The irony is that this is how laws are supposed to work anyway.
Yup. Except one thing:
How can we assume the way we interpret things will be (A) consistant (somewhat addressed in the TFA, but not very well) and (B) not change over time?
Example:
The first amendment says nothing of a "separation of church and state", but "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Yet we interuprt that clause as such.
Further, the first amendment also notes "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble", yet we allow many exceptions to these "rights" (no yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater, no "assebly" peaceably or otherwise when it interferes with public safety, etc...
The second amendment says "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.", yet we allow for exceptions (no tanks on my block!)
Nowhere in the constitution does it provide a "right" to privacy, but not only was such a right "interpreted" to exist when no such right existed before, it brought with it the "right" to an abortion with strong arguments that this right is absolute (no exceptions).
What good is the damn document if in 20 or 50 years it will mean something entirely different? What good is the amendment process if we can subvert it by just saying "...well, I think it means THIS now"?
How are laws (which must pass constitutional muster) any different?
You're kidding, right? They are the exact same corporate entity. They are "the same" as they were in the 1980s in just the same way as *I* am the same as I was in the 1980's -- just a bit older and wiser.
The current "atari" is like some guy who changed his name to "atari" after the REAL atari died.
And BTW Atari still exists as a video game company today and is still making games.
The atari of today is not the same atari of the 80s.
Essentially, atari went teets up. It's Infogames or something which licence the name and logo in much the same way as RCA or POLORIOID products are licenced -- except they actually publish some decent product.
Apple won. They still make and sell computers. Atari? Even after the dead-kitty bounce, they were delisted a few years ago, lost their CFO last year and they are running out of money. What did they do? Republish games from the 1970's and 80's.
That said, I agree with you. My first PC was an 800. Moved up to a 1200xl, 800xl, then 130xe. Even had an MIO. Atari WAS better hardware. But Apple had better management.
Well, believing incredible things like virgin birth, eternal after-life just because some authority told you to do so (and withouth having a shed of evidence), is simple-mindedness, don't you think? Can we agree on that?
Obviously not. Besides, you are making some pretty wild assumptions here -- "some authority told me to do so", for example. Seriously, how can force ANYONE to believe something or not? And your definition of "without a shred of evidence" is just silly. You mix up words like "evidence" and "proof" and use them interchangeably. Can we agree that you are doing this? Can we also agree that it is silly to try and measure religion by the standards of science? Or that they are by definition incompatible?
I fully admit, I have no "proof" for my beliefs. I would completely disagree with you that they are "without a shred of evidence".
Examples:
The Sravasti Mircle -- contemporary followers of Buddha write first hand accounts this occurred. Is this "proof" that it did? Hardly. But it *IS* evidence.
Fear of eternal torment, sin, martyrdom etc. are powerful tools in the hand of skillful manipulators. Religious people are exploitable using those tools. I don't think you have to google far to find these simple, logical statements backed up by evidence.
Nor would you need to "google far" to find countless examples of nationalism being used to exploit "exploitable persons". Or race to exploit "exploitable persons". Of course, a history book would show this, too.
You commit the same fallacy over and over again. You ASSUME that religious people are by definition weak minded and exploitable and you make this bigoted stereotype which you then use to equate all the EVIL in history to religion. Believing that when A and B are present, A Caused B without even TRYING to look for an external cause C.
These are not my words, but I agree with the sentiment:
Religions are just spokes on the same wheel pointing toward the same hub. Find a spoke you can live with and enjoy the ride. Don't use the failings of imperfect humans , evidenced through their particular religions, to block out the love and courage which their god can bring into anyone's life.
And yet another fallacy:
The rest of your statements just show the typical religious mindset: Ignorant to simple, logical facts, ignorant of evidence, heck - even ignorant of daily news.
How can I be ignorant of "evidence" when you cant even differentiate between what "evidence" is and what "proof" is. You are essentially insulting me. Ad hominem. Lovely style!
I'm sure you are willing to call radical islamists mad and dangerous without seeing the irony in it.
