In article <474e74b0$1@news.povray.org>, tim### [at] comcastnet says...
> >> I'm not sure about the horses ass, but the
> >> vehemence of anti-Christian rhetoric lately
> >> reminds me of the attitude of the Germans
> >> during the holocaust. "Might as put it,"
> >> or maybe them, "somewhere that it's out
> >> of everyone else's way."
> >>
> >> Certainly his article does nothing to
> >> convince those who disagree.
> 
> > [weeklong rant removed for brevity]
> > You are then stuck with either a) just killing the stupid fool
> > that asked the question, or backing it with "some sort" of evidence.
> 
> Patrick is making my point for me.
> Maybe I should keep a suitcase packed just in case.
> 
Sorry, but what point? That some people can make rhetorical statements 
about two solutions when they ***intend*** one of the options to be so 
absurd that only the later one makes sense? But yeah, you should 
probably pack your bags anyway, since some of the people on the other 
side ****do**** mean that the former solution is preferable to actually 
providing any sort of evidence for their position, and they have said so 
often, and on national television no less. Nonbelievers may make 
comments about doing stupid BS like killing people, as a reference to 
what the other side **has** done, but I don't know any of them that make 
it public policy that assassination, concentration camps and/or torture 
is right. Fundamentalists... have no problem doing those things in 
"fact", while trying to convince the public that such things are not 
standard policy for them (is it pure coincidence that in recent years 
the Air Force and other branches have been pushing evangelicalism as 
more important even that following their oaths to protect the 
constitution, even as we get cases of torture, wrongful imprisonment and 
people vanishing into jails without any right to have a trial?). Mean 
while, people like me are making snide comments about their antics, 
asking how the @#$#@$@# religion is supposed to be superior to our lack 
of it, when one of the most basic principles of religions is 
***supposed*** to be that it tries to stop people from doing this crap, 
and sometimes writing best selling books, in the case of people like 
Dawkins, which piss off the defenders of faith, who can't answer that 
basic question, "What good is religion if it can't do what it promises, 
but making people more moral, and in the worst cases, actually 
***promotes*** and protects the lunatics?"

Case in point. Recently in Canada someone just lost their job. After 15 
years of incompetence, insufficient over sight, breaking up families and 
sending who knows how many innocent people to jail for child abuse, it 
turns out he probably didn't do one single autopsy in his carrier 
correctly, all the cases he testified at where probably invalid, most of 
the convictions being based heavily on **his** testimony, etc. And what 
defense did those working with and over him have for believing that he 
was only making the occasional minor error, and everything he did should 
be trusted?

-*-*-
    Ontario's deputy chief coroner admits he failed to recognize warning 
signs about a controversial pathologist because he was blinded by his 
own high regard for the doctor, whom he considered to be a trustworthy, 
religious man.

    "I'm quite disappointed that I missed (out on) the signs that were 
there because I put him on too high a pedestal," Dr. Jim Cairns 
yesterday told the Public Inquiry into Pediatric Forensic Pathology in 
Ontario.

    He was commenting on Dr. Charles Smith who was found by a panel of 
five internationally respected experts to have made "significant flaws" 
in 20 child-death investigations.

    "He came across as a very sincere religious individual and perhaps. 
... I put too much emphasis on his religious aspect. ... I felt that his 
religious aspect made it unlikely that he wasn't telling the truth," 
Cairns explained. Smith worships with the Christian and Missionary 
Alliance, a Baptist-like group.
-*-*-

Note the number of times his immediate superior mentions lack of 
supervision, failure to notice the errors, or anything **except** his 
overriding certainly that someone with such a fine religious ideal 
couldn't possibly be a complete screwup. I count... *0*. If the guy is 
covering his own incompetence by suggesting he was too blinded by the 
halo over the guys head, its not helping on bit.

And this is only one of several cases I have read about in the last 24 
hours.

