On 26/07/2014 09:13, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 26-7-2014 9:43, Stephen wrote:
>> On 26/07/2014 08:36, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> And so starts corruption... down the slippery road to hell.
>>
>> A bit late for that. ;-)
>>
>
> You had your curry then?
>

There's nae time for that.
The Laird wants us up at the Big Hoose.
So put aside that pie-grater and come along.

(Warp: Even if Thomas does not get the reference. Jim Henderson and Dr 
John, will.)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 26/07/2014 09:19, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 25/07/2014 11:45 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Go to Google maps and put in (for example) "Hospitals in London, United
>> Kingdom", and "Churches in London, United Kingdom".
>>
>> Compare the number of dots on the map.
>
> Surely this only indicates that we *have built* more churches than
> hospitals, but than we *are building* more churches than hospitals...

Don't be beguiled by logic. It is an Aunt Sally (straw man).

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 26.07.2014 10:28, schrieb Stephen:
> On 26/07/2014 09:19, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> On 25/07/2014 11:45 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Go to Google maps and put in (for example) "Hospitals in London, United
>>> Kingdom", and "Churches in London, United Kingdom".
>>>
>>> Compare the number of dots on the map.
>>
>> Surely this only indicates that we *have built* more churches than
>> hospitals, but than we *are building* more churches than hospitals...
>
> Don't be beguiled by logic. It is an Aunt Sally (straw man).

Logic and reason is something for scared wimps without Strong Faith(TM).

Post a reply to this message

On 26/07/2014 09:36, clipka wrote:
> Am 26.07.2014 10:28, schrieb Stephen:
>> On 26/07/2014 09:19, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> On 25/07/2014 11:45 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> Go to Google maps and put in (for example) "Hospitals in London, United
>>>> Kingdom", and "Churches in London, United Kingdom".
>>>>
>>>> Compare the number of dots on the map.
>>>
>>> Surely this only indicates that we *have built* more churches than
>>> hospitals, but than we *are building* more churches than hospitals...
>>
>> Don't be beguiled by logic. It is an Aunt Sally (straw man).
>
> Logic and reason is something for scared wimps without Strong Faith(TM).
>

Harken! He spake truly.


(Warp: That was irony with a touch of "argument from authority" by using 
the archaic "spake". If I had capitalised "truly" it would have added a 
religious overtone.)


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 26-7-2014 10:23, Stephen wrote:
> On 26/07/2014 09:13, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 26-7-2014 9:43, Stephen wrote:
>>> On 26/07/2014 08:36, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>> And so starts corruption... down the slippery road to hell.
>>>
>>> A bit late for that. ;-)
>>>
>>
>> You had your curry then?
>>
>
> There's nae time for that.
> The Laird wants us up at the Big Hoose.
> So put aside that pie-grater and come along.
>
> (Warp: Even if Thomas does not get the reference. Jim Henderson and Dr
> John, will.)
>
God it! ;-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 26/07/14 09:23, Stephen wrote:
> 
> There's nae time for that.
> The Laird wants us up at the Big Hoose.
> So put aside that pie-grater and come along.
> 
> (Warp: Even if Thomas does not get the reference. Jim Henderson and Dr
> John, will.)
> 

:-D

John
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

On 26-7-2014 10:23, Stephen wrote:
> There's nae time for that.
> The Laird wants us up at the Big Hoose.
> So put aside that pie-grater and come along.
>
> (Warp: Even if Thomas does not get the reference. Jim Henderson and Dr
> John, will.)
>

Not Robert Burns imho. I go for Walter Scott.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 26/07/2014 15:25, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Not Robert Burns imho.

Correct.

> I go for Walter Scott.

Whatever. It is a free world. ;-)


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 01:01:57 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Well, there are a lot of things that didn't become an issue for the
>> general public, partly because Romney wouldn't really talk about what
>> he believes or what his church practices.  I may not have liked him as
>> a candidate or as a person, but I can respect him for saying "that's
>> not what this election is about" and refusing to talk about his faith. 
>> If he had been elected, I actually think he would have not had his
>> faith be front and center, because he didn't want it in the spotlight. 
>> He considered it to be a very personal thing, and not relevant to his
>> policy choices.
> 
> I really have to wonder if he did that honestly, or because he (or his
> advisors) thought that it would be better to not openly discuss his
> beliefs because it would drive voters away...

Oh, he probably was advised not to make it about his religion.

>> But there's still no way I would have voted for him.  But I do wish
>> more candidates would say "you know what?  My beliefs are not your
>> business, they're mine." - and then left it at that, and let their
>> actions rather than their beliefs (or perceptions about their beliefs)
>> be what they were judged on by the electorate.
> 
> That would probably be the best, but then, perhaps people would vote for
> the one candidate who praises God all the time?

It's a question of making beliefs be private or "none" becoming the 
norm.  That's something that's going to take some time over here.

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 15:56:47 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 26/07/2014 15:25, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> Not Robert Burns imho.
> 
> Correct.
> 
>> I go for Walter Scott.
> 
> Whatever. It is a free world. ;-)

LOL



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 07:13:39 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 26/07/2014 00:31, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 01:19:55 +0200, clipka wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, reading Stephen's posting more carefully: Maybe no. Germany
>>> /has/ more churches than hospitals, but whether more /new/
>>> churches are being built than hospitals is difficult to tell.
>>
>> Hmm, fair point.
>>
>> I think right now in the Seattle area, though, there aren't any new
>> hospitals being built, but I'd be surprised if there weren't any new
>> churches being built.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
> As you know it was also a metaphor.
> Churches, hospitals. Apples, oranges.

Well, yeah, but it's an interesting question as a non-metaphor.

> Hospitals need to be centralised to share the expensive machinery that
> goes Beep!
> Churches serve smaller communities, except for cathedrals and the like.
> 
> Religion is the pillar of a lot of peoples lives. And a big distraction.
> IMO they have their priorities wrong.

Agreed.

I've reached the point of being an atheist with the point of view that 
"if there is a supernatural world, and a deity that judges you when you 
die, then if that deity's judgment is based not on you being a good 
person but based on how much you worshiped the deity without evidence - 
well, fuck 'em."

I'd rather be a good person than waste my life worshiping something just 
to have a shot at beating Pascal's Wager.

> In the UK the established churches are loosing influence with quite a
> few buildings being de-sanctified and sold off. To become temples to
> those other gods, food and drink. Hospitals are lurching from one crises
> to the next. Almost as if it (NHS) is being decommissioned. And to be
> sold off the the Temple of Mammon.
> Bitter! Moi?

Nah, I'm not seeing you being bitter *at all* about it. ;)

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 09:11:04 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>  It is a form of Juju that gives them a righteous feeling.

What's more, it's a form of Juju that gives them power.

