|
|
Ron Hammon wrote:
> While watching "Patton", and some military graves
with either crosses
> or "Star of David" as grave markers, it occurred
to me that we
> atheists don't have a simple grave marker. Anything pointing
up
> won't work, or a circle of any kind. Anything devoid of ANY
> orimentation would just be interpreted as a post. Off the top
of my
> head, I thought of a horizontal disk, an ANTI-pointer. Any
better
> ideas?
My mother taught me to use a cross to mark disturbed ground, not
just
graves. So when she'd been camping and crapping in a hole for a
week
she'd mark the filled-in hole with a cross, easy to make in seconds
out of sticks, make it as resistant to biodegrading as the contents
of
the hole. So the cross is simply the default marker for a hole with
something that shouldn't be dug up. But my mother has been known
to be
as full of shit as a lattrine on the fifth day of camp so I wouldn't
take that idea too far.
I suggest a simple square in the same sort of size as the rest
of the
graves, not drawing excessive attention to it but not being a
religious symbol. Such a marker would not be confused with a Keep
Off
The Grass sign if it is in rows and rows of other obvious graves.
Go
for as undesigned as possible, take the Christian and Jewish grave
markers as the base, keep the it just the same until the bit with
the
symbol on it and instead have a plain rectangle with the same mass
of
stone in it, with a little shaping around the edges so it doesn't
look
unfinished. This should give the message loud and clear: this is
just
as much a grave but with no religious symbol and no "anti-symbol"
either.
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
|
|
Do Atheists ONLY believe in what they can
see,hear,feel ???
DaveinIllinois@webtv.net wrote:
> What is your opinion of this ?
>
> Thank you.
Atheists are people who don't believe in gods. That what I believe.
Many of the atheists I have come across are as thick as two short
planks. Many are very intelligent. I happen to believe many things
that I have no direct experience of. Zambia for example. The fact
that
it's rather chilly in Antarctica. That George W Bush isn't (quite)
as
dumb as he seems. That kind of thing. I believe what I know to be
true, what I have found to be true and what seems likely to be true
on
the basis of Occam's Razor, that if it wasn't true I'd have to
postulate an absurdly complicated cover-up and conspiracy that would
be mind-bogglingly expensive. I really can't believe that this
universe is just a figment of my imagination and yet this magnificent
imagination lets me live in Cheadle Hulme.
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
|
|
JPF wrote:
> AN EXPANDED VERSION OF THE LORD'S PRAYER
> by David Wanstall
>
> Our Father in Heaven, Hallowed be your name-- not our name
Lord,
> Yours, may You get the attention, not us, may You get the glory,
not
> us, may You get the praise and acclaim, not us.
>
> Your kingdom come your will be done on earth as in heaven.
May Your
> empire expand, not ours, may Your will be done, not ours, may
Your
> desires and wants for us be fulfilled, not ours, in every area
of
our
> lives may Your purposes be fulfilled, not ours.
>
> Give us today our daily bread. Don't give us everything we
need
for
> a lifetime so we forget to live in daily dependence on you.
Please
> give us what we need for today to accomplish Your will, glorify
You,
> and reflect Your generosity to us.
>
> Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us.
May we
> be as forgiving as You are, not harboring grudges, hurts or
> disappointments against others, ourselves, or even You.
>
> Lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil. Lead
us in
the
> path of growth and fruitfulness, remove evil from within us,
help us
> not to absorb or pick up new forms, thoughts, or habits of
evil, may
> the 'bright lights' of worldliness and sin have no attraction
for us
>
> For the kingdom the power and the glory are yours now and forever.
> Amen.
And you authority for writing this is what, exactly?
Sorry, you didn't write it did you? You pasted it. But where does
the
authority come from to make up stuff like this? Surely the Lord's
Prayer is the only formal prayer dictated directly by the
mythical/legendary Yehoshua ben Yosef. Doesn't it take quite a fair
amount of chutzpah to put a gloss on those words?
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
|
|
Angela la Fontaine wrote:
> Why do more women than men bow out? And why is their choice
of
> weapons more often pills, while men's is guns? Who killed Norma
Jean?
> www.star.net/silence
More men than women kill themselves. More women than men self-harm.
The so-called suicide attempts of most women are just self-harming
cries for attention. Sometimes these go wrong and the "suicide
attempt" actually "succeeds", this is particularly
common with drugs
which are more harmful than is generally known. In Britain many
women
died or needed liver transplants after attention seeking misuse
of the
common painkiller paracetamol, recently there have been moves to
restrict the number of these in a pack so that there would be enough
to cure headaches and period pains but just short of the dose which
causes an agonizing death by acute liver failure causing multiple
organ failure and death, typically about ten days after their
attention seeking stunt.
http://www.irishhealth.com/?level=4&id=2276
Men tend to do the job right, minimizing pain and maximizing
lethality. For many men sucking the barrel(s) of a shotgun is by
far
the most effective way of achieving the desired aim: death and an
end
to pain.
Failed "suicide attempts" are far more common among women
and also gay
men. Self-mutilation and eating disorders are also more common among
women and gay men, I believe they are manifestations of similar
motivations. In contrast when straight men set out to kill themselves
they usually manage it.
Females "attempt suicide" more than males in the ratio
4 to 1
Males succeed in suicide more than females in the ratio 3 to 1
Overdose is the primary means of "suicide attempts"
However poisoning comes behind firearms and hanging as means of
successful suicides.
Categorizing female pill-popping as a suicide attempt is farcical.
Taking pills is principally, in intention as well as result, an
act of
attention-seeking and should be classed with pulling out hair,
slashing oneself with blades and anorexia.
Also contrary to popular myth suicide is not "a teenage issue",
it is
most common in the elderly for men, and peaks for the 45-54 year
old
age group for women.
