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


101. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188035 by Peacebeuponme on June 3, 2008 at 7:06 am

Appleby

just have to clarify something here. Are you saying homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children because it's their right or because it would reduce the number of unadopted children?
I think I have been quite clear on this many times. Homosexual 'rights' do not come in to it, decisions must be made in the best interests of children. One example would be unadopted children: I think homosexuals should be allowed to adopt in these circumstances. I was hoping you might concede this as a first step. That you don't, I find pretty schocking.

102. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188003 by Peacebeuponme on June 3, 2008 at 6:35 am

hungarianelephant

Arsehole!

103. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187995 by Peacebeuponme on June 3, 2008 at 6:04 am

And for the slow-of-mind, the whole point of the "status quo" argument is its relevance in establishing on whom lies the onus of making a case toward change (progressive or not). It has nothing to do with the truth value of the status quo itself.
I'm tired of this 'status quo; argument (and I can't get 'Pictures of Matchstick Men' out of my head).

Appleby's point is that, to move on from the status quo you have to prove that an alternative is better. This sounds good so far. However, he wants us to prove it on this thread even in obvious cases, such as straight and gay adoption being better than straight only adoption with increased children in care homes and street urchins.

An analogy would be that we should not provide women with rape alarms in case the sound damages their ears.

104. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187907 by Peacebeuponme on June 3, 2008 at 2:35 am

Appleby - Whenever I try to provide examples, to highlight what I consider absurdities in your position (well, at least the position you are trying to present), you accuse me of digressing.

At best I can say your position is muddled and needs thinking through a bit more. At worst...well that's already been said.

105. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187898 by Peacebeuponme on June 3, 2008 at 2:11 am

Appleby

Like I said. Bisexual parents and their parentage of their own biological children is not related to this issue. They are not "strict" gays to begin with. The dynamics of the "family" are likely a bit different. I'm not sure the biological connection between parent and child is as irrelevant as you make it out to be.
Again you are making assumptions and value judgements, while chastising me where you think I am.

If the central focus of your position are the best interests of the child then all forms of upbringing should be subject to the same scrutiny, surely?
My preference however, logically rests with the status quo (i.e. heterosexuals).
Your preference then also includes thousands of extra unadopted children.

106. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187889 by Peacebeuponme on June 3, 2008 at 1:49 am

Appleby

Obviously, we are not also going to tear the biological children of these people away from their parents.
Why not, if we shouldn't 'risk' gay upbringing? Or are you saying that you can make a judgement on relative harm with biological gay parent vs care home in a way you cannot do for gay adoption?

107. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187884 by Peacebeuponme on June 3, 2008 at 1:16 am

I'm not going to go all through this again, so just a quick comment.

Appleby seems hung up on this idea of a status quo, where, at present, there is only straight parenting. Cartomancer rightly points out that there is plenty of gay adoption already: the battle has been lost. But also, what does Appleby think about gay men having children naturally? Presumably Wilde himself, and countless other gay men, who have had children via straight relationships, should have (or have had) their children taken into care, lest we 'risk' a gay upbringing?

108. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187737 by Peacebeuponme on June 2, 2008 at 1:47 pm

Al - Just wipe your palms against each other and say 'I'm done with ya." There's nothing more to see.

Maybe he could comment on Elli's Jewish background, then we would have pretty much the full set.

EDITED, so hopefully it makes sense now...

109. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187733 by Peacebeuponme on June 2, 2008 at 1:39 pm

Appleby

Well, I'd love to continue this pointless discussion with you blockheads but I'd rather have (vaginal) sex with my girlfriend now.
She's a lucky girl.

110. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187702 by Peacebeuponme on June 2, 2008 at 1:16 pm

Appleby

All I ever said was that I would prefer not to take the risk where the lives of children are involved.
And that big 'all' is what I have issue with. You have done nothing to explain exactly what you mean except prove what a bigot you really are.

Read back over the posts. It was a simple, quick question: No parents vs gay parents. Who except the extremely prejudiced would let a child stay in a care home, rather than a loving, affluent gay couple? Half-thinking, mouth-breathers like you, it would seem.

You can't be talked to anyway, so fuck it.

111. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187685 by Peacebeuponme on June 2, 2008 at 1:03 pm

Appleby, you clearly cannot be reasoned with, can you?

Well what [one is] "aware of" doesn't constitute proof.
Then nothing can be proved.

Pershaps I should have said 'from my limited research'. Acknowledging I could research more but that experience so far does not support your position. But the onus is on you.
psychological damage which I would PREFER not to expose children to.
Not an answer, not an answer, not an answer. You have to say why this is worse than the no parent alternative. Al provided some data that I couldn't.

112. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187626 by Peacebeuponme on June 2, 2008 at 11:52 am

Appleby

Are you so ignorant to assume that there is absolutely no difference between 3 and 4
In my very first post on this subject (#187375) I said I was minded to think there was. Check back over the argument before you start throwing crap about.
or that even if there is a (detrimental) difference, it could not possibly be worse than 5?
From what I am aware of, the studies bear me out. Care homes are notorious for producing delinquents. I have not read similar stories about gay raised children. But the onus is not on me, its on you. You think we should not 'risk' the gay option, so you must have a good reason why you think the potential harm of a care home upbringing is less.

This is not just about care homes either. I suppose you would not want a rich, loving gay couple to take on orphaned children wandering the streets of Burma after the cyclone would you?

113. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187614 by Peacebeuponme on June 2, 2008 at 11:27 am

Appleby

And for the umpteenth time, I don't know if having no parents is better or not (and you obviously don't know either). All you have is an "in my gut" feeling.
Answered ages ago. Gay adoption is preferable because children are either too small to survive alone, have to steal to survive, or risk care home abuse.
What is this, a Dickens novel? Is this more of your proof why gay adoptions should be encouraged?
You really do have me confused now, so can I try to set things out logically? Consider the possible states of affairs for a child's rearing:

1. Biological parents.
2. Other family members.
3. Straight adoption / temporary foster home.
4. Gay adoption / temporary foster home.
5. Care home.
6. Living on the street.
7. Dead.

Have you found some magic state of affairs between 4 and 5 that I am not aware of? I can say I think I do know which of these two is prefereable. It is only your homophobia that says otherwise.
Do you think *I* should be in support of gay adoptions?
Yes, for the reasons previously given
And would that have anything to do with gay rights, might I ask?
No. Everything to do with what is best for the child.
does this weigh against possible life-long psychological damage?
Wow! Christ, you are on a mission here. Glad to see you realised straight away that you don't know your arse from your elbow on this one.
umpteenth
Yes, I know the feeling.

114. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187594 by Peacebeuponme on June 2, 2008 at 10:42 am

Appleby

I never said we shouldn't. I just said I think straight parent adoptions are preferable.
I'm fighting the urge not to styrer you here. You are being, at a minimum, underhand. You said that you were not sure we should 'risk' gay adoption. That is pretty close to saying we shouldn't do it. I said we should do it, because otherwise more children would be without parents. I cited the example of a street urchin or a care home resident as examples of those who would be better off with gay parents. You cannot come up with another argument to support your view that, even when there are thousands of unadopted children out there, you are still not sure we should 'risk' gay adoption. All you keep doing is resetting the argument. It is tiresome.
So do you know the answer to this question or not?
Answered ages ago. Gay adoption is preferable because children are either too small to survive alone, have to steal to survive, or risk care home abuse.
Support for homosexuality is pretty much what has been going in this thread
I support homosexuality in the same way I support people with green eyes.

115. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187545 by Peacebeuponme on June 2, 2008 at 9:47 am

Appleby

This thing about "no parents" was brought up by you, not me. I didn't accept your assumption that kids who are not adopted by gays will somehow necessarily have no (straight) parents to adopt them.
This is fantastic. You do not accept that there are, at present, orphans and children in care homes that are not going to be adopted by straight parents. You are living on another planet mate. The world is crying out for more people to adopt. I brought the issue up to show you how silly your base view that we should not 'risk' gay adoption was. I don't know how I cna be clearer, but if we don't 'risk' this more children will remain unadopted.. Its irrelevant whether straight or gay parenting is better
Furthermore, I already told you, I DO NOT KNOW whether no parents would be better than gay parents (Comment #187410 by Appleby). And I asked if you knew... well?
If you cannot judge whether or not gay parents are better than no parents, you really are a sad fuck.
No, I could be indifferent. But you still have not answered my question. Let me put it this way then... *should* I be in support of homosexuality?
How does one 'support' homosexuality exactly? I may ask how you 'support' black people, or women. In this context indifference and support are pretty much the same thing, and are both the opposite of 'oppose'. You are far away form being indifferent my friend.

116. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187483 by Peacebeuponme on June 2, 2008 at 8:19 am

Appleby

Therefore, I didn't think it was worth risking the children on account of that. You may ask why I even suspect that things may not be right with gay adoption? Well, to me it's obvious. There's no male or female to assume the role of the father or mother and I THINK that makes a difference.
I don't want to go round in circles, but, given that I already stated at the outset that all other things being equal I considered heterosexual adoption prefereable, I was making the point that, the real dichotomy is between gay parents and no parents. You still haven't given a good reason why gays should not adopt orphans or those in care homes.
Are you saying it's not okay for me to not be in support of homosexuality?
Interesting double-negative. To not be in support, must mean to oppose though surely? To oppose homosexuality, as I see it (and in common with all other forms or interference in other's lives where it is not wanted) is not ok.

117. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187463 by Peacebeuponme on June 2, 2008 at 7:16 am

Appleby

The 'procreation of the species' bit was in response to Comment #187392 by AllanW. Why are you taking it out of context?
Look, I'm not going to cut-and-paste the whole argument back to you. It was a question-answer as a part of a longer string of debate. I don't think I'm using anything out of context.

This is pretty easy, you asserted previously that you were not sure we should 'risk' gay adoption. I'm trying to explore why. More widely, you also seem to be uncomfortable with gays in society generally, and gave possible reasons (including the aforenoted procreation issue) for why you hold this position. All reasons you have given so far, for both positions, have been fairly easily dealt with.

So, unless you can come up with something more, I think the two options you are left with are either to concede that you are mistaken or to admit your bigotry.

118. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187454 by Peacebeuponme on June 2, 2008 at 6:53 am

Appleby

stop making assumptions about me "pursuing" any issues or the supposed reasons I'm doing so.
Ok, so is your position based on a desire for greater procreation of the human species, or not? If it is, my comment #187425 applies. If not, I'd be interested to hear your real reasons.

119. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187445 by Peacebeuponme on June 2, 2008 at 6:32 am

Appleby

In the long term it is.
Fuck off. That's far from the reason you are pursuing this issue. This all started because of your revulsion of homosexuality, remember?

120. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187434 by Peacebeuponme on June 2, 2008 at 6:18 am

Appleby #187426. Well, I was adopting something close to your vernacular, but no joke really. I was making a valid point. Lets leave procreation out of this shall we? Its not central to the argument.

121. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187425 by Peacebeuponme on June 2, 2008 at 6:06 am

Appleby, I just want to continue with this one

1) procreation of the species
Then stop fucking your girlfriend in the ass, spazzing on her chest and wearing condoms.

122. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187423 by Peacebeuponme on June 2, 2008 at 6:04 am

Appleby

Why do you assume that kids who are not adopted by gay parents will necessarily have no parents? Do you think there aren't enough straight parents to adopt children? Or are gay parents adopting the kids the straight parents don't want?


In order:

1. This is not an assumption. There are thousands of children in care homes, and many many thousands of street urchins in poorer countries the world over. This is does not help you in answering my question though, which could have been hypothetical.

2. Yes.

3. Yes, in some cases.

123. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187408 by Peacebeuponme on June 2, 2008 at 5:46 am

Appleby

1) procreation of the species
Not always a good thing. 7 billion around the corner.

124. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187406 by Peacebeuponme on June 2, 2008 at 5:32 am

Appleby

Do we need the consent of chickens and cows before we slaughter them?
Leaving aside the abhorrent Halal practise, which I despise, we have to slaughter animals humanely. Fucking them constitutes mistreatment, which, here in the UK at least, is rightly illegal.

125. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187404 by Peacebeuponme on June 2, 2008 at 5:26 am

Appleby

I didn't say not having any parents is better than gay parents (I don't know if it's better or not, do you?).
You are getting yourself tied up in knots here.

