Slashdot Mirror

The word acknowledges where the first one came from, not requires that every following one come the same way.

So, every time the Old Testament, either in the Hebrew original or in its Greek translation, and every time the New Testament in the Greek original, talk about someone's "breathing", they're being metaphorical, and actually meaning "this isn't really about breathing but we'll use the word anyway"?

Oh, cool. then murder is just "mischief" according to the Bible. Good to know.

That word is translated in other versions as "injury".

If you Google the passage you'll see there are interpretation that go with a reading that this passage means something akin to this: if an assailant hits the woman, and she gives birth to a premature but still living baby due to it, and the baby survives, then the assailant must pay a fine because of the premature child bearing he caused, otherwise it counts as "further injury" and the eye for an eye kicks in. That seems to me to be quite the forced interpretation, but yes, it's a possible reading if one absolutely doesn't want to go with the clearer one.

Uhhh, no. I'm old enough to know better.

There are controversies, or maybe two sides to that. You remember one. Here are the two takes, the one I referred to, and a disagreeing one.

OK, slightly longer version, since you don't seem to make a distinction between history and religious texts:

I've made quite clear distinctions between history versus scripture. For instance, I would use phrases like, "based on the scriptures".

The Bible is not historical fact: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... and neither is the Qu'ran

No shit. By the way, quite hilarious that you chose to link to Reza "I am a scholar" Aslan, the Muslim apologist. I prefer Carrier's, "Did Jesus Even Exist?"

Additionally, how people interpret these books depends, to a great extent, on the contexts in which they're interpreted.

No shit. But there's also plain reading. And we can look at history and influential texts to see how these works were being interpreted. You're doing a lot of tap dancing and not addressing anything I've actually written.

For example, you're interpreting the Bible in a (presumably) educated, stable, safe, democratic context

Except that's bullshit. I interpreted the Bible through plain reading. I also relied on history, including the earliest history when they were a peaceful cult that eventually was adopted by the Roman empire, as opposed to Islam, which conquered all of Arabia and then spread out from there.

Did you address the basic stories from the Gospels, or the Sermon on the Mount? No, you'd rather cherry pick from some shitty countries in Africa. Did you address my "Islam has bloody borders" link? No, you'd rather deflect to CIA torture, which has jack shit to do with the history of Islam from before that point, and has jack shit to do with Islamic insurgencies wherever there are a significant number of Muslims.

If you look into the conflicts, the contexts, the motivations, the reasoning, etc., more complex, nuanced, and subtle stories start to emerge.

Funny how there's one unifying theme: ISLAM. Funny how you never address the history of Islam, from it's earliest beginnings. Funny how you never address the scriptures. Funny how you never answer my questions, like why Christians are the ones being persecuted in Muslim lands, while Muslims seek out Christian lands.

It's all interpretation according to contexts and there's nothing intrinsically more violent or non-violent about either the Bible or the Qu'ran.

You're full of shit. All you do is equivocate, hem and haw, and crank up the smog machine, while ignoring large truths staring at you in the face. In other words, you are a useful idiot:

"The process of settlement is a 'Civilization-Jihadist Process' with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers..."

Don't you also think it's interesting that both the Youtube news stories I linked to, made by award-winning American journalists, were paid for by the Kremlin? What does that say about domestic US news media?

Actually, it says more about the Kremlin media and the kind of sources you seek out, in typical anti-Western, libshit fashion.

That all you ever hear about Muslims is that presumably all 1.8 billion of them are hell-bent on destroying the world?

Yawn, "not all Muslims". You're checking all the boxes, congrats. I never said all 1.8 billion act that way. Like any religion, a great majority have their own McReligion view, and only a tiny percentage are going to act in the most extreme manner.

Am I insane because I identify as a woman?

Ok, sorry, let me clarify this a bit. You are not "insane" — that's a loaded term anyway. But you do have a delusion:

a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary

(That "superior evidence", in this case, is your "biological sex".)

Either that, or, maybe, you have a lighter disorder of pseudologia fantastica.