Point is, you are missing the point, to beat on a the stupid strawman 
suggestion that people like me think just like these people do. We 
don't. We value real solutions. They value imaginary solutions, and 
repeating old solutions, over and over, in hopes something will turn out 
different. Guess what? One of the oldest solutions in the world is, "If 
they won't convert to worship me as God, kill them!" And everyone from 
Robertson to Falwell, to you name one of the 
evangelicals/fundamentalists that lead this movement, has, without being 
ironic or using anything remotely similar to rhetoric, stated flat out 
they think some people not only deserve to be dead, but that they 
**wish** it was possible to simply kill them. And its these kinds of 
nuts that protect the kinds of nuts like Charles Smith, or the even 
bigger nuts among Catholic parishes, who rape children.

I suggest you buy a clue before attributing every silly off hand comment 
by me any anyone like me as literal truth, that you get a clue who you 
*are* defending by proxy, in suggesting that we are the would be Nazis, 
who want concentration camps and to literally kill people.

Let me guess, your next argument is going to be, "Man, I can't believe 
my slander of his character resulting in such an angry response! I must 
have touched a nerve." How about I call you something like asshole, then 
you can go on a tirade about how you are not one, and I can come back 
with, "Man, I must have really touched a nerve!". lol Hell yes you 
touched a nerve, but don't presume that a willingness to defend my own 
sense of honor has anything to do with your delusions about what I 
really think *should* be done to these kinds of dipshits. The 
constitution worked damn well for 200 years to keep these idiots in 
their place, until they started using the internet, talk shows and 
similar "debates" to the ones they use to promote Unintelligent Design 
to rewrite history and claim that such a barrier doesn't exist. Its one 
thing I agree with them about. We need to restore the intent of the 
founding fathers and uphold the constitution. The problem is, they think 
that means making shit up about what those people said, and what the 
constitution is supposed to do about it.

The last thing we need is dead people. First off, only an idiot would 
make these people martyrs. Its much more fun to sit back and watch to 
see how many of them die while soliciting a prostitute, or, in one case, 
tying themselves up in a bunch of neck ties, for auto erotica, while 
wearing two wetsuits, and with a dildo shoved up their butt. You just 
can't get that kind of idiocy and blindingly obvious hypocrisy from a 
corpse. Second, you can't point out to people how insane someone "is", 
nor drive them into making it obvious to everyone in public, after they 
are dead. And those are just the practical reasons for not doing it. 
Unlike these halfwits, my morals are not selectively provisional on who 
the person I am applying them to is. If some atheist says something 
stupid, like Sam Harris did in his book when he claimed that their might 
be some valid idea in the paranormal, but then cited books by two of the 
most well know con artist and frauds in the industry as *evidence*, then 
I am all over them too. Its just that hitting frauds, hypocrites, con 
artists, liars, pedophiles, and even murderers and arsonists, among 
religious people is like handing someone who is mixing bags of 
fertilizer, while covered in motor oil, a lit match, and expecting 
anything other than a loud *BOOM!*. Its almost too easy. And its only 
the depths of dishonesty, irrationality, depravity, ignorance and 
general insanity of **some** members, combined with they fact that most 
people, including the vast majority of Christians that should know 
better, actually believe it when these nuts claim to *control* the 
Christian faith and/or the country.

As PZ Myers stated today:

"I should clarify something, though. Many people assume I post these 
little tales of deplorable behavior by the religious in some misguided 
effort to show causality, that I'm trying to argue that they do these 
wicked things because they are Christian. This is not correct. It's far, 
far from the truth ? I know many good people are also Christian or 
Jewish.

The point is simpler: Christianity claims to be a force for morality 
which encourages good behavior on the part of its practitioners. It's 
quite clear that it is not when even its clergy seem unable to find 
their religion to be a source of moral suasion. Religion doesn't make 
you bad, necessarily, but it sure doesn't make you good, either."

-- 
void main () {

    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message