Slashdot Mirror
Anti-Education Attack Poisons 150 Afghan Schoolgirls
An anonymous reader writes "The water at a high school in Afghanistan was contaminated today, poisoning roughly 150 girls in attendance. Afghan officials say this was a deliberate attack: 'We are 100 percent sure that the water they drunk inside their classes was poisoned. This is either the work of those who are against girls' education or irresponsible armed individuals.' From the article: 'Some of the 150 girls, who suffered from headaches and vomiting, were in critical condition, while others were able to go home after treatment in hospital, the officials said. They said they knew the water had been poisoned because a larger tank used to fill the affected water jugs was not contaminated. ... None of the officials blamed any particular group for the attack, fearing retribution from anyone named.'"
is what happens when you coddle and religious groups extreme behavior and the myth that they have a right to tell governments what to do.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Even the Christian Taliban that control the Republican party wouldn't do something this sleazy.
They usually stop at stealing elections and constantly lying about everything.
Must be something about Islam...
The comment is absolutely on the mark.
suffered from headaches and vomiting, were in critical condition, while others were able to go home after treatment in hospital, the officials said
Poisoned with what... Can't help but wonder WRT my past life doing chemistry. That's a kind of peculiar combination. Individually nothing unusual WRT to poisoning, but the precise set of 1) headaches 2) vomiting 3) able to go home almost immediately aka insta-antidote is kind of odd/unusual.. I can think of plenty of things causing 1 of 3, a couple causing 2 of 3, nothing causing 3 of 3.
Aside from that, its an excellent example of why multiculturalism should not exist. My daughter gains nothing by the existence of that culture. Let american consumerism steamroll it out of existence, no substantial loss.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
The story makes me absolutely sick and reinforces my easy evaluation system for world religions: How they treat their women is in direct proportion to the value the religion brings to all societies of the world. That said, I fail to see how this relates to technology.
If the message is that women shouldn't go to school, then maybe they learned something at school. But wait... someone just taught those girls something! Kill the offenders!!!!!
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
None of the officials blamed any particular group for the attack, fearing retribution from anyone named.'"
Bad guys do bad things and people are afraid to even name them for doing the said bad things... I think the bad guys might be winning.
Religion of Peace. We should be tolerant of their views.
Show me in the Koran where it prohibits educating girls?
It's a cultural thing. Traditional (read patriarcal) societies that treat women as second class citiczens or as property all do horrible things like this.
And it's not right at all. Any culture that values males more than females is a backwards culture. In varying degrees, India, China, Japan, the Arab nations, Persians, most of the African countries, you names them - all backwards cultures. And most of them are paying a very heavy price for it. And in just about all cases, religion is used as an excuse for their deplorable behavior - it's not the cause.
There were many, many opportunities during the 20th Century to deliver sorely needed aid to Afghanistan, and put some money into helping the country modernize and industrialize. Under Western Cold War Political Doctrine, however, that simply wasn't seen as being "necessary" or a "priority". So after the Soviets were defeated in Afghanistan by the Western-armed Afghan Mujahedeen, Afghanistan was left to its own devices (= the country was left to rot in abject poverty). With the bone-crunching poverty, and political-abandonment by the Developed World came support for the Taliban. With the Taliban came a particularly hateful, denigrating view of women (women should cover at all times, girls should not go to school, girls should be married to older men by arranged-marriage). ----- Here we are many decades later, wondering why Afghanistan is an underdeveloped s__thole of place, where someone can so pissed at girls being educated, that he poisons their drinking water. Afghanistan should have been helped decades ago. The West, at the time, was too cheap to commit money to such a project. And now we have a genuinely "failed state" to deal with. "You reap what you sow", as they say.
Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
Because we all know no one ever killed anyone in the name of Christianity. How is this any different than blaming any religion on the acts of some of its members?
In Star Trek, the Federation had a rule that they did not interfere with primitive societies regardless of how "barbaric" the primitive societies were. Perhaps the world needs to have a prime detective as well. Leave the Afghans to their own devices. Let the Taliban rule. So, may be their women will not get educated and have a hard life because of the unfortunate circumstance of their birth there. If those are such bad things, eventually, they themselves will bring about a cultural change from within. Yes, they will get stoned for being unfaithful but, at least, the young girls won't get poisoned or have acid thrown in their face for merely going to school.
Remember that crap like this is carried out by a fundamentalist extremists. Don't start a witch-hunt on religion just because the wack-jobs killing people claim to be religious.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Ah, so Republicans' desire to outlaw birth control is cultural, not religious. Poor backward Republicans.
Religion of Peace. We should be tolerant of their views.
Show me in the Koran where it prohibits educating girls?
It's a cultural thing. Traditional (read patriarcal) societies that treat women as second class citiczens or as property all do horrible things like this.
And it's not right at all. Any culture that values males more than females is a backwards culture. In varying degrees, India, China, Japan, the Arab nations, Persians, most of the African countries, you names them - all backwards cultures. And most of them are paying a very heavy price for it. And in just about all cases, religion is used as an excuse for their deplorable behavior - it's not the cause.
A distinction without a difference.
Show me in the Koran where it prohibits educating girls?
By their deeds you shall know them.
Where was religion mentioned anywhere in the article or summary?
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
Us westerners and our silly misunderstanding of the "religion of peace"tm.
Unless abortion is birth control, you're just making shit up. Move along.
Religion is a mental disease.
Mostly harmless.
I can just see the right wing Christian types here in the US lining up behind this and parlaying it into another 10-year stint in Afghanistan.
Hopefully this kind of thinking will die off with the Cold War generation, you know. "keeping the world safe for democracy." But for now, I guarantee this is going to be picked up by the conservatives as a "See? I told you so!" example. The reality is that we have nothing to say about whether they should educate women or not -- let other countries figure out their own affairs themselves and maybe the level of terrorism will drop accordingly.
I was just watching a talk by NDT on "Intelligent Design". In that, he made an excellent observation about how, for a 300 year period, the Arab world was the center of intellectual progress in the world. 2/3 of all stars with names have Arabic names. They discovered 0, they gave us algebra.
Then... a new religious philosophy arose that taught that mathematics was the work of the Devil. This wasn't Mohamed.... it wasn't there in the beginings of Islam. For many years, these problems didn't exist.
The sobering thought there is... as he points out.... this period of advancement ended with the rise of this anti-scientific ideology. Just think, there are a Billion Muslims, and only a handful of Muslim/Arab nobel prize winners. If they hadn't ended their period of advancement hundreds of years before Europe became the new center of intellectual progress... where would we be today? How much raw talent just went totally unused because of these ideologies.
Honestly.... I have little doubt that there would be people posting comments from Lunar or martian colonies by now if not for this terrible ideology.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
I agree, I heard that in India, a man set his wife on fire for THINKING she was having an affair, and he got off with a slap on the wrist, even though she may or may not have been cheating, as he had no real proof.
I hate any cheater, but come on....that is just sick!
Well, we should all fear retribution from a group that poisons schoolgirls. They must be a terrifying bunch!
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
Does anyone know why they're doing this? Do they think these schools are teaching girls to reject Islam and embrace Satan, or something? Citations?
Finding God in a Dog
Unless abortion is birth control, you're just making shit up. Move along.
Do a quick Google search.
The bible may be just as bad (especially in the early bits) but the quran "god" awfull. It is quite explicit that at least in the case of courts of law and of inheritance a woman is worth half of a man, and that the lot of women is to obey their husbands on account of their inferiority, if their husband does badly they will get sent to hell with them but if they do badly so long as he is good... etc
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/women/long.html
The anti education stuff is not taken directly from the quran but there is no way you can say it does not encourage such behaviour, indeed if you think that education makes women think that they are as good as men then the quran does in fact justify this.
...they're afraid to accuse people whom they think poisoned over a hundred schoolgirls, for fear that they'll tick the criminals off (and have trouble as a result). Sure, angering terrorists (or whatever they're calling these scoundrels--if anything) is likely to provoke them to try other acts of terrorism. What are you going to do, though, let them get away with it? I can't see how that won't encourage further acts of terror just as thoroughly (if not necessarily as quickly).
Side note: yes, Afghanistan is strongly Muslim, and yes there are some extremists who utterly pervert and abuse that faith; but unless there's some mention in TFA about religious motivations, let's please not jump to inflammatory conclusions about this being faith-motivated. In point of fact, this sort of thing has happened here in the USA, as recently as in the 20th century, so let's not throw stones based on our dominant religions (including atheism and agnosticism--which are, of course beliefs about God, if only by denial and uncertainty) being somehow superior to theirs. Horrible people exist in all countries, and infest all religions, as you should all well know.
I hate any cheater, but come on....that is just sick!
Why would you hate someone for doing something that doesn't affect you, for reasons you have no idea of?
If Pakistan and Afghanistan want their Islamic paradise, let them have it.
It's a conservative thing. Conservatives everywhere attack education. Whether it's literacy for women in Afghanistan, or sex ed and evolution in the United States, conservatives are anti-education.
Why are conservatives anti-education? Because their beliefs cannot be supported by facts, and so the more factual ideas you teach, the less conservative your people will be. There is a positive correlation between education and liberalism for a reason.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
It was mentioned towards the end of the article. But if it weren't mentioned, it would have been an oversight. Bad reporting doesn't nullify the GP's point.
Start throwing the nutters in prison instead of "fearing retribution from anyone named" and maybe we will hold off on the witch hunt.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
At least make an effort.
Are there no cell phones there? Can't someone start an anonymous tip line? If this happened in the US we'd have detectives so far up everybody's ass that the ACLU would be foaming at the mouth.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
You're doing it wrong cloth heads!
To see an example of how an education system can effectively be destroyed, for every gender, you guys need look no further than "radical conservative extremists" in the UK. We call them "the tory party".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovHWulL3Ydw
That would make any contragestive birth control, such as an IUD, illegal.
Culture and Religion are very intertwined.
The Catholic Church while a Unified church, operate rather differently cross different cultures. Even with them following the same rules, the importance of the rules they follow are prioritized differently.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Republicans just don't want to have to pay for someone else's birth control, you troll. Google will bring up your lie as well as thousands of others, but that in no way makes it true. Republicans disagree with the recent change in Federal policy that will cause increases in health insurance costs to pay for 'free' birth control. How about the women, and the men involved in the benefits of the birth control pay for it instead of adding an even greater penalty to the working people out there that aren't getting any from that particular relationship? But NO... You want to spin this into Republican's wanting to outlaw birth control for religious reasons. It's a lie... It's crap. If you can't win on your ideas, if you can't sell it, you do this shit. THIS is why there is such a great divide in America today. YOU are why there is such a great divide in America today.
Republican's don't want to outlaw birth control. They just don't think the government should pay for it.
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Is this like the segregated drinking fountains of not-so-long-ago blacks vs whites America?
How was just _girls'_ water poisoned?
Perhaps off topic for this comment, "News for nerds, stuff that matters." Lessee.. afghan, nope. Technology, nope. Scientific, nope. News.. sorta, like Digg, or maybe CNN. Cowardice (not naming anyone). Nerds. Well.. school.. schoolgirls.. ok, maybe nerds. Sorta. Did I take a wrong turn to Digg somewhere?
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2012/04/2012417142921275408.html
[...]The alleged poisoning on Tuesday is being blamed on hardline conservatives who oppose female education.
Since the 2001 toppling of the Taliban, which banned education for women and girls, females have returned to schools, especially in Kabul.[...]
Taliban are just another brand of conservatives who abuse religion to manipulate people.
[...]In the past acid has been thrown in the faces of women and girls by hardline Muslims while walking to school.[...]
I think religion is a mental disease. Just listen to the shit hardline Christians say.
Why? Its a fucking health service. Why should birth control be special from antibiotics when it comes to healthcare. Its a religious objection, flat out.
Good-bye
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comstock_laws#Contraception
Funny, they made it illegal once before for religious reasons. Why should we expect them not to try it again?
They got zero from India, and the Babylonians had a placeholder for it back before 1000 B.C.
The problem is that we have a religious culture that encourages extremely high levels of obedience, faithfulness and passion. And this is not necessarily going to cause problems, but....
But it's unstable, like a dictatorship. Your first dictator might be a fine Wise Benevolent Leader, and everybody's happy. But then his son takes over, and he's maybe something more on the Cackling Lunatic Leader side of thing. You're trapped in a system that doesn't regulate itself. As long as you're shackled to the ideologies attached to a name, rather than the rationale behind the ideologies themselves, something horrible can go wrong.
And it has.
Would you like a slice of toast?
By this line of reasoning, we need 2 more bills before Congress:
1 - Doctors and hospitals are absolved of blame in refusing to tread non-paying patients, and are permitted to eject them.
2 - We need a public health organization to collect and cremate uncollected bodies found on public property, or upon request uncollected bodies found on private property. This is of course subject to finding that the death was natural and not the result of foul play. This is necessary to safeguard the water supply, and because trained personnel are required to safely handle such bodies.
EITHER !!!
You are going to be compassionate about medical care, in which case you'd better be as efficient about it as possible. In which case paying for birth control is a heck of a lot cheaper than paying for emergency childbirth care.
OR !!!
You have to adopt the, "Go away and die," model. There is very little in-between. Health care as practiced in the US today is one of the lease efficient ways to run it. There is effectively universal emergency care, but no universal preventive care. That pretty much guarantees that some portion of the population will require expensive medical care.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
I 1000% agree with you. Its not necessarily Republican-ism, but or fiscal conservatism, or gun rights, etc, etc. You can be a rocket scientist and a fiscal conservative - those things are all matters of opinion. You can argue over the virtues of owning hand guns or not or the merits of a charity based approach to welfare versus government-financed. Its all well and good; one can agree to disagree. Education, on the other hand, is all based on fact. Religious people who are not open minded to the fact that other people have different beliefs cannot cope with the idea that science is fact based. Education teaches children to think for themselves and make their own decisions, which is deadly to a faith-based ideological system. Sure, any one can choose to be a Muslim or a Christian or a Buddhist once they are educated in these religions and agree with the teachings - but the vast majority of logical people would not when confronted with ALL the evidence. this is the problem. To keep forcing your faith on other people, they must remain ignorant or you cannot control them.
Pretty sure they're generally disinclined to pay for health services, too.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Sarcasm detected. Yes, Republicans are a cultural movement, not religious. They cater to both moral and fiscal conservatives despite obvious inconsistencies, such as Jesus helping the poor and budget cutting anything that helps poor people.
They use religion to back up their opinions where it is supported, and any other useful tidbit when it doesn't. Do you think Jesus would have supported the NRA? Cutting school budgets to get the latest F-35 bombers that the military doesn't even want?
Yes, it is cultural, yes religion is used as an excuse. Same as Taliban extremists - they have their views, including outlawing education for women for a few years, and they use religion to back it up.
Many Christian groups treat women as second class citizens because they are to remain silent in church, and obey their husbands. Most Christians understand that contextually, but a few take it literally and frequently out of context. Every culture, every religion has people who do this, and it is not tied to the religion. It is an interpretation used as a convenient excuse to impose what some people believe on others.
