David Knowles reports at Bloomberg that former Hewlett-Packard CEO and potential 2016 presidential candidate Carly Fiorina called out Apple CEO Tim Cook as a hypocrite for criticizing Indiana and Arkansas over their Religious Freedom Restoration Acts while at the same time doing business in countries where gay rights are non-existent. “When Tim Cook is upset about all the places that he does business because of the way they treat gays and women, he needs to withdraw from 90% of the markets that he’s in, including China and Saudi Arabia,” Fiorina said. “But I don’t hear him being upset about that.”
In similar criticism of Hillary Clinton on the Fox News program Hannity, Fiorina argued that Clinton's advocacy on behalf of women was tarnished by donations made to the Clinton Foundation from foreign governments where women's rights are not on par with those in America. ""I must say as a woman, I find it offensive that Hillary Clinton travels the Silicon Valley, a place where I worked for a long time, and lectures Silicon Valley companies on women's rights in technology, and yet sees nothing wrong with taking money from the Algerian government, which really denies women the most basic human rights. This is called, Sean, hypocrisy." While Hillary Clinton hasn't directly addressed Fiorina's criticisms, her husband has. “You’ve got to decide, when you do this work, whether it will do more good than harm if someone helps you from another country,” former president Bill Clinton said in March. “And I believe we have done a lot more good than harm. And I believe this is a good thing.”
Related Stories
Apple's chief executive Tim Cook offered part of his liver for a transplant to Steve Jobs before the company co-founder died, but the offer was rejected, a new book states.
The book said Jobs reacted angrily to the offer to help extend his life when he was suffering from pancreatic cancer.
"He cut me off at the legs, almost before the words were out of my mouth," said Cook, according to the book, "Becoming Steve Jobs," due to be released later this month by Brent Schlender and Rick Tetzeli.
Cook quoted Jobs as saying, "I'll never let you do that. I'll never do that."
Jobs refused the offer even though Cook had the same rare blood type as Jobs and as a result would have been compatible, the book said. Because the liver can regenerate, a partial transplant from a living donor can often be successful.
http://phys.org/news/2015-03-tim-cook-liver-steve-jobs.html
[Also Covered By]:
The Washington Post, CNet and AppleInsider.
The Telegraph reports Silicon Valley executives are taking extreme measures to protect their privacy:
The famously discreet technology set are going to extraordinary lengths to keep their affairs secret, regularly employing what is legally referred to as a “domestic non-disclosure agreement”.
The agreements, or gag orders as they are more commonly known, do not concern matters relating to their businesses however, but rather to innocuous home renovation work.
The documents can compel contractors to keep quiet on everything from the details of a house’s floorplan to the styling of the garden shrubbery and the colour of the paint. Even the mere mention of their client’s name could see a painter, electrician or gardener slapped with an expensive lawsuit.
It seems as though in their eyes, what's good for the goose is not good for the gander. Still it seems their efforts will ultimately fail given that they live in a world surrounded by other people, the vast majority of whom are not billionaires. It's only a matter of time before somebody builds a crowdsourcing platform to invade their privacy.
Anyone who follows American politics will have heard of Hillary Clinton's email server. Rather than using an official State Department address, she chose to use a private server for her official email. Federal law requires all official email to be archived on government servers. Armchair lawyers have pointed out that it doesn't require the use of government servers to send and receive the email, but the archival requirement is clear. This requirement was clearly violated in this case: in response to a subpoena, Hillary Clinton's private staff extracted emails from her private server and turned them over to the government. The contents of the server itself were never made available to the government, and now she has had the server erased:
Hillary Clinton wiped “clean” the private server housing emails from her tenure as secretary of state, the chairman of the House committee investigating the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi said Friday.
“While it is not clear precisely when Secretary Clinton decided to permanently delete all emails from her server, it appears she made the decision after October 28, 2014, when the Department of State for the first time asked the Secretary to return her public record to the Department,” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi, said in a statement.
As Popehat tweeted:
@Popehat
I ask you, who among us hasn't wiped a server clean after its contents were requested by subpoena?
I naively wonder why she isn't in jail, but that's just me. Comments and views from those interested in American politics?
(Score: 2, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @10:52AM
He likes Money more than he cares about Gay. That might be why he has lots and lots of Money.
(Score: 2) by fadrian on Monday April 06 2015, @12:52PM
Nah, that's why he's got lots of Monet's.
Actually I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me. God knows he could afford 'em.
That is all.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Monday April 06 2015, @05:12PM
I can't believe the solution was so simple -- it should have been pay the gay away. They've been doing all wrong these years!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 24 2015, @02:47PM
4XhOo9 xuepsduyriux [xuepsduyriux.com], [url=http://cenmxmwhfafn.com/]cenmxmwhfafn[/url], [link=http://tgtetaxpzfws.com/]tgtetaxpzfws[/link], http://frrzcogizjtw.com/ [frrzcogizjtw.com]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 06 2015, @10:53AM
All of America's "liberal" left embraces Islam, while dumping on Christianity.
Despite past conduct, homosexuals have come out of the closet here in the "Christian" United States, without being killed. Let them try that in any Muslim country, or even Muslim-majority country. Idiots - the homos will be beheaded, women's libbers will be stoned to death, and all the liberals will be imprisoned if not killed. Idiots.
Next, they'll be appropriating government funds to build mosques throughout the US.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @10:56AM
That's OK as long as the mosques are also homeless shelters for the masses who can't find work or housing in the Obamanation.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by wantkitteh on Monday April 06 2015, @11:05AM
(Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 06 2015, @12:24PM
Nope. They dump openly on Christianity, no matter how mainstream or how "extremist", while clamoring for the "rights" of Islam and sharia law.
Tell me - what neighborhoods in the United States have vigilante Christians posted to prevent non-Christians from entering? Maybe you would like to google "Muslim no-go zone" to see what Islam has in mind for America?
http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/dearborn-no-go-zone-where-islam-rules-and-christians-are-stoned [clarionproject.org]
http://www.inquisitr.com/1763922/americans-beware-muslim-no-go-zones-are-here-in-the-united-states-video/ [inquisitr.com]
Snopes claims that it's all a hoax - but you can watch the freaking video of Moslem mobs stoning Christians who dare to speak up.
Find me a video of Christians stoning Muslims. Find one of Christians stoning homos. Find any of Christians stoning women for failing to cover their faces.
Don't give me that hypocritical shit. Open your eyes and look. In the mideast today, Muslims are killing Yazidi Christians just for being Christian. You don't find Christians ANYWHERE in the world slaughtering non-believers just for being non-believers.
Pull your head out, and put the Kool-Aid down. Islam has NOTHING in common with liberalism. Want to be a liberal? I have an idea - BE A LIBERAL!! Dump the Democrat party, and act LIBERAL. You'll respect yourself a lot more, I'll respect you some, the world will respect you.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @01:00PM
God you're dumb.
(Score: 3, Funny) by fadrian on Monday April 06 2015, @01:36PM
Even though I'm not religious, Amen.
That is all.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @02:18PM
Like burning Christian crosses on lawns in a neighborhood where a black man had the gumption to break God's law and get run into by a white woman? Yes, it was 50 years ago, but it's not like it was in the middle ages.
If you prefer more modern examples, there are people in the US who in the name of Christianity try to interrupt funerals for gay people. Or the places where they try to (are enacting God's Law, or "sharia" if you prefer a non-English word) to block abortion clinics. And didn't President Bush bring the country to war because "God told him to" (or maybe it was just he "consulted with God")?
As a side note, I'm sure you'll find lots of liberals do criticize the Democratic party. There is a reason why many classify themselves "libertarian." For what it's worth, the Democratic Party (and "the left") in the US is very different than political liberalism, much like the Republican Party (and "the right") in the US is very different than political conservatism.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 06 2015, @02:30PM
Your ignorance is overwhelming. Tell me - WHICH CHURCH endorsed those actions?
No, I'm not denying that some people burnt crosses on black family's lawns. I'm denying that ANY CHURCH ENDORSED THOSE ACTIONS!
Find me a church that endorses, encourages, and openly flaunts these actions.
Now, tell me, WTF is going on in the mideast today? ISIS is openly destroying historical sites, trying to destroy any cultural ties with the past, killing anyone who isn't Muslim.
Did you read about that hit on the university? A gunman demands that you recite some passage from the Quran - you fail, he puts a bullet in your head. How is that for tolerance and acceptance?
Once again - people better pull their heads out of their orifices, or that same shit will be happening here.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by LoRdTAW on Monday April 06 2015, @05:23PM
So, tell me. Which Mosques preach no-go zones, stoning christians and "Jihad"? You can't switch from bashing ALL Muslims as a whole based on the actions of a few to then trying to defend christians from christian extremism by trying to separate them based on a per church basis. You are desperately grasping at straws, and might I add: missing by a long shot, trying to make your point here.
In the end, you are the ignoramus who is spouting nonsense.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 06 2015, @06:16PM
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=imam%20preaches%20jihad [google.com]
Number two hit in that search has in imam near Washington D.C. who answers to your description.
Third hit has another imam who has connections to D.C. and New York.
Fifth hit another imam in Chicago.
Sixth hit cites the FBI as stating that 10% of imams in the US preach jihad.
Next to the last hit on the page has another in Tennessee.
I leave it to you to browse the following pages. Jihad and hatred of the United States, as well as hatred of infidels is widespread throughout the Muslim world.
Perhaps you need to read this assessment - it's been published many times, but it seems liberals never get the message:
https://heavenawaits.wordpress.com/muslim-behavior-with-population-increase/ [wordpress.com]
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/01/the_muslim_population_of_america_is_expanding_at_warp_speed.html [americanthinker.com]
To summarize an oft-quoted section:
When the Muslim population remains at or under 2%, their presence tends to fly low under the radar. In the 2% – 5% range, Muslims begin to seek converts, targeting those they see as disaffected, such as criminals. When the population reaches 5% they exert influence disproportionate to their numbers, becoming more aggressive and pushing for Sharia law. When the population hits the 10% mark Muslims become increasingly lawless and violent. Once the population reaches 20%, there is an increase in rioting, murder, jihad militias, and destruction of non-Muslim places of worship. At 40%, there are “widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare.” Once beyond 50%, infidels and apostates are persecuted, genocide occurs, and Sharia law is implemented. After 80%, intimidation is a daily part of life along with violent jihad and some state-run genocide as the nation purges all infidels. Once the nation has rid itself of all non-Muslims, the presumption is that ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ has been attained – the Islamic House of Peace.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Monday April 06 2015, @08:05PM
I'm not going to argue that Muslim clerics aren't preaching violence and hatred against gays and non Muslims. There are certainly those who are. When someone countered your arguments by mentioning Christian extremism you tried to dodge them by demanding the individual church containing said preachers be named.
counter example:
If we allowed the loony christian extremists to have their way, what would the USA look like? My bet is... no wait, *I guarantee you* we wouldn't look much different than any of the "modern" oppressive Muslim nations. We would be indistinguishable.
Bottom line: All religion should perish. We have no need for silly beliefs. If you want to be spiritual, fine. Just keep it to yourself.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 06 2015, @08:21PM
The proof that you are wrong, is the fact that Christianity ruled this country for years. We still have remnants of that rule - so-called "Blue Laws" for instance. Despite the "intolerance" of Christians, we have what we have today, do we not?
When you speak of "extremist Christians" in the United States, you are just blathering.
One of our more horrific episodes in Christian America was the Salem witch trials. What happened there? Did the federal government come in, and outlaw any future witch trials? Nope. The state got involved, but the state didn't even pass any laws regarding witch trials. What really happened was, the church leadership was rational enough to realize what happened - and they put a stop to witch trials.
Do you see this happening in Islam today? No - you do not. Instead, you see Muslims clamoring for the right to impose Sharia law on their communities, their nations, their neighbors. The LOVE to put people to death in messy ways. Christianity was shamed by their excesses, while Islam begs for ever greater excesses.
Wake up and smell the coffee.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Monday April 06 2015, @09:28PM
Yea. And? So what Christianity ruled this country. It is still a majority and still influences the daily lives of people and government. Why do you think we still have morons trying to re-enable religious freedoms by denying people service using their religious beliefs as an excuse? If you don't think that is extremism then you need help. I'll grant you that most of the stuff coming from present day Muslims is bat shit insane. But it does not reflect all Muslims. And it is not unique to them.
Remnants yes but not too long ago Christianity was much more oppressive in this country. Women couldn't vote and lacked many rights which was supported by christianity: http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter10.html [biblicalnonsense.com]
Slavery was also defended by christianity [google.com]
Need I go on? And lets just ignore the middle ages when people were tortured and horrifically executed for heresy, homosexuality and other things deemed unsavory by the church. As a modern nation we evolved to become better people.
Islamic extremism is actually a more recent problem after the governments of the USA and others decided to become oil company whores. They started mucking around and wound up destroying progressive democratic governments (see Afghanistan) in order to ensure that oil companies had dibs on middle eastern oil reserves. Who put Saddam in power and armed the Taliban? The US government. My cheap whore of a government actually fucked up entire nations so some dynasty can waltz in and drill for oil. If they didn't destroy those nations and install friendly oppressive governments then those people would tell them to piss off and sell the oil themselves. Couldn't have that now could we? So we pissed all over them until we have the mess we have today. If the USA and others did not actively destroy the middle east for the past 60+ years then we would not have the problems we have today.
Correct! The Federal government didn't put a stop to it because it didn't exist for at least another 80 years.
The state of Massachusetts did not exist either, it was a crown colony called Province of Massachusetts Bay.
