101. Kansas State School Board Bans Pokemon Due to Evolution Content

Comment #29767 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on April 4, 2007 at 3:32 pm

I don't think you see my point. I watched Louis Theroux's program the other night and sat gobsmacked, even though I had already braced my self for what was to come. But that was real. Those polls that keep getting presented to us are real. I know I've mentioned the Onion a few times, but its usual output is in direct response to something that theists do - as a sarcastic response to something that is real.

This article does not appear to be directly related to any current theistic activity. There seems to be no reason for it to exist other than to take the piss out of religious people - it has no relevant message or story to tell.

If the straw man attack is to be thrown around as frequently as it is on this website, then I think it is very important that as freethinkers we recognise it even if it comes from people who would claim to be on our side.

102. Kansas State School Board Bans Pokemon Due to Evolution Content

Comment #29757 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on April 4, 2007 at 3:05 pm

It's pretty funny, that's true. But it has no reference to anything going on in the world. At least when the Onion takes at stab at this kind of thing it almost always does it as a sarcastic attack at something that the religious windbags have done themselves. Otherwise this is nothing other than a strawman attack - something that is frequently claimed of theists on this website, and so should not be something that should be endorsed from persons on our side of the diacusion. Funny - yes, relevant to this site - no.

Also I'm not convinced that Mr Dawkins personaly looks at all articles presented on this site.

103. Is God a Delusion?

Comment #29753 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on April 4, 2007 at 2:57 pm

Thanks for the fastforward on the introduction.

The agnost and the theist both got on my nerves - the agnost more than the theist for his stance of disregarding any positive stance from either side. It reminds me of 6th form debates - "You don't know that for certain, so you can't make any coment on it" - what a load of rubbish. At least the theist has the bollocks to take a stance!

At one point I found myself answering the atheists questions before he got there. At one point the thistic arguments went onto what do about adults who found religion, and before the chap could answer I yelled out "Education". Suprise, suprise, that's exactly what the chap on the phone said. These arguments are so basic, how come we need to keep restating the same points over an over?

104. Kansas State School Board Bans Pokemon Due to Evolution Content

Comment #29749 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on April 4, 2007 at 2:27 pm

Ah, just had a look at the source. The "Reader Favourites" on the left brings up a whole host of idioticaly funny (but fictional) stories. I personaly reckon this whole article should be deleted. At least the Onion throws it straight out there that its reports are a hoax, this one achieves nothing however.

But I must say I'm disapointed. All you "militant atheists" not yelping at the hedious things that theists are doing? Doesn't that go against your "dogma". My - if you keep this up, people might start thinking that you aren't "fundamentalist" and actualy have the capacity to think for yourselves. I must say I'm disapointed!

105. Kansas State School Board Bans Pokemon Due to Evolution Content

Comment #29743 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on April 4, 2007 at 2:14 pm

I call bullshit on this story - I can't find it anywhere other than on gameing websites and even those don't have an links to proper accounts.

I did find this from a few years back though - bloody scary:
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/11/3/75145/6274
Bloody scary because - contrary to the report - Dungeons and Dragons is nothing like Magic: the gathering. Disgraceful I tell you, straw man attacks from all sides!!

106. Kansas State School Board Bans Pokemon Due to Evolution Content

Comment #29737 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on April 4, 2007 at 2:00 pm

This has got to be the work of the Onion. Surely nobody on earth can be as patheticaly stupid as this. I think more investigation may be required.

107. Atheist says he's victim of religious hate crime

Comment #29554 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on April 3, 2007 at 11:29 am

I found the most up to date version of the criminal code (up to date as of 28th Feb 2007).
A little bit of the wording is different but if you scroll down to section 319 you'll see the concept is the same. The action must be against a recognisable group, and so long as you claim your hatred is done in good faith in the name of religion you can get away with it. This section only covers incitement of hate though. I'm not sure what the criminal code says about assaults based upon hate.


http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-46//20070403/en?command=search&caller=SI&fragment=hate%20crime&search_type=all&day=3&month=4&year=2007&search_domain=cs&showall=L&statuteyear=all&lengthannual=50&length=50

108. Atheist says he's victim of religious hate crime

Comment #29552 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on April 3, 2007 at 11:20 am

I did a quick search and this was the first thing I found. First off I must appolagise for claiming this was from Canada's legal system - my mistake. This appears to be a commentary on this specific part of the Criminal Code of Canada (which is reproduced beneath the commentary).

