i believe his teachings by any means, but, if that can happen then it can just as easily happen to Christianity or any other religous group. Your probably thinking, no way, he was a small "cult" and that could never happen. Well if the ATF can do that and not have any charges against them, then what would stop the government? such as FBI.
Although this is different than the small prohibiting of things such as palm reading, it could be the beggining of another Waco situation, going farther, and stretching out to "mainstream" religion, if you can call it that.
"oh but they are just doing it because it's a scam" Well was this so-called "cult" of Waco a scam? For some people out there doing palm readings and such, they truly believe they are real and true.
See, I understand government intervention if a religous group were posing a threat to themselves or others. For example, take the Heaven's Gate group back in 1997. Granted, I don't think anyone realized what the group was planning, but still, intervention could have possibly prevented the mass suicides.
Now, I'm not taking a side on the Waco, Texas issue. I think there's a lot we don't know on both sides, and it's a shame something like that had to happen. What made it even worse is the fact that children were involved, and some of the dead weren't even five years old.
However, a religion that uses palm reading and other practices hardly warrants government intervention. Unless you're getting your palm read by a knife-wielding maniac, there's really nothing to be worried about. Yes, the belief system might be off-beat and some predictions/scripture may be wrong, but what religion doesn't face those same issues?
The article I had posted a page or two back was dated earlier this week, and it implied that the ordinance had just recently passed. That right there seems to just slap the Constitution in the face. Nothing is wrong with the practice of Wicca; in fact, the Wiccan Rede itself says "An it harm none do what ye will." How is this any different from the Christian teachings of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you?" And those Christian teachings are what some of these city governments are basing their laws on.
Hypocritical. If the government wants to tell me what currency to use or how fast I can drive, then fine. I'll obey. But don't you dare tell me what my religious beliefs are "supposed" to be. I don't care if they're mainstream or not, just stay the hell away from individual rights.
See, I understand government intervention if a religous group were posing a threat to themselves or others. For example, take the Heaven's Gate group back in 1997. Granted, I don't think anyone realized what the group was planning, but still, intervention could have possibly prevented the mass suicides.
Hypocritical. If the government wants to tell me what currency to use or how fast I can drive, then fine. I'll obey. But don't you dare tell me what my religious beliefs are "supposed" to be. I don't care if they're mainstream or not, just stay the hell away from individual rights.
Your being a little hippocritical, i think we can all understand if a religion is
hurting innocent people then yes thats messed up. But should the government step in and stop suicide if thats your belief, you aren't hurting anyone but yourself, for religion. Although maybe im being hippocritical about them hurting people if thats what they believe, but to me that shouldn't be aloud, which in a sence is hippocritical i guess. heh touchy subject.
Stuff like suicide, murder, etc., is not protected by First Amendment as a form of "belief". By the First Amendment, people are allowed to do anything that all other people are allowed to do. Aka, if a company kills chickens to produce chicken meat, some sect may kill chickens for religious rituals. But that is where it stops.
I see, but should we take another look at suicide, for just the sake of its religious aspects? You arent hurting anyone except yourself, its for religion (if thats actually what you were saying it was for, as like a ritual), and anyone can actually commit suicide, even though its illegal, to me its different from stealing even though anyone can do that also, and i think you see why.
I'm not saying suicide is a good thing, but should the government stop it for religions sake?? or "try" to stop it.
I don't think suicide has anything to do with religion. I also think suicide is highly negative 99% of the time and should be kept illegal.
You are hurting a ton of people besides yourself: parents, friends, community, anyone who cares about you. Usually, suicide is a sign of a mental breakdown, but the person may not have fully intended to die... very few suicides have a proper reason behind them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Apparently this law was first passed in 1951 and was specifically targeting the practice of Wicca. I'll concede that this law is inherently discriminatory.
Having a mansion doesn't mean you have the mansion in a wealthy area.
It doesn't matter where you live. What matters is your ignorance in the question of which places are bad and which are good. You lived in one spot which you don't even consider South, and you say "down there it must be worse". I think that's the most ignorant statement I have heard on this forum besides cuss exchanges... Pretty offensive, too, I live in the South, and I have lived in your North, and I lived in Ohio, and I gotta say, South was the best place I have ever been to!
Constitutionality of anything is defined by Congress, the Supreme Court, and the media/mass. Not by the constituality. The older the times, the more acceptant are the mass/media of religion, the easier and safer it is for policy institutions to impose an unconstitutional law.
