But he did, Michael gave birth to alien butt-babies in deed! I just KNOW he did! I can FEEL it! I won't tolerate you making fun of my feelings! Prepare to die, you insensitive clod!
Of course it does affect the country! Teaching superstitious beliefs in schools (be it the creationism or the Van Daeniken blithering) makes the country (resp. it's residents) dumber and even more ignorant of science.
Want to teach your kids religion? Fine, send them to church. But leave it out of schools!
Hmm... actually, some screenshots show even MORE details on the XP DX9 version than on the Vista DX10. Most screenshots look practically identical. Actually, very disappointing.
I'm afraid I don't see the connection between my posting and your reply. Where did I say a minority must be wrong? I would even say that more often than not, it's the majority that has it wrong.
I would love to believe that 0.003% number. However, I'm afraid, from personal experience, that the number of people not believing men were actually on the moon is freeking HUGE! I know some (otherwise) intelligent and educated people who are "sure" the moon landings were faked.
It seems to me you wanted to say "software patents", not "copyright". While the former indeed can be argued to represent a monopoly-enabler, the later is a perfectly valid mechanism to protect your rights as author.
I second that recommendation, a truly good movie! However don't watch the director's cut, for it's a rather un-convincing and generally considered worse than the "regular" version. Besides, it's a rip-off of the Donnie Darko.
You used the term "mutilation" as if it were something inherently bad in your original post. Now that I pointed out that there are cases where circumcision is medically justified, you're changing the tune to the bare definition of the word "mutilation", as if you originally assigned no "moral" values to it.
However, it's a moot point. We still agree on the routine neonatal circumcision being unnecessary (to say the least). I don't we have to agree on the issue of "morality". I barely ever agree on such issues with my USA co-humans anyway. But it's OK.:-)
Oh, and one more point: I know a lot of highly educated, emancipated women (my wife being one of those), who would take quite an offense, if they heard that you put them into the same basket as some extremist feminists. Just to warn you in case you come into a situation this article was all about...:-)
The parent was not talking about routine neonatal circumcision. He was talking about circumcision as such. Including, implicitely, circumcisions done for medical reasons, or - in the later age - for cosmetical ones (btw, circumcision is less intrusive and less dangerous than the widely accepted breast implants, or nose jobs)
Next time I suggest you better *read* the posting before you start spitting vitriol.
Now, you were talking about CIRCUMSISION as such. Not about routine neonatal circumcision, which most certainly is an idiotic thing to do. If you were talking about routine neonatal circumcision, then I'm with you.
Well, not considering other parts of your post (I've never heard of women claiming sex with men would have anything to do with violence), circumcision is NOT a genital mutilation. In my case, I had serious problems with my foreskin, which was getting seriously infected all the time, despite all the hygienic measures taken by my parents. One of my sons now has the similar problem, the other one not. In my case, it was a medical necessity to get rid of the foreskin, just like it probably will be for my son.
Equaling removal of a completely unnecessary piece of skin, which - by coincidence - is also found shit ugly by most women I know, regardless of the reason this removal was done, to the *real* genital mutilations performed on young girls in Africa, practically crippling them for the rest of their lives, is actually an unbelievably ignorant thing to do! Especially nowadays, that the pretty direct connection between the foreskin and the cervical cancer has been pretty much (statistically) proven.
I guess you also don't "mutilate" your fingers by the barbaric act of nail clipping, do you?
Oh, one more thing. Go find a good physician. The rabi should keep his fingers away, that's for sure. This "operation" is such a routine around here in Europe, that I've NEVER heard of the complications you mention in your post.
The history of religion is a history of semantic games, it seems.:-)
According to christian bgeliefs, there's a "god", he seems to have had a son, who was nothing mythical, but an actual flesh-and-blood man, born by an actual non-mythical non-allegoric woman, who he, the god, somehow seems to have inseminated. In my book, he, the (christian) god, together with his family, is defined well enough for me to be able to argue about his existance, as portrayed, or non-existance.
The reason I usually do NOT try to argue gods existance or non-existance is a different one. The burden of proof lays with YOU, the religious people. It's illogical to expect *us*, the non-religious types, to prove you wrong. Come up with a consistent definition, which you won't change every few years, then come with a proof, then we can talk again.
You're correct, "strong atheists" would be a more correct term here. However, when arguing such topics on the internet, I find it better to use the "extremist" term. Even the most atheists I know don't know the difference between the atheism and the strong atheism; among the religious ones, I have yet to find the first one to have ever heard about this distinction.
Regarding the sad state of the society, I completely agree with you. However, I do consider myself quite lucky in this respect - I live in Europe, where the religion is by far not as strong and influential as in the US. The private school I was talking about is "catholic" by declaration, by the funny name (something about blessed martyrers) and by the fact that nuns play the janitors, but there's not much more to it. No daily prayer, no "christian only" attitude (there's even one muslim kid in the class), no extra strong religion lessons. I understand, however, that there are schools even here, which are not that liberal.
