Why is it that when someone questions evidence of human caused global warming, he's labeled a "denier" (a term which was intentionally chosen to evoke images of Holocost Denial, by the way)
The reason this is done is because Holocaust Deniers, creationists, and anti-global warming science people all use the same bullshit modus operandi when they "debate".
As opposed to all the grants that are given to anybody who attaches 'Effects of Global Warming on...' to there research title?
If you do scientific research on disproving global warming and can get legitimate results, you can bet that the oil industry will fund you a hell of a lot better than environmental researches get funded.
Overpopulation will be a concern of the past. The elite will get what they want, small underground nuclear powered cities will provide them with an means of survival. Thren we will be able to rebuild humanity as we see fit. Wait... err, nevermind.
At least there is no more Soviet Union. Otherwise, we might have to worry about a mine shaft gap!
5) At some point debate has to end, there is literally no benefit to having to argue every day over whether 2+2=4 and whether gravity will continue working tomorrow.
The worst thing would be if the movie industry starts to move into an extreme recycling of actors and historic figures instead of adding new actors. But the movie industry is already biting it's own tail by recycling scripts that once were good at the time instead of finding new stories that haven't been filmed yet.
So I would say that if they are going to just work on recycling they will soon die.
Well, it's really just Hollywood and Bollywood that are doing that. That is why the rest of the world-wide film industry is starting to flourish while Hollywood slowly dies. Face it. People around the world don't give a shit about American movies like they used to. And people like George Lucas are the reason why.
Better GDP per capita correlates with a better standard of living!
Or does that conflict with the Democrat myth that economics is a zero-sum game?
If all you do is work yourself to death, you will have more money, but a much lower standard of living. And, there is no Democratic (use the correct word, propaganda-boy) myth that economics is a zero-sum game. You are thinking of an old Rush Limbaugh rant against the movie Wall Street. Although, Rush Limpballs completely missed the point of the movie. What Gordan Gecko did indeed was manipulation of a zero sum game because he didn't produce anything. That was the whole point. Instead of playing a numbers game to get rich, like Gecko, one should get off one's ass and actually produce something, like Martin Sheen's character did.
Is there an English translation of those names? I can understand most of them, but Frankrik? I assume that Förenade Arab Emiraten is supposted to be United Arab Emirates. Estland, Litauen, Grekland, Sverige? Those are a few that I don't have the slightest clue.
Frankrik = France Estland = Estonia Litauen = Lithuania Grekland = Greece Sverige = Sweden
That's a dumb analogy. Surgery can get you killed. Groping can't. Grow up:)
And you don't grasp the obvious actual analogy. A gynecologist is checking for the purpose of helping a woman maintain her health. Basically, what you are suggesting is that *anyone* should be allowed to do something just because, in certain limited circumstances, one person is allowed to do something.
I think you are the one who needs to grow up and realize that not everyone should be required to follow what you believe is okay.
TSA employee versus gynecologist;
TSA employee gropes your junk or looks at your junk on a monitor; gynecologist feels your wife's pussy or stares deep into it; or both.
So, if I cut you open and remove an internal organ, it's okay because a doctor can do it???
From the article you linked to: "Board member Don Simpkins said previous permits have been issued for churches in the area, but services there usually were limited to Sundays and evenings on Wednesday. He said Muslims generally pray throughout the business day and week."
So, I guess Catholics are pretty much out of luck since, in addition to the big Sunday mass, there are small masses throughout the whole week. Either that, or it is just another bullshit excuse for discrimination.
If they give (or deny) funding, there's no law created, just money possibly exchanged.
Legislation must be passed in order for public money to be transferred to private hands. This legislation controls how the money is to be distributed. You don't have to make an individual law for each and every transaction, but the law as written does govern how the transactions are made. No law, no transactions.
Hence, the Christian taxpayer is being forced to fund religious teachings (suspending the Laws of Thermodynamics for the big bang requires "belief" without fact) that he may or may not believe in.
Saying "we have evidence up to this point, but don't what goes on beyond that point" does not require any kind of belief, let alone a religious one. Otherwise, any time someone didn't know every single detail about something it would, by your standard, amount to a religion. It is simply a statement of what is considered to be the best knowledge. Oh, and no one "suspends" the second law of thermodynamics for the big bang. I suspect you don't even know what the second law of thermodynamics really is, or know anything about cosmology.