So are you denying their existence, ignoring their presence or defending them?
Are all muslims begging for it unanimously? Or more likely, a few nut jobs using their oppression combined with their common beliefs as a tool for manipulation? In my opinion, Europe screwed themselves by letting so many Muslim immigrants in, millions of them. All the while, where are they getting jobs, living and becoming educated? The overcrowding combined with discrimination has further pushed them down. What do they have left? What do they have in common to find solice? Answer: Religion. I guarantee you if the European Muslim population had jobs, money and went to school we would not see the current behaviour.
And Christianity had plenty of gruesome, violent excess but it thankfully calmed down some a long, long time ago.
Been awake and had a few cups already. Thank you very much.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @10:31PM
The US is not and never was a Christian theocracy. Christianity has never ruled the US.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday April 07 2015, @02:40PM
I'd like to somewhat disagree with you. While yes, we are not a christian theocracy, our government has enacted laws shaped by the christian religion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2015, @07:15PM
None of which are specific to or only exist in Christianity.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @05:31PM
> Find me a church that endorses, encourages, and openly flaunts these actions.
Church of the National Knights of the Ku Klux Klan [splcenter.org]
Church of the American Knights of the KKK [adl.org]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @11:35PM
> No, I'm not denying that some people burnt crosses on black family's lawns.
> I'm denying that ANY CHURCH ENDORSED THOSE ACTIONS!
The Church of Jesus Christ-Christian [jta.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Monday April 06 2015, @09:45PM
Like burning Christian crosses on lawns in a neighborhood where a black man had the gumption to break God's law and get run into by a white woman? Yes, it was 50 years ago, but it's not like it was in the middle ages.
No, it still happens. [abc27.com]
(Score: 1) by axsdenied on Monday April 06 2015, @02:31PM
Sounds like you want to be exactly like them, just on the other side of the fence...
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 06 2015, @02:56PM
I think you are projecting.
Want to play some numbers games? Compare the number of people put to death throughout all of the Inquisitions in Europe, to the number of non-Muslims killed in the past year or two by ISIS. Islam is a truly malignant movement.
Like them, you say? Sonny, if I kill someone, they will be armed, they will be facing me, and they will have some kind of a sporting chance to defend themselves. Have you seen the images of Muslims blowing out the brains of infants, because their parents were Christians? Killing Kurdish babies? ANY babies, it doesn't matter, so long as they aren't Muslim. And, if they do happen to kill a Muslim baby, well, Allahu Akbar - Allah's will be done.
TRANSLATION: Kill them all, let God sort them out.
THAT IS ISLAM!
(Score: 2) by tathra on Monday April 06 2015, @06:17PM
yes, extremists are bad and should be stopped.
and there you go off the rails with faulty generalizations. [wikipedia.org] try again without the sophistry.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 06 2015, @06:40PM
Sophistry my arse. Look at the world today. Where are all the trouble spots? Where are people dying en masse? Who is doing the killing? TODAY, not a thousand years ago, or even five hundred years ago. Christianity was never this extreme, and it has mellowed over time. Count the bodies.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
And, no, you do NOT get to claim that either Hitler or Stalin were Christian, or that they committed their crimes in the name of Christianity, or in the name of God.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Monday April 06 2015, @06:55PM
like i said, extremists are bad. using extremists to generalize an entire religion is fallicious, specifically faulty generalization. even if you're fine with people using Westboro Baptist Church and the Church of the American Knights of the KKK to generalize for all Christians, its still a faulty generalization and thus not valid.
again, try again with the sophistry. either put together - at minimum - a logically consistent argument or stfu. your constant spewing of fallicious, hate-filled arguments only makes your own religion look just as bad as what you're claiming of another religion which you obviously know nothing about.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 06 2015, @07:01PM
"which you obviously know nothing about."
Now you claim to know Islam? Are you Muslim? No?
The sophistry is all one-sided here. Islam incites violence throughout the Pacific island nations, throughout Asia, and it is beginning to be violent in Europe. Africa has known nothing but violence for decades, most of it Islamic.
The sophistry is coming from your side of this - uhhhh - discussion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @07:03PM
> Now you claim to know Islam? Are you Muslim? No?
He might not be. But my wife and inlaws are and they are nothing like the bullshit you are selling.
(Score: 1) by t-3 on Monday April 06 2015, @09:16PM
Buddhists are killing people in Burma, Sri Lanka, Indonesia. Christians are killing in Ethiopia and Eastern Europe. Muslims are killing in the Middle East. Quit being a closed-minded ignorant dick and actually think about the world you live in. Also, Christianity was MORE extreme. During the Crusades, it was straight up religious genocide all day. Muslims have Sunni-Shiite, Christians had massive wars between Protestants and Catholics, and also between Catholic sects and many different purges of heretics and the like. In fact, Protestants and Catholics are STILL killing each other in Eastern Europe.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 06 2015, @09:21PM
Christians are killing in Eastern Europe? Maybe you have a link to that. I'm aware of some fascist rat bastards who are intent on ethnic cleansing of Ukraine - but I was NOT aware that those fascists were invoking the Name of God in their war against Russian speaking people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @10:37PM
Its not Eastern Europe, but here [wikipedia.org] and here [wikipedia.org] you go.
No True Scottsman, ahoy!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 06 2015, @06:45PM
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/06/middleeast/iraq-mass-graves/index.html?eref=edition [cnn.com]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 06 2015, @06:49PM
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/boston-bombing-trial/boston-marathon-bombing-trial-reaches-closing-stages-n336201 [nbcnews.com]
(Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Monday April 06 2015, @03:14PM
Your ignorance is overwhelming.
ISIS (or what everyone who actually lives in the Middle East calls "Daesh") is currently a declared enemy of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, UAE, and Syria, and is widely opposed by most of the residents of the Middle East as well as by their governments. It's about the only thing that everybody in the Middle East agrees on. The only reason Daesh has any kind of traction whatsoever is that the governments in Baghdad and Damascus have been even worse to the residents of the area now controlled by Daesh than Daesh has been.
The reason that liberals tend to be supportive of Islam is not because they support terrorism or stoning people to death, but because the vast majority of Muslims don't actually behave like that and blaming them all for that is both bigoted and wildly inaccurate. Mosques don't, as a rule, promote terrorism as an appropriate action to take, and numerous clerics and scholars have spoken out against it (sometimes risking their life to do so). Your average Muslim basically wants a good job, a reasonable guarantee of personal safety, and time to spend with his family - in other words, what your average Christian wants.
Liberals also are quite supportive of liberal Christianity: When Pope Francis goes around emphasizing taking care of poor people, liberals are happy to support it. Heck, many liberals *are* Christians - I've found people with liberal views in Catholic, Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopal (Anglican), black Baptist, and congregational churches.
Also, if you're looking for some bad stuff that Christian churches have endorsed:
- Christian ministers pushed Uganda to pass a law that allowed the government to round up and kill homosexual people (they eventually were convinced to change that to locking them up for life). Hundreds of thousands of people have signed on to a similar measure in California.
- There are many Christian ministers who endorse the utter slaughter of the non-Jewish residents of the Middle East. They're truly upset that the US isn't at war with Iran right now.
- There are many Christian churches that advocate the male head of household beating his wife and children. In addition, many Christian leaders do not consider it rape if a husband forces his wife to have sex.
- Many Christians (and pretty much all Jews, for that matter) endorse male genital mutilation a.k.a. circumcision.
- Many Christian churches historically were advocates of racial segregation and discrimination. More than a few had ties to the KKK.
- Many Christian churches oppose abortions that are necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman.
- Many Christians in the United States endorse very publicly the idea that Christians should have more political rights than everybody else.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 06 2015, @03:33PM
"(sometimes risking their life to do so)"
Imagine that. When was the last time the Pope, or a bishop, issued a fatwah against some other cleric with different views? What barbarians - and you help to make my point.
Your points against Christianity are noted. Also noted, are the lack of citations.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday April 06 2015, @06:53PM
Here is another citation for you to ignore:
Lord's Resistance Army [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 06 2015, @07:04PM
Uh-huh. And, who endorses this "army"? The pope? American baptists?
Maybe you should read the article you cite in it's entirety. It explains who and what the "Lord's Army" is. It could go further in depth with the explanation, but it most assuredly makes the point that it is NOT part of Christianity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @07:09PM
You've got a big case of no true scottsman fallacy going on there.
> And, who endorses this "army"? The pope? American baptists?
So if religious authorities fail to endorse a sect that makes the sect not part of the religion?
What if religious authorities actively denounce a sect? [mediamatters.org]
(Score: 2) by AnonTechie on Monday April 06 2015, @07:52PM
Death of Savita Halappanavar:
The death of Savita Halappanavar on 28 October 2012, at University Hospital Galway in Ireland, led to nationwide protests—which spilled over into India, Britain and many other countries—calling for a review of the abortion laws in Ireland. Halappanavar, a woman of Indian origin, was suffering from a miscarriage (which was later assessed to be most likely due to a bacterial infection), when she was some 17 weeks pregnant, she sought medical attention and treatment at University Hospital Galway. Beginning no earlier than the date of her hospital admission on October 21, her requests for an abortion were refused, instead being told that due to her fetus retaining a heartbeat and her life not appearing to be in physiological danger, this was not legal. On one occasion she was told "it was the law, that this is a Catholic country." On the night of October 23, according to Praveen, her husband, Halappanavar was standing in a restroom and collapsed. The following day the foetal remains were removed from her womb on 24 October in the operating theatre due to a diagnosis of septic shock being made by a consultant, per Irish law. Savita Halappanavar's septicemia further deteriorated despite being treated with oral antibiotics for infection since late October 22 and intravenous antibiotics since October 24. Both were ineffective and her condition rapidly evolved to the point of organ failure and finally cardiac arrest and death on 28 October 2012. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar [wikipedia.org]
Albert Einstein - "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 06 2015, @08:29PM
Doctors were less than competent - and they allowed their religious beliefs to interfere with their diagnosis. Got it - and your point? Oh - abortion. Well - I'm opposed to abortion in general, so I can't follow you on that line of thought. I can agree if you are condemning those doctors for incompetence.
Oh - you're trying to make a case that incompetent doctors are a Christian thing? I certainly hope not!
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2015, @11:30PM
I think the point is that religion (specifically the Roman Catholic form of Christianity in that case) interfered with proper medical care. The religiously inspired laws directly contributed to that woman's death. You can't simply call the doctors incompetent.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by HiThere on Monday April 06 2015, @08:08PM
WRT circumcision:
Male circumcision has arguments in it's favor, as well as against it. It does, e.g., offer a measure of protection against some diseases. It's not profoundly disabling. (There are those who claim a minor decrease in sensitivity, but I doubt that there can have been reasonable comparison studies, so I feel free to doubt them.)
OTOH, other similar practices, e.g. subincision, or when circumcision is performed in a non-sterile environment, etc. really are difficult to accept. I understand their historic rationale, but I still find them hard to accept. Also I'm assuming that circumcision is performed under an anesthetic (local).
Even so, this is a matter that is ... I have difficulty accepting it as desirable. I just don't consider it horrible. Perhaps if I had not been circumcised as an infant I'd have a different feeling. I doubt that it would be more positive.
Still, I don't think that it's correct to lump circumcision in with the other abominations committed by those Churches and Ministers that, without much contradiction, call themselves Christian. But do note that many Christian Churches and Ministers don't accept the abominations that you recite as valid Christian behavior. And certainly the New Testament gives them scant grounds for acceptance.
The Muslim situation is a bit different. Their primary source book was written by a Religious leader engaged in armed struggle for dominance, and it reflects that. There has been a great Muslim civilizations that did not consider those an essential part of the teaching (at least the fragmentary records seem to indicate that), but it was wiped out by the Mongols. The survivors were from the fringe, and again needed to practice the military virtues, and ignore the military vices. This has created a quite unfortunate religion that the planet would be much better off without, but there's no obvious reasonable way to get from here to there. The ideal way would be to de-emphasize the effects of religion in communal life, but many people seem to have an inbuilt need for some "great sky father", however unreasonable that may be. And certainly there are plenty of reasons to not trust those who are guided by non-religious emotions. They are often merely power seekers, and have no care for ethics. (I'd say "or morals" but too many people read that as sexual, which is only vaguely related to what I'm talking about.)
Please note: One shouldn't whitewash the vile Christian behaviors on a wide scale just because it is currently restricted to relatively powerless groups. But the New Testament doesn't give them valid religious grounds for their behavior. So that is probably more a matter of "the love of power entices the corrupt, and further corrupts those it entices", and ANY group that seizes power on that scale should not be trusted. No matter HOW they got it. The Catholic Church became powerful through largely peaceful means, if you exclude things like the forcible conversion under Constantine and Charlemagne. And you will have to excuse me if I consider that more a means of shrewd amoral politicians seeing a path to power. Then, of course, it was powerful, and embraced the amoral corruptions of power rather then attending to the actual religious message. But do note that as soon as the Christians became powerful, rather than abolishing the arena they started sending Pagans to it. (And I must admit that even in this case I'm avoiding such things as the massacre of the Nazarenes under a Christian general of a Roman army. This lead to the destruction of those maintaining (as near as can be told) the original Christian belief...whatever it was. The New Testament is a grossly unreliable source in this matter, being mainly that which the Christian group at Rome found acceptable and desirable. Much was censored long before the Council of Nicea, but nobody is quite sure what it said. That it may well have been radically different is shown by how different the Gospel of Thomas (from the Coptic Church) is from the others. but this doesn't mean it was like that, either. All of the "official documents" were preserved by some group with a particular ax to grind. The variation from different sources (and forgive me if I count the standard New Testament as being from only one source, but it came under the power of the Church of Rome. I believe that the Nazarenes has a quite different set of beliefs, just judging from fragmentary records I've encountered. The Byzantine Church and the Church of Rome made various agreements as to what should be included, so their general agreement doesn't count for much. And both gave clear evidence that they were more interested in power than in purity of doctrine (unlike the Jews arguing over the meaning of the Torah, who seem to have given priority of purity of doctrine, even if they seem to have occasionally gotten it wrong).