Oh... I see the irony of it all right, but not the same "irony" YOU see. I'm also willing to call radical environmentalists mad and dangerous when they firebomb SUVs or sabotage trees with flack such that lumbermen are killed or maimed. I'm also willing to call christian extremists mad and dangerous when they bomb abortion clinics. I'm also willing to call radical partisans mad and dangerous when they attempt to run over someone due to their political beliefs. I'm also willing to call extreme soccer fans mad and dangerous when the riot and destroy neighborhoods because their team won or lost. I'm also willing to call hate filled atheists mad and dangerous when they dehumanize their fellow humans because they disagree on esoteric philosophy and faith.
The "irony" *I* see is that you claim my willingness to call "radical Islam" dangerous as proof that religion is bad. It's not. It's a QUALITY of HUMAN NATURE! Tha
Well the chinese regime can claim it being atheistic any way it likes. If it sticks to the dogma to ban any religion (which no atheist in its right mind would strive for), it is still a dangerous doctrine.
Wow. That ALMOST sounds like a "I was wrong". I'll accept it as such -- but I'll note that I can equally claim, to once again toss your own words back at you: "no person of faith in their right mind would strive for" the things you wish to attribute to them.
That said, I'm completely aware of the fact that wars have been lead simply by simple motivations like greed, power.
Great. And survival (lack of resources), among other things. Great you are aware of this. I couldn't tell from your previous posts. You appeared to ignore it completely and pretty much claim religion was the cause.
Still the best way of the people in power to motivate a war is to give joe average some kind of good/evil scheme.
Yes? That's entirely consistent with what I said.
Religious people are the easiest to exploit wrt such schemes.
See here? Now you lost me. I disagree. You offer nothing in the way to back this up other than a self-serving statement that "If your mind is blinded with the simplistic views of religious doctrine, the jump to violence behaviour isn't far."
So -- now we've moved away from your claim that all these bad things weren't committed in the NAME of religion, but that religion was used to provoke the simple-minded people in to "violent behaviour". Doesn't that sound like you are moving the goal posts?
You are also assuming things to be true you can't possibly prove and show nothing but your prejudice and willingness to engage in hate-speech. For example:
o that people who are "religious" are simple minded. o that these "simple minded people are easily motivated to violence.
To restate your claim:
If your mind is blinded with the simplistic views of religious doctrine, the jump to violence behaviour isn't far.
To toss your own words back at you yet again: If your mind is blinded with the simplistic views of those who are religious, the jump to violent behaviour isn't far.
Congratulations! You've take the first steps to mass murder! You've dehumanized your fellow man! You've referred to religion as "madness", those who follow religion as simple-minded and dangerous, and you've shown no shy-ness about hurling insults at them.
As I've shown, when given the opportunity, atheist states do just as bad -- if not far worse and that it's unfair to claim religion caused all the "harm" in the past as both religion and state were the same -- and secularism/atheism is fairly new to governments. Sadly, it's not religion or lack of it that we use to dehumanize our fellow man -- but things like political philosphies, skin color -- hell, even the shape of our eyes. Next time you hear the liberals call conservatives evil, or the right calling the left bleeding-hearts or naive, think of this discussion we had. Think how easy it would be to vote away our liberties (or maybe just to a subset of us).
The People's Republic of China was established in 1949. Its government is officially atheist, which viewed religion as emblematic of feudalism and foreign colonialism. Religious belief or practice was banned because it was regarded as backward and superstitious by some of the communist leaders, from Vladimir Lenin to Mao Zedong, who had been critical of religious institutions.
At least check out wiki before you say stuff. Or look up on State Atheism if you are unwilling to read REAL books.
Religious persecution certainly isn't isolated to those of one faith persecuting another. The USSR and China are powerful examples of this.
To toss your words back at you, what YOUR brain does not seem to digest: Atheist states (not to be confused with secular or areligious) are a historically NEW concept. Because one state in the past went to war with another and one (or both most likely) happened to be religious does *NOT* equate to RELIGION CAUSED THE CONFLICT. More often than not was an excuse to dehumanize the "enemy". Same as race, size, ethnic features, language -- whatever.
