"You and the guy above you prove that hypocrisy is alive and well. You mount a holy war against the school and parents for being against a book, then you declare the bible (another book) is bad and should not be taught."
What the hell are you talking about? I specifically advocated above that the bible absolutely SHOULD be taught when teaching literature. What it shouldn't have is any place in a science classroom because the bible isn't science. It also shouldn't be in a math classroom, because it doesn't teach math. This isn't difficult....
"Well, maybe a little in literature or some context you agree with."
The bible is, among other things, literature. It is NOT science. Even if there is a scientific community within Christendom, no scientist would cite the bible as a scientific resource. That's just silly.
1st citation: I stand corrected; indeed, some secularists are complete idiots and that story is abhorrent. I will note, however, that the religious woman with her religious son turned to the secular ACLU to defend themselves against what was clearly an idiotic school system. Either way, the story is one of a secularist incorrectly applying the theory of secularism, so you got that one.
2nd citation: The family, which works with a Christian publishing firm, insists the word of their 5 year old is gold despite there not being a SINGLE OTHER WITNESS to any of this? Sorry, that one doesn't pass the smell test, especially since the school already noted that they don't have any policy against prayer in the lunch room. That one's a nothing....http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/florida-girl-claims-stopped-praying-lunch-articl e-1.1742858
3rd citation: If your citations can be debunked by Snopes, your citations suck....http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/removejesus.asp
Yeah....no. The bible has no place in the science classroom. It is an unscientific book by its own admission, so no.
"In fact, it would be terrible for children to be taught to love their neighbor...."
Unless that neighbor was one of those pesky folks God told them to smite....
"not steal"
Unless we're talking about the land of those recently smoted....
"not to commit adultery"
Unless it's with one of those bitches from the tribe God wanted the Israelite to breed out of existence....
"If they were taught these things, they might actually live up to those teachings and what kind of world would this be if that happened?"
Judging by teachings of the holy bible? It'd be a world where women groveled at our manly feet, where gays were stoned to death, where whichever tribe heard the right voice in their ear was allowed to commit genocide, and where we all lived at the pleasure of a pernicious uber-being who doesn't have the moral conviction he commands upon his subjects. Sounds pretty fucking awful to me....
As someone who is firmly in the secular camp, let me make this clear to both sides: you can't have a proper course on human history and/or literature if you don't study the bible, as well as other religious texts.
Secularists should not only not have a problem with the bible being used as a literary example, they should be encouraging it....
“While it is important to realize that not all abusers were abused as children, and that many if not most people who are abused do not go on to become abusers themselves, child abuse is most likely the single largest risk factor –biological, psychological, or sociocultural – for later adult abusive behavior,” David M. Allen, M.D., Professor of Psychiatry Emeritus, University of Tennessee Health Science Center.
Child abuse is the largest risk factor, or predictor, for people to become abusive. That, nor my article, doesn't say the abused are MORE LIKELY THAN NOT to become abusers, only that they are more likely than the general population.
Take your shaming some place more deserving and read the god damned links fully, rather than trying to pick a half a quote out for your own stupid purposes.
You seem to think I hate Lance Armstrong because he's a doping piece of shit, like most riders in pro cycling. That's not why I hate him, although he did indeed dope. I hate him because he has people like you fooled into thinking that LiveStrong had anything at all to do with Cancer research, when in fact their money went to raising "Cancer Awareness", which can be more accurately described as "Building Lance Armstrong's legacy and making him rich through his endorsement power".
It was a con. A long con, that fooled many people, but it was a con. And then he hid behind having cancer and his stupid non-charity when he was found out. Cancer RESEARCH is what is needed, and LiveStrong donated a tiny fraction of their raised funds to research. They were used to raise awareness of cancer, which is one of the silliest goals possible. The following will serve to get you started so you can stop believing the lie Lance Armstrong fed you. He's an asshole and the sooner he's off this Earth, the better...
I completely disagree. The ending to the Mass Effect series was pure, unintended genius. The theme of the Mass Effect series suddenly became the illusion of choice and the illusion of free will. The whole game set the player up for the inevitable reality that we all face each and every day: you thought you were in control, but you fucking weren't.
That's a beautiful thing and it need not be disavowed just because it was born out of ineptitude....