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 10:36:01 +0200, clipka wrote:

> Am 26.07.2014 10:28, schrieb Stephen:
>> On 26/07/2014 09:19, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> On 25/07/2014 11:45 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> Go to Google maps and put in (for example) "Hospitals in London,
>>>> United Kingdom", and "Churches in London, United Kingdom".
>>>>
>>>> Compare the number of dots on the map.
>>>
>>> Surely this only indicates that we *have built* more churches than
>>> hospitals, but than we *are building* more churches than hospitals...
>>
>> Don't be beguiled by logic. It is an Aunt Sally (straw man).
> 
> Logic and reason is something for scared wimps without Strong Faith(TM).

We just need to believe *harder*. ;)

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

Am 27.07.2014 00:40, schrieb Jim Henderson:
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 10:36:01 +0200, clipka wrote:
>
>> Am 26.07.2014 10:28, schrieb Stephen:
>>> On 26/07/2014 09:19, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>>> On 25/07/2014 11:45 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>> Go to Google maps and put in (for example) "Hospitals in London,
>>>>> United Kingdom", and "Churches in London, United Kingdom".
>>>>>
>>>>> Compare the number of dots on the map.
>>>>
>>>> Surely this only indicates that we *have built* more churches than
>>>> hospitals, but than we *are building* more churches than hospitals...
>>>
>>> Don't be beguiled by logic. It is an Aunt Sally (straw man).
>>
>> Logic and reason is something for scared wimps without Strong Faith(TM).
>
> We just need to believe *harder*. ;)

I do believe that it's hard to believe... does that suffice? ;-)

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 02:29:38 +0200, clipka wrote:

> Am 27.07.2014 00:40, schrieb Jim Henderson:
>> On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 10:36:01 +0200, clipka wrote:
>>
>>> Am 26.07.2014 10:28, schrieb Stephen:
>>>> On 26/07/2014 09:19, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>>>> On 25/07/2014 11:45 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>>> Go to Google maps and put in (for example) "Hospitals in London,
>>>>>> United Kingdom", and "Churches in London, United Kingdom".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Compare the number of dots on the map.
>>>>>
>>>>> Surely this only indicates that we *have built* more churches than
>>>>> hospitals, but than we *are building* more churches than
>>>>> hospitals...
>>>>
>>>> Don't be beguiled by logic. It is an Aunt Sally (straw man).
>>>
>>> Logic and reason is something for scared wimps without Strong
>>> Faith(TM).
>>
>> We just need to believe *harder*. ;)
> 
> I do believe that it's hard to believe... does that suffice? ;-)

LOL

I'm with you there. :)

Jim
-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On 7/25/2014 9:47 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 07:00:22 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> On 7/25/2014 12:10 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Well, there are a lot of things that didn't become an issue for the
>>> general public, partly because Romney wouldn't really talk about what
>>> he believes or what his church practices.  I may not have liked him as
>>> a candidate or as a person, but I can respect him for saying "that's
>>> not what this election is about" and refusing to talk about his faith.
>>> If he had been elected, I actually think he would have not had his
>>> faith be front and center, because he didn't want it in the spotlight.
>>> He considered it to be a very personal thing, and not relevant to his
>>> policy choices.
>>>
>> On that note - what the hell where his policies exactly, I never noted
>> him actually pinning any down, really, unless, "I picked a Tea Party nut
>> to replace me, should my brain melt down while trying to figure out what
>> I actually believe this week, and the VP has to take over."? lol
>
> Yeah, that was also a big problem with him - his stated policies and past
> policy decisions didn't line up very well, and he was all over the board
> on what he was for.  Most of his campaigning was based on "I'm against
> what Obama's doing".
>
> Pretty glad the electorate didn't fall for *that*, even though I'm not
> very happy with Obama's stand on intellectual property and privacy
> issues.  Right now, neither party is making me very happy.
>
> Jim

They are the same party now. Well, ok.. maybe there are "some" 
differences still, but, sadly most of those are in the fringes, it 
seems. The real liberals are either hanging on by fingernails, or 
quitting. The real conservatives, which is to say those who still think 
there is value in what they believed 50 years ago are, again, hanging on 
by their fingernails, or, like the one recent guy, jumping to the 
Democrats, because their current leadership is too insane.

I look at it this way. If there truly was a real difference between 
them, on the scale both side's talking heads claim, then jumping ship 
between them should require a monumental shift in views. Something on 
the scale of divine revelations, or something. When they can change 
sides purely based on the fact that their side has annoyed them, or that 
they elected someone they don't approve of (like some of the Dems that 
jumped ship the moment that Obama was elected), then... how much 
difference is there? At least one person I know has made a good argument 
for Hillary being little more than an old style Christian conservative - 
i.e., nothing even close to liberal. Personally, I see the Democrats as 
being the Republicans, as they existed, during the Reagan era. Not 
great, but not horrible. The Republicans, on the other hand.. have 
become the Protestants, complaining that the church has grown corrupt, 
and needs to be reformed, through a strict list of silly idiocies, and 
unyielding ideals. Its the difference between falling in the rapids of a 
river, and being hit with a flash flood, while wandering a dry river 
bed. That one isn't obviously dangerous, until it kills you doesn't mean 
much. Me.. I would rather find the damn bridge, assuming either party 
leaves one standing long enough to use it, or doesn't sell it, one way 
or another, to the corporate world.

Sadly, when deciding which poisonous snake to step around, the one with 
the obvious rattle is much easier to avoid, and.. that still means 
voting Democrat. The only other one I have seen that looks semi-sane 
might be the so called "Green Party". But.. I seriously suspect they 
have a bit of "Tea Party" thinking in them, and some of the same 
delusional thinking of the US Libertarians too - i.e. shift as much 
political power as possible from the fed, hand it over to a lot of 
smaller special interests, such as state governments, who often have no 
clear picture of things on a larger scale, then just wish really hard 
that things like education will fix themselves, once its all been taken 
from the people that can set "national" standards, and instead to the 
people that can set up petty, selfish and self serving standards for 
them. The effect we see with the, "There are no state fire codes, and 
its illegal to make local ones.", nonsense that blew up half a town, and 
leveled two, thankfully empty, schools, in Texas, and in the stupid, 
"Lets test people, but not set any actual real standards for how 
teaching is done, what will be in the texts, or anything else 
meaningful.", Every Child Left Behind idiocies.

What we do well nationally, they are trying to take apart, and both 
parties are either doing it, or letting it happen, just to different 
things. The things we should be doing nationally, neither party wants us 
to do nationally. And, many things we shouldn't be doing nationally, we 
can't get them to let go of, so that people with a clearer idea of the 
problems can actually solve them.

