What? It's all of them not just one or any specific one. If you admit to another god but not a specific god, you fail the definition that there is_no_god.
The claim that the existence of any deity is unknown or unknowable is agnosticism. The positive assertion of knowledge, either of the existence of gods or the absence of gods, can also be attributed to some theists and some atheists. Put simply, theism and atheism deal with belief, and agnosticism deals with rational claims to asserting knowledge.
But if someone offers to pay him, does he not have an obligation to run/perform that advertisement before his speech?
No, he is not selling advertising space to the public. It is not part of his business.
The advertising group already has a policy about the type of adverts it will run, this CoE adverts goes against the policy, your argument that the cinemas should run this advert despite their existing policy is equivalent to Dawkins being obliged to say a prayer before his speeches if someone offered to pay him to do it despite his existing policy of not having advertising before his speeches.
Not at all. My argument is why is discrimination in offerings to the general public acceptable in one form and not others. This is especially important when the discrimination is about religion, race, nationality, sexual preference and so on. If the goods (in this case advertising space) are regularly offered for sale to the general public, then discriminating based on religion or sexual preference or race or many other things should not be allowed.
Dawkins didn't comment on this because someone asked him about this, he choose to comment on it on Twitter after hearing the news.
And for once, Dawkins is 100% correct in doing so. Censorship or counter to intelligent discourse and even detrimental to society.
Twitter is for twits who like to say things without thinking about them, to highlight that point he did actually delete the tweet after hearing some counter-arguments and actually thinking about what he said. I do like and respect Professor Dawkins, but perhaps he shouldn't have a Twitter account so that he can refrain from commenting on things he hasn't given adequate thought to.
He probably deleted it because of simple harassment by others. If your beliefs cannot exist without being challenged, they do not need to exist in the first place. Imagine if every advertising company decided that anti Christianity advertisements wouldn't be allowed. Imaging Dawkins' ability to get his message out if he was censored because of his religious beliefs? I doubt you would have even heard of him.
Is this your first interaction with government forcing third party interaction on people? I mean some areas mandate (and have for a long time) vaccinations else no public schools or similar services. The PPACA (obamacare) mandates that you get health insurance from a third party. Before that, there was/is the mandatory age in which you have to start drawing your social security benefits (even if you are wealthy enough to not need them and think the system would be more solvent if they kept them).
Now the interesting thing will be where someone will attempt to claim but it's different with schools and google because it's not in the person's best interest or something. Bottom line is that you are forced to interact with the government or third parties as directed by the government at many steps in your life. It's just getting worse and more obvious now I guess.
Unless the parachute can steer it away, I'm not sure it would help much. The speed and momentum that would cause most of the damage would be from the vehicle striking it.
I'm replying from my phone with piss poor reception so i didn't get a chance to watch the video you linked to. Sorry if that already answered my point.
Sure it can. What is your point? I hope it isn't something stupid like a drone or a brick has more control falling from the sky. My point was that it is not some trivial thing. Especially when speed and momentum is involved from the object that ends up hitting it.
Here is something to think about as far as traffic goes. In several large cities where road speed is 55mph or higher, the overpasses now have chain link fence over the roadway because people have thrown bricks, rocks, and other objects over the side to be hit by traffic whizzing by. Several deaths have been attributed to this. Something as small as a 5lbs brick can crash through a windshield , the person sitting on the other side, and sometimes more.
What I'm getting at is this won't be just a scratch on the hood or bruises if it goes down in traffic. It can be lethal without much effort.
So you get this massive protest with thousands of people in one area. What happens when bombs and gunshots start going off? I don't mean the protesters would get violent, but what about ISIS terrorism taking advantage of the crowd and chaos.
Perhaps this is the government realizing that it cannot provide security for both dignitaries and protesters at this time.
Exactly. . I don't know how many times i need to tell idiots to get off my lawn each and every day. It seems like more and more every day too.
Oh, and I'm not sure Cox lost anything on this front except the ability to claim a DMCA exception. Of course in order to do so, they would have had to blindly follow the takedown process which cutting internet access to anything more than the specific content is not part of.
In other words, they may still be exempt from liability, just not according to a law that doesn't seem to apply to the specific circumstances.
Even if that is somehow technically impossible to implement, I'm not sure why archiving the post pre cutoff date wouldn't work. Its what happens here essentially when commenting becomes disabled due to the age of the story.
Ehh.. fox news commentary is just a symptom. I've seen people quoting or citing op-ed pieces as sources before fox news was even heard of. It may be why fox news was and is so successful but it was happening long before in irc, news lists, and bbs postings.
