Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by Peacebeuponme


51. Trailer for Religulous

Comment #191257 by Peacebeuponme on June 10, 2008 at 1:17 pm

Pathfinder

Only God or the Devil can rule the world, the latter with considerably more success.
You say you are a disillusioned christian. Where do you stand on the concept of the devil?

52. John McCain: America a Christian nation, needs Christian president

Comment #191253 by Peacebeuponme on June 10, 2008 at 1:14 pm

TOCT

The British government installed him in the 80s and he was given honorary Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath in 94 for his troubles, that's basically a knighthood except he is not called Sir.
Its pretty sad actually. A great living example of how power corrupts.

He's basically in the pocket of the generals now. Should the miracle happen, and Tsvangirai gert elected, there will be a coup before you know it.

53. Trailer for Religulous

Comment #191251 by Peacebeuponme on June 10, 2008 at 1:10 pm

richard_dawkins: fuck off. I've trolled you.

54. John McCain: America a Christian nation, needs Christian president

Comment #191249 by Peacebeuponme on June 10, 2008 at 1:09 pm

Seriously, should somebody be allowed to register as richard_dawkins?

55. John McCain: America a Christian nation, needs Christian president

Comment #191246 by Peacebeuponme on June 10, 2008 at 1:06 pm

al

How long do we, America, continue to shoulder the burden for everything in the world.
I cetainly don't think you have to, and don't think you do actually. But I would say that maybe the time when your responsibilty reduces is when you start consuming resources and food at a per capita rate somewhere near the rest of us. Right now, Americans, on average are taking a scarily huge amount of the pie.

That's not your fault, of course. The first responsibilty of your Government is getting the best for its people, and collectively, you've done a good job of that. However, such problems as you bemoan above are the lot of the world's incumbent superpower.

56. John McCain: America a Christian nation, needs Christian president

Comment #191242 by Peacebeuponme on June 10, 2008 at 1:01 pm

FF

There ya go. Wikipedia said it used to be a research center and is now critical to our early warning ICBM detection system.
Of course, that does make one wonder why no other country sees having a base there critical.

Wikipedia also notes that it seemed to take a mighty force of some 15 men to protect it during WWII, even when Denmark was occupied.

57. The 14-year-old Afghan suicide bomber

Comment #191114 by Peacebeuponme on June 10, 2008 at 8:41 am

al

Well if the neighbor's wife believes she is religiously obligated to be beaten, there are no police in my neighborhood, and if I intervene I will be suicide bombed, along with my family, and then he will go back to beating his wife, then I would probably just turn the volume up on my TV.
Point taken. I would contend though that there were more than a few Iraqis who, for the most part just want to go about their day, who quite welcomed the US intervention and the removal of Saddam.

Specifically on Iraq you may be right, but I would like to think powerful nations are compassionate enough to want to liberate people from oppresive regimes, where they can.

58. The 14-year-old Afghan suicide bomber

Comment #191091 by Peacebeuponme on June 10, 2008 at 7:45 am

al

If we walked away from the Middle East regimes would collapse and there would be widespread fighting and death, but this is none of our concern.
If the man next door was beating his wife, would that be none of your concern as well?
Get unhooked from oil and walk away from the region.
I'm increasingly coming to the view that the oil is ours as much as theirs (I'm from the UK, I have to as we don't have much!)

59. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #190956 by Peacebeuponme on June 10, 2008 at 1:56 am

David

Peace - you have answered your own self-contradiction.
"Own contradiction" would have sufficed there, but no matter, the point of my post was to argue about your generalisations, like this:
You start off with the premise that you want to reach - Robertson is bad - and that go two different contradictory routes to get there. Robertson is bad because he posts on this site or Robertson is bad because he doesn't post on this site. Never mind - either way you end up where you started and where you want to be and everyone is happy.
Who is the 'you' you are talking about? You need to be specific with names if you are going to accuse others of hypocrisy.

60. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #190952 by Peacebeuponme on June 10, 2008 at 1:52 am

David

My question would be for you - what would the law in an atheist state be based upon?
We've been through this with you many times. Since you come across as reasonably intelligent, I can only conclude that you are deliberately ignoring responses.

The law in any state should be based upon principles that allow us all to live together in the best way possible, in ways that cause the least harm and loss of liberty to individuals. Principles such as the golden rule are useful.

You do not need celestial mandate to create laws, you just need to work out how to get along with other people.

61. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190758 by Peacebeuponme on June 9, 2008 at 2:02 pm

MPhil

As a punishment - this guy has to read up on Plantinga's modal ontological proof and Mackie's refutation - and give a half hour talk on why the modal ontological argument doesn't work - including a formalization of all the arguments.
Far be it for me to question your authority here, but do you have to do all that to dissent with plantinga's ontological proof?

62. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #190730 by Peacebeuponme on June 9, 2008 at 1:06 pm

Steve

I think it is becoming increasingly clear that there are serious problems even with the term "supernatural"
I'm sure you wrote some great stuff on this back when you were talking to Dianelos.

Theists try to dismiss atheists as "naturalists" as though this is naive. First they need to define what they mean by "nature" and then they can talk about what might be outside of it.

I suspect that an atheist definition of "nature" is just far more encompassing than a theist one.

63. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #190719 by Peacebeuponme on June 9, 2008 at 12:45 pm

And I think the criticism can go both ways, many scientists and analytical types have little to no grasp on history or other important domains of the so-called humanities.
Virtually all the theists I've encountered here are positively welcoming of new information, in areas they have not studied deeply or at all. People get a book reference, go away and read, and then come back with a thought out discussion point.

This sub-discussion started with a point about how most theists are incapable of arguing in a controlled and reasonable manner. Maybe its because they do not react to new information or expertise in this way.

64. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190675 by Peacebeuponme on June 9, 2008 at 11:12 am

hungarianelephant

It's wooter, only in English.
But wooter writes in...oh yeah.

65. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #190584 by Peacebeuponme on June 9, 2008 at 9:18 am

Drool

No zee'z for mee, pleaze, I'm British. I prefer to call it bastardisation myself.
weesam
using a "z" is the correct and preferred spelling in British English when the word is from the Greek.
Seriously, check out your OED. They use z all over, with s as the alternative.

66. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190570 by Peacebeuponme on June 9, 2008 at 9:01 am

A quick summary:

I don't understand how the universe came to be, so god must have done it.

The bible is the best book ever because the bible says so.

The end.

67. John McCain: America a Christian nation, needs Christian president

Comment #190562 by Peacebeuponme on June 9, 2008 at 8:56 am

al

The long and the short of it is, labels are useles, people should be intellectually honest, a spade is a spade, it doesn't matter what "party". A party should be a platform to get into power, not a dictation of ideology.
Agreed. The sad fact is that neither the US or the UK have a decent political party that does not have excessively authoritarian aims.

68. John McCain: America a Christian nation, needs Christian president

Comment #190557 by Peacebeuponme on June 9, 2008 at 8:52 am

FF

As opposed to one who said that he'll invade/bomb Pakistan if they don't give us permission to hunt terrorists in their own country?
Was that line sung to the tune of a 1960's pop song?

That is what scares me the most. We can joke round on the interpet, but I don't think its good for politicians to act in such a flippant manner in public on matters of such importance.

Italy have a Prime Minister who once mimed dogging a woman who had bent over, in full view of the world's cameras. We need leaders not idiots to help us through the coming decades.

69. John McCain: America a Christian nation, needs Christian president

Comment #190549 by Peacebeuponme on June 9, 2008 at 8:49 am

al

Different ideas will compete, some will succeed and some will fail, that is pretty simple.
Its not just ideas though is it? We can conflict in all sorts of ways. A water company may want to charge me more than I can afford to supply me with clean water. If they have a monopoly, I have no choice. I'm glad the government regulates the industry.
The sole purpose of the government is to protect the liberty of its people, from foreign and domestic threats.
Amen to that and
the government should act as an agent of the people,
that. Probably my most repeated phrase: They work for us, not the other way around. Hence my opposition to compulsory ID cards.
For the most part the free market will take care of domestic financial threats,
I guess this is where we disagree. You can't have free markets in areas where there is not adequate competition, otherwise its bad news for the consumer.

70. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #190485 by Peacebeuponme on June 9, 2008 at 7:31 am

Steve

I don't know. But what is interesting is how geological features millions of years old were laid down in preparation to give that quake.
I had the pleasure of being in Iceland when they had the quake a short while ago. It was particularly interesting becuase it was a few days after I had had a tour across the part of the Island where the American and Eurasian plates meet. Where you can clearly see the way they have shaped the land. We also went to see Geysir and Strokkur and witnessed the effect of small fragments of magma heating water to 180 deg, and drove across miles of lava fields created from the chain of volcanos that runs through the area.