Killing yourself does not require great ingenuity or special
equipment. My great aunt achieved it with a bottle of whisky and
a
plastic bag, she also swallowed all her tablets as well, probably
just
to show willing.
http://www.afsp.org/statistics/USAagegroup.htm
Don't go believing the hype, eh girls? Check out the facts first,
it
only takes a minute these days.
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
Angela la Fontaine wrote:
> I believe you, Martin. And I thank you for using a name on
this
> newsgroup, rather than some pseudo crap. But I think the statistics
> misrepresent! One of the two suicides I've known was a "gay"
man who
> shot himself in his head with a pistol, as he sat beside his
lover on
> their sofa in their home they'd shared for years. The other
was a
> pedophile who gassed himself in a car in snowy woods. So my
personal
> statistics are two to nothing for dead men.
> Nevertheless, women do show more despair, whether it's bowing
out or
> trying to bow in. If your statistics are right, why are women
so
> left out? www.star.net/silence
Do these personal experiences tell you anything about yourself
perhaps?
I'd also be interested to know technical details about the gassing.
I
have heard that due to catalytic converters most cars now can't
kill
you unless they drive over you, which I suppose must be a good thing.
Perhaps what we are seeing is men being depressed and self-harming
principally though substance abuse and stupid violent behaviour
whereas women self harm in theatrical ways. Suicide, when attempted
with something seriously lethal, is something else.
Most men wouldn't have the courage to slash their wrists, which
is of
course a rather half hearted way to look like you are trying to
kill
yourself. To be honest many men wouldn't have the courage to wax
their
legs or pluck their eyebrows. My mother worked in a women's prison
and
was quite used to coming across women who slashed their wrists,
I
don't recall her ever telling me about a woman who "succeeded"
in
killing herself this way. Several women were covered in self-inflicted
scars. Effective prison suicides are usually hangings, and these
are
usually men.
When I said research only takes a minute that was as much of an
admission as an admonition. I admit the thing about gays was not
thoroughly researched. OK, not researched at all, but that doesn't
mean it's wrong, just that I'm not confident it's right. However
I did
remember the thing about women attempting more but men succeeding
from
studying sociology ... oh my god, how long ago?!
Men and women both get depressed but they handle it in different
ways.
I don't think you can use statistics on "suicide attempts"
to prove
whether women are less happy than men, at least not without other
supporting evidence. Most women never do anything that could be
classified as a suicide attempt by any stretch of the imagination.
As for using my name that's straight-forward, I say what I mean,
mean
what I say and sign my name.
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
|
|
Fatha -Jack wrote:
> Aaaaah diddums. Have the poor ikle muslims had a taste of their
own
> medicine? Poor ikle savages!
>
I thought one of the reasons for going into Iraq was to stop arbitrary
beatings and abuse of Iraqis? And one thing is for certain, if Iraq
does get its own democratic government it will be almost exclusively
Muslim, in composition if not character.
If the coalition forces are acting in ways similar to the previous
regime then nothing has been achieved at all. Now Iraq is occupied
by
forces who definitely do possess weapons of mass destruction and
they
are now suspected of abusing Iraqis.
Iraqis in Iraq opposing foreign forces of occupation can hardly
be
called terrorists, anybody in their own country resisting foreign
occupying troops must objectively be classified as resistance
fighters. Of course that doesn't make them glorious heroes any more
than wearing the uniform of a democracy makes a racist bigot of
a thug
civilized.
It is far from clear that these accusations and photographs are
genuine but at least it seems as if the British military's response
to
them is as swift and decisive as it should be.
There can be no room for thuggery in the professional armed forces
of
democratic countries.
If these charges are genuine those responsible should be treated
as
harshly as the rules allow. The same goes if they are bogus. Wars
should never be started or finished because of faked propaganda.
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
|
|
Wotan wrote:
> In all probability put together by either Mossad or the CIA
> to distract attention from their own (real) pictures of
> disgusting torture and humiliation of Iraqis by US troops
> (complete with faces and arrests) perpetrated by their soldiers
> on the orders of an over-promoted Jewish woman Brigadier,
> Janis Karpinski - which her own soldiers describe as
> "incompetent and promoted far beyond her capabilities
> because she was a woman." They dare not say "and
> because she was a Jew".
>
> Apparently, if you are able to play both the "Jewish"
and
> "woman" card at the same time, you can become a
> Brigadier General ! And they do ! All the time !
>
> The Mail on Sunday 2/5/04, p5, points out the following:
The Mail On Sunday's observations do make the photographs look
highly
suspicious, but why do you immediately use the story to run your
own
warped agenda? Is it perhaps that you are in the pay of Mossad
yourself, seeking to undermine any attempts to attack Jews by doing
it
with such breathtaking incompetence that any anti-Semitic movement
is
laughed off all public platforms? That conspiracy theory has as
much
to back it up as yours do.
http://mwillett.org/mind/conspiracytheory.htm
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
|
|
The possession of weapons of mass destruction was the reason given
for
the war. If that reason is bogus then we have been mislead. If we
have
been knowingly mislead then that is a serious offence against the
democratic process, it is in effect both treason and a war crime.
To me the WMD issue wasn't important. What mattered was the simple
calculation of whether the world would be better off with Saddam
Hussein removed, considering what the likely casualties would be.
It
was a great prize, it could be a high cost. I think they made the
right call, but to have gone to war over a lie remains a betrayal
of
the people.
You seem not to care about such things, but just seem to glory
in the
fight itself. Such an attitude is beneath contempt.
I did used to have some respect for the armed forces, but seeing
things like this makes that drop like a stone. You show just how
ignorant and ill-educated so many members of the armed forces are.
And
the worst part is the glorying in the ignorance and the bigotry.
If it knew what you were really like I don't think your country
would
want you fighting for it, just as they would love to rip their flag
from the hands of the BNP and football hooligans too.
