1. Obama Chooses Divisive Inaugural Pastor
Comment #304670 by DarwinsPitbull on December 21, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Red Foot Okie
Get back into the herd, cats! Obama will spin the straw of goodwill of the benighted masses into gold of progress for the nation. Just you wait.
2. Obama Chooses Divisive Inaugural Pastor
Comment #303901 by DarwinsPitbull on December 19, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Sarmatael
There should be social consequences for people who hold any type of oppressive views on human rights.
3. Obama Chooses Divisive Inaugural Pastor
Comment #303899 by DarwinsPitbull on December 19, 2008 at 3:57 pm
dhamma
Of course the president should be allowed to believe in whatever he likes, I just don't think they should be allowed to express it.
4. Obama Chooses Divisive Inaugural Pastor
Comment #303885 by DarwinsPitbull on December 19, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Dhamma
I once heard someone say the american constitution was separated from the church.. Must've been bullocks.
5. Warning: A Truckload of Stupid
Comment #302053 by DarwinsPitbull on December 16, 2008 at 10:57 am
I wonder if there is a way we can notify the public that Bill Mahr is not the atheist's spoke person. I don't mind if Prof. Dawkins is but not Mahr, he's an idiot.
6. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God
Comment #301142 by DarwinsPitbull on December 13, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Dianelos Georgoudis
What kind of christian are you exactly? Are you one of those xtians that believes in the 6 day creation , talking snake, noahs's ark, sun standing still, etc., or are you one of those that think those are just stories and never really happened?
7. Vatican tightens in vitro opposition
Comment #301096 by DarwinsPitbull on December 13, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Oh I am so glad the vatican has taken a stance against these things because I just couldn't decide on my own. I always figured that the best people to find answers to these questions would be some virgins in funny costumes.
8. Interview with Nicholas Wade
Comment #300280 by DarwinsPitbull on December 11, 2008 at 10:42 am
splink
DarwinsPitbull I gather from past comments that you are somewhat conservative, which is fine but please don't tell me that you consider Bill O'Reilly a reasonable guy. That would be like me calling Keith Obermann a reasonable guy and I can't in good conscience call that bespectacled buffoon likable let alone reasonable. O'Reilly is just as bad only louder and more chinless.
9. On Human Rights Day, the Center for Inquiry Works to Uphold the Universality of Rights.
Comment #299961 by DarwinsPitbull on December 10, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Eshto
Well what if I don't want to drive on the right side of the road? Shouldn't I have the right not to do so?
It's not "freedom" at all if people aren't educated enough to even be able to make informed choices in the first place.
And remember we're not talking about adults who are capable of making informed choices, we are talking about children. Notice it was compulsory elementary education. It's not like they're forcing adults to go to college.
10. On Human Rights Day, the Center for Inquiry Works to Uphold the Universality of Rights.
Comment #299952 by DarwinsPitbull on December 10, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Estho
Maybe but I think there's an indirect case to be made, that for people to truly be free they have to be educated and have options available to them.
11. Interview with Nicholas Wade
Comment #299796 by DarwinsPitbull on December 10, 2008 at 12:24 pm
But agreed, Colbert is not nearly as funny as he thinks he is.
Watch the Bill O'Reilly interview with Barack Obama and see how many times the obtuse troglodyte interrupts Obama. Interrupting people so they can't make a point is central to the character.
12. Teachers 'beat and abuse' Muslim children in British Koran classes
Comment #299764 by DarwinsPitbull on December 10, 2008 at 11:19 am
The funny thing is that you would have to beat the crap out of me also in order to believe in Islam.
13. Religious 'shun nanotechnology'
Comment #298920 by DarwinsPitbull on December 8, 2008 at 8:38 pm
KRKBAB
Granted that nothing is perfect, I think I'd prefer a little more socialism in the USA as long as we had a very strict immigration policy and a lot more accountability for corporations and the gummint.
14. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again
Comment #298866 by DarwinsPitbull on December 8, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Carto
Besides which, why does anyone even care about polygamous marriage or marriage to animals or marriage to furniture? If some bizarre people want to do that, why on earth not? Why is it any concern of yours whether they do?