Instead of telling me to look up the definition of "dogma", perhaps your time would be better spend reviewing common logical fallacies, such as THIS
won't mention that you can't really compare the numbers: We are much more efficient in killing people now than at the times of the holy crusade or the spanish inquisition.
Then you say this:
The point is: Name one bad deed specifically done in the name of unbelieve in a higher being? Now name one bad deed done in the name of any higher being?
Um... In recorded history (excluding the industrial age), can you name one ethnic group (state, government, empire) that WASN'T based in religion?
Secularism -- nevermind Atheism is fairly NEW (with very FEW exceptions). So as you say -- "I won't mention that you can't really compare the numbers".
But, we can certainly see that the "unbelieve in a higher being(s)" are making the same mistakes as our collective ansestors by dehumanizing the religious as "others". Calling them 'irrational', 'nutcases', or whatever just paves the road for the carnage you blaim on religion -- when it wasn't religion at all, but "otherness" and our willingness to dehumanize those who are different (in looks, language, beliefs, whatever).
When we GET to the industrial age and see the GPs point -- that "atheist regimes" are just as bad, if not worse. The only point you made is that they had better 'tools' to rack up the numbers.
There was one poster in this thread who made a very cogent comment: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss".
Religious types don't want to admit that because it somehow sounds like they don't fully believe what they practice.
I would disagree.
I certainly don't have 100% proof. I have faith. They are two completely different things.
I recall a very interesting Hindu parable -- about a sudra asking the a brahman "Where is god". The wise brahman says: "God is on top of that mountain, right over there!". The sudra says "How do I get there?" The brahman says: "All paths lead to the top of the mountain eventually."
I'd like to think we're all looking for the truth.
I can't reach in to my pocket and pull out "justice" and say: "See! It exists! Here it is in my hand". It's a concept. How do you "prove" a concept? Socrates tried to explain this and got invited to drink some kool-aid. Likewise, I can't reach in to my pocket and pull out "god". Socrates again tried to explain this "something" in him telling him right from wrong. He labeled it his 'daemon'. It just helped the Athenians pick the kool-aid for our boy Socrates.
Who said anything about a "free pass". How about freedom from persecution? How about something simple like being able to enjoy the "free exercise thereof" part of the establishment clause without bigoted attacks, such as yours?
I'm not saying religion doesn't have a history -- but two wrongs don't make a right. Lets LEARN from our mistakes, not just switch sides on who's making them.
While I am the first to admit that religions have a good side, the amount of damage (direct and indirect) that has been perpetrated on humanity in the name of vague ethereal omnipotent beings is so stunning that very few people even realize it.
I think there's a pretty good argument that much of the "damage perpetrated on humanity" wasn't due to "vague ethereal... beings", but more often then not those "vague etherel... beings" were used as an excuse. Much of that damage was due to resources and or control.
Basically: "We need water. They have water. They aren't real people like us, so we'll take it." Hell, have you seen how the US portrayed japanese and Germans during WWII? It's easier to kill people who aren't "real people".
So... whats the solution? Ban resources? Ban land? Ban food? Those have been the "direct" cause of much of this damage you speak of.
You don't need dialogue with irrational nutcases. If you could have rational dialogue with them you'd already have shown that their beliefs are irrational. It's sad really...
If you label someone an 'irrational nutcase', you are essentially refusing to have a dialogue.
Have you READ his remarks?
But why talk about anything "rational", when such an "irrational" reaction like yours is acceptable? After all, EVERY day is bash-a-christian day.
When I freely publish my business name and address in the phonebook, is it really accurate to call it theft when someone breaks in to my store and steals my stuff? Granted, it's not the same thing, but to publish your personal information does not give someone the right or permission to use that information for fraud any more than publishing my business address gives someone the right or permission to commit B&E.
With regards to "identity theft" vs "money theft", the end result is usually the theft of money. The label of "identity theft" basically describes HOW the theft took place...
1. To bring up as a subject for discussion or debate. 2. Of no practical importance; irrelevant.
Seeing how effecient and successful the UN runs, I think perhaps you could read that as "To bring up as a subject for discussion or debate is of no practical importance and irrelevant".
