QuoteOriginally posted by: migalleyWhy does God need to bless America, if it is a secular republic?Boyish... If I had to explain..you'll never understand...

So a religon is something where you believe in God? So Buddism is not a religon - glad we cleared that one up. I think the definition is a little more subtle.

QuoteOriginally posted by: MaeloQuoteOriginally posted by: migalleyWhy does God need to bless America, if it is a secular republic?Boyish... If I had to explain..you'll never understand...Please explain, your explanation might not be as incomprehensible as you think, even for an epsilon semi-moron such as myself.

QuoteOriginally posted by: MaeloCommunism is no religion, but a socio-economic school of thougth (so to speak).Saying that women can only be married to single men - defining marriage as between a man and a woman - is no religion, but a socio-economic school of thougth (so to speak).

QuoteOriginally posted by: farmerQuoteOriginally posted by: AlanBI defy anyone to provide a clear conscise objective reason as to why someone adhering to religion A has to conform to the way someone adhering to religion B thinks.How about if someone adhering to religion A asks to be married by someone adhering to religion B?After all, you can't marry someone, and you can't marry yourself. You can only BE MARRIED by someone, and where that someone cannot be the person you are marrying. So if I say "I am marrying her," it actually means that I am agreeing (or not) to BE MARRIED to her.This implies that I am asking someone to marry me to her, so I might want to conform to that person's religion who is doing the marrying. In fact, asking him implies I AM conforming to his religion, or want to. Otherwise I would ask someone else, like my cat. And then when my cat was done, I would call myself married.But if I ask someone else to call me married, it only makes sense if I conform to that person's definition of the word "marriage." Why would I paint myself blue, and ask you to call me red? Only if I am calling myself red, and I am asking you to conform to my religion...What the fuck are you talking about? Where is the clear conscise objective reason as to why someone adhering to religion A has to conform to the way someone adhering to religion B thinks.

QuoteOriginally posted by: MaeloHey: Thta's why a lot of guys (good guys and real experts in Quant stuff) have stopped psoting here...FARMER and PAUPER the Religious crazy-guys "righteous" reallyare pitiful excuses for human beings and Quant rael knowledgeable guys have no time for their stupid quandraries ..I will not continue wasting my time in a futile fight with morons like them...when you fight against a pig you got down to its level..Anyway, they are so stupid they really believe that US is a Chritian country. JA!! they are so illiterate that they have not even read the US Constitution...just to end this argument here, I post the beggining of the First Amendment..I am quite sure they did not know it exist: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."Thanks GOD, there IS NOT SUCH THING AS "Cristian America",,what we have is THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, a secular Republic..and that is the way I WANT IT; just as it started. GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!" AND BETTER YET..THAT IS THE WAY IT WILL STAY... otherwise, it will not be what is it..YOU , religious Christian-farfetched morons from the right ARE THE REAL AND WORST ENEMY OF THE UNITES STATES>>>Defense rest.Well said

QuoteOriginally posted by: AlanBWhat the fuck are you talking about? Where is the clear conscise objective reason as to why someone adhering to religion A has to conform to the way someone adhering to religion B thinks.If by reason you mean value, there is no such thing as an objective value. But since you just rejected the only meaningful interpretation of your challenge, then it must be you who has no idea "what the fuck" you are talking about.And where does one of the dumbest people on the site, and definitely dumbest quants, get off responding like that to the one person who is nice enough to respond to his challenge?Quoteobjective: Based on observable phenomena; presented factually. Having actual existence or reality.Yes, one can observe that if one does not adhere to the definitions of the marrying authority, such as that marriage cannot be between a dog and a rock, then it is a reality that the outcome will not be what you desired.Quoteobjective:Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudicesSuppose one accepts as given the values or reasons of the person wishing to secure certain actions of religious parties. He can objectively recommend that this person cooperate with their religion, in order to obtain results by and within the system of practices it dictates.Inescapably, you are conforming to their religion by seeking and accepting their system of labels. You are seeking to become a part of their order. You could choose to "warry" or "sarry," but you choose to "marry." And there are objective reasons to marry!

QuoteOriginally posted by: AlanBWhere is the clear conscise objective reason as to why someone adhering to religion A has to conform to the way someone adhering to religion B thinks.One cannot marry. The act of marriage is an action taken by someone other than those who are married. For example, you could go into a doctor's office with two women, and he would be unable to determine by examination or observation which one you were married to, if either.But this same doctor could go into a court of law or public building, and observe the actions of others to determine whether you are married. Even if you were on Mars at that moment. So if you are married, then you HAVE to be conforming to the specifications of those who label and treat you as such (or at least be believed to be).So you have to either A) conform to their specifications to elicit this treatment, or B) commit a fraud misleading them into believing you are conforming. And your fraud could be considered a manner of outward conformity.And any rational, objective person would accept your reasons for conforming as rational, towards achieving the goal specified. As such, it would be an OBJECTIVE reason, LOL...