15. Religious 'shun nanotechnology'
Comment #298865 by DarwinsPitbull on December 8, 2008 at 6:08 pm
And power comes with...?
16. Nine Lessons and Carols for Godless People
Comment #298861 by DarwinsPitbull on December 8, 2008 at 6:02 pm
TIKI AL
DarwinsPitbull @ 7: If I knew that Jesus M&M joke you told the nuns, I would have added it to my repertoire.
Was it painful when they surgically removed that ruler from the back of your hand?
Are you able to eat M&Ms?
17. Religious 'shun nanotechnology'
Comment #298859 by DarwinsPitbull on December 8, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Goldy
DP, I think Steve was saying if you had enough money, you could buy your way out of trouble. I believe that's how many CEOs and the like got out of sticky wickets.
18. Religious 'shun nanotechnology'
Comment #298853 by DarwinsPitbull on December 8, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Steve Z
Bad choices can be effectively less bad if you have money, or your parents do.
19. Religious 'shun nanotechnology'
Comment #298845 by DarwinsPitbull on December 8, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Steve Z
What is wrong with that? The rich can pay to protect themselves, so why care about the poor?
20. Religious 'shun nanotechnology'
Comment #298840 by DarwinsPitbull on December 8, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Steve Z
I have got an idea about how to deal with the quality of schools.
Make them all private, and ensure quality with regular assessments of teachers, and promotions for the good ones.
We could then allow everyone to use them by charging a certain percentage of income to fund the schools and pay the teachers.
21. Religious 'shun nanotechnology'
Comment #298837 by DarwinsPitbull on December 8, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Goldy
These are all available privately too. Why should only the government provide them?
22. Religious 'shun nanotechnology'
Comment #298826 by DarwinsPitbull on December 8, 2008 at 5:08 pm
righton
Do you think the government should not be involved in supplying anything at all?
23. Religious 'shun nanotechnology'
Comment #298815 by DarwinsPitbull on December 8, 2008 at 5:02 pm
goldy
You have a good point. But if a company has you by the balls (you need water, remember) then competition isn't so important :-) Check out the water companies in the UK, or indeed the petrol companies (strange how their prices are oh so similar!).
24. Religious 'shun nanotechnology'
Comment #298809 by DarwinsPitbull on December 8, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Righton
That is just stupid. Name something that the "government only" runs that you think could be taken away.
25. Religious 'shun nanotechnology'
Comment #298798 by DarwinsPitbull on December 8, 2008 at 4:31 pm
righton
So, if the companies are making a lot of money then that means they are charging more than they should be. The government would not be in it solely for the profits like a company so why is a company better than the government?
26. Nine Lessons and Carols for Godless People
Comment #298784 by DarwinsPitbull on December 8, 2008 at 4:09 pm
TIKI AL
I can remember asking George Carlin type questions of my Lutheran Sunday school teacher and getting into trouble because none of it made any logical sense to me.
27. Religious 'shun nanotechnology'
Comment #298777 by DarwinsPitbull on December 8, 2008 at 4:04 pm
KRKBAB
I understand it's difficult to directly compate the USA with European countries, but I still think we have a fear/hatred of taxes not based in reason.
Also- two other phrases most Americans fear that I don't are "universal health care" and "socialism". I don't think Ayn Rand got it right.
28. Religious 'shun nanotechnology'
Comment #298766 by DarwinsPitbull on December 8, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Goldy
One has to pay taxes - it's a fact of life.
No one likes to unless the benefits of paying such are apparent.
One could pay less tax but then the state provides less.
This lack of provision is then taken up by other companies who accept money to provide these services.
I don't pay water rates as I have no mains water. I do, however, hope fervently for rain when the tanks gets a bit low or pay a water provider to fill my tank.
29. Religious 'shun nanotechnology'
Comment #298750 by DarwinsPitbull on December 8, 2008 at 3:19 pm
KRKBAB
In America we fear taxes- Taxaphobia (I don't). Why?- because we're told to. Every country that is doing better than us (I'm referring primarily to Northern Europe) are all taxed a hell of a lot more than we are- yet we fear (and HATE) taxes. It's simply a matter of habitual thinking. In other words- being close minded.