So...what you are saying is, is that "as a whole", christianity accepted the methods of celebration that other cultures used...those other cultures being the same ones that were accused of working in-tandem with the devil, and considered bad enough to be destroyed in mass numbers?
So...what you are saying is we should ignore all good or beneficial teachings that comes from a particular philosophy or culture if it's got even a drop of blood tainting it's history?
Should we ignore and turn away from the teachings and inventions of Archimedes because the same culture that produced him also killed Socrates? Or because he also built tools of war and destruction?
See...this is why religion is stupid to me.
And you don't see this as remotely bigoted? Bordering on hate-speech? Why do you link personal faith to the acts done by an orginized body centuries before? I've serious issues with jingoism from a political side -- and I likewise have serious issues with the same attitude taken with faith. From all sides, including yours.
You call 'religion' stupid to you. You don't see that as offensive to those of any faith?
You say "stupid" and I call you ignorant. You say "I don't buy it" and I can understand where you are coming from and we at least can be cordial to each other. When you demean a group of people, it becomes easy to subjugate them. Go down that path, and it's easy to destroy them. "It's ok -- their just jews -- not like you or me", or "It's ok -- their just armenians -- not like you or me".
If you really don't like what the early church did, perhaps you shouldn't be walking down that same path?
This is not bigotry against christianity, it's the truth.
It was bigotry against christianity in his suggestion that christians who celebrate the birth of Jesus are ignorant. The OPs overall tone was bigoted. In the west, typically the birth of Jesus is celebrated on December 25h. In the east, it's typicall celebrated on January 6th. Again, the date doesn't matter, it's the event. Is it ignorant to celebrate ML King's birthday? I can tell you, he wasn't born on a magic day that makes it always fall on a Monday.
Christians didn't 'steal' other cultures methods of celebration. Other cultures brought their methods of celebration as they converted and in many cases have been adopted by christians as a whole. This is true in non-religious celebrations as well. My wife (and her family) are from the middle east. July 4th diners typical consists of Kabob and Hummus. I don't consider them trying to "take over" our customs.
Yes, the history of christianity is tainted in blood -- as is every theology. Antitheologic philosophies are likewise tainted (see China, USSR). To stereotype an entire belief system as the OP did defines what bigotry is.
What I'm reading from your tone (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that Christians shouldn't celebrate the birth of their massiah because they don't know exactly when he was born? And they "appropriated" the celebration of others?
Christmas is a liturgy. It doesn't matter the exact day, what matters is the event. Most christians are aware of this. What you see as "taken over" earlier pagan traditions can easily, and more neutrally be charactized as "adopted".
It's another to cast it in a hundred thousand lights and broadcast your ignorance to the entire neighborhood.
And you don't think you are boadcasting your ignorance and bigotry of christians on slashdot?
Maybe someone asked the judge if a folder with paper in it is also a "wall cabinet", or if a book is also a "book case"?
Or maybe the judge is one of the rare of his/her breed which actually suffers from an ailment which seems to disqualify most from their profession -- common sense?
Is that including work related phone calls? You spend roughly 1 day a month on the phone? Really? 40 minutes a day sounds like a lot to me.
Including work, I spent 292 minutes on my cell last month. 82 minutes of that were personal (calling family, for example). And about 30 minutes of that was one long call walking someone (a fairly non-technical person) through resetting a router and changing a gateway 4 states away.
I sent roughly ~40 text messages and received about 120.
While it's true that not everyone has the same usage patters, I can't figure out WHY so much time on the phone. Or watching TV. Or text messages.
Then again, I spend about 1 or 2 hours a day reading... sompe people consider THAT a waste of time.
If we take that as a guideline for punishment, approved by the DOJ, for a serious crime, then I think that the damage to Jammie Thomas' reputation would be penalty enough for a finding of copyright infringement of 24 songs.
Damage to Thomas' reputation & a $250,000 fine... to complete your weak Libby connection. Why does everything need to be hate-bush-speak? Jeez.