QuoteOriginally posted by: farmerQuoteOriginally posted by: AlanBWhere is the clear conscise objective reason as to why someone adhering to religion A has to conform to the way someone adhering to religion B thinks.One cannot marry. The act of marriage is an action taken by someone other than those who are married. For example, you could go into a doctor's office with two women, and he would be unable to determine by examination or observation which one you were married to, if either.But this same doctor could go into a court of law or public building, and observe the actions of others to determine whether you are married. Even if you were on Mars at that moment. So if you are married, then you HAVE to be conforming to the specifications of those who label and treat you as such (or at least be believed to be).So you have to either A) conform to their specifications to elicit this treatment, or B) commit a fraud misleading them into believing you are conforming. And your fraud could be considered a manner of outward conformity.And any rational, objective person would accept your reasons for conforming as rational, towards achieving the goal specified. As such, it would be an OBJECTIVE reason, LOL...In all of your ranting, you still haven't (and apparantly cannot) provided a clear conscise objective reason as to why someone adhering to religion A has to conform to the way someone adhering to religion B thinks.When I said what the fuck are you talking about, I didn't call you a fuck (maybe I should have), so why all the hostility?You have far too much time on your hands.........You really need some help.......And what do you know about intelligence levels of quants? You don't know me at all.I'm really embarrased that I'm spending all this time responding to you - it won't happen again.

QuoteOriginally posted by: MaeloHey: Thta's why a lot of guys (good guys and real experts in Quant stuff) have stopped psoting here...FARMER and PAUPER the Religious crazy-guys "righteous" reallyare pitiful excuses for human beings and Quant rael knowledgeable guys have no time for their stupid quandraries ..I will not continue wasting my time in a futile fight with morons like them...when you fight against a pig you got down to its level........................Did your mother not tell you, that if you pick at a scab it will never go away

QuoteOriginally posted by: AlanBWhere is the clear conscise objective reason as to why someone adhering to religion A has to conform to the way someone adhering to religion B thinks.People do so every day. So there are two options, A) you can't speak English, or B) they're all crazy, which changes the meaning of the word crazy, and means you simply can't speak English.Do you even know what you are saying? Do you know what the word "objective" means? Reasons are not objective. The word "has" must have a context - in other words, if A is your reason, and the situation is X, then you "have" to do B. In this case the reason is not objective, but the assessment of the constraints of the circumstances can be.If you are not happy with my interpretation of your sentence, you have neither A) supplied a better interpretation, nor B) rephrased it in a way that will get the interpretation you prefer. All you did was use the word "concise," hinting that you don't understand English when other people use it either. That's like a person who asks for a "math problem" instead requesting a "math problem using only addition."

QuoteOriginally posted by: AlanBYou have far too much time on your hands.........Enough time to read and right English in a precise and meaningful way, which only takes about 20 seconds. Of course one must have thought to communicate, though that should also only take about 30 seconds. The big time-eater is typing my password and clicking through to where I can begin typing.

I'll rephrase your question for you: Would someone ever withhold something, or simply behave differently, contingent on whether someone else acts one way or another, where the discrimination between the two ways is performed according to the classifications dictated by his religion?

QuoteOriginally posted by: farmerQuoteOriginally posted by: AlanBYou have far too much time on your hands.........Enough time to read and right English in a precise and meaningful way, which only takes about 20 seconds. Of course one must have thought to communicate, though that should also only take about 30 seconds. The big time-eater is typing my password ...Click in "Remember my password" box. It really does save alot of time.

QuoteOriginally posted by: doreillyQuoteOriginally posted by: MaeloHey: Thta's why a lot of guys (good guys and real experts in Quant stuff) have stopped psoting here...FARMER and PAUPER the Religious crazy-guys "righteous" reallyare pitiful excuses for human beings and Quant rael knowledgeable guys have no time for their stupid quandraries ..I will not continue wasting my time in a futile fight with morons like them...when you fight against a pig you got down to its level........................Did your mother not tell you, that if you pick at a scab it will never go awayOf course it will. What won't go away is the huge, festering, pus-filled sore you leave behind by doing this!