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


151. 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.

152. 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".

153. 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.

154. 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.

155. 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.

156. 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.

157. 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!

158. 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.

159. 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.

160. 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.

161. 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.

162. 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.

163. 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.

164. 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

165. 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.

166. 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?"

167. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #183201 by Peacebeuponme on May 21, 2008 at 2:05 pm

Quetz

development of consciousness is late in the process. I don't think the nervous system develops until 26 to 28 weeks (I'll check that).
Thanks.

That's what we are talking about though isn't it? Late term abortions? Its defining "late" that is thorny, and perhaps the development of consciousness is one way to (though maybe not the right one).

168. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #183199 by Peacebeuponme on May 21, 2008 at 2:02 pm

al

have this kind of fairytale view of England as full of well spoken white people who are all very rational and get along well
You're thinking of Wales (well, maybe not the well spoken bit)!

169. In God's Name

Comment #183196 by Peacebeuponme on May 21, 2008 at 1:58 pm

Fanusi

Okay, the overpopulation scare is just a scare. Birth rates are dropping all over.
They might be dropping in a lot of places, but still look at India. Passed a billion a while back so they have a massive base to build on. The Earth's population is still growing.

But my point really is that we are overpopulated now - pushing 7 billion. There is starvation as there is.

170. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #183193 by Peacebeuponme on May 21, 2008 at 1:54 pm

Epeeist

Under 1.5% of abortions in the UK take place after 20 weeks. There are a variety of reasons for late abortions, you can find details in http://www.soton.ac.uk//lateabortionstudy/late_abortion.pdf
The answer to most things seems to be "Sweden".

171. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #183188 by Peacebeuponme on May 21, 2008 at 1:50 pm

Quetz

That's a very definite statement. Define "late term". What about in the case of rape? Domestic violence? The discovery that the foetus is developing abnormally, ie with half its brain missing?
Interestingly, my own position here has become muddied after many abortion threads here. Foetus developing abormally gets a big abortion tick for me, even later term. However with rape and domestic violence, I wonder whether a cut-off point would be the development of consciousness and a facility to experience pain (I don't know the answer to that, and it seems a horrible thing to have to decide on).

I really wouldn't want a law that said a woman who had been raped had to have the child though. What a horrible thing to have to go through. The child as well: knowing daddy was a rapist.

Fides' answer though is "no abortion".

172. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #183181 by Peacebeuponme on May 21, 2008 at 1:45 pm

calvaryguy

Im sorry too disapoint everyone but they are telling the truth.
Can you explain why?

173. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #183178 by Peacebeuponme on May 21, 2008 at 1:42 pm

Fides - your stonewalling is just proving my comment earlier that you regard the attempt to reduce the limit as a wedge with the ultimate goal of banning abortion.

Shameful dishonesty.

174. In God's Name

Comment #183173 by Peacebeuponme on May 21, 2008 at 1:37 pm

al. Regarding the racism, ther flipside is the virulent anti black/asian racism starting in Italy and going east and north across Eastern Europe to Russia.

But I agree with the breeding issue. What are we to do : encourage the Serbian, Albanian and Polish neo-nazis to fuck for freedom?

Maybe the rest of us can go and live peacefully in the Nordics...

175. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #183162 by Peacebeuponme on May 21, 2008 at 1:21 pm

fides - a slight digression yes. But this is a thread about abortion. I don't think its off-topic to ask that.

Well, anyway, your response is similar to the "no comment" response given by MPs when asked if they have ever used drugs.

It was worith a shot.

176. In God's Name

Comment #183155 by Peacebeuponme on May 21, 2008 at 1:14 pm

fanusi

Exactly, Adrian, which is what I have been pointing out for some time. Which is why we are stuffed. Look at the youth of the European nations - predominantly Muslim. Meaning we are living in the end times of Europe. There'll be mass immigration elsewhere, fascist revivalism amongst those that remain and then - the long Eurabian night. A new Dark Ages.
That might be a bit chicken litte. What we do know though is that those families who have an excess of children are adversly impacting the rest of us. We are overpopulated as it is. The benefits system should be changed to discourage this.

177. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #183152 by Peacebeuponme on May 21, 2008 at 1:10 pm

Fides - actually you never know, we may find some common ground. Do you agree with abortion in some cases then?

178. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #183136 by Peacebeuponme on May 21, 2008 at 12:41 pm

fides_et_ratio

Somebody always has to commit to giving us life in the first place, unless you know of an alternative?
Yes, if they so choose. At what point the law gets involved, if at all, is what we are debating. Certainly we should not look at the bible for guidance.

179. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #183117 by Peacebeuponme on May 21, 2008 at 12:13 pm

Rawhard Dickens

There is no difference between a child/thing one hour before birth and one hour afterwards, it's still a child.
Ok, and I must admit that I don't have a clear position on later term abortion. However, when the religious use this term its all emcompassing, from conception. Its used to suggest there is now a Soul, one of God's children, that needs to be saved from death. Talking about the "unborn child" rather than foetus is deliberatly emotive.

180. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #183114 by Peacebeuponme on May 21, 2008 at 12:08 pm

Have you struck upon an alternative method?
I don't quite understand your point. Before you are born*, there is no you to speak of as having rights. Why should someone else give you life at cost to themselves?

* I'm prepared to concede that we need to consider the point and which pain and consciousness become an issue, but I know that the religious (and presumably your) strategy here is to push for 22 weeks now, and then 20 and so on.

181. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #183106 by Peacebeuponme on May 21, 2008 at 11:50 am

fides_et_ratio

I don't understand how the mother's right to non-motherhood overrules the child's right to life.
Because anybody should not have to go through pain and discomfort, both physically and mentally, and also make a lifelong emotional, physical and financial commitment to give another person life.

When we talk about the "right to life" this should not mean that somebody else has to commit to giving us life in the first place.

We got too many people on the planet anyway. I don't think thousands of extra unwanted children would increase net happiness, quite the reverse.

182. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #183099 by Peacebeuponme on May 21, 2008 at 11:42 am

fides_et_ratio

unborn child
Stop using this term. Its an oxymoron. To be a child, you must necessarily be born.
this needn't be a question of theist versus athiest
Agreed. Catholics and other theists need to stop using religious texts for justificaiton of their viewpoint in that case. This (like every other single issue we face) has nothing to do with old writings. We can learn nothing from them to help us here.

183. In God's Name

Comment #183037 by Peacebeuponme on May 21, 2008 at 9:05 am

Absolutely heartbreaking watching those little kids heads being filled with mush.

Not sure I can continue watching this.

184. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #182986 by Peacebeuponme on May 21, 2008 at 7:26 am

While we are on the subject of Islam, check out these UK muslim nutjobs and their discussion of death for apostasy, on the bbc no less:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbreligion/F2213236?thread=5455840&skip=0&show=20

185. What is science for?

Comment #182944 by Peacebeuponme on May 21, 2008 at 6:30 am

alan baylis

For anyone genuinely interested in these questions, following ASS Marques bullshit links won't get you very far. Any attempt by people to debate him has led only to a barrage of quotes and reviews from denier websites.
Alan, my position is this: I have satisfied myself that the Holocaust was a real event, and did so along with virtually all thinking people when I was old enough to learn about WWII. However, Holocaust Denial is an interesting topic. Its interesting to learn about the mindset that gets somebody to such a position, their key claims and reasoning, and the refutations of these claims.

AS Marques and his unsettling links at least aids a deeper understanding of Holocaust Denial, but does not aid a better understandng of the events that actually took place in the 1940s.

None of that, by the way, comments on AS Marques's character. If he was like the majority of Deniers, i.e. a neo-Nazi, I would certainly reserve Styrer's lexicon for use when asked to describe his character.

186. What is science for?

Comment #182854 by Peacebeuponme on May 21, 2008 at 3:49 am

Quetz - Ok. Maybe I missed those. I'll look there to see if his points have been dealt with (I'm sure they have or can be, common sense dictates that a conspiracy on the scale he is suggesting is impossible).

Styer - You need to take some prolixin or something. I'm just giving my impression, not dictating anything. I haven't been here because I cannot properly answer him, and wondered who could. Calling AS Marques a cunt doesn't win the argument. If I missed some of your more substantial points then apologies.

Why did I capitalise? I thought that would be obvious. So that I wasn't calling him a plain old denier (perhaps of religion, Liverpool's ability to win the League, or pineapple on pizza.)

Keith - Oh, I agree. But since I did not previoiusly know much about the position of Deniers, then I was interested to see how they are dealt with. Nothing to do with AS Marques's intransigence.

187. What is science for?

Comment #182790 by Peacebeuponme on May 21, 2008 at 1:18 am

I don't think anybody has "taken on" AS Marques properly here, except to point out that his (you have to say well presented) posts contain links to sites of dubious authority.

This is likely because most here do not have much experience in dealing with Deniers. Its not because AS Marques is occupying the most reasonable position.

I wonder if there are any experienced historians here who could refute some of the details of his posts?

188. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #182782 by Peacebeuponme on May 21, 2008 at 1:04 am

The catholic position on this is so inconsistent as well. They spend time going on about keeping things "natural" (no condoms, no homosexuality). They talk about personhood from the moment of conception. But what is the reason they are using to support a reduction in the limit? Medicial scientific advances. Its hypocritical. There would not be a person to survive in the first place if it wasn't for scientific intervention. That does not seem to support the view that we are discussing "god's little children" to me.

189. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #182149 by Peacebeuponme on May 19, 2008 at 9:24 am

clearmind

Now if you tell me, there was a chemical particles rain from the planets and then there you go a small pond existed. Then amino acids came to happen (in right order) or happened to exist by unexplainable luck and chances, and then, Dna popped up again all by itself and chance in the right order and code, there you go a sweet cute water worm turned up out of LUCK AND CHANCES, then we all came from a little worm. Logic will stop this comedy right away; nothing can happen by itself and without a design.
Yawn.

You just use the word "god" instead, so you are saying nothing. Nothing at all.

I really am beginning to think you are just a bit of script.

190. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #180602 by Peacebeuponme on May 15, 2008 at 9:45 am

RobotDevil, if the tactics employed by Vox, include this

These five religions have approximately
4.85 billion adherents, representing an estimated 71.3 percent
of the world's population in 2007, and they have been around
for a collective 11,600 years. During the vast majority of those 116
centuries,
then I am in agreement with King of NH.

He ignored the fact that the religions have existed concurrently. Hinduism being the oldest, gives us something like 5,500 years or 55 centuries, not 116.

The rest of his reasoning continues in a similar vein.

191. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180598 by Peacebeuponme on May 15, 2008 at 9:35 am

Irate - I thought you were commenting on the discussion earlier about noting typo edits. Seems a little laborious and petty to me. (most of my posts would have to have edit notes!)

192. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180596 by Peacebeuponme on May 15, 2008 at 9:19 am

Quetz - fair enough.

Irate - I assume that edit note was a joke?

193. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180592 by Peacebeuponme on May 15, 2008 at 9:04 am

Quetz - I think its probably similar to what he posted on the FCOS site, but if he has given you the green light, why not just post it up here?

194. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180581 by Peacebeuponme on May 15, 2008 at 8:39 am

Quetz

If anyone is interested, Richard Morgan e-mailed me a copy of his conversion story last month. In the e-mail he said that I was free to reproduce it if I wanted, without asking his permission.
Which particular conversion was it though? He has had the epiphany three times.

195. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180579 by Peacebeuponme on May 15, 2008 at 8:35 am

Richard Morgan has edited out his last response to me I see.

Richard - if you come to this site, you know there will be questions. They are not always from people you think are warm, friendly and polite. If you can't deal with this, you may want to ask yourself why you post here.

I know now that there is no point in me engaging with you.

196. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #180466 by Peacebeuponme on May 15, 2008 at 2:59 am

txpiper

sweeping changes
Can somebody show this guy a morphing programme? Can be between any two disparate objects. Then get him to point at the one frame advance that shows a "sweeping change" where on object becomes the other.

197. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180462 by Peacebeuponme on May 15, 2008 at 2:45 am

Richard Morgan

I have ventured back here because of people like yourself.
You have ventured back here because you crave attention and fuss. Enjoying connecting with another human is no bad thing. You should just try to tone down the melodrama.

198. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180460 by Peacebeuponme on May 15, 2008 at 2:41 am

Richard Morgan

Then why bring him in with comments like:
BTW - Jesus had some very kind things to say about the weak and the ignorant
?
Because when it serves my purposes to serve cherries, I cherry-pick!

I don't consider this to be less useful than
Fuck it up the ass with a red rubber dick
You called me a "naughty boy" earlier. I think you are being a little clever here. Diacanu has a certain syle. If you have comments, please take it up with him. Do not confuse me with him or try to group us. It does your position no favours.

My query, which has still not been addressed, is that you were referencing Jesus being kind to the weak as somehow supportive of a theistic outlook (you were rebutting a comment from Nails). I say the fact that any historical jesus was a nice guy means nothing, and is therefore never worth mentioning when arguing the merits of religion. I wonder whether you are able to demonstrate why I should think otherwise.

There is no "cherry-picking" here. I specifically wanted to ask you about mentioning Jesus. If I was cherry-picking, I would be trawling through your previous posts for any comments I could use in a negative way against you, while ignoring other posts that might work against my argument. Unless you have said elsewhere, and often (post your 3rd conversion) that Jesus is irrelevant, your cherry-picking comment is unfounded.

199. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180294 by Peacebeuponme on May 14, 2008 at 1:56 pm

Richard

Can you answer me? I want to know why Jesus being a nice guy is important.
I never said He was nice guy, so I don't really know how to answer your question.
Then why bring him in with comments like:
BTW - Jesus had some very kind things to say about the weak and the ignorant
?

200. 'Framing Science' and The Dawkins Effect

Comment #180290 by Peacebeuponme on May 14, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Fucking awesome that we have someone like Dawkins. We need great scientists, intelligent human beings, to stand up and shout about this, and not pussy-foot around. Its important goddamit

I'm not black, or American, but I want to give a shout out to him.

(The usefullness content of the above comment has been rated at - 0)

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 28 | Next