If we have a law protecting a drug company from lawsuits inside the bill for the establishment of Homeland Security, which was passed, what, in 2001, there is little I can say.
Realively nice refering to econimically, it was bad refering to tolerance.
The word "even" was there for a reason.
1) I said I don't consider it North or South, I consider it inbetween. IE niether.
2) I've lived in Tennessee, and from what I've seen for the few months I lived down there, it is worse. I understand there are areas that are nice, and there are areas in the north that are worse, but I am speaking in general.
So basically what your saying is that the Constitution is jack shit? Usually here I would say "My appologies" then go on and say why I dissagree, but I cant appologise for dissagreeing with this.
And what does this have to do with anything?
It's an example of government corruption...?
Ahh, ok, I missunderstood what you were saying. I thought you were saying that the Constitution didn't mean anything. Kinda upset me when people don't have respect for the Constitution, and yea.
The original ideals of the constitution were sound.
It has been ammended and contorted now to a shadow of its original greatness.
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, DAMMIT!:mad:
The Rotting:mad:
http://wwl.com/Livingston-Parish-Council-refuses-to-repeal-sooths/1640706
And for the linkphobic:
I don't have the verbatim of the actual law/ordinance, but I'm sure it can be found somewhere.
Friendship is like peeing on yourself: everyone can see it, but only you get the warm feeling that it brings.
The government is guided by the media. The media is guided by the public. Make your conclusions.
Friendship is like peeing on yourself: everyone can see it, but only you get the warm feeling that it brings.
Yes... actually suspend the constitution. During that time he can command the army fully in any way, change the laws as he pleases, and do whatever he wants in the sake of 'national security'. The length of time that this national emergency lasts is also decided by the president. The ideas of being protected by a document and granted total freedom in everyway is sadly an illusion easily broken by any government conspiracy to create a national crisis, turning your free-elected president into a dictator.
This is coming someday, all we can do is try to keep honest and non-power hungry presidents elected.
I could be wrong, but this is what I have learned from my Government class, I'm sure you could also find this information on the internet somewhere...
This is my Tale.
Strawman? Not so much anymore, I'm just stating my opinion.
I must say I dissagree with this. If the media was guided by the public then I highly doubt there would be this many reality telivision shows.
I would say that the government is guided by both the public and, more so, the media, and that the public is, in large part, guided by the media.
I know that the entire public is not, we are examples of that Equinox, however I do feel that a vast majority is guided in one way or another via the media.
You're kidding yourself. That's the biggest reason to prove that the public guides the media. A stupid idea like reality TV should never have taken off unless people started to watch the crap. Why do you think there are sooo many cop shows around in various forms? That's right, because people like to watch them.
What you are doubting is that the public likes reality shows. Well, if they are aired, that means more than enough people like them, simple as that.
The television broadcasters get more money from viewers. Therefore, the television broadcasters try to get something on TV that would get more viewers. If people will watch realtity shows, the broadcasters will put on reality shows. If people watch Discovery, 70% of the TV would have been Discovery. In fact, currently, Discovery channel is what they call "narrowcasting". Aka channel specifically for a demographic group. Pretty big one, it seems, but still a narrow one.
Yup. And who are the voters? The "more" part of the public.
So, what's your argument?
It's always the competition between one mass of people controlled by a few intellectuals vs the other mass of people controlled by some other intellectuals. Aka democratic vs republican party. Or Obama vs Clinton. Or w/e you want. But it's not the voters competing, it's the people who know the difference guiding the voters to compete, because people who know the difference are too few to influence the elections.
Of course, it's not like people watch someone say "vote for Clinton" and they go vote for Clinton. It's not that dumb. But it is as dumb as people looking at tracking polls and believing in them. Why did Gore lose in the 2004 election? Media predicting results incorrectly and democrats deciding it's all done and republicans deciding that it's not done yet and Bush is losing so they need to vote and, suddenly, Bush wins, hahhahahahha... Would he win if it wasn't for that? Who knos. Tracking polls usually have like 10% margin of error or so... srsly, want to talk about government, learn something about it, take a class or read books.
You CAN influence government, but voting is just not enough. Voting is the least thing you can do, but if you really want to make a difference, you gotta get a bit more involved. Aka, join some interest groups, encourage people around you, class lawsuits, etc. Despite what people usually say, the American system is an actual working democracy.