Fortunately I do happen to know other members and former members
of
the armed forces and I know that your ignorant ill-educated fascist
thuggery is not by any means the whole story.
For your information I am not anti-war. I have supported the invasion
of Iraq since 1983 when I first discovered the nature of Saddam
Hussein's regime. Unfortunately too many people are in awe of the
dictators' trade union that is the UN to plan a serious foreign
policy.
I agree, any one of those explanations seems reasonable. But the
weight of evidence is highly suggestive of a mock up. There's nothing
in the photographs that looks individual or distinctive, or dirty,
or
out of focus, or ill-lit or in any other way not part of the plot.
It
is as artificial as the speech patterns on TV dramas, no fluffed
words, no incoherent sentences etc. Every single thing in the images
looks like it is there for a reason, like the Iraqi flag t shirt,
like
the milky-white complexion of the nasty thug, like the stream of
urine
without showing the penis, which is just what the picture editor
would
have ordered -oo, wet the hood first ducky so we can be sure what's
happening, on his mouth silly, keep your floppy hat over your face
please and do try to look butch!
Link to Daily Mirror faked images - now deleted, surprise surprise!
Eight hour ordeal in the back of a spotless truck? No bruises?
No
shadows? No fag ends? No blood, urine or vomit stains anywhere on
the
floor? No sun tan? No tattoos, no watch, no colour photography?
You
are quite comfortable with *all* of those details?
In contrast the US pictures look much more genuine, there's faces
gloating and there's dirt, confusion, extraneous detail and less
than
perfect photography.
|
|
Jodi wrote:
> I loved Britpop.
>
> With the massive, overwhelming exception of Oasis.
>
> <gloat>
>
When you say you love something do you mean the music or the
musicians? I consider it a sign of a decent well adjusted mind that
I
can enjoy the sound that Oasis make while utterly detesting the
pretentious overpaid tossers on a personal level. Oasis: what file
sharing was designed for. Please steal as much of their music as
you
like, it serves the buggers right.
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
|
|
Fatha -Jack wrote:
> <orb@cts.com> wrote in message
> news:0CDmc.838$qQ.583@chiapp18.algx.net...
>> In soc.culture.british Underground Zero wrote:
>>> "Mummud Amud" <orb@cts.com> wrote in
message
>>> news:53c1a354.0405050808.1d419d7b@posting.google.com...
>>
>>> Oy Ali Fucking Bongo!
>>
>> Zero is good name for you.
>>
>>> I'll bring your Mosque down or raise you one.
>>
>> May pakishops infest your council estate.
>
> They tried it on ours! Two suspicious fires later the smelly
muslim
> CUNTS fucked off to Lancashire somewhere. At least that shit-hole
of
> a county deserves the fuckin pig-fuckers!
>
Jack, is anybody paying you to discredit the BNP and British
nationalism in general or do you do it entirely on a voluntary basis?
You're very good at it. So much for their attempts to make out they
are a moderate and legitimate political force, you tell it like
their
enemies want it to be told: the BNP are illeducated racist hate-filled
bigots who glory in violence and find the flag merely a good excuse
to
have a punch up.
I'm almost tempted to do the same sort of thing myself, it is probably
the best way to ensure that the BNP never gets anywhere near any
form
of political power in Britain.
I wonder whether Fatha Jack isn't actually a long haired Socialist
Workers Party activist, a sociology student with too much time on
his
hands perhaps?
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
|
Homosexuality may be natural
Lucius Introini wrote:
> I honestly believe that Homosexuality is nature's way of preventing
> sub-optimal humans from reproducing.
>
> And I really don't mean that in a nasty way.
>
> I believe that a homosexual 'instinct' sometimes 'kicks in'
to prevent
> humans from passing on their defective genes.
>
> Think about it before flaming me...
If being homosexual stopped people breeding then that sentiment
might
be worth considering for, oo, even a minute or two.
Many homosexuals do manage to breed. Some marry as cover, some
try to
settle down as straight and hope it will all turn out right
eventually. Do the children of these homosexuals inherit gross
deformities? What do you think? I'm not sure if my mother is a
lesbian, she's never said, but I'm damn sure most of the women she
sleeps with are.
Animals do not contain suicide genes, genes do not operate in the
interests of species.
Even assuming that a suicide gene would operate (it wouldn't) why
would it operate by changing sexual behaviour rather than by simply
stopping production of fertile gametes? Isn't it a far safer strategy
to sit in a body that goes through the motions of being heterosexual,
without being fertile, rather than making the body that carries
you
engage in high risk activities by changing numerous behavioural
switches?
There's thousands of easier ways not to breed than by being
homosexual.
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
|
|
Holly the Heretic wrote:
> On Sun, 09 May 2004 02:48:49 GMT, Lucius Introini
> <lucius.introini@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I honestly believe that Homosexuality is nature's way of
preventing
>> sub-optimal humans from reproducing.
>>
>> And I really don't mean that in a nasty way.
>
> LOL - course you don't.
Come on, give him (I assume Lucius is masculine) the benefit of
the
doubt. I can't see how it would be impossible to come up with such
an
idea unless you were a homophobe or bigot, the idea does have some
merit as long as you don't get too worried by anything as complicated
as facts, evidence or mechanisms. On the other hand I can't see
how
you could come up with such an idea if you really knew anything
about
genetics. He probably thinks he's smart and has come up with some
bright new idea that nobody else has ever considered, I'd guess
he's
probably about 16, or reads The Sun, either way, mental age of about
16. Give him a break. Bless.
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
|
|
alt.english.usage
Dylan Nicholson wrote:
> "Martin Willett" <ignoredmailbox@ntlworld.com>
wrote in message
> news:<2g28vfF3t960U1@uni-berlin.de>...
>> Robert Lieblich wrote:
>>> "M.C." wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Gone braindead for a moment.
>>>>
>>>> Context: painting. What's the plural of "still
life"?