Well, the middle east is going through it's own version of the Dark Ages, nothing more nothing less.
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
Religion is a mental disease.
Mostly harmless.
The ones that are "harmless" are just carriers, who spread the infection to others who are harmful because of it. Just like Polio, the only way to stop the harm is to completely stomp out the disease. Sadly, the infection is currently spreading, and reaching more and more places where it causes harm.
You put the LSD in the water, and then you start playing techno. Absence of female companionship problem: solved.
Protip: Religious beliefs and the book those same people allegedly follow aren't hand in hand.
While the Koran may not say you can't educate women,. it's irrelevant. People are saying they should be taught because there religious belief says so.
That said, th Quran does say women are only have as smart as men, so it probably stems from their. Just my guess.
Mysagonie is through out the quran.
" it's not the cause.
um, it some cases, yes it is; especially in a "holy" book the says women ar worth less then a man, and them beating them is the proper way to treat them.
Nothing scare religion more then teaching children to reason; especially if it's their goal to subjugate half of them.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
birth control is ridiculously cheaper than health insurance costs for a kid, so your argument doesn't *actually* work. It only sounds good If you actually wanted to save money, you'd support it. It's simply you trying to force moral values on someone else OR you're just brainwashed by those who want to impose their moral values on someone OR you're dumb. Let me know which you choose. also, birth control is officially allowed to treat other issues, yet the block stops it from being used for other hormonal issues simply because it can be used as birth control as well.
All superstition is bad because all superstition is based on lies. Any good it does is by accident.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
In the 40's and 50s there was a rise in religious extremest. The toleration of the extremest is how they got power and made laws and are trying to revert to the 'good ole' days that never where.
With a rise of religious extremism in the US, America should take some lessons from what happened in the mid east in the last 60 years.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Let these girls and their families (and other females who are attacked for wanting an education) have asylum in the USA or other country where girls don't get killed for wanting an education.
I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.
religious Conservatives .
While the current republican party has join social/religious/ and economic conservatism into some sort of sick and twisted evil, we shouldn't forget that you can be economic conservative and social moderate.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
It has taken a very long time for some Klan associated murderers to come to trail. Yet the Klan has been on the losing side even from its inception.
Quick question... Which do you think costs more in the long run? Government covering costs of birth control to help reduce unwanted pregnancies, the cost to government and society that result from unwanted parenthood? These unwanted children will incur additional costs in welfare, education, and (statistically speaking) increases in crime.
A party complaining about "welfare mothers" doesn't have a lot of room to complain about making birth control more accessible.
"fuck you, you dirty rat bastards" in Pashto?
as opposed to the most forward European/white cultures? Where they used to lynch and burn black/coloreds (well, actively discriminate even now) til about a few years ago?
So instead of paying $10 in public money for an abortion pill they want to pay $thousands in public money later to educate and treat the resulting child?
"Not even religious fanatics are stupid enough to think this helps their cause."
Who are you to speak for them?
Also, they are winning.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
I certainly don't have the right to tell government what to do. Of course, I'm willing to admit it.
If the people had the right to control government, then logically, government wouldn't have the right to control the people.
Put another way, if government was voluntary, then government wouldn't need guns (a tool of coercion, not voluntary association).
Put yet another way, if government was created voluntarily by the subjects of government, then there would be no need for taxes. The exact amount of revenue government needs to represent the people's exact wishes would already be there, to the cent.
Coercive power only works one way. One-sidedness is the essence of coercion. Government, whether you like it or not, *is* coercion.
Correct: An Arabic scholar translated Indian math and taught the Europeans.
Republicans just don't want to have to pay for someone else's birth control, you troll.
And meanwhile, Republican retards also don't want to support programs to house, feed, clothe, and educate the number of children necessarily created by outlawing birth control. And when challenged on this point, bring up the whole "keep an aspirin between your knees you filthy whore" bullshit while congratulating their silver-spoon-fed trust fund brat sons' behavior.
Google will bring up your lie as well as thousands of others, but that in no way makes it true.
O RLY?
Republicans disagree with the recent change in Federal policy that will cause increases in health insurance costs to pay for 'free' birth control. How about the women, and the men involved in the benefits of the birth control pay for it instead of adding an even greater penalty to the working people out there that aren't getting any from that particular relationship?
See above. Perhaps there is a disparate impact on women in this whole debate, perhaps it is cheaper for society to support free birth control than all the tons of social support and funding to raise unwanted kids and deal with the resulting crime from poorly-raised adolescents? Of course, no Republican has enough functional brain cells to think that far ahead, so we can understand why they might fail to address that calculation entirely.
But NO... You want to spin this into Republican's wanting to outlaw birth control for religious reasons. It's a lie... It's crap. If you can't win on your ideas, if you can't sell it, you do this shit. THIS is why there is such a great divide in America today. YOU are why there is such a great divide in America today.
I call your lie for two reasons:
1. Republicans are retards with a brain defect that causes them to have poor present-future prediction skills; they share this form of defect with the majority of children under approximately 8 years of age, gambling addicts, those under the influence of certain illegal drugs, a large portion of the population currently incarcerated for petty crimes, and the extreme religious fringe who try to replace known and solidly considered consequences with the mythological, make-believe parental figure saying "do it... do it and I'll fucking spank you."
2. Republicans align solidly with the religious right wing, who have long been known as misogynist and are the category of individual that responds most favorably to calling single mothers "sluts" and insisting that women who engage in sex for pleasure outside of marriage are "whores" or otherwise to be degraded, while simultaneously having no such issue towards men who sleep around.
Republican's don't want to outlaw birth control. They just don't think the government should pay for it.
Single Payer Health Care didn't make it in the US. ObamaCare is a market solution, with private insurers. Republicans are trying to prevent people from getting birth control in the private market. Government paying for it would enter into it if the Republicans were in England. Try again. I suggest using the "religious freedom" argument to suggest that employers have ever been the freedom to inflict their religious views on their employees against their will in a way that causes measurable harm. It's good for a chuckle at least.
Those were Islamic polymaths, not Arab polymaths. Most of them were Persian.
I think the basic idea is to hold the parents and children responsible for themselves. You know, keep the gov't out of it. It is telling that the first two options that you think of both involve taxpayer money. Those people can do what they want but I don't want to pay for it. Of course I don't mind sharing the shared costs of civilization. I just disagree with the concept that free, non-emergency medicine is a requirement for civilization.
our dominant religions (including atheism and agnosticism--which are, of course beliefs about God, if only by denial and uncertainty)
What are your "beliefs" about the tiny pink unicorn that lives under my fingernail? What about the anthropomorphic mushroom that lives at the bottom of Lake Titicaca and controls mankind's thoughts?
Oh wait, you don't have any beliefs about those? Kind of like me and God(s).
As a kid, it never even *occurred* to me that a God(s) could/should exist. The entire idea is so far removed from reality that it never even entered my head. It wasn't until I was in early grade school that I was like "You believe WHAT?" when talking to other kids. I thought they were from the Moon, and I still do. Insanity.
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Not every "creed" or political system is a religion. There are plenty of liberal Christians for instance.
Ignorance is not really bliss...
Interestingly you are just as ignorant about Islam and Education as those adding poison to the schools water. Only difference is your ignorance is poisoning the society.
And how is he on the mark!
This is what Muhammed (pbuh) said about acquiring knowledge:
"To acquire knowledge is binding upon all Muslims, whether male or female. The ink of the scholar is more holy than the blood of the martyr."
Republicans just don't want to have to pay for someone else's birth control, you troll
They do, however, want someone else to pay for their hardons.
Also, if you honestly believe a group referred to as the "Religious Right" does not use religion as their motivation, well, I've got this bridge in NY state you may be interested in purchasing...
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
The bible may be just as bad (especially in the early bits) but the quran "god" awfull.
Its the same god. Islam is one of three religions referred to as Abrahamic Religions. Jews, Christians, and Muslims all worship the same god and and all three religions are based on the same core books and material.
Sadly, the religion which claims to be the most pure is by far most likely to be the most corrupt; namely Islam. Modern research indicates that most of Islam's original books have been horribly mistranslated. We know this from findings of what are believed to be some of the original Korans in its original language. As an example, its a translation error that you get 72-virgins (and 72 is actually debatable). The actual translation is 72-grapes (again, 72 is debatable). That may sound like a shitty deal but you need to remember that grapes have a divine significance in all three religions. And from a largely desert dwelling culture at origins, grapes were something worth fighting over, in part because of their ability to create wine; being that of a divine knowledge (which is also repeated with both ale and wine in Europe).
The irony of the whole deal is that Muslims are taught that both the other religions in the Abrahamic trifecta have lost their way because of so many translation errors (which there are in fact many; example, Noah's Ark describes a regional flood, NOT a global flood), while Muslims actively base their entire religious beliefs on the fact their entire book has been mistranslated. If there is a God, he clearly hates Muslims or has one hell of a crewl sense of humor.
The discussion has only been cast that way recently to take advantage of the Tea Party and in an effort to bring in moderates to their cause. Their objection in the past has been exclusively on moral grounds.
Yes, that is correct. The anti-birth-control, anti-abortion movements stem as much from a sociocultural condemnation of premarital and unprotected sex (primarily by Limbaugh's "sluts") as any religious proscription. A birth control/abortion ban is a way of controlling sex, particularly sex out of wedlock, which is a cross-cultural phenomenon all over the world that exists independently of religion. Religion is a means of codifying that cross-cultural pre-marital sex taboo, not the root of it.
It's all part of the same set of simplistic beliefs. Beliefs like "Tax cuts on the weatlhy always leads to more revenue", "jobs are created by rich people, not demand", are every bit as fantastical as believing that a zygote and infant are identical.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Saying "Go away and die!" does not win votes. Spouting off about "big gubmint" interferring with our lives wins votes, even if they're the same thing.
F U to all the people who think it is OK to oppress another human being.
Yes, Republicans are a cultural movement, not religious. They cater to both moral and fiscal conservatives despite obvious inconsistencies, such as Jesus helping the poor and budget cutting anything that helps poor people...
Actually the only way I've been able to make sense of the modern Republican party is that we have one political party, the Democratic Party, and another party where people just throw their protest votes, the Republican Party. That way the Republicans don't have to be consistent, or even have any positions on anything at all, or even any expressed intent to actually try to govern when in office, and people can still vote for them. Don't like something? Vote Republican! It's a pretty easy game, honestly. They don't even have to entice people with their lower-your-taxes free lunch nonsense, just appeal to generalized dissatisfaction and wait for the votes to roll in.
I wish it were not so. I am deeply disgusted by the Democratic Party and would love for there to be a serious alternative. There is room in our current system for two parties, so why shouldn't we have a second choice? The circus that is the Republican Party doesn't even pass the laugh test with me. I'd rather cast my vote for a party that's wrong on 80% of the issues than one that's trying their damndest to be wrong on 100% of them.
Here's the take away lesson. Why you fight a war, it has to be total war, not a "police action" type war. And yes I am a liberal and no I don't like that fact much but it's still a fact.
The Nazis and the Japanese ( suggested reading: The Rape of Nanking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rape_of_Nanking_(book)) weren't any better than this in WWII. It represents a total devaluing of human life and unlimited freedom to make war on the opposition in any way conceivable.
We won WWII despite this because ultimately we fought back in just the same way . Millions of Germans died during the bombing of Berlin and many millions more starved to death AFTER the war during the occupation and this was deliberate. We were going to submit the nazis totally and absolutely and a part of that was the 1200 calories a day we allowed them. It's hard to maintain your fighting spirit and think of maintaining the ole Sig Heil when you're living amongst rubble and so mal-nourished and hungry you can barely stand.
Little Boy and Fat Man had the same effect on Imperial Japan. It wasn't about winning the war, it was about the psychological conversion of the population through REAL shock and awe, a total and absolute devastation and final full on shit-fuck invalidation of the poisoned government that population had permitted to arise.
That is how you fight subhuman scum like the Tali. Total war because that's what they're going to use against you. We should have nuked Kabul on Sept 12th. We should have turned Tora Bora into a radioactive wasteland and let Northwest Pakistan contemplate their fate if they decide they're going to continue to put the finger in the eye of civilian government in Islamabad. Fuck you and the god you rode in on.
As it stands, the world has learned the same lesson it learned in Vietnam. America fights civilized, limited wars and can be triumphed over by fighting a war of attrition with her.
Thanks, Colin Powell for your crucial speech at the UN which greenlighted a couple of fucking draft-dodging alcoholics to use the exact same failed tactics you yourself warned the country against after Vietnam.
Go fuck yourself and the son who rode in on you too.
Yeah they just want control of all the world's governments and ownership of all the world's property, subservience of all the world's people and will gladly kill anybody who gets in their way or even so much as disagrees. Once they're successful it's not like they want a whole lot, just to force you to pretend to worship their special brand of invisible giant friend under threat of death and to relinquish everything we know as "Rights" in America. No way should we not show them the same tolerance and community welcome we show all other of the beautiful peoples of the world. Awww, they're so peaceful, awww.
You're either uninformed or plain old lying.
Here's the bill in virginia that makes the pill illegal: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?121+ful+HB1
passed the republican controlled house and senate with ease.
And all the current candidates bar Romney have gone on record agreeing with it explicitely for religious reasons: http://www.personhoodusa.com/blog/personhood-republican-presidential-candidate-pledge
Of course Romney flip-flops back and forth but here he is saing he "absolutely" agrees too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkrOt9Qposg#t=5m25s
Part if the mechanism of the pill is to prevent fertilized eggs from impanting - that's after conception has occured. It's not the only mechanism, but it's part of the package. So all those republicans are trying to outlaw the pill. Not just not pay for it.
There is a fundamental difference between birth control and antibiotics. Antibiotics are prescribed to treat something that is wrong with the body. Birth control does not correct something that is wrong with the body. It may be more cost effective to pay for birth control rather than pay for the alternative, but not having birth control will not cause a body to get sicker.
Pshhht. You are not supposed to say it out loud before "traditional values" and "christian morality" are reinstated. Then it is time to gloat. That is why you got modded troll by the moral majority, after all.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
...despite obvious inconsistencies, such as Jesus helping the poor and budget cutting anything that helps poor people.
Jesus advocated helping the poor. He didn't say to help the poor with somebody else's money. Christians donate more and run more charities as a group than any other.
:wq
Don't forget Genghis Khan or his children overran and destroyed much of the Middle East. Not sure if this contributed to the end of the golden age of Islam.
love is just extroverted narcissism
No; what you're proposing is akin to extortion - pay me now for protection or I'll destroy your store (costing you a lot more).
What conservatives want is for you to be responsible for yourself. It may not be a tenable position in this day and age, but it certainly is ideologically sound. Unfortunately we've gone too far down the road of giving up responsibility to the government, too few people are willing to take responsibility for their own actions anymore.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
No, antibiotics are reactive, they are given after a problem already exists. Birth control is preventative, it prevents a 'problem' from occurring. Birth control could be better compared to hand sanitizer, it helps to prevent something. Most health care is reactive rather than preventative, it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the fact that reactive care provides metrics that are easy to measure short-term, and preventative care can be a never-ending money pit where results are only able to be calculated after years of funding.
