If I parodied you by drawing a cartoon of you having sex with a dog, you might have a case for defamation:)
I don't know about Canada, but in the US the answer is no.
The are several requirements that must all be met:
1. Actual malice, intent to cause harm. 2. The statement must said with the knowledge that it was false or with "reckless disregard" for whether it is true or false. 3. The statement must be presented as true, and that reasonable people would interpret it as factual.
About the only way a cartoon drawing might be interpreted as factual by reasonable people is if you were to put it on the evening TV news with the caption "artist recreation of actual events". And even then one would hope reasonable persons would notice the news show itself is less than credible for presenting a cartoon as a reconstructed event.
There was a famous case where Hustler Magazine published an "interview" where Jerry Fallwell describes losing his virginity to his mother, and it proceeds to keep on shoveling more on from there. The lawsuit was thrown out of court because it was not intended for readers to take it as a factual description of events, and reasonable readers would not interpret it as a factual historical account. You can read Huslter's Fallwell "interview" here. It's definitely worth reading:)
If I call Officer Bubbles an idiot, he has no case because that is clearly an opinion. If I draw a cartoon of Officer Bubbles butt-raping puppies, he has no case because the cartoon is clearly satire which no reasonable person would take as a factual historical depiction.
And most of all Officer Bubble would have no case because he would have to establish the use of lies with actual malicious intent to inflict harm upon him personally.
The closest thing I have to "malice" would be harsh criticism against Canadian law if it allows this grotesque abusive case to move forward in court.
Step 1: iBurst erects broadband microwave tower in community. Step 2: Community forms a 'Task Force' for hearings on health complaints "several rash cases were presented in person and by photo... Headaches, nausea, tinnitus, dry burning itchy skins, gastric imbalances and totally disrupted sleep patterns, especially with some of the children". Residents give testimony that symptoms only subside when they leave the area of the tower, and symptoms return when they return to their homes around the tower. Step 3: iBurst attends meeting and listens to documented health complaints with great interest, and responds Oh by the way, we turned the tower off more than 6 weeks ago. Idiots.
Find the witch! Burn the witch! Find the witch! Burn the witch! Burn the witch! Burn the witch! Burn the witch!
Many sites block entire countries, because they don't have the legal right to serve the same content in all regions.
Note that we should not confuse copyright with idiotic contract terms attempting to manufacture a licensing model.
Obviously a website (or a TV broadcast antenna, or a book manufacturer) has to obey copyright law at that location. Obviously they have to license any relevant copying or distribution rights, at that location.
The website *is* licensed to serve the content. The issue is contracts that require websites to block IP address ranges in some warped attempt to simulate licensing of the person at the other end.
A TV show can license a TV broadcast antenna that happens to be in the US, but there is nothing "regional" about licensing. The copyright holder is not licensing the people who receive it, he is licensing the broadcast antenna. Someone in Canada does not need any license at all to turn his TV to that channel and receive it. The most the copyright holder can do is get the antenna station to sign a contract promising to point the antenna away from Canada. There is nothing "regional" about any of the the copyright licensing itself. The station has the licensed right to transmit. If someone in Canada, or even Japan, has a really good TV set and can pick up the signal that is not a violation of any license.
A book author can license a book manufacturer who happens to be in the US, but there is nothing "regional" about licensing. The copyright holder isn't giving any sort of license for "regional readers". The copyright holder is not giving any license at all to any readers, because under copyright law there is no such thing as a license to read. People without licenses can just plain read, regardless of any permission the copyright holder wants to grant or deny. The most the book author can do is get the book manufacturer to sign a contract promising not to willfully mail the book out of the US themselves. The manufacturer is licensed to print copies. There is no license violation if someone in Japan buys the book secondhand from someone in the US and reads it. The person reading the book in Japan doesn't involve any sort of "regional licensing" because they don't need any license at all to read it.
The same goes for websites. A copyright holder can ask the website to sign a contract promising to block various IP-ranges, but is just an effort to manufacture or simulate some sort of regional idea. Aside from the contractual promise to block certain IP addresses there is nothing actually regional about any of the copyright or licensing. And is is false and stupid to try to use IP addresses in that manner. Yes, IP addresses are usually pretty accurate at telling you were the other end is located, but it is a grossly flawed assumption. Hopefully the increase of proxies and advancing internet technology will make it increasingly obvious that an IP address is not a location, and that trying to us IP addresses to limit websites to national borders is impossible and stupid.
Yeah, right. And next your probably going to try to tell me that Jesus was brown, and that he spoke spanish or muslim or some gibberish language like that.
It is totally fair that if you want the FSF's endorsement you've got to open all the software on the product, and license any software patents.
Ummm, was that intended to be sarcasm? The FSF doesn't have to endorse anyone at all. If they want they could say you have to use 100% recycled materials, donate 80% of profits to saving the whales, and that you have to whistle the Swiss National Anthem in a banana suit to get their endorsement.
a giant boiling vat of legal implications
What the hell? Is there some "a giant boiling vat of legal implications" with the "Intel Inside" logo??? If you meet Intel's requirements then Intel grants permission to use their logo. If you yank the Intel CPU and start shipping systems with AMD processors then obviously Intel is going to say you can't use the logo anymore.