>>>
>>> Dictionaries say "still lifes." I agree.
>>>
>>> Reflect on the Toronto Maple Leafs.
>>
>> Correct. A still life is not a kind of life it is a kind
of painting,
>> it defaults to the regular default English plural rule
of add an s.
>
> But is a low-life a type of life? Low-lives seems to be considered
> valid by some dictionaries. There seem to be a few other similar
> exceptions to the general rule, e.g. cloverleaves, dogteeth,
and of
> course midwives (far more common than midwifes).
>
Ah. Midwives. Tricky one. People obviously do think of midwives
as in
some way a type of wife, as this usage demonstrates. But people
don't
think of a mongoose as a type of goose, possibly something to do
with
the lack of feathers.
I see low-lives as wrong. If you are a low-life you are not a life.
As for still lifes I say Cézanne and Van Gogh were expert
at
still-lifing, expert still lifers, producing numerous still lifes
throught their lives and no doubt they would still be still lifing
now
if they were still living.
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
|
|
alt.english.usage
WOM (Wise Old Man) wrote:
> Hi,
> A guy said, "I am English, I'm too damn poor to be British."
> How should I understand it? seems a culture issue?
> A wild guess again, Is a British more superior than an English?
I
> don't mean to bring up discrimination trouble. It's just an
English
> problem I found. With Thanks.
>
> Further context, it is the words from the former GE chairman,
Reg
> Jones, who was described as "an English statesman, who
was written up
> as an adviser to three presidents and their cabinets..."
> WOM (a Chinese)
I'm English, which makes me British and European. I don't see any
status difference between being British and English.
80% of the British are from England. There are more people who
live in
London than who live in Scotland and more people who live in the
rest
of England than Scots, Welsh and Londoners put together. In many
ways
English and British are interchangeable as long as the minority
of
non-English Britons is not called English.
My country is England, that is a statement of fact rather than
a
boast. I would also say that my ethnicity was English, but that
is a
separate thing to my national identity. I am quite happy to accept
people of any ethnicity as being English if they care to be. There
are
some racists who say you can be black British but you can't be black
English, my response to that would require the use of Anglo Saxon
and
Middle English which might not be appropriate in this genteel
newsgroup.
I have never met an English person who was insulted to be called
British, except when the person calling them British has spat the
word
out with venom. I do, however, prefer to be called English. I see
British as being a manufactured loyalty, and like all manufactured
loyalties it was manufactured to serve the interests of those who
manufactured it: in this case the political elites of both England
and
Scotland. Perhaps this is the same kind of sentiment as expressed
by
Reg Jones? Perhaps he too can see the way in which the notion of
Britishness has been created to serve the interests of the ruling
classes and institutions which rely on the British dimension? Such
institutions would include the British armed forces, the BBC and
of
course the aristocracy and ruling establishment elite itself which
marries within its own, and that definition of its own excludes
people
on the basis of class, nationality is a very minor issue for the
upper
classes. The daughter of a Scottish Earl marrying the son of an
English Duke (or even a Polish Count) is not in any sense unusual,
if
she were to marry the son of a taxi driver that would be, even if
he
lived in the same village.
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
|
A bastard of a question...
A discussion of the terms bastard and differently abled.
What kind of a universe do you live in? Being crippled does not
automatically give you other abilities and not being crippled doesn't
mean you cannot have different abilities. You can call people
whatever you want but an idiot is still an idiot and a cripple is
still a cripple.
It is totally ridiculous to call somebody differently abled when
the
only thing you know about them is that they have some form of
handicap. At work I am differently abled, because I can do many
things
without a ladder. Having that different ability has not required
me to
give up the use of any limb or faculty. Being able to crack walnuts
with your buttocks is being differently abled, being able to do
a
convincing impersonation of a telephone answering machine is being
differently abled, being able to fart and make the noise appear
to
come from somewhere else is being differently abled.
Why can't people grasp the concept that if you take a person of
mediocre ability and then deprive them of some faculty they are
not
suddenly going to develop a different special talent. 'People with
disabilities' is the best and most accurate term, they are still
people, they are still valid people so don't call them *invalid*,
they
are people with disabilities. They may have special talents, but
you
don't need to be crippled to have special talents and being crippled
doesn't hand you any such talents.
If a man of average talents who can't walk is differently abled
then
George W Bush is differently competent.
To answer the main question I'd say the correct term is bastard.
Illegitimate strikes me as being as incorrect as the term invalid,
children born outside of marriage are just as legitimately children
and people although they are not legitimate issue of a marriage.
People cannot be illegitimate as people. The term 'love child' is
a
great insult to those people who bring up children in love and
marriage as well as being inaccurate in many cases, many bastards
are
simply lust children.
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
>> What kind of a universe do you live in?
>
> Are you addressing me? If so, my universe
is expanding at an
> accelerating rate, according to the latest cosmological
> determinations. How about yours?
Answering rhetorical questions rarely helps debates.
(evil grin) Does it?
>
>> Being crippled does not
>> automatically give you other abilities and not being crippled
doesn't
>> mean you cannot have different abilities. You can call
people
>> whatever you want but an idiot is still an idiot and a
cripple is
>> still a cripple.
>
> You're absolutely right. I don't think
I said anything that
> indicated the contrary. I was, I thought, rebutting an argument
> that no handicapped person could do anything better than any
> non-handicapped person. Perhaps you're not addressing me after
all.
I was. I could see little or no evidence in that paragraph of an
acceptance that being handicapped does not give people special
abilities. Some handicapped people have special abilities, some
of
those are in a way related to their loss of other abilities but
there
is not any mechanism in place in my universe that automatically
gives
handicapped people compensating extra abilities but the phrase
differently abled strongly suggests that is the case.