I'm sorry, but I'm not buying into this subtle differences between "being" and "identifying as". For a man to "identify as" woman is just as (if not more!) delusional (or fraudulent) as for a White to identify as Black. Your "bilogical sex" makes you a man, by definition — which destines you to M-labeled bathrooms, whatever you are wearing.

it depends if you're talking about sex or gender

Nonsense. "Sex" and "gender" are interchangeable synonyms, the latter employed purely to avoid the erotic connotations of the former, when discussing things like grammar. Your attempts to differentiate between these terms may itself be symptomatic of the delusion.

Swaab and others have demonstrated sexual dimorphism in the brain

Any references to "scientific papers" can not, unfortunately, be given much credence — because of how sensitive a topic this is politically. For example, imagine that same "sexual dimorphism in the brain" argument used to justify the wage-disparity between sexes. Heck, you don't even need to imagine, just consider the fate of one L.H. Summers.

So, you are claiming, that some organs of your body disagree with others in identifying your sex (brain vs. genitalia)? Even if that were true, you are "fixing" the wrong organs... Which is, of course, your choice — just do not demand, the rest of society changes the language (and bathrooms) to accommodate it.

Hey look, David Attenborough.

Log in man. Collect your group-think kudos. Misanthropes have nothing to fear on Slashdot.

No. Our court system doesn't have the capacity to individually prosecute all the loan officers who systematically lied to people in order to induce them to assume levels of debt and then walked away from what they had done.

No. Our court system doesn't have the capacity to individually prosecute all the bankers who systematically sold securities they knew would crash to people in order to induce them and then walked away from what they had done.

No. Our court system doesn't have the capacity to individually prosecute all the coke snorting analysts and traders who cooked up a complicated system of CDO and derivatives and pretended to understand same, all the while demanding to be free from regulation and which later took the whole economy down , the only repercussion that they got bailed out, doubled down on their bonuses and walked away from what they had done.

No. Our court system doesn't have the capacity to individually prosecute all the degenerate economists and lobbyists whose "free market" deregulatory theories of non-reality paved the grounds for the entire meltdown but who took no responsibility and walked away from what they had done.

FTFY

Ayn Rand was a amphetamine addicted speed freak who was sexually aroused by stories of rapists, child molesters and murders.

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/08/02/ayn-rand%E2%80%99s-superman-a-serial-killer-and-rapist/

http://www.athenstalks.com/ayn-rands-role-model-her-new-society-child-rapist-and-murderer

And those who fo9llow her are more of the same- antisocial personality disorders dressing themselves up as "philosophers"

The contrary view to the attacks of Hitchens and others of Mother Teresa deserves ahearing, too.

First Things.

I realize I am spending too much of your time, but I forgot
to add more recommendations:

1. http://www.firstthings.com/ This is an ecumenical Christian magazine, written in a scholarly style. It is intellectually deep and otrhodox.

2. Articles by George Weigel. This man is a scholar, and an admirer of Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI. He wrote a biography of John Paul II. His writing is excellent. See http://ratzingerfanclub.com/justwar/#weigel
Be warned, though, that AFAICT he supported Iraq's War. See http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/03/just-war-and-iraq-wars-36 (I only read the first 12 paragraphs of it. It is huge)

And thank you very much for pointing the antagonism Thomas Woods x Caritas In Veritate. I put it on Google and found excellent reading material. I'll read it when I have time.

Regards

I realize I am spending too much of your time, but I forgot
to add more recommendations:

1. http://www.firstthings.com/ This is an ecumenical Christian magazine, written in a scholarly style. It is intellectually deep and otrhodox.

2. Articles by George Weigel. This man is a scholar, and an admirer of Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI. He wrote a biography of John Paul II. His writing is excellent. See http://ratzingerfanclub.com/justwar/#weigel
Be warned, though, that AFAICT he supported Iraq's War. See http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/03/just-war-and-iraq-wars-36 (I only read the first 12 paragraphs of it. It is huge)

And thank you very much for pointing the antagonism Thomas Woods x Caritas In Veritate. I put it on Google and found excellent reading material. I'll read it when I have time.

Regards

2nd reply on religion in general. Most people understand that Santa really exists, it takes a materialist idiot to think that there's only one form of existance.

If so, does that mean they are responsible for the content of the other 499 magazines + 20000 books in their store?

By the way, did any store ban The New Republic when they published a possibly pedophilic article 17 years ago? Or the National Review when they continued to publish what may be seen as racist articles into this decade? I don't know if they did, just wondering.

