Comments by Colwyn Abernathy

551. State Approves Evolution As 'Scientific Theory'

Comment #130344 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 20, 2008 at 11:19 am

Annabanana: Why, in the name of the FSM, would we want to placate any of these morons?

Because they have a vote. No one wants to do the right thing even if it means losing one's position...cowards.

552. Fleabytes

Comment #130202 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 20, 2008 at 7:09 am

"It would appear that all humans are made in God's image, but some are made more in his image than others."

Animal Farm reference....FTW.

553. Fleabytes

Comment #129726 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 19, 2008 at 2:07 pm

Paula...Epic PWNAGE...well written and thought!

554. Study: Religion colors Americans' views of nanotechnology

Comment #128840 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 18, 2008 at 4:30 am

Oooo, I LOVED Snow Crash! I knew that guy's name sounded familiar. While I don't think he's the ONLY American novelist worth reading, (John Scalzi's Old Man's War should be on your list) I'll definitely check out his other work. Thanks!

555. Study: Religion colors Americans' views of nanotechnology

Comment #128518 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 17, 2008 at 9:22 am

While I don't understand how sci-fi nanotech is possible, ie: how can a machine that's made of atoms be smaller (or the same size) than a single one be made, I can understand practical nanotech. Example, my SanDisk(TM) MicroSD chip I use for my phone can hold 2GB of storage. (1GB physical and 1GB virtual[compressed]) The hard drive in my old '93 Packard Bell(TM) only held a max of 650MB, even with primitive compression software. (that would FUBAR parts of my data) And the drive was approx. 25-35X times larger than my SanDisk(TM). Data storage and transfer has gone nano, and has been for some time. Were my father still alive, he'd marvel at how far our technology's come since his death in '96. I really don't think people ACTUALLY understand practical nanotech.

556. US military accused of harboring fundamentalism

Comment #127938 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 15, 2008 at 7:06 pm

Space Age weapons in the hands of Stone Age minds. I love my country, but I can't help being embarrassed by it.

557. Pleas for condemned Saudi 'witch'

Comment #126863 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 14, 2008 at 11:24 am

You think that's bad, she turned me into a newt!

A newt?!

558. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125413 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 11, 2008 at 10:29 am

"It is called liberalism. A liberal society allows an individual to do whatever he or she wants, provided it doesn't harm other people. You can choose to wear PVC hotpants or a veil. You can choose to spend all day praying, or all day mocking people who pray."

Well, we really shouldn't spend ALL day mocking those who pray, there's PORN to download! To the Batranet!

559. The challenge of finding peace in Lourdes

Comment #124776 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 10, 2008 at 7:57 am

"- the pub where the the uncaring landlady "selfish Jean" inspired our hero to write one of his greatest works"

JK Rowling reference...FTW

560. Battle of the Chambersburg billboards

Comment #124768 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 10, 2008 at 7:29 am

Geoff:

"I find it funny as well as dishonest to put forth that a lack of belief in gods is equal to a "hatred" of America. Our founders envisioned a secular nation, where anyone may follow any creed they wished. Would that make THEM anti-American? And since when does Christian=Patriot? Doesn't a patriot believe in the freedom of expression, even if said patriot disagrees with that expression. Belief in an imaginary sky daddy is delusional, but I refuse to deny anyone the right to believe in said imaginary sky daddy."

Posted! :)

561. Battle of the Chambersburg billboards

Comment #124762 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 10, 2008 at 7:10 am

Ummm...Eddie, your thoughts?

Be very careful

'Ello, we're the ROMANS!

562. The Passion of 'Anonymous'

Comment #124755 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 10, 2008 at 6:47 am

Oh and regarding the Volcano... anyone ever play the monkey island games (thinks of volcano god)

Acidophelous?

Murray's still my boy.

Was it an EVIL looking doorstop?

563. The Passion of 'Anonymous'

Comment #124707 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 10, 2008 at 5:39 am

PPffff...religious bigotry?! What about Lisa McPherson? Elli and Jeremy Perkins? Would Lisa and Elli still be alive if they weren't involved in Scientology? We'll never know. And what's with church elders receiving COMMISSIONS on donations?! All tax-free?! Tho I DO agree with Wise Beard Man, by breaking the law, those that fight the good fight are hurting those who are also trying to make a difference, hence Scientology can force the "religious bigotry" card. Be better, do it legally!

564. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #123647 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 7, 2008 at 12:43 pm

AHAHA!!! Blessed are the Cheesemakers. Monty Python reference...FTW

HA HA!! BALL Python!

565. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #123641 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 7, 2008 at 12:32 pm

Heh heh...gay ceiling, drinks the blood of puppies...classic. Spot on, Jon. Well, a step is a step is a step. Homosexuality USED to be classed as a mental disorder as well. :) Slowly but surely. Okay, thanks for the clip, I think we should get back on topic.

566. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #123637 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 7, 2008 at 12:26 pm

This is worrying language. I've heard this kind of stuff in other contexts. You can imagine where...

Err...the Declaration of Independence? No..no...uh, ya got me. What were you thinking of?

567. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #123635 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 7, 2008 at 12:24 pm

This kind of silly remark does not strengthen your credibility

Mebbe not...but then, neither does pointing out the Emperor is nekkid. ;)

568. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #123631 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 7, 2008 at 12:18 pm

Bird Man...

HARVEY Birdman, Attorney at Law!

I'LL TAKE THE CASE!!

Get ready to feel the power....OF ATTORNEY!!

569. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #123619 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 7, 2008 at 12:08 pm

You should move to Oregon we don't have any of those religious laws (or very few) and we just legalized same sex unions a couple days ago!

Really? Pity it isn't actual "marriage," but it's a step in the right direction. I've yet to hear a rational explanation why homosexual marriage is still "wrong". The natural argument falls flat, as well as the so-called "dissolving" of the "family unit." Um...doesn't marriage mean BEGINNING a family? It still boggles my mind how people STILL use these faulty arguments.

EDIT: When, in truth, their "feelings" on the issue break down into the Argument From Nausea: "Ew, that's gross. They can't do that!" I, of course, can make the same argument against mustard. Can't stand the stuff, even the smell, therefore, you can't have any either. It's ridiculous.

570. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #123599 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 7, 2008 at 11:39 am

The best thing for society is to do away with all religious laws and have only secular laws like in the US.

Contention: Most states still have so called "blue laws" which prohibit the sale of certain "vice" items such as alcohol and, in my state, Pennsylvania, automobiles. (I think that has something to do with the whole "day of rest" thing) So, if I get into a car accident Saturday night, and I need to buy a new ride to get to work, I'm screwed because it apparently "offends" religious sentiments. They're outdated, IMHO. In addition, it's STILL ILLEGAL in many states for a non-believer to hold ANY kind of state office. SRSLY, LITERALLY illegal, which, of course, I needn't really point out: is unconstitutional.

571. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #123596 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 7, 2008 at 11:34 am

He stresses that "nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that's sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states; the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women as well".

Hmm...then WHAT, pray tell, about Sharia law is reasonable, as WELL as not already on the books. If all that's on the books is what's reasonable in Sharia law, WHY BLOODY BOTHER CHANGING IT to appease one subgroup?! What makes them so much more "speshul" than the rest of us?

572. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #123589 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 7, 2008 at 11:26 am

No..No F'ing WAY! If they want to follow Sharia law so bad, they can move to Iran. I really don't see how a repressive set of laws can maintain any sort of social cohesion. If you don't like it move someplace where you do.

573. Ad 'likely to offend gay people'

Comment #123001 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 6, 2008 at 10:46 am

DOOD...this isn't the 50's FFS. The idea of the nuclear family (Ironeez...I sees it) is a product of TV shows like Ozzie and Harriet, Leave It To Beaver, etc. With women entering the workforce, sticking them back in the kitchen wasn't gonna fly. So we got our "traditional" family form FROM TV SHOWS! It was scandalous that Lucy was pregnant on her show. So people get squeamish, big deal. Now the false claim of "gay people want to "abolish the family"" can be taken to task...I mean, don't they want to START families? That they're being barred from doing so (adoption/fostering) would make those barring them from starting families the ones who "want to abolish the family" wouldn't it?

574. Apologetic billboard replaces atheistic sign

Comment #122988 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 6, 2008 at 10:27 am

Chilcote, a Christian, said she was personally hurt by the deception of the sponsor, who allegedly led her to believe the sign was presented by a local church.

"Wah...I misread a billboard sign and was offended by its content...wah..."
Come ON! You really think a board stating "Imagine NO RELIGION" is going to be sponsored by a CHURCH?!

"We received only a couple of negative calls about the (first sign)," Chilcote said on Monday. "We were concerned about the impact of how people see our company."

Aye, a few complaints are gonna blow your whole business to smithereens. Y'all took the money the FFRF paid for the ad, didn't you?

Cowards...the lot of them

575. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #122513 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 5, 2008 at 11:25 am

Well, I got "Thank you."

576. God the psycho

Comment #121380 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 3, 2008 at 10:26 am

Look at this way; if God is the kind of being who deserves worship, then he won't punish disbelief. If he does, then he shouldn't be worshipped anyways.