That had nothing to do with the quake of course, I expect it was caused by the prevalance of atheism amongst the Icelandic people (the number 1 most developed people in the world according to the UN)...

71. John McCain: America a Christian nation, needs Christian president

Comment #190482 by Peacebeuponme on June 9, 2008 at 7:22 am

FF

All some posters care about is that Obama is more secular than McCain and will therefore make a great president.
Hey, its your chad to hang mate, not mine. I'm just slightly worried that we may soon have a world leader, who foreign policy skills extend to signing:

"Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran".

Scary.

72. John McCain: America a Christian nation, needs Christian president

Comment #190481 by Peacebeuponme on June 9, 2008 at 7:16 am

al

The question is... do you want to decide what you do, or do you want a group of fattened bureaucrats telling you what to do? It is pretty simple, when you get down to it.
I'd describe myself more as a liberal/libertarian than a 'leftie', without nailing my colours to a particular cause.

I agree, I want to decide what to do. The problem is they we all occupy the same planet and do not have the same goals. Some of our goals directly oppose other goals.

Some people want monopolise and concentrate wealth in their hands. I'm glad the state is sometimes able to put the brakes on this.

73. John McCain: America a Christian nation, needs Christian president

Comment #190470 by Peacebeuponme on June 9, 2008 at 6:59 am

al

No, they cannot challenge the sovereignty of the nation. But they can maintain an economic system that was socialist in nature. This is the fundamental principle (in the US at least), liberty.
It doesn't really sound like liberty to me, if they have to still live by the laws imposed by the state. The state could, for example, decide to build a motorway through, or a dam on, their land. If one member of the group started his own business and charged for his wares, then they would not be in a position to stop him (while the state would if it contravened local laws).

I'm probably missing the point you are making, but I don't see how this is a worthwhile argument in favour of capitalism.

Like I say, I'm certainly not socialist, but I would describe myself as liberal and left-leaning. I would also like to understand the hostility you and Jon seem to have towards people with this outlook.

74. John McCain: America a Christian nation, needs Christian president

Comment #190466 by Peacebeuponme on June 9, 2008 at 6:53 am

AtheistJon

I'm sick of all you leftists narrowminded and biased bloggers. Wish you could be more politically neutral.
Like you?

75. John McCain: America a Christian nation, needs Christian president

Comment #190454 by Peacebeuponme on June 9, 2008 at 6:16 am

al

Oh for fuck's sake don't start in with your socialism crap again.
That reminds me. You stated what you claimed to be the 'final nail in the coffin of Socialism' a while back: that under a capitalist regime, a group of individuals could club together and occupy a piece of land and eschew money, taxes etc, while the reverse could not happen under communism.

This group of people: could they re-name the plot of land? Could they enforce their own laws? Would this not really then constitute a land grab, which would surely be counter-acted by the governing regime?

I wouldn't identify myself as socialist. I'm just curious about your reasoning.

76. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #190452 by Peacebeuponme on June 9, 2008 at 6:09 am

David Robertson

See, here is my problem. There is this division in the atheist camp; those who complain if one does not respond in great detail to every post and those who complain if one writes at all.
Yes. It must be so much easier to be in the christain "camp", where all your opinions and thoughts were decided for you 2,000 years ago, and there are no diferences of opinion.

oh...

hang on...

77. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #190448 by Peacebeuponme on June 9, 2008 at 5:53 am

Steve

Also, why did god choose Banda Aceh, Sichuan and the Irrawady Delta? Are they more sinful than elaewhere?

This question has never been answered satisfactorily by a theist.

78. John McCain: America a Christian nation, needs Christian president

Comment #190445 by Peacebeuponme on June 9, 2008 at 5:44 am

Irate

Would that be Noam Chomsky?
I think he meant Peter Chomsky. His conservative younger brother.

79. John McCain: America a Christian nation, needs Christian president

Comment #190435 by Peacebeuponme on June 9, 2008 at 5:18 am

robotaholic

You're a real mumbling, stuttering fuck, you know that McCain?
Hey PEACEBEUPONME - that's a really peaceful thing you said
I was paraphrasing a line from Goodfellas. McCain came off worse than Regan in his later years on the video.

80. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #190382 by Peacebeuponme on June 9, 2008 at 2:13 am

Clearthinker

Oh yes - and realiZe and traumatiZe. A lovely example of how, when one lives in a closed world where the only reality is what you know in your culture, it is so easy to get things wrong. In the US it is realiZE but in England (and Scotland) which may have something to do with English (a wee hint - the big clue is in the name) it is realise, organise etc. I know - its tough when the rest of the world does not adopt American standards but hey, thats just the way things go sometime. (Please don't invade us because we don't spell the way you want). American imperialism (or is that imperialiZm?) is bad enough - but atheist american imperialism - too much!
Actually, just to be picky, though you are right that convention leads the UK to prefer "s", "z" is not an Americanism and used to be perfectly acceptable in the UK as well.

Juxtamonkey
Therefore, it would stand to reason that America will invade Scotland on my behalf at being wrong about your English standard of spelling.
American imperialism frustrates you.
Atheist-American imperialism is too much for you to handle
I'm too stupid.
Therefore, I will never understand.
You are smarter.
I'm not really with you here. Would it not be better for you to admit you were somewhat mistaken on this one? Clearthinker is wrong about so much more, and so much of more importance.

81. John McCain: America a Christian nation, needs Christian president

Comment #190146 by Peacebeuponme on June 8, 2008 at 12:52 pm

You're a real mumbling, stuttering fuck, you know that McCain?

82. Male circumcision is a weapon in the sperm wars

Comment #189767 by Peacebeuponme on June 7, 2008 at 8:15 am

I feel ill now.

83. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188794 by Peacebeuponme on June 4, 2008 at 2:48 pm

Mitchell

I have been putting it off for awhile, but I think I'll start it tomorrow. I have been meaning to forward a video series on youtube (I have a few arguments against a few things up already) outlining my argument for veganism, starting with the very foundations of ethics and morality.
I'm sure it will be very interesting, and I have respect for you for advancing your position in this way.

It will not stop me eating meat though. I couldn't give that up. This quote says it all for me
I don't enjoy eating at all anymore.
Nah. I enjoy food just too much for that.

84. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188750 by Peacebeuponme on June 4, 2008 at 1:36 pm

Where have all the theists gone?

85. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188641 by Peacebeuponme on June 4, 2008 at 9:55 am

This thread finished its death throes a long time ago. However, I did smile whem I saw that we have come down to discussions of

eating tortured orphans
Whats next? "Is it wrong to rape handicappped babies?"

I think our reasoning abilities can best be spent elsewhere.

86. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188558 by Peacebeuponme on June 4, 2008 at 7:51 am

HE

One of my college classmates used to argue* that rape which didn't result in a pregnancy was only different from other non-fatal physical assaults because of the irrational stigma attached to being raped. Therefore treating it differently gave legal sanction to the irrational stigma; therefore the distinction should be removed.
I have some time for this theory, but its a difficult one to discuss without sounding like a sociopath. I was heartened to read Richard's words on his childhood experience of paedophilia. Sometimes all the extra fuss and stigma makes and assualt even worse for the victim than it otherwise would be.

87. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188532 by Peacebeuponme on June 4, 2008 at 7:26 am

Steve

It's also about "consent", you idiot. Someone could drug you and have sex with you, and you would never know. It would do you no harm, but I am sure you would be pretty upset to learn that it had happened.
Just to get around Appleby's rather boring point, if you were roofie-raped, I'd contend that it would do great harm, if only psychologically.

88. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188523 by Peacebeuponme on June 4, 2008 at 7:13 am

Appleby

Stop telling people where they can or can't stick their penises (as long as they are doing no harm).
Seems to be you who are not reading the posts.
Some people still talk that way about homosexuals.
And rightly so. Sex addiction, whether of the homo or hetero variety can cause major problems for an individual.

89. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188498 by Peacebeuponme on June 4, 2008 at 6:53 am

HE

It would follow that if someone wants to have sex with their sofa, then that's no one's issue but their own, right?
That's the way I see it. They are not harming anyone else, or any animals. They may want to get help if this activity becomes an obsession to the detriment of any other area of their life.

90. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188488 by Peacebeuponme on June 4, 2008 at 6:38 am

HE

This isn't really a psychiatric question. It's a social one. Psychiatrists can (possibly) explain the pathology and likely outcomes, but the question of what to do about it is not a scientific one.
I think the question of what to do should depend on the individual. If they are perfectly happy the way they are then maybe there is not a lot that needs to be done. But if they are missing out on the chance of a fulfilling relationship with intimate human contact, then maybe there are treatments that can help.