Some disabled people are differently abled, have special abilities,
have abilities beyond those of most people. Those people can be
called
differently abled. I don't see how having one form of disability
automatically means you have another form of higher ability, and
if
you don't then the phrase is just gibberish and we would be better
off
inventing a new word devoid of any inaccurate, misleading or negative
connotations.
>>
>> It is totally ridiculous to call somebody differently abled
when the
>> only thing you know about them is that they have some form
of
>> handicap. At work I am differently abled, because I can
do many
>> things without a ladder. Having that different ability
has not
>> required me to give up the use of any limb or faculty.
Being able to
>> crack walnuts with your buttocks is being differently abled,
being
>> able to do a convincing impersonation of a telephone answering
>> machine is being differently abled, being able to fart
and make the
>> noise appear to come from somewhere else is being differently
abled.
>
> Yes, yes, yes. It's the old anti-PC argument. I share your
disgust
> at this torturing of the language,[1] although I think Ray
Wise also
> has a point -- liek it or not, it's a term in current use,
and some
> people are mightily offended if you don't use it. If one of
those
> mightily offended persons has some authority over you, watch
out.
> (My blind boss knew he was blind and called himself blind.
He was
> an asshole in many ways, but at least he didn't euphemise his
> situation.) It's just that raymond o'hara (who seems unable
to
> extract capital letters from his computer) made such an idiotic
> remark that I felt duty-bound to point out his idiocy. Please
> forgive me.
>
>> Why can't people grasp the concept that if you take a person
of
>> mediocre ability and then deprive them of some faculty
they are not
>> suddenly going to develop a different special talent. 'People
with
>> disabilities' is the best and most accurate term, they
are still
>> people, they are still valid people so don't call them
*invalid*,
>> they are people with disabilities. They may have special
talents,
>> but you don't need to be crippled to have special talents
and being
>> crippled doesn't hand you any such talents.
>
> Amen.
>
>> To answer the main question I'd say the correct term is
bastard.
>
> Unfortunately, its overtones have made it hard to understand
without
> elaboration.
Such is life.
>
>> Illegitimate strikes me as being as incorrect as the term
invalid,
>> children born outside of marriage are just as legitimately
children
>> and people although they are not legitimate issue of a
marriage.
>> People cannot be illegitimate as people. The term 'love
child' is a
>> great insult to those people who bring up children in love
and
>> marriage as well as being inaccurate in many cases, many
bastards are
>> simply lust children.
>
> Proving that there is no good word. I'd just say the person's
> parents were unmarried (if that information had to be conveyed)
and
> leave it at that.
>
Again this is a request for some more neologenesis,
I suggest we get
an English speaking student who doesn't speak Japanese to flirt
with a
Japanese student over a cup of tea and a fairy cake and give the
pair
of them five minutes to agree on a few new words to import into
English, words that can be pronounced easily in English. We can
then
perhaps have the Japanese word for sugar basin to mean disabled
person
and the Japanese word for eyelashes to be the new connotation free
word for a child born out of wedlock.
It might just work. "Let us not discriminate against [drink
stirring
stick], [pepper pot], [icing sugar] or [earring] no matter how big
or
small your [lemon scented face wipe] there is room for you in today's
society!"
http://www.mwillett.org/mind/neologenetics.htm
http://www.mwillett.org/mind/neolog2.htm
> [1] Quoting my favorite author (from
the very post to which you
> responded): "That doesn't mean that I endorse the term
"differently
> abled," which I consider representative of Political Correctness
run
> amok, for general use ..."
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
|
|
Joanne Marinelli wrote:
> "Robert Lieblich" <Robert.Lieblich@Verizon.net>
wrote in message
> news:409CE73B.D7E0AE79@Verizon.net...
> But this is classic Usenet, and people
>> will say what they want. I don't
referee the place, and I'm not
>> calling a foul on anyone, but isn't it time to move on?
>>
>> --
>> Bob Lieblich
>> The Voice of Reason (yeah, sure)
>
> If Mr. Willet had posted "you can call them what you will
but all
> blacks are niggers" we'd have a different situation, wouldn't
we? A
> sort of recoil.
"Niggers" is no more accurate than black and is gratuitously
offensive.
It is not a good analogy. I could say that a nigger is still a
nigger
no matter what you call him. That would have some truth to it, a
rose
is a rose by any other name. But to say a black was a nigger would
be
saying something else, that blacks (neutral description) are niggers
(offensive, insulting and demeaning description heavy with a multitude
of negative connotations). I did not say that differently abled
people
were cripples. That is absurd. But if a person is, objectively
crippled then they are crippled. We know what it means, we know
how
you cripple a tank, you shoot a rocket at it designed to disable
it,
you don't expect that tank to subsequently develop different
abilities.
>
> Attitudes like his and O'hara's are no longer acceptable in
our
> community, period. Not being able to hear is not being able
to hear,
> not being able to see is not being able to see, and not being
able
to
> walk is not being able to walk. We've evolved an intelligence
which
> focuses on the potential, not the punishment of a label for
a
> limitation.
>
> Any Usenet punk who wants to behave like a subhuman fascist
in front
> of me on these issues is going to be called on it.
Anybody who cannot spell a name that is right in front of them
is
going to get called on it, especially on a newsgroup about English
usage.
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
Joanne Marinelli wrote:
> "Martin Willett" <ignoredmailbox@ntlworld.com>
wrote in message
> news:2g285rF3qitqU1@uni-berlin.de...
>> What kind of a universe do you live in? Being crippled
does not
>> automatically give you other abilities and not being crippled
doesn't
>> mean you cannot have different abilities. You can call
people
>> whatever you want but an idiot is still an idiot and a
cripple is
>> still a cripple.
>>
> Oh really? And you know this how Mr.
Willet? By smearing your
> underwear with excrement on a daily basis? If, for the sake
of a
> hypothetical argument, I assumed you were an ignorant motherf*cker,
> would that mean your mother's vagina actually does contain
your semen?