Yes it can. The next stop is "This new cathedral will bring in LOTS of visitors".
And they do, actually. Mega-churches bring a boost to the local economy. Some people visit New York City to see St. Patrick's Cathedral. That doesn't mean the government should build churches.
They’re not funding a church, they’re funding a construction project that will generate tourism which happens to be owned and operated by a church.
Simple question. If a Muslim or Buddhist group were making a religious theme park and received government money to construct it, would you be okay with that? How about Scientology or Rastafarianism? Or, the Temple of Set? If you answer no to any of these, you should be able to see why this construction project should receive no government money or special tax breaks.
Oh, and it doesn't just "happens to be owned and operated by a church" as you say. It is a religiously-themed park. If it were a simple nature park that just happened to be owned by a church, I would have no problem with this. But, they are making a park specifically to push their own religious ideas.
but if they deny them, they do have to deny all religious theme parks money
Bingo! You have actually hit the nail on the head! They have to deny *all* religious groups money to start theme parks that are specifically for the purpose of promoting their religion. If a Muslim group wanted to build Mohammed-land, they should be denied. If Scientology wanted to build a theme park to show a replica of the DC-9 Xenu used to fly to Earth, they should be denied.
You do not use public money to build a theme park that is used to promote a religion. Period. I think the Constitutional principle you are thinking of is when public money is used in a general way to promote something (like tourism) and certain aspects might have a religious significance, such as the preservation of a church where a historically significant battle occurred. The point then is to preserve history, not fund the proselytizing of a particular faith.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is it that when someone questions evidence of human caused global warming, he's labeled a "denier" (a term which was intentionally chosen to evoke images of Holocost Denial, by the way)
The reason this is done is because Holocaust Deniers, creationists, and anti-global warming science people all use the same bullshit modus operandi when they "debate".
As opposed to all the grants that are given to anybody who attaches 'Effects of Global Warming on...' to there research title?
If you do scientific research on disproving global warming and can get legitimate results, you can bet that the oil industry will fund you a hell of a lot better than environmental researches get funded.
Shit on mars?
Hhmmm... So, that's why Arnold said "Get your ass to Mars."
Cynicism, however, is a different beast altogether.
Yes, I hear it has something to do with dogs.
Overpopulation will be a concern of the past. The elite will get what they want, small underground nuclear powered cities will provide them with an means of survival. Thren we will be able to rebuild humanity as we see fit. Wait... err, nevermind.
At least there is no more Soviet Union. Otherwise, we might have to worry about a mine shaft gap!
5) At some point debate has to end, there is literally no benefit to having to argue every day over whether 2+2=4 and whether gravity will continue working tomorrow.
No. It doesn't.
That's not debate, that's just contradiction.
The worst thing isn't one man's ideas.
The worst thing would be if the movie industry starts to move into an extreme recycling of actors and historic figures instead of adding new actors. But the movie industry is already biting it's own tail by recycling scripts that once were good at the time instead of finding new stories that haven't been filmed yet.
So I would say that if they are going to just work on recycling they will soon die.
Well, it's really just Hollywood and Bollywood that are doing that. That is why the rest of the world-wide film industry is starting to flourish while Hollywood slowly dies. Face it. People around the world don't give a shit about American movies like they used to. And people like George Lucas are the reason why.
Better GDP per capita correlates with a better standard of living!
Or does that conflict with the Democrat myth that economics is a zero-sum game?
If all you do is work yourself to death, you will have more money, but a much lower standard of living. And, there is no Democratic (use the correct word, propaganda-boy) myth that economics is a zero-sum game. You are thinking of an old Rush Limbaugh rant against the movie Wall Street. Although, Rush Limpballs completely missed the point of the movie. What Gordan Gecko did indeed was manipulation of a zero sum game because he didn't produce anything. That was the whole point. Instead of playing a numbers game to get rich, like Gecko, one should get off one's ass and actually produce something, like Martin Sheen's character did.
Is there an English translation of those names? I can understand most of them, but Frankrik? I assume that Förenade Arab Emiraten is supposted to be United Arab Emirates. Estland, Litauen, Grekland, Sverige? Those are a few that I don't have the slightest clue.
Frankrik = France
Estland = Estonia
Litauen = Lithuania
Grekland = Greece
Sverige = Sweden
Jag förstår lite svenska.