They never were the center of anything.
The center was India(and China) because the absolute population and density was so bigger there, but westerns ignored that as they write their history books(I'm from Spain, a very Arab influenced country).
Europeans got to dominate the world later and rewrite history in their favor.
Maybe they should have thought of that before targeting women with poison.
Idiots.
I'm not aware of any philosophy that claimed that. The most common philosophy that is blamed for wrecking the Muslim's worlds scientific progress was that espoused by Al-Ghazali in his highly influential book "The Incoherence of the Philosophers" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Incoherence_of_the_Philosophers. The most damaging thing in that philosophy was the idea that there were no actual laws of the universe, only things occurring the way Allah decided to. So for example if one lit a piece of cloth with a candle, the cloth catches fire not from any property of the cloth but because Allah has decided in this particular instance for the cloth to catch fire. And according to Al-Ghazali, asserting otherwise was essentially heresy. This sort of view of things is extremely inimical to discovering or codifying laws of the universe. There were other problems that happened about the same time such governments becoming more intertwined with religion in much of the Muslim world. But I suspect that is the philosophy that Neil deGrasse Tyson was talking about.
Why are conservatives anti-education? Because their beliefs cannot be supported by facts, and so the more factual ideas you teach, the less conservative your people will be.
Not all conservatives have religious or anti-educational ideas and motivations.
BUT... What they all DO have is a very strong preference for the status quo. THAT is why they can't accept new ideas, or find them threatening.
To them it's good as it is. Perfect in fact.
To fundamentalists among them, ANY change is a tantamount to an attack on their entire way of life.
Those girls weren't being taught to be atheists, feminists, witches or whatever the fundamentalists would find undermining to their religious beliefs.
In fact, they probably had religious studies at school as well.
They were simply girls, being taught.
That's the idea that breaks the status quo world of the(se) fundamentalists.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Or just pay the fucking dollar and get a rubber.... duh.
Republican's don't want to outlaw birth control. They just don't think the government should pay for it.
... Republicans are trying to prevent people from getting birth control in the private market.
No, the person you're responding to is correct - while there are a few "objectors" that work in pharmacies, few people want to BAN birth control, and there's more than just religious grounds... I pay for insurance - why should I subsidize your birth control? It's not a "health" choice, it's a lifestyle choice. If you want to have sex, and you want to prevent unwanted pregnancies, go ahead and buy birth control - there's nothing stopping you.
I suggest using the "religious freedom" argument to suggest that employers have ever been the freedom to inflict their religious views on their employees against their will in a way that causes measurable harm.
Hyperbole, much? What measurable harm? That someone has to pay for their own birth control instead of having it subsidized by people who object to it? Heavens to Betsy!
I would argue if it's for health reasons (like the hormonal birth control used to treat other symptoms) you'd have a point. Otherwise... no.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
And that's as crazy as believing that government spending drives an economy. Try this experiment: Reach down, grab your feet, and pick yourself up off the ground. Same concept as the government creating jobs.
:wq
Why should birth control be special from antibiotics when it comes to healthcare.
For that matter, the materials and services used to prevent death from other causes should also be provided by the minority of people who pay the majority of the taxes. It's only right. So, let's see ... death by freezing is bad, so a majority of the citizens should have housing and energy paid for by other people. Starving to death is definitely something health-related, so no question that most people should be getting someone else to pay for their food. Certainly nobody (except the minority who pay most of the taxes) should have to pay for things like the water piped to their house, since clean potable water is a necessity for being healthy, and that's health-related, just as much as condoms are, for sure. So, even though a lot of water will be used to wash things like the cars that are medically necessary in order to get you to your so-important-that-someone-else-should-pay-for-it visit to the podiatrist, it's still something other people should pay for.
Which aspects of housing and food and clothing and personal grooming and a mattress that makes you sleep super well and a really nice chair in your cubicle at work and nice hobbies that help you to live a low-stress and this healthier life aren't health services, really, when you get down to it? The government should pay for all of it - everything that will make you happy (and thus healthier - it's been shown in studies!) should be paid for by someone else, always, since it's a right to have everything you want and need in order to be as healthy as possible since that's government's job.
Give it a rest.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Ah well, that proves it conclusively. Thank you for your informative example which in no way illustrates just how stupid you have to be to actually believe in conservative economics.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
No, antibiotics are reactive, they are given after a problem already exists. Birth control is preventative, it prevents a 'problem' from occurring. Birth control could be better compared to hand sanitizer, it helps to prevent something. Most health care is reactive rather than preventative, it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the fact that reactive care provides metrics that are easy to measure short-term, and preventative care can be a never-ending money pit where results are only able to be calculated after years of funding.
Actually the birth control pill is an effective hormone treatment for conditions such as ovarian cysts, and has a great deal of medical value outside preventing pregnancies. That was actually the point a woman named Sandra Fluke was making when our local mullahs decided to call her a whore and a prostitute. They succeeded in changing the subject back to sex instead of medicine.
And they are non-christian christians as they do their level best not to help the less fortunate, bloody hypocrites.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
ask someone who got a STD if their body didn;t get sicker because they didnt have contraception
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Taxes are not "somebody else's money", they are our money, as a whole nation.
I could argue that because I don't live near a border of our nation that national defense spending is completely unjustified. Any invasion could just be resisted by the residents affected and it likely wouldn't get to my lawn. So why should "my money", taxes, be used to support the DoD?
The answer is that money paid in taxes is no longer accountable to the individual. It is only accountable to the populace at large. And if that populace, or their elected representatives, determine it is in the nations best interest to fund the DoD, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Wellfare, DoE, CDC, EPA, DoI and on and on and on, that is their perogative as a sovereign nation.
No man is an island. Each of us owes something of our selves to the rest of our society to some degree. Our society actually gives us a lot of freedom in deciding how or even if we will contribute.
Jesus said to render unto Caesar what was Caesar's when he was asked about paying taxes. He said nothing about how the taxes should be spent, one way or the other. He simply taught and encouraged people to not be uncaring assholes to each other. If you carry that philosophy to it's natural conclusion as a nation or society there is no reason to expect that the government representing them would not behave charitably.
"Christians donate more and run more charities as a group than any other." - do they get tax relief on this "charity giving"?
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Because birth control is a _choice_ save one person in the history of the world has a woman just woke up pregnant. And I am not talking about being drugged and raped. It takes a conscious thought, of TWO people mind you, to under go the act of sex. So yes treating it different then antibiotics is valid. No one things "Gee today is the day I will get sick." But they do make the choice today is the day I will go to the bar and get laid.
As long as nobody tries to take away their boner pills.
It seems they voted THEMSELVES a pretty nice health plan.
Of course, the problem is that they're trying to pass laws about what other people can do -- whether or not they subscribe to their religious beliefs.
Anybody trying to pass laws that enforce their religious beliefs need to remember that it's not all about them, and that not all of us wish to be subject to their whims. They don't get a vote on what I do. Their god doesn't either -- that'll be between me and him if it comes to that.
I, for instance, think it should be illegal to come to my door peddling your religion or try to inject it into public education. Woe to someone who comes to my door telling me how I can achieve salvation.
Religion is the basis of your morality, fine. But when your religion spills over into telling other people what they should do when it has no impact on you ... well, fuck off and keep your opinion to yourself. (I don't mean "you" or "your" in the specific, but in the general abstract sense.)
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Heh. Your obvious inconsistencies aren't so inconsistent on closer examination.
such as Jesus helping the poor and budget cutting anything that helps poor people.
It's not inconsistent if the budget cuts are driven by budget deficits and poor results. If you're borrowing money to help the poor, you're doing it wrong.
On top of that, it's pretty clear that the US's deficit spending isn't helping the poor. The US economy is in the crapper and the percentage of working Americans is at a record low - coincidentally, we've also spent the most money we don't have in the past several years. If you do something with good intentions and it doesn't work, isn't it time to re-evaluate what you are doing?
Is it that hard to see the difference between digging into your own pocket to help out a beggar, vs. taking money from a "rich guy" (in the future) to give to the poor?
Do you think Jesus would have supported the NRA? Cutting school budgets to get the latest F-35 bombers that the military doesn't even want?
The NRA was formed to protect gun rights, which is in essence a man's natural right to protect himself from harm. Do you think Jesus would have supported a man's right to protect himself from being murdered? In the US, gun control was used to prevent blacks from protecting themselves from the KKK after the Civil War. Is that the kind of thing Jesus would have supported instead of the NRA?
As for school budgets, schools have historically been funded by their local communities, whereas the F-35 is a national weapon funded by the federal gov't. Different levels of gov't have different responsibilities, and their budgets are separate from each other. The gov't that buys military airplanes is not the one that builds the school, hires teachers, and manages the curriculum.
So there's no inconsistency in having the federal gov't buy warplanes. The federal gov't has a responsibility to protect the nation. It does not have any Constitutionally delegated powers to fund school budgets.
None of the inconsistencies you listed hold up to examination. Perhaps instead of accusing a group of inconsistent thinking, you should spend more time learning how they think.
No. They WANT to just let the kid starve to death in the streets (make them the sanitation dept's problem), but they can't quite get away with that one.
Quran-only Muslims are a small minority, and their rejection of Hadith is heavily criticized by mainstream Muslims. So saying "The Quran does not state" really has no weight for the vast majority of Muslims. If it's in Hadith, it's part of the religion.
So because the water in the tank wasn't contaminated, they know it was poison?
Afghanistan isn't especially well known for it's hygiene standards. The symptoms of headaches, Nausea and vomiting match up pretty well with salmonella or e-coli poisoning. It's obviously in a public official best interests to blame evil terrorists rather than lax health standards. Put your water jugs in a messy kitchen where meat it prepared, it could easily be contaminated.
Sarcasm detected. Yes, Republicans are a cultural movement, not religious. They cater to both moral and fiscal conservatives despite obvious inconsistencies, such as Jesus helping the poor and budget cutting anything that helps poor people.
That's just wrong. Republicans... conservatives donate a higher percentage of their income to charities than liberals; they also donate more blood and time. Paying taxes and sinking this country into a fiscal debt crisis is not "charity." If you are not making the decision, it's not "charity" and it's not "magnanimous" on your part. If you believe in Jesus then you must believe did NOT support not giving people the choice... you have to be judged on your OWN actions, not what you were forced to do. (for the record, I'm not religious, and I use this very same argument against religious people who want to control my life, too)
Who Gives and Who Doesn't.. Yes, you can call it biased... yet no liberals have ever been able to disprove it, just attack the authors without substantive arguments.
They use religion to back up their opinions where it is supported, and any other useful tidbit when it doesn't. Do you think Jesus would have supported the NRA?
I don't think Jesus would care one way or another about the NRA.
Cutting school budgets to get the latest F-35 bombers that the military doesn't even want?
You're right about one thing, it's not based on religion that they do this... it's based on what's written in the constitution; based on the failure of our educational system despite the wanton amounts of money we throw at it (BTW, Bush increased educational spending more than anyone else in the previous four decades... what did he get for it? The disdain of the left, of course.). As far as military spending - you're right. I'm not a republican, I think they've been terrible leaders since Bush's election... but I also think democrats seem to have been inspired to one-up the terribleness.
Think what you want - I won't change your mind, I realize that the people asking the most for open mindedness are typically the most closed minded of all. But between the way liberals want to destroy this country and the way the republicans want to destroy this country, the republicans are much less "bad," even if they're not good.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Well the Koran isn't the only source of Islamic law. The suna and the haddith are almost as important and contain most of what is objectionable in Islam. So the "show me in the koran" is usually just a diversion from other important texts.
So let's start: Haddith Bukhari Volume 1, Book 6, Number 301:
The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence."
Really? If the government is paying for birth control, then why am I paying health care premiums?
:(){
Religion is just plain evil.
Then why didn't your benevolent "shit-fucking" work in Russia during the 1990s, or in Vietnam in the 1960s? Could it be because in the cases of Germany and Japan, the allies (eventually) offered an alternative way of life under democracy to their defeated opponents? That the US actually engaged in real nation rebuilding at that time and effectively created two of the most successful post war countries as a result? A pity no such long term planning has been applied or indeed even contemplated in either modern Afghanistan or Iraq.
Bombs and tanks wont he battles, but it was the Marshall Plan won the war, and the subsequent Cold war besides. The US and her allies in the present have created no such legacy, for all their costly foreign expeditions.
May the Maths Be with you!
How much time have you spent with Christians? Your worldview seems to be one from the outside.
It makes no sense for private insurance to cover cheap medicine that every one will need anyway. Instead of paying $x for birth control, women end up paying $x+ admnistrative fees to the insurer so he can forward x$ to her for her birth pills. Insurance is about protecting oneself against disastrous low probability events. Birth control is both cheap and needed by the vast majority of young women, the contrary of what insurance is supposed to cover: unpredictable low probability illnesses. Granted, insurance also cover many other stupid things and there's no reason to single out birth control. Now, it could make sense as a matter of public policy to cover birth control but health insurance in the USA is private.
I agree, I heard that in India, a man ...
I also heard that in America a white man shot a black kid with ice tea and a bag of candy dead and claimed self defense. He was not even given a slap in the wrist till there was a huge media outcry following a report in Hindustan Times, Times Of India and a few more English newspapers in India. Shamed by the scathing letters to the editor written by the retired bureaucrats in Chennai, Delhi and Kadumaththinahalli, America finally decided to book the offender.
Politifact would give "mostly true" rating for that passage. How would you like that line of reasoning?
So let us stop hating this or that or any group of people based on what you "heard". OK? Deal? No Deal?
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Do you not get that people like to fuck? Its an enjoyable pastime and can be used for good and ill. DO you think it logical to force another sentient being to bear a child it does not want? Further, where does your authority on this matter derive from? Im not talking about society's Im talking about YOU personally. Who in the fuck are you to make reproductive decisions for other sentient human beings?
Good-bye
1873 called... It wants to talk about irrelevant nonsense.
Let's take a look at the text, shall we?
"Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. -- And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough." (Luke 22:36, 38)
So, yeah, I think Christ would've approved of the NRA. He directly advised his disciples to be armed. Also, "turning the other cheek" was never intended to mean passive submission to violence. The culture of the day was one where the wealthy would often slap around the poor using the right hand, but using the left was a mortal insult and would provoke a fight. Christ was telling the poor that if someone wants to bully them and shove them around, they should not initiate violence, but demonstrate their willingness to end a fight if the other guy wanted to start one -- that's what "turning the other cheek" meant.
Christ was not a pacifist. This is the guy who chased moneychangers from the temple with a whip (probably more for preying on the poor than defaming the faith), and who openly welcomed a Roman centurion as one of his followers, and didn't demand the guy give up his life of the sword. Christ's message had more to do with the ethical use of violence than it did with the total abjuration of it.