Slashdot Mirror
Yup. Except one thing:
How can we assume the way we interpret things will be (A) consistant (somewhat addressed in the TFA, but not very well) and (B) not change over time?
Example:
The first amendment says nothing of a "separation of church and state", but "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Yet we interuprt that clause as such.
Further, the first amendment also notes "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble", yet we allow many exceptions to these "rights" (no yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater, no "assebly" peaceably or otherwise when it interferes with public safety, etc...
The second amendment says "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.", yet we allow for exceptions (no tanks on my block!)
Nowhere in the constitution does it provide a "right" to privacy, but not only was such a right "interpreted" to exist when no such right existed before, it brought with it the "right" to an abortion with strong arguments that this right is absolute (no exceptions).
What good is the damn document if in 20 or 50 years it will mean something entirely different? What good is the amendment process if we can subvert it by just saying "...well, I think it means THIS now"?
How are laws (which must pass constitutional muster) any different?
You're kidding, right? They are the exact same corporate entity. They are "the same" as they were in the 1980s in just the same way as *I* am the same as I was in the 1980's -- just a bit older and wiser.
The current "atari" is like some guy who changed his name to "atari" after the REAL atari died.
Essentially, atari went teets up. It's Infogames or something which licence the name and logo in much the same way as RCA or POLORIOID products are licenced -- except they actually publish some decent product.
Isn't this pissing contest over yet?
Apple won. They still make and sell computers. Atari? Even after the dead-kitty bounce, they were delisted a few years ago, lost their CFO last year and they are running out of money. What did they do? Republish games from the 1970's and 80's.
That said, I agree with you. My first PC was an 800. Moved up to a 1200xl, 800xl, then 130xe. Even had an MIO. Atari WAS better hardware. But Apple had better management.
Windows Vista is the new Windows ME.
Maybe it's like Star Trek movies -- only the even numbered ones are good (in this case, odd numbers).
Aren't you cute.
Obviously not. Besides, you are making some pretty wild assumptions here -- "some authority told me to do so", for example. Seriously, how can force ANYONE to believe something or not? And your definition of "without a shred of evidence" is just silly. You mix up words like "evidence" and "proof" and use them interchangeably. Can we agree that you are doing this? Can we also agree that it is silly to try and measure religion by the standards of science? Or that they are by definition incompatible?
I fully admit, I have no "proof" for my beliefs. I would completely disagree with you that they are "without a shred of evidence".
Examples:
The Sravasti Mircle -- contemporary followers of Buddha write first hand accounts this occurred. Is this "proof" that it did? Hardly. But it *IS* evidence.
Nor would you need to "google far" to find countless examples of nationalism being used to exploit "exploitable persons". Or race to exploit "exploitable persons". Of course, a history book would show this, too.
You commit the same fallacy over and over again. You ASSUME that religious people are by definition weak minded and exploitable and you make this bigoted stereotype which you then use to equate all the EVIL in history to religion. Believing that when A and B are present, A Caused B without even TRYING to look for an external cause C.
These are not my words, but I agree with the sentiment:
And yet another fallacy:
How can I be ignorant of "evidence" when you cant even differentiate between what "evidence" is and what "proof" is. You are essentially insulting me. Ad hominem. Lovely style!
Oh... I see the irony of it all right, but not the same "irony" YOU see. I'm also willing to call radical environmentalists mad and dangerous when they firebomb SUVs or sabotage trees with flack such that lumbermen are killed or maimed. I'm also willing to call christian extremists mad and dangerous when they bomb abortion clinics. I'm also willing to call radical partisans mad and dangerous when they attempt to run over someone due to their political beliefs. I'm also willing to call extreme soccer fans mad and dangerous when the riot and destroy neighborhoods because their team won or lost. I'm also willing to call hate filled atheists mad and dangerous when they dehumanize their fellow humans because they disagree on esoteric philosophy and faith.
The "irony" *I* see is that you claim my willingness to call "radical Islam" dangerous as proof that religion is bad. It's not. It's a QUALITY of HUMAN NATURE! Tha
So -- now we've moved away from your claim that all these bad things weren't committed in the NAME of religion, but that religion was used to provoke the simple-minded people in to "violent behaviour". Doesn't that sound like you are moving the goal posts?
