I also have found it harder to accept certain topics when I consider how do I explain this to my children without them getting weirded out when they find out this comes out of that or this goes in that or your mouth or???????

More and more it is becoming a subject you can’t get away from. can you imagine a “Sexworld” store in your home town in the 60″s? (major metropolis excluded)

And hell no I don’t masturbate. I’ve got perfect vision and I plan on keeping it!

Strange Out.

But climate science is bigger than these guys. There are butt loads of papers and research published every day. “Science” is the bigger picture of making fact-based theories based on the aggregation of all of this research.

So, yes, there are bad scientists in the world, some of them politically motivated, but they don’t last because their science isn’t real. That’s why we talk about consensus. If 90 independent methods come up with the same conclusion, it’s worth more than just 1 coming up with it.

I seriously hope we discover that human can’t effect the climate in anything less than million year timescales. That would be great. I don’t think that is what the science is telling us.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

Because it looks to me like these guys (and they are some of the most prominent scientists in the AGM “community) are in fact using “science as a tactic.” At least it appears that way to me.

By my reading it certainly looks to me like they are trying to massage data to get the desired outcome, which is not science.

They also seem to be bummed out when the warming they predicted does not seem to be occuring. Shouldn’t they be happy that the catastrophic warming they predict is not happening?

And finally, I found it interesting that one guy was complaining that the lack of warming and the questioning of their data might lead to Siemens not funding his research. I thought only the detractors, funded by oil companies, had a financial motive. Looks to me that there is at least some evidence that their funding and their livelihood depends on global warming and so they are very motivated to prove that it’s happening and that man is causing it. To me, this seems like they have a predetermined outcome and they are desperately attempting to make the “science” support that outcome.

I have relatives that have lived “on the family farm” for generations. They don’t pay attention to the news. Some don’t get a paper or listen to anything on the radio other than Glenn Beck whilst in the truck.

If more people were able to think and articulate their positions as you did we could have real dialog in this country and move forward. Unfortunately, as you said, the politicians pander to an uninformed and easily manipulated electorate to stay in power. In the meantime the right listens to comedians and the left elects them to office.

By the way, I fully supported Obama being shown in classrooms. I understand those who feel otherwise but I think they’re wrong.

I really did see the same vitriol directed toward Bush from the left as is being directed against Obama by the right, i.e., accusations of naziism, fascism, murderer, and others. Olbermann was the counterpart to Beck, etc.

We live in a time when when “our team” isn’t in office, anything goes in tearing down the other team. I abhor it and choose not to participate.

Lolife, I’ve had this conversation with you before and you’ve stated that you sometimes need to just express yourself emotionally. Understandable but not constructive.

I don’t have a problem with Mr. Olauson or anyone else speaking their point of view. It’s an incredibly close-minded, inaccurate and hostile point of view that deserves criticism. These people choose to assume the absolute worst intentions and they hope for Obama to fail. They actively work toward it! And this a President who has reached out repeatedly and sincerely to the Right. It’s paranoid and counter-productive.

You make some sound points and I can’ agree with you more on electing smart officials to run our government.

Also, paying capital gains on unrealized gains can be extremely dangerous especially since they want it now, but when you document losses you are limited to what you can enter.

Paying taxes is painful and is a necessary evil of civilized society. Unfortunatley, the electorate has forgotten that they cannot get blood from a stone. There needs to be a cap on what we’ll tax people on and look for better ways of managing the taxes.

One idea, get rid of tax money for stupid research. If I hear about another government grant to study the implications of breast implants on social mores i’m gonna go mental.

Can you share if there were any unreleased tracks that you felt were better than what he put out?

Looks like a gas!!!

: )

“If someone were to look at software you’ve developed and say “This is such an elegant, well engineered, and complete solution, it must have come together out of chance and refined itself over a great period of time.”, that would be ridiculous and disrespectful to the programmer who created it. Likewise, looking at the beautiful and intricate universe we live indicates that this awesome creation must have had a creator.”

False analogy; A has some property X, and thus B must also have property X (i.e. the universe is like a software)

“Then again the origin of the universe has not been explained scientifically either.”