>
> Cordially,
> Joanne
If you assumed I was an ignorant motherfucker you would be wrong
on
both counts.
Are you suggesting that when a person is disabled they instantly
develop a new ability?
"Doctor will I be able to play the piano after the amputation?"
"Of course you will."
"That's amazing, I've always wanted to be able to do that."
Or perhaps you think calling an idiot chronically educationally
challenged makes them less of an idiot, or for that matter less
chronically educationally challenged?
Or perhaps you are suggesting that calling a cripple differently
abled
stops them being crippled?
Changing the term to one that people find a sick joke is not going
to
do anything about discrimination or blinkered thinking.
Blowing your top like that will only make people think worse of
you. I
have no problem with saying what I mean and meaning what I say.
Please spell my name right, it's not difficult, your software can
manage it so please try to keep up.
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
|
|
>Real men don't need big guns to prove
to themselves that they are real men,
>they just know they are.
Good for you. Exactly how does that help
anyone? Not all of us can
claim to be Mr. Super Hero, trained by whatever Muscle Man Creating
organisation takes their fancy. Indeed, some of us are women.
Women who men like you are endangering with
your super hero fantasies.
Women who want back the right to protect themselves against attackers
who will inevitably be larger and stronger than they can ever hope
to
be.
This is what happened to my friend, June,
here in West Wales. No, not in
a big city, a sleepy village/town. A local man had decided that
he
wanted a relationship with her. The answer was NO. He persisted.
One
day she went out shopping, and when she came back, he was in the
house.
Followed her into the kitchen, when she became aware he was there.
June
asked him to leave. He refused.
At this stage she could have shot him with
no damage to herself. UK law
prevents women from any form of protection other than an ineffective
call to the police. So June grabbed the phone, only to see it pulled
from its socket.
She was then held hostage for the rest of
the day and overnight.
Beaten. Raped. Not allowed access to the toilet. Threatened with
a
knife taken from the rack in the kitchen. Her hands and fingers
were
cut to pieces as she tried to stop the knife getting to her throat.
She
was given a Chinese Kiss. In case you don't know, the attacker puts
his
thumbs into the corners of the mouth and pulls until the skin splits,
and then keeps on going.
In the morning, for some reason known only
to himself, this man decided
he would leave her with instructions to stay put while he went out.
June crawled to the door, unable to walk.
Unable to see, her eyes
swollen and stuck shut with blood. She crawled down the steps and
into
the street where she lay with cars swerving round her. Eventually
someone reported this to the emergency services and an ambulance
arrived.
No, the story isn't over yet. Men like you,
Robert, don't have to hide
their horror when they gaze for the first time at what used to be
a
face. They don't have to hold someone sobbing in despair the first
time
they are allowed to look into a mirror. Her face had been stolen
from
her. Once she said to me that "No, I was never a great beauty,
but just
sometimes a man would look at me and show interest. Now they look
away
trying to avoid seeing the horror that I have become." It was
not you
who has been called out on every suicide attempt. Not you who was
phoned
at 2, 3, 4 in the morning by the hospital. One day she will succeed.
I will consider it was murder. It will go down in the statistics
as
suicide. And you will sleep soundly in your bed knowing there was
no
gun in her hand to protect her when she most needed it.
June has moved several times now. The man
was jailed. The authorities
let him write to her from jail, even telling her when he was being
let
out - Why? Because he told them he was her boyfriend. She is afraid
to
go out. Afraid to be home alone. Afraid to answer the door, the
phone,
open a letter.
You Robert, and all of the other cowards
who want to shirk their
responsibilities, are directly responsible for the suffering of
every
victim who was denied the means of defending themselves.
--
Fenris Wolf
>> Assuming he didn't have a gun himself.
>
> Please explain how it could have been
any worse?
You are imagining a woman alone in her house carrying a gun, but
in a
society that allows people to carry guns. So her assailant would
have
known this. So what would he have done? Pulled a gun first, or
attacked in a way that denied her the opportunity to pull out her
gun.
How would that have been worse? She would have been carrying a
heavy
dangerous weapon around with her all the time, every time she picked
up her handbag she would have been reminded of the fear that drove
her
to carry it. She would be mentally imagining pulling it out and
under
what circumstances she would have to do that. She would be, like
millions of women in America are, living with the constant anxiety
of
carrying a weapon, the fear of attack. A fear built upon by the
man
who sold her the gun and the men who trained her to use it, the
men
who told her dozens of stories about the dangers of being a woman,
stories that happened to a friend of a friend, stories that sound
so
real, so frightening, so well designed to encourage her to carry
that
gun. And for what? It would not guarantee her safety. It might be
used
against her. It might be found by her children and used to kill,
the
American gun accident statistics show that fear to be real.
It would not give her protection, it would not give her peace of
mind,
it would corrode that peace of mind. It would be a constant reminder
of her fears. And so it would be to the *thousands of other women*
who
could see themselves in that same circumstance but who would be
just
as unlikely ever to be a victim of such a crime as she would have
thought herself to be.
Do you really think it would be a better world in which every woman
opened her front door to the Avon lady with her hand on the butt
of a
pistol? Is America a wonderful model of safety and freedom from
fear
of crime?
Of course the other way it could have been worse if the criminally
minded assailant was armed with his own gun and pre-empted her drawing
her own is that he could have overpowered several people with his
gun.
I don't want to draw any diagrams here, I'm not in the business
of
building up fears, but just try to imagine the scene for a few
seconds. Yes, it could be worse.
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
Fenris Wolf wrote:
> In article <2i4dqaFi3tdfU1@uni-berlin.de>, Martin Willett
> <ignoredmailbox@ntlworld.com> writes
>> Fenris Wolf wrote:
>>> In article <c9ik5j$6jk$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>,
Certic
>>> <PJS@winDEAT HTOSPAMMERSwaed.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>> Assuming he didn't have a
gun himself.