30. If you want to know why our public schools are screwed up, here's one reason
Comment #298450 by DarwinsPitbull on December 7, 2008 at 7:40 pm
evilcor
The crying pain of our dying republic is that it's run by people who fundamentally don't believe in the republic. They are ironically called Republicans.
31. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again
Comment #297637 by DarwinsPitbull on December 5, 2008 at 10:00 am
Carto
But the big problem with settling for "separate but equal" is complacency. People simply stop seeing it as an important issue to campaign for complete equality. I see it in Britain all the time. If you get almost everything, almost all the substantial rights that marriage confers (most emphatically not all of them though, de factor if not necessarily de iure) it inclines people to think that the battle has already been won, when it hasn't. Straight people are encouraged to think, like Bernstein, "hey, they're equal to us now, they're being very petty if they want anything else", and even gay people start to think "well, it's infinitely better than what it was like before, so asking for the last little bit would make us seem ungrateful for what we do have". It is a simple matter of political will. There are, unfortunately, much greater injustices perpetrated in the country today than the fact gay people are second class citizens in this regard.
32. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again
Comment #297632 by DarwinsPitbull on December 5, 2008 at 9:51 am
Steve Z
My impression is that he is concerned about how we progress to that.
I am not sure I agree with him 100%, but I believe his heart is in the right place on this issue, and he is no Bernstein.
33. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again
Comment #297621 by DarwinsPitbull on December 5, 2008 at 9:22 am
Steve Z
No, you don't. You just say "because they love each other", and you show them that you accept it as perfectly normal.
34. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again
Comment #297619 by DarwinsPitbull on December 5, 2008 at 9:18 am
severalspecies
DP,
Are you standing in for Bernstein?
And there will be part of the population that will not consider mix race marriage normal.
You just put your foot firmly in mouth. If women were given the right to call themselves attorneys ALONG with the other things, wouldn't that have been the better thing to do? Fighting for the word marriage (as you put it) would, legally, give gays all the same rights and benefits, without the wait. Again, a much better situation, don't you think?
What's so fucking hard to explain here? Unless you're unsure of the situation yourself.
35. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again
Comment #297611 by DarwinsPitbull on December 5, 2008 at 8:52 am
titania
For DP:
If gays cannot call their unions marriages like the rest of society, then their unions will never be considered normal. If there are different terms for or designation of a status, then there is no true equality because the only reason for the different designation can be to highlight that the minority group (who will always be outvoted) is not considered to be normal or is not truly accepted by the other group to be the same. If they were, there would be no reason to use a different designation. It is really quite that simple.
For centuries, women were not permitted to be attorneys. They might have had the same legal education, passed the bar exam and for all practical purposes have been practicing attorneys, but women could not legally call themselves or be called lawyer or attorney. It is not until women fought for and were given the right to be designated and credentialed as attorneys that they really were considered to be attorneys rather than uppity women. I guarantee that the women who fought for the right to become attorneys would not have considered themselves to be equal if they were given all the rights and privileges of attorneys but had to be called something else like wolawyer or wattorney.
The fact that gays have to settle for a different label for their unions just to get the same rights and privileges as heterosexuals means that their unions are not really considered to be normal or equal. As someone already brought up in one of the several thousand posts on this topic, how do you explain to children the difference between a civil union and a marriage? The only way to do it is to explain the only difference between the couples: sexual preference based on gender. How then do you explain why there are two different terms if they are truly equal?
36. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again
Comment #297367 by DarwinsPitbull on December 5, 2008 at 1:04 am
Baron S
DP - I'm quite prepared to take what I can get - but I will try to extend it. (And yes, that applies to more than just gay rights)
37. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again
Comment #297359 by DarwinsPitbull on December 5, 2008 at 12:54 am
Baron S
Ah. So, arguing analogously, you'd rather civil partnerships were marriages' Good man!