That's a dumb analogy. Surgery can get you killed. Groping can't. Grow up :)
And you don't grasp the obvious actual analogy. A gynecologist is checking for the purpose of helping a woman maintain her health. Basically, what you are suggesting is that *anyone* should be allowed to do something just because, in certain limited circumstances, one person is allowed to do something.
I think you are the one who needs to grow up and realize that not everyone should be required to follow what you believe is okay.
Rights such as travel all depend upon us staying alive to enjoy those rights.
Ah, yes, good old scare tactics.
A nude beach might cure these prudes.
Because anyone who has morals different than your must be WRONG and in need of "re-education."
TSA employee versus gynecologist; TSA employee gropes your junk or looks at your junk on a monitor; gynecologist feels your wife's pussy or stares deep into it; or both.
So, if I cut you open and remove an internal organ, it's okay because a doctor can do it???
"Goodness gracious, great balls of fire!" -- Jerry Lee Lewis
Hhhmmmm.... There's something to sing out loud while going through an "enhanced pat-down!"
Compared to law school, death is a trivial matter.
Compared to dealing with lawyers, death is a trivial matter.
the demonically-designed highway system of Charlotte, North Carolina.
I have lived around Charlotte. Their highway system is proof enough of the existence of Hell.
Of course, if you're an atheist, you could argue that it's not an immoral decision to *pretend* to be religious, for the perks.
Works for Pat Robertson.
So, I guess Catholics are pretty much out of luck since, in addition to the big Sunday mass, there are small masses throughout the whole week. Either that, or it is just another bullshit excuse for discrimination.
If they give (or deny) funding, there's no law created, just money possibly exchanged.
Legislation must be passed in order for public money to be transferred to private hands. This legislation controls how the money is to be distributed. You don't have to make an individual law for each and every transaction, but the law as written does govern how the transactions are made. No law, no transactions.
They weren't in the ark for years. It was a year or just under a year.
Oh yes, that was definitely the weakest part of his whole post.[/sarcasm] [*rolls eyes*]
especially hard to deal with when you're 600 years old
Yes, another Biblical inaccuracy. When Noah cursed Ham, he actually said "Get off my lawn!"
Hence, the Christian taxpayer is being forced to fund religious teachings (suspending the Laws of Thermodynamics for the big bang requires "belief" without fact) that he may or may not believe in.
Saying "we have evidence up to this point, but don't what goes on beyond that point" does not require any kind of belief, let alone a religious one. Otherwise, any time someone didn't know every single detail about something it would, by your standard, amount to a religion. It is simply a statement of what is considered to be the best knowledge. Oh, and no one "suspends" the second law of thermodynamics for the big bang. I suspect you don't even know what the second law of thermodynamics really is, or know anything about cosmology.
Yes it can. The next stop is "This new cathedral will bring in LOTS of visitors".
And they do, actually. Mega-churches bring a boost to the local economy. Some people visit New York City to see St. Patrick's Cathedral. That doesn't mean the government should build churches.
They’re not funding a church, they’re funding a construction project that will generate tourism which happens to be owned and operated by a church.
Simple question. If a Muslim or Buddhist group were making a religious theme park and received government money to construct it, would you be okay with that? How about Scientology or Rastafarianism? Or, the Temple of Set? If you answer no to any of these, you should be able to see why this construction project should receive no government money or special tax breaks.
Oh, and it doesn't just "happens to be owned and operated by a church" as you say. It is a religiously-themed park. If it were a simple nature park that just happened to be owned by a church, I would have no problem with this. But, they are making a park specifically to push their own religious ideas.
but if they deny them, they do have to deny all religious theme parks money
Bingo! You have actually hit the nail on the head! They have to deny *all* religious groups money to start theme parks that are specifically for the purpose of promoting their religion. If a Muslim group wanted to build Mohammed-land, they should be denied. If Scientology wanted to build a theme park to show a replica of the DC-9 Xenu used to fly to Earth, they should be denied.
You do not use public money to build a theme park that is used to promote a religion. Period. I think the Constitutional principle you are thinking of is when public money is used in a general way to promote something (like tourism) and certain aspects might have a religious significance, such as the preservation of a church where a historically significant battle occurred. The point then is to preserve history, not fund the proselytizing of a particular faith.
It is now the official 'Most Ignorant State In the Union'. Next year they're going for 'Most Bigoted State'.
You've obviously never been to South Carolina (I wish I was kidding).