I love how the FSF always defines the outer edge completely in favor of the person that buys the product, rather than the one that creates it.
Again, what the hell? Isn't that how it's supposed to work? The EnergyStar logo certifies the product conforms to certain efficiency standards... defined "completely in favor of the person that buys the product, rather than the one that creates it". The Kosher logo certifies the product conforms to certain health and preparation standards... defined "completely in favor of the person that buys the product, rather than the one that creates it". The UL logo certifies the product conforms to certain safety standards... defined "completely in favor of the person that buys the product, rather than the one that creates it". The Green logo certifies the product conforms to certain environmental and recycling standards... defined "completely in favor of the person that buys the product, rather than the one that creates it".
And obviously I can go on and on. The entire point of this sort of logo is to certify TO THE CUSTOMER that a product meets HIS INTERESTS in some way that the customer might consider important. I find it incomprehensible that you somehow expect this sort of logo program to be about the manufacturer's interests. The only manufacturer's interest here is that they might WANT the logo to help attract customers. A manufacturer can produce an air conditioner that is as efficient or as inefficient as he wishes. IF he wants to use the EnergyStar logo then he has to meed certain efficiency standards - standards defined to serve the customer's interests. If the manufacturer doesn't like it, no problem. He can just keep on selling his product without that trademarked logo.
Eventually a happy middle will be found.
What happy middle??? Certified Allergen Free food containing 10% peanut dust? Certified Lead Free children's toys, containing 90 perfectly pure wooded blocs and 10 solid lead blocks?
insulting rants against the more fundamental elements of the religion that tend to push moderates closer to the fundamental side, as such rants (when not presented tactfully) stir up deep seeded resentments and emotions.
I don't disagree. Several times I've had the thought that I can't decide whether Richard Dawkins is a hero or a catastrophe. It's a mess with no good solution.
I respect people's right to believe whatever religion, and to speak their beliefs. When the subject is evolution I specifically argue for the theistic-evolution perspective. I generally don't run around gratuitously insulting religion. Most religious people are generally good, reasonable, rational, intelligent people. For most people religion is a harmless hobby, not much different from someone who reads their daily horoscope each day without allowing it to destructively control their lives.
Religious people have the right to post that they believe X, Y and Z, and when the subject of religion comes up I assert I have the same right to say I believe stories of walking-talking snakes are silly. I don't buy it when religionists try to pull a persecution complex. I don't buy that I'm some villain if I say I think talking snakes are silly. I don't buy that I'm some villain if I say I think the Bible is fiction. I don't buy that that makes me some aggressor "militant atheist".
I totally get the attacking-more-flies-with-honey-than-vinegar thing, and as I said I use that approach pursuing acceptable rational common ground on evolution. But I don't accept the grotesque bias and double-standard around religion. Theists can say the most silly, vile, or insulting things and they deserve respect merely because it they take it as religion? An atheist has to dance on eggshells and still gets tagged as a villain? No matter how polite the atheist is, the theist becomes grossly insulted.
People are not entitled to spread out arbitrarily large fields of eggshells and then blame other people for stepping on them. Just becomes someone takes insult from something does not mean the speaker made any inappropriate remarks. Just because someone takes insult from something does not mean that the speaker is at fault.
If you think I included some gratuitous insult in my post I will certainly look at it and consider it. I'm not going to accept blame for people who feel insult at the mere suggestion that their religion is untrue. I am not going to accept blame for people who feel insulted or embarrassed by facts of their own religion.
The planet is 20 light years away, it would take 40 years to confirm discovery, not a week!
You appear to have made a typo in your browser address bar. If you look carefully you'll see that the name of this website starts with an 'S'. The website you meant to enter starts with a 'C'. The correct spelling is conservapedia.com.
Chuckle. Thinking about "The Bible is like..." prompted an interesting thought. I don't know how much you've read about memes, but religions have been compared to viruses that compete to propagate to hosts, and which evolve by natural selection. It struck me that the Bible is like the core chunk of the religion's DNA, but that DNA is essentially immutable... unmutatable. Religion's evolution is horribly warped because that core DNA is immutable. Modern mainstream Christianity is fairly innocuous, even beneficial in many ways, but it's still stuck lugging around this immutable Bible DNA. It can't figure out how the hell to deal with it.
The typical decent Cristian person opposes... well pretty much the entirety of the Old Testament. It's almost all evil or insane. But Christians mostly deal with it by closing their eyes and moving on to something else. Decent Christians have trouble dealing with the Fundies because the Fundies are RIGHT when they cite X Y and Z in the Bible.
Modern Mainstream Christianity has evolved into a God of Love and Rainbows, but it's unable to eject the legacy DNA which says those rainbows represent his wrath drowning humanity in a flood. It's unable to eject the Ten Commandments which declare God the "God of Love" to be a petty and jealous prick.
The Bible is like a chunk of defective and immutable Precambrian DNA wreaking havoc in a modern cell.
The fact that anyone takes the Bible as inerrant is sufficient cause to refute the position.