Nope. Bad guys win only when you stop going to the malls and stop spending money.
The argument I hear from people is that they don't want to pay for other people to have sex. You want to have sex, go ahead and do it, but either take precautions yourself or live with the potential consequences.
Millions of Germans died during the bombing of Berlin
Nope. Not even close. ~100 thousand were killed, not "millions"
They cater to both moral and fiscal conservatives despite obvious inconsistencies, such as Jesus helping the poor and budget cutting anything that helps poor people.
Christian - I give of my time, and money to help the poor. Note, this is not to provide a living for the poor but rather to help them out in times of need.
Non-Christian - You take my money by force (ie. thieft) and give it to people to provide them a living ( the problem of being poor never goes away if the poor are rewarded for their poorness )
I fully suport programs that help people to become productive members of our society. However we should not be rewarding people for having more children than they can care for.
Do you think Jesus would have supported the NRA?
After the passover meal and before His arrest Jesus told His deciples to sell their coats and buy a sword. Love your enimies does not mean that you should be deffenceless.
Many Christian groups treat women as second class citizens because they are to remain silent in church, and obey their husbands.
I would not expect a non-Christian to understand the structure of a Christian household, or why that structure applies in church, but I assure you that among Christian groups that hold such beliefs the women is certainly not a "second class citizen". Purhaps, before you make such accusations you should ask some of the women whould live in such households what they think about it. To put the situation into perspective, a second class citizen is someone who is denied certain privlages, not someone who willingly surender certain abilaties. For example, I may be able to sleep with my neighbors wife, but I don't for multiple reasons. One of which is that I am commanded in the Bible "Thou shalt not commit adultery." Does that make me a second class citizen to someone who would commit adultery? I realize that Roman Catholicism and its derivatives for a very long time made Christianity mandatory, but they are primarily political organizations who abuse christianity for their gain and do not represent the Christian community.
"For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice" -- God
Hadiths.
"It's a cultural thing".
Yes, it's what MUSLIMS do, you fucking retard.
Stop making excuses for muslim scum. Islam is totalitarianism. YOU support it, because you make up bullshit excuses for the scum who inhabit Afghanistan.
The 'prophet' of Islam was a mass murderer, multiple rapist, and a paedophile. All muslims know this, and celebrate it! They call him 'the perfect man'.
What do you have to say about that, uninformed retard?
www.prophetofdoom.net
Any comments?
Non-white countries are backwards cultures, that's certainly true, thanks for pointing that out.
Really, it takes TWO?
Or the day a man in a mask jumps your 12 year old sister on her way home and savagely rapes her and cuts up her face and chest..
What CHOICE does she have? To give risky birth to the psychopathic monsters devil spawn?
No, abort the demon spawn so it does not grow up just like dad.
Encourage the 'morning after pill'. Encourage young adults to take/use contraception so that no abortion is necessary.
Also, tell assholes like you to shut up.
...and water may or may not go together...
"What conservatives want is for you to be responsible for yourself"
Since WHEN?
Drugs, no choice, no personal responsibility, Spend billions locking up people who never committed an actual crime... You know, to keep them safe.
Religion? Have to teach that in School because parents just can't be bothered.
Immigration? Let the employers be responsible and hire whoever the hell they want from wherever they want. You can't get a job anymore? Be RESPONSIBLE for yourself and get more skills and work for less money.
$$ and tax breaks to companies and wealthy individuals, even though they control and benefit far more than common people from government programs, like police to escort them around and protect their homes and money, military to win and secure resources and allow them to ship good world wide, thousands of government workers to do diplomacy to enhance business, treaties, copyright enforcement, patent enforcement, etc.
I can go on and on, I wont bother
Many Christian groups treat women as second class citizens because they are to remain silent in church, and obey their husbands. Most Christians understand that contextually, but a few take it literally and frequently out of context.
Dude we all know the bible is the written word of GOD.
Ephesians 5:21-31
Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
"During World War II, the government used State Shint to encourage patriotism and to support efforts towards militarism. Noted figures in government, including Kuniaki Koiso, Heisuke Yanagawa, Kiichir Hiranuma and Prince Kan'in Kotohito, participated in public rituals modeled after ancient ceremonies to foster a sense that supporting the war was a sacred duty.
State Shint officially came to an end after the surrender of Japan.[7]"
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Shinto
Probably killed more people than Islam ever has
So I see.
You pay for insurance, why should you subsidize someones AIDS meds.. I mean they are not married; So Either they are a big homo, a drug user, or a gutter slut.... So let them die. God says so.
Oh, someone has lung cancer? Well I'm a Mormon, smoking is a sin, they must have smoked so lets not cover anything.
Hart failure? Well, they are a fat-ass and gluttony is a sin. Can't cover that.
Vaccines? Well my minister the honorable Father Shitforbrains says it is not gods will.. Can't cover that.
Dental work is for the vain.. That's also a sin. Can't cover that.
Etc.
Don't like it? Too fucking bad. suck it up and don't use the services you don't like...
Unless abortion is birth control, you're just making shit up. Move along.
So, abortion doesn't control birth? Huh... Unlearn something every day.
Imagine 1000 rich guys (let's call them "coprorations" ;-), who own the shops, the farms, the factories, everything. But nobody's buying, so the rich guys have hunkered down and sat on their huge piles of money and aren't spending on employing any of the poor guys. And the poor guys don't spend, because they're out of work. So how does this vicious circle get broken? The gubmint takes some cash from those great stinking heaps of money (or borrows it from rich foreigners) and spends it on useless junk which employes poor folks and things get going again. Sure, it would be nice if the system never wedged itself, and there was no need to waste resources on useless junk, but back in the real world taxing the rich is the only way to get their money circulating.
There is no reason to be tolerant of the views of the fanatics that did this horrible deed any more than there is reason to be tolerant of the views of the nutbar that's currently on trial in Norway for killing 77 people because he felt "threatened" by immigration. This isn't about religion, or even really about the underlying motivations of these people. They're a bunch of criminals that will use whatever lame excuse they want to try to justify atrocities committed on innocent people. Whether religion or something else, that doesn't mean you tar everyone with the same brush simply because they share a few token similarities in cultural background or belief to the fanatics. If that's the case, then all white Norwegians worried about changes in their culture due to immigration are as guilty as these Islamic terrorists, to pick one example.
Taliban != Islam. White supremecists != Christianity. Stalinism != Atheism.
If you want to make the argument that religions *can* generate more fanatic, irrational, and murderous behavior in some people, and that religion has demonstrably been used for centuries by some truly awful people as an excuse for it, then I'm right there with you. But I'm also going to point out that fanaticism like that does NOT require religion to come up with a lame excuse (e.g., the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia). I'm not going to condemn a whole religion simply because some people are irrationally capable of being whipped into a frenzy over issues that have more to do with economics, power, and general fear of change. If you think regarding all of Islam in your narrow, ridiculous way will solve anything, you're wrong, because Islam isn't the root of the problem. Abolish Islam and some other excuse would be invented, just like it was in Northern Ireland over petty differences between religious sects of the Christian religion. Worse, you'll be alienating all those reasonable Muslims who regard what these Taliban crazies did with the same horror that most sane people do regardless of their background.
And I'm agnostic. I don't even particularly like religion or have any particular reason to defend it. All I'm saying is, if you want to work to help solve this problem (the fanatics in the world that prey on the innocent and try to justify it with bogus reasons), your attitude will make things worse, not better. Yes, it would be nice if all these problems boiled down to one or all religions, but it isn't that simple. It's a deeper problem with humanity's general ability to justify atrocities by appealing to ideology any type.
Why? Because pregnancy is a 100% preventable condition. How do you 100% prevent it? Don't. Have. Sex. If you want to have recreational sex, don't expect me to pay for either your child or the prevention of the pregnancy. I have zero sympathy for people expecting insurance to cover birth control. I certainly don't see requiring birth control via regulation as either warranted or necessary.
Full disclosure: I'm a libertarian atheist.
Each single act of infidelity affects every one of us looking to enjoy a committed monogamous relationship, both psychologically and by further normalizing the practice.
We never fought a total war with either Russia or Vietnam. That's the point. Nation building and how to do it is an absolute must and one of the facts conservatives are going to have to make peace with going forward. I never suggested we bomb and leave. I suggested that the model we used in WWII- total war followed closely by nation building, is the right one.
In the 1950s, Afghanistan came more under the influence of the Soviet Union, like Eastern Europe did. In 1973, Daud Khan led a coup d'etat and established a new government, crushing resistance. He invited NATO troops into Northern Afghanistan and began shifting toward the US. A similar thing happened in Cambodia around this time with Lon Nol (coup against old monarchy by pro-US figure). And the same thing that happened in Cambodia happened in Afghanistan - the Afghan communist party was more powerful than the US puppet, Daud Khan was booted and the domestic communists (PDPA) took over. The CIA launched a proxy war against the communist government. The CIA recruited Osama bin Laden, at whose father's house then CIA director George Bush used to stay at on trips to Saudi Arabia. It backed the groups which were later to be called Al Qaeda and the Taliban, working to overthrow this secular, atheist actually, government. When the USSR sent troops to support the PDPA government, US support increased. Sylvester Stallone made Rambo III, where he fights with his comrades of Al Qaeda/Taliban against the evil PDPA and Russians who are trying to secularize and modernize Afghanistan.
In fact, this is what the US is still doing everywhere in the Middle East and Afghanistan. It supported Muslim groups to overthrow secular Libya, and is now working with Muslim fundamentalists to overthrow the secular Syrian government. It of course supports the Saudi government which is more fundamentalist than Iran. It's a strange thing how the US creates bin Laden, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Saudi Arabia, and the new Muslim fundamentalist forces in Libya and Syria - then turns around and talks about how Muslims are too religious and backward. And not only has done this in the past, is doing it today in Syria. Who is the US supporting against the secular, social democratic Syrian government, Santa Claus?A wide, wide, wide gap between words and deed.
Sheesh... Why can't they act civilized and destroy education the way we do in the U.S. --by slowly leeching away all the funding, while blaming teachers and unions, and introducing magical thinking into science classes. Mission accomplished!
Ask me about my sig!
I think what you are missing is that the discussion about birth control had absolutely nothing to do with you paying for it. Even though Republican politicians and conservative media would love you to continue believing that is what the discussion was about. The discussion was whether corporations and non-profits including (religious institutions) can refuse coverage of contraceptives on an employee insurance plan. This has absolutely nothing to do with you subsidising anyone's birth control at all. Everyone has to pay and no one that pays should be refused and corporations refusing coverage was what kicked off all of this contraception fiasco. And the Republicans keep digging a deeper hole with American women by introducing bills to allow employers to not cover contraception on employee plans on religious grounds and vaginal probe /ultrasound bills. The problem for the Republicans and those who stay glued to nothing but conservative media is that women realise what is going on. They have not been misinformed by the conservative reality distortion field.
A being a tool that is used for B does not imply that B goes away if A does.
It might imply there is less chance of B if A goes away. Or maybe not - we're good at inventing tools.
Who fucking cares? It's not your country.
I pay for insurance - why should I subsidize your birth control?
Insurance is a collective risk management strategy, and subsidies across risk pools are part of it. If you object to insurance in general, you may have a point. Otherwise, no.
It's not a "health" choice, it's a lifestyle choice.
Ovarian cysts are not a lifestyle choice. Are you for real?
If you want to have sex, and you want to prevent unwanted pregnancies, go ahead and buy birth control - there's nothing stopping you.
I'm sorry, did you miss the part about health insurance? Or the severe health condition that birth control pills are effective at treating? Why are you bringing up sex?
Hyperbole, much? What measurable harm?
Ovarian cysts are bad news. Denying medical treatment for that condition is harm. Just because you are religiously opposed to my medicine is hardly an excuse.
I would argue if it's for health reasons (like the hormonal birth control used to treat other symptoms) you'd have a point. Otherwise... no.
Wow, until the end there we were re-creating the whole Sandra Fluke discussion. She brings up valid medical uses aside from birth control, Rush yells about sex. See, what you did there was fall down on the last point. The whole point of yelling about sex is to distract away from the "medical value" discussion. Because if you start talking about medicine, you lose. So please continue yelling about sex.
It's not about the money; birth control saves money. Can you simple arithmetic? Which costs more: a 25-cent condom or a $100,000+ unwanted child? You are the liar, and your lying serves to deny medical care to women, and bring children into the world whose lives will be miserable, and for whom you won't lift a finger or spend a dime to assist.
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
I don't want to pay for nuclear weapons, but I don't really get a choice in that do I?
~S
Jesus on Taxes.
"For truly I say upon to you... Render on to Ceasar what is Caesar's...Render on to the father what is his."
Jesus on the rich.
A rich man approached Jesus. "Teacher how can I enter heaven."
Jesus: "Sell everything you own and give all the money to the poor and the needy. Then you can enter the kingdom of god"
Jesus re-affirms : "For truly I say upon to you. It is much easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle that it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of god"
I think Jesus was very very adamant about helping the poor and about the ability for anyone to enter the "kingdom of god" without selling all their riches and giving the proceeds to the poor.
If you don't beat your children but instead lie to them so that they are unprepared to properly deal with the realities of life as adults, have you not injured them just as grievously?
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
No, the problem is a religious culture where somehow someone can claim to know the will of G-d and thereby countenance all sorts of stupidity.
Without religion, there are no religious fundamentalist extremists.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
My preference has always been to convert the region into a continuous sheet of radioactive glass. I think "New Iowa" would be a nice name.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Yes. I agree. But nowhere does he say to reach into someone else's pocket and give that to charity.
:wq
Lots of things affect us all. Like people having certain beliefs, for instance. Sometimes things happen that you don't like, and you just have to accept it because it was another person's choice.
"reach into someone else's pocket and give that to charity." That is not what the contraception debate has been about. Ok help me understand how if someone's employer insurance plan includes contraception coverage is reaching into your pocket and giving it to charity.
All religion is mental illness and should be treated as such.
Believers are a danger to themselves and others.
Well I think we got off topic there. Somehow we got on this "republicans should love welfare" thread.
Ah, the contraception debate. What an absolute liberal lie.
Health insurance already covers contraceptives. Republicans aren't trying to change that. Nobody is trying to change that. This "War on Women" has been invented by liberals and media. Find anything that suggests evil republicans are trying to outlaw insurance coverage of birth control.
:wq
Somebody can be a Muslim without being an Arab. I wonder if they phrased the girl's schools as religious institutions like many of the schools for boys are if they'd attract the same attention. If they publicly released that they were mostly teaching home ec type stuff.
First reaction is taking a baseball bat to the poisoner, second would be to question him(or her!) to find out the reasoning, because only by understanding the problem can we prevent it from happening again.
I don't read AC A human right
Why? Because pregnancy is a 100% preventable condition. How do you 100% prevent it? Don't. Have. Sex.
And if you never touch anybody else you can avoid all kinds of other communicable diseases as well. What's the difference?