You said that it was wrong to assume gay parents are better than no parents. This to me seems a bit silly. Not only can a child of small age not survive without adult assistance, those that can would have to steal to live, which is not good for the rest of us. The only other alternative would be a care home. Perhaps you'd like to talk to the good people of Jersey about those.
And I'm sorry but I have the interest of the kids as a priority here... not the deep desire for gays to adopt children.
Sorry mate, you don't. You have your prejudice to defend. That is now obvious. To say that I am more interested in getting gays to adopt than the best interests of children is a bit pathetic. Read the tone of my first post on this thread, I don't think I was championing all forms of gay parenting then.

126. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187385 by Peacebeuponme on June 2, 2008 at 4:53 am

Appleby

Appleby, do you concede that having gay parents is better than no parents? If so, then there is no logical reason to deny altruistic, compassionate and loving gays the chance to adopt.
I think that's quite an assumption you're making about gays
Its 'quite an assumption' that a child would do better being adopted by appropriately screened gays, rather than not having any parents, or being raised in a care home (insert appropriate horror story here)?

Well, that really does betray a deep-seated prejudice on your part. Your attempt to present your viewpoint as reasonable has failed badly.

127. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187375 by Peacebeuponme on June 2, 2008 at 4:43 am

Appleby

As for adopting children, if science has shown that there are no short or long-term detrimental psychological effects on the kids, then I suppose it's okay. But I'm not sure how strong the evidence for that might be. I'm also not sure we should risk it.
This is a brilliant piece of short-sighted thinking. I'm minded to think that, all other things being equal, a child having a parent of both sexes would be preferable to any other option (I am opposed to turkey-baster lesbian conception, for example). Not having the facts before me it is not something I would state so boldly though, and I would recognise at the same time the great contribution that many homosexuals make in rearing children. But this is all beside the point. Appleby, do you concede that having gay parents is better than no parents? If so, then there is no logigal reason to deny altruistic, compassionate and loving gays the chance to adopt.
I personally simply find male homosexuality disgusting.
You know this has been conditioned in you by your upbringing and society, right? You can de-condition yourself of this unnecessary emotion.

128. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #187364 by Peacebeuponme on June 2, 2008 at 3:53 am

txpiper

If you think evolutionary biologists are faith-free, you are not reading their papers with a critical eye. I found over a dozen equivocations in the mammal dentition quote Calilasseia posted above which ended with completely inconclusive statements. Accepting evolutionary constructs requires fabulous faith.
You misunderstand me somewhat. Even if I accepted that some evolutionary biologists may have a particular attachment to a theory having spent a lifetime researching it, they would still not have the same mindset that you have when defending the crackpot claims of Christianity.

You have to worry about hell and pleasing your master and all that nonsense. A scientist just has to worry about being wrong. What other reason could Darwin possibly have had, apart from thinking he might be right, for thinking up and proposing Natural Selection in the first place? There was no faith at all for him to defend then. The bias in this argument is all from the religious, I'm afraid.

how many other scientific ideas from 2,000 years ago do you favour over more modern ones? Do you think pi is equal to three, for example? Do you attribute earthquakes and lightening to intelligent agency?

129. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #186275 by Peacebeuponme on May 30, 2008 at 3:35 am

I'm not here to convince anyone to adopt my beliefs. I'm more interested in expressing why conventional evolutionary beliefs are to me, not believable.
txpiper betrays his preconceptions with comments like this: anything that is contrary to his worldview is dissented.

The layman can safely discard all txpiper's comments on evolution without further thought as they do not derive from disinterested study.

txpiper - I would ask you this: what is in it for evolutionary biologists to maintain the theory if it is wrong? The religious have a whole deep faith to defend, including the small matter of avoiding eternal damnation, whereas a scientist would love nothing more than to discover evidence that may lead to a new theory.

130. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186058 by Peacebeuponme on May 29, 2008 at 12:36 pm

al-rawandi - ah come on. I'm not going to trawl through looking for them. You know you have a decent back-catalogue!

I had the impression that one of the real fun things for you was constructing acerbic reposts, and the general cut-and-thrust of a heated debate! Maybe I was wrong.

131. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186049 by Peacebeuponme on May 29, 2008 at 12:15 pm

FF

is never a justified use for that word when used in a derogatory fashion.
I was going to say that that was exactly my point. I don't know, maybe it is. But there are some times when you really want to offend somebody. I wouldn't want powerful words removed from my arsenal at this point.

When al-rawandi is on the warpath, he comes up with some marvellous stuff, which is designed to agitate and call out the opponent. Why has he allowed certain offensive phrases and not allowed others? Its something we all do. I wouldn't use the word "nigger" in a derogatory fashion, but then again if I was attacking some prick like Joseph Kony (who's army kipdaps children and forces them to fight and kill their fellow countrymen), such a powerful word actually seems pretty apt.

132. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186040 by Peacebeuponme on May 29, 2008 at 12:05 pm

Colwyn - Agreed. I didn't mean to suggest legal moves to curtail free speech. I meant more that its something that we can justify being offended to in a way that we cannot really just by the utterance of a word, out of context.

133. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186035 by Peacebeuponme on May 29, 2008 at 11:54 am

Colwyn - I take your point, but I don't like this idea of words being fully taboo, and should never be used. I'd rather stop hate speech in general.

The words "jew" and "pig" in themselves are not offensive. But calling a jew a "dirty jew-pig" would be deeply offensive. Its not about stopping use of the word, but stopping hate speech and bigotry.

When one black man says to another "hey, my nigger" and neither are offended, I don't see the problem.

134. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186031 by Peacebeuponme on May 29, 2008 at 11:46 am

FF

there are words in the English language that simply should never be used
That is just a stupid attitude.

al-rawando for example says he doesn't use the term nigger, when he used it a few posts above that comment.

And when you say there are "some" words that shouldn't be used, what other ones are there? Cunt? Honkey? Which ones give you that special level of offence you get when you hear the word "nigger"?

135. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186020 by Peacebeuponme on May 29, 2008 at 11:13 am

Chris Rock is a great comedian. However, he falls into the trap of virtually all black american comedians of talking about race far too much. We have a guy from the US over here called Reginald D. Hunter who is pretty much the same. Funny guy, but always with the black thing.

And its always about black vs white culture. What must asians think?

btw - on "nigger" well it depends how you use it doesn't it? The niggers vs black skit that Chris did I think warrented the use. I see no reason why white people should not be able to use the word in the certain contexts.

136. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #185652 by Peacebeuponme on May 28, 2008 at 9:07 am

al-rawandi

Most just want to go on about their lives, unmolested.
Exactly. Such sweeping statements as
The Palestinians - genocidal savages who have no desire or ability beyond murder.
aside from being disgusting and blinkered, really have no place on a "clear-thinking oasis".

137. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #185584 by Peacebeuponme on May 28, 2008 at 6:11 am

"Why hasn't anyone got any guts? They've got terrorists amongst 'em... They want to be here so they can go and hide in all the farm houses... This town has every nationality... but Muslims do not fit in this town. We are Aussies, OK."
This seems to be a pretty straight up piece of bigotry. However, in small towns there can be an air of resentment to outsiders, and to a certain extent, why not, if it significantly alters the way of life to which you are accustomed and enjoy?

Its no use comparing with christianity either. I suspect that the christians in this town are a pretty beaten down lot and don't affect the lives of others too greatly. Muslims tend to bring with them halal requirements, demonstrations against the slightest perceived offence, political organisations (such as the old "Muslim Parliament") and burkhas.

I can understand why the community would not want this, and particularly not want children to be taught that such a way of life is a virtue.

138. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #184117 by Peacebeuponme on May 23, 2008 at 4:52 pm

Romanian 1: Why did I just answer a question that I had asked myself?

Romanian 1: Because I am schizophrenic.

Romanian 1: Ah, that explains everything. Lets go to church.

139. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183518 by Peacebeuponme on May 22, 2008 at 7:54 am

LeeLeeOne - I don't know. It has more substance than going round and round and round with Wooter. The last 4 or 5 posts presented a level of intellectual discourse unparalleled by anything our fanged creationist has to offer.

140. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183495 by Peacebeuponme on May 22, 2008 at 7:22 am

Anna - you could at least use Feet though, for us brits.

141. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183450 by Peacebeuponme on May 22, 2008 at 6:33 am

al

You are genuinely retarded, and this November I will be voting for anyone who runs on a platform of bombing Romania.
That would be a little unfair on the many fine, upstanding Romanians...and besides, The Cheeky Girls are over here!

142. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183446 by Peacebeuponme on May 22, 2008 at 6:30 am

Clearmind said

i am teaching as well those analogies at my school and some of your funny answers - not all of them since most of them is full of swearing.
At least some of what we have said is getting to the schoolkids, that is something.

On second thoughts, I don't think Wooter would be able to rely them accurately, since he does not undertand them.

143. What is science for?

Comment #183436 by Peacebeuponme on May 22, 2008 at 5:59 am

Quetz

ASMarques may question the scholarship of Wikipedia. However, I think if he comes back he must first attempt a refutation of each of the well presented, and fully referenced, points set out in your third link above.

His posts are starting to come across more and more as rants.

144. What is science for?

Comment #183432 by Peacebeuponme on May 22, 2008 at 5:36 am

Why is ASMarques addressing the Brights? Is he only interested in converting Brights?

I'm sure he's not using it perjoratively in reference to all atheists here (of which surely he is one?). Be pretty pathetic since he knows not all here would be in favour of the Brights movement.

145. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183385 by Peacebeuponme on May 22, 2008 at 2:44 am

clearmind

Sorry Pal I watched beavers a lot with my students to show how God's creation is. sorry luck and chances cannot explain for those beautiful dam builders
Not luck and chances, as you have been told umpteen times. Natural selection is the opposite of chance. You just can't understand how it can explain phenotypic complexity. That doesn't mean it is not so.

Wooter, why do you continue posting here? Do you not think an impasse was reached several months ago? You keep posting the argument from design over and over and over and over. Atheists deal with it time and time again. Neither side is going to be moved in this way.

Do you really think you are doing anything worthwhile?

You've been asked to read up on evolution, but don't seem to want to. You do not understand it, as is evident from your posts. Without doing that I cannot see how we can have a useful discourse.

146. What is science for?

Comment #183373 by Peacebeuponme on May 22, 2008 at 2:15 am

Keith

Can anyone actually interpret his last post?
I don't know, maybe he is theisms answer to Jack Kerouac. We may be insulting a literary genius.

147. Lab agrees to test Shroud of Turin for new theory

Comment #183254 by Peacebeuponme on May 21, 2008 at 3:51 pm

briansys

I went to have a look at the shroud a few years ago when I was in Turin. I was most surprised that there is all this discussion about age. I'm not sure it is even worth worrying about. Why?
People have a strange facination with "sacred" objects, every religion is awash with them. Maybe its so that there is something tangible on which to rest their beliefs and actions. Armies used to have Standards which soliders would die to keep safe.

The faithful know its not really what they say it is, but it is tangible. Their faith isn't.

148. Lab agrees to test Shroud of Turin for new theory

Comment #183251 by Peacebeuponme on May 21, 2008 at 3:48 pm

Teratornis

Who knows, maybe in 100 years when computers compose and play all the music, someone will rediscover Jimi Hendrix and draw incorrect conclusions from the inability of any artists or scientists to evoke the same sounds by manipulating a "guitar."

Human ability varies over an extremely wide range. In the realm of musical performance, for example, the handful of top virtuosi on any instrument do things which are, in fact, flatly impossible for at least 99% of the population no matter how long or hard they train.
blockquote>My favourite example of individual skill is Willard Wigan, who creates sculptures on pinheads. He uses brushes made from the hairs of spiders' legs and only makes a stroke between heartbeats. I suspect without knowing that, anybody coming across one of his pieces would say no way did a human do that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willard_Wigan

149. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #183219 by Peacebeuponme on May 21, 2008 at 2:20 pm

Quetz

Post #183203. Did you read all of my post #183199?

Post #183210. Thanks. That's useful knowledge.

150. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #183216 by Peacebeuponme on May 21, 2008 at 2:18 pm

al - along similar lines:

A young scottish lad falls into the river. Luckily he is spotted and a man dives in to save him from drowning.

A few hours later the man gets a knock at his door: its the mother of the child.

"Are you the man who saved my boy when he fell in the river?"

"Yes" says the man, with a warm smile.

"Well, where's his fucking hat?"

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