Since we apparently agree that copies of Bible are (at least in part) errant, I'll move on to a further position. It is patently obvious that the Bible doesn't come from God at all. Actually the logic equally applies to all Scripture from every religion on earth, but for the sake of argument we'll just stick with the Bible as the candidate "correct" book from God.
It's not even necessary to nitpick errors or contradictions or absurdities or gross immoralities or anything other details of content. We can sweep them all those problems under the rug as "translation errors", chuckle. No, the proof is that God couldn't be that grossly incompetent.
By definition God's intelligence immeasurably supersedes any human intelligence. By definition God's knowledge immeasurably supersedes any human knowledge. By definition God's clarity immeasurably supersedes any human clarity. By definition God's wisdom immeasurably supersedes any human wisdom. By definition God skills and capabilities are infinitely beyond any human skills or capabilities in all respects.
But what do we have? We have one supposedly God-given book competing against various human-written false-scriptures. Even if we lump together Catholics and Protestants and Mormons and others, "Christianity" only makes up 30% of world religion. A minority, not even reaching one third. By more than two-to-one, the Bible is beaten out by other "human written false scriptures". My argument is that God could not be that incompetent. If the Bible, or any other book, were True Scripture, it wouldn't even be a horse race. If you took a True Scripture Bible and a false human-written Koran and handed them both to a Buddhist to consider, there would be no competion. There would be no argument. If God had any hand in one of the two books, the difference would be overwhelming and obvious to any Buddhist or Hindu or Native American or even an Atheist.
If there is a God, he has not chosen to hand down Scripture to us. Any God given or God Inspired scripture could not be so incompetent as to lose out by more than two-to-one against other "scriptures" of human origin.
The only reason you select the Bible above others is because it's the one your parents taught you. The reason most Arabs follow the Koran is because that is the one their patents taught them. The reason Native Americans believe what they believe is because that's what their parents taught them. The reason almost all Indians (India) follow Hindu is because that's what their parents taught them. the reason most Asians are Buddhists is because that's what their parents taught them.
To the extent that some small number of people do convert away from their parents' religion, there is no one Scripture winning people over with self-evident divine inspiration.
Note: I certainly admit that there are people who do claim to see some kind of "beyond human" perfection in the Bible, but no more so than the same claim is made for other scriptures. As I said, hand the Bible and the Koran to a random unprejudiced Buddhist or Hindu. Any two "Scriptures" are of equal human origin when judged by a third party. And we have abundant unbiased third parties to ask... every religion on earth is a minority religion. No religion even makes it above 30%, even when you lump together Shia and Sunni, even when you lump together Catholic and Mormon.
Looking again, it seems I may have misinterpreted your post when I replied before. Please interpret my post to indicate that there are people with a certain position, and as a perhaps redundant explanation as to how one part of their position is refuted even if we assumed that another part of their position were true. Or something like that, chuckle.
I think there may be a bit of confusion in conversation lines here.
In a narrow scope, there are people who take the Bible as literal and infallible. That is the subject I was primarily replying to in that particular post. You are absolutely right that Catholics rarely buy any of that nuttery.
Moving on to the larger discussion: I get the feeling the Pope is suffering a generational misunderstanding
I don't think I seen much, if any, misunderstanding of the Pope here.
his point is not completely invalid.
I don't think I've seen anyone here argue with his point. His point was completely lost beneath the staggering flood of irony and hypocrisy coming out of his mouth. The issue is, to paraphrase your next words:
Certain aspects of [religion] do insulate people from the world around them. Losing touch with objective realities outside [church]. That could have undesirable consequences.
Luke 6:42 how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.
When people are DYING of AIDS and the Pope goes on an anti-condom Crusade, one does not need to be an atheist to see the "insulation", "losing touch with objective realities", and catastrophic "undesirable consequences". One does not need to be an atheist to see it when the Pope opposes the dignity and equality of women, such as crusading against female priests. One does not need to be an atheist when the Pope attacks homosexuals a threat to humanity. One does not need to be an atheist to see it when the Pope places religion and the protection of criminal priests ahead of the children being abused by those priests.
You're right that the Pope isn't a fundie Biblical literalist. However his speech was still irony and hypocrisy of monumental proportions from beginning to end.
I'm pretty sure that means the Bible is a more valid work on the subject than all scientific publications combined.
If you're pretty sure you packed your parachute, you might want to double check the evidence on that one before you base any important life decisions on it.
translations of The Republic existing refutes it being the "true philosophy of Plato"
As far as I am aware, no one is claiming any copy or translation is the One True Word of Plato. As far as I am aware, no one is claiming any copy or translation of Plato supersedes all contradictory evidence. As far as I am aware, no one is claiming any copy or translation of Plato supersedes all logic. As far as I am aware, no one is claiming any copy or translation of Plato supersedes all morality. (i.e. The Word of God is infallible, and by definition trumps all other moral considerations and moral arguments)
Maybe you were looking for some other impossible criterion you already know you'd never apply to anything else, because you noted it's a religious text that's being discussed?
