Valid Excuses for not Serving on a Jury

By Agnostic1984 and The Jess

For those of you who wish to avoid jury duty, here is a list of excuses.

-I do not believe in justice, I believe in might is right.

-I do not believe in justice, I only believe in mercy.

-I do not believe in the US Constitution, I only believe in the Code of Hammurabi.

-I do not believe in the rule of law, only in the rule of men.

-I do not believe free will and determinism are compatible but I do believe in determinism. Thus I do not believe in free will and so I do not believe in moral responsibility. Thus I cannot serve in a justice system that is predicated on the concept of moral responsibility.

-I do not believe in jury by your own peers, only in jury by a tribunal.

-I do not believe in justice, only in forgive and forget.

-I do believe in random jury selection, however I do not believe in the particular statistical method that was used to randomly select this jury.

-I do not believe in due process, just that we have a due product.

-I firmly believe everyone is guilty of some atrocity or warcrime, just a matter of time before we uncover what it is.

-I only believe in torture that is executed speedily.

-I believe only in that speedy trial part of the Constitution. That was my favorite part. Everything else was kind of a waste of ink, especially that fair trial part.

-I would be fit to serve in this jury if it wasn’t for the fact that the verdict was already fixed by Zionists ahead of time.

If you liked this article beyond a shadow of a doubt, you must vote for it on Reddit.


New Hipster Historical Review: Christmas

By hipster historian Dan von Dan

So, it’s Christmas, that’s nice.  If you’re a sellout.   Quite frankly, I was into this whole Christmas thing back when it was called Saturnalia and pagans still sacrificed frogs on the solstice.   Seriously, it was all fine and dandy, lot’s of drinking, merry making, etc… Then along comes some disaffected Jews and a dude who wants to move his birthday then all of a sudden/a few centuries they’re ripping off all the pagan traditions.  Couldn’t even be bothered to keep the frog sacrifices.  I liked those. They had a certain indie appeal to it.

For awhile they kept the celebration under wraps.  The Puritans: amazingly good at it.  Nothing says good ole fashioned originality like considering Christmas an abomination.  Then again, that was short lived and along came the greatest sellout of all, Santa Claus.  For a while, he was scary enough. Germans are good for that sort of thing.  The death by medieval Santa was a nice touch. Coca-Cola couldn’t be satisfied though. Christmas wasn’t corporate enough for them.  Goodwill to all men wasn’t good enough for the corporate bottom line.

Instead, we get Criminal Santa, breaking in your chimneys, snatching your cookies up.  Worse yet, Coke’s little marketing campaign has resulted in forcing children worldwide to demand their parents buy them all sorts of useless trinkets.   And, unlike Santa, they’re expected to keep up this tradition of buying goods instead of sacrificing frogs into their adulthood.

Now, this war on Christmas thing.  That has potential to be something new provided those militant atheists don’t go mainstream.  Of course, they could step up their game a little bit.  There hasn’t been a single menorah bombing or Santa slaying.  It’s hard to believe, but it seems the atheists have less technology than the Palestinians who throw rocks at Israeli tanks.

My final ruling. Christmas, totally lame.  War on Christmas, granted I liked it much better as the Police Action on Christmas, still has some potential.

If you liked this article, follow us on Twitter. If you didn’t like it, “like” it on Facebook ironically.

The New Hipster Historical Review: William Henry Harrison

By hipster historian, Dan von Dan.

Hello again, this is Dan von Dan. Sadly, I imagine that most of you weren’t into history when it was called the present. Anyways, I suppose I shall entertain you pedestrian sellouts with the New Hipster Historical Review. This week we’re discussing William Henry Harrison, America’s hipster President.

First off, man was either a “do it the best” or “not doing it” kind of guy. Says, “screw it,” retires to his farm and refuses to do shit unless he’s made President. That’s the kind of man who doesn’t sell out. He was the oldest President as well, until Americans decided to sell out and start the trend of electing no-talent celebrities.

While some people would walk outside, find it cold and rainy, Harrison shucked mainstream fashionistas and refused to wear even so much as a warm hat, and not just for a dash to the mailbox or to pick up the morning newspaper, no, to give a two hour long speech. A speech in which he regaled his audience, not with his plan for America, but with a scathing critique of Henry Russell as a plebian, immigrant, and euro trash. Not content with a critique of the contemporary music scene, he went into a diatribe about how Germany’s failed 1848 revolution led to the rise of a militant Prussia under the leadership of Bismarck. He was further concerned about how such militarism would affect military alliances in Europe circa the turn of the century.

Harrison was smart and realized that the Presidency used to be cool, but after having been in office for almost a month the White House had really gone downhill. He contemplated continuing his term ironically, but instead decided to die of pneumonia. Harrison died well before it was cool. After that Vice President John Tyler took the Presidency and completely sold out. If Tyler were alive today, he would have been the kind of guy who would listen to Dave Matthew’s Band voluntarily.

John Tyler: Total douchenozzle.

Start following CSDP on Twitter before it becomes mainstream.