However it appears to me that the commentary is an accurate translation of the Criminal Code from legal speak to normal English.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/hatecrimes/

(erk, just noticed the date on it as well... 2004. I guess I realy should do better research rather than jumping on the first thing I see)

109. Atheist says he's victim of religious hate crime

Comment #29540 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on April 3, 2007 at 10:52 am

Wow, just been doing a little bit of snooping around to find out what is defined as a hate crime, and do you know that technicaly this assault doesn't count as a hate crime.

This is from Canada's legal system;
"Section 319 deals with publicly stirring up or inciting hatred against an identifiable group based on colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation. It is illegal to communicate hatred in a public place by telephone, broadcast or through other audio or visual means. The same section protects people from being charged with a hate crime if their statements are truthful or the expression of a religious opinion."

So because Atheists are not recognised as an identifiable group this can't be a hate crime.
What realy got me wound up though was that last sentence. Religion gets a pardon just because it is religious opinion - you realy couldn't make this crap up.

110. Atheist says he's victim of religious hate crime

Comment #29320 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on April 2, 2007 at 2:53 pm

It would be very easy to fly off the rails and start whooping up a storm over this apparent atheist bashing. However, we only have a small amount of the story and not all the details, so I'd urge restraint from everyone until we get some more information.

However, should this turn out to be true then it's knives out (figuratively speaking of course). How could this not be deemed as a hate crime? The double standards given would be moronic and injust.

111. Stalking Strangers' DNA to Fill in the Family Tree

Comment #29276 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on April 2, 2007 at 12:31 pm

Jim, I'll get the shovel.

112. Is this another Sokal Hoax?

Comment #29275 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on April 2, 2007 at 12:26 pm

Hehe, the random postmodernist generator just got a mention on University Challenge.
My random chuckle got a puzzled look from the others in the room.

113. Is this another Sokal Hoax?

Comment #29070 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on April 1, 2007 at 1:34 pm

WTF? Parle vous Englais?

@Sane1 - love the quote from a brilliantly stupid film.

@Richard Morgan - sorry but I've got to ask as it has been bugging me for about a month now. Are you THE Richard Morgan, author of the Takeshi Kovacs books?

114. U.N. Panel OKs Measure on Islam

Comment #28872 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on March 31, 2007 at 12:28 pm

I don't understand what this resolution is trying to achieve. Well ok, maybe I can, but there are already laws in most countries which prevent the publication of material intended to incite religious hatred.

The publication of those cartoons was within the law. The publication of those cartoons even falls within the guidelines that this resolution puts forward;
"to take resolute action to prohibit the dissemination of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers that constitute incitement and religious hatred, hostility, or violence."


This realy made me laugh however;
"expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with .... human rights violations."
Sorry, I must have been thinking about that "OTHER" Islam which identifies itself with human rights violations.

115. Are You Right Eyed Or Left Eyed?

Comment #27761 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on March 26, 2007 at 3:21 pm

I'm not sure Martins method works too well for me. The text seems to move for me no matter which eye I close (but I'm proper screwed up ambidextrous to begin with so what's knew - I write and play pool left handed but bowl and bat right handed).

I always like watching people who are left eye dominant try to fire a rifle which kicks out shells to the right. They get themselves into the bizarest of shapes to try and focus on the target.

116. Mormons miffed over coffee-swilling angel image

Comment #27658 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on March 26, 2007 at 2:34 am

Another mistranslation happened at Wimbledon one year;
John Macenroe - "Man, there's a lot of fannys in those seats."

I wish I'd never mentioned the knickers now.

