101. How Old is the Grand Canyon? Park Service Won't Say

Comment #15335 by nine9s on December 30, 2006 at 1:19 pm

GAAAAGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!

Braghloughthtth!

How in the HELL?!?!?!?!??!?!

Much kudos to those of you who could write coherently in response to this monstrosity.

This crap is just inexcusable. How could people be so STUPID? It's one thing when you see little pockets of ignorance -- they, like the poor, will always be with us. But THIS?!? GRAGHLLLLAGHH!

102. Woman beaten on Jerusalem bus for refusing to move to rear seat

Comment #15249 by nine9s on December 30, 2006 at 12:14 am

> "...what is mainly behind the separation is the possibility that the woman might be 'unclean,' i.e. menstruating and/or not yet ritually purified. Ultra-Orthodox men 'take no chances.'"

That obviously doesn't prevent them from punching, slapping, grabbing, etc. Contamination via sitting close by -- yes. Contamination via showing a woman her proper place -- apparently not.

103. It is possible to respect the believers but not the belief

Comment #14917 by nine9s on December 26, 2006 at 6:28 pm

From article:

"Now one can argue about whether the world would be a better place if everyone became convinced of the atheistic truths of natural science, or at least took their religion as lightly as most part-time, demi-Christian Europeans do. (Myself, I'm agnostic on that point.) But clearly this can't be the premise on which we build a multicultural society in a free country. That would be just as intolerant as the practice of those majority Muslim countries where no other faiths than Islam are allowed."

What the hell is he talking about? If people became more atheistic that would be "just as intolerant" as putting apostates to death? This debate has nothing to do with living in a free country, other than the assumption of living in a country free enough to tolerate debate. No one is talking about outlawing religion; we're talking about whether it's true or not.

What a perfect illustration of how people seem incapable of parsing the difference between debate and coersion. Obviously we *can* "build a multicultural society in a free country" on the basis of secular rationality. Or else is Europe rampant with intolerant barbarians?

One last thing. I'm puzzled with the phrase, "... if everyone became convinced of the atheistic truths of natural science..." What does this even mean? That science is a body of dogma that you either accept or reject whole cloth? That science is just one more belief system that some accept and some don't? What would be an example of an "atheistic truth of natural science?"