Why? I wasn't aware that Mr Dawkins sold advertising space at his speeches. If that does happen, yes he should be required or obligated to run an advertisement that sounds like a prayer or whatever if someone pays him to.
The principal here is not the content. It is the denial of commercial services to members of society based on their speech or whatever they do not like about them. Mr Dawkins is only tangibly connected here because of his outspoken atheist views and someone asked him about this. Of course he took the high road and doesn't think speech should be suppressed even if he disagreed with the speech.
How far apart is "we sell advertising space but not to the likes of you " from "we rent rooms but not to the likes of you "?
If you offer something in commerce, do you think it is proper to refuse that offer to anyone who is part of the same society that allows you to prosper?
You might have missed the point where this type of transfer restructuring removes the corporations from being citizens. But otherwise yes and it the same until the company stops being a US citizen and becomes a citizen of Ireland or whatever. Then it is different.
You can call it magic if you want but it only shows your ignorance. Corporations are created entities and can be created anywhere that they are recognized. And yes, the US as well as most of the rest of the world benefits from free trade and or trade that is regulated and recognized across borders.
Here is the problem with that in practice. People are still citizens when they move overseas, corporations are not always. Often when corporations move, they become entities of the new nation. The equivalent is like taxing a German citizen on all his income made anywhere even though only 10% was earned in the US.
Now when corporations remain US entities, the income is taxed when it is repatriated if it is made through a subsidiary corporation or as normal if the corporations operate as itself in the foreign country. In the latter, it is just like a citizen earning money overseas.
Why not? I mean you kinda need something besides cocaine to do in between boners. Why not get turned on by the plot just before getting turned on by the content?
Besides, I bet more women would watch more porn if there was a decent plot. Look at the popularity of soft porn like 50 shades of grey.
What exactly is it? You see, he is saying we need to do what was already being done. He didn't say close all the mosques or put someone in a database. So what is it that you think is being said here and what are people supposedly running from?
What is it that you think he didn't say? Once again he talks about foreigners in the country in his response and you seem to think it is everyone.
You would be a lot closer to the truth and not lying about this if you stopped trying to read into his answers. The transcript you mentioned says trump didn't answer the question they wanted him to answer and instead went directly to people entering the country. And that somehow means something you want him to say in order to advance your narrative. Pathetic.
It isn't bit late to blow the whistle now. You see, an election for president is close at hand and the narrative that a Clinton could have saved the world or something but another president fucked it up is important when the Clinton running is largely riding the coat tails of her husband's presidency and her own experience is being touted as a failure that brought us Libya, Russia invading Europe, ISIS or whatever they are calling it now, and many other failed policies while her most touted achievement seems to be time spent flying on airplanes and growing her husband's nonprofit organization which i still do not understand the actual purpose of other than providing salaries to select people.
This is not by accident. A Clinton made us safer and others changed that. Bad things happened because of that change so put a Clinton back in office.
And you are ignoring what he said immediately before and after that in order to change the context of his statements. If the entire line of questions wasn't available, I might agree with you. But it is available and you as well as everyone else making the claim has to ignore the rest of it in order to make the lie work. And that is what your claim is, a flat out lie that is easily found out by looking at the actual statements. He is talking about border security and people entering the country legally in response to the same question line from the same people direct. You are essentially saying that because two or three answers doesn't specifically mention that you can ignore the entire context in order to fabricate a narrative that does not otherwise exist.
Why do you think it is necessary to lie about trump's statement?
If you can't figure that shit out when it's happening, in real time, then you ain't gonna be a very good President.
I never said he would be a good president or even the president. However, he deserves the criticism about him to be at least honest which I do not think this is. Personally, I am a bit frightened at the thought of him being near the button that could launch Nuclear weapons or in charge of the military.
As for the Mexican rapist and all, I'm not really a fan of Trump and I am not really a fan of illegal immigrants and just don't care enough about it. But lets be honest and truthful here, he did not say all Mexican immigrants were rapist, just the illegals. This is another dishonest line that gets pushed out. The guy is out ranting about illegal immigrants, not legal ones.
What makes the way Blizzard obtained this copyrighted material any different than you or I downloading Blizzard's copyrighted material from some torrent site or something? I mean in both situations, the distribution was not authorized by law.
I'm genuinely curious what the hard Radical Right is trying to accomplish here. Trump clearly said what he said, and his statements are very appealing to his polling base. Why are you trying so hard to pretend he didn't say what he obviously did say
You are correct that he said what he said, however, you are a lieing about it in your representation of it. It is obvious what he was saying and it doesn't resemble anything you are portraying. How bad is your policies if you have to purposely misrepresent something over some ambiguity that is largely fabricated in order to put someone else's policies down?