I was referring to the "impossible criteria" that some people DO ascribe to the Bible, which they'd never apply to anything else. People who insist upon the Bible as the capital-O-One capital-T-True capital-W-Word.
People who engage in Idolatry by treating the Bible itself as infallible, and so worship it above all else.
Because it's irrelevant even if we assume God did speak to Abraham and Moses and Jesus. The fact that particular copies of "the Bible" are increasingly contradictory and corrupted with each edition, with each translation, with the constant change over time in the very meaning of human language, itself refutes the Bible bing a "One True Word of God".
Even if God did speak to Moses and other, it is no long One word. It is a multitude of contradictory words. Any modern copy of the Bible is no longer even remotely True to any Perfect Word God supposedly spoke to Moses or anyone else. It is irretrievably corrupted by the imperfection of human language itself, and by changes in language, and by human fallibility, and most of all warped during each of the repeated translations from language to language.
Even 17th Century Shakespeare's English text is grossly different from modern English. Even translating 17th Century English Shakespeare into Modern English text inherently distorts and loses some of the meaning. You cannot seriously suggest that modern Bibles are Capital-T-True to thousands of years old Aramaic text, even if we assumed that fallible-human-language Aramaic text were somehow perfect.
I find it hysterical how some people deal with clear cases of translation errors and contradictions. They pick one particular edition, selected on no basis other than the fact that it's the copy their local church happens to use. Then as near as I can tell, they assert that each translators and editor along the way was uniquely inspired by God. Apparently God deliberately planted errors of words and meaning in the original language versions of the Bible so that those errors would be translated into the One-Perfect-Word-Of-God (and the One-True-Version was always intended by God to be in English of course). So it doesn't matter when their edition of the Bible contradicts another modern version because their copy was uniquely Divinely Inspired in translation. And it doesn't matter when they recognize and admit that their edition of the Bible is a flat-out-mistranslation error because, ummm, God Divinely Inspired that deliberate error into the old version so that the new version would turn out as his One True Word.
A lot of people so that with all different editions of the Bible. However people most often seem to get fanatical in that "I'm special and my edition of the Bible is special" logic for the King James Version.
Let me give you an actual example: The word of God has been in heaven forever. The KJV has always been there. The so called Hebrew words like Alleluia are English words. The English did not borrow them from the Hebrew but rather the Hebrew borrowed them from the English. If the KJV has always been there and is the original word of God then there is no other conclusion. The same can be said for any so called Greek words that were borrowed from the Greek or transliterated. It is a matter of what bias you approach this particular subject.
Riiight.... the King James Version is the One True Word and has always existed in unchanging Perfection.... and in some psychotic delusion ancient Hebrew and Greek words are actually taken from modern-English. It's insane, but that's what it takes to conclude that you are holding a One True Word bible.
And how about another one: Here is one reason why the Authorized Version [King James Authorized Version] of the Holy Bible is superior to any Greek text, or any Greek manuscripts: And that is because it is in the universal language of the end time.Greek, as a language, is deader than last year's bird nest. It constitutes less than one percent of the world's spoken languages, and there is no demand for it anywhere on earth, except in Greece, and in the back rooms of dead, orthodox, conservative, Bible critics.
Yep! The One True language is English, and God put deliberate errors in the old Greek and Aramaic versions so the translation errors would turn them into the One True Word King James Version!
Ok, I read the speech at your link. I can't imagine why you're calling the article a troll for only including snippets. The entire thing just piles the irony and hypocrisy on deeper and deeper the longer it goes on.
The Pope was actually talking about the way modern media reports the news.
Yeah. And all of it was unbelievably ironic and hypocritical when considered in the context of religion.
Today, for example, the world of appearances has an increasing weight with religion; but if on the one hand this has doubtless positive aspects, on the other, the image can also become detached from reality (ding!), it can give life to a virtual world (ding!), with diverse consequences, the first of which is the risk of indifference to the truth (ding!). In fact, religion, together with the progress that they bring, can result in what is true and what is false becoming interchangeable (ding!), it can lead to confusing the real with the virtual (ding!). In addition, religion reporting of an event, happy or sad, can be consumed as entertainment (ding!) and not as an occasion for reflection. The search for ways to authentically promote man then disappears into the background (ding!), because the event is presented primarily to arouse emotions (ding!). These issues are alarm bells (ding!): an invitation to consider the danger that the virtual distances us from reality (ding!) and does not stimulate the pursuit of what is true (DING DING DING!!!)
Slashdot Mirror
Not only could he bust bubbles with his bare hands, I heard he could bust bubbles just by STARING at them! That cop was totally hardcore.
-
If I parodied you by drawing a cartoon of you having sex with a dog, you might have a case for defamation :)
I don't know about Canada, but in the US the answer is no.
The are several requirements that must all be met:
1. Actual malice, intent to cause harm.
2. The statement must said with the knowledge that it was false or with "reckless disregard" for whether it is true or false.
3. The statement must be presented as true, and that reasonable people would interpret it as factual.
About the only way a cartoon drawing might be interpreted as factual by reasonable people is if you were to put it on the evening TV news with the caption "artist recreation of actual events". And even then one would hope reasonable persons would notice the news show itself is less than credible for presenting a cartoon as a reconstructed event.