Gotta love The Atheist Gambit. ;)

577. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #121376 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 3, 2008 at 10:19 am

We should start up an "Institute" and make everyone "Senior Fellows" just to make the point.

Where do I sign?

578. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #121375 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 3, 2008 at 10:16 am

About the kindest thing anyone can say about Dr. Simmons is that if he were a geographer, he would be a flat-earthist. If he owned a telescope, he would be an astrologer. If he were a chemist, he would be trying to turn lead into gold. If he were a presidential advisor, he would be examining the entrails of a goat. It appears he is actually a medical man; I wonder who was keeping an eye on his leeches while he was busy debating?

Now, while he may be grossly misinformed on facets of a discipline not his own, I'm pretty sure he isn't using leeches. Even as a rhetorical device, it's pretty far-fetched.

579. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121372 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 3, 2008 at 10:09 am

I reckon that issue should be tackled on an individual basis. What to do about those abusers tho...haven't the foggiest. :(

580. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121370 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 3, 2008 at 10:06 am

Fascist:

1921, from It. partito nazionale fascista, the anti-communist political movement organized 1919 under Benito Mussolini (1883-1945); from It. fascio "group, association," lit. "bundle." Fasci "groups of men organized for political purposes" had been a feature of Sicily since c.1895; the 20c. sense probably infl. by the Roman fasces (q.v.) which became the party symbol. Fascism, also 1921, was originally used in Eng. 1920 in its It. form, fascismo. Applied to similar groups in Germany from 1923.

"A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion." [Robert O. Paxton, "The Anatomy of Fascism," 2004]

(From Dictionary.com)

Y'all mean THIS by "fascist", right? Just wanna make sure we're all on the same page here.

581. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121358 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 3, 2008 at 9:41 am

for quoting, use the "blockquote" tag. For formatting, normal HTML tags seem to work.

Awesome...many thanks! :D

I think that people should be given opportunities, and encouraged to take care of themselves, but I think that there should always be a "safety net" to prevent people falling below a certain level.

Hearin' you on the FM here. Unfortunately, there are going to be those who inevitably fall through. Statistics...you are a harsh mistress.

EDIT: As well as include those who'll abuse the system and milk it for all they can without thinking about pulling their own weight.

582. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121353 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 3, 2008 at 9:33 am

"Unprovoked aggression against a sovereign state and the welter of propaganda surrounding it, does recall the bloodbath mentality of Herr Hitler."

Curse you, Godwin! ;) EDIT: Curious, since BBCode doesn't work, how do I bold and quote and all that fun stuff?

583. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121352 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 3, 2008 at 9:31 am

"What was explicitly stated was that children should be left to die."

OIC. Apologies. I retract my statment to the contrary.

"In this case, "self-inflicted" means "making the wrong choice", not some attempt at self-destruction."

Oh, okay. I confused your usage of "self-inflicted" there. In this case, yes, I still agree with you. But I would like an answer: At what point should those individuals be responsible for themselves? Where should we draw the line?

584. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121344 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 3, 2008 at 9:23 am

"The wonderful humourist Armando Iannucci had an appropriate suggestion. A 'Tsk' bomb. Once deployed it would sit around making disapproving noises."

HA HA! Maybe the avoidance of the sounds of disapproval would jolt those into taking the necessary measure...er, what was that measure again?

585. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121343 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 3, 2008 at 9:20 am

"Perhaps not so much implied, as explicit.... let children die, as it will teach those people to stop having kids."

I don't think that is what was so explicit. If that were true, why are they still having kids? Perhaps if they had access to further choices, say contraception, that would help. It's more important to concern ourselves with those who are already here than to bring more into the world who may suffer because of it.

"It is cold and heartless to ignore the suffering of others. I believe it is heartless even if that suffering is self-inflicted, and as a result of their own choices."

Even when it's self inflicted? I agree that assistance should be available, but if people are determined to self-destruct, what can really be done to stop them? "Saving" them may make us feel better, but is that really in the interest of the self-destructive? If they would prefer oblivion than to exist in perpetual suffering, wouldn't it be better to allow them that oblivion?

586. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121335 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 3, 2008 at 8:56 am

"If necessary; if the alternative is death on the streets, yes. I think we should."

Ah, very well. Wholeheartedly agree. But that still leaves the question: At what point do we take the crutch back and ask the individual to take responsibility? I don't think you defined your understanding of responsibility tho.

"I think it is a fair summary when someone is prepared to allow children to die."