-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message

On 7/26/2014 3:34 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> That would probably be the best, but then, perhaps people would vote for
>> the one candidate who praises God all the time?
>
> It's a question of making beliefs be private or "none" becoming the
> norm.  That's something that's going to take some time over here.
>
> Jim

Yeah. Mostly its one side trying real hard to not offend anyone, while 
babbling about god and refusing to stop patently insulting crap like the 
national day of wishful thinking, while the other side spends almost as 
much time claiming that everyone else isn't going to hell, while trying 
to claim that, no, in fact **they** pray more, or are more godly, etc., 
than the other guy running, including their own party members, when 
running against them.

-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message

On 7/25/2014 9:48 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 06:57:07 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> On 7/24/2014 9:19 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 04:48:34 -0400, Warp wrote:
>>>
>>>> I hear there are still some places in the US where there are basically
>>>> closet atheists who pretend to be Christians because else they would
>>>> be shunned and discriminated against.
>>>
>>> Actually, a more accurate way to say that at the moment would be that
>>> there are some places where it's OK to be an out Atheist.
>>>
>>> It's gotten better in the past few years, but, particularly in small
>>> towns in the south, it can be extremely difficult to be an out Atheist.
>>>
>> Yeah, most of those places being the wrong religion, and questioning why
>> some "public" event is opened with a prayer to the god of right wing
>> evangelicalism, instead of just about anything else, will get you run
>> out of town. These places only play lip service to the usual lie that
>> Jews, Christians, and for some reason, Buddhists are all welcome (the
>> three faiths most often quoted by idiots claiming they are "inclusive"),
>> but everyone else will burn in hell. If you actually make a complaint
>> while being the wrong one of these, or almost worse, one of those damn
>> "liberal" Christians and you might as well be black, 50+ years ago, with
>> a sheet factory down the street from you.
>
> I find it particularly disturbing that SCOTUS thinks that it's OK to have
> religious invocations at government functions - because *that* makes
> everyone feel like the city/state/locality will treat them equally if
> they're not Christian.  Yup, uh-huh.
>
> And unicorns exist.  Really.
>
> Jim
>
Yeah, but par for the course for this bunch of assholes.


-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> It's a question of making beliefs be private or "none" becoming the 
> norm.  That's something that's going to take some time over here.

That reminded me of this. It's not completely inaccurate.

http://satwcomic.com/the-easy-way

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 21:48:04 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> On 7/26/2014 3:34 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> That would probably be the best, but then, perhaps people would vote
>>> for the one candidate who praises God all the time?
>>
>> It's a question of making beliefs be private or "none" becoming the
>> norm.  That's something that's going to take some time over here.
>>
>> Jim
> 
> Yeah. Mostly its one side trying real hard to not offend anyone, while
> babbling about god and refusing to stop patently insulting crap like the
> national day of wishful thinking, while the other side spends almost as
> much time claiming that everyone else isn't going to hell, while trying
> to claim that, no, in fact **they** pray more, or are more godly, etc.,
> than the other guy running, including their own party members, when
> running against them.

What we need to do, I think, is instill the idea that actions speak 
louder than words in the youth.

That way, someone who's pronouncing themselves as being extra-super-pious 
while actually doing very bad things is seen for who they really are 
rather than who they say they are.

Someone who's all in favor of "family values" but is actually a serial 
cheating scumbag can be judged based on what they do, not what they say 
they believe.

Jim

-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 01:51:53 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> It's a question of making beliefs be private or "none" becoming the
>> norm.  That's something that's going to take some time over here.
> 
> That reminded me of this. It's not completely inaccurate.
> 
> http://satwcomic.com/the-easy-way

I wish it were that way here.  I don't have a problem with people who 
feel the need to be religious in their personal lives.  They don't need 
to share it with the world - and in fact, they shouldn't.  What we 
believe does drive our behaviour, but if people here in the US would stop 
trying to be "more godly" and just tried to be decent to each other, I 
think we'd find the country a far better place for everyone.

The point at which it's a problem for me is when someone's imposing their 
beliefs on someone else.  I despise SCOTUS' recent decision allowing a 
corporation to hold religious beliefs (say what?) and to impose those 
beliefs on their employees (in the form of not allowing their corporate-
provided health care plan to cover certain forms of contraception, 
because the 'corporation' believes - inaccurately, I might add - that 
those drugs are 'sinful' because they cause abortions (which they don't)).

That a religious belief that's *scientifically* and *medically* 
inaccurate can trump an employee's need for the drug (which may or may 
not have anything to do with its contraceptive uses, I might add) is just 
insane.  But 5 Catholic guys on SCOTUS said that was the case.

Now we just need an Islamic closely-held corporation to decide to impose 
its religious beliefs on its female employees.  Say, for example, they 
have to wear hijab rather than dress "like harlots".  I'm sure SCOTUS 
would not have said THAT was OK - which means they're endorsing a 
religion - something that the first amendment prohibits.

Jim
-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 21:44:04 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> They are the same party now. Well, ok.. maybe there are "some"
> differences still, but, sadly most of those are in the fringes, it
> seems.

No, I think there are some fundamental differences between the parties, 
but they both have things they're doing that make it difficult to vote 
for them.

The problem ultimately is that we don't have more choices - and we end up 
voting against someone more often than we are voting for someone.

The democrats will continue to generally get my votes for now, because 
they're the lesser of two evils.  I could vote third party, but if I did 
that, I might well end up with the worse of the two evils in office, if 
enough other people did that but didn't get enough votes for the third 
party.

The thing that's particularly disturbing, though, is that in our 
"representative democracy," when you disagree with your elected official 
on something and take the time to write them, they generally *don't* say 
"thank you for sending me your thoughts - there were things you said that 
I hadn't considered, and I will take your feedback and incorporate it 
into my thinking."  They might not change their mind, but you might feel 
that they were actually listening.

Instead, what you get (well, what *I* got pretty consistently) is a 
letter that explains why they're right and you're wrong, and why even 
though you disagree with them, they're going to vote the way they had 
already decided to vote - and your input doesn't matter at all.

So why the f--- did I even bother to write?

Jim
-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On 26/07/2014 23:39, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 09:11:04 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>>   It is a form of Juju that gives them a righteous feeling.
>
> What's more, it's a form of Juju that gives them power.
>

That is the name of the game.
IMO That is what organised religion is all about. Keeping the masses in 
their place.