There was a famous case where Hustler Magazine published an "interview" where Jerry Fallwell describes losing his virginity to his mother, and it proceeds to keep on shoveling more on from there. The lawsuit was thrown out of court because it was not intended for readers to take it as a factual description of events, and reasonable readers would not interpret it as a factual historical account. You can read Huslter's Fallwell "interview" here. It's definitely worth reading :)
If I call Officer Bubbles an idiot, he has no case because that is clearly an opinion. If I draw a cartoon of Officer Bubbles butt-raping puppies, he has no case because the cartoon is clearly satire which no reasonable person would take as a factual historical depiction.
And most of all Officer Bubble would have no case because he would have to establish the use of lies with actual malicious intent to inflict harm upon him personally.
The closest thing I have to "malice" would be harsh criticism against Canadian law if it allows this grotesque abusive case to move forward in court.
-
radioactive... souls
As an atheist I can now add "lower risk of cancer" to my list of reasons to feel superior.
-
iBurst Microwave tower in Craigavon link
Step 1: iBurst erects broadband microwave tower in community.
Step 2: Community forms a 'Task Force' for hearings on health complaints "several rash cases were presented in person and by photo... Headaches, nausea, tinnitus, dry burning itchy skins, gastric imbalances and totally disrupted sleep patterns, especially with some of the children". Residents give testimony that symptoms only subside when they leave the area of the tower, and symptoms return when they return to their homes around the tower.
Step 3: iBurst attends meeting and listens to documented health complaints with great interest, and responds Oh by the way, we turned the tower off more than 6 weeks ago. Idiots.
Find the witch! Burn the witch!
Find the witch! Burn the witch!
Burn the witch! Burn the witch! Burn the witch!
-
Don't tell them their teeth are also radioactive.
-
will be manifested about nine months later
Ah yes, the great nerdling babyboom of 2010.
-
Many sites block entire countries, because they don't have the legal right to serve the same content in all regions.
Note that we should not confuse copyright with idiotic contract terms attempting to manufacture a licensing model.
Obviously a website (or a TV broadcast antenna, or a book manufacturer) has to obey copyright law at that location. Obviously they have to license any relevant copying or distribution rights, at that location.
The website *is* licensed to serve the content. The issue is contracts that require websites to block IP address ranges in some warped attempt to simulate licensing of the person at the other end.
A TV show can license a TV broadcast antenna that happens to be in the US, but there is nothing "regional" about licensing. The copyright holder is not licensing the people who receive it, he is licensing the broadcast antenna. Someone in Canada does not need any license at all to turn his TV to that channel and receive it. The most the copyright holder can do is get the antenna station to sign a contract promising to point the antenna away from Canada. There is nothing "regional" about any of the the copyright licensing itself. The station has the licensed right to transmit. If someone in Canada, or even Japan, has a really good TV set and can pick up the signal that is not a violation of any license.
A book author can license a book manufacturer who happens to be in the US, but there is nothing "regional" about licensing. The copyright holder isn't giving any sort of license for "regional readers". The copyright holder is not giving any license at all to any readers, because under copyright law there is no such thing as a license to read. People without licenses can just plain read, regardless of any permission the copyright holder wants to grant or deny. The most the book author can do is get the book manufacturer to sign a contract promising not to willfully mail the book out of the US themselves. The manufacturer is licensed to print copies. There is no license violation if someone in Japan buys the book secondhand from someone in the US and reads it. The person reading the book in Japan doesn't involve any sort of "regional licensing" because they don't need any license at all to read it.
The same goes for websites. A copyright holder can ask the website to sign a contract promising to block various IP-ranges, but is just an effort to manufacture or simulate some sort of regional idea. Aside from the contractual promise to block certain IP addresses there is nothing actually regional about any of the copyright or licensing. And is is false and stupid to try to use IP addresses in that manner. Yes, IP addresses are usually pretty accurate at telling you were the other end is located, but it is a grossly flawed assumption. Hopefully the increase of proxies and advancing internet technology will make it increasingly obvious that an IP address is not a location, and that trying to us IP addresses to limit websites to national borders is impossible and stupid.
-
spot in the cemetery... gets "rented"
Wow. Used graves. Do Germans rent used underwear too? :D
-
Jesus was gay
Yeah, right. And next your probably going to try to tell me that Jesus was brown, and that he spoke spanish or muslim or some gibberish language like that.
-
In a related study, infants judged geeks to be 18% less human than the robots.
-
I thought that all music on the radio was performed live.
I was going to quip that when you were little it was probably true, but then I saw your 7-digit SlashID.
-
It is totally fair that if you want the FSF's endorsement you've got to open all the software on the product, and license any software patents.
Ummm, was that intended to be sarcasm? The FSF doesn't have to endorse anyone at all. If they want they could say you have to use 100% recycled materials, donate 80% of profits to saving the whales, and that you have to whistle the Swiss National Anthem in a banana suit to get their endorsement.
a giant boiling vat of legal implications
What the hell?
