No, the complaints are typical for a majority which does not allow a minority the same priviledges the majority enjoys without thinking. But when a member of the minority tries to enjoy the same priviledges, it suddenly seems to be rude, antagonistic behaviour.
And this behaviour differs from the behaviour of the religious people complaining about atheists exactly how?
You don't recognize the sense of superiority most religious people display against atheists, because you live in a mostly religious region of the world, so this behaviour looks normal to you. If done reversely, it strikes you as odd. In the U.S., being non- or anti-religious looks non-comprising, self-aggravating and individualist. In contrast, in the mostly secular Europe, where religion doesn't play that big role, it's already non-conformist to be publicly religious. In mostly secular countries, it's the atheist or agnosticist part of the population, that's more socially minded and communal, and the religions people are the individualists.
[...] but the zeal and fanaticism of most antitheists (not athiests or agnostics, just the antitheists) is as fanatical as the most zealous creationist in Kansas.
No, you just ran into a mostly trollish anti-theist and engaged in flamewar. And now you have burns. That's all.
Politics is nothing else than furthering your interest within the society. Yes, even being anti-government or anti-establishment is highly political and makes you a politican (albeit probably not a very good paid one). And no, futhering your interest within the society is not necessarily coercion. You can also get along with cooperation and with compromise.
If you are a real bank, regulation forces you to publish your balance sheet according to US-GAAP, revealing the sources for the interest payments to your first customers and thus your Ponzi scheme.
Without regulation, who hinders a rogue banker to found a bank, collect the deposit money, pay the first customers large interest rates out of the later deposits, and continues, as long as he gets new customers, and if the inflow of new customer ebbs, withdraw all the remaining money as "bonus cheque", and then declare bankruptcy?
You need to pull this stunt only once to make a fortune. No need to care for your customers.
Yes. Because it was libertarianism that caused many important banking regulations to be teared down. And then we got a banking crisis. And we had to bail out the banks, not because we like banks, but because they were having our money, and without bailout, our money would have been gone, and we would have been the people with immediate money problems.
So did the Europeans, and even the inhabitants of North America. The last civil war in the U.S. was not so long ago than the last one lets say in Switzerland (1847) or in Portugal (1828).
That's because IQ tests have a narrow band in which they measure quite exactly. The test you took in school was supposed to be correct in the 85-115 area to predict the schooling potential of the pupils. Everyone below 85 and above 115 was not supposed to be exactly measured, just some estimation, good enough for the teacher for instance to guess that the >115 pupils should be able to score As in most subjects, and Cs indicated that they are getting slacky.
The MENSA test you took later was supposed to be very exact around 130, the cutoff. It would have been just a guess for people with an IQ of 110, and wildly inaccurate for people around 100. It probably couldn't get a good result for people above 140 either, because it isn't supposed to do so.
Which they don't do, according to all investigations in alleged voting frauds. Basicly this builds a strawman ("hey, they might vote illegally"), and tries to badly cover up the real reasons you don't want them to vote - voting for a party you don't like. Whatever arguments you bring, the only reason to put up those billboards is to intimidate voters. Which makes them legally shady at best.
Or put it more clearly: If you put up those billboards only in specific parts of the country, it's clear that you want to warn a certain part of the population, because you don't like their voting habits. You tell them, that you would prefer it if they refrain from voting, and this is voter intimidation.
Yes, if it is done selectively. If there are the same billboards in the neighbourhoods with tea party sympathisants, it would be more ok. And if there were billboards declaring the illegality of voter disenfranchisement too, if would be cromulent.
If there is no legal requirement to have an ID, then requesting any ID to vote (and putting the law in place just a few months before the actual vote) is voter disenfranchisement. That simple.
The actual numbers for being religious (in contrast to "being member of a church") are much lower. A lot of catholic church members are members because they can't be bothered to leave.
Evil is a thouroughly human concept. If Richard Dawkins calls religion a significant force for evil in the world, then he means that religion causes harm to humans. But the universe couldn't care less, for the universe, there is no evil and no good. Religion doesn't cause anything evil beyond mankind. The universe is unaffected by all the evil we do unto each other. And there is no inherent property of the universe that let us define a difference between evil and good. It's up to us to define evil and good as we see it fit.
Slashdot Mirror
I seriously like people who whistle in the dark to overcome their angst.
No, the complaints are typical for a majority which does not allow a minority the same priviledges the majority enjoys without thinking. But when a member of the minority tries to enjoy the same priviledges, it suddenly seems to be rude, antagonistic behaviour.
And this behaviour differs from the behaviour of the religious people complaining about atheists exactly how?