I actually had to check twice to be sure your answer was really directed towards *me*.
I don't quite understand from which of my sentences you draw a conclusion I would hate religious people. Actually, my beloved wife is a roman catholic. And I most certainly don't hate her. We have a very differing oppinion on that matter, but that's about it. Just as you asked, there are such and such people on both sides of the fence.
What I really can't stand is trying to play atheist's feelings about god and religion down and actually trying to *force* them to just fucking accept it and say the "blabla-god-blabla" oath. That's what I was replying to.
So calm down, go re-read the thread, and if there's still something you find offending about my post, please feel free to ask.
Don't get atheists and atheist extremists mixed up. I'm an atheist, which does not mean I believe there is no god - that *would* be a religion. I simply don't believe there is one. That's a huge difference. I believe "agnostic" is just a term coined to express that difference in a more explicit way. If you prefer, you could also call me agnostic. I prefer the term atheist.
If a god were to occure to me, and if he were convincing, I would change my stance on the topic of his existance. However, he'd have to be EXTREMELY convincing...:-)
Being an atheist doesn't preclude also being.. let's say pragmatical. My kid goes into a private catholic school because it's the best school around here. I just regularly take care to wipe out some of the mythological nonsense they try to brainwash him into. My wife is catholic. We all get together just fine.:-)
Actually, the jury is still out on whether it's *only* genetics or not. It is out of question, however, that the genetics is very involved.
It is most probably not a single "gay gene", but a combination of multiple genes that determines our sexuality.
Where the consensus has been reached, however, is that the sexual orientation is NOT a matter of a conscious decision and also can't be changed by merely wishing it away.
I don't have ANY respect for violent religions. What's there to respect in stories telling how great a group X is and how it should conquer, convert and - if not convertible - exterminate the group Y?
On the other hand, the sexual orientation is determined by one's genetic code. Not much one can do about it. A biological fact. Arguing against it makes one look quite silly, to say the least.
Slashdot Mirror
But he did, Michael gave birth to alien butt-babies in deed! I just KNOW he did! I can FEEL it! I won't tolerate you making fun of my feelings! Prepare to die, you insensitive clod!
Of course it does affect the country! Teaching superstitious beliefs in schools (be it the creationism or the Van Daeniken blithering) makes the country (resp. it's residents) dumber and even more ignorant of science.
Want to teach your kids religion? Fine, send them to church. But leave it out of schools!
Hmm... actually, some screenshots show even MORE details on the XP DX9 version than on the Vista DX10. Most screenshots look practically identical. Actually, very disappointing.
I'd call it a tie.
I'm afraid I don't see the connection between my posting and your reply. Where did I say a minority must be wrong? I would even say that more often than not, it's the majority that has it wrong.
Could you plese elaborate?
I would love to believe that 0.003% number. However, I'm afraid, from personal experience, that the number of people not believing men were actually on the moon is freeking HUGE! I know some (otherwise) intelligent and educated people who are "sure" the moon landings were faked.
The world sometimes *is* a scary place...
The parent is most obviously pointing out a mistake in the summary, and NOT trolling!
Twilight Zone tune chiming in...
The fact that you replied tells us what about you having a life...? ;-)
Wow, 7 minutes after the article was posted, and STILL no postings! Could this be my first FP? COULD IT???
It seems to me you wanted to say "software patents", not "copyright". While the former indeed can be argued to represent a monopoly-enabler, the later is a perfectly valid mechanism to protect your rights as author.
I second that recommendation, a truly good movie! However don't watch the director's cut, for it's a rather un-convincing and generally considered worse than the "regular" version. Besides, it's a rip-off of the Donnie Darko.
Now you're playing semantic games... :-)
:-)
:-)
You used the term "mutilation" as if it were something inherently bad in your original post. Now that I pointed out that there are cases where circumcision is medically justified, you're changing the tune to the bare definition of the word "mutilation", as if you originally assigned no "moral" values to it.
However, it's a moot point. We still agree on the routine neonatal circumcision being unnecessary (to say the least). I don't we have to agree on the issue of "morality". I barely ever agree on such issues with my USA co-humans anyway. But it's OK.
Oh, and one more point: I know a lot of highly educated, emancipated women (my wife being one of those), who would take quite an offense, if they heard that you put them into the same basket as some extremist feminists. Just to warn you in case you come into a situation this article was all about...
The parent was not talking about routine neonatal circumcision. He was talking about circumcision as such. Including, implicitely, circumcisions done for medical reasons, or - in the later age - for cosmetical ones (btw, circumcision is less intrusive and less dangerous than the widely accepted breast implants, or nose jobs)
Next time I suggest you better *read* the posting before you start spitting vitriol.
Now, you were talking about CIRCUMSISION as such. Not about routine neonatal circumcision, which most certainly is an idiotic thing to do. If you were talking about routine neonatal circumcision, then I'm with you.