FWIW, most Muslims seem concerned with purity of doctrine. If I thought more highly of their doctrine than I'd approve of this more. And with most doctrines different groups hit on different parts as the most important. So many Muslims actually are peaceful, and see their religion as peaceful, despite the literal reading of the scripture if you give equal weight to all parts. Unfortunately, there are enough parts encouraging violence that purity of doctrine doesn't provide any shield against the more violent desires that some people have.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Bot on Monday April 06 2015, @09:54PM
I think people got it backwards. There is no good liberal Christianity against bad Christian fundamentalism.
The faith is fundamental by definition. Deploring fundamentalism is being a troll or having been trolled, because a Christian fundamentalist is a Christian, can't do anything but follow the word and example of the guy called Christ (with the problem of trusting written words, or the tradition, or the examples of earlier believers), who was a pretty harmless guy.
Some examples you reported are clearly not following the words nor the example of Christ.
Forcing people to follow your belief is especially anti Christ, the guy never ever forced anybody. Attention to sexual issues is also suspect because the guy never raised the subject (being adulterous is a breach of social contract more that a sexual issue). What about discussing the things that made Christ angry in the temple, instead?
Account abandoned.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @10:46PM
I don't think I've ever met a self-proclaimed Christian who followed the words or example of Christ. Every single one I've met just cherrypicked and twisted the scripture to support their pre-determined biases and prejudices.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @02:15AM
There is a word for people who cherrypick facts to support their pre-determined biases and prejudices: "People"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday April 06 2015, @11:03PM
That, in essence, is the "No True Scotsman" fallacy: I was responding to the argument that Christians don't endorse awful things by pointing out many awful things that were indeed endorsed by Christian leaders. The answer of "Well, they aren't real Christians" doesn't hold any more weight than the argument (which many have made in the Muslim world) that Daesh leader Ibrihim al-Badri is not a true Muslim.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by Murdoc on Tuesday April 07 2015, @11:15PM
I don't think that the No True Scotsman fallacy applies here. Being a Scotsman (or whatever) is both an inherent quality and one that does not prescribe behaviour. Being a member of a religion however has neither of these traits (even though most people only belong to their religion because of what they were raised to believe by their family and society, it is still not an inherent quality). It does prescribe behaviour. So if you belong to Religion X, and it says "Don't kill under any circumstances" and you go around killing people, I think that that disqualifies you from being properly called a member of that religion because you are not following the prescription. If there are many such prescriptions (as there usually are), how many you follow properly I think qualifies you as being "more or less" of a member of that religion, and if not all then you can say that they are not a "true" member. NTS only applies when characteristics are being talked about that do not have anything to do with the actual quality or requisites of the thing being discussed (such as wearing a kilt a certain way for a Scotsman, since the only thing necessary to be a "True" Scotsman is to be born in Scotland).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @12:09AM
I agree, but at the same time I don't. The only way we can know somebody's belief system is by them self-identifying it, and the church isn't going to ban people from attending because they don't follow Christ's teachings perfectly, so even if they do the opposite of every single teaching in the book they can still be "Christian", otherwise we need new terms for people who state they have a certain belief system but whose actions say otherwise.
When it comes to religion, whatever they self-identify as is their religion is their religion, whether they practice it or not.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @12:51AM
No True Scotsman applies when someone completely arbitrarily decides that someone isn't a True X even when they fit the definition.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @03:25PM
> Muslims are killing Yazidi Christians just for being Christian.
Yazidi aren't christian any more than they are muslim.
> You don't find Christians ANYWHERE in the world slaughtering non-believers just for being non-believers.
Sure. Christians aren't emptying entire muslim villiages in the Central African Republic. [reuters.com]
The overwhelming majority of ISIS's victims are muslims. Your hang-up on christian victims makes it sound like you watch the 700 club because that's the kind of myopic stupidity that robertson regularly puts out.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @05:56PM
> Find one of Christians stoning homos.
Your word choice is pretty revealing there.
(Score: 1) by t-3 on Monday April 06 2015, @09:07PM
Wow, you think assholes getting mobbed for xenophobic/racist/religiously inflammatory shirts and posters means sharia law is in effect? I was just in Dearborn yesterday, no problems at all. Maybe that's just because I'm not a complete dick.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 06 2015, @09:27PM
Yes, assholes being mobbed is a sign of the "peaceful religion", right?
So - you're ready to justify a mob of people stoning gays, the next time THOSE assholes hold a gay pride rally? Same thing, Pal. A mob is a mob.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @11:22PM
> A mob is a mob.
EXACTLY!!!!
Mob violence has no religion, no race, no culture. It is a human thing.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Monday April 06 2015, @09:41PM
Tell me - what neighborhoods in the United States have vigilante Christians posted to prevent non-Christians from entering?
The No-Go zones have been so througoughly debunked that even Fox News apologized for covering them.
It must take actual effort to purposely keep yourself this misinformed.
Fox News corrects, apologizes for ‘no-go zone’ remarks [washingtonpost.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday April 06 2015, @12:36PM
Rational religion? That doesn't even make any sense. Try again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @04:37PM
> Rational religion? That doesn't even make any sense. Try again.
Only to a binary thinker. Religion is an exceptionally complex part of the human existence, to dismiss it entirely due to some parts which are unfalsifiable is a kind of reductionism befitting a 12-year old.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday April 06 2015, @05:45PM
Nonsense. There's no evidence of magical sky daddies, so I have no reason to believe in such a thing. I also have zero reason to be part of any religion. How complex religions are is irrelevant.
to dismiss it entirely due to some parts which are unfalsifiable is a kind of reductionism befitting a 12-year old.
Only to a "binary thinker".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @07:59PM
> Nonsense. There's no evidence of magical sky daddies,
See, that is reductionism in the extreme. "Magical sky daddies" are only tiny facet of any religion.
> Only to a "binary thinker".
I do not think that means what you think it means.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday April 06 2015, @08:58PM
See, that is reductionism in the extreme. "Magical sky daddies" are only tiny facet of any religion.
No, that is a huge facet, because it indicates they are irrational for believing in something without evidence. You can't have a rational religion that encourages people to believe in magical sky daddies. I don't care if you think that is "reductionist"; it is nonetheless correct.
I do not think that means what you think it means.
It means exactly what I think it means. Or do you not like your own words being used against you?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @09:06PM
> No, that is a huge facet, because it indicates they are irrational for believing in something without evidence
As a practical matter it is a TINY facet. It isn't like God is interceding in the daily affairs, it is all just people decding what's important and what's not.
> I don't care if you think that is "reductionist"; it is nonetheless correct.
Oh it is correct, it is just of minor import.
> It means exactly what I think it means.
Your circular reasoning is funny coming from someone who claims that an irrational belief is a huge disqualifier.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday April 06 2015, @09:19PM
As a practical matter it is a TINY facet.
I disagree entirely. As soon as you involve supernatural garbage or magical sky daddies, your religion is irrational right off the bat.
it is all just people decding what's important and what's not.
Often based on holy books and the teachings of imaginary magical sky daddies or other supernatural oddities.
Your circular reasoning is funny coming from someone who claims that an irrational belief is a huge disqualifier.
There was no circular reasoning there. You have a poor grasp of logic or your reading comprehension needs work.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @10:04PM
>> As a practical matter it is a TINY facet.
>
> I disagree entirely. As soon as you involve supernatural garbage or magical sky daddies, your religion is irrational right off the bat.
What have learned today?
Words Anal does not understand:
reductionist
practical
binary
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday April 06 2015, @11:08PM
I'd say it's you who lacks understanding.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @10:53PM
Not surprising, considering how much you're exemplifying the Dunning Kruger effect while discussing the subject. As an atheist, I don't expect you to know anything about religion. An atheist as a self-proclaimed expert on religion is laughable.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday April 06 2015, @11:13PM
Not surprising, considering how much you're exemplifying the Dunning Kruger effect while discussing the subject.
That's not an actual counterargument, and could easily be applied to you as well. Anyone can make such random assertions.
As an atheist, I don't expect you to know anything about religion.
What is it that you want? Do you want me to read fairy tale books? That is meaningless.
I don't know if you realize this, but my position that belief in magical sky daddies is irrational does not require me to have much specific knowledge about any religion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @11:19PM
> As an atheist, I don't expect you to know anything about religion.
Sorry, I'm the atheist he's been arguing with in this thread and I say you are totally off.
For one thing, atheists have the highest amount of general knowledge about religion. [npr.org] Which makes sense - religious people tend to be experts in their particular sect, but know nothing about any other religions. They will have a more narrow knowledge while those not married to a sect will have a more broad knowledge.
But what I do believe is that as an atheist, Anal hasn't bothered to understand the religious impulse at all. He's so ridiculously dismissive of what he doesn't understand that he can't be bothered to understand. He's taken it on faith that it is all irrational and thus there is nothing of value there. That makes him the worst kind of atheist, the kind that has turned his atheism into a religion itself.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday April 06 2015, @11:26PM
But what I do believe is that as an atheist, Anal hasn't bothered to understand the religious impulse at all.
Not understanding it and calling it irrational are two different things.
He's taken it on faith that it is all irrational and thus there is nothing of value there.
It's not faith. It can be plainly observed that a grand majority of religions have supernatural elements to them, which is irrational. I don't think you can just minimize the irrationality by saying that it's just a tiny facet of religion; I believe it's important.
That makes him the worst kind of atheist, the kind that has turned his atheism into a religion itself.
Lacking a belief in deities is not a religion. Neither is observing that religion is irrational.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2015, @02:55AM
> Not understanding it and calling it irrational are two different things.
It could be, but in your case they are two sides of the same coin.
You are like the queen of flatland, completely and utterly convinced that there are no more than 2 dimensions in the universe. For you a 3rd dimension is so incomprehensible that you can do nothing more than deny its existence.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday April 07 2015, @03:47AM
It could be, but in your case they are two sides of the same coin.
So you say.
You are like the queen of flatland, completely and utterly convinced that there are no more than 2 dimensions in the universe.
I don't know how you can say what I am or am not utterly convinced about.
You say the matter of magical sky daddies is, in practice, a small facet of religion. I disagree. I see it as a big problem if you want your religion to be rational. That belief without evidence (not just in god, but in the holy books that are often revered) is irrational. There are other parts to religion, but that is an irrelevant point of discussion to me; you keep acting like I say they don't exist, but that's not what is happening.
For you a 3rd dimension is so incomprehensible that you can do nothing more than deny its existence.
You're just not seeing The Truth. You've turned your disagreement with me into its own religion, resembling that of the worst religious fundamentalists. Obviously. The word "religion" can mean anything and any belief is simply a religion, especially if it's a belief you disagree with. Like all those evil hardcore atheists; that's a religion right there. Just use "religion" as a generic insult.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2015, @07:17PM
Grand majority != All
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday April 07 2015, @07:49PM
Yes, and?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @12:12AM
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday April 08 2015, @11:03AM
In practice, it doesn't make sense. What about it? A grand majority of religions are irrational garbage (with the remaining few being rather pointless, as they don't need to be religions), and a few exceptions to the rule won't make me change my statement.
I see you're more interested in scoring 'points', though. The Religion Defense Force to the rescue!
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Tuesday April 07 2015, @08:49AM
Try forming an argument - proof by assertion is no proof at all.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday April 07 2015, @02:03PM
I already stated my argument before; you want me to repeat it constantly for you people? Believing in something without a shred of evidence of irrational. There is no evidence for the existence of magical sky daddies or supernatural garbage, so rational people will lack a belief in such things.
Next time you might want to try reading other posts rather than saying that someone isn't putting forth an argument because they aren't constantly restating the same things in every post they make.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Monday April 06 2015, @06:26PM
i disagree, it makes perfect sense. Baha'i [wikipedia.org] is definitely rational. "Baha’is believe in the independent investigation of reality, and encourage everyone to question dogma, tradition and superstition in a personal search to discover the truth."
the baha'ullah specifically said: [bahaiteachings.org]
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday April 06 2015, @07:23PM
God
There goes rationality.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Monday April 06 2015, @07:57PM
"God" doesn't always mean "sky fairy", but your mind is already made up on the matter so there's no point in trying to discuss it.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday April 06 2015, @09:01PM
Right. It could also be some irrational newage nonsense. It just depends on who you're talking to.
But I read part of that article, and it sounds suspiciously like magical sky daddies are at work.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Monday April 06 2015, @09:18PM
if you'd read the quote, you would know that belief in magical sky faeries is mere superstition:
to Baha'is, God must be scientifically quantifiable:
"magical sky daddies" are contrary to reason and do not agree with science, thus faith and belief in them are impossible. and this is straight from the Baha'ullah, the founder of Baha'i.
how God can be scientifically quantifiable and still be God is left to the individual:
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday April 06 2015, @09:25PM
And why would this be a religion? The Wikipedia article even mentions prayer. I think I'm just going to go play with a newage bullshit generator or something.
how God can be scientifically quantifiable and still be God is left to the individual:
Interesting dodge.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Monday April 06 2015, @09:47PM
"prayer" is just a form of meditation, even for christians. [wikipedia.org]
how is taking the words at face value a dodge?
its clear that you're not really interested in this and had your mind made up long ago, and no new facts or new information will ever influence you on the matter, so i'm done wasting my time. i'd have a better debate talking to a wall.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @10:07PM
Its clear that you're not really interested in this and had your mind made up long ago, and no new facts or new information will ever influence you on the matter
Don't you know, atheists can't be dogmatic. They are immune to irrationality!!!