You are also assuming things to be true you can't possibly prove and show nothing but your prejudice and willingness to engage in hate-speech. For example:
o that people who are "religious" are simple minded.
o that these "simple minded people are easily motivated to violence.
To restate your claim:To toss your own words back at you yet again: If your mind is blinded with the simplistic views of those who are religious, the jump to violent behaviour isn't far.
Congratulations! You've take the first steps to mass murder! You've dehumanized your fellow man! You've referred to religion as "madness", those who follow religion as simple-minded and dangerous, and you've shown no shy-ness about hurling insults at them.
As I've shown, when given the opportunity, atheist states do just as bad -- if not far worse and that it's unfair to claim religion caused all the "harm" in the past as both religion and state were the same -- and secularism/atheism is fairly new to governments. Sadly, it's not religion or lack of it that we use to dehumanize our fellow man -- but things like political philosphies, skin color -- hell, even the shape of our eyes. Next time you hear the liberals call conservatives evil, or the right calling the left bleeding-hearts or naive, think of this discussion we had. Think how easy it would be to vote away our liberties (or maybe just to a subset of us).
At least check out wiki before you say stuff. Or look up on State Atheism if you are unwilling to read REAL books.
Religious persecution certainly isn't isolated to those of one faith persecuting another. The USSR and China are powerful examples of this.
To toss your words back at you, what YOUR brain does not seem to digest: Atheist states (not to be confused with secular or areligious) are a historically NEW concept. Because one state in the past went to war with another and one (or both most likely) happened to be religious does *NOT* equate to RELIGION CAUSED THE CONFLICT. More often than not was an excuse to dehumanize the "enemy". Same as race, size, ethnic features, language -- whatever.
Instead of telling me to look up the definition of "dogma", perhaps your time would be better spend reviewing common logical fallacies, such as THIS
Um... In recorded history (excluding the industrial age), can you name one ethnic group (state, government, empire) that WASN'T based in religion?
Secularism -- nevermind Atheism is fairly NEW (with very FEW exceptions). So as you say -- "I won't mention that you can't really compare the numbers".
But, we can certainly see that the "unbelieve in a higher being(s)" are making the same mistakes as our collective ansestors by dehumanizing the religious as "others". Calling them 'irrational', 'nutcases', or whatever just paves the road for the carnage you blaim on religion -- when it wasn't religion at all, but "otherness" and our willingness to dehumanize those who are different (in looks, language, beliefs, whatever).
When we GET to the industrial age and see the GPs point -- that "atheist regimes" are just as bad, if not worse. The only point you made is that they had better 'tools' to rack up the numbers.
There was one poster in this thread who made a very cogent comment: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss".
I certainly don't have 100% proof. I have faith. They are two completely different things.
I recall a very interesting Hindu parable -- about a sudra asking the a brahman "Where is god". The wise brahman says: "God is on top of that mountain, right over there!". The sudra says "How do I get there?" The brahman says: "All paths lead to the top of the mountain eventually."
I'd like to think we're all looking for the truth.
I can't reach in to my pocket and pull out "justice" and say: "See! It exists! Here it is in my hand". It's a concept. How do you "prove" a concept? Socrates tried to explain this and got invited to drink some kool-aid. Likewise, I can't reach in to my pocket and pull out "god". Socrates again tried to explain this "something" in him telling him right from wrong. He labeled it his 'daemon'. It just helped the Athenians pick the kool-aid for our boy Socrates.
I gave up being rational when I got shot with an arrow trying to refute Zeno's paradoxs.
Seriously. What's your point? Just trying to be clever?
And you are not guilty of stereotyping how? And this isn't a form of bigotry how?
What's wrong with this syllogism?
Some people do bad things.
Some people are religious.
All religions are bad.
Sorry, but I think the "ignorant" label is correct in this case.
And civil rights do not prevent your "right" to use racial slurs.
It just means your are an ignorant bigot... in both cases.