Well, not considering other parts of your post (I've never heard of women claiming sex with men would have anything to do with violence), circumcision is NOT a genital mutilation. In my case, I had serious problems with my foreskin, which was getting seriously infected all the time, despite all the hygienic measures taken by my parents. One of my sons now has the similar problem, the other one not. In my case, it was a medical necessity to get rid of the foreskin, just like it probably will be for my son.
Equaling removal of a completely unnecessary piece of skin, which - by coincidence - is also found shit ugly by most women I know, regardless of the reason this removal was done, to the *real* genital mutilations performed on young girls in Africa, practically crippling them for the rest of their lives, is actually an unbelievably ignorant thing to do! Especially nowadays, that the pretty direct connection between the foreskin and the cervical cancer has been pretty much (statistically) proven.
I guess you also don't "mutilate" your fingers by the barbaric act of nail clipping, do you?
Oh, one more thing. Go find a good physician. The rabi should keep his fingers away, that's for sure. This "operation" is such a routine around here in Europe, that I've NEVER heard of the complications you mention in your post.
Why not? It's running on Linux (wine resp. cedega).
:-)
At least it's sort of running, but it's better than nothing!
Troll? Oh, come on mods, get a life - it was funny, considering the call for a haiku reply!
:-)
ObReply: you'd need a LOT of stuff, though... imagine being caught by the police while "fueling" the car in the public parking lot.
The history of religion is a history of semantic games, it seems. :-)
According to christian bgeliefs, there's a "god", he seems to have had a son, who was nothing mythical, but an actual flesh-and-blood man, born by an actual non-mythical non-allegoric woman, who he, the god, somehow seems to have inseminated. In my book, he, the (christian) god, together with his family, is defined well enough for me to be able to argue about his existance, as portrayed, or non-existance.
The reason I usually do NOT try to argue gods existance or non-existance is a different one. The burden of proof lays with YOU, the religious people. It's illogical to expect *us*, the non-religious types, to prove you wrong. Come up with a consistent definition, which you won't change every few years, then come with a proof, then we can talk again.
Thanks, it indeed was a stupid mistake. :-)
You're correct, "strong atheists" would be a more correct term here. However, when arguing such topics on the internet, I find it better to use the "extremist" term. Even the most atheists I know don't know the difference between the atheism and the strong atheism; among the religious ones, I have yet to find the first one to have ever heard about this distinction.
Regarding the sad state of the society, I completely agree with you. However, I do consider myself quite lucky in this respect - I live in Europe, where the religion is by far not as strong and influential as in the US. The private school I was talking about is "catholic" by declaration, by the funny name (something about blessed martyrers) and by the fact that nuns play the janitors, but there's not much more to it. No daily prayer, no "christian only" attitude (there's even one muslim kid in the class), no extra strong religion lessons. I understand, however, that there are schools even here, which are not that liberal.
Well.. depends on whether you mean "small", as in "tiny", or "little", as in "young"... :-)
I actually had to check twice to be sure your answer was really directed towards *me*.
I don't quite understand from which of my sentences you draw a conclusion I would hate religious people. Actually, my beloved wife is a roman catholic. And I most certainly don't hate her. We have a very differing oppinion on that matter, but that's about it. Just as you asked, there are such and such people on both sides of the fence.
What I really can't stand is trying to play atheist's feelings about god and religion down and actually trying to *force* them to just fucking accept it and say the "blabla-god-blabla" oath. That's what I was replying to.
So calm down, go re-read the thread, and if there's still something you find offending about my post, please feel free to ask.
Don't get atheists and atheist extremists mixed up. I'm an atheist, which does not mean I believe there is no god - that *would* be a religion. I simply don't believe there is one. That's a huge difference. I believe "agnostic" is just a term coined to express that difference in a more explicit way. If you prefer, you could also call me agnostic. I prefer the term atheist.
:-)
:-)
If a god were to occure to me, and if he were convincing, I would change my stance on the topic of his existance. However, he'd have to be EXTREMELY convincing...
Being an atheist doesn't preclude also being.. let's say pragmatical. My kid goes into a private catholic school because it's the best school around here. I just regularly take care to wipe out some of the mythological nonsense they try to brainwash him into. My wife is catholic. We all get together just fine.
Actually, the jury is still out on whether it's *only* genetics or not. It is out of question, however, that the genetics is very involved.
It is most probably not a single "gay gene", but a combination of multiple genes that determines our sexuality.
Where the consensus has been reached, however, is that the sexual orientation is NOT a matter of a conscious decision and also can't be changed by merely wishing it away.
Well, no, it's most definitely not.
I don't have ANY respect for violent religions. What's there to respect in stories telling how great a group X is and how it should conquer, convert and - if not convertible - exterminate the group Y?
On the other hand, the sexual orientation is determined by one's genetic code. Not much one can do about it. A biological fact. Arguing against it makes one look quite silly, to say the least.