If you always wear a face mask you can avoid even more diseases. What you got meningitis? Strep throat? tuberculosis? the measles? where was your face mask? I'm not paying a dime for your treatment if you weren't wearing one.
I have zero sympathy for people expecting insurance to cover birth control.
And zero sympathy for people with ovarian cysts?
Birth control pills also help control painful menstrual cycles and ovarian cysts. Yet they are not covered for these uses because in these cases: they also incidentally prevent pregnancy.
Full disclosure: I'm a libertarian atheist.
Really, the fact that your ignorant is only tangentially relevant here.
It's a cultural thing.
I've heard exactly this position from a local imam (a liberal Turkish Sunni and Sufi too). People associate "old time religion" with whatever their local cultural traditions are.
Same thing happened with Christianity in the Middle Ages.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
My ovaries created cysts that exploded in the middle of the night and sent me screaming in blistering pain to the ER. What was the immediate preventative care? Birth control.
So, what responsibility for my actions could've prevented the cysts from forming? Or is it--I dunno--that most women on birth control aren't taking it for all the DIRTY DISGUSTING SEX they want to have, but for major health issues that impede their lives?
You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
Lookie, a liberal just doesn't understand $1.5 Trillion deficits are not sustainable. They think a woman, getting a law degree, at a university that costs $60,000 a year shouldn't be expected to pay for condoms. No, the working man who does janitorial work and can't afford to go get a law degree himself, must be made to pay for her condoms because she just can't be bothered to be responsible.
Liberalism has shown itself to be the complete failure that it is.
Why should birth control be special from antibiotics when it comes to healthcare.
Because pregnancy isn't a disease that needs to be eradicated to keep the public as a whole safe?
Thanks for finding the link for us, now could somebody with some mod points make this a wee bit more visible?
+1 Disagree
Pretty sure he just feels that since he's not getting any, nobody should get any.
+1 Disagree
Superstition is practice influenced by books of nonsense and current interpretations of those books of nonsense.
"It's a cultural thing" implies lies/superstition are good.
"Any culture that values males more than females is a backwards culture."
Any religion whose practice values males more than females is a more backwards superstition than some of its competitors.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
False dichotomy. The fact is that most welfare moms don't use birth control intentionally. It's hard to prove unless you know someone who works in direct contact with low income populations.
That, and they want insurance to pay for viagra... Stop kidding yourself here - the system is already in place, and there have been plenty of fights before the health care act over insurance covering birth control. Why would they fight one of the most cost effective measures of public health if it wasn't for religious reasons? Ideologically they can justify all sorts of other drugs to be covered, but birth control is an absolute no no?
+1 Disagree
Thanks for finding the link for us...
That wasn't even the worst example.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
ask someone who got a STD if their body didn;t get sicker because they didnt have contraception
They didn't. They got sick because they had unprotected sex with someone who was already infected. There are some forms of "birth control" that might have limited the exposure. Many of the forms of "birth control", and ALL of the forms of birth control that are being talked about in off-license use (as hormone therapies for ovarian problems, e.g.), provide no STD protection at all.
While certain Christian idiots have done things like bomb abortion clinics (thereby killing both doctors and those seeking abortions), I ask if you've ever seen one try to poison a school full of children for being taught evolution? I thought not.
Numbers make a difference? Come on. What's the next step?
Wearing a uniform makes a difference? How about a badge? A tee-shirt? A white sheet and a hood?
Following orders from the head of the church? From a holy book? From god himself talking through your dog?
Not killing people, just torturing them a little? Killing only their pets and farm animals? Burning down their house? Bullying?
How many steps must we remove the perceived responsibility for the act before the guilt is washed away completely?
And it has nothing to do with a particular religion. It has EVERYTHING to do with cultural perceptions.
Those bombing abortion clinics live in a world (born, raised, educated in it - aware of the rules of the society) where exists a law of the state and more importantly they live in a very INDIVIDUALISTIC world.
They see themselves (as individuals) breaking a failed state law, following a higher (god's) law - by punishing individual "evildoers" who are breaking a higher law.
Taking justice into their own hands because they perceive themselves as "righteous" and those over there as "evil", confident that god will look favorably on their acts.
They are interpreting the "holy scripture" to match their view of the world and fortify their actions.
On the other hand...
Islamic fundamentalists in places like Afghanistan were born, raised and educated (with only brand of education available - fundamentalist, religious and quite literal) in a world without anything even resembling a state law.
Also, they were raised in the state of perpetual war with foreign invaders - with or without their own gods.
It's just GOD and god's laws that have kept them safe (for certain values of safe) so far.
Now... take any "holy book" and you'll find more than enough examples of "laws and regulations" which, taken literally, are not only barbaric but down right insane by today's standards.
And NONE of that is open to interpretation. At least not to masses.
Now try to put yourself in that state of mind here - breaking god's laws is the equivalent of opening the inter-dimensional rift to the dimension of evil, a gateway to hell, waking Cthulhu...
There are no gradations for them. It is a very simple black and white world. Disrespect god or his laws == waking Cthulhu.
And it's not the Cthulhu they fear - it's The God who will punish EVERYONE for the sins of the few.
In their mind, they are protecting EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING from being plunged into depths of hell by punishing those sinners who dared to raise against god.
Innocent? They don't see those girls as innocent.
They see them as tainted at best and as pure evil Cthulhu worshipers at worst.
And remember, they are working for the god who burned Sodom and Gomorrah, asked Abraham to slit the throat of his own son... all of that Old Testament stuff is literal instructions to them.
Direct from god. The God. Maker of the Universe and all that stuff.
Angry, pissed off, uncompromising god of the Old Testament.
The kind of god who would reveal himself to people living in the scorching heat and desolation of a desert.
On top of all that (soldiers of god vs. legions of evil) stuff, it is much easier to press a button, toss a grenade at the crowd, or pour poison into a cistern - than to kill a very specific human being.
Burden gets diluted in the numbers.
Just as bomber pilots about the guilt they feel for indiscriminate bombing or accidental civilian "collateral damage".
Then ask front line soldiers.
Then ask generals and politicians who gave out those orders.
If anything, one might argue that the religious fanatics in Afghanistan are LESS responsible for their acts.
After all, they live in a delusion of being
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Do the math.
Average income of an American is approx 44k per year.
Most people have health care insurance, everyone will be treated. None are turned away from emergency and many other kinds of care.
Do that math.
44k per year. So the average gain/loss is way positive. That goes for taxes, consumer effects and cumulative net worth.
ONLY liberals say that humans are a cost to the system. DO THE MATH.the average person is an obvious net positive to the system.
Fitting captcha : Slither
The Catholic Church while a Unified church, operate rather differently cross different cultures. Even with them following the same rules, the importance of the rules they follow are prioritized differently.
Unless of course the rule in question is, 'Thou shalt protect thine fiddlers of kiddies', follow this rule well and maybe someday you too can be pope.
If you count the total costs of childhood that the state could incur, on average, are mainly food stamps and child credits. There are more costly interventions. Education is around 8k for the wealthy parts of my city and 14k for the poor, per pupil per year.
So count the costs. Do the math.
Child tax cred x 17 ($1,000
+Food stamps x 18 ($250 a month or $3000 per year)
--------
$71,000
Is less than two years average American salary.
Add in free reduced lunches and full Pell grants and you would be talking around 2 years pay.
DO THE MATH!
There's nothing wrong with sex or relationships. At all. People are simply greedy and possessive. Cheating is only "bad" to some because of their own greed. In most cases.
I'm honestly sick of this possessiveness. There's nothing inherently bad about non-monogamous relationships.
Umm, were you describing fundamentalist muslims or fundamentalist christians there?
The Quran itself is sexist and is the underlying basis for much anti-women discrimination. See these examples.
Health care as practiced in the US today is one of the lease efficient ways to run it.
A lot of the founding principles of the United States put freedom before efficiency.
And zero sympathy for people with ovarian cysts?
Birth control prevents ovarian cysts? Why don't they put that into the ads for Trojans? Why isn't ParaGard advertising that?
You responded to a statement about insurance paying for birth control with a question about ovarian cysts. Two different things. Very different things. One can object to coverage for birth control and still expect coverage for true medical issues.
Birth control pills also help control painful menstrual cycles and ovarian cysts. Yet they are not covered for these uses because in these cases: they also incidentally prevent pregnancy.
When they aren't being used for "birth control", then it is wrong to call them "birth control". There are too many other things that "birth control" includes to say that "birth control controls ovarian cysts". Specific hormone treatments do that. Specific birth control pills contain those hormones in a cheap and prepackaged form.
And yes, of course, when a drug is used to treat a disease or illness, there is a strong argument that it should be included in insurance coverage. I'd even say it SHOULD be included, but I don't know that the right answer is to force all insurance companies to cover it. After all, they already choose which conditions to cover and which medications they'll pay for to cover them. In other words, the insurance company I have will pay for some drugs to treat one condition, but not to treat another. Why would paying for hormones to treat one illness but not for a non-illness be different?
Pregnancy is not a disease. Stop treating it like one. If you want a condition covered under insurance, talk about the condition you want covered, not something else. Most people assume when you say you want "birth control" covered by insurance that you mean "birth control", not "ovarian cysts" or "irregular menstrual cycles" or any other medical condition. Call it what it is.
I am a misogynist macho sob and I still think this was a coward thing to do... nothing real men do
I'm sure heaven is not open to assholes who are afraid of women
>> Where was religion mentioned anywhere in the article or summary?
You are a smart guy, you can figure it out
Great fucking post man-kudo's!
While certain Christian idiots have done things like bomb abortion clinics (thereby killing both doctors and those seeking abortions), I ask if you've ever seen one try to poison a school full of children for being taught evolution? I thought not.
How about a Christian who shot and killed 77 people, mostly children, at a summer school, in what he calls a Knights Templar operation carried out to defend Christians, and who has today in court said that the deliberate killing of children was justified because they were not 'non-political children' ?
Correlation is not causation. :)
Again, plenty of conservatives among academics.
Heck, you want to see a scary statistic - look up incidence of conservatism among elderly.
You can draw all kind of crazy conclusions from that. Like that conservative == wise.
Also, check your data.
It may very well be that the percentage of the elderly (those more likely to have worked and retired with only a high-school diploma or a trade) is skewing your statistics.
Cause, according to the link above, they are toe-to-toe with the liberals among those with graduate degrees.
Four-in-ten Americans with graduate degrees say they are politically moderate, while about three-in-ten say they are either liberal or conservative (29% each).
Among those with no more than a high school education, a third says they are moderate, 41% describe themselves as conservative and fewer than one-in-five call themselves liberal (18%).
Granted, this is just USA. Global statistics probably vary a bit.
I'm just saying that it is not prudent to write away the "other side" as uneducated or stupid.
Or too green, frivolous, weak, ginger, whatever...
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
No, she was demanding that a private religious university force male students pay for half of the female students' birth control, 99% of the time for sex, 1% of the time for hormone therapy.
Since you bring up the phrase "ONLY liberals" I'll say that it's generally liberals who want to extend the health care system, to improve the net worth you speak of. Last I saw it was conservatives screeching out against any sort of socialized health care, you know, the "everyone will be treated. None are turned away" kind. In fact my "Go away and die" suggested "medical plan" was a liberal's paraphrasing of a conservative's plan. I just stated it up-front, for the provocation.
You also completely missed my point, and perhaps thought I was in favor of the "Modest Proposal." I'm not, and I only bring it up as a strawman, in order to see who salutes.
Personally, I'm in favor of universal preventive care, and that especially includes prenatal care and well-baby checks. No questions, just do it. I also have a very strong suspician the cost for this woudn't be bad - emergency neonatal care is very expensive, and proper preventive care is the best way avoid it.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Bullshit. Japanese Buddhists happily blew themselves up by flying explosive laden planes into ships. Japanese Buddhist authorities of the time happily embraced militarism, emperor worship, unquestioning obedience of arbitrary authority and killing. Buddhism has quite a checkered past with regards to war & violence. As long as you insist on organizing your life & taking moral advice from imaginary characters, you are just as susceptible.
You miss my point. We currently have neither freedom nor efficiency. Plus freedom had different meanings for different people.
My point was simply this: If we're not going to turn away emergency care - if we're going to make some level of our medical system universally accessable, the we really ought to be doing it in the most cost-efficient way that is reasonably possible. Personally I believe in availability of "universal preventive care" as the best route to that end.
If we're not going to manage health care efficiently, then perhaps we need to take a hard look at ourselves in the mirror, realize what we're really saying, and do the practical alternative - "go away and die" and prepare to handle the consequences.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Yes, Jesus said to render to Caesar what is Caesar's and he said to give to God the things that are God's. There is actually a very convincing argument that Jesus was not saying anything about whether or not we should pay taxes (that is too complicated for this setting). However, that is not important since Paul clearly says that we should pay our taxes.
Going on, paying taxes does not in and of itself help the poor. I would argue that most government programs that are supposedly intended to help the poor actually do more harm to the poor than actual help. Most of those programs actually transfer more wealth to government workers and wealthy supporters of politicians than they do to the poor (or even in actual assistance to the poor in non-monetary ways).
Jesus did not tell the rich man to sell all that he has and give the money to the government. He told the rich man to sell all that he has and give the money to the poor. If he had given the money to the government very little would have gotten to the poor. While more would get to the poor today, it still isn't all that much.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Many Christian groups treat women as second class citizens because they are to remain silent in church, and obey their husbands.
Almost every Christian group (and by an overwhelming margin) that teach that women are to remain silent in church and obey their husbands base that on Ephesians 5:22-24. Those groups, also, emphasize Ephesians 5:25-30 which says that husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the Church. How did Christ love the Church? As is made clear in the context of this passage, He did so by dying for the Church.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Republicans... conservatives donate a higher percentage of their income to charities than liberals
"According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do."
"I'm not taking a stand on what the right answer is to any of these comparisons. The lesson here is, don't just believe the headline for any study. Learn to ask the right questions. "link
I don't think Jesus would care one way or another about the NRA.
"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."
I pay for insurance - why should I subsidize your birth control?
It's much cheaper for you to subsidise other people's birth control than it is for you to subsidise their unwanted children.
Do you like to shout "Just don't rut you penniless freaks!" at people so much that you're willing to pay more for all of the further consequences of not making birth control available to anyone who wants it for free?
The people running Georgetown are presumably on the same health plan as the students. (And the analogue of Viagra is estrogen cream for vaginal dryness, which almost certainly is covered, along with all sorts of gynecological goodies that women frequently avail themselves of)
as muslims. you can read any history book of the soviet afghan war and figure this out.
Sounds like a "liberal conservative. As that article points out, in the U.S. the term is considered an oxymoron (perhaps "economic conservative and social moderate" Americans are more likely to self-identify as Libertarian or Democrat).
Maybe, maybe not. But the apostles carried weapons.
Why? Its a fucking health service. Why should birth control be special from antibiotics when it comes to healthcare.
A health service?!