Who said anything about a "free pass". How about freedom from persecution? How about something simple like being able to enjoy the "free exercise thereof" part of the establishment clause without bigoted attacks, such as yours?
I'm not saying religion doesn't have a history -- but two wrongs don't make a right. Lets LEARN from our mistakes, not just switch sides on who's making them.
Basically: "We need water. They have water. They aren't real people like us, so we'll take it." Hell, have you seen how the US portrayed japanese and Germans during WWII? It's easier to kill people who aren't "real people".
So... whats the solution? Ban resources? Ban land? Ban food? Those have been the "direct" cause of much of this damage you speak of.
Have you READ his remarks?
But why talk about anything "rational", when such an "irrational" reaction like yours is acceptable? After all, EVERY day is bash-a-christian day.
When I freely publish my business name and address in the phonebook, is it really accurate to call it theft when someone breaks in to my store and steals my stuff? Granted, it's not the same thing, but to publish your personal information does not give someone the right or permission to use that information for fraud any more than publishing my business address gives someone the right or permission to commit B&E.
With regards to "identity theft" vs "money theft", the end result is usually the theft of money. The label of "identity theft" basically describes HOW the theft took place...
Seeing how effecient and successful the UN runs, I think perhaps you could read that as "To bring up as a subject for discussion or debate is of no practical importance and irrelevant".
Glad we cleared that up.
Should we ignore and turn away from the teachings and inventions of Archimedes because the same culture that produced him also killed Socrates? Or because he also built tools of war and destruction? And you don't see this as remotely bigoted? Bordering on hate-speech? Why do you link personal faith to the acts done by an orginized body centuries before? I've serious issues with jingoism from a political side -- and I likewise have serious issues with the same attitude taken with faith. From all sides, including yours.
You call 'religion' stupid to you. You don't see that as offensive to those of any faith?
You say "stupid" and I call you ignorant. You say "I don't buy it" and I can understand where you are coming from and we at least can be cordial to each other. When you demean a group of people, it becomes easy to subjugate them. Go down that path, and it's easy to destroy them. "It's ok -- their just jews -- not like you or me", or "It's ok -- their just armenians -- not like you or me".
If you really don't like what the early church did, perhaps you shouldn't be walking down that same path?
Christians didn't 'steal' other cultures methods of celebration. Other cultures brought their methods of celebration as they converted and in many cases have been adopted by christians as a whole. This is true in non-religious celebrations as well. My wife (and her family) are from the middle east. July 4th diners typical consists of Kabob and Hummus. I don't consider them trying to "take over" our customs.
Yes, the history of christianity is tainted in blood -- as is every theology. Antitheologic philosophies are likewise tainted (see China, USSR). To stereotype an entire belief system as the OP did defines what bigotry is.
Christmas is a liturgy. It doesn't matter the exact day, what matters is the event. Most christians are aware of this. What you see as "taken over" earlier pagan traditions can easily, and more neutrally be charactized as "adopted".And you don't think you are boadcasting your ignorance and bigotry of christians on slashdot?
Maybe someone asked the judge if a folder with paper in it is also a "wall cabinet", or if a book is also a "book case"?
Or maybe the judge is one of the rare of his/her breed which actually suffers from an ailment which seems to disqualify most from their profession -- common sense?
Hey! That was the very first movie I ever saw without grown-ups. Just my friend and I.
Is that including work related phone calls? You spend roughly 1 day a month on the phone? Really? 40 minutes a day sounds like a lot to me.
Including work, I spent 292 minutes on my cell last month. 82 minutes of that were personal (calling family, for example). And about 30 minutes of that was one long call walking someone (a fairly non-technical person) through resetting a router and changing a gateway 4 states away.
I sent roughly ~40 text messages and received about 120.
While it's true that not everyone has the same usage patters, I can't figure out WHY so much time on the phone. Or watching TV. Or text messages.
Then again, I spend about 1 or 2 hours a day reading... sompe people consider THAT a waste of time.
Damage to Thomas' reputation & a $250,000 fine... to complete your weak Libby connection. Why does everything need to be hate-bush-speak? Jeez.