Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

Comment #160088 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 13, 2008 at 3:57 pm

Steve a quote from chomsky you might find interesting

I think studying science is a good way to get into fields like history. The reason is, you learn what an argument means, you learn what evidence is, you learn what makes sense to postulate and when, what's going to be convincing. You internalize the modes of rational inquiry, which happen to be much more advanced in the sciences than anywhere else. On the other hand, applying relativity theory to history isn't going to get you anywhere. So it's a mode of thinking. I try, at least -- with what success; others have to judge -- to [apply] the mode of thinking that you would use in the sciences to human affairs.

You said somewhere, I think in this new book on power, "You can lie or distort the story of the French Revolution as long as you like and nothing will happen. Propose a false theory in chemistry and it will be refuted tomorrow."

Yes, that's the kind of thing I mean. Nature is tough. You can't fiddle with Mother Nature, she's a hard taskmistress. So you're forced to be honest in the natural sciences. In the soft fields, you're not forced to be honest. There are standards, of course; on the other hand, they're very weak. If what you propose is ideologically acceptable, that is, supportive of power systems, you can get away with a huge amount. In fact, the difference between the conditions that are imposed on dissident opinion and on mainstream opinion are radically different.

352. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160083 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 13, 2008 at 3:48 pm

Cartomancer

That's quite a slur against the profession of academic historians if you think about it. Suddenly scientists are able to think rationally and dispassionately about the evidence in front of them but historians are not?

Take Vietnam how many people have heard about the My Lai massacre. Heres an anecdote from Howard Zinn

What we saw in Vietnam was horrifying, and obviously it was horrifying even to GIs in Vietnam, because they began to come back from Vietnam and to oppose the war and to form Vietnam Veterans Against the War. So, you know, we saw villages, as far away from any military target as you can imagine, absolutely destroyed, and children killed�"and their graves still fresh�"by American jet planes coming over in the middle of the night.

You know, when I hear them talk about John McCain as a hero, I say to myself, oh, yes, he was a prisoner, and prisoners are maltreated everywhere, and this is terrible, but John McCain, like the other American fliers, what were they doing? They were bombing defenseless people.

And so, yes, Vietnam is something that, by the way, is still not taught very well in American schools. I spoke to a group of people in an advanced history class not long ago, a hundred kids, asked them, "How many people here have heard of the My Lai Massacre?" No hand was raised. We are not teaching Vietnam. If we were teaching the history of Vietnam as it should be taught, then the American people, from the start, would have opposed the war, instead of waiting three or four years for a majority of the American people to declare their opposition to the war.

353. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160068 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 13, 2008 at 3:34 pm

Andrew Marr and Chomsky. Shows the problem of consensus.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSuaGIKTaEA

As to scientific consensus I may have been to rash. The Blank State etc.

354. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160055 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 13, 2008 at 3:18 pm

I treat issues like this the same way as scientific controveries. I try and sample views from the consensus.

That would seem a good analogy, science is in the consensus so why not in the media? Its like saying Chomsky is equivalent to ID proponents in the evolution "debate". It would seem a good way to approach History.
Unfortunately the media and intellectuals who write history are systematically biased in favour of power. So consensus in media is essentially what people want you to hear.
For example consensus teaches us Mother Teresa and Ghandi are at the summit of morality (when the opposite is true), that Churchill is a hero and the US is a benevolent force for good.

The fence issue is a perfect example of this.

355. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160046 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 13, 2008 at 3:05 pm

Yes I agree Steve but the interview covers all the ground being discussed about Kosovo and the issue you specifically cite about the "fence" is dealt with in part 3, its less than 5 minutes long and answers your questions. The thing about Chomsky is there is barely anything he says that is not provided with a footnote to the source.

Plasticity
It is without doubt more destructive numerically. Moral equivalence is a way to prevent criticism.

Chomsky explains why he doesn't rail against other forms of injustice

...suppose we were in Russia in the 1980s and some dissident was criticizing the Russian invasion. Well, a commissar could have stood up and said, "Look, why are you criticizing the Russian invasion? Why aren't you criticizing what the Afghans are doing to each other?" Yeah, that's a standard commissar line. We know what to think about it. You and I are responsible for what you and I can do -- and what we do. We have no moral responsibility for what other people do that we can't effect. We may hate it but we can't do anything about it. Like, we could have a debate, a discussion right now about the crimes of Genghis Khan. And we might be correct about it. It would have no moral value whatsoever.

356. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159912 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 13, 2008 at 11:43 am

3. The third lot are those who argue for a particular, revealed religion: Christianity, Islam, whatever, with Holy Book, rules, an interventionist God, etc. Shades into Dr Benway's Biblebots, who are the most unreachable. But many in this category could be asked to ponder on such crucial questions as 'why is your holy book uniquely true?' and 'why is your revelation so late and narrowly restricted in such a vast universe?' Possibly more effective than nitpicking bible quotations?

You "attack" them on their own ground. Show them biblical contradictions, idiocies, fallibility etc. Tell them to read Bart Ehrman. Not many religious believers are persuaded by epistemological arguments. Get them on their own ground. Get them to question themselves. Ultimately all persuasion is self-persuasion.

357. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159895 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 13, 2008 at 11:07 am

Yes Frankus1122 Thank You. I've fixed the link

358. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159866 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 13, 2008 at 9:28 am

If corporate destruction of the world is so self-evident, you would have no problems coming up with other examples, would you?

Thank You.

A corporation is a legal person (abuse of the 14th Amendment set up to protect slaves) , if we treat it as such it is a psychopathic person. By law, a corporation can only consider the interests of their shareholders. It is legally bound to put its bottom line before everything else, even the public good.
Sweatshops, pollution, health, the suppression of studies that show products to be unhealthy e.g smoking, countless medicines, the creation of diseases so drugs can be marketed. Healthcare in general. The privatisation of natural resources google privatisation of rainwater in Bolivia for example, or take villages in Africa that can't get access to water because they have to pay to use the well, so they die. Marketing Campaigns that manipulate children. In the US, the Supreme Court ruled that anything alive can be patented except a human being. The media is censored. American corporations role in Nazi Germany (IBM and the holocaust). I can go on and on.

Watch this for an education

359. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159846 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 13, 2008 at 8:37 am

FightingFalcon I shall give you another well thought out objection. Global Warming. There are issues that are too big, too important to allow Ayn Randian self interest to rule.
You only have to open your eyes to see the destruction and devastation that chasing profits has caused throughout the world, throughout history.

360. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159689 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 12, 2008 at 9:18 pm

We don't have blind faith in corporations. We believe that human beings have the fundamental right to keep whatever money that they make through honest and legal dealings. I have no particular love for Exxon but I recognize the fact that they have the right to keep their profits. They have no responsibility toward anyone or anything other than to make money. That's why they exist - for no other reason do they operate. Corporations exist solely to provide a product that the general population wants. Should a company provide that product in an unsatisfactory manner or the product is no longer required, the customer moves on.

The freedom fallacy of unrestrained capitalism. Please you actually believe this?

361. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #159687 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 12, 2008 at 9:00 pm

OK, I will then. Chomsky's ludicrous claim that the USA bombing of a pharmaceuticals factory in Sudan in 1988 was in any way equivalent to the Al-Quaida attack on the Twin Towers

Srebrenica has gone you've been proved to be utterly wrong and merely repeating propaganda. Now you resort to unfounded assertion. I have already given you the quote where Chomsky makes the comparison. I will give it to you again:

Or take the destruction of the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, one little footnote in the record of state terror, quickly forgotten. What would the reaction have been if the bin Laden network had blown up half the pharmaceutical supplies in the U.S. and the facilities for replenishing them? We can imagine, though the comparison is unfair, the consequences are vastly more severe in Sudan

With Chomsky it is all selective reporting and emphasis. He is a propagandist.

Personally, I think he is actually worse for that. It would be more honest he came out with definite statements rather than hiding his prejudices. I have to admit that I don't like Chomsky very much because of this. Even though I disagree with him, I prefer the open and honest Hitchens approach.

Steve you are a propagandist oh wait I can't say that I need to provide evidence to back up such a claim.

And Steve if you have time watch this interview with Chomsky on Serbia, Kosovo, Yugoslavia etc You'll find it answers a lot of your questions even this one

I have yet to get around to looking things up. As I remember it was partly an issue about whether or not a concentration camp was a concentration camp. At one point there was even a claim that people had confused which was the inside and outside of a "fence".

in part 3. It goes to show that you can't trust what you read in the mainstream press, and I'm willing to bet your a guardian reader, it comes up for particular criticism regarding the issue of the "fence". Read Manufacturing Consent, study media omission (something you accuse Chomsky of).

362. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159540 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 12, 2008 at 12:43 pm

Mark Smith Couldn't have put it better myself ;)

363. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159527 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 12, 2008 at 12:09 pm

I don't want people to remain committed to a false position simply because one of the spokesmen for 'the other side' is perceived to be insulting them about their intelligence.

If they have read his book and they think there intelligence is being insulted then fine that implies something. If they just want to be satisfied by hearsay that atheists are evil then again that implies something.
Atheism should not be marketed, spun or anything else. Why? Because it isn't anything.

364. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159520 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 12, 2008 at 11:52 am

Intelligence is basically the ability to understand, learn and create. Simple.
IQ correlates with these abilities. IQ scores however

The unreliability of IQ tests has been proved by numerous researchers. The scores may vary by as much as 15 points from one test to another, while emotional tension, anxiety, and unfamiliarity with the testing process can greatly affect test performance. In addition, Gould described the biasing effect that tester attitudes, qualifications, and instructions can have on testing. In one study, for example, ninety-nine school psychologists independently scored an IQ test from identical records, and came up with IQs ranging from 63 to 117 for the same person.

While we are on IQ, the Worlds Smartest man with an IQ of 195 Chris Langan (although he is not Kim Ung Yong has the highest IQ of 210) has an article about the limits of the scientific method.

365. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159519 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 12, 2008 at 11:46 am

I do worry that he puts some people off atheism with this approach.

Who cares? Atheism doesn't sell anything. Its not a religion. We don't have to follow a code. Atheism is a philosophical position, the only correct one to take on the existence of God based on current evidence. There is no such thing as putting people of atheism.

366. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159515 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 12, 2008 at 11:37 am

Francis Collins argument is as follows
"If you see a man drowning in a river, even if he is a stranger you still have the urge to save him. Evolution can not explain this as its only purpose is to propagate genes."

Paraphrased from an interview with Charlie Rose. Its interesting, Francis Collins is shown up to be simply ignoring the counter arguments and classifies atheism as "the certainty that there is no god". Hmmmmmmm no most atheists are a 6 on Richards scale. He shows up unbelievable ignorance in this interview.

367. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #159503 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 12, 2008 at 10:49 am

This is Chomsky on Kosovo and Milosovic

You seem to have side stepped the issue you were supposed to answer, namely about the Srebrenica massacre. The sources you provide are Hitchens criticisms of Chomsky which centre around "...a bizarre claim by Chomsky regarding a US attack on Sudan."

Bizzare? Here are Chomsky's actual words on the matter from his book of interviews 9-11

Or take the destruction of the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, one little footnote in the record of state terror, quickly forgotten. What would the reaction have been if the bin Laden network had blown up half the pharmaceutical supplies in the U.S. and the facilities for replenishing them? We can imagine, though the comparison is unfair, the consequences are vastly more severe in Sudan

I agree hero worship is a problem. Is Chomsky flawed? Does he "squint? I'll let him explain in his own words.

suppose we were in Russia in the 1980s and some dissident was criticizing the Russian invasion. Well, a commissar could have stood up and said, "Look, why are you criticizing the Russian invasion? Why aren't you criticizing what the Afghans are doing to each other?" Yeah, that's a standard commissar line. We know what to think about it. You and I are responsible for what you and I can do -- and what we do. We have no moral responsibility for what other people do that we can't effect. We may hate it but we can't do anything about it. Like, we could have a debate, a discussion right now about the crimes of Genghis Khan. And we might be correct about it. It would have no moral value whatsoever.

368. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #159447 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 12, 2008 at 8:06 am

Steve Zara

Comment #158234 by al-rawandi

Is there any example of this "squinting"?

Wasn't there some issue with Kosovan deaths and concentration camps?

Al-Rawandi

I am not sure. You are the one who said he is "squinting" mentally. That would be your burden to carry.

Steve Zara

No, Chomsky did more than that. He did not just defend someone's right to publish. He backed the views himself, and his opinion in various correspondence and interviews, including in The New Statesman.

OK so we've been given a source at last. That source shows up this quote with regards to Srebrenica

"So later they added charges [against Milosevic] about the Balkans, but it wasn't going to be an easy case to make. The worst crime was Srebrenica but, unfortunately for the International Tribunal, there was an intensive investigation by the Dutch government, which was primarily responsible - their troops were there - and what they concluded was that not only did Milosevic not order it, but he had no knowledge of it. And he was horrified when he heard about it. So it was going to be pretty hard to make that charge stick."

