501. Apologetic billboard replaces atheistic sign

Comment #122988 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 6, 2008 at 10:27 am

Chilcote, a Christian, said she was personally hurt by the deception of the sponsor, who allegedly led her to believe the sign was presented by a local church.

"We received only a couple of negative calls about the (first sign)," Chilcote said on Monday. "We were concerned about the impact of how people see our company."

502. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #122513 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 5, 2008 at 11:25 am

Well, I got "Thank you."

503. God the psycho

Comment #121380 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 3, 2008 at 10:26 am

Look at this way; if God is the kind of being who deserves worship, then he won't punish disbelief. If he does, then he shouldn't be worshipped anyways.

504. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #121376 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 3, 2008 at 10:19 am

We should start up an "Institute" and make everyone "Senior Fellows" just to make the point.

505. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #121375 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 3, 2008 at 10:16 am

About the kindest thing anyone can say about Dr. Simmons is that if he were a geographer, he would be a flat-earthist. If he owned a telescope, he would be an astrologer. If he were a chemist, he would be trying to turn lead into gold. If he were a presidential advisor, he would be examining the entrails of a goat. It appears he is actually a medical man; I wonder who was keeping an eye on his leeches while he was busy debating?

506. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121372 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 3, 2008 at 10:09 am

I reckon that issue should be tackled on an individual basis. What to do about those abusers tho...haven't the foggiest. :(

507. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121370 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 3, 2008 at 10:06 am

Fascist:

1921, from It. partito nazionale fascista, the anti-communist political movement organized 1919 under Benito Mussolini (1883-1945); from It. fascio "group, association," lit. "bundle." Fasci "groups of men organized for political purposes" had been a feature of Sicily since c.1895; the 20c. sense probably infl. by the Roman fasces (q.v.) which became the party symbol. Fascism, also 1921, was originally used in Eng. 1920 in its It. form, fascismo. Applied to similar groups in Germany from 1923.

"A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion." [Robert O. Paxton, "The Anatomy of Fascism," 2004]

508. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121358 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 3, 2008 at 9:41 am

for quoting, use the "blockquote" tag. For formatting, normal HTML tags seem to work.

I think that people should be given opportunities, and encouraged to take care of themselves, but I think that there should always be a "safety net" to prevent people falling below a certain level.

509. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121353 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 3, 2008 at 9:33 am

"Unprovoked aggression against a sovereign state and the welter of propaganda surrounding it, does recall the bloodbath mentality of Herr Hitler."

510. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121352 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 3, 2008 at 9:31 am

"What was explicitly stated was that children should be left to die."

OIC. Apologies. I retract my statment to the contrary.

"In this case, "self-inflicted" means "making the wrong choice", not some attempt at self-destruction."

Oh, okay. I confused your usage of "self-inflicted" there. In this case, yes, I still agree with you. But I would like an answer: At what point should those individuals be responsible for themselves? Where should we draw the line?

511. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121344 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 3, 2008 at 9:23 am

"The wonderful humourist Armando Iannucci had an appropriate suggestion. A 'Tsk' bomb. Once deployed it would sit around making disapproving noises."

HA HA! Maybe the avoidance of the sounds of disapproval would jolt those into taking the necessary measure...er, what was that measure again?

512. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121343 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 3, 2008 at 9:20 am

"Perhaps not so much implied, as explicit.... let children die, as it will teach those people to stop having kids."

I don't think that is what was so explicit. If that were true, why are they still having kids? Perhaps if they had access to further choices, say contraception, that would help. It's more important to concern ourselves with those who are already here than to bring more into the world who may suffer because of it.

"It is cold and heartless to ignore the suffering of others. I believe it is heartless even if that suffering is self-inflicted, and as a result of their own choices."

Even when it's self inflicted? I agree that assistance should be available, but if people are determined to self-destruct, what can really be done to stop them? "Saving" them may make us feel better, but is that really in the interest of the self-destructive? If they would prefer oblivion than to exist in perpetual suffering, wouldn't it be better to allow them that oblivion?

513. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121335 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 3, 2008 at 8:56 am

"If necessary; if the alternative is death on the streets, yes. I think we should."

Ah, very well. Wholeheartedly agree. But that still leaves the question: At what point do we take the crutch back and ask the individual to take responsibility? I don't think you defined your understanding of responsibility tho.

"I think it is a fair summary when someone is prepared to allow children to die."

No, I don't think it's fair at all. At no point was it implied that any of those people mentioned SHOULD be condemned to death. They do because of the consequences of the choices made by individuals. Death is the evident consequence of those made choices. Their lives may not be our responsibility, but they are certainly within our interest. If we're fair and just people, that is. In the end, one's own life really is the responsibility of each and every person. If they require assistance, then it should be given. A simple handout solves nothing. A "band-aid on the cancer" to use a tired cliche. :)

"I should apologise. I am getting angry. I can cope with just about anything religion can throw at me, but the sheer cold-heartedness of fundamentalist libertarians gets to me."