>>>
>>> Please explain how it could have
been any worse?
>>
>> You are imagining a woman alone in her house carrying a
gun,
>
> No, that is not what I said. I said that she had been out and
came
> back to find him in the house. Even so, please explain how
a woman
> alone in her house carrying a gun could be worse than a woman
> attacked with no means of defence?
>
Right this is the heart of the fantasy here. I freely conceded
that
with access to a time machine (with myth mode and apocryphal
overdrive) I would be more than happy to slip a .38 revolver
into
that woman's hands in that scenario. But that isn't going to happen,
is it?
For there to have been a gun in her hands she would have had to had
one,
and as she is not the only woman who could attract a stalker out
of
the blue we also sensibly have to consider potentially arming all
potential victims everywhere otherwise we are in the silly situation
of playing a totally bogus game of what if. If not all potential
victims then at least a significant number, otherwise the scenario
is
bizarre. What if she had a fully trained rottweiller attack dog?
What
if she was trained in kung fu? What if she had a video camera enabled
intruder detector with live feed to her local police station? What
if
she was out that day, or had a man reading the gas meter? You have
to get real. OK, what if she had a gun? How could she have a gun,
it
isn't reasonable to postulate she had a lucky premonition and only
those people who know they are about to become victims carry guns
and
just for the days they might need to. To make the scenario realistic
we have to imagine a significant proportion of the single female
population being routinely armed, and then look at the consequences
in
the round.
First point, how old do you have to be to carry a gun? Plenty of
11
year olds get mugged and raped, are you suggesting we allow all
11
year olds to carry guns? Or do they have to rely on no protection
for
the common good?
>> but in a
>> society that allows people to carry guns. So her assailant
would have
>> known this. So what would he have done? Pulled a gun first,
or
>> attacked in a way that denied her the opportunity to pull
out her
>> gun.
>
> All things are possible. Just as it is possible that he would
not
> have put his own life at risk by attacking an equal as opposed
to
> someone unlikely to be able to fight back. Ask yourself which
target
> bullies choose to persecute.
>
>>
>> How would that have been worse? She would have been carrying
a heavy
>> dangerous weapon around with her all the time,
>
> Please explain where you get the idea
that a firearm needs to be heavy
> to be effective? Do you have any comprehension of the range
of modern
> weaponry?
I know how many useful things people carry around with them and
how
awkward it is to put your hand on them when you need to. I carry
a
digital camera around with me virtually every time I leave the house
but I still miss plenty of opportunities to take photographs. A
gun
would be one other item to carry along with everything else we already
carry. In and of itself a gun could well be small and neat, but
on top
of your purse, mobile phone, make up, cigarettes, tampons, lighter,
diary, keys, umbrella etc. its weight and bulk mount up and become
a
burden. Where would you pack it? What would go on top of it and
what
would go underneath it? I suggest the vast majority of people who
claim to carry a gun could not pull it out and brandish it in the
time
it takes for an assailant to knock them to the ground.
>
> Anything can be dangerous if it is misused. Would you have
chained
> Prometheus for giving the gift of fire to mankind? Was he benefactor
> or destroyer of children?
>
>> every time she picked
>> up her handbag she would have been reminded of the fear
that drove
>> her to carry it.
>
> And hopefully would not become too complacent.
It pays to remain
> alert to what is going on around you.
>
>> She would be mentally imagining pulling it out and under
>> what circumstances she would have to do that.
>
> Why? Once you know how to do something,
whether it is use a gun,
> drive a car, fly a plane or type a message to a newsgroup,
it is
> just one of those things you are able to do if you wish or
need to.
>
> Do you imagine, every time you
get into a car, being involved in a
> multi-vehicle pile up, with a fire starting and severed limbs
all
> around you? Of course not. It is possible, but if we all imagined
> the worst case scenario for every activity we took part in,
the world
> would grind to a halt.
>
> All one needs to do is hope for the best but make damned sure
you
> prepare for the worst.
>
>
>> She would be, like
>> millions of women in America are, living with the constant
anxiety of
>> carrying a weapon, the fear of attack. A fear built upon
by the man
>> who sold her the gun and the men who trained her to use
it, the men
>> who told her dozens of stories about the dangers of being
a woman,
>> stories that happened to a friend of a friend, stories
that sound so
>> real, so frightening, so well designed to encourage her
to carry that
>> gun. And for what? It would not guarantee her safety. It
might be
>> used against her. It might be found by her children and
used to
>> kill, the American gun accident statistics show that fear
to be real.
>
> Might, might, might, lots of things might be. I go out in my
car and
> the children might just take off the handbrake when I get out
to pay
> for fuel, allowing it to roll down the hill and into the river,
> drowning them. It might just catch fire and roast them before
I get
> back.
>
There were a hell of a lot of mights in your original daydream
too.
She might have had an inkling she was in danger, she might have
bought
a gun, she might have had it to hand.
> There is no absolute safety. Nothing
in the world will guarantee you
> that. The difference between us is that I prefer to take
> responsibility for my own safety. You would prefer me to depend
on
> others.
>
Correct. There is no absolute safety. You are expecting me and
the
rest of the community to rely on the good sense of people who own
guns. But we know that all people cannot be trusted with guns. Leave
criminally minded people out of this because criminally minded people
will always arm themselves as they see fit. All nutters have a first
time. When they are gun owners that first time can be their last
time,
and the last time for dozens of innocent people who find themselves
in
the wrong place at the wrong time. I'm not going to name names,
that
is being an accessory after the fact, nutters who go on the rampage
deserve anonymity for the sake of the other potential victims. We
remember them best by remembering the place names: Dunblane,
Hungerford, Columbine etc.