Huh, you know what, I can completely see where you would get that impression. As a matter of full disclosure, I did indeed specifically leave the CCIA portion of the article out, but not because I thought it cast us in a bad light. Rather, I found the obvious attempt to lie about not having Intuit as a client but instead hiding behind the CCIA, with whom Intuit is also involved (you'd think we'd avoid attacking their members, since we're supposed to be so CCIA nefarious and all...), such a blatant lie that it didn't seem worth highlighting.
But, as the author of the post, I truly can see why you'd think the omission was for other reasons. Consider this a confirmation for all comment readers that the original comment is correct that the CCIA was referenced, although nobody with any sense will believe that the CCIA as a whole, rather than a single member, Intuit, was actually behind this....
"At the risk of a bad analogy, if some news organization ran the headline "Chris Christie shuts down traffic on GW Bridge" and the story was about how somebody who isn't Chris Christie shut down the GW Bridge, would you think that was no problem that the headline describes something that didn't actually happen, because all the right info is in the story?"
I think the proper analogy would be the headline reading "Traffic shuts down NJ bridge" and you wanting it to say that Chris Christie was responsible. You wouldn't be wrong, but it'd still be silly....
Well, no, I don't, but then again I'm not the type to get a full head of steam over a headline that might have confused 2% of the population before they bothered to read a couple lines of the post....
Here's when I know I'm doing it right: conservatives tell me I'm a conservative-hating liberal communist and liberals whine about how much I bash their side without ever bashing conservatives.
In this politically idiotic country, if everyone's pissed off at me, I'm doing it right....
"Even though I do not agree with Tim on this specific subject I can say that its take down benefits the believers more than the deniers despite initial indications."
Thanks for disagreeing in a reasonable way and actually finding some common ground on not wanting to censor shit. Nice to see someone who I disagree with do it civilly and actually read the god damned motherfucking post and comment on that rather than a larger debate I never opened, and in fact said we should be having elsewhere.
On the post: Censorious Parent Calls Cops On Teen Giving Away Books In A Local Park
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting comments here
What the hell are you talking about? I specifically advocated above that the bible absolutely SHOULD be taught when teaching literature. What it shouldn't have is any place in a science classroom because the bible isn't science. It also shouldn't be in a math classroom, because it doesn't teach math. This isn't difficult....
"Well, maybe a little in literature or some context you agree with."
The bible is, among other things, literature. It is NOT science. Even if there is a scientific community within Christendom, no scientist would cite the bible as a scientific resource. That's just silly.
On the post: Censorious Parent Calls Cops On Teen Giving Away Books In A Local Park
Re: Re: Re: Censorship - the slippery slope.
1st citation: I stand corrected; indeed, some secularists are complete idiots and that story is abhorrent. I will note, however, that the religious woman with her religious son turned to the secular ACLU to defend themselves against what was clearly an idiotic school system. Either way, the story is one of a secularist incorrectly applying the theory of secularism, so you got that one.
2nd citation: The family, which works with a Christian publishing firm, insists the word of their 5 year old is gold despite there not being a SINGLE OTHER WITNESS to any of this? Sorry, that one doesn't pass the smell test, especially since the school already noted that they don't have any policy against prayer in the lunch room. That one's a nothing....http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/florida-girl-claims-stopped-praying-lunch-articl e-1.1742858
3rd citation: If your citations can be debunked by Snopes, your citations suck....http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/removejesus.asp
On the post: Censorious Parent Calls Cops On Teen Giving Away Books In A Local Park
Re: Censorship - the slippery slope.
Bullshit, they object to school-sponsored prayer. That's completely different.
"or even writing about God in school projects"
....citation please.
On the post: Censorious Parent Calls Cops On Teen Giving Away Books In A Local Park
Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting comments here
Yeah....no. The bible has no place in the science classroom. It is an unscientific book by its own admission, so no.
"In fact, it would be terrible for children to be taught to love their neighbor...."
Unless that neighbor was one of those pesky folks God told them to smite....
"not steal"
Unless we're talking about the land of those recently smoted....
"not to commit adultery"
Unless it's with one of those bitches from the tribe God wanted the Israelite to breed out of existence....
"If they were taught these things, they might actually live up to those teachings and what kind of world would this be if that happened?"