Doesn't it bother you that you need to lie and misrepresent someone else in order to maintain your worldview? It should bother you but I'm getting the impression that even if it did, maintaining your worldview- as much as it is built on logical inconsistencies and fabrications as it is, would still be more important than truth and reality. There is little that can be said about your kind other then offering the truth that you reject.
Where are these documented situations? They certainly are not the ones being trotted around by the media. Those, like I originally said, show Trump going off about border security, illegal immigrants, and ensuring people entering the country legally.
Slashdot Mirror
What? It's all of them not just one or any specific one. If you admit to another god but not a specific god, you fail the definition that there is_no_god.
Wikipedia explains it better
No, he is not selling advertising space to the public. It is not part of his business.
Not at all. My argument is why is discrimination in offerings to the general public acceptable in one form and not others. This is especially important when the discrimination is about religion, race, nationality, sexual preference and so on. If the goods
(in this case advertising space) are regularly offered for sale to the general public, then discriminating based on religion or sexual preference or race or many other things should not be allowed.
And for once, Dawkins is 100% correct in doing so. Censorship or counter to intelligent discourse and even detrimental to society.
He probably deleted it because of simple harassment by others. If your beliefs cannot exist without being challenged, they do not need to exist in the first place. Imagine if every advertising company decided that anti Christianity advertisements wouldn't be allowed. Imaging Dawkins' ability to get his message out if he was censored because of his religious beliefs? I doubt you would have even heard of him.
Is this your first interaction with government forcing third party interaction on people? I mean some areas mandate
(and have for a long time) vaccinations else no public schools or similar services. The PPACA (obamacare) mandates that you get health insurance from a third party. Before that, there was/is the mandatory age in which you have to start drawing your social security benefits
(even if you are wealthy enough to not need them and think the system would be more solvent if they kept them).
Now the interesting thing will be where someone will attempt to claim but it's different with schools and google because it's not in the person's best interest or something. Bottom line is that you are forced to interact with the government or third parties as directed by the government at many steps in your life. It's just getting worse and more obvious now I guess.
Important and unimportant things vary wildly between people. I'm not going to tell you what I think of you because it is just unimportant to me.
Unless the parachute can steer it away, I'm not sure it would help much. The speed and momentum that would cause most of the damage would be from the vehicle striking it.
I'm replying from my phone with piss poor reception so i didn't get a chance to watch the video you linked to. Sorry if that already answered my point.
Sure it can. What is your point? I hope it isn't something stupid like a drone or a brick has more control falling from the sky. My point was that it is not some trivial thing. Especially when speed and momentum is involved from the object that ends up hitting it.
Here is something to think about as far as traffic goes. In several large cities where road speed is 55mph or higher, the overpasses now have chain link fence over the roadway because people have thrown bricks, rocks, and other objects over the side to be hit by traffic whizzing by. Several deaths have been attributed to this. Something as small as a 5lbs brick can crash through a windshield , the person sitting on the other side, and sometimes more.
What I'm getting at is this won't be just a scratch on the hood or bruises if it goes down in traffic. It can be lethal without much effort.
So you get this massive protest with thousands of people in one area. What happens when bombs and gunshots start going off? I don't mean the protesters would get violent, but what about ISIS terrorism taking advantage of the crowd and chaos.
Perhaps this is the government realizing that it cannot provide security for both dignitaries and protesters at this time.
Exactly. . I don't know how many times i need to tell idiots to get off my lawn each and every day. It seems like more and more every day too.
Oh, and I'm not sure Cox lost anything on this front except the ability to claim a DMCA exception. Of course in order to do so, they would have had to blindly follow the takedown process which cutting internet access to anything more than the specific content is not part of.
In other words, they may still be exempt from liability, just not according to a law that doesn't seem to apply to the specific circumstances.
Even if that is somehow technically impossible to implement, I'm not sure why archiving the post pre cutoff date wouldn't work. Its what happens here essentially when commenting becomes disabled due to the age of the story.
Or am i missing something?
Ehh.. fox news commentary is just a symptom. I've seen people quoting or citing op-ed pieces as sources before fox news was even heard of. It may be why fox news was and is so successful but it was happening long before in irc, news lists, and bbs postings.
Why? I wasn't aware that Mr Dawkins sold advertising space at his speeches. If that does happen, yes he should be required or obligated to run an advertisement that sounds like a prayer or whatever if someone pays him to.