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday April 06 2015, @11:05PM
"prayer" is just a form of meditation, even for christians.
Right. Christian prayer totally has nothing to do with deities.
how is taking the words at face value a dodge?
Because it smells like new age bullshit. Redefine "god" and "prayer" and suddenly everything is 100% secular.
its clear that you're not really interested in this and had your mind made up long ago, and no new facts or new information will ever influence you on the matter, so i'm done wasting my time. i'd have a better debate talking to a wall.
its clear that you're not really interested in this and had your mind made up long ago, and no new facts or new information will ever influence you on the matter, so i'm done wasting my time. i'd have a better debate talking to a wall.
There, your own words right back at you. Need I remind you that you haven't agreed with me yet? That must mean you're closed-minded!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @11:12PM
> There, your own words right back at you. Need I remind you that you haven't agreed with me yet? That must mean you're closed-minded!
The difference is that he understands your argument and is saying there is more to it.
He is agreeing with your analysis and adding to it.
You, on the other hand insist that there is nothing to the topic beyond your own personal understanding.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday April 06 2015, @11:20PM
The difference is that he understands your argument and is saying there is more to it.
I'm also saying there is more to it than he lets on.
You, on the other hand insist that there is nothing to the topic beyond your own personal understanding.
Maybe my personal understanding is, in fact, correct. Or maybe my original comment mocking the notion of "rational religion" applies to a grand majority of religions and I don't care about a few exceptions to the rule. Either way, I'm skeptical when I see mentions of gods and prayer, but I guess you could define those to mean literally anything (or that they should be defined in a certain way) as seems to be the case here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2015, @03:15AM
> I'm also saying there is more to it than he lets on.
Like what? I don't see you talking about anything more. In the venn diagram of this discussion your position is fully encompassed by his.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday April 07 2015, @03:38AM
He tries to put forth that religion as rational, but if you read the articles, it reads as new age nonsense. References to god, prayer, creation, true religion, synergies, and other such things. Probably all defined in a very 'creative' fashion. If their intent is to paint themselves as rational, they can do a better job than this.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Tuesday April 07 2015, @06:21PM
what christians believe has nothing to do with this discussion, except for...
prayer has always been a form of meditation, and don't let the christian idea of god fool you into thinking its the only one, or even a valid one. God is not a blond haired, blue eyed, bearded white guy sitting in the clouds. an anthropomorphized god is a powerless, petty, insignificant god. even one of the branches of christianty acknowledges this - gnosticism (and because of that, and because it put so much emphasis on searching for knowledge and personal truth and such, The Church did everything they could to destroy it and all of their teachings, because what the gnostics believed and taught didn't line up with the narrative The Church wanted to push so they could control everyone). God, by definition, is beyond human comprehension (using the metrics of this universe at least), and usually has the traits of "omnipotence, omnipresent, and omniscient"; whether this means "God" is the universe itself or some being from outside of our universe is unknown (and left to the individual to ponder), but what i quoted clearly states that anything irrational, anything that defies reason, like magical sky daddies, is pure superstitious nonsense.
until it can somehow be verified, the idea of a multiverse is just philosophy, but the science does point that way, and if there is a metaverse, just like its statistically impossible for humans to be the only life in our universe, its statistically impossible for humans to be the only life in the entire multiverse, and the concept that the universe is a simulation running on some trans-dimensional computer (which would, of course, require somebody to write the program and such) isn't totally irrational, so its not like these ideas and concepts are purely held by cloudcuckoolanders.
belief in God and religions can be rational, especially when the creator of the religion specifically states that it must be, and must conform to the standards of science and reason.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday April 07 2015, @08:02PM
what christians believe has nothing to do with this discussion
Your words: ""prayer" is just a form of meditation, even for christians."
Clearly, then, what Christians believe *is* relevant. Just because you think prayer is merely meditation doesn't mean everyone believes that. A lot of religious people do not.
whether this means "God" is the universe itself or some being from outside of our universe is unknown (and left to the individual to ponder)
Enough. If you want to refer to the universe, just use the word "universe." Don't define "god" as "universe"; that's confusing garbage. And there's no evidence for beings outside of our universe, so that too would be irrational.
but what i quoted clearly states that anything irrational, anything that defies reason, like magical sky daddies, is pure superstitious nonsense.
And yet in that article we have things like "god", "prayer", suggestions that humans were created, "God's commands", and other new age-sounding nonsense like "profound synergism".
If you're going to redefine prayer as mere meditation, use terms like "god" while referring to something different than the sort of god that people usually think of when they hear that word, and throw in a bunch of new age-sounding nonsense, don't be surprised when people start thinking you're talking nonsense. If you mean meditation, just use the term "meditation." Come up with a better term than "god." Write in a logical, consistent, and easy-to-understand way.
Frankly, we really don't need a religion at all, 'rational' or not. It's just not necessary.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Tuesday April 07 2015, @10:23PM
good to know that you consider stuff like simulation/holographic theory [bgr.com] and multiverse theories [space.com] to be irrational nonsense. there's also no proof for string theory, so that too much be irrational nonsense, along with the big bang theory, anything having to deal with "before" or "after" the universe, dark matter, dark energy, and countless other "scientific" theories that have no supporting evidence. the only problem is the word "rational" itself - anything that can be reached logically is, by definition, rational. so far your only argument is "proof by repeated assertion", you have yet to find any logical flaws to support your pre-defined conclusion, which means you're the one being irrational here.
all i'm using is two quotes, what anyone else says or does has nothing to do with my argument.
well duh, but only for prayer, which is why i said "except for" and then covered prayer, which is just vocal meditation.
i'm not redefining anything, you're just ignorant and insist that your understanding of the subject is the only possibility.
i already said the christian idea of god is nonsense, and does not come from any of their religious texts at all nor any of the texts predating upon which christianity is built. idiots who think of a bearded white guy in the sky are wrong, per the bible itself.
except for the fact that it seems to be hardwired [studentpulse.com] into humans, so its no different than the urge to eat or fuck.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday April 08 2015, @11:19AM
good to know that you consider stuff like simulation/holographic theory and multiverse theories to be irrational nonsense.
At the moment, there is no proof of some being outside of our universe, which is what you mentioned.
Also, if they haven't yet been proven, then believing them would indeed be irrational nonsense. They should be explored scientifically, but not believed without actual evidence.
the only problem is the word "rational" itself - anything that can be reached logically is, by definition, rational.
If there's no actual evidence for something, and you believe it anyway, then you haven't reached that position logically. You lack a logical basis for believing in it.
so far your only argument is "proof by repeated assertion", you have yet to find any logical flaws to support your pre-defined conclusion, which means you're the one being irrational here.
Straw man. You're the one who lacks the ability to grasp basic logic.
You're telling me what I think is merely a "pre-defined conclusion"; two can play at that game. You believe in a magical sky daddy who hates gay people. There, I've told you what you believe even if I have zero evidence of that. Have fun. You remind me of the religious people who spew forth nonsense like, "You know in your heart that god exists." Telling others what they believe or why they believe it is nonsense.
all i'm using is two quotes, what anyone else says or does has nothing to do with my argument.
You linked to those articles yourself, in addition to using quotes. You have no one to blame but yourself.
well duh, but only for prayer, which is why i said "except for" and then covered prayer, which is just vocal meditation.
You didn't say "except for" at first. And obviously, if some people believe otherwise, prayer is *not* just vocal meditation. A lot of people pray to gods and expect results, and not even just Christians.
i'm not redefining anything, you're just ignorant and insist that your understanding of the subject is the only possibility.
Nope. I'm just using the most commonly-accepted definitions of the terms that we have available. If you use the terms in different ways from how they're commonly understood without sufficiently explaining yourself (like those articles do), you have only yourself to blame if people get confused.
i already said the christian idea of god is nonsense, and does not come from any of their religious texts at all nor any of the texts predating upon which christianity is built. idiots who think of a bearded white guy in the sky are wrong, per the bible itself.
Yes, you have said this numerous times. But this isn't just about you, but about the articles you yourself linked to, which use confusing terminology that makes it sound like new age nonsense.
Why use the word "god" at all? Why not use more appropriate terms, like "universe" (if that is what you mean)? There is no need to use terms like "god", "prayer", or anything else.
except for the fact that it seems to be hardwired into humans, so its no different than the urge to eat or fuck.
That's a comical comparison. Eating keeps you alive, and sex allows us to continue the species. As for sex, well, there are asexuals, so that's not universally true.
Whether that science holds up remains to be seen, but even if it is true, we should strive to eliminate illogical impulses. I know I have no desire to be part of some garbage religion, so that's a start.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Wednesday April 08 2015, @06:31PM
hm, lets see
yup, totally open to new ideas and possibilities. definitely not repeating the same thing over and over again to refute my claim or similar ones, and definitely not begging the question there, with your premise and conclusion being that all religion is irrational nonsense, nope, not at all.
not true. irrationality is believing in something that has been disproven or outright impossible. it hasn't been proven that the universe is real and not just something fabricated by the brain, yet you believe it is real and all there is and can be. there's no proof that other people are real, yet you certainly believe other people are real (otherwise why bother arguing?). hell, there's not even any proof that you're real or that you have the freedom to change yourself or anything in your life (in fact, science is showing that the concept of "free will" - being able to choose anything for yourself - doesn't exist in any way). there's all kinds of things that are accepted without direct proof, but that's not a problem until those things have been proven wrong. all of science is built on falsifiability - nothing is proven true in science, instead everything that is not true is eventually proven to be false. believing in something that is factually incorrect and/or been proven wrong is delusional and irrational; believing that it might be possible for there to be more than can currently be proven with today's technology is not.
the sources are just as proof that i didn't make them up. you do understand how posting sources to back up your claims works, right? how could i prove to you that the creator of that religion stated that its beliefs must conform to reason and logic if not for posting those sources? the rest of the articles have nothing to do with my claim (plus that religion was built on top of all the other major religions, so it couldn't stray too far from them, else unifying all religions - a core component of baha'i is that all religions are the same and from the same source - would be impossible), which is that that religion clearly states that anything that does not conform to reason or logic is superstition and not to be believed. a religion that requires its followers to throw out irrational beliefs and to only believe in rational things must be rational, for any irrational beliefs are, and i quote, "superstition" and "belief in [them is] impossible".
there's a huge difference between "confused" and "refusing to accept any new information as valid". the former is fine, everyone is ignorant until they learn, the latter is "invincible ignorance fallacy" and "argument from pigheadedness", maybe with some "argument from personal incredulity" thrown in. this might also be taboo for you, perhaps your worldview requires that there be no possibility of anything outside of this universe, or even anything outside the earth since it can't be proven that anything 'above' the surface is real until we actually go there.
because people are stupid, and there's no way to know. stuff back at least as far as kabbalah, if not farther back, points to the conclusion that "God" = the universe itself though, its only when christians came along and started equating god with a white guy that everything got all fucked up and made petty and stupid. gods can be anthropomorphized, but an anthropomorphised god cannot be "God". we are both in total agreement that magical sky fairies are irrational, superstitious nonsense.
nobody is asking you to be. nobody is asking you to change your beliefs. i don't agree that illogical impulses should be eliminated though, because that would require with doing away with all emotions; i like being human, i don't want to be an emotionless machine.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday April 08 2015, @10:09PM
yup, totally open to new ideas and possibilities.
What do you want me to do, accept everything you have to say without any critical thought? Ignore problems that I see? If we're talking about being open to new ideas and possibilities, you are apparently not open to the possibility that my observations are correct or that there is a problem. You're confusing someone disagreeing with you with someone being closed-minded. Sorry if you can't handle a disagreement.
and definitely not begging the question there, with your premise and conclusion being that all religion is irrational nonsense, nope, not at all.
My position is actually that, in practice, religion is irrational. That applies to a grand majority of religions. There may be very, very few exceptions, but I care not for such exceptions to the rule. Even then, I don't see the point of them, so they're not really worth mentioning. And a hypothetical "rational religion" is almost at the point of not even being a religion anymore.
not true. irrationality is believing in something that has been disproven or outright impossible.
I think it is true. If you believe something without evidence, you are being irrational because you have no logical reason to do such a thing.
It hasn't been proven that there isn't a magical pink unicorn living on Mars. There's all sorts of nonsense that has not been and cannot be disproven, but that doesn't mean you're not irrational for believing in it.
Look, question the existence of the universe if you like, but don't compare that to people who refuse to believe in fairy tales or beings outside the universe without evidence. I care about results, and science has a history of nice results. And, from what I see, it's more productive to assume the universe is real than to assume it isn't without evidence. The situations simply aren't comparable to me.
there's a huge difference between "confused" and "refusing to accept any new information as valid".
The article you linked to uses terminology that leads people to believe it's just another run-of-the-mill irrational religion that promotes magical thinking. That is why I thought what I did.
the sources are just as proof that i didn't make them up. you do understand how posting sources to back up your claims works, right? how could i prove to you that the creator of that religion stated that its beliefs must conform to reason and logic if not for posting those sources?
