Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 01/04/2012 5:08 PM, Warp wrote:
> >    Banning the word "dinosaur" makes exactly as much sense as banning the
> > word "reptile" or the word "bird".

> They should ban "spider" because some people hate spiders. And using the 
> same logic they should ban the word "republicans".

  I really wonder if they want to ban the word "atheist" as well.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Le 01/04/2012 18:31, Warp nous fit lire :
> Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
>> On 01/04/2012 5:08 PM, Warp wrote:
>>>    Banning the word "dinosaur" makes exactly as much sense as banning the
>>> word "reptile" or the word "bird".
> 
>> They should ban "spider" because some people hate spiders. And using the 
>> same logic they should ban the word "republicans".
> 
>   I really wonder if they want to ban the word "atheist" as well.
> 
From the old and venerable laws, atheists are to be offered one chance
as infidel / non-believer, after what they will be put to death (well,
the law will "save their souls").

Notice, that strict interpretation of the law does not warrant life even
if they convert. Indeed, freshly converted ones should be put to death
right after conversion, to save their cleansed souls.

Post a reply to this message

On 01/04/2012 5:31 PM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen<mcavoys_at@aoldotcom>  wrote:
>> On 01/04/2012 5:08 PM, Warp wrote:
>>>     Banning the word "dinosaur" makes exactly as much sense as banning the
>>> word "reptile" or the word "bird".
>
>> They should ban "spider" because some people hate spiders. And using the
>> same logic they should ban the word "republicans".
>
>    I really wonder if they want to ban the word "atheist" as well.
>

I would not think so. They will want a name to hang on the evil ones.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 4/1/2012 11:33 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 01/04/2012 5:31 PM, Warp wrote:
>> Stephen<mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
>>> On 01/04/2012 5:08 PM, Warp wrote:
>>>> Banning the word "dinosaur" makes exactly as much sense as banning the
>>>> word "reptile" or the word "bird".
>>
>>> They should ban "spider" because some people hate spiders. And using the
>>> same logic they should ban the word "republicans".
>>
>> I really wonder if they want to ban the word "atheist" as well.
>>
>
> I would not think so. They will want a name to hang on the evil ones.
>
Yeah, they only ban that word if its "by itself" on a bus ad, where the 
only other content is a web address, showing where to find out about it. 
Its perfectly fine if you want to use it in a much longer sentence, 
like, "Those damn atheists are ruining the country!". :p

Post a reply to this message

On 4/1/2012 9:31, Warp wrote:
>    I really wonder if they want to ban the word "atheist" as well.

Yes, but that would raise actual actionable problems.

They also ought to ban "censorship."

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message

Am 01.04.2012 13:19, schrieb Warp:

>    I believe the same is true of the mind: If you never get exposed to
> unpleasant ideas and words, if you are raised in a protective bubble where
> you are shielded from ever hearing them, when you do finally encounter
> them in real life, you may get emotionally scarred.

Or you resort to the only way of dealing with conflicts that you've ever 
come into contact with: Draw your gun and open fire.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> On 4/1/2012 9:31, Warp wrote:
> >    I really wonder if they want to ban the word "atheist" as well.

> Yes, but that would raise actual actionable problems.

> They also ought to ban "censorship."

  Do you know what would be absolutely marvelous? If they banned the word
"God" for being too controversial and that would, ironically, cause a
huge controversy.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 02 Apr 2012 08:23:33 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> On 4/1/2012 9:31, Warp wrote:
>> >    I really wonder if they want to ban the word "atheist" as well.
> 
>> Yes, but that would raise actual actionable problems.
> 
>> They also ought to ban "censorship."
> 
>   Do you know what would be absolutely marvelous? If they banned the
>   word
> "God" for being too controversial and that would, ironically, cause a
> huge controversy.

Now that would be entertaining to watch.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>    And if they ban the word "dinosaur", are they also going to ban all
> the orders, families, genuses and species that belong to the superorder
> dinosauria? (If "dinosaur" is banned, what stops some teacher from using
> instead something like "theropod", "coelophysoid" or "efraasia" if he
> wants to be clever?) And how about other extinct clades such as the
> trilobites or ammonites? How about "living fossils" such as the coelacanth?
>

The coelacanth is not a fossil.  It's 6000 years old, just like all 
other creatures.

;)

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

>
>> And if they ban the word "dinosaur", are they also going to ban all
>> the orders, families, genuses and species that belong to the superorder
>> dinosauria? (If "dinosaur" is banned, what stops some teacher from using
>> instead something like "theropod", "coelophysoid" or "efraasia" if he
>> wants to be clever?) And how about other extinct clades such as the
>> trilobites or ammonites? How about "living fossils" such as the
>> coelacanth?
>>
>
> The coelacanth is not a fossil. It's 6000 years old, just like all other
> creatures.
>
> ;)
>

I though that the creation was dated to 5000 years... :P

Post a reply to this message