Cosmological models such as the Big Bang are not perfect but such concepts as primordial nucleosynthesis explain the production of hydrogen, helium, and lithium isotopes (i.e. early elements of the universe). Baryogenesis explain baryon-antibaryon asymmetry and the substantial amounts of residual matter that make up the universe today. Cosmic microwave background radiation explain cosmic inflation and inhomogeneities. Quantum fluctuations explain energy and space. Also, you do realize that there is more than one scientific cosmological model for how the universe started (e.g. cyclic cosmology, loop quantum cosmology, brane cosmology) all explained by physics instead of some dusty old mythology book, right?

“Evolution with a species has been observed scientifically. Advocates of Darwin’s theory have hoped to find supporting progressions in the fossil records. What people have referred to as the “missing link” wouldn’t be just one skeleton buried somewhere in the vast world, it would be millions of them. Yet somehow Darwin’s theory of evolution is considered fact.”

Why is it that every creationist has a problem with the principle of speciation in the face of AMPLE evidence?
- Anagenesis and cladogenesis
- Adaptive radiation
- Horizontal gene transfer, genome infusions in endosymbioses, adaptive changes in genome size
- Biodiversity
- Speciation
- Phenotypic plasticity
- Phylogenetic trees
- Transitional fossils
- Living fossils
- Homologous structures and divergent evolution
- Vestigial structures and embryonic development
- Molecular variance
- Universal biochemical organisation
- Gene duplication
- Reassorting of alleles and genetic recombination
- Isotopic evidence from Earth’s crust

“My belief in intelligent design is based on at least these two things. The universe itself is evidence of a creator and that creator has documented it in the Bible.”

You sir are a moron.

I call BS. Pascal’s Wager is a complete false dichotomy, relying on the assumptions that there are only two true possibilities (i.e. that A) a benevolent god exists and punishes or rewards according to one’s belief or B) a benevolent god does not exist. It is also mathematically inconsistent. You can pray for a loved one to get better all you want but experiments show that they don’t get better. Peace of mind will be the only thing you’ll be getting.

I find homophobia disgusting myself. I have nothing in common with this culture which is why I am a complete outcast here, but I’d rather be an outcast than try to interact with these pricks. So yeah; fuck this completely backwards boring ass town. I can’t wait to get the fuck out of here and never look back.

Scripture and religious tradition are not proof of anything other than the collective kool-aid passed around by believers.

I will agree that many Christians do hold arbitrary and unsupported beliefs but suggesting that Christian dogma is a source of it is almost by definition absurd and in itself irrational.

I’m not on a mission of conversion. I think it is important that people think rationally — religion is a corruption of the mind in this sense. It helps keep the door open to dogmatic, arbitrary and wholly unsupported thinking

You’re practicing rhetoric not reason, and to a degree hypocrisy; The purpose of rhetoric is to persuade. The sole purpose of dogma is consistency and the prevention of arbitrary unsupported thinking.

It’s important to remember that western Christianity is inseparable from western philosophy. Western Christianity is a synthesis of Greek rationalism and Jewish faith and tradition. The Creeds and Councils of the early Church were as infused with the need to reconcile the Gospels with Plato as the scholastics of the Middle Ages were with Aristotle to Church teachings.

It’s no mere coincidence that the first passage of John – written in Greek – binds the Christian concept of the Trinity to the “reasonable universe” of the Greek Logos (Word):

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The most dogmatic of Christians tend to be the most concerned with logical explanations for their beliefs;. Perhaps this is why Sola Fide (By Faith Alone) is a core tenet of the Protestant Reformation not Catholic thought?

Current research on the “Dead Sea Scrolls” should be fascinating to scientists and historians (of course you have to dodge the insanity of the zealots on both sides)

so, if not all books deal with the “Physical universe” you are fine with them?

One thing that those with faith have is the solice of the church and their prayers to help them through those times.

For example, your loved one is in the hospital and is feeling pain and has been for months. The hospital is filled with all the wonders that science has to offer both mechanical and medicinal.
But science cannot determine the root cause of the pain and cannot cure them of the pain. The users of this science (Doctors and surgeons and specialists of all kinds) tell you that your loved one won’t make it through the night, there’s nothing they can do.

With all the science at there disposal, there’s nothing they can do.