I have major medical insurance only, which covers me if I turn into Terry Shiavo (at best). I also have asthma. If I don't have inhalers, I can stop breathing and die. Now, my doctor stopped writing me prescriptions for my rescue inhalers because "I use them too much and that's not good for me to overuse them." Instead, he wants me to to use discus inhalers that cost hundreds of dollars per month. I can't afford to pay that, so I have to get my rescue inhalers from India without prescription.
So I can't afford my doctor-prescribed discus inhalers, but I should pay for people who can't keep their fucking legs closed?
Health service my ass.
Who Gives and Who Doesn't. [go.com]. Yes, you can call it biased... yet no liberals have ever been able to disprove it, just attack the authors without substantive arguments.
I don't accuse it of any deliberate bias, but I certainly do question the methodology and what's included in "charitable".
I'll tell you what. I will accept at face value your link's figure that Conservatives are 18% more likely to donate blood. However I'm not prepared to accept the figure that Conservatives are supposedly "30% more charitable" until I see some indication that that 30% actually is charity.
Donating money to build yourself a neighborhood church is certainly tax deductible, but in my opinion that is no more "charitable giving" than building yourself a neighborhood golf club. And donating money to maintain your church and pay salaries for ministers and whatnot is no more "charity" than money given to maintain and pay salaries for your golf club.
I would also say that 8,000 Bibles for Hurricane Katrina evacuees doesn't much qualify as charity.
And another 100,000 Bibles for for Hurricane Katrina evacuees doesn't much qualify as charity.
And another nearly one million Bibles for for Hurricane Katrina evacuees doesn't much qualify as charity.
And "food aid programs for starving children" need to be discounted according to whatever percentage of their expenses and efforts are actually diverted to Bibles and proselytizing efforts.
Furthermore, while certain Faith Based Charities (I'm looking at you, Salvation Army) primarily do real charity work, I am SORELY TEMPTED TO PUT EACH DOLLAR IN THE -1 COLUMN when their website has (or had) a Bible quote that homosexuals should be put to death and they lobby one or more governments for homosexuality to be CRIMINAL, and when instead of delivering toy-donations to children they instead DESTROY the donated toys if they are Harry Potter themed or Twilight themed or any other "non-christian" toys they get. They don't even hand those toys over to some other charity to use, they just destroy toys that people tried to donate to poor/sick children. The homosexual-thing is evil but comprehensible, but seriously WTF sort of twisted fuck goes around accepting toy donations for sick children and destroying those toy donations???
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
DO you think it logical to force another sentient being to bear a child it does not want?
No one is suggesting that rape be legalized. Women get away with forcing men into being fathers and bearing that financial responsibility, so it actually wouldn't be inconsistent, however. Limbaugh's proposal to require women's participation in pornographic performances on the whole seems a little too moderate.
It's inherently bad for the man if he raises children unrelated to him
reactive care provides metrics that are easy to measure short-term, and preventative care can be a never-ending money pit where results are only able to be calculated after years of funding.
Congratulations, you've just described the kind of thinking that is one of the major reasons why American health care system (which is primarily reactive) is so expensive per capita.
What conservatives want is for you to be responsible for yourself.
But that fails in practice. No matter how much you want someone to be responsible, some will not be. So, what's the plan for that? Let the children starve? Hold rallies blaming the economy on the Democrats and stating that if the Democrats lowered taxes, the charities would get enough donations that there would be no starving children?
too few people are willing to take responsibility for their own actions anymore.
I vote for people who will take care of those who need it. That's responsibility for my actions. I don't punish children for their parents making a mistake. Why do you? What's your fix (other than asking real nicely)?
Learn to love Alaska
That is inherent in the absolutist nature of superstition, which does not ask how things work (in the manner of science) but poses made-up mumbo-jumbo and Imaginary Friends as "truth".
All religion is bad because it inherently opposes the pursuit of truth.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
I've had a knee brace prescribed as a preventative measure. My insurance paid for that preventative measure without any trouble. My mother takes a number of pills for issues as a preventative measure (often after something started, to prevent worsening or an attack of some kind). Insurance routinely pays for preventative measures. So why not this one? Car insurance will cover windshields with zero deductible for chip repair (as replacements cost more than a repair), but to use that analogy for birth control, and I'm a raving liberal trying to push my (lack of) values onto the poor innocent Christians.
It's never been about paying for it, or anything like that. The issue is always that it's available. And the easiest complaint at this point is about the cost, but that's not what they are actually complaining about.
Learn to love Alaska
Thank you. I'm disturbed it took this long for someone to point this out - I would have thought it was completely obvious.
The most reasonable argument against runs: You consider pregnancy a disease?
The Fruit of Knowledge is the enemy of Superstition.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Because insurance is a spreading of cost and risk, some of your premiums will be used for treatment of others. That includes contraception, if so covered. But Religion does advocate reaching into someone's pocket and taking it for others. That's what a tithe is, it's just not backed by law. Jesus didn't talk about the tithe, but instead money and charity.
Learn to love Alaska
If you do something with good intentions and it doesn't work, isn't it time to re-evaluate what you are doing?
Ask Reagan and his voodoo economics. Oh wait, that trickle down that never trickled down is *still* being advocated by conservatives, despite being proven false. The irony is that they then complain that "if it doesn't work, isn't it time to re-evaluate" for other things.
Learn to love Alaska
You take my money by force (ie. thieft)
Since it's theft, how do I stop them from stealing from me to pay for illegal wars started by Republicans?
Learn to love Alaska
You mean like the so-called Christians in the U.S. who've murdered their fellow citizens who don't "believe" properly, or whose politics are not "godly" enough? Pot - kettle - black - etc. Same bullshit, different label. Yawn...
our dominant religions (including atheism and agnosticism--which are, of course beliefs about God, if only by denial and uncertainty)
What are your "beliefs" about the tiny pink unicorn that lives under my fingernail? What about the anthropomorphic mushroom that lives at the bottom of Lake Titicaca and controls mankind's thoughts?
Oh wait, you don't have any beliefs about those?
As a matter of fact I do - I have very specific beliefs on the subject.
Kind of like me and God(s).
No, not really, only in the sense that they are both belief. My belief in the non-existence of a giant mushroom at the bottom of Lake Titticaca is based on two things:
- the premise that if such a mushroom existed then it ought to be observable.
- the fact that you don't believe in it either, in fact you are using it as an example of something that does not exist
Thus my belief is linked to a philosophical underpinnning that assumes a reasonably deterministic universe and thus affirms the validity of observation
Your belief is based on the assertion that something defined as unobservable does not exist because it hasn't been observed by you personally. Your belief is irrational. That does not mean it is not valid to hold that belief. You just need to stop claiming to have a rational basis for it.
As a kid, it never even *occurred* to me that a God(s) could/should exist. The entire idea is so far removed from reality that it never even entered my head.
When I was a child, it never occurred occurred to me that Afghanistan existed. The idea of a place like Afghanistan was so far removed from my reality that it never entered my head. But as it happens my ignorance or lack of knowledge on the subject did not, in any way, change the probability that Afghanistan existed.
It wasn't until I was in early grade school that I was like "You believe WHAT?" when talking to other kids. I thought they were from the Moon, and I still do. Insanity.
I think the same about many things that Atheists believe.
Let's support India and China against Pakibanistan. The real problem isn't worthless peasants, it's their nutcase neighbours.
The cure would be a decisive Indian first strike.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
The government opens a factory producing widgets. They employ 1000 workers. That improves the economy. The owner of the factory is irrelevant to its economic benefits.
Learn to love Alaska
What?
So they can migrate and make other countries just as bad as their own?
Obviously you missed the whole problem with gangs of Lebanese teenagers gang raping young girls.. and claiming it was a cultural right.
The muslim attitude to sex is sickening. Here is another example: http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8450261/refugee-sentenced-over-second-vic-rape
No.
How about the citizens of that country stand up for what they believe in and fix their own country? Yes, a lot of people are gong to die, be tortured, and generally go through what Europe went through in the Dark Ages.. but there is light at the end of the tunnel and today is a good day to start.
You don't fix a problem with bullies by running away from them. In this case, though, I admit that the bullies may all need to die before this particular problem can be solved.
A good point you have.
A true fiscal conservative would be shocked by the disparity between the US investment in Health and the outcomes recieved by the nation as a whole.
Palin railed against "Death Panels", but they're already there, HMOs make decisions about denying coverage and treatment to patients every day, is it less horrible because those decisions are made by private corporations rather than government departments (perhaps for some people it is). For that matter, hospitals and families also regularly face these decisions.
You can't be that stupid... It's elective. Face lifts and tummy tucks and gold capped teeth aren't covered either. Also, it's an ongoing cost, like toothpaste. Someone has to pay for it, how about the woman getting laid and the guy or guys getting the pleasure - instead of making other people in the insurance pool that aren't in the bed paying the bill. If the sex isn't good enough to be worth paying for the pill, go without. But, don't make me pay for it. My insurance premiums are high enough without adding that on. You get the fun, you pay for it!
And you don't think that event horizon won't grow larger due to conflict?
Life is not for the lazy.
about how, for a 300 year period, the Arab world was the center of intellectual progress in the world. 2/3 of all stars with names have Arabic names. They discovered 0, they gave us algebra.
To be accurate, the 'Arab' world did none of this. Most of the mystical writings and magical works and alchemy treatises were Persian. Once the Persian Empire was conquered by the 'Arabs' much of that progressive momentum was lost.
However, we are talking about a pair of groups of groups. Both the Arab army and the Persian Empire were more like Greek city states bound by a common culture more than anything.
Parallels with the Christian Dark ages can be made where individuals made amazing discoveries in isolation only to require the discovery be repeated again and again due to the active isolation and suppression by select conservative elements of the civilization.
One could say that the Industrial Corporatism that stagnates changes the Western world is doing the same thing again. (Compare changes in lifestyles between 1500 and 1700 then 1700 and today.) But it's easier to blame it on religion since it did the retarding twice already. And there is no shortage of nutcases to stand in front of the public and decry 'because God says so' while they hand your children over to the TSA's pedophiles for a probing inspection. These girls got hurt, but only because someone personally benefited from it. Even if religious reasons are the scapegoat, follow the money and the power.
Some of the suppressors of change carry a Bible. Others just need a checkbook. Ask yourself: how many times have you heard someone shoot down a radical idea for space transportation just because it costs a lot of money? Compare and contrast the cost to fly to the Moon with the money already paid by the USA to military contractors for the still non-extant Joint Strike Fighter. That's corporatism at work.
Now go be a good consumer/churchgoer kneel at the temple for Zod.
Birth control prevents ovarian cysts? Why don't they put that into the ads for Trojans? Why isn't ParaGard advertising that?
Pretty sure i said "birth control pills"... yup. I did say that. But don't let that distract you from your fun little rant about condom ads.
When they aren't being used for "birth control", then it is wrong to call them "birth control".
A rose by any other name...
There are too many other things that "birth control" includes to say that "birth control controls ovarian cysts".
Great argument, if anyone had actually said that. But nobody did.
If you want a condition covered under insurance, talk about the condition you want covered, not something else
Everyone discussing the issue conflates them. I would love to have a rational discussion calling things what they are.
But seeing as you've conflated my statement specifically about "birth control PILLS" with "birth control" and then wandered off to rant about condoms... I hardly think you are starting us off on the right foot here.
Ok, what a biased sack of crap. Conservatives are anti-education? That is completely false and just shows what bias you find on the left. I've read this nonsense in here numerous times and it's completely false. What a stretch to make a slam, eh? Ya, the left are all perfect little angles who all have doctorates as brain surgeons and rocket scientists - just like Jimmy Carter.
You want to talk about no education and is more like a religion? Why is Islam so untouchable by the left no matter what happens, no matter how many people are killed, no matter how many gays are hung, no matter how many women are beaten because Mohammed said that's how you make them submit to Allah's will, no matter how many suicide bombers decide to kill innocent people, no matter how many times they teach the kids in school "death to America and Israel" with it right there in their "text books"? Ok, that last part probably because the left usually hates America and Israel which makes the rest of that ok. That's super educated right there.
No, there's no insanity at all with the lefts' views! From N.O.W. who doesn't lift a finger to help muslim women all the way to Obama and his failure... we should just be taxed even more so we can give it all to a bunch of lazy people who will milk the system and have tons of kids and teach them to milk the system. Oh wait... those folks are usually liberals who have no education.
Ask Reagan and his voodoo economics. Oh wait, that trickle down that never trickled down is *still* being advocated by conservatives, despite being proven false. The irony is that they then complain that "if it doesn't work, isn't it time to re-evaluate" for other things.
Compare Reagan's voodoo economics to FDR's New Deal and Obama's 3 year trillion dollar deficits Keynesian stimuluses.
Which of those economic periods is typified by high unemployment and low economic growth?
Keynesian economics is far more disproven than "voodoo economics", yet that's the supposed solution to our current economic ills. We've tried it for 3 years. It's not working.
Poisoning little girls. Yes Mujahideen are indeed brave souls though terrified of women getting taught anything. Deeply deeply pathetic creatures.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
You, sir, are an idiot. You conflate Buddhist philosophy with old Japanese philosophy. Find me one piece of Buddhist philosophy that supports any of the things you mentioned.
It's almost like you believe that religious people obey only what is written in their religious texts, rather than make human judgements of their own. Your ignorance disgusts me.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
"Republican's don't want to outlaw birth control. They just don't think the government should pay for it."
Well you're half right anyway. Some or most Republicans (I won't say all but might be) are or are trying to tap the political base of Christians in the US who are often openly against birth control (behind closed doors being another situation altogether of course) as it is against god's command to be fruitful and multiply and in some cases is perceived as being equal to abortion.
Not paying for birth control is just one step in the direction that they want to go which is anti-abortion, anti-birth control, anti-separation of church and state.
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
That's just wrong. Republicans... conservatives donate a higher percentage of their income to charities than liberals; they also donate more blood and time. Paying taxes and sinking this country into a fiscal debt crisis is not "charity." If you are not making the decision, it's not "charity" and it's not "magnanimous" on your part. If you believe in Jesus then you must believe did NOT support not giving people the choice... you have to be judged on your OWN actions, not what you were forced to do. (for the record, I'm not religious, and I use this very same argument against religious people who want to control my life, too)
Who Gives and Who Doesn't.. Yes, you can call it biased... yet no liberals have ever been able to disprove it, just attack the authors without substantive arguments.
The article makes very interesting associations without any proof of causation. Just because the people in one area that happens to be primarily republican purportedly gave more than the people in another area which is primarily liberal does not at all indicate whether the people giving are republican or liberal, or rich or poor. Already that they were collecting at Macy's and Wal-Mart breaks the comparison as Macy's is a bit more expensive than Wal-Mart. It's a bullshit report. The entire thought of the rich being more generous is idiotic to start with so I didn't bother reading the second part of the article as it only confirms this and has no bearing on the conservative vs. liberal point you're making. It would have been more interesting to know if the rich who do not give are conservative or liberal but of course that would have gone against the slant of the article against 'liberals' so it wasn't included.