I did not claim conspiracy. I claimed that the WHO uses whether or not the government pays for healthcare as a significant factor in their rankings of a country's health care. That makes using the WHO ranking to argue for the U.S. government to pay for healthcare is circular reasoning. The problem with both of those charts you are using is that there are factors other than quality of healthcare that have a significant impact on those numbers.
On the other hand, the expected five year survival rate of someone diagnosed with a particular serious illness is mostly related to the quality of healthcare they are likely to receive. And in the U.S., that rate is among the top three for just about every serious illness (if not every, but I may have missed some). Here is a link on cancer survival rates: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2009/07/21/most-cancer-survival-rates-in-usa-better-than-europe-and-canada/

Sorry, but Sagan turned out to be, well, wrong:

Pope John Paul II - "Faith can never conflict with reason"
an interview with the gent who runs the Vatican Observatory
Why Catholics Like Einstein
A small peek into the whole controversy
a bit of insight

Everyone points at Galileo (quite a few centuries back) and screams, but turns a blind eye towards everything else that's been going on ever since.

There are several studies that show that cancer survival rates are higher in the U.S. and Canada. I have also seen similar numbers for other serious illnesses.
Considering that at this point most serious illnesses are the result of life style choices that people make, it is really unfair to judge the health care system on the basis of something that it is not under its purview.

That is interesting considering that while the life expectancy for Japan is higher than the life expectancy for the U.S., the life expectancy for Japanese Americans is higher than the life expectancy for Japan. So, I wonder if the same thing would hold true for this study? As I said, some time back I saw a review of the expected survival rate for someone diagnosed with a number of severe health issues, in the vast majority the U.S. ranks high. As an example, the survival rate for most cancers is higher in the U.S. than in Canada or Europe. This is a better measure of the health care system than mortality rates, because mortality rates vary by many factors and the U.S. is much less homogeneous in any of those factors than any of the other countries on the list you referenced.

There ya go making shit up

Capitalism would be just fine if not for our ridiculous "corporate personhood" doctrine, the result of a few corrupt assholes in black robes called the "Supreme Court" getting paid off at just the right time.

The end result is the corporatist government of the US today - laws written by the corporations, for the corporations, Fuck The People. Our two-party system hasn't helped much either, if you look at each party, it's not a question of one party being corporatist and the other not, it's just which corporations the party in question is a stooge of. Both parties are beholden to the MafiAA/"entertainment" types, which is why copyright law is so fucked up. Both parties are beholden to Big Oil - sure the Democraps talk a good game to keep their sierra club/PETA/ecoterrorist types on board, but at the end of the day, do you really think they're going to do something that seriously causes trouble for the big oil corporations? I doubt it.

Illegal immigration? The Democraps are sure that the illegal immigrants are going to become their new core voting block, just like the blacks they've kept uneducated in ghettos for the past 40 years are today. The Rethuglicans, or at least most of their higher ranking members, salivate at illegal immigration as a way to keep wages down and prevent the middle class from growing. And if someone from either side happens to talk about illegal immigration sanely, well, watch what happens to them - just look what happened to Lou Dobbs getting bounced from CNN when they went on their "Mexico Uber Alles" kick, or the fact that Duncan Hunter got basically held off camera in the Rethuglican debates.

Take a look at the Obama campaign - especially when they deliberately cut off every bit of default identity detection on donations in order to deliberately enable donation fraud and refused to fix their deliberately broken process. Wonder where all that money was coming from, and what "interests" it supported? I don't.

No amount of talk will prove you're cancer is covered by your insurance company. Up here, I'd just get treated and hope to live.

That, quite frankly, is a stupid thing to say, and disappointing given that until now you seemed like you were actually trying to have a considerate discussion? Believe or not, (fight your indoctrination?) most Americans do NOT get dumped by their insurance if they get sick. In my little statistically insignificant life, I've never heard of anyone I've met, family members, etc being dumped. And I've known plenty of family members and others who have had cancer, Hodgkins, etc.