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 26-7-2014 16:56, Stephen wrote:
> On 26/07/2014 15:25, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> Not Robert Burns imho.
>
> Correct.
>
>> I go for Walter Scott.
>
> Whatever. It is a free world. ;-)
>
>


Now you have lost me. But not to worry :-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 26/07/2014 23:38, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 07:13:39 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 26/07/2014 00:31, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 01:19:55 +0200, clipka wrote:
>>>
>>>> Actually, reading Stephen's posting more carefully: Maybe no. Germany
>>>> /has/ more churches than hospitals, but whether more /new/
>>>> churches are being built than hospitals is difficult to tell.
>>>
>>> Hmm, fair point.
>>>
>>> I think right now in the Seattle area, though, there aren't any new
>>> hospitals being built, but I'd be surprised if there weren't any new
>>> churches being built.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>>>
>> As you know it was also a metaphor.
>> Churches, hospitals. Apples, oranges.
>
> Well, yeah, but it's an interesting question as a non-metaphor.

True. But that is how we are distracted.

>
>
> I've reached the point of being an atheist with the point of view that
> "if there is a supernatural world, and a deity that judges you when you
> die, then if that deity's judgment is based not on you being a good
> person but based on how much you worshiped the deity without evidence -
> well, fuck 'em."
>

How childish and trivial for a supernatural being to put worship of them 
self above everything else. (Gives you real confidence in the afterlife.)

> I'd rather be a good person than waste my life worshiping something just
> to have a shot at beating Pascal's Wager.
>

Yes, I'll live by my conscience and let others play with those who have 
nothing else to do but think about the number of angels that can dance 
on the head of a needle.


On the other hand. The mythology opens up boundless opportunity for stories.

Have you read any of Charles Stross's Laundry series?

Where his protagonist is not the BOFH but the Sysop fighting the forces 
from Hell. Quite funny and the Tech bits don't jar.

>> Bitter! Moi?
>
> Nah, I'm not seeing you being bitter *at all* about it. ;)
>

But I am Jim. I am.


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 27/07/2014 08:18, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 26-7-2014 16:56, Stephen wrote:
>> On 26/07/2014 15:25, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> Not Robert Burns imho.
>>
>> Correct.
>>
>>> I go for Walter Scott.
>>
>> Whatever. It is a free world. ;-)
>>
>>
>
>
> Now you have lost me. But not to worry :-)
>

I don't. It was a sexual innuendo and you passed the test. :-)


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 27.07.2014 07:51, schrieb Warp:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> It's a question of making beliefs be private or "none" becoming the
>> norm.  That's something that's going to take some time over here.
>
> That reminded me of this. It's not completely inaccurate.
>
> http://satwcomic.com/the-easy-way

Damn - of all people, _you_ shouldn't have posted that link... not only 
have I spent hours already browsing those comics, but now I just can't 
help but associate you with that green tassled knit cap, and knife in 
hand... >_<

http://satwcomic.com/art/nordic-morning.jpg

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 08:07:48 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 26/07/2014 23:39, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 09:11:04 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>>   It is a form of Juju that gives them a righteous feeling.
>>
>> What's more, it's a form of Juju that gives them power.
>>
>>
> That is the name of the game.
> IMO That is what organised religion is all about. Keeping the masses in
> their place.

Yep.

Which is why my reaction these days to people who say they believe is 
generally one of surprise, especially people whom I consider to be 
intelligent.

Jim

-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 08:26:11 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>>> As you know it was also a metaphor. Churches, hospitals. Apples,
>>> oranges.
>>
>> Well, yeah, but it's an interesting question as a non-metaphor.
> 
> True. But that is how we are distracted.

It happens.  Squirrel! ;)

>> I've reached the point of being an atheist with the point of view that
>> "if there is a supernatural world, and a deity that judges you when you
>> die, then if that deity's judgment is based not on you being a good
>> person but based on how much you worshiped the deity without evidence -
>> well, fuck 'em."
>>
> How childish and trivial for a supernatural being to put worship of them
> self above everything else. (Gives you real confidence in the
> afterlife.)

Bingo. :)

>> I'd rather be a good person than waste my life worshiping something
>> just to have a shot at beating Pascal's Wager.
>>
> Yes, I'll live by my conscience and let others play with those who have
> nothing else to do but think about the number of angels that can dance
> on the head of a needle.

Yep.  As long as they're not affecting the lives of others around them in 
a negative way, I generally don't care.  The problem is that a lot of 
these nitwits *do* affect the lives of others around them in a negative 
way - like insisting that science classes "teach the controversy" of 
evolution vs. creationism - as if creationism is anything like science.

Or that anyone other than nitwits like Ken Ham think that creationism 
*is* a valid theory of how the world works, especially young earth 
creationism.

If they want to believe that, fine.  But when they're people who sit on 
the Texas Board of Education (which for reasons of scale ends up deciding 
what's in science textbooks across the United States), then I have a HUGE 
problem with them.

> On the other hand. The mythology opens up boundless opportunity for
> stories.

True, and mythology recognized as mythology is a pretty cool thing.  But 
I wouldn't dream of thinking that the Arthurian mythos are a basis for 
defining a morality.  They're pretty good, especially when retold by 
Monty Python (just came back from watching that in the cinema, in 
fact). :)

> Have you read any of Charles Stross's Laundry series?

I haven't, but I think I might have to. :)

> Where his protagonist is not the BOFH but the Sysop fighting the forces
> from Hell. Quite funny and the Tech bits don't jar.

*Definitely* have to check it out. :)

>>> Bitter! Moi?
>>
>> Nah, I'm not seeing you being bitter *at all* about it. ;)
>>
>>
> But I am Jim. I am.

You are?  It's not really coming through. ;)

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On 7/26/2014 11:40 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> The thing that's particularly disturbing, though, is that in our
> "representative democracy," when you disagree with your elected official
> on something and take the time to write them, they generally *don't* say
> "thank you for sending me your thoughts - there were things you said that
> I hadn't considered, and I will take your feedback and incorporate it
> into my thinking."  They might not change their mind, but you might feel
> that they were actually listening.
>

Yeah, been there, done that, told them when one of their pushers (i.e., 
telephone BS spreaders) called up later the same week that there was no 
way in hell I would listen to, never mind support, liars and never to 
call me again. But, you nailed the real issue straight on. The only time 
they change their opinions, only, not really, is if they think it might 
somehow damage their chances of being reelected. Ironically, the right, 
at the moment, seem to have either convinced themselves, or are trying 
really hard to do so, that **we** the voters just need to see their side 
of things, and stop listening to bad advice, and its thus entirely our 
confusion and misunderstanding about how much more reasonable they are, 
which is hurting their chances to get votes.

In other words, not only are they 100% right, we 100% wrong, but this is 
solvable only by making us all, somehow, change our minds, not by them 
getting their heads out of their asses and recognizing that its 2014, 
not like.. 1714 (or, in their case.. maybe 1614).