And the sources had some confusing content, is what I'm saying.
because people are stupid, and there's no way to know. stuff back at least as far as kabbalah, if not farther back, points to the conclusion that "God" = the universe itself though, its only when christians came along and started equating god with a white guy that everything got all fucked up and made petty and stupid. gods can be anthropomorphized, but an anthropomorphised god cannot be "God". we are both in total agreement that magical sky fairies are irrational, superstitious nonsense.
Well, maybe we are, but they need a better PR guy.
nobody is asking you to be. nobody is asking you to change your beliefs. i don't agree that illogical impulses should be eliminated though, because that would require with doing away with all emotions; i like being human, i don't want to be an emotionless machine.
For instance, we should fight the desire to have children so often. 7 billion people is simply too many, and there are many kids without families. Mindless breeding is not good, though that doesn't mean no breeding.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday April 08 2015, @10:12PM
My worldview does not require me to not believe in things outside the universe. However, I lack a belief in such a thing until they have been proven to a sufficient degree, much like with god. I'll wait for the scientific consensus on this.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Thursday April 09 2015, @05:09PM
well your argument is "even though the founder specifically said anything not supported by reason is not to be believed, i refuse to accept that he actually said it", so i find the idea that your premise is correct as a bit absurd. you can disagree with what he said all you want, but your argument that he didn't say it at all is pure denialism, the height of irrationality.
so the practical application of religion is irrational? meditating, seeking personal enlightenment, taking care of the needy, bonding with others, etc, thats all irrational? surely you mean "in theory" since the practice of religion, what people do because of it, has very little to do with anything supernatural. their reasons for doing it might be an irrational fear of supernatural punishment or whatever, but the actions themselves are rooted in reality. only they know their reasons, everyone else only knows their actions, so the reasons shouldn't matter to anyone but the individual.
so believing in mathematics and anything abstract is irrational. thats a strange notion. you're also raising the barrier for science impossibly high since, again, there's very little that can actually be proven, and science works by not believing in anything that has been proven wrong, rather than only believing in things which have been proven 100%.
no argument there. if people in general are hardwired to be spiritual or religious, i'd much rather their belief system demand rationality and to not believe in supernatural nonsense like magic sky fairies.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday April 09 2015, @05:28PM
well your argument is "even though the founder specifically said anything not supported by reason is not to be believed, i refuse to accept that he actually said it", so i find the idea that your premise is correct as a bit absurd. you can disagree with what he said all you want, but your argument that he didn't say it at all is pure denialism, the height of irrationality.
I'm going by the article that you yourself linked to. Anyone can claim to love science and rationality, even people who accept nonsense like homeopathy. So the mere fact that the founder said one thing or another is literally meaningless, as they could also then go on to say something else that is nonsense.
And, also, that's a straw man. I never said that he didn't say it. Why do you feel the need to use straw men every two seconds? Where did I say anything about denying the founder said something? You seem to think you can just tell other people what they believe and make up arguments and say they're the ones who put those arguments forth.
so the practical application of religion is irrational?
A grand majority of religions are irrational, yes.
meditating
Also known as prayer for many religions, which also happens to involve deities for many of them.
seeking personal enlightenment
"Goddidit" is not seeking personal enlightenment. If they wanted enlightenment, they should rely on science. In practice, most religions don't encourage enlightenment.
The other ones are not exclusive to religion and have little to do with it.
surely you mean "in theory"
No, in practice. In theory, a majority of religions could have no supernatural elements at all. In practice, a majority of them do advocate the supernatural. They are, therefore, irrational.
so believing in mathematics and anything abstract is irrational.
Straw man argument. I never once said, "Anything abstract is unprovable and it is therefore irrational to believe it is true." Read my post again if you don't believe me.
you're also raising the barrier for science impossibly high since
No, I fucking didn't. I didn't say anything about proving something 100%. Try again. All I mentioned was believing something without evidence. There is such a thing as "good enough", and science typically meets those standards.
And then you go on to repeat the same "But very little can actually be proven 100% true!" argument that I already fucking responded to. Stop responding to my points in little snippets and ignoring everything else I had to say.
Here: "It hasn't been proven that there isn't a magical pink unicorn living on Mars. There's all sorts of nonsense that has not been and cannot be disproven, but that doesn't mean you're not irrational for believing in it.
Look, question the existence of the universe if you like, but don't compare that to people who refuse to believe in fairy tales or beings outside the universe without evidence. I care about results, and science has a history of nice results. And, from what I see, it's more productive to assume the universe is real than to assume it isn't without evidence. The situations simply aren't comparable to me."
I'll just start copying and pasting my previous replies as appropriate, because typing it all against would be too tedious. Notice how I didn't say anything about requiring absolute proof? Yeah.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Thursday April 09 2015, @06:11PM
that people don't always follow it perfectly is beside the point. the point is, rationality is hard-coded in to that religion, and you are saying it is not, because for you, "religion" is by definition "irrational" and "rational religion" is an oxymoron and no evidence anywhere will change your mind.
do tell me, how do you prove something that doesn't exist?
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday April 09 2015, @07:08PM
that people don't always follow it perfectly is beside the point. the point is, rationality is hard-coded in to that religion, and you are saying it is not, because for you, "religion" is by definition "irrational" and "rational religion" is an oxymoron and no evidence anywhere will change your mind.
No, that's not what I've been saying. Try again.
do tell me, how do you prove something that doesn't exist?
You must have a very deep understanding of mathematics indeed. Mathematicians are just people who make up nonsense out of nowhere and none of their ideas actually make sense in reality or have practical purposes.
Hint: You're equivocating.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Thursday April 09 2015, @07:24PM
a dodge, so you must be admitting that its impossible. all of mathematics is built on faith - faith that, because these abstract ideas correlate to reality in a limited number of instances, that they always will do so; they believe in something which does not exist and cannot be proven, only correlated, and for which their is no evidence (except for that which is built upon faith) and this is not a problem until it has been proven wrong. if it is irrational to believe in something for which there is no evidence, no proof, then believing in anything abstract, including math and anything involving math (like science), is irrational.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday April 09 2015, @07:48PM
a dodge, so you must be admitting that its impossible.
I said no such thing. Your dishonest tactic of putting words in my mouth and spewing forth straw men is something you use often, but no matter the frequency, I will call you out on your logical fallacies.
Mathematical proofs make use of logic and reason. They are not just mere faith. You seem to be saying, "There are few things you can know with 100% certainty; therefore, a complete nutter who believes in random nonsense is just as good as a scientist or mathematician who uses logic, evidence, and reason to arrive at conclusions, because we can't prove that the universe exists with 100% certainty." It is irrational to believe in something for which there is no evidence. Mathematics deals with the theoretical, but that does not mean there are no proofs or standards.
The name of your logical fallacy is: Equivocation.
You say you think the supernatural is nonsense, but the arguments you're putting forth are much like the ones a theist nutter would put forth. Is this merely a coincidence?
(Score: 2) by tathra on Thursday April 09 2015, @08:06PM
and you are defining "logic" and "reason" as something other than their definitions just to specifically preclude anything you do not already agree with.
there is no evidence for anything abstract, except other abstractions (which also don't exist), so by your own words it is irrational to believe in anything abstract.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday April 09 2015, @08:13PM
and you are defining "logic" and "reason" as something other than their definitions just to specifically preclude anything you do not already agree with.
Nope.
there is no evidence for anything abstract, except other abstractions (which also don't exist), so by your own words it is irrational to believe in anything abstract.
What part of "equivocation" do you not understand? You really need to work on your logic.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Thursday April 09 2015, @08:40PM
the part that you're saying i'm equivocating. what, exactly, is ambiguous in my argument thats being used to conceal the truth?
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday April 09 2015, @09:16PM
It's a fallacy. You're confusing two things, intentionally or not. Asking for evidence that some physical being or theory is true, and using abstract concepts like mathematics or logic to prove that something is true/untrue to the best of our ability. You are saying someone who advocates evidence before belief must also believe that the abstract is useless and irrational, when the topic is really about proving the existence of some being or providing evidence of some theory. Something doesn't need to be a real-life phenomenon in order for it to be useful or logical.
Do you think it is irrational to believe in a magical pink unicorn living on Mars when there is no evidence of such a thing? Why do you think it's irrational to believe in magical sky daddies, given all you've said to me? You can't prove that magical sky daddies don't exist. I hope I just don't understand what the hell you're arguing here, because it's not making any sense and seems to contradict what you said previously about magical sky daddies being irrational.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Thursday April 09 2015, @10:06PM
you must not, because my argument is still just what i started with:
a religion which demands rationality must be rational. you're stuck with "religion is irrational because its religion" and refuse to ever budge on it because it would require changing your idea that religion requires worshiping supernatural magic sky fairies, which i said at the start it doesn't always (to which you said, "why would this be a religion?", because you're stuck on the idea that "religion = sky fairies", when it doesn't)
abstraction only came into it because of your insistence that its irrational to believe in anything with evidence, and abstract things do not exist so there cannot be evidence for them, thus by your definition it is irrational to believe in them. the problem is that there's nothing irrational in believing in abstract things, so long as they haven't been disproven. once they've been disproven, then its irrational to continue believing in them. this is how science works - things are disproven, and its only then that continuing to believe in them makes one irrational. people used to believe the earth was flat and that it was the center of the universe, and there was nothing irrational at the time because there was no evidence proving them false; its only now that there's evidence showing the earth is not flat and not the center of the universe that such beliefs are irrational. the same with the solid state universe, it wasn't irrational to believe in it until it was proven wrong. there doesn't necessarily need to be evidence supporting a hypothesis for it to be rational, it just needs to not contradict the available facts and evidence.
this has gotten boring. like i said at the beginning, there's no point in continuing discussion because the conclusion you started with will never change.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday April 09 2015, @10:27PM
you're stuck with "religion is irrational because its religion"
Then you haven't been following the conversation. Do you have trouble comprehending English? Correcting all of your misunderstandings of my arguments could be done just be telling you to read my previous posts again until you understand what I am saying.
My observations are all based on how a grand majority of religions work in practice, and the sort of things they encourage people to believe. Do not mistake that for "Absolutely all religions are irrational and it cannot be any other way, regardless of what the religions do or do not promote." I do not, however, see the point in joining a religion, as I think they can be replaced by more normal and secular organizations, or they are just not needed. It's a personal preference in that case.
abstraction only came into it because of your insistence that its irrational to believe in anything with evidence, and abstract things do not exist so there cannot be evidence for them, thus by your definition it is irrational to believe in them. the problem is that there's nothing irrational in believing in abstract things, so long as they haven't been disproven. once they've been disproven, then its irrational to continue believing in them.
I said that it is irrational to believe in anything without evidence, not with evidence. Second of all, abstract things are just ideas, and ideas do exist. Unless you're a solipsist, maybe? I don't know.
But using this logic, how could you ever call something irrational? *Why* do you believe it is irrational to believe in magical sky daddies, if not for the fact that there is no evidence that such things exist? Obviously you can't require evidence, because then you'd apparently (by what you've told me) have to reject abstract things like mathematics and reason. So there must be something else. Fill me in, would you?
people used to believe the earth was flat and that it was the center of the universe, and there was nothing irrational at the time because there was no evidence proving them false
This is a cute idea, but absurd. If you don't know one way or the other, the only rational response is to admit that you do not know. Using this logic, believing in magical pink unicorns living on Mars is perfectly rational simply because we haven't proven that they don't exist. Also, how do you know the Earth isn't flat? Maybe our observations that the Earth is not flat were merely illusions and we live in a virtual reality world, unbeknownst to us all. Hey, you haven't proven this to be false, so it's not irrational to believe in it.
this has gotten boring. like i said at the beginning, there's no point in continuing discussion because the conclusion you started with will never change.
Will the conclusion you started with ever change?
(Score: 2) by tathra on Friday April 10 2015, @04:25PM
"a grand majority" is not "all". "Rational religion? That doesn't even make any sense." is equivalent to "all religions are irrational", and when you say "all", all it takes is a single counterexample to prove you wrong, but even if i were to point out a religion that doesn't involve anything [wikipedia.org] that could even be interpreted [wikipedia.org] as supernatural, you'd just say its not a religion, because for you, religion requires magic sky fairies, else its not religion (otherwise you must admit that rational religion can make sense, even if it is only a tiny number of them; i agree with you that most religions are irrational nonsense, i disagree that all of them are).
even if our reality is just a simulation, the earth has been proven to be a sphere within the confines of our simulation. unless we find a way outside of the universe, simulation or not, we can only use the metrics from within it to measure things.
my conclusion will change when the evidence does. i'd be irrational if i were to believe something contrary to the evidence.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday April 10 2015, @05:00PM
"a grand majority" is not "all". "Rational religion? That doesn't even make any sense." is equivalent to "all religions are irrational"
Ah, I see. So your entire position is just you being a pedantic asshole. Alright, then. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Even if you are a pedantic asshole, though, I think I've gone into enough detail about my actual position (i.e. not the straw men you keep putting forth) for you to understand it by now, so there's really no excuse. You really do just seem to be bad at comprehending English. Work on that, will you?
you'd just say its not a religion
Nope.
But I find all theism and supernatural garbage to be irrational, not just gods like the Christian god.
even if our reality is just a simulation, the earth has been proven to be a sphere within the confines of our simulation.
Really? It has? Maybe everyone was just given false memories by a magical sky daddy. Maybe we have yet to explore anything about this supposed illusion. You can't win this; you'll never have enough evidence to satisfy anything.
my conclusion will change when the evidence does.