So, now what? For those who practice their faith they can find peace with their loved one and the local chaplin to ease their pain and in fact hope and pray for a miracle (it does happen you know)

Without those with faith the world would be a much worse place, in my opinion. The majority of those who practice (that I’ve personally met) do so to make themselves a better person. There are, in fact the extremists who ‘bible-bash’ and use religion as a basis for fear and discrimination and unfortunately they are usually the ones in the spotlight.

My personal hope is that we can all peacefully co-exist and let me believe what I want to and you believe what you want to. I personally like to cite Pascal’s Gambit because the rewards for believing outway the risks of not believing.

I admire your passion to your beliefs and even though we may disagree on certain topics, I do enjoy reading.

That is perhaps a key point. I don’t care what metaphysical nonsense people believe. My problem is when people argue with established scientific theories with it. Literally, children die from this shit when medical care is deprived and prayer is substituted. Contraception is denied to people. Science class is barraged with creation myths. You know the story.

Is that right?

Because it’s true. I don’t see how you can coddle someone to this conclusion. When we see thinking that is wrong we have to say, in the kindest and most helpful tone possible, perhaps, that it is wrong. For example, the earth is roughly 4 billion years old. If someone wants to claim it is 10,000 years old, they need to be told they are wrong. The writings of superstitious Iron Age mystics can’t be taken as credible evidence for such a theory given the overwhelming evidence for a very old earth. The two theories are unequal by a long shot.

This is an example in which we agree on the substance (the age of the earth), I suspect.

When I dismiss the Bible as “the writings of superstitious Iron Age mystics” I am not trying to be disrespectful, I’m trying to be accurate. A depiction of the authors of the Bible as holy men in direct contact with god is fanciful in any rational sense. The same is true with the notions of heaven, hell, original sin, divine conception, resurrection, Doom’s Day, and so on. They are indistinguishable from fiction.

The point is that none of it meets any of the standards that we have for considering something believable. Every religion has as much direct evidence as the ancient Greeks and Romans had for Zeus and Artemis. I’m not trying to be unkind. I’m stating an obvious fact.

But I recognize that this fact still befuddles many people. They believe in god and they believe in an afterlife and they are not at all ready to listen to what I’m saying. That’s fine. I’m not on a mission of conversion. But I think it is important that people think rationally. Religion is a corruption of the mind in this sense.

As far as your examples go:

“religious zealots who think that the “rights” of an unborn blob should trump those of a grown woman. Of that we should take scripture into account in foreign policy. Or that we should pray for people who are sick, sometimes instead of modern medical treatment. Of that some of us are damned to hell and deserve their hatred because we are godless and therefore evil. Of that we should teach creation myths to children in science class.”

I share your opinion most heartily. I think there’s a lot of bigotism and close-mindedness that charades as “faith”.

But most Christians and Hindus and Jews and New Agers I know are decent and caring people. Not to mention, most of them are well-informed, intelligent and capable of appreciating the beauty of science as well as cultivating a rich spiritual life. They make intelligent political decision and contribute to the community. I may think it’s silly to go to pray or meditate or read tarot but I’m certainly not going to make fun of their beliefs if it makes them happy.

I’m really not talking about the crusade type of thing. I’m talking about religion as a gateway drug to stupid thinking. The tenants of virtually all religions are ridiculous. Yet people walk around acting as if they are proven facts. They get mad at us when we ask them for the slightest proof. Usually they pull out an old book, written by Iron Age people who didn’t know shit about anything, least of all how the universe works.

It’s not just religion, it’s “New Age” and alternative medicine and astrology and all sorts of things that lead people to believe that any view is just as valid as any other view. That is nonsense.

I have no beef with theists, per se. I know and love many of them. But the core principles of their beliefs are arbitrary and absurd.

Examples include religious zealots who think that the “rights” of an unborn blob should trump those of a grown woman. Of that we should take scripture into account in foreign policy. Or that we should pray for people who are sick, sometimes instead of modern medical treatment. Of that some of us are damned to hell and deserve their hatred because we are godless and therefore evil. Of that we should teach creation myths to children in science class.

You might not be one of those people but this country (the USA) is full of them.

You haven’t made a case at all, BTW, that atheism is “childish and immature”. How so?

Anyway, I ask a single question:

What is “wrong” with religious belief?

You write in your previous post that “[religion and spirituality] adds up to a shit ton of wrong and dangerous thinking”

I believe a citation is needed here.

Of course, there are a number of atrocities committed in the name of religion.