No, I don't think it's fair at all. At no point was it implied that any of those people mentioned SHOULD be condemned to death. They do because of the consequences of the choices made by individuals. Death is the evident consequence of those made choices. Their lives may not be our responsibility, but they are certainly within our interest. If we're fair and just people, that is. In the end, one's own life really is the responsibility of each and every person. If they require assistance, then it should be given. A simple handout solves nothing. A "band-aid on the cancer" to use a tired cliche. :)

"I should apologise. I am getting angry. I can cope with just about anything religion can throw at me, but the sheer cold-heartedness of fundamentalist libertarians gets to me."

Understandable, but I also understand what scooternyc is getting at. The cosmos doesn't give a shit about any one of us. But WE care about each other, because we have the capacity to contemplate our own existence, and to understand that suffering=bad. Since we don't like suffering, it would make logical sense to not implement suffering whenever we can help it.
But the world is what it is. To think that someone is cold and heartless for stating that is what I don't think is fair.

587. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121322 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 3, 2008 at 8:17 am

"Of course it helps. While we do it, they have somewhere to live. They don't die of cold in the streets."
Isn't that a stop-gap solution, tho? It doesn't really help the individual in the long run. At what point does the responsiblity fall upon the homeless individual at becoming productive? Should we feed and house them indefinitely?

"You know, you are very fortunate others don't think like you. If you are ever in an accident, you may well receive blood from people who actually give a damn about others."

Well, that sounds like a straw-man to me. At what point did scooternyc state or imply that he doesn't give a damn about people? I certainly didn't see that implication from his posts, just basic observation.
EDIT: Apparently BBCode doesn't work. :(

588. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121314 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 3, 2008 at 8:10 am

Oh, okay. I see what you mean by stochastic input. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

589. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121307 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 3, 2008 at 8:03 am

Even being of the best interest to others is, ironically, self-interest. As in: it's my self-interest that you have the same freedoms I enjoy. After all, if I'm nothing else, I'm at least fair. ;)

590. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121300 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 3, 2008 at 7:53 am

I don't think it's an unwillingness to look at that particular component, it's more of focusing on the symptoms. And let's not forget the influence of religion keeping contraception out of the picture, which muddies the water even further.

591. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121298 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 3, 2008 at 7:49 am

I guess it could be a "teach a man to fish" kinda thing, yesh?

592. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121292 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 3, 2008 at 7:38 am

I don't understand. What would those stochastic inputs be? It would stand to determinism that by observing injustice, one would take action to correct them? That being said, the airlift would be deterministic, wouldn't it? Or am I confusing the issue?

593. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #120582 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 2, 2008 at 3:57 am

Science: It works, Bitches. ;)

594. A Letter From Hell

Comment #116694 by Colwyn Abernathy on January 27, 2008 at 6:46 am

"I can't think...I can't talk."

Yet you can compose a letter, which requires at least ONE of those things. And how was it delivered, hmm? Gives a whole new meaning to "mailer daemon" doesn't it?

595. Banned From Church

Comment #115007 by Colwyn Abernathy on January 23, 2008 at 12:19 pm

No, it doesn't make sense from a marketing point. But look at it this way, the more they expel, the more we can introduce to the spiritual freedom of godlessness! :)

596. Hook, line and rapture

Comment #109643 by Colwyn Abernathy on January 9, 2008 at 11:15 am

Pat...you da man! Keep pointing out how ridiculous religious claims are as well as making us laugh. Much love and more power to ye!

597. A War On Science

Comment #106225 by Colwyn Abernathy on January 2, 2008 at 2:06 pm

Dood...Harrisburg? Mah peeps be delusional! Monkey song indeed....

598. Borders Tags Atheist Book with 'O Come All Ye Faithless' Cards

Comment #103703 by Colwyn Abernathy on December 26, 2007 at 2:26 pm

"The Evangelical Alliance's Thacker noted, "I think the atheists will love it because it's bashing Christians around the head. It's another thing to take a Christian festival and abuse it."

Guess he didn't read his history. Much of the symbols and traditions...are PAGAN IN NATURE! As are many of the "secular" symbols for Easter. Bunneh's? Eggs? Can you say, Fer-til-it-y Rites?

599. Borders Tags Atheist Book with 'O Come All Ye Faithless' Cards

Comment #103700 by Colwyn Abernathy on December 26, 2007 at 2:21 pm

Actually...that's pretty frickin' funny. I donnae see how anyone with a sense of humour would be offended by it...and if they were, so what? Don't buy the cards then.

600. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81256 by Colwyn Abernathy on October 24, 2007 at 1:56 pm

And D'Souza completely ignores the deaths of those EUROPEAN WITCHES BURNED AS HERETICS. Anyone got a rough figure on those? Betcha it was more than eighteen....dumbass...