Wow! That sounds a lot like me.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Friday April 10 2015, @05:57PM
no, this admission of irrationality sounds like you:
i've presented you two [wikipedia.org] religions [wikipedia.org] which don't have anything that could even be interpreted as supernatural plus another that demands rationality, yet you still refuse to accept that such evidence exists, that religion can be rational. you are holding a belief that goes against the facts, the same belief you started with, and no matter how much evidence i present you will never accept it or change your beliefs - you are being irrational.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday April 10 2015, @06:49PM
no, this admission of irrationality sounds like you:
Doesn't look like an admission of irrationality to me. I ask again: Do you have trouble comprehending English?
i've presented you two religions which don't have anything that could even be interpreted as supernatural plus another that demands rationality, yet you still refuse to accept that such evidence exists
Why are you telling me what I refuse? You don't get to decide what I think, you moron. If you had been paying attention to the conversation at all, or even the statement that you just now quoted, maybe you'd understand my position better. As it is, you're just putting forth straw man after straw man and not even bothering to try to understand my actual position. Or maybe your reading comprehension is just awful. Who knows.
and no matter how much evidence i present you will never accept it or change your beliefs - you are being irrational.
According to what you told me a few replies ago, you can't be irrational just by believing something that hasn't been proven true yet, and that people who believe in beings outside the universe without evidence are a-okay. Therefore, I could maintain that all of your 'evidence' is merely an illusion and that you haven't actually put forth any good evidence. It's not irrational because it hasn't been proven false. Checkmate!
What's sad is that the point I'm making will probably be lost on you.
(Score: 3, Informative) by HiThere on Monday April 06 2015, @08:12PM
Sorry, but religions can be rational. Rationality cannot derive the axioms that it works from. Mind you, I don't think I've ever encountered one, but to assert that it doesn't make sense is to be unreasonable.
Additionally, many religions have a retro-fitted consistent set of logical arguments justifying their positions. That these are inevitably circular (because they don't want to specify the axioms on which they depend) doesn't make them irrational, just circular.
And guess what, you can't logically justify science without accepting a bunch of unmentioned axioms either.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday April 06 2015, @09:15PM
Sorry, but religions can be rational.
In practice, no. A grand majority of religions have some nonsensical supernatural aspects to them that you must accept without evidence.
And guess what, you can't logically justify science without accepting a bunch of unmentioned axioms either.
The scientific method is the best way to get to the truth that we know of; history shows this. It is not perfect, but it doesn't need to be. Maybe you want to waste your own time questioning your own existence or whatever it is you mean, but I see that as meaningless. Do not compare the two, as they're not even remotely alike.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @10:09PM
> Do not compare the two, as they're not even remotely alike.
They are identical. Hell you think they are both meaningless, why is that? How are they differently meaningless?
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday April 06 2015, @11:10PM
They are identical.
Except for their track records and pretty much everything about them? Yeah, I guess they are identical. You got me.
Hell you think they are both meaningless, why is that? How are they differently meaningless?
That's definitely something I said.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday April 06 2015, @04:21PM
There's no such thing as rational religion, especially when it comes to Islam. Yeah, some of the Christian sects are pretty benign these days I'll admit; just look at Episcopalianism: they're pretty pro-gay and tolerant of most stuff, not anti-birth-control like the Catholics, pro-science, it's basically a religion for people who want a social club and some ceremony every sunday but without a lot of wacky theology. Presbyterians are the same way. But in America, these sects are small and shrinking, while the Evangelical movement is growing constantly.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Monday April 06 2015, @07:00PM
you've obviously never even talked to a single muslim in your life, much less ever known any aside from 6th-hand knowledge from hatemongers on Fox News.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday April 06 2015, @07:08PM
I don't need to talk to any Muslims. Their religion (as well as Christianity) requires you to believe something with no evidence for it whatsoever. That's the very definition of irrational. How this relates to Fox News I have no idea.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Monday April 06 2015, @07:20PM
except somehow you still felt the need to single out islam specifically. so do tell, what is it specifically that makes it especially irrational, moreso than any other religion?
my generalization may have been wrong in your specific case, but people who single out islam for hatemongering typically have a single, favorite tv channel that they worship like The Gospel Straight from the Mouth of White Jesus...
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday April 07 2015, @12:29AM
Islam gets singled out precisely because it has so many violent followers. When was the last time organized Christians did anything violent at all, solely for religious reasons? I don't mean some single wacko, I mean organized groups of them. They don't exist. They spew anti-gay bile here in the US, sure, but I don't see them ganging up and decapitating anyone. Christianity used to have some of this, back before the Enlightenment, but that was centuries ago. The Muslims now act like Christians did before the year 1500. So why are we trying to act like they're anything other than backwards? We have enough problems with our stupid Christians fighting against women's rights, gay rights, basic science and reason, so why are we welcoming people who are centuries behind even those dumb Christians?
(Score: 2) by tathra on Tuesday April 07 2015, @07:40PM
bullshit. other posts have already pointed out threats [soylentnews.org] and mass murder [soylentnews.org] and multiple christian [soylentnews.org] terrorist groups, [soylentnews.org] stuff that is still going on to this day.
defining an entire religion based on a few small extremists groups is pure sophistry. stop with the hatemongering and work to spread facts instead.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday April 07 2015, @11:45PM
A few small extremists? ISIS has tens of thousands of supporters, and controls more territory than Belgium. And plenty of polls show that most Muslims support Sharia Law.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Wednesday April 08 2015, @12:02AM
and there's 1.6 billion muslims [pewresearch.org] in the world. a couple tens of thousands is a tiny fraction. pidgeonholing 1.6 billion people based on the actions of less than 0.000013% of the group is irrational hatemongering.
there's plenty of backwards-ass, irrational, denialist, hatemongering, totalitarian, fascist christians too, you just live in a country where there's a vested interest [theocracywatch.org] in hiding that as best as possible.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday April 08 2015, @06:29AM
I don't mean some single wacko,
Let me fix this for you:
I don't mean some single Waco,
Ding! Ding! We have a winner! Alec, the question is: "What is the Branch Davidian?"
Only the top of the pile of Christian Crazy, trust me.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @12:39PM
All of America's "liberal" left embraces Islam, while dumping on Christianity.
When you say "all", all it takes is a single counterexample to prove you wrong. If you honestly believe there's not a single person in this ambiguous group you think of as the "liberal left" who dumps on both Islam and Christianity, well, that's just silly.
But I see you've bought into the 'left vs right' scam. Those terms have no objective meaning and only seek to divide people into completely arbitrary groups for nonsensical reasons. Is issue X liberal or conservative? Well, that's utterly subjective.
(Score: 2) by Kell on Monday April 06 2015, @01:32PM
+1 rational statement
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 3, Touché) by fadrian on Monday April 06 2015, @01:09PM
Everyone in the tech world knows Fiorina's an idiot. I guess now the California Republican Party can find it out, too. Lucky them!
But I don't know why I'm complaining. She makes Hillary look great! The more clowns the R's pack into their car, the more their makeup rubs onto the ringmasters who are trying to drive. Fun times...
That is all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @10:59AM
May the best Madame President win.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by TLA on Monday April 06 2015, @11:13AM
What the RFRA to do with sexual freedom? I can't even find a link to the legislation.
Excuse me, I think I need to reboot my horse. - NCommander
(Score: 1) by zraith on Monday April 06 2015, @12:06PM
I assume you were looking for the Indiana Bill?
https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/101/ [in.gov]
It never references LGBT nor sexual freedom.
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Monday April 06 2015, @12:43PM
What the RFRA to do with sexual freedom? I can't even find a link to the legislation.
It's a ruse. The Democratic party keeps winning elections by making people afraid of a Republican party they have characterized as hating women, and gays, and minorities. They've decided they can keep the social agenda in the forefront of election issues by vilifying this law as an attack on LGBTs. The scenario they've come up with is that if a gay couple wants to hire someone to cater, participate in, or run a gay wedding, this law will allow people with religious objections to participating in a gay wedding to refuse to do so.
Even if that's the case, it would seem like those businesses would be hurting themselves (gay folks have a lot of disposable income), and it's not like they wouldn't be able to find services for their ceremony. It's also a really thin excuse for wanting to ban religious freedom. But of course it's just a marketing idea to get people to hate and fear the opposition party. Reading the law, you would be unlikely to envision such a scenario.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @12:56PM
It's a ruse. The Democratic party keeps winning elections by making people afraid of a Republican party they have characterized as hating women, and gays, and minorities.
The real reason that both parties are bad is because they're full of evil scumbags who violate the constitution and people's liberties on a routine basis. Mass surveillance, the TSA, the drug war, countless wars, world police tactics, and too many other horrendous things to list. Pick a candidate in either party and it's almost certain they'll support something that violates the constitution and people's freedoms.
It's also a really thin excuse for wanting to ban religious freedom.
Religious people shouldn't get any special rights over those who are not part of a religion. For example, if some people part of a certain religion can wear hats or hoods in schools, then everyone should be able to do so, or no one should. We shouldn't be granting religious people special rights just because of the religion they're part of. Then you have the government picking and choosing which religions are 'true' religions, so good luck creating a brand new religion and getting tax exempt status.
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Tuesday April 07 2015, @12:45AM
For example, if some people part of a certain religion can wear hats or hoods in schools, then everyone should be able to do so, or no one should.
You've gotten it all backwards, here. WHY are you banning hats or hoods in schools (or anywhere else)? Sure, the SCOTUS has come up with that tired old "compelling state interest" to decide that the state can tell people what they can wear, or say, or eat, or think, but when you start trampling on generations-long traditions you should have a higher standard before you start taking away peoples' freedoms. Many of these things are recognized not only implicitly in the Constitution, but people felt so strongly about them (religion, speech, arms, not being searched, not being subjected to forced confessions, etc.), that they were codified explicitly in the Bill of Rights. If you don't get that, your school's educational program has failed you.
We shouldn't be granting religious people special rights just because of the religion they're part of.
Well, they aren't really "special rights", they are protected freedoms from government interference. We provide special protection for all kinds of groups - historically disadvantaged minorities, for example, as well as the disabled, veterans of the military, senior citizens, and many others. And those often include not just specific freedoms but specific privileges and rights, too.
Then you have the government picking and choosing which religions are 'true' religions, so good luck creating a brand new religion and getting tax exempt status.
That is quite easy, actually (have you actually looked into it?) You don't even have to be an actual "religion" - calling yourself "social welfare" organization will work just as well. I know there is a major movement to start taxing churches, but it's wrong-headed when you understand the rationale and the tax treatment of a broad group of organizations. Did you know that atheist groups can get the same tax breaks - including parsonage housing allowances - as traditional established religions? It's all really very fair. Unlike the characterization of this law.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2015, @01:37AM
You've gotten it all backwards, here. WHY are you banning hats or hoods in schools (or anywhere else)?
I don't think they should be banned. But they should be allowed for *everyone*. Schools are almost like prisons, especially now.
Well, they aren't really "special rights", they are protected freedoms from government interference.
If your actions harm none, they should be allowed. Which means it doesn't matter if you're doing something because of a religion or not; the only question should be whether or not it's harmful. This is why, to me, freedom of religion is pretty redundant. You would already be free to believe using my standard, and you would be free to worship through action as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. Religious people don't need special rights; all of this can be solved with true quality.
We provide special protection for all kinds of groups - historically disadvantaged minorities, for example, as well as the disabled, veterans of the military, senior citizens, and many others.
Don't compare those to which fairy tales you choose to believe in.
And those often include not just specific freedoms but specific privileges and rights, too.
Which is nonsense and anti-freedom. That's not equality. I demand all of the same freedoms that everyone else gets, and I shouldn't have to be part of some religion to get them.
I know there is a major movement to start taxing churches, but it's wrong-headed when you understand the rationale and the tax treatment of a broad group of organizations.
It's not wrong-headed. If they want to run charities or something, they can just start a separate organization. There is no reason that churches should not be taxed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2015, @11:48PM
You have the same freedoms. You're free to choose a belief system that requires you to do x, just the same as them. Their belief system requires it, thats why they get an exemption. That your belief system does not also require it does not mean you have less freedoms than them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @09:36PM
Bullshit! That means you have to be part of a certain religion to get that right, which is absolutely unacceptable. Freedom to believe in magical sky daddies != freedom to do as you please. Actions are different from mere belief. The religious people shouldn't get special rights just because of their religions.
And you think I can just *choose* to be a Christian, for instance? I can't force myself to believe in that garbage, or any other religious nonsense, so it would be in name only.
Their belief system requires it
Well, too motherfucking bad. If they want to do something that is harmful, then they'll have to compromise on their shitty belief system or be punished. They don't get to break the law and they don't get special exceptions just because they believe in certain myths and are part of an organized religion.
Also, why do you seemingly think the only type of belief system is a religious one? What if I have a *personal* belief system that requires I do something? Why does that not count, fool?
That your belief system does not also require it does not mean you have less freedoms than them.
Yes it does! It means I have to convert to their religion to get those freedoms, which means I currently do not have them until I do so. This is the government advocating religion implicitly by giving the religious more rights.
Bottom line: Requiring people to be part of a certain religion to have a certain right is anti-equality, anti-freedom, and extremely authoritarian. If you're all of those things, well, you might as well step up and admit it. If you're not, well, why not consider my solution? My solution is: "If it harms none, it should be allowed." That is, regardless of religion, everyone should have a certain right or no one should. This is a pro-equality solution and doesn't alienate people based on what religious they are or aren't part of.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by fadrian on Monday April 06 2015, @01:16PM
Well, yes. We are afraid of Republicans governing this country - we see the shithole Sam Brownback is creating in Kansas. We see the anti-abortion (excuse me - mother safety) laws being passed in red state houses. We see the judges you appoint and the non-support they give to equal wage laws. No, you don't hate women - you just hate letting them have laws that might improve their lot.