Just as many, however, have been committed without religion.

If you do want to play this game, then I would suggest that a good case could be made for atheism as a major precondition for the rise of Nazism in Germany: Nietzsche, Hitler’s favourite philosopher, is nothing if not aggressively atheistic (and equally anti-Christian). But really, the cause of Nazism was not atheism per se, but nihilism inspired by misinterpretations of Nietzsche.

Furthermore, what about the countless Christians who have been persecuted under the banner of communism? The cause of the Soviet gulags and the Cambodian killing-fields was atheistic communist regimes. Indeed, some of the greatest atrocity of the twentieth century were all committed by Mao Zedong. One could argue that his atheism was the reason for the 77 million dead Chinese killed by his actions.

But, does that mean that all atheists are bad people?

That’s certainly a logical fallacy if I’ve ever seen one.

So what’s wrong with people who try to live a holy life.

They might be delusional – but you can’t prove that, can you?

And surely, you don’t mean to accuse you people like Martin Luther King Jr or Ghandi or Mother Teresa of being evil?

What’s important is not your beliefs or what you stand for. What’s important is how you help make this world a better place.

Atheist or Theist shouldn’t matter.

Thank you.

By the way, if you believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, you need to read some of its history. Here’s a shorty—The bible as we know it today is a compilation of roughly 66 books authored by at least 40 people (many anonymous) over a period of 1600 (yes…. one thousand six hundred) years. The new testament was canonized almost four hundred years after the death of Christ and many books were of uncertain authorship and many were left out (see the gospel of Mary Magdalene and the gospel of Thomas). The decision on what to put in and what to leave out was made largely by the bishop of Lyon (Irenaeus)……not God. The book was translated and transcribed at least 25000 times by different organizations with their own interests, including an incredibly powerful and corrupt holy catholic church which gave us a fine history of holy events such as the inquisition, the crusades, indulgences etc…..
All I can say is…. If you believe the bible is the divine infallible word of god knowing its history ……I have a fucking bridge to sell you. The bible is no basis for reaching any scientific conclusion.

I would guess we are in the process of discovering science, we gain insights and intelligence all the time.

and as always

If,
God is Love

and
Love is Blind

and
Ray Charles is/was Blind

therefore
Ray Charles is God

Aeryck, great fucking point, dude!

If you wish to believe in god and want to explain creation via that belief, more power to you. But it is complete and utter folly to try to equate it with actual scientific theories. We can explain the universe from nanoseconds after the Big Bang through to today without the need for a deity of any kind. In fact, conceptually, deities have slowed down our progress in understanding the universe. We have yet to find a “theory” involving a deity that wasn’t wrong. Science, on the other hand, converges on the truth, more each day.

The most I hope from theists is an acknowledgment that, if there is a god, he was smart enough to create a universe we can understand through science.

Fortunately, modern biology and the theory of evolution has progressed beyond paleontology and discovery of fossils. Today with advances in molecular biology, we able to study the development of a variety of different species and, whether it is a starfish, fruit fly, zebrafish, frog, mouse, human etc., there is a common genetic toolbox that is responsible for the development of the organism. Changes to the genes and/or changes in the regulation of the expression of genes combined with natural selection over millions of years remains the best scientific explanation for the “endless forms most beautiful” we see in world today. Darwin’s theory of evolution has not only survived 150 years of scientific testing, it is the basis for modern human biology and medicine. No designer or faith required:)

Yes, of course, science if flawed.

I don’t think “science” is “flawed”. It might appear that way if you think of it as some sort of ultimate arbitrator of all truth, but it’s only science.

The origin of the creator is indeed something I cannot explain scientifically. Then again the origin of the universe has not been explained scientifically either. I hope we can both agree that either scenario involves a leap of faith.

In your blog you stated that “science has pulled us out of the muck and given us a chance to be civilized and socialized”. I’ll assume for now that you were referring to Darwin’s theory of evolution. That theory requires us to believe that there was muck to begin with.

So, where did the muck come from? What about the rest of the intricacies of the universe? Does Lemaitre’s Big Bang theory answer it satisfactorily? That would also have us believe that everything came from nothing and lucky for us, the universe fell into balance and on at least one planet there was muck around that was capable of evolving into what we are today.