You're right that in Canada--just like in the US--you'd get treated for cancer and hope to live. Might have a slightly higher chance of making it if you were living down south ;)

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2009/07/21/most-cancer-survival-rates-in-usa-better-than-europe-and-canada/

(If you don't like the blogs POV, google it, there are many studies)

We can put Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings on the job, he should have great insight from handing out fisting kits to 14year olds , and tackling the important issues like weather minors should spit or swallow! or parents could do something radical like be a parent and monitor what their kids do.

Yeah, I mean what if a doctor gets busy? It is not like if a doctor does not washes their hands between patients that nothing bad will come of it.

And everyone knows that a hospital worker getting sick is so much more important than the patient, especially those people who may have a weaken immune system because they are already sick.

Try taking ethics. If we followed your slippery slope logic we'd start killing people when they hit retirement age. After all, they'll never again go back to work and 'pay back' their value after they start collecting social security. Same for the mentally retarded, just drown them right?

You say that like we're supposed to think "oh no, that could never happen", but have you seen Denmark recently? They don't just go out and kill people explicitly, sure; you make it a social thing. Guilt them into it. Or, wait until they're sick and miserable and provide no meaningful outlets for palliative care. There's lots of ways you can do it. And the retarded?

When I phoned Amsterdam's Academic Medical Center, a spokeswoman told me that she approved of involuntary euthanasia for disabled infants: "It is the same in all the hospitals in the world; we are just more open about it." Most hospitals try heroically to save disabled children, but the contrary view seems to be widely held among the Dutch.

--The Dutch Way of Death, The Wall Street Journal

Oh, after that, they say that condoms are allowed in marriages with one of the partners having HIV.

Of course, the Church has said nothing of the sort. There are some bishops who argue that way, but that is not what constitutes the Church's decision. Like it or not, condoms are not approved of by the Catholic Church in any situation.

More to the point, the Pope's statement that in Africa condoms may make the HIV epidemic worse seems to be supported by evidence. This is reality, not an ideal "what if" scenario.

Read here:

http://www.firstthings.com/

OK, whatever. I'm happy to oblige.

Here's what the Zoroastrians have to say on the subject (I've always liked that religion too): (if you don't want to read all of it the cliff notes is that they think it's bad)

The Vendidad is the "Book of Laws" for the Zoroastrian Faith. Here is what it says about abortion:

        "9. If a man come near unto a damsel, either dependent on the chief of the family or not dependent, either delivered [married] or not delivered, and she conceives by him, let her not, being ashamed [of her adultery or fornication] of the people, produce in herself the menses, against the course of nature, by means of water and plants.
        10. And if the damsel, being ashamed of the people, shall produce in herself the menses against the course of nature, by means of water or plants, it is a fresh sin as heavy [as her adultery].
        11. If a man come near unto a damsel, either dependent on the chief of the family or not dependent, either delivered [married] or not delivered, and she conceives by him, let her not, being ashamed of the people [fearing the people will think her shameful], destroy the fruit in her womb.
        12. And if the damsel, being ashamed of the people, shall destroy the fruit in her womb, the sin is on both the father and herself; the murder is on the the father and herself; both the father [of the child] and herself shall pay the penalty for wilful murder.
        13."If a man comes near unto a damsel, either dependent on the chief of the family or not dependent, either delivered or not delivered, and she conceives by him, and she says, 'I have conceived by thee;' and he replies, 'Go then to the old woman and apply to her for one of her drugs, tha she may procure thee miscarriage;'
        14. "And the damsel goes to the old woman and applies to her for one of her drugs, that she may procure miscarriage; and the old woman brings her some Banga, or Shaeta, a drug that kills in the womb or once that expels out of the womb, or some other of the drugs that produce miscarriage and says, 'Cause thy fruit to perish!" and she causes her fruit to perish; the sin is on the head of all three: the man, the damsel, and the old woman." (Vendidad, Fargard 15: 2a:9-12, 2b:13-14)
http://www.angelfire.com/mo/baha/zoroastrianism.ht ml

The Shinoists seems to have a weird acceptance of abortion. They apparently accept that abortions will be done, but then apologize to the aborted in special shrines: http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9610/desmond .html Go figure.

-stormin

This would be a more accurate assesment of what the Vatican does and doesn't say about evolution.

