Andy9o8

Fascinating thread. You might find this one of interest, too: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4248010;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

LOL! It's just one drink, now, no longer drunk? Where up-thread was that part of the hypothetical fact pattern? You get yourself so busy making up supposedly real "facts", you can't even keep track of when you falsify the hypothetical ones.

"Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me. They possess and enjoy early, and it does something to them, makes them soft, where we are hard, cynical where we are trustful, in a way that, unless you were born rich, it is very difficult to understand." "The Rich Boy"; F. Scott Fitzgerald (1926)

That's a little confusing to read since your screen name is also DSE. Yeh I figgered that meant he was selling them out of the trunk of his car.

The whole concept of light beer is kinda hard to believe.... It was developed by NASA. See, going to the moon, launch weight was a premium, and all that regular beer was just too heavy...

Do yourself a favor: the first time you watch them, watch them in Swedish with subtitles. Noomi Rapace (Lisbeth) is so excellent in the part, and the rhythm, tempo and delivery and of her speech pattern, as well as her inflections, really is part of that. I've got to believe that some of that would be diluted in a dubbed version.

You know, that has a nice stump speech tempo to it - very catchy. It reminds me of Jesse Jackson. Keep hope alive, John.

Blonde chicks, tits, and legal pot. Seriously, you would argue with that? Now who's being delusional?

So if you were a citizen in North Korea, you wouldn't want someone to depose your leader so that you and all of your countrymen could live in freedom and prosperity like the rest of the world? That wasn't his proposition. He's talking about "from the outside looking in"; while you're asking him about "from the inside looking out". Two very different things.

You're mischaracterizing people and spinning what they've said in order to vilify them. If you think they're full of shit, call them out for what they've actually said. But please don't insult the intelligence, or the collective memory, of your fellow SC inmates.

There are plenty of religion-haters here who brand all religious people as dangerous because of the actions of a few extremists. This line on atheist violence is just the shoe being on the other foot. How's it fit? For those who don't like being incorrectly characterized just because you're an atheist, then don't do the same thing to other people just because they're religious. John, your not infrequent use of the catch-all term "gun-o-phobes" to vilify a remarkably large swath of the population prompts me to recall the biblical passage about first removing the beam from one's own eye.

With God all things are possible. But not bloody likely. But likely bloody.

that's silly - you have implicit here that the faithful have an obligation to prove anything. I'm not saying the faithful have a moral obligation to prove anything, at least not to me. But I've long since grown weary of those who say to me, "Prove that God/Santa/Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist", because, from a strictly intellectual standpoint, that turns the burden of proof on its head.

I'm surprised you'd ask that in earnest. It reminds me of the patent official about 100 years ago who supposedly said, "Everything than can be invented, has been." Extrapolate. I would argue that I'm saying the exact opposite, "If the Hawking's position/quote is true, "The universe can and will create itself from nothing," Then, how come the evolutionary model hasn't already been invented or re-invented within any class of planet that we can see for millions of light years? And my point is: Why do you presume it hasn't been, just because species Terran homo sapiens sapiens hasn't discovered it yet at this point in time? The technology of our species is in its relative infancy.

Good, because that's not what he was doing. He was using N. Korea as a cautionary tale, i.e., an extreme example of the end result of a slippery slope.

And that nonsense is a classic example - in this case by Chesterton, a self-described "orthodox Christian" - of devising a biased definition of one's opponent (in this case, one's ideological opponent) in order to disparage the opponent. Once again: Atheism is not a dogma. It is not a belief system. Nor, Mr. Chesterton, is it an assertion of a negative. It is simply an absence of a particular form of belief; it is the absence of, and lack of agreement with, the assertion of a particular form of "positive". The burden of proof of any form of supernatural rests always with the believers; it never rests with those who simply have an absence of such belief. True atheism is really not the assertion of anything. Atheists simply say: "If you choose to believe a certain thing based on faith, the burden is on you to prove it, otherwise I simply don't believe it, or even see any reason to give it any further thought." I'm surprised you'd ask that in earnest. It reminds me of the patent official about 100 years ago who supposedly said, "Everything than can be invented, has been." Extrapolate.

I doubt it, since Bill is not a child trapped in an adult's body.

To be fair the Republicans employed a great propergander machine and played on and encouraged such sentiments among the diaspora and their decedents to gain both political and financial support over the past four decades. And it worked, big time. "Playing to the sentiments of the diaspora" is a technique that was honed to a fine art in the US among just about every ethnic group you can imagine (a few more than others).

and i answered in the next post. still waiting for his answer though... Except you didn't. Your "answers" were evasions, not responsive answers to the question posed. As usual for you. Whatever, man; you're a known quantity here. Some are willing to play your game; others are not.

Saddam Hussein sounded pretty confident when he was sabre-rattling, too. Right up until the bombs started falling and the missles started hitting. Then he was found months later hiding in a hole in the ground. Hopefully, the leadership in Iran aren't dumb enough to fuck with the U.S. Navy. That would be a very, very bad mistake. Agreed, on all points. And yet, oil prices have just jumped as a result of this silly shit. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/markets/oil-hovers-below-100-after-report-shows-us-crude-supply-surge-suggesting-weaker-demand/2011/12/29/gIQAYxKkNP_story.html Who's the big loser in all this? Here's a hint: it's not the Iranians, it's not the oil companies, it's not the US military, and it's not US military contractors.

Seriously? You need to get out more. Seriously? You think he really means this? Marc, you're priceless. From the horses mouth Whatever, man. The gift that keeps on giving.

Wow, I always wondered why we called them "Godless Communists" back in the day. Hey, thanks for clearing that up. OK, to the point: Do you really think people can't distinguish ideological despots who use anti-religion as a weapon of convenience from "atheists"? Your argument is hopelessly weak.

Seriously? You need to get out more. Seriously? You think he really means this? Marc, you're priceless.

I guess that explains the sick practical jokes Jeff Hitler used to play on people back in the dorms.

Personally I think that's an easy cop out. The ratio of violent nut jobs and extremists varies wildly between the different religions. The Amish would cut your f$%&#g beard from ear to ear as soon as they'd look at you. Don't mess with them. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/21/us-crime-amish-idUSTRE7BK0AH20111221