Evolution with a species has been observed scientifically. Advocates of Darwin’s theory have hoped to find supporting progressions in the fossil records. What people have referred to as the “missing link” wouldn’t be just one skeleton buried somewhere in the vast world, it would be millions of them. Yet somehow Darwin’s theory of evolution is considered fact.

Sagan’s conclusion as you put it “universes are easier to explain than gods” is actually a red herring. Scientifically speaking neither are easier to explain than the other.

My belief in intelligent design is based on at least these two things. The universe itself is evidence of a creator and that creator has documented it in the Bible.

That is a very common argument and it is deeply, deeply flawed. Looking at an all-powerful being capable of creating universes indicates that this awesome being must have had a creator.

Right?

You are comfortable claiming god has no creator but you are uncomfortable with the notion that the universe has no creator?

It’s gotta end somewhere. You choose a vague and superstitious notion called “god” for reasons logic can’t explain. Atheists, as Carl Sagan said, skip a step and reach a more simple conclusion — universes are easier to explain than gods.

Science (without presuppositions) declares the glory of God.

I am no religious zealot (which you know), I just hear a “bit” of zealotry coming from you on this topic and like to throw a broom handle in the spokes …that is if your wheels have spokes, and room for broom handles..

I believe you were raised Catholic? The sheer history of the Catholic church is a facinating journey of faith and control…often more on control of a populous than anything else. For 100’s of years the most powerful man on the planet was the Pope (still is for millions of Catholics)…at any rate, as I have stated before…IMHO before you trash ‘religion’ (in this discussion christianity) you need to understand more of what you are dismissing…..exactly like my example of “Pluto”….I tossed that off as unimportant…in your words “I trusted an old authority” …but unless christianity to you is as unimportant as pluto is to me, it deserves more understanding.

It to is an education of the mind, the spirit and the soul.

Not that I am “biblical” but if you read it for what it is (a 2000 year old book of letters) instead of reading it from “your fathers ideology” it might make more sense….(actually my readings, the little I do, are focused on getting me to tolerate organized religion…which I still think is 70% a crock of shit…..but then again, organized anything contains significant amounts of shit)

great discussions tho- because they lead everywhere and cover everything.

at one point I believe we made a partial list of our own commandments.
1. don’t fuck with other people
2. don’t fuck with other peoples shit
3. treat others the way you want to be treated.
4. ….

science is contantly updated….religion should be also…but isn’t…(see radical muslims, christians, budhists….at least budhists just light themselves on fire instead of messing with the entire world)

and to close…
everything is superstition and mythology once you dig into it….no one has the “corner” on anything. (except for those dudes that make really good single malt scotch…they have it figured out)

It’s a word game. I do not believe in Klingons. Am I am a-klingonist? No. We don’t bother defining all the things we don’t believe in. I don’t believe in god because there is no reason to. If there was evidence, I would. There is not so I don’t. That is what an atheist is. Some atheists say “There is no god.” I don’t quite say that, I say what I said above: the theory to beat is that there is no god.

Thinking things are possible does not make you a theist. Do you worship god? Do you think he answers prayers? Did Christ die on the cross for you? There is all sorts of crap that theists believe — do you? Or not.

Acknowledging that there are unknowable things does not make you a theist. If you are not a theist you are an a-theist.

The fact that our knowledge evolves is because of science. That does not mean that science is somehow at fault. You had faith in the sense that you trusted an authority. You did not have faith in terms of believing something without evidence. They are different. The whole thing with Pluto is definitional and not particularly important.

You can call atheism a belief system if you want but you keep missing the most important point: atheists “believe” things with evidence and do not believe things without evidence. That’s it. It’s not complicated, it’s not religion, it’s just adopting a worldview that does not depend on mysticism.

I know you and I know you are a very rational guy and a critical thinker. You are not the “problem” the way some religious people are. I have a lot of respect for your views. But you are still rooted in your father’s theology and it is indefensible once you dig into it. Religion is superstition and mythology. I’m sorry, but it is. You’ll come around some day.

By sheer definition of the word the argument is “nearly” moot.

For a long time I believed that Pluto was a planet.

Apparently Science is also full of fiction as we draw conclusions with fragemented information on topics that we certainly do not understand in their entirety.

I had “faith” that Pluto was a planet, now they say ‘no’ it is not….I believe or I don’t believe? (I have decided to not care…but how many millions of “scientific facts” have proved false, or partially false over the course of history?)