Is there some "a giant boiling vat of legal implications" with the "Intel Inside" logo??? If you meet Intel's requirements then Intel grants permission to use their logo. If you yank the Intel CPU and start shipping systems with AMD processors then obviously Intel is going to say you can't use the logo anymore.
I love how the FSF always defines the outer edge completely in favor of the person that buys the product, rather than the one that creates it.
Again, what the hell? Isn't that how it's supposed to work?
The EnergyStar logo certifies the product conforms to certain efficiency standards... defined "completely in favor of the person that buys the product, rather than the one that creates it".
The Kosher logo certifies the product conforms to certain health and preparation standards... defined "completely in favor of the person that buys the product, rather than the one that creates it".
The UL logo certifies the product conforms to certain safety standards... defined "completely in favor of the person that buys the product, rather than the one that creates it".
The Green logo certifies the product conforms to certain environmental and recycling standards... defined "completely in favor of the person that buys the product, rather than the one that creates it".
And obviously I can go on and on. The entire point of this sort of logo is to certify TO THE CUSTOMER that a product meets HIS INTERESTS in some way that the customer might consider important. I find it incomprehensible that you somehow expect this sort of logo program to be about the manufacturer's interests. The only manufacturer's interest here is that they might WANT the logo to help attract customers. A manufacturer can produce an air conditioner that is as efficient or as inefficient as he wishes. IF he wants to use the EnergyStar logo then he has to meed certain efficiency standards - standards defined to serve the customer's interests. If the manufacturer doesn't like it, no problem. He can just keep on selling his product without that trademarked logo.
Eventually a happy middle will be found.
What happy middle???
Certified Allergen Free food containing 10% peanut dust?
Certified Lead Free children's toys, containing 90 perfectly pure wooded blocs and 10 solid lead blocks?
-
insulting rants against the more fundamental elements of the religion that tend to push moderates closer to the fundamental side, as such rants (when not presented tactfully) stir up deep seeded resentments and emotions.
I don't disagree. Several times I've had the thought that I can't decide whether Richard Dawkins is a hero or a catastrophe. It's a mess with no good solution.
I respect people's right to believe whatever religion, and to speak their beliefs. When the subject is evolution I specifically argue for the theistic-evolution perspective. I generally don't run around gratuitously insulting religion. Most religious people are generally good, reasonable, rational, intelligent people. For most people religion is a harmless hobby, not much different from someone who reads their daily horoscope each day without allowing it to destructively control their lives.
Religious people have the right to post that they believe X, Y and Z, and when the subject of religion comes up I assert I have the same right to say I believe stories of walking-talking snakes are silly. I don't buy it when religionists try to pull a persecution complex. I don't buy that I'm some villain if I say I think talking snakes are silly. I don't buy that I'm some villain if I say I think the Bible is fiction. I don't buy that that makes me some aggressor "militant atheist".
I totally get the attacking-more-flies-with-honey-than-vinegar thing, and as I said I use that approach pursuing acceptable rational common ground on evolution. But I don't accept the grotesque bias and double-standard around religion. Theists can say the most silly, vile, or insulting things and they deserve respect merely because it they take it as religion? An atheist has to dance on eggshells and still gets tagged as a villain? No matter how polite the atheist is, the theist becomes grossly insulted.
People are not entitled to spread out arbitrarily large fields of eggshells and then blame other people for stepping on them. Just becomes someone takes insult from something does not mean the speaker made any inappropriate remarks. Just because someone takes insult from something does not mean that the speaker is at fault.
If you think I included some gratuitous insult in my post I will certainly look at it and consider it. I'm not going to accept blame for people who feel insult at the mere suggestion that their religion is untrue. I am not going to accept blame for people who feel insulted or embarrassed by facts of their own religion.
-
The planet is 20 light years away, it would take 40 years to confirm discovery, not a week!
You appear to have made a typo in your browser address bar. If you look carefully you'll see that the name of this website starts with an 'S'. The website you meant to enter starts with a 'C'. The correct spelling is conservapedia.com.
-
Going to a whorehouse with no money can still be an extremely educational experience when your pr0n collection consists of photos of yourself.
-
a 400,000 year flight. Wow would that have been a letdown.
Meh. Not really.
I wasn't holding my breath on that one.
-
Chuckle. Thinking about "The Bible is like..." prompted an interesting thought.
I don't know how much you've read about memes, but religions have been compared to viruses that compete to propagate to hosts, and which evolve by natural selection. It struck me that the Bible is like the core chunk of the religion's DNA, but that DNA is essentially immutable... unmutatable. Religion's evolution is horribly warped because that core DNA is immutable. Modern mainstream Christianity is fairly innocuous, even beneficial in many ways, but it's still stuck lugging around this immutable Bible DNA. It can't figure out how the hell to deal with it.
The typical decent Cristian person opposes... well pretty much the entirety of the Old Testament. It's almost all evil or insane. But Christians mostly deal with it by closing their eyes and moving on to something else. Decent Christians have trouble dealing with the Fundies because the Fundies are RIGHT when they cite X Y and Z in the Bible.