Specifically with beastiality, there is also the welfare of the animal to consider.

91. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188474 by Peacebeuponme on June 4, 2008 at 6:22 am

Steve

Personally I am against the use of animals for entertainment, such as hunting. Bestiality would include that kind of thing.
This is my thinking as well, and the line I took on the fox-hunting ban.

However, when I go out to a restaurant and have a pleasant meal with friends, that's more entertainment really than eating meat to survive. I wear animal skin for fashion rather than necessity (I have no fur, but would not be so hypocritical as to be anti-fur). This seems to me to be an inconsistency, which I can't easily reconcile.

Perhaps the only way is so say I am against the 'abuse' of animals for entertainment.

92. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188473 by Peacebeuponme on June 4, 2008 at 6:16 am

hungarianelephent

How do you decide which activities indicate a mental problem which should be treated, and which are merely eccentricities to be ignored?
That's not for me to decide. There are plently of psychiatrists out there who specialise in unusual sexual practices. Objectophilia being one of the more interesting ones.

93. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188466 by Peacebeuponme on June 4, 2008 at 6:05 am

Steve

Because the cow isn't alive while you are eating it you twit. That is the point of slaughtering it - to prevent it running away while you cook it.
I'm sure the cow wouldn't want to be slaughtered in the first place though, Steve. However, I have already pointed out to Appleby that we have laws governing the way we slaughter animals to make sure its humane (aside from the disgusting halal pratcise).

We can do a number of things to animals that we might enjoy, including eating, hunting and shagging them, and making them fight each other. We have laws against those practices that casue undue stress or pain to the animal.

Outside of this, there is nothing fundamentally 'wrong' with beastiality, lest we wind up talking about objective morals again.

That said, a penchant for this activity is indicative of some sort of mental problem, which should be treated.

94. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188248 by Peacebeuponme on June 3, 2008 at 12:37 pm

Cartomancer - you make good points, and of coruse we are more sophisticated.

All I wanted to say was that, I felt there was a good, though basic reason, in the absence of all the facts, why someone might assume a preference for 'one male one female' as parents, and that the motive might not stem from simple homophobia.

95. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188209 by Peacebeuponme on June 3, 2008 at 10:56 am

Cartomancer

There is no good prior reason to assume that parents of mixed gender will be better
Well, there kind of is. There's no getting away from the fact that we have genetic mother and father roles built in, though of course this varies from person to person.

But this kind of armchair science from me is not what decisions are based on. As you say, fortunately, the evidence does not point to a difference.

96. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188207 by Peacebeuponme on June 3, 2008 at 10:50 am

Bonzai, Cartomancer

Oh I agree.

I think we can be pretty sure where Appleby was really coming from, but if he was genuinely trying to enquire scientifically, he was doing it in a very clumsy and hurtful way.

97. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188197 by Peacebeuponme on June 3, 2008 at 10:34 am

Doctor Dee

Anyone who is concerned about the sexual orientation (whatever it is) of potential adopters has some serious issues going on.
Its not necessarily an issue of worrying about sexual orientation. Its whether or not a child is better off having one male and one female as parents, all other things being equal. I think this is a fair line of enquiry.

98. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188195 by Peacebeuponme on June 3, 2008 at 10:30 am

Appleby

It's because I wasn't sure if your main argument for said adoption was gay rights or the interest of the children. You've recently clarified that.
I clarified that in comment #187404, actually.

99. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188117 by Peacebeuponme on June 3, 2008 at 8:37 am

Appleby

Personally, I'm just curious. I'm sorry if I'm coming off as a homophobe.
Check out AllanW's post #187914 for why you come across as a homophobe. Its not for merely questioning the merits of gay adoption.

You seemed to find agreement with my post #188055. One wonders why you spent so much time disputing the obvious benefit of gay adoption in reducing the number of unadopted children.

I'd actually also be interested as to whether anybody else thinks my post #188055 came across as homophobic. It certainly makes me feel a little uncomfortable that I hold such a view.

100. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188055 by Peacebeuponme on June 3, 2008 at 7:23 am

Appleby

And in other circumstances?
Name a circumstance. My general view is that all forms of adoption should be considered while there is an excess of unparented children, but that having at least one parent of each sex, though far from a requirement, is preferable where possible.

I am willing to be persuaded otherwise about the impact of gay adoption though. The preference for 'one parent of each sex' is a gut feeling, rather than one based on fact.

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 | Next