But, the fact is that the differences are not enough any more imho. The 
Democrats have let the right drag the overton window so far at this 
point that if we where discussing the best thing to have for breakfast, 
for example, they would both be stuck on whether or not Bran Flakes, or 
Coco Puffs where the best selection, while most of the damn public was 
busy either crying about the artificial colorings in both (the crazy 
left), or asking why the hell we can't just go to Ihop and forget the 
damn cereal. The arguments have, in short, devolved into a state where 
actual progress is nearly impossible, because every discussion is, 
almost always, about how to either return us to some imaginary state, 
which never existed, or to preserve some prior state that wasn't 
working, instead of actually bloody fixing anything. I would, for 
example, give Obama much greater credit, if the only damn thing he did 
manage to do, i.e. health care, wasn't a) a Faustian deal and b) 
something that both parties have been saying we need, since the bloody 
Nixon administration (or around there). We are supposed to praise the 
Democrats for, on one hand, managing to finally do one thing, which 
people have talked about, but never gotten done, for decades, while 
shrugging at stupidity like the internet de-neutrality disaster, extra 
domestic spying, and a dozen other things, which they didn't just not 
appose, but actually, in many cases, helped along, all of them things 
that it would have, in the past being "Republican" ideas?

How far do they have to drag the terms "liberal" and "progressive" up 
onto the rocks, before we call them on the claim that they are 
**either** of those things?

-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 16:34:10 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

>  But, you nailed the real issue straight on. The only time
> they change their opinions, only, not really, is if they think it might
> somehow damage their chances of being reelected.

Yep.

It's like the phrase "representative democracy" means "our constituents 
represent our views" (hence gerrymandering) rather than the other way 
around.

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On 7/26/2014 11:30 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 21:48:04 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> On 7/26/2014 3:34 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> That would probably be the best, but then, perhaps people would vote
>>>> for the one candidate who praises God all the time?
>>>
>>> It's a question of making beliefs be private or "none" becoming the
>>> norm.  That's something that's going to take some time over here.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>
>> Yeah. Mostly its one side trying real hard to not offend anyone, while
>> babbling about god and refusing to stop patently insulting crap like the
>> national day of wishful thinking, while the other side spends almost as
>> much time claiming that everyone else isn't going to hell, while trying
>> to claim that, no, in fact **they** pray more, or are more godly, etc.,
>> than the other guy running, including their own party members, when
>> running against them.
>
> What we need to do, I think, is instill the idea that actions speak
> louder than words in the youth.
>
That is what lawyers, smear campaigns, public image consultants and 
keeping your own life as private as possible, while digging up someone 
else's as much as possible, are for, right?

> Someone who's all in favor of "family values" but is actually a serial
> cheating scumbag can be judged based on what they do, not what they say
> they believe.
>
Snort.. Well, first of, I don't buy, myself, into the BS idea that the 
nuclear family is anything but a fiction, that people don't cheat a lot, 
and just fail to get caught, that relationships are some magic thing 
that last forever, or a long list of other things that would be required 
for the term "family values" to even mean a damn thing in the first 
place. Whether or not someone cheats on their wife, even serially 
doesn't say a damn thing about anything else they do. I would, 
personally vote for a bloody swinger, polyamorist, etc., if their ideas 
where not complete bullshit. The problem is, in a nutshell, that "family 
values" are nothing more, in reality than the low hanging fruit. They 
are the means by which some ass can convince the gullible, who think 
that having the pretense of holding such values, somehow extend those 
values into the rest of everything else they do, and can therefor be 
"trusted". There are people that I know would never break those rules, 
but whom I wouldn't elect to be bloody dog catcher, because their self 
righteous tendencies, which let them adhere to such tendencies in the 
first place, make them unfit to make dynamic, variable, spur of the 
moment, decisions, based on the information available, instead of 
defaulting back to some stupid dogmatic solution, which failed the last 
5,000 times, but is "acceptable, and traditional, and adheres to their 
personal faith/ideals about how the world really functions."

Yeah, they should be judged by what they do, depending on whether or not 
what ever they did has jack shit to do with what ever the problem really 
is. The real problem isn't whether or not they are a cheating scumbag - 
its whether or not they hide it, them lie about it, while claiming to 
believe in the fiction of "sanctity of marriage". Because, if they are 
willing to do that, then they will cheat at other things, hide the fact 
they are doing it, and then lie their asses off, when caught, just like 
with their sex lives.

Like I said - I have no problem, at all, with an honest swinger (and to 
be factual, there are many cases where that honesty has allowed 
marriages to survive, where hiding it from the spouse **always** fails 
to work), than someone that claims their whole entire existence is based 
on **never ever** doing such things, and gets caught doing it anyway.

It would be really refreshing to deal with adults, instead of people 
that instantly become petulant 6 year olds, the moment someone is caught 
playing with someone else's toy. But, instead, what we get is a bunch of 
six year olds, with a range of views from, "I am taking my toys and 
leaving!", to, "It wasn't me, someone else did it!", to ,"Mine, mine, 
mine!", to, "I am going to tell on you!". Even when it gets as far as a 
divorce, its more 6 year old behavior - what matters isn't the kids, and 
what its doing to them, its who gets to keep the toys, and whether or 
not that is sufficient a bargaining chip to let the other one keep the 
kids instead. Where the F are the adults in any of it?

There certainly is never one single scrap of honestly, or mutual respect 
involved, or the other person in the relationship would be the first one 
to find out, not the press, and the outcome would be based on a sane 
discussion, not a hissy fit.

But, yeah, this is par for the course. And, like I said, its the "low 
hanging fruit", which is why its the #1 thing all the smear tactic 
people look for. Too much of a public is much more concerned, or can be 
made to be concerned (like with Clinton) with whether or not something 
got kept in someone's pants, or who they showed it to, if it wasn't, 
than whether or not they actually ***did*** anything with their time in 
office. Its like watching kids on a playground pick who they will 
associate with, and seeing some poor kid get kicked to the side, because 
the school's "in crowd" got there first and declared, "She has 
cooties!", causing most of the whole class to shun them.

Again, where the hell are the adults in the room? "Family Values" is a 
lie right from the start, almost nothing they say when talking about it 
isn't against women's health, or women's rights, or gays, or life 
choices they don't like, or anything else they can lump into the thing. 
Its all about what people shouldn't be, and jack to do, save by a very 
convoluted and paranoid course, with anything involved the well being of 
families. But, when its used as a weapon against and opponent, over some 
"choice" they have made... it always becomes a) school yard bullshit, 
and b) a sort of glaring hypocrisy. But, since the whole concept is a 
nest of delusions in the first place, the second effect is hardly a 
surprise.