Modern Mainstream Christianity has evolved into a God of Love and Rainbows, but it's unable to eject the legacy DNA which says those rainbows represent his wrath drowning humanity in a flood. It's unable to eject the Ten Commandments which declare God the "God of Love" to be a petty and jealous prick.
The Bible is like a chunk of defective and immutable Precambrian DNA wreaking havoc in a modern cell.
-
The fact that anyone takes the Bible as inerrant is sufficient cause to refute the position.
Since we apparently agree that copies of Bible are (at least in part) errant, I'll move on to a further position. It is patently obvious that the Bible doesn't come from God at all. Actually the logic equally applies to all Scripture from every religion on earth, but for the sake of argument we'll just stick with the Bible as the candidate "correct" book from God.
It's not even necessary to nitpick errors or contradictions or absurdities or gross immoralities or anything other details of content. We can sweep them all those problems under the rug as "translation errors", chuckle. No, the proof is that God couldn't be that grossly incompetent.
By definition God's intelligence immeasurably supersedes any human intelligence.
By definition God's knowledge immeasurably supersedes any human knowledge.
By definition God's clarity immeasurably supersedes any human clarity.
By definition God's wisdom immeasurably supersedes any human wisdom.
By definition God skills and capabilities are infinitely beyond any human skills or capabilities in all respects.
But what do we have? We have one supposedly God-given book competing against various human-written false-scriptures. Even if we lump together Catholics and Protestants and Mormons and others, "Christianity" only makes up 30% of world religion. A minority, not even reaching one third. By more than two-to-one, the Bible is beaten out by other "human written false scriptures". My argument is that God could not be that incompetent. If the Bible, or any other book, were True Scripture, it wouldn't even be a horse race. If you took a True Scripture Bible and a false human-written Koran and handed them both to a Buddhist to consider, there would be no competion. There would be no argument. If God had any hand in one of the two books, the difference would be overwhelming and obvious to any Buddhist or Hindu or Native American or even an Atheist.
If there is a God, he has not chosen to hand down Scripture to us. Any God given or God Inspired scripture could not be so incompetent as to lose out by more than two-to-one against other "scriptures" of human origin.
The only reason you select the Bible above others is because it's the one your parents taught you. The reason most Arabs follow the Koran is because that is the one their patents taught them. The reason Native Americans believe what they believe is because that's what their parents taught them. The reason almost all Indians (India) follow Hindu is because that's what their parents taught them. the reason most Asians are Buddhists is because that's what their parents taught them.
To the extent that some small number of people do convert away from their parents' religion, there is no one Scripture winning people over with self-evident divine inspiration.
Note: I certainly admit that there are people who do claim to see some kind of "beyond human" perfection in the Bible, but no more so than the same claim is made for other scriptures. As I said, hand the Bible and the Koran to a random unprejudiced Buddhist or Hindu. Any two "Scriptures" are of equal human origin when judged by a third party. And we have abundant unbiased third parties to ask... every religion on earth is a minority religion. No religion even makes it above 30%, even when you lump together Shia and Sunni, even when you lump together Catholic and Mormon.
-
Looking again, it seems I may have misinterpreted your post when I replied before.
Please interpret my post to indicate that there are people with a certain position, and as a perhaps redundant explanation as to how one part of their position is refuted even if we assumed that another part of their position were true. Or something like that, chuckle.
-
I think there may be a bit of confusion in conversation lines here.
In a narrow scope, there are people who take the Bible as literal and infallible. That is the subject I was primarily replying to in that particular post. You are absolutely right that Catholics rarely buy any of that nuttery.
Moving on to the larger discussion:
I get the feeling the Pope is suffering a generational misunderstanding
I don't think I seen much, if any, misunderstanding of the Pope here.
his point is not completely invalid.
I don't think I've seen anyone here argue with his point. His point was completely lost beneath the staggering flood of irony and hypocrisy coming out of his mouth. The issue is, to paraphrase your next words:
Certain aspects of [religion] do insulate people from the world around them. Losing touch with objective realities outside [church]. That could have undesirable consequences.
Luke 6:42 how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.
When people are DYING of AIDS and the Pope goes on an anti-condom Crusade, one does not need to be an atheist to see the "insulation", "losing touch with objective realities", and catastrophic "undesirable consequences". One does not need to be an atheist to see it when the Pope opposes the dignity and equality of women, such as crusading against female priests. One does not need to be an atheist when the Pope attacks homosexuals a threat to humanity. One does not need to be an atheist to see it when the Pope places religion and the protection of criminal priests ahead of the children being abused by those priests.
You're right that the Pope isn't a fundie Biblical literalist. However his speech was still irony and hypocrisy of monumental proportions from beginning to end.
-
Jesus Muhammad and Freud, best not we employed.
Just look to one man, to break the logjam.
I yam what I yam and that's all what I yam.
-Me, "Tasbid"
-
I'm pretty sure that means the Bible is a more valid work on the subject than all scientific publications combined.
If you're pretty sure you packed your parachute, you might want to double check the evidence on that one before you base any important life decisions on it.