Not to mention we see the competence with which your party governs in Washington, D.C. You can simply take it from me that Democrats don't need to spread fear about Republicans. Republicans do it themselves by the legislative and economic agenda they try to put into place.
That is all.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Monday April 06 2015, @03:53PM
Also, how many of us fondly remember the presidency of George W Bush? I mean, with a track record like this:
- Ignoring the threat of Al Qaida until it was too late.
- Reacting to Sept 11 in the most panicky way imaginable, running and hiding, and then making a speech designed to scare the population.
- Having the Attorney General of the United States create and implement a policy of rounding up thousands of citizens without charging them with a crime, and locking them up for months before releasing them, violating at least 2 amendments of the Bill of Rights.
- Following that up with one of the dumbest wars the US has ever had for basically no reason.
- Gitmo. And Gitmo was just the most well-known of many sites where the US was torturing people. This made the US an international pariah, and continues to this day to be used for recruiting people into terrorist organizations.
- Putting somebody who knew a lot about Arabian horses in charge of emergency management, and doing approximately nothing as a major city was destroyed.
- Underfunding the SEC and tolerating internal corruption that helped lead to the economic collapse and a massive recession that we're still haven't recovered from.
- Replacing a modest budget surplus with massive budget deficits.
So yes, I think we all have good reason to fear from Republicans being in charge. And yes, Obama has been far from perfect, but he hasn't done anything remotely as bad as that.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @04:00PM
And yes, Obama has been far from perfect, but he hasn't done anything remotely as bad as that.
But he's still an evil scumbags, so like Republicans, Democrats will not get my vote. Mass surveillance, not taking a stand against the Unpatriotic Act, and not trying to get rid of the TSA make him a scumbag all by themselves, along with his good buddy Bush.
(Score: 5, Informative) by hemocyanin on Monday April 06 2015, @04:22PM
I haven't updated this in a few years because it became so overwhelming, but here is a short list comparing Obama to GWB policies:
http://nothingchanged.org/ [nothingchanged.org]
Each item can be expanded for more detail by clicking the link in the left column.
Certainly some our outdated, but the scale of similarity between GWB and Obama is overwhelming. The two of them both are some evil sumbitches.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday April 06 2015, @10:04PM
My position on this is pretty simple: Obama isn't a good guy, and isn't the savior of America or any such nonsense. The Democrats in general seem to be more-or-less lukewarm, trying to tread the line between their liberal party base and their fairly conservative rich donors on Wall Street.
However, the Obama administration has been approximately competent at governing. To use the FEMA example above, Obama's FEMA director is Craig Fugate, who started as a firefighter/paramedic and worked his way up to being head of Florida's emergency management, a post he held for many years before his appointment to FEMA. And I consider that likely to be one reason why the federal response to Hurricane Sandy was a lot more effective than the response to Hurricane Katrina.
By contrast, Republicans believe that government is the problem, and when in office do their best to prove it.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday April 07 2015, @01:51AM
As counterpoint, I present the Obama Administration's handling of the FDA's approval of Plan B.
From: http://nothingchanged.org/obama_hates_birth_control.html [nothingchanged.org]
Update: As of June of 2013, the Obama administration gave up on it's appeal of a court decision overturning Sebelius' Plan B restrictions -- the outcome however is ultimately positive _in_spite_of_, rather than because of, the Obama Administration:
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Monday April 06 2015, @03:03PM
A ruse, hmm? One one thing that if the majority of people want freedom from religion and keep voting for Democrats... that the Republicans would figure it out and jump on the train.
Instead you hear the banging drums about how they are going to pander to the Tea Partiers and install new conservative religious laws and turn us into the Americanstan... you know, just like RFRA wants to do.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Tuesday April 07 2015, @12:28AM
You're right about the Republicans (or any other political party leaders) - they will compromise any ideal to maintain their position of power.
That said, religious freedom is a major part of the Constitution, and a major motivator for the people that founded the country in the first place (many people came here because the religions in Europe were too liberal - go figure). So if you want to amend the Constitution to get rid of those First Amendment provisions, then go for it. Me, I'd rather let people do their own thing. They're not hurting me. But, you know, haters gotta hate...
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Rickter on Monday April 06 2015, @12:55PM
The legislation specifically says that the courts cannot compel somebody to do something to which they object due to religious reasons, especially when alternatives that require less legislative force are available. The primary intent of the law is to protect somebody who objects to gay marriage from being sued for not treating a gay couple the same as a heterosexual couple by agreeing to participate in their marriage ceremony, but the law could be used for other purposes. For instance, somebody who runs a print shop or advertising business would be able to reject business which they find objectionable, for instance, not having to print somebody's hate speech billboards or leaflets. Somebody who rejects Satanism wouldn't have to provide them animals for a ritual sacrifice (if they do such things). Somebody who provides a particular service with a religious aspect (Jewish food) wouldn't have to provide an alternative without that aspect for other customers.
The question is, should the state and the liberals be able to force dissenters to participate in ceremonies in which they disagree with what is happening? Should they be able to punish people for their religiously held beliefs, just because their business has some aspect to it that requires them to decide some people may not fit their definition of a legitimate customer? Realize that as things are cyclical, whatever side of the the issue and whether you are in the majority or minority of the public opinion is on the matter, it is a good idea to recognize that opinion on the matter may change dramatically in the future, and any law or power you give the government now may be used against you in the future. For instance, abortion used to have 70% approval in polls, but it has fallen to about 50%. If you give the state the ability to pay for abortion, and make that the expected way that it is procured, you give conservatives (or dissidents) the power to take it away in the future just by cutting off funding instead of having to make it illegal.
It's not like these people are going to refuse all services to these customers. They only wish not to participate in marriage ceremonies the object to. If it were me, I can't imagine inviting somebody who had expressed disapproval of my marriage, so it is clear to me that the individuals who have been sued in this manner were done so out of spite, not because the plaintiff actually wanted that individual to participate in their ceremony.
Here are some articles that discuss the issue supporting the law and the state on this issue. #1 [nationalreview.com] #2 [theatlantic.com] #3 [nationalreview.com]
If it were
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @01:00PM
If I, as an atheist who is part of no religion, doesn't want to treat a gay couple the same as a heterosexual couple, can I do that? If not, why not? Why should religious people get special rights over me just because I choose not to be part of a certain religion? You can believe whatever nonsense you want, but you don't get special rights over me. Either everyone can reject things they find objectionable, or no one can. Choose.
(Score: 2) by Kell on Monday April 06 2015, @01:35PM
+1 Probing question
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 1) by Rickter on Monday April 06 2015, @02:57PM
Can you articulate your moral reasoning for having the view you do? Then you would have just as much right under rational atheism to participate under the first amendment as any Christian. I don't see your problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @03:15PM
Can you articulate your moral reasoning for having the view you do?
I don't have such a view. But I'm saying that religious people shouldn't get special rights like they do now (e.g. with hats and such in schools, and these laws mentioning only religious discrimination). Someone shouldn't need to explain themselves, either.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday April 06 2015, @04:25PM
No, you miss the point. This law treats people differently based on religion (specifically, an atheist is not protected from his bigotry but a Christian/Muslim is). That should make it unconstitutional (reality check -- don't expect much from our dog and pony Supreme Court).
(Score: 1) by Rickter on Monday April 06 2015, @05:28PM
Hasn't the Supreme Court already recognized that atheists have the same rights as Christians as pertains to the Constitution and government, at least in some cases? Why wouldn't you be able to express your reservation using reason, and express that you have a moral reason for the government to keep it's hands off?
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday April 06 2015, @06:43PM
The law is specifically for religious reasons, not for a lack of religious reasons.
Secondly, unlike religion, logic or reason are terribly poor bases from which to espouse bigotry. Sure -- people try from time to time, but they end up being debunked as being rooted in prejudice and emotion.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Rickter on Monday April 06 2015, @07:31PM
So, you couldn't create a reasoned justification to refuse business to a bigot that you didn't agree with in order to justify turning their business away? And you think somebody else who can shouldn't be able to do so because you can't think logically enough to provide a rational explanation?
This is especially rich when you think about the issue at hand. Homosexuals are people who have an emotional need that they are lacking, so they demand that that need be met by others catering to their emotions, and pretending that what they do in a homosexual relationship is as equally important to the maintaining of civilization as what heterosexual citizen creating couples do when they create children.
You see, I don't see people who are demanding validation of their emotions of attraction as important as the actual creation and raising of the next generation of citizens. I see the latter as securing the creation of future leaders and citizens who understand what civilization is about. Pandering to the emotions of homosexuals is not necessarily beneficial to the continuation of a stable civilization since we managed to get this far without it.
Do not misunderstand me, I definitely think we must treat homosexuals as having all the rights and responsibilities that the rest of us get as individuals, but we continue to reserve marriage to heterosexual relationships, which they can choose to participate in or not. If they don't want a marriage, then let them go create some other legal situation that allows them to have the rights and responsibilities they feel they need.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday April 06 2015, @07:38PM
That was sort of incomprehensible. What I gather you are saying is that only straight married couples raise kids well. Looking at how many straight married couples have fucked up relationships, that seems rather dubious.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @09:33PM
So, you couldn't create a reasoned justification to refuse business to a bigot that you didn't agree with in order to justify turning their business away?
Would the law accept that? And religious people don't have to do that. They're just part of some illogical religion. Why would you burden someone to provide some silly rationalization when religions people don't have to do even that? Sounds like the religious have special rights to me.
and pretending that what they do in a homosexual relationship is as equally important to the maintaining of civilization as what heterosexual citizen creating couples do when they create children.
There are over 7 billion people. We don't need more, and in fact, we need less mindless breeding. Homosexuality will not be the death of civilization. And what is and is not important is utterly subjective.
Do not misunderstand me, I definitely think we must treat homosexuals as having all the rights and responsibilities that the rest of us get as individuals, but we continue to reserve marriage to heterosexual relationships
Why? What the fuck does it matter to you if they can get married or not? It doesn't hurt you one bit.
which they can choose to participate in or not.
So you're one of those 'Everyone has the same rights because they can always marry someone of the opposite sex!' people, are you? But they can't marry someone of the sex that they're actually attracted to, so no.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @10:07PM
Wat. The rest of your paragraph, based on this ridiculous assumption, is at best a straw man.
Who is demanding that? Again, straw man.
Apparently not. This also falls along the lines of, "You know somebody is a bigot if they preface their statement with 'Now, I'm not a bigot, but...'".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @07:04PM
If your only reason for refusing them is that they're not straight, you're a bigot. Society has decided that everyone should have equal opportunities, which means discriminating against people for things that are outside of everyone's control is not allowed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @07:26PM
You missed the point of my comment, which isn't that I think this discrimination is okay, but that religious people shouldn't get special rights. Either the right to discriminate applies to *everyone* or no one. You don't get to discriminate against people (e.g. gay people) just because you're part of religion X.
which means discriminating against people for things that are outside of everyone's control is not allowed.
So if homosexuality *were* a choice (it isn't), it would be okay to discriminate? I think not. It would be a harmless choice.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @10:24PM
If it were a choice (its not), it would be about the same as not wanting to associate with somebody because you don't like their mate, like kicking your daughter out of the house because she hooked up with some thieving scumbag.
So long as people aren't denied opportunities because of factors outside their control, I don't feel its necessary for society to intervene. That is, its fine for somebody to refuse you service because you wore a red shirt today, but not because you were born with red hair. You could always go change your shirt and go back or go to a different service provider, so you're inconvenienced more than denied opportunities (factors outside control, like there only being one service provider, can change "inconvenienced" to "denied opportunities"). Whether or not the choice is harmful is tangential to the matter; how would discriminating against harmful choices be different, who defines what's "harmful", and "harmful" against who?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @11:42PM
So long as people aren't denied opportunities because of factors outside their control, I don't feel its necessary for society to intervene.
Harmless choices shouldn't result in you being refused. That is shallow and harmful to society as a whole, and only serves to isolate people. It can be used to oppress people who belong to a certain culture and make them feel as if they have to abandon their culture if they want to do something as simple as conduct business with others.
how would discriminating against harmful choices be different
I would say harmful choices would result in the business being financially harmed in some way just by dealing with the individual.
who defines what's "harmful", and "harmful" against who?
Almost nothing would be actually harmful. But there is no rational reason to oppose homosexuality; it's completely harmless. It's irrational intolerance.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fadrian on Monday April 06 2015, @01:32PM
it is clear to me that the individuals who have been sued in this manner were done so out of spite...
Were the black people who sat at segregated lunch counters in the South in the late 50's and early 60's also doing this out of spite? Didn't they have their own lunch counters to sit at? When they marched later to ensure that laws rolling back their gains were not enacted, was that done "out of spite"? This is what's happening in Indiana. People have been granted the right to marry. Some people in the Indiana statehouse are yelling WE DON'T LIKE HAVING GAYS GET TEH MARRIED and so they're trying to put laws into place that would randomly allow a "Get out of jail free" card to anyone who wants to fuck about with a gay person's business. Why not this law? Because although you can see and test for discriminatory behavior, we cannot find what's truly is behind that act, religion or no, and you can't devise a legal test for this. In doing this, they encourage de facto discrimination and make this world a worse place.
That is all.