You don't recognize the sense of superiority most religious people display against atheists, because you live in a mostly religious region of the world, so this behaviour looks normal to you. If done reversely, it strikes you as odd. In the U.S., being non- or anti-religious looks non-comprising, self-aggravating and individualist.
In contrast, in the mostly secular Europe, where religion doesn't play that big role, it's already non-conformist to be publicly religious. In mostly secular countries, it's the atheist or agnosticist part of the population, that's more socially minded and communal, and the religions people are the individualists.
For reference: Religiosity and Personality – Going with the flow or being the heretic outlaw.
[...] but the zeal and fanaticism of most antitheists (not athiests or agnostics, just the antitheists) is as fanatical as the most zealous creationist in Kansas.
No, you just ran into a mostly trollish anti-theist and engaged in flamewar. And now you have burns. That's all.
Politics is nothing else than furthering your interest within the society. Yes, even being anti-government or anti-establishment is highly political and makes you a politican (albeit probably not a very good paid one). And no, futhering your interest within the society is not necessarily coercion. You can also get along with cooperation and with compromise.
If you are a real bank, regulation forces you to publish your balance sheet according to US-GAAP, revealing the sources for the interest payments to your first customers and thus your Ponzi scheme.
Without regulation, who hinders a rogue banker to found a bank, collect the deposit money, pay the first customers large interest rates out of the later deposits, and continues, as long as he gets new customers, and if the inflow of new customer ebbs, withdraw all the remaining money as "bonus cheque", and then declare bankruptcy?
You need to pull this stunt only once to make a fortune. No need to care for your customers.
Yes. Because it was libertarianism that caused many important banking regulations to be teared down. And then we got a banking crisis. And we had to bail out the banks, not because we like banks, but because they were having our money, and without bailout, our money would have been gone, and we would have been the people with immediate money problems.
You can unlock all HTC bootloaders - officially, there is a website by HTC dedicated to this.
So did the Europeans, and even the inhabitants of North America. The last civil war in the U.S. was not so long ago than the last one lets say in Switzerland (1847) or in Portugal (1828).
That's because IQ tests have a narrow band in which they measure quite exactly. The test you took in school was supposed to be correct in the 85-115 area to predict the schooling potential of the pupils. Everyone below 85 and above 115 was not supposed to be exactly measured, just some estimation, good enough for the teacher for instance to guess that the >115 pupils should be able to score As in most subjects, and Cs indicated that they are getting slacky.
The MENSA test you took later was supposed to be very exact around 130, the cutoff. It would have been just a guess for people with an IQ of 110, and wildly inaccurate for people around 100. It probably couldn't get a good result for people above 140 either, because it isn't supposed to do so.
Which they don't do, according to all investigations in alleged voting frauds. Basicly this builds a strawman ("hey, they might vote illegally"), and tries to badly cover up the real reasons you don't want them to vote - voting for a party you don't like.
Whatever arguments you bring, the only reason to put up those billboards is to intimidate voters. Which makes them legally shady at best.
The IBM T220 came out in 2001 and had 3840x2400 pixels, so yes, larger resolutions have been available for some time already.
Or put it more clearly: If you put up those billboards only in specific parts of the country, it's clear that you want to warn a certain part of the population, because you don't like their voting habits. You tell them, that you would prefer it if they refrain from voting, and this is voter intimidation.
Yes, if it is done selectively. If there are the same billboards in the neighbourhoods with tea party sympathisants, it would be more ok. And if there were billboards declaring the illegality of voter disenfranchisement too, if would be cromulent.
Voter intimidation and voter disenfranchisement is illegal too. So how's that pissing contest who is more illegal going?
If there is no legal requirement to have an ID, then requesting any ID to vote (and putting the law in place just a few months before the actual vote) is voter disenfranchisement. That simple.
Sources including the intelligence services of other countries.
Which proved to be rehashed 10 year old articles of students of political sciences. Way to go, intelligence services!
But cooking the blood is immediate.
Yes, it's called "pen and paper voting and watching the ballot box and the count".
Try it, it works!
Those aren't molecules, but ionic crystals. Not what we are looking for if we want to create livings.
That's exactly what he is doing. And he doesn't try to hide it.
The actual numbers for being religious (in contrast to "being member of a church") are much lower. A lot of catholic church members are members because they can't be bothered to leave.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Slovenia
Evil is a thouroughly human concept. If Richard Dawkins calls religion a significant force for evil in the world, then he means that religion causes harm to humans. But the universe couldn't care less, for the universe, there is no evil and no good. Religion doesn't cause anything evil beyond mankind. The universe is unaffected by all the evil we do unto each other. And there is no inherent property of the universe that let us define a difference between evil and good. It's up to us to define evil and good as we see it fit.
There is a difference between the concept of an Evil and the attribute 'evil'.
There is also no Darkness, but there are dark corners.