Inoculatedcities

Steve as much as I enjoy the discussion I am finding it irritating that you never back up your assertions with any evidence whatsoever. If you have evidence that Chomsky "backed the views himself" please do post because I've been following these matters for some time and have never come across this mythical alleged oft-referenced "evidence" (and nor has anyone else). It seems far more likely to me that you are repeating some slander that you read elsewhere, but certainly not read in anything written by Chomsky himself. If I'm wrong prove it with sources.

Steve Zara

I realise it is irritating, and I apologise. However, the discussions on this are only a quick google search away

A quick google search provides no sources. It provides the Open Letter to the Ordfront where Chomsky refutes distortion and assertion wrapped in attack on Johnstone.

The whole "issue" revolves around the semantics of the word genocide. From the letter, which a quick google search can provide although I actually provide my sources because then I can be fact-checked and not get away with unfounded assertion.

A final comment on "genocide." People are free to use the term "genocide" as they please, and to condemn Racak and Srebrenica, say, as genocidal if they like. But then they have a simple responsibility: Inform us of their bitter denunciations of the incomparably worse "genocide" carried out with the strong backing of the US and UK at the very same moment as Racak.

So Chomsky, possibly the best single resource for recent history, has been dismissed by Steve because Steve asserts that he "squints", then when asked to provide evidence of said squinting responds with "Wasn't there some issue with Kosovan deaths and concentration camps?". This may seem like an overreaction but repetition of propaganda and sleaze that are presented as critisms of Chomsky's work without foundation annoy. And ironically can be cleared up with a quick google search

369. Lungless frog discovered in Borneo

Comment #158913 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 11, 2008 at 7:02 am

Speaking of Lungless frogs in Borneo only 38% of Britons believe in God
http://www.secularism.org.uk/only38ofbritonsbelieveingod.html

370. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #157863 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 9, 2008 at 4:10 pm

Craig Venter must not have persuaded Richard about the futility of population genetics etc

371. Biologists Take Evolution Beyond Darwin Way Beyond

Comment #156098 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 6, 2008 at 5:41 pm

It is of course difficult to imagine how language did evolve. For example imagine offspring that had the brain function that has a complete generative grammar. This is not advantageous until the trait is present in a large number of people, i.e a few generations down the line. Then this becomes an advantage and one group would be selected over another. It would be an example of speciation I suppose. I get the feeling there is something I'm missing however as these questions are so simple.

372. Fleabytes

Comment #156084 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 6, 2008 at 4:40 pm

I've just found this
http://www.rzeppa-vs-dawkins.com/

373. Biologists Take Evolution Beyond Darwin Way Beyond

Comment #156060 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 6, 2008 at 3:07 pm

If I could ask my question again because I have a genuine misunderstanding. A trait that is only advantageous at the group level, for example the ability for heightened communication, would allow one group who possessed the ability, to be selected over another group who did not have this ability. The selection would still be at the level of the gene, the traits aren't passed on by magic, but its advantage would only be at the level of the group.
Is this an example of selection that works above the gene level or not?

374. Biologists Take Evolution Beyond Darwin Way Beyond

Comment #156015 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 6, 2008 at 1:44 pm

Something such as language, where it is only useful in a group, while it still would have to be selected at the gene level, it would be groups that would be selected, as having advantage over other groups because of their heightened ability to communicate. Is this not a distinction worth making?

EDIT: Essentially a trait that is only advantageous at the group level

?

375. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #156007 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 6, 2008 at 1:30 pm

Professor Dawkins said the threat of extinction was real and very disturbing.

"Humans may be unique in having the consciousness and ability to look into the future. Ninety nine per cent of species have become extinct. I don't think there has been a mechanism by which a species took steps to halt a headlong rush to extinction."

Considering there is no quote to support the description of Dawkins saying that the threat of extinction was real and very disturbing I doubt he actually said it in the terms reported. The quote that follows actually says nothing about the threat of extinction for our species, it says quite the opposite actually, that humans have a unique capacity in that they can see future problems and act before things become a problem. This is unique to humans and a cause of great hope.

376. Biologists Take Evolution Beyond Darwin Way Beyond

Comment #155933 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 6, 2008 at 10:47 am

377. Expelled Overview

Comment #155737 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 5, 2008 at 1:05 pm

Steve Zara

I have to say I am highly sceptical of this. Do you have a reference?

Pinker has a whole lecture on the fact that the average IQ of Ashkenazi Jews is a whole standard deviation above the average.

