JackC
-
Content
2,153 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never -
Feedback
0%
Everything posted by JackC
-
2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved
JackC replied to rushmc's topic in Speakers Corner
Scientists are not lawyers. Scientists are in the business of discovering reality, not defending a predetermined position and by and large they perform that role admirably. While falsification of data undoubtedly happens from time to time, it is rare and is arguably the most serious crime in scientific circles and anyone found doing it will be struck off in short order. But that is the beauty of the peer review system. Anyone who falsifies results will get found out sooner or later; for reality never lies. -
Erm, cutting and pasting without citing your source and attaching your own name to it is plagiarism by definition.
-
Sentence no. 1 "All cults deny what God says in His Word [the Bible] as true". In other words, anyone who isn't a biblical literalist christian is in a cult. But from the first entry in the dictionary definition of the word cult, anyone who practices "a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies." is in a cult. Hence it is arguably true that the author of The Marks of a Cult is actually, as the dictionary defines it, in a cult. If you are going to cut and paste chunks of unreferenced text from someone elses writings and attach your name to it, you should be aware that exposing that plagiarism is as simple as cutting and pasting a sentence into google. Isn't there some kind of commandment against stealing and bearing false whitness?
-
I'd say that whoever wrote that lot, is probably in a cult himself.
-
I imagine it's like a park full of born again's all trying to out-christian each other. The thought of that is enough to give me the heebee jeebees.
-
If I have to choose between fictional characters, I'd rather go for Daffy Duck.
-
Before you go off trying to imply the purpose of the universe is caused some kind of divine intelligence, you must first demonstrate that the universe has a purpose. I won't hold my breath.
-
Hence the name "the Agincourt salute".
-
As I see it the first clause of the first amendment says "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". It doesn't say "establishment of the Christian religion" or the "Islamic religion" or even "a religion", it simply says "religion". That must surely mean any and all religions since the wording specifically uses the catch-all designation of "religion". So with that in mind, putting "In God We Trust" on bank notes constitutes a federally funded endorsement of God and since God is the defining feature of religion, including it is in violation of the first amendment. Similarly, "one nation, under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance also contitutes a federal endorsment of God and is also in violation of the first amendment.
-
For a man who complains about PAs at the drop of a hat, you sure like to play dirty.
-
My irony-o-meter just imploded, but the laugh you just gave me was totally worth it.
-
Another non-sequitur from mnealtx. Well done.
-
Ahh, but then people who jump out of aeroplanes aren't skydivers, they have a personal relationship with freefall.
-
Mike, the point is that a holiday from religion X isn't a federal holiday but a holiday from Religion Y is a required federal holiday. If you cannot see that as clear favouritism of religion Y over religion X then I suggest that your sense of fairness needs recalibrating.
-
See above - what is the gain, here? Would it be OK for federal employees to be required to observe Ramadan instead of Christmas?
-
I can't remember the model (Chive maybe?), the smallest one anyway. I fell out with it after it tried to bite my giblets.
-
I've got one of the smaller speedsafe Kershaws, it's as sharp as they come but a bit flimsy for anything but light duties. The "safety" catch isn't particularly safe in my opinion either. Not an ideal EDC option unless you want to stab yourself in the balls when it opens in your pocket.
-
I've used the same Kershaw for general purpose EDC for nearly 20 years. The bolsters are getting a bit scuffed now but the blade has held up well. It doesn't like to sharpen to a razor edge quite like some knifes do but it does hold it's edge well. Based on my experience, I'd buy another if I lost it.
-
If you want a discussion on this, perhaps you should post a brief paragraph on what this "Dover" case is all about, to pique interest. Personally, I don't care to go chasing down a blog site to find out. ~ JohnRich
-
But Jack! You said earlier you can't blame the person for acting on it - and now you say you do! 'Just say NO!' Mr Vortexring, please read my post again, you have misunderstood. Now the question is do I blame you for misunderstanding or me for being a crap writer? Let me think...
-
You would have a point if Ronald McDonald was in fact God, or if the Bible/Koran/whatever was theologically equal to a McDonalds advert (for the purposes of the argument, I'll give you either of those). But most believers would argue that their book is significantly more influential than a McDonalds Advert and that God being likened to a clown is blasphemy. But wait... some people are trying to blame McDonalds for obesity. and blame gun makers for shootings. They are obviously quite mad.
-
Many holy books contain shite that can easily be interpreted as justification for violence and people do just that. You may not like that interpretation (I don't) and you may blame a person for acting on it (I do) but these people believe the justification is there. That is because the author of the book was either incompetent or he wanted it that way. If a person brainwashes other impressionable people into commiting murder, by intent or by negligence, then that person would also be guilty of murder. So the book (or more correctly the author) is not entirely blameless.
-
I seriously disagree. Most religious books are written very obviously as an argument from authority, as a set of instructions from a divine being to be believed and followed. Unfortunately most religious books are also very poorly written and as a result are very easy to interpret (or misinterpret if you prefer) as justifying violent acts. This is undoubtedly the fault of the author of the book, who must have been either: a) utterly incompetent b) intentionally convoluted and ambiguous for some reason or c) actually wanted people to use the book to justify violence You can blame any person dumb enough to believe and act on those justifications, but you can't blame the person for misinterpreting them.
-
I disagree, religion is what it is. The fact that religion apparently justifies evil acts is just as much a problem with religion as it is with some of it's followers. If your religious tome says "When you meet the unbelievers, strike off their heads" and believers go around lopping unbelievers heads off, you cannot put all the blame on misinterpretation.
-
For either of your examples, if they knew the action was wrong and they followed orders anyway I think Nuremberg principle IV could be applicable. "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."