Look up Religion and the various definitions…none of those definitions describe your thoughts on atheism?

I think we can come to common ground with the thought that 90% of all humans are basically “good”….whether atheists, agnostics or one of the many many other reiligions…the other 10% basically ‘dicks up’ everything and should be bitch slapped and placed on dessert islands……

As to the value of the discussion, I believe that the God argument does have value in that it inevitably leads to the contemplation of the questions you posed( “why are we here” and “why is here here”). These questions are important and clearly have elements which are not susceptible to scientific answers.

If you reread my post, I’m not saying we have a corner on critical thinking, I’m saying that we outperform the average. Atheists almost never believe bullshit like astrology, for example.

And as proof goes, there is way, way, way more “proof” of my belief system than yours. Yours has none and mine requires none.

ie….becoming an evangelical atheist is different than the evangelical christian how?

to state that atheists have a corner on “critical thinking” just isn’t a logical statement…I believe you have over generalized some very broad topics…

you have no more proof of your belief system than I have of mine. You will never prove that God does not exist. I certainly have no desire to prove to you that he does.

I agree 100% with Levi, “religion should play no part in defining scientific pursuits”….

IMO it is all about “Grace”….if we could all live with Grace (not sondreal) we would be a much better society.

I agree, there are unknowable things. we don’t know why we are here or why there is a “here” at all. but postulating a universe-creating deity brings us no closer to understanding those questions.

BTW, I don’t claim “god does not exist”. I claim, like most atheists, that there is no more proof of god than there is proof of the Easter Bunny. The theory to beat is that there is no god.

I’m just not a theist. Either are you!

Chapter 12 on “un-reported Iraqi deaths” is where this link should take you.

http://fora.tv/2009/05/20/Censored_2009_The_Top_25_Censored_Stories_of_2007-08#%20

Dude you said “I am pro-mistreatment of …” What exactly am I mischaracterizing? You guys want to torture enhanced interrogate these guys. What insults did I hurl? I think I characterized your argument quite accurately. You think Obama is a pussy for taking the high road. I think he’s a leader.

And dood, I’m not confused at all and your constant stooping to ad hominem attacks just illustrates the weakness of your positions.

The CIA does not admit it tortured anybody.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/05/mccain-speaks-out-against-waterboarding.html

It is torture and our official policy has to be NO FUCKING TORTURE! The fact that the CIA only admits it tortured three guys is not an arguement.

But again, I never pretend except in my personal life.

I’m talking to whomever listens. You seem like a smart and reasonable person. I welcome your thoughts. But many of your comments border on “concern trolling” where you pretend to agree with me while you pick away at little inconsistencies. I know I’m not always right. I know I am juvenile at times and I know that I undermine my ability to persuade because I give in to name calling and profanity-ridden ranting. I also know it rubs some people the wrong way. I’m OK with that. Who am I talking to? Whomever reads it. I’m have no agenda, I’m not trying to be popular, I don’t care if people think I’m an idiot. I’m just amusing myself.

With that said, I truly enjoy robust debate when the participants are fair-minded. I’ll gladly discuss anything you want! but yes, i’m name calling, yes, I know it is stupid. I am doing it anyway. the end!

To address this reply, I’m probably one of those unusual types who reads with his best attempt to maintain an open (but not sieve-like) mind and objective attitude. My comments here and on a couple of your other posts relate to that.

If everyone is a retard or a dumbshit or an asshole, then those terms lose meaning. I got that you don’t like Limbaugh and Hannity, perceptive reader that I am. Your best point, to me, about that was your statement (paraphrasing) that they evaluate everything only in terms of how to spin it to demean “the left” and aggrandize “the right.” This told me more than calling them “idiots” or “retards” or whatever.

It’s your blog, I just dropped in. But who are you talking to if not me?

I don’t care how precise you think my insults are. I’m trying to insult their intelligence and I believe I have reasonable cause to do so. If you want to discuss something, please pick something more substantial.

my hyperbole is me expressing the emotional side of my point of view. I know it is juvenile and probably counter-productive but I choose to show my anger sometimes and that is my right. I know there are more persuasive techniques but sometimes I just want to vent.

And Stout wrote that when $1M was a lot of money.