I reference the link again Pinker: Jews, Genes and Intelligence

If that link ever decays http://www.cjh.org/programs/programarchives.php

378. Fleabytes

Comment #155735 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 5, 2008 at 12:56 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rez1B2MJaYs&feature=related

Hitchens v Hitchens if anyone is interested. They talk about the war in Iraq and then God.

And this lecture by John Maynard Smith, completely irrelevant to the first point but its John Maynard Smith. The Origin of Life

379. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155716 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 5, 2008 at 10:41 am

Pascal's Wager question
Has anyone ever told a Christian that the parable about the vinyard workers means that a death bed conversion is all you need?

380. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155345 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 4, 2008 at 11:08 am

Must rush

Wasn't that the last on your list al?

10) I am busy and have to leave.

381. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155304 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 4, 2008 at 10:10 am

"If Christ was not raised, then all our preaching is useless, and your trust in God is useless" (1 Cor. 15:14)

He's right ladies and germs.

382. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155300 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 4, 2008 at 10:06 am

Mathew 16:15-20
15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

17And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

18They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

19So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

20And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

If you really want a gamble, why not?

383. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155288 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 4, 2008 at 9:55 am

What I am trying to find out is how you made your choice - based on what evidence?

The best answer I've heard to that was
"I have a simple faith and I have a personal relationship with God. How could that relationship be so real if I wasn't talking to the right God?"

384. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155276 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 4, 2008 at 9:44 am

Look at the stories of Jesus' encounters with people from all walks of life in the gospels. They came to him out of their need, and, reading their hearts he accepted them

"It is not fair to take the children's food and throw it to the dogs" (Mark 7:27)

""If you love your father or mother more than you love me, you are not worthy of being mine; or if you love your son or daughter more than me, you are not worthy of being mine. 38 If you refuse to take up your cross and follow me, you are not worthy of being mine. 39 If you cling to your life, you will lose it; but if you give up your life for me, you will find it." (Mathew 10:37-39)

""What sorrow awaits you, Korazin and Bethsaida! For if the miracles I did in you had been done in wicked Tyre and Sidon, their people would have repented of their sins long ago, clothing themselves in burlap and throwing ashes on their heads to show their remorse. 22 I tell you, Tyre and Sidon will be better off on judgment day than you. 23 "And you people of Capernaum, will you be honored in heaven? No, you will go down to the place of the dead.[g] For if the miracles I did for you had been done in wicked Sodom, it would still be here today. 24 I tell you, even Sodom will be better off on judgment day than you." (Mathew 11:21-24)

"3 Jesus replied, "And why do you, by your traditions, violate the direct commandments of God? 4 For instance, God says, 'Honor your father and mother,'[a] and 'Anyone who speaks disrespectfully of father or mother must be put to death.'[b] 5 But you say it is all right for people to say to their parents, 'Sorry, I can't help you. For I have vowed to give to God what I would have given to you.' 6 In this way, you say they don't need to honor their parents.[c] And so you cancel the word of God for the sake of your own tradition. 7 You hypocrites!.." (Mathew 15:3-70

I could go on but this Jesus guy. Bit of a temper.

385. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #154714 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 3, 2008 at 3:38 pm

Poor people. They genuinely believe it. How much has the rantings of a mad man in Revelations got to account for.

386. Expelled Overview

Comment #154674 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 3, 2008 at 2:58 pm

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6037708729636407580

Pinker: Jews, Genes and Intelligence

If that link ever decays http://www.cjh.org/programs/programarchives.php

387. Anti-gay Okla. lawmaker attracts 1,000 backers

Comment #154663 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 3, 2008 at 2:51 pm

I just cringe every time I see someone insinuate that America is a democracy.

Yes as do I, and I'm not an American citizen.

388. Pastor attacks scientist's talk

Comment #154659 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 3, 2008 at 2:46 pm

"advance a polemic", or controversial argument

Wow that's patronising.

389. Pastor attacks scientist's talk

Comment #154650 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 3, 2008 at 2:39 pm

Steve Zara

I would be interested to know in what sense Richard Dawkins was controversial as a scientist.

"the most reductionist of sociobiologists". The defence of the blank state caused a lot of vitriol. Steven Pinker's The Blank State is a good place for a brief history.

390. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #154536 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 3, 2008 at 12:10 pm

http://www.edge.org/video/dsl/trivers.html

There we go

391. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #154534 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 3, 2008 at 12:06 pm

Nice studies on self-deception as an evolutionary advantage. I'm just off to find the couple I've read.