(Score: 1) by Rickter on Monday April 06 2015, @02:50PM
Look, if somebody comes in and wants to do business in the store the same way it's provided to other customers, the business must do that. And when it comes to providing food or some other basic service somebody needs to survive, there cannot and should not be any discrimination. So, in regard to minorities wanting to eat in a diner, they weren't suing out of spite. They legitimately wanted to eat in those diners where they were sitting. They wanted to be included in being American in daily life by being able to sit down in any restaurant and eat. On the other hand, when most florists probably have no qualms about making a floral arraignment for a gay wedding, why would you want to hire somebody who expresses that they don't think your ceremony is a real wedding? If somebody did that to you, would you still want to hire them? Probably not. So you go and sue them? That is spite.
When the business involves participating in something that the customer is hiring somebody else to do outside of the store, the business should have some ability to control what they are involved in, and they should be able to have standards for where and what they do as long as there is no impediment to safety (electricians for the power company should not be able to avoid working on a building when there could be safety issues for the people in that building, etc.). But when we are talking about participating in a wedding, an event planned months in advance, these are not imminent needs that cannot be planned, and the services being discussed here aren't even essential services to the event being planned (all you actually need are the officiant, a place and any guests you want; decorations, photographer, meal, and music are luxuries). Thus, those who are choose to serve in those capacities should have the same opportunity to participate or not in any given ceremony they choose.
Or, would you rather that we require scientists or programmers, to take money and work from people that they disagree with? If I am a climate change denier, should I be able to hire and compel, without being discriminated against, a scientist who agrees with the climate change science, and compel him, under the terms of hire, to participate in a charade where he will claim to no longer agree with the science as currently presented? Under the normal standards of how he normally works, he's hired to do science and present that to the public. In this case, all we are doing, economically, is participating in a transaction where I will hire him to work for me the way he works for anybody else? Should he be compelled to to participate? You may think, "But you are forcing him to participate in deceit," and you would be right. But for these business people, they believe they are being forced to participate in a deceit, one that has been deliberately planned. If somebody else can be found to do the work, you should not force these individuals to participate in something they consider to be lying.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday April 06 2015, @09:39PM
Look, if somebody comes in and wants to do business in the store the same way it's provided to other customers, the business must do that.
Are you sure about that? Don't they still have that saying, "Management reserves the right to refuse service to any customer"?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by ancientt on Tuesday April 07 2015, @12:45AM
It's been said better [americanthinker.com] than I can say it, and frankly I'm disgusted to see that this debate rages on with neither side willing to even consider the valid points from the other.
Side 1 valid point: deciding that you don't want to do business with someone based on characteristics of a group they belong to is legitimately something a society should condemn and sometimes prevent.
Side 2 valid counter: deciding you don't want to be responsible for a message someone requests, no matter how valid or invalid that message may be, is protection of your personal right to free speech.
Side 1 invalid counter: race and sexual preference are the same thing.
Side 2 invalid counter: people should have the right to refuse service to anyone without consideration of the reasons.
Those signs are still around but they don't negate the laws against some refusals of service. Management may say they reserve that right, but in practice they cannot (legally) refuse service based on race.
There is room for compromise here. It is reasonable to say that a business should not be allowed to refuse service based on what they think someone's sexual preferences are, but at the same time, it should be reasonable for a business to refuse to create a message endorsing any activity, regardless of what that activity is.
Example of valid (if stupid) refusal: A baker should be able to refuse to put mixed race figurines on a wedding cake.
Example of an invalid refusal: A baker cannot refuse service to a couple because they are of different races.
Why is it about bakers? Most readers this far and late in a thread probably already know, but I've discovered some people don't. The fact is that in Colorado a judge has ordered bakers to create a message they specifically felt was contrary to their religious beliefs. There have been several of these cases and Colorado and California have had enough of them that other states are trying to prevent their citizens from being forced by law to produce messages they strongly disagree with. That's the silly part, there was no refusal to provide the usual service to someone, regardless of their sexual preferences; it was a refusal to produce a specific type of message. Most states think that the right to refuse to refuse to create a specific message is reasonable, while most states also don't think the right to refuse service based on the characteristics of the customers is reasonable.
I think it is immoral and should be illegal to force anyone to produce art or a message they believe is immoral, regardless of their reasons. I think dogs are great, but I don't believe I should have the right to force anyone to create a sign saying dogs are great if they don't want to, regardless of their motivation. But nobody is up in arms saying people should be forced to create those signs, so I'll go to the radical extreme of the same idea. I don't believe people in the KKK should be forced by law to create banners saying all races are equal. I think the beliefs of the KKK are stupid and I adamantly believe there are many, many, many things they should be legally prohibited from doing, but I don't they should be legally prohibited from being allowed to refuse to create messages in disagreement with their beliefs.
As a citizen of the United States of America, I cherish my right to say what I believe and my right to not say something I don't believe. That freedom is so important that I want to see even the most disgusting and disturbing beliefs of people I disagree with protected the same way. This isn't about tolerance, this about freedom and specifically my freedom. I'm dismayed that so many people are so vested in their cause and beliefs that they want to see such a basic freedom taken from everyone else.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday April 07 2015, @06:19PM
Two points.
1) The proprietor is better off just not giving a reason. "Are you refusing to service me because I'm black, or a convicted felon?" (for example)
B) In most circumstances it's kind of a moot point anyway because the business in question is just turning away paying customers. So if people just weren't assholes a lot of the problem wouldn't exist.
I can see both sides of the argument somewhat. On the one hand, forcing a store owner to sell to someone is ridiculous. On the other hand, people will often be assholes unless specifically barred from doing so by law.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday April 06 2015, @04:34PM
A business operates to serve the public for profit. In order to encourage business, all people no matter what characteristics they possess, provide support for public services such as roads, sewage, water, fire protection, police protection, court system, and others I'm sure I'm not thinking of. If a business wishes to take public support by having access to all of these services, it should in turn serve that public.
If a person is so bigoted that he/she can't imagine serving [randomCharacteristic] people, that business should be barred from using any of the services the public provides. Yeah sure, they'd go out of business, but they would still have the freedom to make that choice. However, to take from those who help you, and then spit in their face, is the epitome of assholery.
Secondly, the on-premises vs. off-premises service is so much bullshit. There are all kinds of businesses, not just caterers, that do their work off premises. Plumbers, electricians -- basically all construction trades and maintenance trades. Those businesses rely on public services just as much as the other types -- in a shop, people drive to the store and use the road access to access the store -- the plumber uses the roads to access his customers. It's the same in it's essential characteristic in that if people could not travel (either to the business, or business travel to the customer) then the business totally fails.
(Score: 1) by Rickter on Monday April 06 2015, @06:01PM
The taxes/infrastructure argument is ridiculous. If the business pays it's taxes, it has earned the right to use those resources even though they didn't pay for the entirety of them, and it shouldn't be taken away because they choose to make a decision with values you don't agree with. After all, most businesses, especially small local ones like the ones being discussed here pay a disproportionate amount of taxes to support local roads and other services. That should earn them immunity from having their use of those resources questioned because other people disagree with what they do.
I replied [soylentnews.org] to another post (an hour and a half before yours) with a bit mentioning electricians. I'd be more interested in hearing what you thought of the scenario I posted in that post, and reposted here:
Would you rather that we require scientists or programmers, to take money and work from people that they disagree with? If I am a climate change denier, should I be able to hire and compel, without being discriminated against, a scientist who agrees with the climate change science, and compel him, under the terms of hire, to participate in a charade where he will claim to no longer agree with the science as currently understood? Under the normal standards of how he normally works, he's hired to do science and present that to the public, which makes him a provider of service just the same as these business individuals. In this case, all we are doing, economically, is participating in a transaction where I will hire him to work for me the way he works for anybody else? Should he be compelled to to participate? You may think, "But you are forcing him to participate in deceit," and you would be right. But for these business people, they believe they are being forced to participate in a deceit, one that has been deliberately planned (in their understanding). If somebody else can be found to do the work, you should not force these individuals to participate in something they consider to be lying. Shouldn't we expect that of all citizens? That they assess the character of those they associate, or the actions and agreements they are asked to partake in, and chose not to participate in those they find offensive. By your very desire to strip them of their ability to use the roads because they don't agree with you, you indicate that you think this should be a standard they should live up to. But then when they do it in disagreement with your values, you want to strip them of their rights.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday April 06 2015, @07:11PM
Only if it pays ALL the taxes.
I own a business in WA state. We have no income tax but we do have a sales tax, property tax -- and a B&O tax which only affects business owners. Although I may pay more tax than the average person in WA by virtue of owning a business, I still don't pay _all_ the taxes, and other people kick in too. Many things I don't support get the benefit of my tax dollars -- churches for example. FN1.
The fact is, a business is not exactly a private space like a home, because it invites the public to use its services. It is thus perfectly reasonable that if the public at large provides an infrastructure on which to build that business, the public at large is right to expect that it will be served as a whole, otherwise, that business is just a freeloader sucking at the public teat.
---
FN1: Can you think of a bigger waste of money, intellect, time, and effort than churches? It's pretty hard -- video games, heroin, fishing -- these come to mind but each of them actually has some utility (flight simulators for video games, pain treatment for heroin, food from fishing). I can't play games anymore because of my wrists, never tried heroin, but I have spent thousands of dollars and countless hours fishing. I still pay taxes that in part, make it possible for people to go to church, for churches to not get broken into and sacked, and for those utilities they use despite having a strong moral objection to churches (imagine the awesome place the world would be if all that time and money spent on fantasy went to science or art). But I also pay taxes that go to building boat launches, seeding oysters, monitoring the populations of various sea creatures, and the like. Anyway, you have to take the good with the bad, and for a business open to the public, that means serving people you don't like because that person contributed to the infrastructure your business needs. Just like when paying taxes, you buy some crap you totally don't want, and some stuff you really like.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 07 2015, @03:06AM
Only if it pays ALL the taxes.
So if someone else pays just a little bit of tax, then that dirties the pool?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday April 07 2015, @07:54AM
Only if it pays ALL the taxes.
So if someone else pays just a little bit of tax, then that dirties the pool?
Shut up, Donnie, you're out of your league. (Big Lebowski, Bowling Alley Scene)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 07 2015, @11:59AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2015, @08:04AM
Except, of course, if we have to re-institute the Draft. Then all these religious pofters are going to have to toe the line! Sure, we might grant a CO status exemption, if we can spare the bodies on the front, but if not, the state overrules your paltry gods, Xandarians!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Gravis on Monday April 06 2015, @12:37PM
forget group specific rights, basic human rights are violated all the time in many of these countries. in china people are worked so hard they rather throw themselves off buildings and yet we do huuuuge amounts of business with them. Saudi Arabia is among the "worst of the worst" when it comes to human rights and yet we buy obscene amounts of oil from them. if these clowns gave a damn about any group of people at all, they would be calling for boycotts. instead they are deflecting from the issue: discriminatory laws being passed in the USA which is supposed to uphold the highest standard.
why is this garbage on the site?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by GungnirSniper on Monday April 06 2015, @12:55PM
Carly used to head HP for about six years and shaped HP into the shell it has become. She's also toying with running for president in 2016. My guess is she is trying to become vice president as she seems to be the only female on the Republican side; This assumes Hillary will be the Democrat nominee.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday April 06 2015, @01:28PM
So by 2020, USA will be an empty shell? ;-)
If HP is anything to judge by we will have infighting NSA scandals oh wait don't need them. We can do it ourselves! :P The aftermath will be a country with meager profits and big bonus to the circus.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday April 06 2015, @04:45PM
The examples Fiorina cites seem pretty weak. Cook is a citizen of the US and as such, has a personal interest in the political landscape here. He is not a citizen of these other countries and while those countries may have terrible policies, it is neither his duty nor his right to interfere. That's basically part of the US' problem -- it feels it has the right to interfere anywhere in the world.
It is a valid point to say he could stop doing business in those countries, but sucking money out of other countries for little baubles doesn't help those countries' economies -- it is a drain on them. Plus, the nature of Apple's products provide some opportunity for subversion -- more so than Levis to Moscow.
As for the HRC examples, HRC is a politician with direct access to the power apparatus so who she takes bribes from is terribly important and newsworthy. But that's a separate issue from Cook.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @12:53PM
Can't say which is worse, insipid political flamebait post or the predictable, shrill partisan whining.
Queue low. You know the rest.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @01:03PM
This is called, Sean...
(Score: 1, Redundant) by Techwolf on Monday April 06 2015, @01:13PM
Articial -1
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @02:29PM
Articial -1
Title of Ray Bradbury's lost novel?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bradley13 on Monday April 06 2015, @01:37PM
Every donation to a candidate comes with strings attached, or at least serious expectations. So...if Algeria donates to Hillary's campaign, just exactly what are they expecting her to do for them?
Really, one should ask that question of every big donation. But foreign countries are especially interesting, because a President is in a unique position to steer all sorts of "aid" (read: pocket-lining for the political elite) in their direction.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @03:43PM
Fiorinia would have a hell of lot more traction if she made those donations front and center of her criticism of hillary. Instead it seems be 4th or 5th down the list. Even that linked transcript has her doing the benghazi dance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @10:15PM
Every donation to a candidate comes with strings attached, or at least serious expectations.
No. Not only is that a wildly fallacious argument, it would be impractical if it were true. Lets say you take $100 from the opposition and $100 from the other side. Do they cancel out? The answer is you cannot apply math to an illogical and absurd idea.
Passively accepting money from someone means nothing except that you have that much more money.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by nitehawk214 on Monday April 06 2015, @02:42PM
Make a rich person the president. A rich person can't possibly be corrupt!
Think about what you are saying, assholes.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2015, @12:43PM