-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message

On 7/26/2014 11:35 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> The point at which it's a problem for me is when someone's imposing their
> beliefs on someone else.  I despise SCOTUS' recent decision allowing a
> corporation to hold religious beliefs (say what?) and to impose those
> beliefs on their employees (in the form of not allowing their corporate-
> provided health care plan to cover certain forms of contraception,
> because the 'corporation' believes - inaccurately, I might add - that
> those drugs are 'sinful' because they cause abortions (which they don't)).
>
And, of course, despite the supposed "limited scope" of this, it took 
the lawyers less than 10 seconds to expand that to include every 
bullshit lawsuit currently in the works that involves a company having 
to accommodate **anything** hey didn't like, and SCOTUS less than 24 
hours to not only approve of at least some of those expansions, but to 
create one of their own.

But, its like.. limited, so, we don't really need to worry, and stuff..

-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message

On 7/27/2014 4:43 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 16:34:10 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>>   But, you nailed the real issue straight on. The only time
>> they change their opinions, only, not really, is if they think it might
>> somehow damage their chances of being reelected.
>
> Yep.
>
> It's like the phrase "representative democracy" means "our constituents
> represent our views" (hence gerrymandering) rather than the other way
> around.
>
> Jim
>
So, how long do you think it will be before "representative" comes to 
mean, "We frame a copy of a constitution, as a 'representation' of what 
we imagine the country should be like, but put a caption some place on 
it that says, 'Actual model may not reflect plans.'?" lol

BTW, interesting fact from Arizona. Seems they have decided that an ID 
needs to be updated to be valid, for someone that is 21, regardless of 
which state issued it. So, as of June 24th, in Arizona, it doesn't 
matter if you have an ID, or license, which shows that you are 21 now, 
if you showed up from, say NY, with 4 year old ID, but which is still 
valid until, say 2015, which said you turned 21 yesterday, you have **no 
right** in Arizona to purchase alcohol, because your ID, is deemed 
"invalid" for that purpose, since there is more than a 30 day difference 
between the issuance date, and the time you turned 21.

Yep, you can't get a new one, short of going home, you have the right, 
based on the law, to purchase, but you can't without the ID, which is 
now deemed invalid, due to you not updating it, which you didn't know 
you needed to do, before coming to the state..

Rights? Oh, those are those things that they say you have, but you 
don't, unless they say they will let you have them, or have paid the 
right fee for? Got it...

-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message

Am 27.07.2014 08:35, schrieb Jim Henderson:

> I despise SCOTUS' recent decision allowing a
> corporation to hold religious beliefs (say what?) and to impose those
> beliefs on their employees

You're kiddin', right? Tell me that you're kiddin'...


Must be a renewable energy thing. Certainly. They must have mounted 
Benjamin Franklin's coffin to a shaft turning a generator, and now want 
to see how fast they can get that poor old chap to spin.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 17:15:41 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> On 7/27/2014 4:43 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 16:34:10 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>>   But, you nailed the real issue straight on. The only time
>>> they change their opinions, only, not really, is if they think it
>>> might somehow damage their chances of being reelected.
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>> It's like the phrase "representative democracy" means "our constituents
>> represent our views" (hence gerrymandering) rather than the other way
>> around.
>>
>> Jim
>>
> So, how long do you think it will be before "representative" comes to
> mean, "We frame a copy of a constitution, as a 'representation' of what
> we imagine the country should be like, but put a caption some place on
> it that says, 'Actual model may not reflect plans.'?" lol

Good question, hopefully it won't come to that.

> BTW, interesting fact from Arizona. Seems they have decided that an ID
> needs to be updated to be valid, for someone that is 21, regardless of
> which state issued it. So, as of June 24th, in Arizona, it doesn't
> matter if you have an ID, or license, which shows that you are 21 now,
> if you showed up from, say NY, with 4 year old ID, but which is still
> valid until, say 2015, which said you turned 21 yesterday, you have **no
> right** in Arizona to purchase alcohol, because your ID, is deemed
> "invalid" for that purpose, since there is more than a 30 day difference
> between the issuance date, and the time you turned 21.
> 
> Yep, you can't get a new one, short of going home, you have the right,
> based on the law, to purchase, but you can't without the ID, which is
> now deemed invalid, due to you not updating it, which you didn't know
> you needed to do, before coming to the state..
> 
> Rights? Oh, those are those things that they say you have, but you
> don't, unless they say they will let you have them, or have paid the
> right fee for? Got it...

That's actually something broader that I've wondered about for a while - 
after I got laid off 3 years ago, I found that I had misplaced my social 
security card.  To get it replaced, I needed a photo ID, and my passport 
was also expired, and I needed to renew my driver's license that year.

Now, in order to get a new social security card, an expired passport is 
considered legal ID.  But it isn't for a driver's license.  But a social 
security card *is* (which,for those outside the US, is a form of ID that 
isn't a photo ID).

So ....

I had to renew my social security card first, then I could renew my 
driver's license, and then I could renew my passport, as I recall.  All 
because the feds will take an expired passport but the state wouldn't.

My wife's driver's license was an entirely different fiasco.  Her legal 
name is "Amelia", but that's not the name on her birth certificate.  When 
she renewed her driver's license in Utah (2 months before we moved and 
had to renew in Utah before moving to Washington - and then having to get 
a new license here), they told her because her license and her passport 
were expired, she had to have the incorrect name on her license.  EVEN 
THOUGH her previous license had her correct legal name on it.  Her 
passport also had her correct legal name on it, but because the passport 
was expired, the DMV wouldn't accept it as valid ID either.

So she got it done with the wrong name on it.  We moved, and Washington 
did the same thing - current license has the wrong name on it, renewed 
passport hadn't arrived yet, so they issued it with the wrong name.

In spite of actually having expired documentation with the correct name 
on it, neither state would issue her a correct driver's license.

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 28 Jul 2014 03:46:02 +0200, clipka wrote:

> Am 27.07.2014 08:35, schrieb Jim Henderson:
> 
>> I despise SCOTUS' recent decision allowing a corporation to hold
>> religious beliefs (say what?) and to impose those beliefs on their
>> employees
> 
> You're kiddin', right? Tell me that you're kiddin'...

Hobby Lobby?  Tell me you're kiddin' about not hearing about that.

> Must be a renewable energy thing. Certainly. They must have mounted
> Benjamin Franklin's coffin to a shaft turning a generator, and now want
> to see how fast they can get that poor old chap to spin.

LOL - yes, you're kidding about not having heard about it. ;)

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 17:06:31 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> On 7/26/2014 11:35 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> The point at which it's a problem for me is when someone's imposing
>> their beliefs on someone else.  I despise SCOTUS' recent decision
>> allowing a corporation to hold religious beliefs (say what?) and to
>> impose those beliefs on their employees (in the form of not allowing
>> their corporate- provided health care plan to cover certain forms of
>> contraception, because the 'corporation' believes - inaccurately, I
>> might add - that those drugs are 'sinful' because they cause abortions
>> (which they don't)).
>>
> And, of course, despite the supposed "limited scope" of this, it took
> the lawyers less than 10 seconds to expand that to include every
> bullshit lawsuit currently in the works that involves a company having
> to accommodate **anything** hey didn't like, and SCOTUS less than 24
> hours to not only approve of at least some of those expansions, but to
> create one of their own.
> 
> But, its like.. limited, so, we don't really need to worry, and stuff..