117. Mormons miffed over coffee-swilling angel image

Comment #27491 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on March 25, 2007 at 2:46 am

And here's what happens when spiders drink rather a lot of coffee.
www.cannabis.net/weblife.html

If the Angel does turn out to be a registered trademark then the Mormons would have a point. But if they are just getting their nickers in a twist because they don't like seeing one of their symbols portrayed that way then they can bugger off.
Their religion, they can show repsect to their idols. It's not our religion therefor we don't have to.

118. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #27427 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on March 24, 2007 at 2:08 pm

(edit) - still can't get the hang of this forum)

AlexGR; But nice try at scamming Howie for a million ;-)


We don't get Howie, we get the bearded Noel Edmonds (and not a Mr Blobby in sight).

I barely scraped through A'level maths and never did statistics, so my line of wondering was along the lines of if you came to the end of the game, with two boxes left (one of which being one of the big five and one being a blue), if the banker gave you the option to swap your box would the Monty Hall problem have any bearing? (sorry for the long sentence)

My simple understanding of it is that you start with a 5/22 chance of picking one of the big five for your box. Therefor by the end of the game the other box should have a greater chance of having the big money. Or am I talking out my arse? (probably a yes, but what the hey)

119. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #27426 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on March 24, 2007 at 2:00 pm

[quote=]But nice try at scamming Howie for a million ;-)[/quote]

120. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #26951 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on March 22, 2007 at 1:51 pm

I'll applaud Mouth Almighty as well. Your last half a dozen or so posts (I didn't read any further back than that - so maybe many more) have all been excellent.


I've been yelling at the TV screen for over a year now for the players to swap the box at the end of Deal or No Deal! Reading up on the Monty Hall problem it turns out there's a very logical reason for this. I love learning knew stuff.

121. Stephen interviews Ayaan Hirsi Ali author of Infidel

Comment #26207 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on March 17, 2007 at 4:53 pm

From what I've seen Colbert usualy struggles with rational types - they don't often have a lot of daft ideas that he can point out to people. He seems to prefer nutbags who he can give a bit of string to and watch as they tie themselves in knots.
This one with Hirsi Ali was very good though. I've finaly decided to get a copy of Infidel, it sounds like a good read.

122. Yanoconodon, a transitional fossil

Comment #26201 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on March 17, 2007 at 4:18 pm

Wow, love learning stuff like this. I knew about ears being the left overs of gills but I wasn't aware of where the ear bones came from. That's pretty cool.

Also interesting to see that the upper ribs were more solid than the lumbar ribs. Now I'm probably wrong on this, but to me that fills in a huge whole in my head. Just looking at the fish tank I see rib like strips all the way down the fish (I know they aren't bone, but what the hey), then this little beast with solid ribs around it's torso and softer ribs around it's lumbar region, then look at modern mamals with just the solid torso ribs.
Am I way off the mark on this? If I'm right does any one have any interesting links on this?

123. If God is talking to you, too, Mr Cameron - don't listen

Comment #23430 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on February 28, 2007 at 3:08 pm

It would be my biggest fear that Britain become even remotly like the US with regards to politics and religion. Blair's religious tendancies didn't bother me too much as I never liked him and it just added more fuel to the fire. But now Cameron? Say it ain't so. If it's true then he's deffinatly NOT getting my vote. People who make decisions that have effects upon entire countries should not be allowed to say that it was the voices in their head wot made them do it. That sort of nonsense belongs in the middle east.

As an aside I quite enjoy watching Portillo on daily politics programs. Whilst I don't always agree with what he's saying, he seems to have become a bit more normal since leaving office.

124. Creationism Song

Comment #17642 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on January 15, 2007 at 8:48 am

Great, those lyrics are almost identical to one of my favourite Sheryl Crow songs.

"Jesus loves me I know, for my mom told me so."

Now I'm not going to be able to listen to it without thinking about and getting angry at backwards thinking faithheads.
Bugger!

125. Copy of The God Delusion Purchased for $20,000

Comment #17428 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on January 13, 2007 at 4:08 pm

It's one of those things that makes you chuckle inside.

I'm glad to see that there are those with the capacity to give large amounts of money do so, and they don't need a phoney faith excuse for it.