-
translations of The Republic existing refutes it being the "true philosophy of Plato"
As far as I am aware, no one is claiming any copy or translation is the One True Word of Plato.
As far as I am aware, no one is claiming any copy or translation of Plato supersedes all contradictory evidence.
As far as I am aware, no one is claiming any copy or translation of Plato supersedes all logic.
As far as I am aware, no one is claiming any copy or translation of Plato supersedes all morality.
(i.e. The Word of God is infallible, and by definition trumps all other moral considerations and moral arguments)
Maybe you were looking for some other impossible criterion you already know you'd never apply to anything else, because you noted it's a religious text that's being discussed?
I was referring to the "impossible criteria" that some people DO ascribe to the Bible, which they'd never apply to anything else. People who insist upon the Bible as the capital-O-One capital-T-True capital-W-Word.
People who engage in Idolatry by treating the Bible itself as infallible, and so worship it above all else.
People who break the First Commandment.
-
Because it's irrelevant even if we assume God did speak to Abraham and Moses and Jesus.
The fact that particular copies of "the Bible" are increasingly contradictory and corrupted with each edition, with each translation, with the constant change over time in the very meaning of human language, itself refutes the Bible bing a "One True Word of God".
Even if God did speak to Moses and other, it is no long One word. It is a multitude of contradictory words. Any modern copy of the Bible is no longer even remotely True to any Perfect Word God supposedly spoke to Moses or anyone else. It is irretrievably corrupted by the imperfection of human language itself, and by changes in language, and by human fallibility, and most of all warped during each of the repeated translations from language to language.
Even 17th Century Shakespeare's English text is grossly different from modern English. Even translating 17th Century English Shakespeare into Modern English text inherently distorts and loses some of the meaning. You cannot seriously suggest that modern Bibles are Capital-T-True to thousands of years old Aramaic text, even if we assumed that fallible-human-language Aramaic text were somehow perfect.
I find it hysterical how some people deal with clear cases of translation errors and contradictions. They pick one particular edition, selected on no basis other than the fact that it's the copy their local church happens to use. Then as near as I can tell, they assert that each translators and editor along the way was uniquely inspired by God. Apparently God deliberately planted errors of words and meaning in the original language versions of the Bible so that those errors would be translated into the One-Perfect-Word-Of-God (and the One-True-Version was always intended by God to be in English of course). So it doesn't matter when their edition of the Bible contradicts another modern version because their copy was uniquely Divinely Inspired in translation. And it doesn't matter when they recognize and admit that their edition of the Bible is a flat-out-mistranslation error because, ummm, God Divinely Inspired that deliberate error into the old version so that the new version would turn out as his One True Word.
A lot of people so that with all different editions of the Bible. However people most often seem to get fanatical in that "I'm special and my edition of the Bible is special" logic for the King James Version.
Let me give you an actual example:
The word of God has been in heaven forever. The KJV has always been there. The so called Hebrew words like Alleluia are English words. The English did not borrow them from the Hebrew but rather the Hebrew borrowed them from the English. If the KJV has always been there and is the original word of God then there is no other conclusion. The same can be said for any so called Greek words that were borrowed from the Greek or transliterated. It is a matter of what bias you approach this particular subject.
Riiight.... the King James Version is the One True Word and has always existed in unchanging Perfection.... and in some psychotic delusion ancient Hebrew and Greek words are actually taken from modern-English. It's insane, but that's what it takes to conclude that you are holding a One True Word bible.
And how about another one:
Here is one reason why the Authorized Version [King James Authorized Version] of the Holy Bible is superior to any Greek text, or any Greek manuscripts: And that is because it is in the universal language of the end time.Greek, as a language, is deader than last year's bird nest. It constitutes less than one percent of the world's spoken languages, and there is no demand for it anywhere on earth, except in Greece, and in the back rooms of dead, orthodox, conservative, Bible critics.
Yep! The One True language is English, and God put deliberate errors in the old Greek and Aramaic versions so the translation errors would turn them into the One True Word King James Version!
Ok, I read the speech at your link. I can't imagine why you're calling the article a troll for only including snippets. The entire thing just piles the irony and hypocrisy on deeper and deeper the longer it goes on.
The Pope was actually talking about the way modern media reports the news.
Yeah. And all of it was unbelievably ironic and hypocritical when considered in the context of religion.
Today, for example, the world of appearances has an increasing weight with religion ; but if on the one hand this has doubtless positive aspects, on the other, the image can also become detached from reality (ding!), it can give life to a virtual world (ding!), with diverse consequences, the first of which is the risk of indifference to the truth (ding!). In fact, religion , together with the progress that they bring, can result in what is true and what is false becoming interchangeable (ding!), it can lead to confusing the real with the virtual (ding!). In addition, religion reporting of an event, happy or sad, can be consumed as entertainment (ding!) and not as an occasion for reflection. The search for ways to authentically promote man then disappears into the background (ding!), because the event is presented primarily to arouse emotions (ding!). These issues are alarm bells (ding!): an invitation to consider the danger that the virtual distances us from reality (ding!) and does not stimulate the pursuit of what is true (DING DING DING!!!)
-