Yep.  As the judges in the minority predicted, even.

Jim
-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 17:01:47 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

>> What we need to do, I think, is instill the idea that actions speak
>> louder than words in the youth.
>>
> That is what lawyers, smear campaigns, public image consultants and
> keeping your own life as private as possible, while digging up someone
> else's as much as possible, are for, right?

Well, that brings up another issue, though - the news media telling 
people what to think instead of reporting the actual facts.

>> Someone who's all in favor of "family values" but is actually a serial
>> cheating scumbag can be judged based on what they do, not what they say
>> they believe.
>>
> Snort.. Well, first of, I don't buy, myself, into the BS idea that the
> nuclear family is anything but a fiction, that people don't cheat a lot,
> and just fail to get caught, that relationships are some magic thing
> that last forever, or a long list of other things that would be required
> for the term "family values" to even mean a damn thing in the first
> place. 

Well, there are ideals that we can strive towards, certainly.  The 
problem I have is when some politicians hold their opponents to a 
standard and then it turns out that they've not lived their own lives to 
that standard.

I've been lucky - not perfect, but lucky - and have a strong, stable 
relationship that is a lasting relationship.

> Whether or not someone cheats on their wife, even serially
> doesn't say a damn thing about anything else they do. I would,
> personally vote for a bloody swinger, polyamorist, etc., if their ideas
> where not complete bullshit. 

That's the thing - I'm more interested in the ideas than the 
personality.  Someone who's got a track record of implementing ideas I 
can get behind is someone I can vote for.  If they have problems keeping 
it in their pants, well, as long as that doesn't affect their ability to 
do their job, it's not my business.

> It would be really refreshing to deal with adults, instead of people
> that instantly become petulant 6 year olds, the moment someone is caught
> playing with someone else's toy. 

Yes.  This.

Jim
-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

Am 28.07.2014 04:30, schrieb Jim Henderson:
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2014 03:46:02 +0200, clipka wrote:
>
>> Am 27.07.2014 08:35, schrieb Jim Henderson:
>>
>>> I despise SCOTUS' recent decision allowing a corporation to hold
>>> religious beliefs (say what?) and to impose those beliefs on their
>>> employees
>>
>> You're kiddin', right? Tell me that you're kiddin'...
>
> Hobby Lobby?  Tell me you're kiddin' about not hearing about that.

Huh? Hobby Lobby is obviously an American franchise (at least from what 
I've just looked up on the 'net), so why sould I, as a German, know 
anything about it?

As for that SCOTUS' (heck, even had to look that up, too) decision, over 
here in Germany the media don't really cover such petty US American 
internal affairs.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> The point at which it's a problem for me is when someone's imposing their 
> beliefs on someone else.  I despise SCOTUS' recent decision allowing a 
> corporation to hold religious beliefs (say what?) and to impose those 
> beliefs on their employees (in the form of not allowing their corporate-
> provided health care plan to cover certain forms of contraception, 
> because the 'corporation' believes - inaccurately, I might add - that 
> those drugs are 'sinful' because they cause abortions (which they don't)).

For some reason there has been in recent years a very strong push in
the US to advocate the notion that discrimination is ok as long as
it's done for Christian reasons. (Not even religious. Christian.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 28 Jul 2014 05:57:33 +0200, clipka wrote:

> Am 28.07.2014 04:30, schrieb Jim Henderson:
>> On Mon, 28 Jul 2014 03:46:02 +0200, clipka wrote:
>>
>>> Am 27.07.2014 08:35, schrieb Jim Henderson:
>>>
>>>> I despise SCOTUS' recent decision allowing a corporation to hold
>>>> religious beliefs (say what?) and to impose those beliefs on their
>>>> employees
>>>
>>> You're kiddin', right? Tell me that you're kiddin'...
>>
>> Hobby Lobby?  Tell me you're kiddin' about not hearing about that.
> 
> Huh? Hobby Lobby is obviously an American franchise (at least from what
> I've just looked up on the 'net), so why sould I, as a German, know
> anything about it?

Oh, right - I had you confused with someone who's here in the US.

So, yes, SCOTUS ruled a few weeks ago that Hobby Lobby could, as a 
corporate entity, hold a religious belief, and that they could then make 
business decisions based on that religious belief.  So, the corporation 
believes that abortion is murder, and that certain contraceptives cause 
abortions (even though they factually don't), and that the company could 
thus exclude coverage for those drugs from the company's health plans 
because what they believe those drugs do (again, they don't) violates the 
corporation's conscience.

As if corporations were living, breathing, thinking persons that could 
believe something and have a conscience.

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 28 Jul 2014 01:02:06 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> The point at which it's a problem for me is when someone's imposing
>> their beliefs on someone else.  I despise SCOTUS' recent decision
>> allowing a corporation to hold religious beliefs (say what?) and to
>> impose those beliefs on their employees (in the form of not allowing
>> their corporate- provided health care plan to cover certain forms of
>> contraception, because the 'corporation' believes - inaccurately, I
>> might add - that those drugs are 'sinful' because they cause abortions
>> (which they don't)).
> 
> For some reason there has been in recent years a very strong push in the
> US to advocate the notion that discrimination is ok as long as it's done
> for Christian reasons. (Not even religious. Christian.)

Yep.  My theory is that they're losing, and they know it - so they're 
fighting harder.  It's only a matter of time, but until they have finally 
"lost" (which generally means that they get treated like everyone else 
rather than being treated "specially"), we're going to have a lot of this 
kind of nonsense going on.

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

But.. We can't have a real national ID, because it would like.. let the 
government screw us even more, or like be the, "mark of the beast", or 
something. Sigh...

-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message

> In spite of actually having expired documentation with the correct name
> on it, neither state would issue her a correct driver's license.

We have similar things in the EU. Any driving license from one EU 
country is valid in another automatically without have to apply for a 
local one (unless it has expired). The problem is in the UK the license 
has your address printed on it. So when I moved to Germany I called the 
DVLA (the UK driving license office) and told them I needed to change 
the address on my driving license. "Oh no you can't put a non-UK address 
on it - don't you know anyone in the UK that can forward your mail to 
you, you can use their address." This kind of defeats the whole point of 
not having to apply for a new license.

