And I enjoyed Repo Men a little more than Vanilla Sky, but that's just me...
Blasphemy! Tom Cruise smite thee. ;) Although I'm sure that the original Spanish version of Vanilla Sky is probably a lot better.
I can't understand your paranoia (if I can call it that). You have only one market, the government collaborating with hospitals paying for organs and passing them to those who need it most just like they do with donated organs now. The organs would have a price (not negociable) based on their state and the number of demands for it. How can you sell an organ that's not yours? I am talking about legal and organized procedures, that can prevent such a thing. I'm not talking about a guy coming at a hospital with a few organs in a cooler and selling it to the highest bider.
If you can control pimps from forcing minor/unwilling girls/women to prostitute for them, you can control this too. I only mention this because a lot of you seem to agree with the former, but not the latter. There's really not that much of a difference.
If someone can make a buck, they will.
That pretty much applies anywhere. Shouldn't we at least try? I think we would have some improvements, less organs wasted and less people dead.
Shine, I hope you get to read this reply, because I can't directly reply to your post, and that area is too crowded anyway.
I am only replying to your post because I have desperately and unsuccessfully tried to understand the reasoning behind your warning. I don't think you actually analyzed everything in that sentence, except the 'religious zealot'.
To remind you, this is the entire sentence:
P.S.: I forgot to mention that you sometimes sound like a religious zealot. That may be a good thing only when you analyze anything and in an impartial manner, otherwise your posts can't really be enjoyed or appreciated (and that's a shame because you do have very good points sometimes).
It seems that you stopped after the word 'zealot'. Even so, that 'it sounds' kind of gets in the way of your warning being based on anything worth taking serious. Anyway, all I wanted to do was give Jean Marie a piece of creative advice. If you see what I said there as bad advice, what can I say, that's the best I can do so far, and you should comment on it as a regular member not as a moderator. I really don't see your point.
And do moderators only warn discussions that they are a part of? I have seen other directly remarks far worse than what you interpret as an attack. To name one, the term 'racist boy' was used often in a few posts. Nobody seemed to mind that one, except probably the member that was called that. No warnings. Sure, it may be a true remark if you read all the posts in that particular discussion, but it's still an insult. And for me, the fact that Jean Marie is often passionate in her replies, it is true as well. And, if you have the time, read what I wrote after that 'otherwise', maybe you can appreciate my remark as it was really intended. I haven't brought up that 'racist boy' remark just to get another member warned or anything like that, I was just trying to make a comparison in my attempt to understand the point of your post/warning.
By the way, do you guys keep track of these warnings or it only gets serious if a member keeps doing the same things in a particular discussion?
I officially apologize for anything that anyone misreads and takes as offensive. That is not my intention, if not specified otherwise. I hope there are no hard feelings and we can all enjoy the end of humanity/the world together. ;)
P.S.: Do not take this as an insult or think that I disrespect the guys who manage care of this website which I love, but someone should really organize the Moderators of Think Atheist area.
Ok. I have read your entire post. Again, I was referring to your discussions with Dustin Sanders from another post about racism/black people and not from his own discussion about him being a racist or not. I have stopped reading that discussion after a few posts so I don't know what happened there.
Yes, I am young, I am turning 19 on the 22nd. I am very passionate when it comes to things I care about, but I have to say that until now I haven't really got the chance to express myself exactly how I wanted and some anger got bottled up inside. If some of that might have slipped out on any of my replies to you or anyone else, I do apologize. That is not my intention at all on this site.
And, just to compare a little my 'religious zealot' remark with the last row of your post... They are similar in a way, even though mine was intended to be advice and you are just saying that Dustin is worst then a religious fundamentalist and that's a reason why you will not discuss with him, but I don't think you're going to get warned. :)
So? Isn't that the same with saying, fundies are better to debate than Dustin Sanders, thus making Dustin Sanders worse? Come on...
Anyway, did you read my post in which I said you sometimes sound like a religious zealot, and, if yes, do you think that offends you or did you take it as advice, regardless if it's good or bad?
Ok. I finally got why I almost lost it in that other post... You are doing it again here and you have done it in other posts too.
I did not say that by what you said you meant that Dustin Sanders is worse than a fundie in any way possible, I just said that by that you meant Dustin Sanders is worse debate wise than a fundie. By logic, that is what you said, no matter how you put it.
And that's what I meant when I said that you sometimes you sound like a religious zealot. I meant that you sometimes are so passionate about something that you forget to see some good points other are mentioning and that affects your opinions and your replies overall (at least for me). I didn't mean that you are a religious zealot in every way possible (as a matter a fact I said only that you sound like one sometimes, not that you are one); you don't hate homosexuals, you don't go to church, you don't hate atheists (that would be really stupid wouldn't it?, as your religious status seems to be 'Atheist' on your profile page), and you don't do anything only a religious zealot does. That's why I got a little angry in that other post. Because you have the habit to see some things only as far as it fits your point. And it didn't actually have anything to do with organ donation at all, it was a general suggestion, regarding the way you see things respond and make your points/posts. That was all.
I am not criticising anything. I was just making a suggestion. I really hoped that you got that by now, but I am, again, disappointed, as you seem to take everything as a personal attack. I thought you are more open to suggestions or advices from people, especially a really well-meant one from a fellow atheist.