They use religion to back up their opinions where it is supported, and any other useful tidbit when it doesn't. Do you think Jesus would have supported the NRA?
I don't think Jesus would care one way or another about the NRA.
I want to think you're joking but I suppose that you aren't. How could Jesus, proponent of peace, father of the meek, possibly not care about the propagation of weapons that are only meant to kill? What an amazing thing to say.
Cutting school budgets to get the latest F-35 bombers that the military doesn't even want?
You're right about one thing, it's not based on religion that they do this... it's based on what's written in the constitution; based on the failure of our educational system despite the wanton amounts of money we throw at it (BTW, Bush increased educational spending more than anyone else in the previous four decades... what did he get for it? The disdain of the left, of course.).
It's not based on what's written in the constitution. It's based on pockets being filled - contractors and politicians both.
Bush got disdain because he appeared to be a complete idiot not only during times of crisis but more or less every time he opened his mouth. If he increased educational spending it was no doubt on the request of his wife but whatever. America's problems with education are not particularly financial. More money won't change that conservatives / republicans are trying to teach creationism, for example.
As far as military spending - you're right. I'm not a republican, I think they've been terrible leaders since Bush's election... but I also think democrats seem to have been inspired to one-up the terribleness.
Think what you want - I won't change your mind, I realize that the people asking the most for open mindedness are typically the most closed minded of all. But between the way liberals want to destroy this country and the way the republicans want to destroy this country, the republicans are much less "bad," even if they're not good.
I don't think that either liberals or republicans particularly want to destroy the country, but I di
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
That would be a non sequitur. And couldn't liberal Christians be members of two religions?
Keynesian economics is far more disproven than "voodoo economics", yet that's the supposed solution to our current economic ills. We've tried it for 3 years. It's not working.
I don't believe you, and the Republicans have been pushing voodoo since 1980. Even the person who pejoratively named it practiced it in that time. The only break from it was under Clinton, and he managed a balanced budget (for some definitions of balanced). That's a lot more than Keynesian for 3 years. Keynesian isn't "disproven" it's been proven to not work when poorly implemented.
Learn to love Alaska
I hate the idea of a person setting another living person on fire, regardless of the reason, or lack thereof.
I would go so far as to say that if you don't agree, you don't belong in civilised society.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
If you didn't understand my post, you don't belong in civilised society. Please read it again.
"Religion". "Peace". Bah. Medieval death cult, more like it.
I just imagine that you forgot to write about Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh & Afghanistan as well as Iran out of love for the muslims? Or you only call the non-muslim countries as backwards culture (excluding your mention of Arab nations which technically is BS).
Or maybe PK & BG are in India according to your geography knowhow!
You do realise that philosophy is is no different to Isaac Newtons assertion that planetary orbits required divine intervention every once in a while to keep moving at the pace they do....
Despite (humerous) objections at the time:
"God Almighty wants to wind up his watch from time to time: otherwise it would cease to move. He had not, it seems, sufficient foresight to make it a perpetual motion."
Leibniz.
It was over 100 years later until it was refuted with a practical theory.
The problems that plague the world now, are the same problems that have plagued the world before - and one of them is that we too damn ignorant to see the similarities in each other throughout time. We pulled the exact the same shit at some point in our (not too distant) past and to sit high and mighty now while ignoring the problems that still exist (allowing religious arguments to trump reason in all major areas) is the ultimate folly.
I'm not saying that we ignore these problems and wait for them to go away - I'm just saying that invading them is not a solution - wiping out their religion is not a solution - bombing them out existence is not a solution. The solution is to engage with them, however long it takes its the only way to truly bring about lasting change.
"It's not a "health" choice, it's a lifestyle choice."
Your ignorance is deafening. Sorry, but the pill is not just a "life-style" choice. Please educate yourself.
My wife has poly-cystic ovaries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycystic_ovary_syndrome), a pre-cancerous condition. One of the fun things about PCOS is you don't menstruate. So my wife will literally go months without a menstrual cycle but when she does, oh boy. She is constantly cramping, imagine someone grabbing your insides and constantly squeezing. Then when a menstrual cycle starts it does so with even more incredible cramping that she can hardly get out of bed in the morning or even get through the day. Pain meds are the order of the day. Next up comes an extremely heavy and clotty flow that will continue for about 4 weeks that makes her tired and light headed most of the day. If she isn't on birth control she gets to look forward to that 2-3 times a year for a month at a time. In our lives there is no such thing as "lifestyle" choice just pain or no pain.
If you didn't understand my post, you don't belong in civilised society. Please read it again.
Ok, i'll repost it for clarity
Why would you hate someone for doing something that doesn't affect you, for reasons you have no idea of?
Well, the "something that doesn't affect me" in this instance is setting another living person on fire. The idea is abhorrent.
:)
Furthermore, and I probably could have been more clear about this, "you" is not you daem0n1x. "You" in my original reply was the reader. If the reader thinks that setting another living person on fire for any reason whatsoever is an acceptable course of action, it is my opinion that they do not belong in civilised society. I am well aware that calling the society this situation occurred "civilised" would be a point of contention; I'm merely expressing my own view on the matter.
Did I misunderstand your post? If so, I'll be sure to make my way over to you with an accelerant. In for a penny, eh?
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Oh, no, the bad guys are ALWAYS foreign. Sorry, forgot this was a mostly USian site...
Thanks for the great post exemplifying how conservativism is not reality based. I made a factual claim, based on numerous empirical observations. You came back, not with more data that conflicts with my explanation, not with an alternative explanation of the data, not even with a request for a citation, but with a flat denial. This is how conservatives deal with facts they don't like.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
FWIW, that bill concerns the day-after ABORTION bill, not the day before CONTRACEPTION pill. Big difference, at least in the minds of conservatives. It is your choice and your responsibility to avoid pregnancy by taking/using contraceptives; it is not your choice to kill the fetus after conception because you didn't choose to prevent an unwanted pregnancy.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
and a paedophile. All muslims know this, and celebrate it! They call him 'the perfect man'.
Its important not to distort historical cultural norms. Using your own measure of standard, most people don't realize that Joseph, step-father of Jesus, also qualifies as a "peadophile." This is a fact, but of course one which many Christians don't even know or realize.
The fact is, marriages as such young ages were not terribly uncommon back then. A fact which is true today in various parts of the world. Even in the US, some states allow marraige as young as thirteen or fourteen, if I remember correctly.
No. This is quite different. In the Newton case, he discovered a set of rules and had a deity that he thought occasionally intervened. That's different than a deity that runs the entire universe by fiat with no rules at all. The rest of what you have to say is simply irrelevant to question at hand, especially given that other Islamic philosophers didn't have this viewpoint, so there's no issue of seeing similarities. This isn't an issue of similarities between Islam and more Western religions, it is an issue about a specific philosophical viewpoint. Your statements about invasion and bombing really have nothing to do with the question at hand of why the Muslim world went from being the center of science and thought to being very much not so. That's not the matter under discussion under this subthread, and whether Al-Ghazali was responsible for this decline doesn't address such issues at all.
ok if you have points to mod me informative, ill give you the links, as I see googling it fo yourself might be too tough...
I hate cheaters, as I was cheated on...my own experience, so why do you say something I know nothing of....or does not affect me?
how do you think I got to this point if it did not affect me, or someone i cared about?
Did I misunderstand your post?
Yes, you did. Hesaigo999ca said he hates people who cheat on their spouses. I asked why. I included a quote from his text to make very clear what I was talking about.
Setting someone on fire is a horrible act. And you can be sure I hate the guy who did it.
Not every "creed" or political system is a religion. There are plenty of liberal Christians for instance.
Jesus was fairly liberal for His time.
You have a good reason to hate the one who cheated on you... or not. But hate is a pretty strong word to apply to every cheater, isn't it?
Who Gives and Who Doesn't.. Yes, you can call it biased... yet no liberals have ever been able to disprove it, just attack the authors without substantive arguments.
The article you linked concludes that "religious people donate more to charity" by checking the donation levels to a Salvation Army bucket in San Francisco and Sioux Falls.
The Salvation Army is a conservative religious organization; check out their own position statements on abortion or homosexuality, for example. http://www.salvationarmyusa.org/usn/www_usn_2.nsf/0/B6F3F4DF3150F5B585257434004C177D?Opendocument
And almost all of the people who gave to our bell ringers in San Francisco and Sioux Falls said they were religious or spiritual.
This study might as well have set up a donation table to the Republican party, and concluded that "Republicans donate more than Democrats." Set up a Planned Parenthood donation table in both San Francisco and Sioux Falls, measure the respective donations, and then get back to us on which group *gives more to charity.* Go ahead, we'll wait.
"Intent" matters less than you seem to think (it might if something is ambigious but then we get rants about judges ligislating from the bench and this one isn't ambigious). What is in "the minds of conservatives" is irrelevant too. What matters is what the laws they pass say.
It says that "personhood" starts at conception. The stock standard birth control pill, kills conceived eggs by interfering with implantation, depriving that tiny person of oxygen and nutrients and so murdering them - if you accept the premise (and when it comes to laws you don't get a choice).
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1#.T43CilQo0Tw
Yes, you can call it biased... yet no liberals have ever been able to disprove it, just attack the authors without substantive arguments.
Remove churches from the population of charities and watch that figure PLUMMET.
With the first link, the chain is forged.
..... conservatives donate a higher percentage of their income to charities than liberals;
Those studies in your link said religioius people and lower income people donate more money to charities than the not so religious people and wealthier as a percentage of income. Just because you're religious doesn't make you "conservative". Some of the most "liberal" people I know are very religous.
And as far as the United Way, I wonder how much of their giving is honest giving. There's nothing I hate more than being at work and having an HR person slap one of the United Way forms on my desk to take money out of my paycheck to donate. With fear of retribution, I throw them out. I wonder how many others do that or just cave in and donate?
And then we get into what is a "conservative".
I for one beleive in balanced budgets, gun rights, smaller government, and lower taxes. But I also think gay people should be able to marry, i'm pro-abortion, and I firmly beleive in the seperation of Church and State - absolutely.
Try to pin me down.
What are your "beliefs" about the tiny pink unicorn that lives under my fingernail?
See, that's such a bad argument. Why do you think it's difficult say "I believe that doesn't eist" and not start frothing at the mouth about "That can't exist! I have a complete lack of belief about it, not just a belief that it doesn't exist!!! Don't you dare call that a belief!"
Yes, Yes, The Sex Abuse scandal... Bla Bla Bla, Joke Joke Jokes, Just to make you feel better about your life to know that even "Religious People" don't live up to their own rules...
The Crime the Church did was cover it up, and just transferred abusers to an other location, which is wrong. However I am willing to be the number of priests who did performed sex abuse is the same as any other sector of the population.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I agree with the idea of total war, but nation building can only be done in very limited circumstances.
Sure it worked in Germany. Germany's culture is almost completely compatible with our own.
Japan had a very different culture, but part of their culture was a willingness to adapt. Look at baseball in Japan. Look how popular American Western stuff became -- cowboys, cattle ranching, etc. I always am like "wtf??"
There is not a single Muslim country that has either of those attributes as far as I can see. If you were to try to nation-build Saudi Arabia it would be a miserable failure, no matter how much total war you threw at them first. For countries with such radically different, non-adaptable cultures, colonization is the only way to impose change, and I don't think anybody really wants to do that. So at that point the best strategy is total war to reduce their offensive capabilities, then gtfo.
not start frothing at the mouth about "I have a complete lack of belief about it, not just a belief that it doesn't exist!!!"
Frothing? I'm simply saying I no more "actively" disbelieve a God exists than actively disbelieve any other of the infinite variety of other nonexistent things that a human mind could conceive of.
I'm not the atheist; the other guys are the theists. Or do you actively define yourself as an aunicornist? Or an asentientmushroomist?
With the first link, the chain is forged.
I don't believe you, and the Republicans have been pushing voodoo since 1980. Even the person who pejoratively named it practiced it in that time. The only break from it was under Clinton, and he managed a balanced budget (for some definitions of balanced). That's a lot more than Keynesian for 3 years. Keynesian isn't "disproven" it's been proven to not work when poorly implemented..
The entirety of the New Deal is Keynesian economics. You'll notice that for FDR's 4 terms and his economic policy, we never did quite get out of the Great Depression. That's almost 16 years of an economic policy that didn't work.
Would you care to explain how the New Deal was "poorly implemented"? Or would you like to point to a good implementation of Keynesian economics?
Keynesian ultimately boils down to a form of central planning, compared to the de-centralized planning a free market would have. And it's not hard to see why a centralized decision making process fails to account for all the millions of variables relevant to the economy, resulting in a "poor implementation".
The reality is that it has nothing to do with "poor implementation". Failure is a system defect of Keynesian economics. Gov't beauracrats are not inerrant prophets who can predict the rise and fall of economic growth and compensate for it with monetary policy. Nor are politicians disciplined enough to avoid buying votes with irresponsible gov't spending.
4 trillion dollars in defecit spending, and we're just not "doing it right". Maybe we should not do it and save 4 trillion dollars - all that requires is us to do nothing.
As practiced:
Western culture = bad
All other cultures = good
Always "we can learn something from them" and never "they can learn something from us." When it comes to the barbaric practices of other cultures, it's something we should respect, not try to eradicate through cultural imperialism.
Sorry, that's a load of crap.
However, if a doctor prescribes a hormonal birth control pill to remedy an ailment, that's an entirely different story, and I think if you actually asked all those republicans opposed to mandating birth control coverage about it, you'd get the same answer. I'm not religious about it, I'm not even a republican, and I don't believe my premiums should cover your birth control... but if you're not using it as birth control, if you're using it for some other medical condition, I have no problem with it.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
What conservatives want is for you to be responsible for yourself.
But that fails in practice. No matter how much you want someone to be responsible, some will not be. So, what's the plan for that? Let the children starve?
It's become a catch-22, but ask yourself this - do you want it to get better or worse? What happens when you keep taking responsibility away from people? They tend to continue on a trend of being less and less responsible. What happens in the long run when you stop taking responsibility for others? They tend to become more and more responsible.
I know it sounds really harsh; I don't want anyone to starve - but I only want to help those I know TRULY cannot help themselves by ANY OTHER MEANS.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
So I see..
Actually, you don't. In fact, you entirely missed the point I clearly spelled out; in fact, I'll repeat the line you completely ignored: "I would argue if it's for health reasons (like the hormonal birth control used to treat other symptoms) you'd have a point."
AIDS may be the result of a lifestyle choice (but not necessarily); it's a medical condition that, left untreated will cause more harm to the person. Same thing with cancer, heart failure ("hart?" really?). Birth control for the purposes of birth control is a lifestyle choice. I shouldn't have to pay higher premiums to cover your lifestyle choices. If you can't understand that, you're helpless... but you keep on pretending wanting birth control is akin to vaccines for a disease or treatments for cancer... if you really think that, I'm not going to change your mind.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
I think arguing with some of you is useless... if you think that premiums don't rise to pay for additional coverages, you're just wrong. Nothing I can say will convince you, I think. Health insurance companies certainly DO charge more to cover more.