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0601/article s/schonborn.html

The problem is really that most people don't really understand what ID is. When it comes to the issue of the origin of life, it is very difficult for people to remove their emotions from their rational process. Those that don't believe in God will look at intellegent design as something that they already know to be false and those that DO believe in God will look at Neo-Darwinism as something THEY know to be false. Thus it happens that neither can understand the other side's argument.

It is important to understand that ID and the theory of Evolution do not disagree per se. It is ID and Neo-Darwinism that disagree. There are two important issues to be looked at when attempting to discover the origin of life:

(1) the specifics of how life evolved from a scientific point of view, ie natural selection etc.
(2) The "big picture" of how the planet is full of human beings now where it was once only a molten planet.

When it comes to the first issue, ID does not disagree with Neo-Darwinism. Natural selection is not disputed. The fact that there are mutations that often result in new speicies is not disputed. These are the scientific phenomena that were the steps taken to get us to where we are now.

It is the second point where Neo-Dawinists and Intellegent Design proponents disagree. Neo-Darwinists think that the mainspring of evolution is natural selection acting on random genetic variation. In otherwords, it was an unplanned, unguided and random process.

Intellegent design simply states that the state of life on Earth is far to complex to be attributed to a random process. The fact that life has evolved to its current state and is flourishing is a statistical anomoly. Intellegent design states that the complexity of existence cannot be explained by simple chance, and that there must be a "prime mover" that is guiding the processes of evolution and natural selection.

The fact is, the second issue (which is the most commonly debated it seems here on slashdot) is more philisophical than scientific. For those that really want to understand the other side (I know that many cannot, for their bigotry overwhelms their intellectual hunger) I would suggest that you read this article. It is a treatise written by a prominent Christian thinker about the origin of life.

Many of you may have guessed by this point that I agree with ID. However, please do not mistake my intent. I am not trying to CONVINCE anyone of anything. I merely want people to be CLEAR on what ID really is. It is important when discussing such a charged topic as the origin of life for there to be clarity as to what each side REALLY believes.

In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points.

The question is not whether the freshly-fertilised egg is 'alive', but whether it can be considered human. For example, St. Thomas Aquinas* considered an unborn boy to have a soul at 40 days, and an unborn girl to have one at 80; before those times, he saw the foetus to be non-human. At what point to we declare the bundle of multiplying cells to be human, and at what point are they afforded the same rights? I doubt these new findings will bring much insight to this rather contentious question.

Actually, Aquinas doesn't say when thinks that this happens. The discussion is part of Whether the intellectual soul is produced from the semen? . In particular, see the 'Reply to Objection 2'.

As I understand it, Aquinas's argument here is that the intellectual soul -- because it subsists in itself and is essentially independent of the form of the body -- can only be created by God, so it cannot be transmitted directly by a man's semen (nor by the "foetal matter" thought to be provided by the woman). But, he says, there must be some preexisting form which the intellectual soul replaces, and this is the sensitive soul which is bound wholly to the world. The intellectual soul supersedes the sensitive soul, having not only all the good parts of the sensitive soul, but also the capacity for rational thought and an inclination toward God.

Anyway, it seems to me that from this argument, it could happen at 40 days, or it could well happen at 40 nanoseconds.

In any case, Aquinas does not anywhere claim that there is any difference regarding the souls of male and female embryos. There is more on that in this article (from a rather conservative religious magazine).

As far as I can tell, people in medieval times knew that they were pretty ignorant of embryology. We have learned quite a lot since then, but like you say, it really doesn't bring that much insight to certain moral questions.

"That was sneaky"

Did they do it in secret? If not, how is it sneaky?

"underhanded"

In what way? I think it's underhanded for biologists to make metaphysical pronouncements as if they were observable facts.

"dishonest"

Again, in what way? Biology textbooks often present the unobserved past on equal footing with observable, experimental science. THAT is pushing on dishonest.

Perhaps you don't understand what the issue is that is being discussed. Here is a good introduction to it:

The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism

"to cause any reasonable man to even consider the prospect magic (aka teleology) has anything to do with biology."

Why is this? Do you reject teleology as a cause totally? If so, then that is what we should be debating, because it comes long before this. If material causes are the only causes, rationality ceases to exist.