We now have civil partnerships, so we're not quite 'starving', so to speak. I trust we can count on your well-wishes as we try to change the term to 'marriage'.
38. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again
Comment #297344 by DarwinsPitbull on December 5, 2008 at 12:44 am
Baraon S
No, it's not about getting rid of one of the currencies. It's about keeping both; one for the whites, one for the non-whites.
Do you have anything in principle against this system'
39. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again
Comment #297333 by DarwinsPitbull on December 5, 2008 at 12:36 am
Steve Z
Good. "Civil Partnership" is a public badge that marks people out as gay.
If you ask someone if they are married, they have to say "no, in a civil partnership".
So you can now see the issue.
40. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again
Comment #297326 by DarwinsPitbull on December 5, 2008 at 12:31 am
Baron S
However, this means that there are two separate currency systems. One, roughly speaking, for white people and one for black people.
Do you see anything wrong with this in principle'
41. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again
Comment #297322 by DarwinsPitbull on December 5, 2008 at 12:28 am
Steve Z
Do you think gay people should be forced to wear badges to mark them out as different in public?
42. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again
Comment #297314 by DarwinsPitbull on December 5, 2008 at 12:22 am
Steve Z
Suppose Obama was allowed to take office but not allowed to call himself president because that word was reserved for White people. Wouldn't that be absurd and divisive?
43. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again
Comment #297287 by DarwinsPitbull on December 4, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Comment #296992 by Bernstein
My position has been consistent this whole time. Those who have been paying close attention will realize this. I think homosexuals would have had it easier if they simply lobbied for equivalent rights for their unions than lobbying for the right to "marry" per se. I don't object to them calling it "marriage", but I don't see why I need to support it either. I won't oppose it, though. The fact that "marriage" and its associated rights are now tied together in some places is not my problem. Perhaps they will realize their "mistake" (relatively few places will actually let them call it "marriage" in the short term due to ignorance) and instead take the easier approach (i.e. just fight for the rights which is what matters, after all) since it had been demonstrated to me that the word "marriage" doesn't really mean anything anyway. In short, I feel it's my obligation to vote for them when I think they are doing it right and my obligation to at least not vote, when I really think they are doing it wrong.
44. Atheists want God out of Ky. homeland security
Comment #297121 by DarwinsPitbull on December 4, 2008 at 12:17 pm
titania
You do find jokes that demean gays, blacks and women to be funny like the you made one quoted below?
Comment #297089 by DarwinsPitbull on December 4, 2008 at 11:01 am
NormanDoering
Ah, yes, Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort -- I've got some video of Kirk using the crockaduck, bullfrog and sheepdog as missing links to argue against evolution:
46. Atheists want God out of Ky. homeland security
Comment #297086 by DarwinsPitbull on December 4, 2008 at 10:50 am
Ed-words
Many people do NOT find gay jokes funny, nor
jokes demeaning blacks or women.
Hey, everybody, google "Rachel Maddow videos"
and enjoy her work.She's very big in the US
right now.
47. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again
Comment #296549 by DarwinsPitbull on December 3, 2008 at 9:07 pm
splink
IF YOU THINK GEORGE W. BUSH IS MOST LIKELY RETARDED AND CERTAINLY INEPT AND IGNORANT TYPE 88!
48. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again
Comment #296250 by DarwinsPitbull on December 3, 2008 at 10:31 am
al-w
That is my solution. Hand the Palestinians what they "claim" they want, a state. If they continue with violence, annhilate the enemy.
49. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again
Comment #295692 by DarwinsPitbull on December 2, 2008 at 8:32 pm
decius
Secondly, your position is a straw man in any case. By not being recognised as marriage, their union doesn't enjoy equal status under international law.
50. Does Religion Make You Nice?
Comment #295151 by DarwinsPitbull on December 1, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Comment #295129 by Titania
If I pretend to be a theist will you also send me all those books and videos for FREE? I have all the R. Dawkin books but not some of the rest. Here I'll start now:
You atheists are going to burn in hell if you don't give your life over to jesus. God created the world in 6 days and if you don't believe that then that means satan has control of your soul. Praise the lord!