Judging by teachings of the holy bible? It'd be a world where women groveled at our manly feet, where gays were stoned to death, where whichever tribe heard the right voice in their ear was allowed to commit genocide, and where we all lived at the pleasure of a pernicious uber-being who doesn't have the moral conviction he commands upon his subjects. Sounds pretty fucking awful to me....
On the post: Censorious Parent Calls Cops On Teen Giving Away Books In A Local Park
Re: Re: Interesting comments here
Secularists should not only not have a problem with the bible being used as a literary example, they should be encouraging it....
On the post: Vicious Cycle: When Those Abused By Trademark Abuse Others With Trademark
Re:
“While it is important to realize that not all abusers were abused as children, and that many if not most people who are abused do not go on to become abusers themselves, child abuse is most likely the single largest risk factor –biological, psychological, or sociocultural – for later adult abusive behavior,” David M. Allen, M.D., Professor of Psychiatry Emeritus, University of Tennessee Health Science Center.
Child abuse is the largest risk factor, or predictor, for people to become abusive. That, nor my article, doesn't say the abused are MORE LIKELY THAN NOT to become abusers, only that they are more likely than the general population.
Take your shaming some place more deserving and read the god damned links fully, rather than trying to pick a half a quote out for your own stupid purposes.
Or don't. I don't really care.
On the post: IP Sanity: Boston Strong Trademark Applications Denied
Re: Not quite
It was a con. A long con, that fooled many people, but it was a con. And then he hid behind having cancer and his stupid non-charity when he was found out. Cancer RESEARCH is what is needed, and LiveStrong donated a tiny fraction of their raised funds to research. They were used to raise awareness of cancer, which is one of the silliest goals possible. The following will serve to get you started so you can stop believing the lie Lance Armstrong fed you. He's an asshole and the sooner he's off this Earth, the better...
http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/01/news/must-read-livestrong-facts-and-fiction_203023
On the post: Court Rules MoveOn.org Can Use LA Slogan To Criticize Bobby Jindal
Re: Here's the image:
On the post: Video Games Do Cause Aggression... If They Suck Out Loud
Re: Re:
That's a beautiful thing and it need not be disavowed just because it was born out of ineptitude....
On the post: Intuit Does Subterfuge To Combat Free-Filing Tax Returns
Re: Why no mention of CCIA's involvement?
But, as the author of the post, I truly can see why you'd think the omission was for other reasons. Consider this a confirmation for all comment readers that the original comment is correct that the CCIA was referenced, although nobody with any sense will believe that the CCIA as a whole, rather than a single member, Intuit, was actually behind this....
On the post: YouTube Video Taken Down Because Of Background Street Performer Impersonating Michael Jackson
Re: Re: Title
On the post: YouTube Video Taken Down Because Of Background Street Performer Impersonating Michael Jackson
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Headline
I think the proper analogy would be the headline reading "Traffic shuts down NJ bridge" and you wanting it to say that Chris Christie was responsible. You wouldn't be wrong, but it'd still be silly....
On the post: YouTube Video Taken Down Because Of Background Street Performer Impersonating Michael Jackson
Re:
On the post: YouTube Video Taken Down Because Of Background Street Performer Impersonating Michael Jackson
Re: Re: Re: Re: Headline
I call this a personal victory....
On the post: YouTube Video Taken Down Because Of Background Street Performer Impersonating Michael Jackson
Re: Re: Re: Headline
Well, no, I don't, but then again I'm not the type to get a full head of steam over a headline that might have confused 2% of the population before they bothered to read a couple lines of the post....
On the post: YouTube Video Taken Down Because Of Background Street Performer Impersonating Michael Jackson
Re: Headline
On the post: Governin': Sen. Dan Coats Questions The Wrong Witness At The Wrong Hearing
Re: Confused...
In this politically idiotic country, if everyone's pissed off at me, I'm doing it right....
On the post: Chilling Effects: Climate Change Deniers Have Scientific Paper Disappeared
Re: Re:
On the post: Everything Old Is Unavailable Again: How Copyright Has Ebooks Operating In The 1800s
Re:
On the post: Chilling Effects: Climate Change Deniers Have Scientific Paper Disappeared
Re: Re: The paper was not about climate change
Thanks for disagreeing in a reasonable way and actually finding some common ground on not wanting to censor shit. Nice to see someone who I disagree with do it civilly and actually read the god damned motherfucking post and comment on that rather than a larger debate I never opened, and in fact said we should be having elsewhere.
Next >>