 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Marriage has a number of things associated with it that don't make it
> ideal for this purpose. For one thing, the religious ideas that
> accompany the word, which in effect limit who you can designate.
You're assuming to start with that marriage has something to do with
religion, then saying "we shouldn't have marriage because it has something
to do with religion." You are, in short, begging the question.
> A designation of your heir shouldn't be limited by religious constraints
> like that.
It's not. There's no religious constraint on my marriage. I didn't have a
religious marriage. Yet my *default* heir would still be my wife, and I'd
still need to have her agree if I changed her to not be my heir.
When someone gets hurt in an accident, who should the doctor allow to visit?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Charter wrote:
> Wow. I am really naive. But what does it all mean?
>
> Actually, I have never 'gotten' Steven Colbert. For me the absurdist
> vein to his humor undercuts the sactimony, satirical or otherwise.
Yeah, they make a brief mention of conservapedia on that page,
mentioning "numerous" examples there. The problem is, within 24 hours of
the site going live and people finding out about it, anything from
50%-100% of the pages posted to it where ***all*** spoofs, written by
atheists, agnostics, humanists and the like, as a reaction to the insane
BS already one their, in order to see what sort of ludicrous BS would
survive. My guess, though without some parallel site tracking who did
what, its not possible to know for sure, is that at least 50%-80% of the
stuff "still on there" is things that the site owner couldn't tell where
fake either, due to his own insanity, so left, more or less unedited.
The Mt Ararat volcanoes stuff is just the tip of the iceberg.
Someone once stated that they had posted something on a blog some place
involving, I don't remember what, but like space aliens, the polar ice
cap and Jesus being Elvis, or some insane BS, and had someone else point
out to him, within less than an hour, a web site run by some cult or
other, who "actually" believed it already, and had made an almost word
for word identical argument, **and not as a joke, but as a serious
statement of belief**.
When you are dealing with people that are so crazy that they might
imagine that Peter Pan was a documentary and Never Never Land is heaven,
but they way to get there is by capturing a pixie (and I am sure someone
someplace makes this argument), almost "anything" else you could come up
with, no matter how vaguely rational you make it, in an attempt to make
it sound 'somewhat' plausible, as part of a joke, is going to be accused
of being "real", instead of a Poe. And, almost any position held by
"real" people in the world will be accused of being a Poe, even if they
are 100% serious.
Its like living in a world based on the movie Baron Münchhausen. The
only thing more ridiculous than the silly BS the main character "makes
up", is the actually reality of what is taking place.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> The reason Prop 8 passed is because the wackos staged
> it as an "religious" issue,
It *is* a religious issue. There's no secular reason to care about the
gender of who gets married. It even helps the economy, so I've read.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> I disagree. I think most of the people who aren't allowed to marry
>> would be happy to actually have all the rights and privileges of a
>> religious marriage without the religion.
>
> Then don't you think the two institutions should be separate, if there
> is a significant demand for one without the other?
Well, yes. That's why we have religious marriages and secular marriages.
I'm not sure why a "religion" has anything to do with contractual
obligations of the state and its regulated service providers.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Its membership, not the Church itself.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/01/top-officials-w.html
> 1) The Church does not tell you how to vote.
http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/article_84a8a9bf-6851-56a1-8c36-f170e8cd9f13.html
"""
In June, California church authorities read a statement from Salt Lake City
leaders over the pulpit that church members "do all [they] can to support
the proposed constitutional amendment."
"""
And, really, if bunches of mormons voted for it, even tho the church leaders
didn't explicitly say to, don't you think maybe it was the teachings of the
mormon church that caused it?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> The reason Prop 8 passed is because the wackos staged it as an
>> "religious" issue,
>
> It *is* a religious issue. There's no secular reason to care about the
> gender of who gets married. It even helps the economy, so I've read.
>
Yeah. Of course, but my point is, they know "exactly" how to distort the
arguments, so that the only thing most of the "believers" heard was
those issues, not the secular matters. Or, to put it another way, they
got a face full of, "Our definition of marriage is being threatened, and
**nothing else is at issue**". If they had honestly been defending
marriage they would have fought for a bill to adjust the definition, not
ban what is 99% secular legal issues, and 1% religious ritual. The
problem is, the argument to the black community was, "They are attacking
tradition", when outside of that community, and those others that they
"knew" where going to see the religious argument, the same people where
talking about property ownership, patient rights, kin rights, etc.
It was shell game. So, yeah, it was religious, but only in the sense
that, for the people pushing the idea, ***everything*** is religious,
and they knew that the otherwise liberal voting black community would
fall for that argument, without bothering to consider any other issue.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> That said, people who think sleeping outside marriage is absolutely
> wrong, like the highly religious, are a) not going to tell/consult their
> partner when they do it, b) going to do it anyway, and c) going to do
> everything they can to hide that its happening.
http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20090702.gif
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> On 6-7-2009 0:28, Darren New wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> On 6-7-2009 0:09, Darren New wrote:
>>>> andrel wrote:
>>>>> IIRC One of the groups that was prayed for did significantly
>>>>> worse*. I don't remember exactly which one, I think the group that
>>>>> knew.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, yes. By "surprising", I thought you meant the prayer actually
>>>> helped, which would be surprising to those doing the experiment.
>>>>
>>> Any change would be surprising to the non-believer. This has the
>>> advantage that everybody is just as astonished.
>>
>> I had understood that the third group (unlike the others) were told
>> they were being prayed for. That's why there were three groups instead
>> of two.
>
> And a possible explanation would be that they would think somebody else
> would help them so they could devote energy to other things than
> recovering. Still most probably a fluke.
Certainly that would be my first guess. :-) Or disappointment that they
weren't getting better faster.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> One of the largest financial contributors (if not the single largest
>> contributor) to the pro-Proposition 8 vote was the LDS Church and its
>> membership.
>
> Its membership, not the Church itself. As a rule the Church itself
> stays out of politics, other than to say "Follow your conscience."
>
> In fact, just about every election the leaders are asked to read a
> statement to the congregations reminding them that
>
> 1) The Church does not tell you how to vote.
> 2) Church facilities may not be used for political purposes
> 3) The Church does not endorse any specific individual OR piece of
> legislation
> 4) You should vote.
>
That's a bit like arguing that a union didn't take an official stand on
an issue, but its "members" voted to go on strike....
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Some people are a bit too freaked by Islam in Europe right now, and just
> like Christians, the moderate Muslims won't fracking stop supporting the
> radical ones by proxy of not doing anything "about" the radical ones at
> all.
I'm not sure what the average "regular" Christian or Muslim could do about
the radical ones. Normal Christians don't "do" anything about Fred Phelps
either.
I think the problem is more what the leaders of the religion are saying. If
the pope was out there advocating suicide bombers, I think there would be a
better case against Catholics than there is now.
> The only difference seems to be that Christians want to legislate
> you to death, while Islam has less respect for civilization,
I disagree. Islam very easily legislates you to death quite literally, where
Islam is the primary religion of the country. The whole "Sharia Law" thing
is Islam, you know. :-)
Christians mostly legislate you because you're not radical enough for death
threads. Muslims legislate you where they can, and blow you up where they
have no valid political authority. Christians murder you where they have no
valid politcal authority to otherwise do so. And the fringe-moderates
(Limbaugh, for example?) support it.
> are poking the wrong caged animal, grab a stick yourself, and beat the
Good rant! :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