The New Hipster Historical Review: The Stone Age

By hipster historian, Dan von Dan

Hello, let me introduce myself.  I’m Dan von Dan—long “a”, as in “on.”  Get it right.  I was into life alert before your grandma needed a new hip.  Let’s just say that after a hard night drinking PBR and recounting bands that have yet to form, that I discovered I need somebody to come and help me up, because I sure as hell am not going to put my effort into it like some common sorority trash.

Anyways, that’s beside the point.  I’m better than you and that’s all you need to know.  I’d like to welcome you to my publication, The New Hipster Historical Review.  Anybody can learn about history, but most of you peasants aren’t nearly qualified to make a judgment one way or the other, much less have an opinion.  That’s why I’m here, to help.  You’re welcome.

First up, the Stone Age.  It might be hip to chuck it all, live in a cave, and sacrifice frogs while sitting around the fire drinking PBR these days, but it’s not too hip to be sacrificing animals when you’re trying to appease Kulahumaka (dot followed by swirly dash line above deer on cave wall), fly god of the hunt.  Polytheistic animal deities were cool, you know, before the discovery of fire.  Oh, and look at the cave men, cooking their food.  Oh, big advancement there.  You know, humans already had a solution for that, it was called an appendix.  They could have just manned up and ate their food raw.  Now we just have a vestigial organ that gets infected, blows up and kills us, all thanks to our Stone Age sellouts.

Speaking of fire, they couldn’t just leave it for its intended use: burning everything down to the ground.  No, our ancestors had to trash the art form and find all sorts of practical uses to help “the man.”   Tell me, how is warding off predators anything other than giving into society?

Our ancestors couldn’t even keep something like the wheel from going mainstream.  Round chunk of rock that did nothing and rolled away if you put it on an incline, completely useless and that’s why it was great.  Then some cave dweller with an eye for entrepreneurship comes along, shoves a stick between two wheels and brings the human race one-step closer to NASCAR.   Oh, did I mention that these were the same kind of people who thought agriculture was a great idea?  Yes, let’s just sit around and stick seeds into the ground—then cause a diffusion of labor and doom humanity to a widening hierarchy between the haves and have nots.

What happened to you, wheel? You used to be cool.

Homo sapiens are cool and all, but I was into upright walking hominids back when they were called Australopithecus afarensis.  In closing, the Stone Age was about as hip as your grandmother after she fell out of the bathtub, shattered her pelvis, and couldn’t press the life-alert button because both her arms fell out of their sockets.


Only sellout losers would subscribe to the RSS feed.

Why Buy the Cow?

Why buy the cow if you haven’t had the milk of 50 other cows?

Why buy the cow when there is an efficient infrastructure for milk delivery?

Why buy any animal? They’re just going to die eventually.

Why buy the cow when you can get some nutritious and healthy rice milk for free (let’s say you know a rich hippie)?

Why buy the cow when it’s the cow’s fetish to be bought before giving milk and not your fetish?

Why buy the cow when your farming experience is negligible and you are likely to alienate the fist few cows you get milk from by being an inexperienced milker?

Why buy the cow if you are a robot who requires neither food nor sex, thus making the metaphor void on both counts?

Why buy the cow if you’re lactose intolerant?

Why buy the cow when you live in a studio apartment and would have no grazing room for a ruminator?

Why buy the cow when you can digest grass on your own and don’t need a separate organism to act as a proxy for gaining those nutrients?

Why buy the cow when horses are on sale?

Why buy the cow when renting requires less financial commitment while freeing you of maintenance duties?

Why buy the cow when its already given its milk to like 80 other farmers?

Why buy the cow if you are a little goat-curious?

Why buy the cow? Why buy? Why do we exist? Why?

Why buy the cow when you shouldn’t call the other angus black or something?

Why not buy two cows? Its legal in Utah!

Why buy the cow if you cannot have your cow and eat it too? And an early cow to bed is healthy, wealthy, and wise, and a cow saved is a cow earned?

Why buy the cow if the metaphor breaks down?

Why buy the cow if you’re more attracted to the bull? Be honest to yourself about your sexual orientation.

Why not buy a cow that continuously gives you free milk? Where are you going to find another one of those?

Why buy the cow if it never lets you hang out with your friends anymore?

Why buy the cow especially if it talks about long term commitment, marriage, and kids?

Why buy a bottle of water when water is for free…crap people do that all the time never mind.

Why buy the cow just because it’s having a mid-cow crisis and suddenly wants calves?

Did you like this article? Subscribe today!

Future Facts: Video Games

Video games are vastly different in the future. First of all, we no longer strive toward realism. We have to deal with 3 nuclear wars per month and we got sick of post-apocalyptic and uber realistic violence because we have to live it. It’s a bit like if someone made a game in which you fight wih your spouse about finances. Too mundane. We like to have 8-bit, or preferrably .8 bit games.

One problem video games had in the 2010s is that they were nonlinear and interactive. There was no way of knowing if you played the game rightly or wrongly.