392. Anti-gay Okla. lawmaker attracts 1,000 backers

Comment #154524 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 3, 2008 at 11:51 am

Didn't you hear that four homosexual couples planned to have sex at an airport hotel in New York, to create sensual pleasure on a scale approximately equal to the pleasure created by four heterosexual couples in that hotel on the same night? Doesn't that send your Scare Meter into the Unprecedented zone?

** SHIVER **

393. Anti-gay Okla. lawmaker attracts 1,000 backers

Comment #154520 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 3, 2008 at 11:49 am

Yeah it is often said the only people who talk about God are atheists.

394. Anti-gay Okla. lawmaker attracts 1,000 backers

Comment #154516 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 3, 2008 at 11:47 am

Yeah Dan Savage is fantastic. His bits on Bill Maher are the only reason I ever really watch the show to be fair. (Bill Maher is really amateur and ignorant).

395. Anti-gay Okla. lawmaker attracts 1,000 backers

Comment #154513 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 3, 2008 at 11:43 am

The 72 virgins claims is bogus isn't it though? There is no mention anywhere in the Koran of the actual number of virgins available in paradise, and aren't the "dark-eyed damsels" available to all Muslims, not just martyrs.
There is a Hadith that says 'The smallest reward for the people of paradise is an abode where there are 80,000 servants and 72 wives, over which stands a dome decorated with pearls, aquamarine, and ruby, as wide as the distance from Al-Jabiyyah to Sana'a'."

EDIT:BUT the only way to get the virgins is to get to heaven, and the only way to be certain of getting to heaven is to die in Jihad.

396. Anti-gay Okla. lawmaker attracts 1,000 backers

Comment #154507 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 3, 2008 at 11:37 am

"Studies show that no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted more than, you know, a few decades. So it's the death knell of this country. I honestly think it's the biggest threat our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam, which I think is a big threat… If you got cancer or something in your little toe, do you say, well, you know, I'm just going to forget about it because the rest of me is fine? It spreads. OK? And this stuff is deadly, and it's spreading, and it will destroy our young people, it will destroy this nation."

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/3/11/headlines#6

Actually her reasoning isn't that bad if you accept her premise: "Studies show that no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted more than, you know, a few decades. So it's the death knell of this country."

I've found this site that deals with what threats homosexuality could pose.

Does Homosexuality Pose a Threat to Society?
By Dr. Niclas Berggren
http://hem.passagen.se/nicb/threat.htm

397. Anti-gay Okla. lawmaker attracts 1,000 backers

Comment #154502 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 3, 2008 at 11:28 am

Al. Yes surely the ultimate destructive force imaginable. Gay terrorists.

398. Anti-gay Okla. lawmaker attracts 1,000 backers

Comment #154500 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 3, 2008 at 11:25 am

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7328892.stm

Page last updated at 17:30 GMT, Thursday, 3 April 2008 18:30 UK

Eight men planned to detonate bombs aboard flights from London across the Atlantic to create deaths on an almost unprecedented scale, a court has heard.

Homemade devices were to be smuggled on to passenger aircraft and detonated mid-flight, Woolwich Crown Court heard.

Prosecutor Peter Wright QC said the men planned to inflict heavy casualties, "all in the name of Islam".

Yeah homosexuality is more dangerous than terrorism.

399. Anti-gay Okla. lawmaker attracts 1,000 backers

Comment #154492 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 3, 2008 at 11:00 am

The easiest way to show this kind of nonsense up is just to quote Leviticus at them:

* Don't let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19)

* Don't have a variety of crops on the same field. (Leviticus 19:19)

* Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)

* Don't cut your hair nor shave. (Leviticus 19:27)

* Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20:9)

* If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10)

* If a man sleeps with his father's wife... both him and his father's wife is to be put to death. (Leviticus 20:11)

* If a man sleeps with his wife and her mother they are all to be burnt to death. (Leviticus 20:14)

* If a man or woman has sex with an animal, both human and animal must be killed. (Leviticus 20:15-16)

* If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be "cut off from their people" (Leviticus 20:18)

* Psychics, wizards, and so on are to be stoned to death. (Leviticus 20:27)

* If a priest's daughter is a whore, she is to be burnt at the stake. (Leviticus 21:9)

* People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)

* Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16)

Source: http://biblebabble.curbjaw.com/laws.htm