The principal here is not the content. It is the denial of commercial services to members of society based on their speech or whatever they do not like about them. Mr Dawkins is only tangibly connected here because of his outspoken atheist views and someone asked him about this. Of course he took the high road and doesn't think speech should be suppressed even if he disagreed with the speech.
How far apart is "we sell advertising space but not to the likes of you " from "we rent rooms but not to the likes of you "?
If you offer something in commerce, do you think it is proper to refuse that offer to anyone who is part of the same society that allows you to prosper?
You might have missed the point where this type of transfer restructuring removes the corporations from being citizens. But otherwise yes and it the same until the company stops being a US citizen and becomes a citizen of Ireland or whatever. Then it is different.
You can call it magic if you want but it only shows your ignorance. Corporations are created entities and can be created anywhere that they are recognized. And yes, the US as well as most of the rest of the world benefits from free trade and or trade that is regulated and recognized across borders.
Here is the problem with that in practice. People are still citizens when they move overseas, corporations are not always. Often when corporations move, they become entities of the new nation. The equivalent is like taxing a German citizen on all his income made anywhere even though only 10% was earned in the US.
Now when corporations remain US entities, the income is taxed when it is repatriated if it is made through a subsidiary corporation or as normal if the corporations operate as itself in the foreign country. In the latter, it is just like a citizen earning money overseas.
Why not? I mean you kinda need something besides cocaine to do in between boners. Why not get turned on by the plot just before getting turned on by the content?
Besides, I bet more women would watch more porn if there was a decent plot. Look at the popularity of soft porn like 50 shades of grey.
What exactly is it? You see, he is saying we need to do what was already being done. He didn't say close all the mosques or put someone in a database. So what is it that you think is being said here and what are people supposedly running from?
What is it that you think he didn't say? Once again he talks about foreigners in the country in his response and you seem to think it is everyone.
You would be a lot closer to the truth and not lying about this if you stopped trying to read into his answers. The transcript you mentioned says trump didn't answer the question they wanted him to answer and instead went directly to people entering the country. And that somehow means something you want him to say in order to advance your narrative. Pathetic.
It isn't bit late to blow the whistle now. You see, an election for president is close at hand and the narrative that a Clinton could have saved the world or something but another president fucked it up is important when the Clinton running is largely riding the coat tails of her husband's presidency and her own experience is being touted as a failure that brought us Libya, Russia invading Europe, ISIS or whatever they are calling it now, and many other failed policies while her most touted achievement seems to be time spent flying on airplanes and growing her husband's nonprofit organization which i still do not understand the actual purpose of other than providing salaries to select people.
This is not by accident. A Clinton made us safer and others changed that. Bad things happened because of that change so put a Clinton back in office.
And you are ignoring what he said immediately before and after that in order to change the context of his statements. If the entire line of questions wasn't available, I might agree with you. But it is available and you as well as everyone else making the claim has to ignore the rest of it in order to make the lie work. And that is what your claim is, a flat out lie that is easily found out by looking at the actual statements. He is talking about border security and people entering the country legally in response to the same question line from the same people direct. You are essentially saying that because two or three answers doesn't specifically mention that you can ignore the entire context in order to fabricate a narrative that does not otherwise exist.
Why do you think it is necessary to lie about trump's statement?
I never said he would be a good president or even the president. However, he deserves the criticism about him to be at least honest which I do not think this is. Personally, I am a bit frightened at the thought of him being near the button that could launch Nuclear weapons or in charge of the military.
As for the Mexican rapist and all, I'm not really a fan of Trump and I am not really a fan of illegal immigrants and just don't care enough about it. But lets be honest and truthful here, he did not say all Mexican immigrants were rapist, just the illegals. This is another dishonest line that gets pushed out. The guy is out ranting about illegal immigrants, not legal ones.
Quick question.
What makes the way Blizzard obtained this copyrighted material any different than you or I downloading Blizzard's copyrighted material from some torrent site or something? I mean in both situations, the distribution was not authorized by law.
You are correct that he said what he said, however, you are a lieing about it in your representation of it. It is obvious what he was saying and it doesn't resemble anything you are portraying. How bad is your policies if you have to purposely misrepresent something over some ambiguity that is largely fabricated in order to put someone else's policies down?
Doesn't it bother you that you need to lie and misrepresent someone else in order to maintain your worldview? It should bother you but I'm getting the impression that even if it did, maintaining your worldview- as much as it is built on logical inconsistencies and fabrications as it is, would still be more important than truth and reality. There is little that can be said about your kind other then offering the truth that you reject.
Where are these documented situations? They certainly are not the ones being trotted around by the media. Those, like I originally said, show Trump going off about border security, illegal immigrants, and ensuring people entering the country legally.