And, Constitution is a very powerful government for the SUPREME COURT. The Supreme Court, along with the Federal Reserve, is a very liberal and not-so-biased an institution. And, thanks to them, we are not in total shit right now. The Supreme Court cares about everything, and they want to do things right because no one really bothers about bribing them or w/e. They also get like 1% of the media coverage, which means the media doesn't affect them, either. I respect the Supreme Court and I believe those guys will support this country for many years to come, and that they, among others, actually do believe in the Constitution. Why is that law no longer there? The Court. The laws were passed by Congress, a much more biased and corrupted insitution, and not until a group of people collect and say "no" to that law may the Court pay attention to it and decide it's unconstitutional.
To say it short, laws are easier to pass because they are not tested for being constitutional at the time of passing, but afterwards, if the public DOES go against them, they may get thrown out. If the public is fine with an unconstitutional law, why would the Court bother with it? Would they even know about it?
Exactly, let's take another look at Waco, Texas. A guy made a religous group of about 100
people, stockpiling guns, food, ammo, and water, for an apoctolyptic setting which
he believed would happen. He said he was the "sinful Jesus" so on judgement day he would
know all the sinful things people had to go through. He taught he was sumpreme ruler
(not much different then the pope imo). Time went on, and no apparent reason other then
complete suspicion that they were turning legal weapons into illegal fully automatic
weapons and that he was inopropriately messing with young children. There was no
evidence whatsoever and what do you know, what happens?
No, the local police didnt check it out, not even someone like the FBI, although neither
had a reason or imo a legal right to invade, the ATF of all people invaded his "fort"
which was actually his church builidng. And the gunfighting started. You all know the story
probably, and thats the jist of it, the cult fell apart pretty much, im not to sure what
heppened to him, i think he went to a mental institution? Eh anyways...
Now im not saying i believe his teachings by any means, but, if that can happen then it can
just as easily happen to Christianity or any other religous group. Your probably thinking,
no way, he was a small "cult" and that could never happen. Well if the ATF can do that
and not have any charges against them, then what would stop the government? such as FBI.
Although this is different than the small prohibiting of things such as palm reading,
it could be the beggining of another Waco situation, going farther, and stretching out to
"mainstream" religion, if you can call it that.
"oh but they are just doing it because it's a scam" Well was this so-called "cult" of Waco
a scam? For some people out there doing palm readings and such, they truly believe they are
real and true.
unzip, strip, touch, finger, grep, mount, fsck, more, yes, fsck, fsck, fsck, umount, sleep
See, I understand government intervention if a religous group were posing a threat to themselves or others. For example, take the Heaven's Gate group back in 1997. Granted, I don't think anyone realized what the group was planning, but still, intervention could have possibly prevented the mass suicides.
Now, I'm not taking a side on the Waco, Texas issue. I think there's a lot we don't know on both sides, and it's a shame something like that had to happen. What made it even worse is the fact that children were involved, and some of the dead weren't even five years old.
However, a religion that uses palm reading and other practices hardly warrants government intervention. Unless you're getting your palm read by a knife-wielding maniac, there's really nothing to be worried about. Yes, the belief system might be off-beat and some predictions/scripture may be wrong, but what religion doesn't face those same issues?
The article I had posted a page or two back was dated earlier this week, and it implied that the ordinance had just recently passed. That right there seems to just slap the Constitution in the face. Nothing is wrong with the practice of Wicca; in fact, the Wiccan Rede itself says "An it harm none do what ye will." How is this any different from the Christian teachings of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you?" And those Christian teachings are what some of these city governments are basing their laws on.
Hypocritical. If the government wants to tell me what currency to use or how fast I can drive, then fine. I'll obey. But don't you dare tell me what my religious beliefs are "supposed" to be. I don't care if they're mainstream or not, just stay the hell away from individual rights.
Your being a little hippocritical, i think we can all understand if a religion is
hurting innocent people then yes thats messed up. But should the government step in and stop suicide if thats your belief, you aren't hurting anyone but yourself, for religion. Although maybe im being hippocritical about them hurting people if thats what they believe, but to me that shouldn't be aloud, which in a sence is hippocritical i guess. heh touchy subject.
unzip, strip, touch, finger, grep, mount, fsck, more, yes, fsck, fsck, fsck, umount, sleep
I'm not saying suicide is a good thing, but should the government stop it for religions sake?? or "try" to stop it.
unzip, strip, touch, finger, grep, mount, fsck, more, yes, fsck, fsck, fsck, umount, sleep
You are hurting a ton of people besides yourself: parents, friends, community, anyone who cares about you. Usually, suicide is a sign of a mental breakdown, but the person may not have fully intended to die... very few suicides have a proper reason behind them.