What was your position with respect to Jewish students who protested the appearance of Ahmadinijad at Columbia University?

By the way, I got here from the dotphys.net site. You have some interesting things to say and I share some of your interests (I was WB9AAE, I was engaged in model rocketry, astronomy and astrophotography, etc.), but you use an awful lot of hyperbolic (in the rhetorical, not mathematical sense) adjectives.

I’m not sure how much U.S. research is funded by the French.

As to the Revolutionary War and France’s help, it’s not untrue but it wasn’t done for altruistic reasons.

The allies (including the U.S.) won World War 2 with much thanks owing to the Soviet Union, and that was considerably more recent. They didn’t turn out to be such reliable allies, did they?

Wait, never mind. Don’t shoot .30-06 bullets straight up, unless you are a Mythbuster in the Mojave Desert.

Wait, never mind. Just stay the hell out of my desert.

Someone who has faced the adversity of racism may very well have better or or may very well have worse judgement. There are certainly victims of racism whose ability to be objective is completely tainted, witness the OJ trial. I don’t mean to imply Sotomayor is such a person. As I stated in my blog post on the topic, my concern is whether or not she’ll be able to live up to the oath she will have to take. Comments she’s made, including the one you cite, make me skeptical. But I’m open to being shown that such skepticism is unwarranted.

But not everyone is keen on shooting sports.

Myself, though I expect her to be confirmed, I don’t expect to applaud her confirmation.

I find me calling myself an idiot sometimes for some stupid thing I’ve done. I have to remind myself that I was merely a fool. There’s a difference.

As far as the abortion bait goes, I don’t believe they are babies. I think people who claim they are babies are uninformed and oddly uncaring about the rights of the mother, who is for sure a human being. I prefer that people don’t have abortions but making them illegal is insane.

All other human beings, I’m pretty much anti-mistreatment of them.

Just so we’re clear. Because for you to try and characterize me as a person who is for the mistreatment of human beings would be equal to me characterizing you as a person who is for the killing of babies.

So let’s please stay away from the rhetoric and try and have an intellectually honest debate.

Even though we made every effort to stay on the good side of that line as well. We gave those fucktards more consideration then they deserved IMHO.

When our soldiers are captured, we want the Geneva Conventions followed. Yet we won’t follow them. We want our soldiers unharmed by their captors. Yet we harm our prisoners, some of them literally tortured to death. Some of them tormented to suicide. None of them given anything like due process. We don’t even know who half of them are or what they did.

We don’t stick up for just the rights of the just, we stick up for the rights of everyone. Or some of us do, I guess.

I’m not a pacifist. I’m OK with our soldiers killing people who are trying to kill them. I am not sympathetic to the cause of your average person in Gitmo. But I will not ever support torture or things that closely resemble torture for anyone for any reason. Neither should you.

We are playing against an enemy who follows no rules, will do ANYTHING including killing innocent children, women, anyone who stands in their way. We, on the other hand, poor some water down their face to convince them they should tell us where the next attack might be coming from. WE ARE NOT EQUAL TO THEM. We are better, we are more civilized, we are more respectful of laws and human rights. Look at frerakin’ Gitmo, that is the most humanely run prison camp in the history of earth. Our guards where gloves when they handle the Koran, the prisoners get better health care than most Americans, etc, etc. Would our soldiers, if captured, get anywhere near that kind of treatment anywhere in the world?

If our soldiers were plotting the purposeful deaths of innocent women and children, planting car bombs in public places, and engaging in the kinds of tactics that out enemy engages in, then yes, I would not blame our enemies for using whatever means necessary, short of actual physical harm such as cutting off fingers, heads, whatever, to find out about additional attacks. We would deserve it, and so do they.

It is not torture and I am fine with them using these techniques on real live murdering malicious evil fucktards.

From the Powerline article…

The question is legal, however, not political. Congress has never defined any of the techniques in issue as torture, although it easily could have, and “the opinion of many who have examined the topic” can be invoked to support the contrary view.

And they go on to preface their argument by saying…

Assuming for the purposes of argument that the interrogation techniques are torture…

Yet you try and spin it by saying that “I can’t think of any other explanation. If you listen to Cheney or the guys at Powerline, the only impression you can be left with is, if torture works, we should use it.”

Really, that’s the ONLY impression you can be left with?

Wow.