You're right - the issue is not helping republicans with women. It's a shame... women have now become an entitlement group that democrats use fear-mongering on to maintain a majority.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
I would argue if it's for health reasons (like the hormonal birth control used to treat other symptoms) you'd have a point. Otherwise... no.
Wow, until the end there we were re-creating the whole Sandra Fluke discussion. She brings up valid medical uses aside from birth control, Rush yells about sex. See, what you did there was fall down on the last point. The whole point of yelling about sex is to distract away from the "medical value" discussion. Because if you start talking about medicine, you lose. So please continue yelling about sex.
Wow. What? I say if it's for health issues instead of lifestyle choices it should be covered and you babble incoherently about it.
I've already discussed this... I should not have to pay higher premiums to cover your lifestyle choices.
Moreover, it's not simply a matter of religious issues or not, it's a free market one. Insurance companies offer certain protections - you choose to buy it or not. You choose a "limousine" plan to cover all these extra things, and Obama wants you to pay an extra tax on it.... he wants you to pay an extra tax for choosing the best plans in the free market.
I'm not religious, I have no problem with people using birth control and having wantonly free sex (in fact, I encourage it), but I shouldn't have to pay for it. You have a covered medical condition in your policy... and my premiums are helping to pay for it, I have no problem.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
For fucks sake, doesn't anybody read the last line before replying? If it's to treat a MEDICAL condition it's a completely different issue than to support a LIFESTYLE choice.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Again, the extortion argument: pay for my lifestyle choices now, or pay more later.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
"that most women on birth control aren't taking it for all the DIRTY DISGUSTING SEX they want to have, but for major health issues that impede their lives?"
They say that about 65% of women are on birth control. You're saying that most of them have "major health issues that impede their lives" that can be mitigated by birth control pills. How many is 'most'? 80% of them? 70%? Are you saying that ~50% of all women have "major health issues"? You can't be serious.
They seem to think it is still that century, they will never get anywhere that way. They will remain savages.
Religion is like a rapist’s penis. It attacks women.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/taslima/2012/04/18/religion-is-like-a-rapists-penis-it-attacks-women/
Since religious texts have about as many interpretations as there are adherents of the religion. But in the end, a religion is defined by what a large number of its adherents do, and what the adherents overall, and their governments, are willing to accept and not punish.
Christian extremist wackos to this extent are few and far between, almost universally condemned by those of their religion, and prosecuted by their governments. The few abortion clinic bombers and doctor killers were promptly brought to justice in this majority-Christian country.
Muslim extremist wackos are sometimes the ones running the governments. While many Muslims may say "this isn't Islam" they don't do much about it. CAIR preaches peaceful Islam on the front, while providing support for the "extremists" on the back. I know there are non-extremist Muslims, and are probably the majority. But I believe most of those either have no idea what's going on (say a rural mom in Malaysia), or tacitly support it in the same way most American Christians did nothing while the Westboro Baptists bashed gays (they only got upset when Westboro started protesting soldier funerals). This isn't just the right-wing Christians either, since we have pictures of Al Gore chumming it up with Fred Phelps himself.
Some have put the percentage of these murderous "extremists" at maybe five percent of Muslims or less. That's still tens of millions of people out there, many supported by the laws of their country or province, who are willing to kill and maim because their sense of religion was offended.
A simple test was brought up in a previous story: piss on a Bible publicly in the US, declare your name, tape it, and post it to the Internet. What will happen? There will be some grumbles, the 700 Club won't be happy, but that's about it.
Now do the same thing, in the US, with a Quran. There will be deadly riots around the world, there will be people out to kill you. The "peaceful" Muslims in the US will at a minimum be calling for your prosecution. However, your government founded on Western culture will not prosecute you, and will prosecute your killer (unless we keep sliding in this liberal PC direction and respect the Religion Of Peace). When you are killed, few Muslims will shed a tear.
Now do it with a Quran in a Muslim-ruled country. If you somehow manage to be taken into police custody before you are murdered on the spot, expect a lengthy jail sentence or execution.
This tells me what I need to know about whether Islam is a peaceful religion overall, and whether the "extremists" are truly the outliers.
Aisha was 6 at the moment of marriage, not 13.
Total education funding has more than doubled since 1990, and has risen much higher than that by various other metrics. So that can't be the problem.
Time to look back at your administrators, policy makers, teachers and unions.
The magical thinking (I assume you refer to the Christian creation myth taught as science) has only been attempted in a few states, so you can't place the blame there.
I seem to remember Buddhist monks rioting in Seoul.
But to be fair it was about who gets the power and money to run the temples, not over a religious doctrinal issue.
And even then for some the article recognizes that the violence being driven by the religion itself is questionable.
And they even include Kony, who practices something that pulls elements from many religions into his own unique theology. I know Christians like to use "No True Scotsman" whenever a Christian does something wrong, but this guy's beliefs are so far outside any known Christian sect that it's really wrong to call him Christian.
Anything to flesh out an article that would otherwise be extremely short.
Its text is absolutely authentic and in our own language. The context has a well-documented written history, and the identities, views, intentions and debates of the parties involved in its creation are recorded in writing.
And yet, only 223 years later, the interpretations of that document can vary in the extreme from the original text and clearly documented intent of the writers. For example,
So do you think a religion created 2,000 or 1,400 years ago with various texts, translations and oral histories even has a chance of having a coherent interpretation among the followers?
do you want it to get better or worse?
Since I'm not a Republican, I want it to get better.
What happens when you keep taking responsibility away from people? They tend to continue on a trend of being less and less responsible.
An interesting and unsupported theory unrelated to the topic at hand. You assume your conclusion, and assume it's relevant. I disagree with both (to some degree).
I know it sounds really harsh; I don't want anyone to starve - but I only want to help those I know TRULY cannot help themselves by ANY OTHER MEANS.
How is that identified?
Learn to love Alaska
The more dualistic any philosophical system is, the further it should be stayed away from. Dualism creates separation => for something to be RIGHT something else has to be WRONG the deeper the dualism, the deeper the RIGHT needs to destroy the WRONG! but what has become the WRONG! So disheartening to read about these types of acts. How would anyone know what white is without a black to compare it to? It is an impossibility! Therefor one should not try to dwell in black or white, because night turns into day day turns into night. The two are mutually dependent. One cannot exist without the other, so why try to put one above the other. Remain constant and aware in all circumstances, love without any exception, bias, exclusion, INCLUSION, attachment. .... ok, ok my little rant for the day is done
Both the house and the senate approved amendments adding the text, "Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as affecting lawful contraception." It's right there in your source, yet you didn't refer to it.
Fred Phelps is a strong argument that parent post isn't a Troll.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Wow, what a jerk. Being a republican has nothing to do with it... I haven't voted republican in over 20 years.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Do you want it to get better or worse?
Learn to love Alaska
Frothing? I'm simply saying I no more "actively" disbelieve a God exists than actively disbelieve any other of the infinite variety of other nonexistent things that a human mind could conceive of.
It's an exaggeration if only considering your post, but to me it's just as much "from the Moon" to me to think that someone would have any problem at all with having your thoughts about a common social idea like God called a belief.
Or do you actively define yourself as an aunicornist? Or an asentientmushroomist?
No, but that's an interesting way of putting it. Do you feel like if someone applies a label to you, and you accept it, you are defining yourself as that label? I don't get that. Maybe you mean "defining" in a less encompassing way than what I'm thinking.
Anyway, no, but I don't reject the label when it's offered.
I'm not the atheist; the other guys are the theists.
Don't you think it's kind of sad that you are worse than the other guys? Especially in light of what you think about defining yourself, you are saying that you are the default state and they are other, not that you're both equal and have different beliefs about something. That's a weird way of thinking. It reminds me of all the primitive tribes whose language basically calls members of the tribe "person" and any foreigner "non-person".
In the long term I want it to get better = people taking back responsibility for themselves.
That doesn't mean we don't help others who need it, it means you should understand why people who pay taxes get upset when people on government assistance have iPhones and $100 sneakers. That doesn't mean we don't recognize that it's not always like that.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
"from the Moon" to me to think that someone would have any problem at all with having your thoughts about a common social idea like God called a belief.
Well, if you agree with me that we all have an infinite number of beliefs about an infinite number of non-existent things, then I think that issue is settled.
Do you feel like if someone applies a label to you, and you accept it, you are defining yourself as that label?
Yes, yes I do. I don't walk around all day thinking about my disbelief in God (like I imagine true believers of God do in the opposite way); it's not at all a part of my identity.
It's kind of like that old atheist quote "Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby". Except I replace "religion" with "belief" in that quote in this context.
Especially in light of what you think about defining yourself, you are saying that you are the default state and they are other, not that you're both equal and have different beliefs about something.
Well, I *do* think of myself as the default state. NOT because I think everyone else is somehow stupid or a "non-person"/barbarian, or because I'm smarter than everyone else, but for three specific reasons:
(a) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A "valid" belief in God would require some pretty damn extraordinary evidence to back up said belief (which hasn't been found after thousands of years of searching), therefore I don't think of it as a valid "default" state.
(b) There are thousands of different religions, all of which are mutually exclusive. So any active believer in a given religion is actively *disbelieving* a huge number of other religions. How can one claim that *any* of those beliefs be a valid default state if they claim that all the other (very very similar) beliefs are not a valid default state?
(c) Not every argument has two "equal" sides. For instance, I could claim that the world is actually only 3 weeks old, that all our memories are false, and that none of us existed more than 3 weeks ago. Now, I don't think of that as an equally valid argument compared to modern scientific understanding of the history of our planet (accretion disc, formation, heavy bombardment, etc etc).
Similarly, I don't think saying "there is an invisible, magic guy in the sky whose existence and powers fly in the face of everything we know about and observe in the known universe" and atheism are on equal logical footing.
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Find a lucky dude, have tons of sex, and make him pay for your damn pills, bitch.
She sounds defective. Maybe if the Republicans and Christians had their way, natural selection would eliminate her genes from the population. Can anyone say win?
What, did some republican beat you as a child?
Yes thats exactly the guy who NDT was refering to, and mentioned by name. Of course, remember, you are getting my recollection of what he said, which is imperfect and since the original was an hour long video...well.... lets just say looking it up wasn't going to happen for a quick comment during the work day ;)
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Do you realise that the talk I refered to, in fact, used Newton as one of his examples of religion signaling the end of progress.
In fact he had several examples of the places where several scientists made great breakthroughs, got to the limits of their understanding, then invoked a god hypothesis and that was the end of their meaningful contribution to science, until someone else came along and picked up the problem again.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Well, if you agree with me that we all have an infinite number of beliefs about an infinite number of non-existent things, then I think that issue is settled.
Probably not an important distinction for the sake of this discussion, but I'd say you don't have a belief about something until you've considered it. As soon as you asked me about your unicorn I formed a belief about it, but not before then.
Yes, yes I do. I don't walk around all day thinking about my disbelief in God (like I imagine true believers of God do in the opposite way); it's not at all a part of my identity.
Then you should have said no, no you don't. If it's not part of your identity, why do you feel identified by that label? I'm technically a pisces, for instance, though I don't care about astrology or anything like that. I'm not at all offended if someone calls me a pisces. I certainly wouldn't say "No I'm not, it's YOU who have a sign."
Well, I *do* think of myself as the default state. NOT because I think everyone else is somehow stupid or a "non-person"/barbarian, or because I'm smarter than everyone else, but for three specific reasons:
Your reasons make a lot of sense to me and I agree with them, but they don't address the point that virtually all people have beliefs about God, one way or the other, simply because everybody on Earth has been exposed to an Abrahamic religion.
That's also why the atheist joke you mentioned doesn't make sense. Not-stamp-collecting could indeed be a hobby if nearly everybody in the world agreed that the distinction between stamp collecting and not stamp collecting was important. At that point it would become important to identify yourself as a not-stamp-collector.
It's closely related to the whole unicorn/fingernail thing which may be why we see both issues differently in the same way. Not believing in the unicorn under your fingernail just isn't important. Nobody but you and I and a few people reading this thread even have it in their consciousness. Similarly, whether I collect stamps or not is immaterial to the vast majority of humanity. It's not even interesting to know that someone is a stamp collector or not.
But religious belief is incredibly widespread and there are fierce arguments about it, between all factions, believers and non-believers, and within factions, strong atheists vs weak atheists, Muslims vs Jews, etc. To draw an analogy with stamp collecting or your fingernail is just silly. The reality of religious belief is so powerful that, against common sense, it turns your argument on its head. I have to say, yes, I do have a belief about the unicorn under your fingernail. I have to say, yes, not-stamp-collecting could be a hobby. And it's all true, I'm not just saying it rhetorically.. those arguments simply expand on the underlying nature of religious debate and bring it into the patently ludicrous. But it's all still valid. I can accept that ludicrousness, maybe you can't.
Not-stamp-collecting could indeed be a hobby if nearly everybody in the world agreed that the distinction between stamp collecting and not stamp collecting was important
Ah, now I see what you're getting at. It's not necessarily the distinction itself (belief in X vs a lack of belief in X), but whether that distinction is important to sufficiently large number of people that you essentially have to "pick a side". Fair enough. I didn't see your reasoning in this light, and it does make more sense now.
If it's not part of your identity, why do you feel identified by that label?
Ah, for the very reason you state: Because it's such a critically important distinction to most people, and is commonly discussed in social circles.
virtually all people have beliefs about God, one way or the other, simply because everybody on Earth has been exposed to an Abrahamic religion.
Well yes, because belief important to a lot of people. I grew up in an a-religious family (not atheist, just never ever talked about religion). I didn't even know that religion was a "thing" until I started encountering kids in grade school who talked about it. So for me it's very hard to integrate anything regarding religion into my life, active belief, active disbelief, etc etc. It's just...null, I guess?
With the first link, the chain is forged.
"They" were able to do this because girls are apparently not in the same school or classroom.
If the objective is to poison girls only, put all sexes in the same classroom.
Oh, wait.
Sick fucks. All of them.
Well, I suppose it does "control" the birth: it almost guarantees that the baby will be born dead.
The issue is not whether birth control should be available, but whether insurers should be forced to cover birth control.
But you are right about the religious connection. This blew up because of a woman complaining that a CATHOLIC university didn't want to cover birth control, which is against Catholic beliefs. Instead of doing the reasonable thing, like moving to a non-religious school, she demands to impose her beliefs on the school, forcing them to violate a sacred canon.
I'm not Catholic, and I don't agree with their stance on birth control, but it's pretty fucked up to try to force them to violate their beliefs by actively supporting birth control.
Yes, I agree, I see what you were saying, I could easily fall in love with someone that has cheated before but learned from their evil ways.
I appreciate you pointing me in the better path for a better life, and will hopefully keep this in mind next time I come across a cheater.