Since we lost all digital information following the EMP attacks, we no longer had our most cherished art–20th century movies. My favorite video game is a black and white, 3.2 bit, non-interactive Casablanca.

The reason for the shift towards low quality graphics is because we moved away from using consoles to using phones. And cell phones regressed until we were playing games on rotary phones and telegraphs. I am hoping to own a copy of Super Morse Code Bros.

Nintendo is just as popular as ever and agin’ ol’ Miyamoto is still lendiing his creative juices to the process. As he did in the 1980s to the 2010s, the inspiration for games comes from his life. Of course, in his old age he’s become quite mad. So now Nintendo has this whole series of games centered on collecting jars of urine and keeping the CIA out of your beard.

Of course, no video game collection would be complete without the pinnacle of George Lucas’ achievements–Star Wars Merchandiser. Play as a heroic George Lucas navigating the treacherous minefield of toy manufacturers and marketers.

People worried back in your time that video games might damage childrens’ ability to distiguish between fantasy and reality. Luckily, they were wrong. Instead, video games wound up only destroying chidrens’ ability to distinguish between fantasy and reality TV and actually also destroyed the actual distinction between fantasy and reality TV. Reality TV became so interactive that people at home could fire shots at the participants of Biggest Loser until they were hunted to extinction.

The other paranoid delusion that you had was that children would develop violent tendencies after playing games such as Grand Theft Auto. I guess they were wrong, because shortly after that wave of psychologists being murdered, we haven’t heard a word about this at all.

Did you like this article? Please consider subscribing and telling your friends about it.

Cogito ergo I am right!: On the possibility of designing robots without original sin

By Amateur Philosopher, Penny Ham

Controversially defining “original sin” as the ability to have pride, I’d like to ask, from a Christian point of view, aren’t we obligated to make sinless robots? Should we design robots that can pass the Turing test and have no pride?

But, maybe, we’re obligated the exact oppositely. I mean, why be like Christ if you already are? So we might want to design robots with an already fallen nature. Although it might be paradoxical to want to be like Christ if you already are, there is nothing logically inconsistent with doing something that you ought to be doing or being something that you ought to be. I suppose that works good enough. There is another problem though. If we designed robots to be sinless, then would they really have free will?

I think the case can be made that you can design robots that have free will and have no pride. If free will is merely the capacity to satisfy your complex hierarchical structured desires, then I don’t see why we couldn’t program a robot that only desires things non-pridefully. After all, you’d just have to design a complex enough program that could have propositional attitudes – wishes, wants, beliefs, hopes, etc. – but none of those propositional attitudes would desire anything sinful.

It doesn’t seem impossible to design a robot that would never think of anyone lustfully. You could design it where it never self-indulged. You could design a robot where it thought of the concerns of others before it even cared about its own concerns. Obviously, you’d need it to care about itself to some extent but there’s no reason it would need to ever become self-righteous or egotistical by any means. Ultimately, the most important feature of the robot’s free will is that it makes the choices that it wants to make – it would just be making choices that lacked sin (because it would never want anything that was sinful in the first place). Balancing your check book is probably going to be the least sinful thing you could do (except if you thought balancing your check book was more important than saving a drowning person). Suppose the robot was deciding between balancing its check book or doing the dishes. This may be boring but it is definitely an exercise of free will and is pretty damn sinless.

One potential problem with the proposition that robots could have no original sin could be the lack of compatibility with the idea of souls. Someone might say, “robots don’t have souls, and humans do.” In this case, the whole idea of designing robots that have no original sin could be entirely moot. But this criticism seems particularly Catholic! In contrast, Protestants believe in the corporeal existence of souls, or at least they’re supposed to. In Protestantism, you can avoid this whole Cartesian dualism of soul and matter. In Protestantism, when you get resurrected, you corporeally enter heaven. So Protestantism opens up the whole idea that soul and matter are one and the same or at the very least physicalism is compatible with Protestant beliefs.

Probably the biggest critics of this position will ask why would we want to limit a robot’s free will? Why wouldn’t we give it a chance to want sinful things and over time self-correct and make itself better? Wouldn’t we be ultimately limiting the robot’s free will? Probably the best way to respond to this criticism is by talking about the everyday limits of our free will. No one wants to eat their own poop. But isn’t our free will so limited because we don’t have the capacity to want to eat our own poop? I think this is a no-brainer. The answer is no. We are not more limited in our free will because we don’t want to eat poop for breakfast. In some sense we don’t really want to be a glutant or prideful bastards even though in another sense we do. So why not design a robot that could never have any malice or ill-intent? After all, this Christ-like robot might wonder, why we want to morally shit all over each other, so to speak?

Christ-like robots opens up a whole new potential in Christianity never explored before. I know, Nietzsche wouldn’t approve of such robots. I guess we could make robots that were beyond good and evil? Only time will tell. The awesome thing is, the future is full of limitless possibilities of interesting limited kinds of free will.

Did you like this article? Please consider subscribing and telling your friends about it.