Anyway I put my mum's address on there, but then when it came to renew 
it I followed the correct procedure of going to the local "Rathaus" in 
my town to apply for a German license. It turned out that nobody there 
knew how to deal with converting a UK license to a German one, they even 
suggested I needed to take a test! In the end I just got another UK one, 
which had the added advantage that I couldn't get any points on my 
license :-)

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Yep.  My theory is that they're losing, and they know it - so they're 
> fighting harder.  It's only a matter of time, but until they have finally 
> "lost" (which generally means that they get treated like everyone else 
> rather than being treated "specially"), we're going to have a lot of this 
> kind of nonsense going on.

I find it somewhat ironic that for those American Christians "losing"
means becoming a sensible free modern society with equal rights that
cares about the wellbeing of its citizens...

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

James Holsenback <nom### [at] nonecom> wrote:
> <rant>
> Got this email last week about a position I had applied for back in
> early May ... stated "Please contact me ASAP if you're still interested
> in this position". Evidently the person that was hired wasn't working
> out. Replied ... "Sure I'm still available and I would be glad to meet
> with you at your convenience". The next day as I was heading home from
> helping brother-in-law clean up two storm fallen trees, I get a call on
> my cell asking if I could come in right away for an interview. I
> indicated that I'd needed to get home first and get cleaned up. His
> response ... "We're very informal here so come on ahead". I thought how
> odd, but I was there within a half hour ... wait it get's stranger.
> Before I'd even finished introductions (hand shaking etc) he told me
> that he wasn't even going to bother with technical aspects of interview.
> He added that he was ex US Navy and had gone through the same
> electronics training that I had and that my credentials weren't going to
> be an issue. We swapped Navy stories for about 45 minutes, then started
> a tour of shop area ... then on the way back to the office he turned to
> me and ask what my religious beliefs were!!!! I thoughtfully offered
> that I hadn't been to church since I was a young man, however I did take
> a theology course in college to fulfill my humanities requirement.
> Things proceeded normally and as we parted he indicated that he needed
> some time to "pray on it" and that he would get back to me shortly. Two
> days after interview I sent follow up email thanking him for his time. A
> week after interview sent another email asking if there had been any
> movement on his opportunity, and got a reply indicating that he was
> swamped with quotes to new clients, and that he would get back to me by
> the end of the week ... this past Friday. Monday afternoon sent another
> email that went unanswered ... I think the handwriting is on the wall,
> that I won't be made an offer. Now you wonder that given what I've
> written so far, why would I want to work for such a person/company ...
> well I desperately need a job. Finally I'd like to add that it's my
> understanding that asking about my religious beliefs (among other
> things) is a no-no here in the US (don't know or care about elsewhere)
> and that if I wanted to be a prick about it I could make trouble. Fat
> chance of it going anywhere if I did stir it up, as it was just us two
> and it would eventually boil down to my word against his. Sad state of
> affairs ... don't you think?
> </rant>




This discussion already got pretty far, but really when it comes to job
applications and their results, no news is not necessarily bad news:

It took my current employer 3 months to select my application among the others
for an interview. I did finally get the job and have been there more than two
years.

So unless the guy reads this thread, he might still contact you, and nothing in
what you tell indicates that he will give that much importance to religious
beliefs as this discussion leads to believe. I hope everything turns out fine.

Post a reply to this message

On 28/07/2014 00:28, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> IMO That is what organised religion is all about. Keeping the masses in
>> >their place.
> Yep.
>
> Which is why my reaction these days to people who say they believe is
> generally one of surprise, especially people whom I consider to be
> intelligent.


I don't think that you can equate intelligence with "not believing". 
Believing has to do with Faith. And Faith is not something you can 
instil or teach. It is not logical you either have it or you don't and I 
for one don't.


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 28/07/2014 00:33, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 08:26:11 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>

>>
>> True. But that is how we are distracted.
>
> It happens.  Squirrel! ;)
>

You don't catch me like that again.


>> How childish and trivial for a supernatural being to put worship of them
>> self above everything else. (Gives you real confidence in the
>> afterlife.)
>
> Bingo. :)
>

Clickity click, sixty six.
One its own number six.

For a line. The number of the beast. 6-6-6
Step up sir and collect your Prize.
:-)

>>> I'd rather be a good person than waste my life worshiping something
>>> just to have a shot at beating Pascal's Wager.
>>>
>> Yes, I'll live by my conscience and let others play with those who have
>> nothing else to do but think about the number of angels that can dance
>> on the head of a needle.
>
> Yep.  As long as they're not affecting the lives of others around them in
> a negative way, I generally don't care.  The problem is that a lot of
> these nitwits *do* affect the lives of others around them in a negative
> way - like insisting that science classes "teach the controversy" of
> evolution vs. creationism - as if creationism is anything like science.
>

Where?

> Or that anyone other than nitwits like Ken Ham think that creationism
> *is* a valid theory of how the world works, especially young earth
> creationism.
>
> If they want to believe that, fine.  But when they're people who sit on
> the Texas Board of Education (which for reasons of scale ends up deciding
> what's in science textbooks across the United States), then I have a HUGE
> problem with them.
>

I've given up reading about it.
I sympathise but what can you do when you see militant fundamentalist 
"Christians" to the west and militant fundamentalist "Muslims" to the 
east. Even Buddhists are killing people.

>> On the other hand. The mythology opens up boundless opportunity for
>> stories.
>
> True, and mythology recognized as mythology is a pretty cool thing.  But
> I wouldn't dream of thinking that the Arthurian mythos are a basis for
> defining a morality.


How about the Druids and Wiccan? Religions made up in Victorian times, I 
think.

> They're pretty good, especially when retold by
> Monty Python (just came back from watching that in the cinema, in
> fact). :)
>

Bad memories that one for me. While listening to the album and "tuning 
in". A friend had a bad time. I had to talk them down for about six 
hours with insects crawling out of the walls. Bummer!
On the bright side. It wasn't me. :-)


>> Have you read any of Charles Stross's Laundry series?
>
> I haven't, but I think I might have to. :)
>

Where?

>> Where his protagonist is not the BOFH but the Sysop fighting the forces
>> from Hell. Quite funny and the Tech bits don't jar.
>
> *Definitely* have to check it out. :)
>

You do. If you go to his website http://www.antipope.org/
Fun name, what!
There is some free stuff there. His early Hard SF is recommended.

>>>> Bitter! Moi?
>>>
>>> Nah, I'm not seeing you being bitter *at all* about it. ;)
>>>
>>>
>> But I am Jim. I am.
>
> You are?  It's not really coming through. ;)
>

Good! I might get away with it for a few more years yet. ;-)


Where! Tell Me! Tell Me. Where?


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 29/07/2014 19:57, Stephen wrote:
> I've given up reading about it.

Having said that. I did see this.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-28539331


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message