If we don't exclude non-material causes a priori, then there is no reason to exclude them a priori. Is there any reason to include them? I think its fairly obvious. First of all, nearly every biological textbook starts off with something like "biology is the study of beings that _appear_ designed, but are not". If they appear designed to everyone who is looking at them, then shouldn't the burden of proof lie on the person who says that there is no design to them at all?

Examined more specifically, lets take DNA. Do we know of any other symbolic codal system that arises spontaneously, complete with message-copying, translation mechanism, reading/performing mechanisms, editting mechanisms, and the like? Any at all? No we do not. The only symbolic codal systems we have ever seen besides biology are those designed by an intelligence. Again, it is the burden of the biologist to prove that this instance of a symbolic codal system is the product of natural forces, given our current knowledge of such, not the other way around.

If we landed on mars, and found a functioning computer complete with hardware, software, some type of new kind of drives, etc., would we assume that the computer was not built through a designed mechanism? Would that even be rational? No, rather, the burden of proof would be on those that think that the computer was merely part of the landscape to prove how it could have arisen.

"But reasonable men are in the minority thanks to poor public education and the fact that your average idiot believes what he wants to believe rather than what the scientific evidence supports."

Please tell me how the scientific evidence "supports" the idea that a codal system arose from nothing. Is there experimental evidence for this? Or is it just based on the materialistic assumptions -- everything must have only material causes, and so therefore so must this.

In that case, it's simply a case of differing assumptions and not necessarily poor education.

"Beleif in creationism and ID is a sign of under education and a inability to think rationally."

Actualy, it's the product of having a different set of assumptions than philosophic materialism.

"but I presume you mean the brand who is right, as opposed to the ID nuts"

I was actually separating out Darwinists from the natural genetic engineering crowd, which includes ID'ers but also includes people like Shapiro, who is a self-organizational theorist.

"My remark with respect to chance is that, for theoretical purposes, one abstracts chaotic (but largely deterministic) input as chance."

And rightly so. The key point is unguided/purposeless. The question primarily orients around whether purpose is usable with science, and, if not, if science is capable of accurate historical reconstruction without it.

Freedom and Decency -- Here's a sentence pulled from the middle.

Is good art suppressed more by rules of public decency (even when applied with a heavy hand) or by the barbarism of a culture whose sensibilities have become so debauched by constant exposure to the scabrous and the vile as to have become incapable of any discrimination, or of any due appreciation of subtlety or craft?

To date there is no evidence that cells generated from embryonic stem cells can be safely transplanted back into adult animals to restore the function of damaged or diseased adult tissues. The level of scientific rigor that is normally applied (indeed, legally required) in the development of potential medical treatments would have to be entirely ignored for experiments with human embryos to proceed. As our largely disappointing experience with gene therapy should remind us, many highly vaunted scientific techniques frequently fail to yield the promised results.

So why does embryonic stem cell research -- unproven, dangerous, morally questionable and possibly unworkable -- get so much press? Adult stem cell research gets far less coverage, which is why old news like this sounds like big stuff. Instead the medical equivalent of cold fusion continues to hog the limelight.

Sounds like the Head from C.S. Lewis's That Hideous Strength...

Here is an article pondering the question, "Why Not Immortality?"
--

"The even more important truth is that even if it is disproved or superceded by another theory, creationism will still be wrong."

What? How could you possibly know this? You are stating a religious belief, not a scientific belief. Any real scientific theory is falsifiable, yet you have said in essence that evolution as a whole _cannot_ be disproved.

That's as absurd as saying, "The even more important truth is that even if the phlogiston theory of heat is disproved or superceded by another theory, the caloric theory will still be wrong."

The fact is the some -- not all -- of evolution theory is, as Philip Johnson puts it "basically materialistic philosophy disguised as scientific fact." This quote is from http://www.firstthings.com/ ftissues/ft9711/johnson.html.

Roy Koczela and his Caltech fellows deserve credit for finding a hack to solve the problem of co-ed bathrooms... [emphasis mine]

If a theologian can understand that part of the language, why the [deleted] can't a journalist?

Roy Koczela and his Caltech fellows deserve credit for finding a hack to solve the problem of co-ed bathrooms... [emphasis mine]

If a theologian can understand that part of the language, why the [deleted] can't a journalist?