Comments by whoopscareless

1. Poll: Which religion do you associate with?

Comment #65013 by whoopscareless on August 22, 2007 at 4:13 pm

~Mine's not listed, no. 287.

The day I put a label on myself is the day you can dissect me. :)

Comment #51395 by whoopscareless on June 22, 2007 at 3:45 pm

As a teenager I used to wear a little silver bird pendant, and if questioned I would insist this was a symbol of paganism, inherent to my belief in Mother Nature etc., and therefore was a religious symbol, and therefore I was allowed to wear it at my school where all jewellery was banned except for religious stuff. So I'm with the school on this one.

Whether or not this ring is integral to her belief, it is *not* prescribed by her religion. If anything it is a subversion of her religion - Jesus died for the good of humanity, so Christians wear crosses to symbolise that ultimate sacrifice. She's just not having sex and wears a ring to remind her of herself and her own honour. Self-obsessed? Surely not.

In this situation, as a true Christian, I would say, fine, I'll take the ring off, but the message is still with me, and your actions are only serving to reinforce my belief. I might even acknowledge that it's only a petty rule about uniform, and not a grand-scale suppression of my religious expression.

In this situation, as a spoilt little self-obsessed brat, I would stamp my foot, say it's not fair and cause as much trouble as possible; preferably destroying a few public institutions on the way, chipping away more and more respect from the already fragile religion to which I profess to subscribe.

Incidentally, has any research been done into the possible Pavlovian effects of swapping this ring for a wedding ring? Mightn't this ingrained message of chastity supersede that of fidelity, causing problems in the marital bed?

3. Now Muslims Get Their Own Laws In Britian

Comment #37064 by whoopscareless on May 3, 2007 at 10:12 am

Just sticking my oar in in response to the comments asking why they'd immigrate to a country with laws they don't agree with... basically Shariah law is god's law. God created the earth, and therefore everywhere on earth should practice Shariah law. By practising our stunted human laws and refusing to acknowledge god's laws, we are highlighting our own infidelity. as it were.

That's how I understand it anyway. I also agree that the Express is a rag, but it does have a good puzzle page. Not too taxing.

4. If only gay sex caused global warming

Comment #27439 by whoopscareless on March 24, 2007 at 3:16 pm

the nail in the coffin for that program for me was this:

http://www.newstatesman.com/200703190012

"Armand Leroi had copied me in on an email to Durkin. Leroi, a media-savvy biologist, admitted that he was not an expert on global warming, but that nevertheless he was sceptical about some assertions in the programme. A few minutes later, my PC went ping and I saw Durkin's brief five-word reply. I am paraphrasing for decency, but essentially he called Leroi an intellectually challenged penis.

I immediately emailed Durkin in an effort to engage him in a more sensible debate. Although he replied with a few coherent sentences, they were rather blunt: ("Since 1940 we have had four decades of cooling, three of warming . . . Why have we not heard this in the hours and hours of shit programming on global warming shoved down our throats by the BBC?"), and he ended with the instruction that I should engage in a sexual act with my own body that was physically impossible. All this and I had not even had breakfast."

(Durkin was the producer of said program. oh and not paraphrased for politeness here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article1517515.ece -good old times.)

Jokes.

in a nod to the actual article, bravo Daniel Gilbert. an interesting perspective - managing to link evolution with global warming and gay and dead kittens. that's got to be some kind of record.