Understandable, but I also understand what scooternyc is getting at. The cosmos doesn't give a shit about any one of us. But WE care about each other, because we have the capacity to contemplate our own existence, and to understand that suffering=bad. Since we don't like suffering, it would make logical sense to not implement suffering whenever we can help it.
But the world is what it is. To think that someone is cold and heartless for stating that is what I don't think is fair.

514. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121322 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 3, 2008 at 8:17 am

"Of course it helps. While we do it, they have somewhere to live. They don't die of cold in the streets."
Isn't that a stop-gap solution, tho? It doesn't really help the individual in the long run. At what point does the responsiblity fall upon the homeless individual at becoming productive? Should we feed and house them indefinitely?

"You know, you are very fortunate others don't think like you. If you are ever in an accident, you may well receive blood from people who actually give a damn about others."

Well, that sounds like a straw-man to me. At what point did scooternyc state or imply that he doesn't give a damn about people? I certainly didn't see that implication from his posts, just basic observation.
EDIT: Apparently BBCode doesn't work. :(

515. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121314 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 3, 2008 at 8:10 am

Oh, okay. I see what you mean by stochastic input. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

516. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121307 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 3, 2008 at 8:03 am

Even being of the best interest to others is, ironically, self-interest. As in: it's my self-interest that you have the same freedoms I enjoy. After all, if I'm nothing else, I'm at least fair. ;)

517. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121300 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 3, 2008 at 7:53 am

I don't think it's an unwillingness to look at that particular component, it's more of focusing on the symptoms. And let's not forget the influence of religion keeping contraception out of the picture, which muddies the water even further.

518. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121298 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 3, 2008 at 7:49 am

I guess it could be a "teach a man to fish" kinda thing, yesh?

519. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121292 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 3, 2008 at 7:38 am

I don't understand. What would those stochastic inputs be? It would stand to determinism that by observing injustice, one would take action to correct them? That being said, the airlift would be deterministic, wouldn't it? Or am I confusing the issue?

520. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #120582 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 2, 2008 at 3:57 am

Science: It works, Bitches. ;)

521. A Letter From Hell

Comment #116694 by Colwyn Abernathy on January 27, 2008 at 6:46 am

"I can't think...I can't talk."

Yet you can compose a letter, which requires at least ONE of those things. And how was it delivered, hmm? Gives a whole new meaning to "mailer daemon" doesn't it?

522. Banned From Church

Comment #115007 by Colwyn Abernathy on January 23, 2008 at 12:19 pm

No, it doesn't make sense from a marketing point. But look at it this way, the more they expel, the more we can introduce to the spiritual freedom of godlessness! :)

523. Hook, line and rapture

Comment #109643 by Colwyn Abernathy on January 9, 2008 at 11:15 am

Pat...you da man! Keep pointing out how ridiculous religious claims are as well as making us laugh. Much love and more power to ye!

524. A War On Science

Comment #106225 by Colwyn Abernathy on January 2, 2008 at 2:06 pm

Dood...Harrisburg? Mah peeps be delusional! Monkey song indeed....

525. Borders Tags Atheist Book with 'O Come All Ye Faithless' Cards

Comment #103703 by Colwyn Abernathy on December 26, 2007 at 2:26 pm

"The Evangelical Alliance's Thacker noted, "I think the atheists will love it because it's bashing Christians around the head. It's another thing to take a Christian festival and abuse it."

Guess he didn't read his history. Much of the symbols and traditions...are PAGAN IN NATURE! As are many of the "secular" symbols for Easter. Bunneh's? Eggs? Can you say, Fer-til-it-y Rites?

526. Borders Tags Atheist Book with 'O Come All Ye Faithless' Cards

Comment #103700 by Colwyn Abernathy on December 26, 2007 at 2:21 pm

Actually...that's pretty frickin' funny. I donnae see how anyone with a sense of humour would be offended by it...and if they were, so what? Don't buy the cards then.

527. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81256 by Colwyn Abernathy on October 24, 2007 at 1:56 pm

And D'Souza completely ignores the deaths of those EUROPEAN WITCHES BURNED AS HERETICS. Anyone got a rough figure on those? Betcha it was more than eighteen....dumbass...

528. 1996 Richard Dimbleby Lecture

Comment #73168 by Colwyn Abernathy on September 24, 2007 at 10:31 am

I thought it was "fogies?" But then, I'm just a Yank, what do I know? ;)

529. 1996 Richard Dimbleby Lecture

Comment #73162 by Colwyn Abernathy on September 24, 2007 at 10:12 am

We miss you, Douglas. :(

"It is known that there is an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the product of a deranged imagination."

Even gone, you still make me laugh. Thanks for all the laughs.