 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] nospam com> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