Also what would happen to your friend if she did own a gun? How
could
she take 16 paracetamol and the cat's worming tablets and make out
she
was trying to kill herself when she owns a gun she thinks can kill
a
man?
>>
>> It would not give her protection, it would not give her
peace of
>> mind, it would corrode that peace of mind. It would be
a constant
>> reminder of her fears. And so it would be to the *thousands
of other
>> women* who could see themselves in that same circumstance
but who
>> would be just as unlikely ever to be a victim of such a
crime as she
>> would have thought herself to be.
>
> Is your car a constant reminder of the misery of walking through
the
> cold and rain carrying heavy bags of shopping? Of course not.
You
> just get on with life accepting the facilities civilisation
has to
> offer.
>
I like the argument against the routine wearing
of ties, going
to your
wardrobe each day and selecting a tie is a constant reminder of
death.
OK, not every time I look at my ties am I reminded of the other
one I
admit it, but it does happen. Surely there is no other thought that
could go through your head when you see a gun in your handbag or
you
feel the weight of it.
>
>>
>> Do you really think it would be a better world in which
every woman
>> opened her front door to the Avon lady with her hand on
the butt of a
>> pistol? Is America a wonderful model of safety and freedom
from fear
>> of crime?
>
> Of course not. They have far too many restrictions on the ownership
> of firearms. <g>
>
>>
>> Of course the other way it could have been worse if the
criminally
>> minded assailant was armed with his own gun and pre-empted
her
>> drawing her own is that he could have overpowered several
people
>> with his gun. I don't want to draw any diagrams here, I'm
not in the
>> business of building up fears, but just try to imagine
the scene for
>> a few seconds. Yes, it could be worse.
>
> Why? If she was dead, then the suffering would not have happened.
> This man was not interested in anyone else. Only her.
But with a gun he could have held her captive indefinitely, and
more
than one victim at the same time if he wanted it. He would not want
her dead, he would have been able to draw his weapon first and hold
her in his power. Women do not volunteer to die very often, as
evidenced by the fact that women make "suicide attempts"
that succeed
in not killing. When men try to kill themselves they usually succeed,
when women go through similar (e)motions they usually get a crowd
of
people around them. Far more women make suicidal gestures, far more
men actually kill themselves. Even classing a two inch scratch across
a wrist as a suicide attempt is an insult to those who manage to
do
the job right. When men want to kill themselves they use effective
methods, women scratch their wrists or pop a few pills and lie there
groaning until somebody patches them up again. And again. And again.
Hundreds of women work in tall office buildings each day and drive
home past dozens of bridges, motorways and railway lines, parking
their carbon monoxide generating cars# in the garage, to swallow
a
small number of tablets and scratch themselves near the end of a
limb
half an hour before somebody is due to visit them, knowing that
millions of women have made similar gestures before and been classed
as "suicidal" by the gullible. Do women not know how to
open windows
or tie knots?
>
> Would the right to own a gun prevent every problem in life?
Of course
> not. Would it prevent every crime? Of course not. But it would
> ensure that the first steps to a life of crime were not taken
so
> casually and thoughtlessly as they are today.
Quite right. The first steps to crime would always be to get a
gun.
They're known as equalizers, but as can be seen in Iraq and any
Schwarzenegger movie they can also help the inherently stronger
*stay
that way* too.
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
# Now thanks to catalytic converters most cars don't produce enough
CO
to poison people, who says there's no such thing as progress?
> Strange sort of heading - strange sort
of view - I understand that
> rice growing is a MUCH greater user of water than grazing cattle
or
> sheep
>
> David
That is off limits to the herbinazis. Meat is wrong because it
is
meat. Especially red meat, because, well, it just is, OK? Any
statistics that can be produced or faked to show meat in a bad light
will be produced. Nobody cares a monkey's about the relative
"efficiency" of mung beans and wheat or how much water
is required to
grow lettuce compared to how many calories it yields. The only thing
that counts is getting evidence to show that eating meat is killing
individuals, the species, the economy and the planet.
They produce figures to show how much water meat requires and how
much
more "efficient" it is to produce protein and calories
in the form of
grain. They also say that for every ounce of red meat produced you
could fill the maize bowls of twenty five starving Africans or some
such and somehow imply that by having a bean burger rather than
a Big
Mac that magically grain would pour into those empty bowls just
like
that! Simplistic ideologically driven nonsense.
Are they really suggesting that the centre of Australia or the
hills
of Wales could produce anything other than sheep and that to grow
some
vegetarian food crops instead would actually be efficient?
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
|
|
>> I think your above statement speaks
very well for itself and
>> illustrates the frame of mind of the average gun freak.
>
> Your use of the bogoted term "gun freak" speaks volume
about your
> mental condition.
>
> "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional
> maturity."
> --Sigmund Freud
>
> " The wish is father to the fear".
> --Sigmund Freud
>
> "I.e, the 'fear of weapons' often arises from an unconcious
impulse
> or wish to do something socially-unacceptable with them. This
is
> combined with a lack of mature coping mechanisms to deal with
these
> feelings. Ever notice just how angry and impulsive gun prohibitionists
> are."
> --Dr. Peter Proctor
Dr Proctor? He sounds like a right arsehole.
How often have you quoted the wisdom of Sigmund Freud on any other
issue? Where did you get that quote, from a NRA calendar or something?
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
The crying shame about all this religion stuff is the rather obvious
point that many of the people spending time discussing it are
otherwise bright people. The great universities of the west were
set
up for religious discussions and for training priests. If instead
of
that they had taught engineering and science we could have had the
industrial revolution at least five hundred years earlier.
Even today the massive amounts of time and effort channelled into
effing the ineffable is effing staggering.
uk.politics.misc,alt.politics.british,alt.politics.england.misc,alt.politics.immigration
Robert Henderson wrote:
> If I take a tin of white paint and drop some black in it doesn't
> improve the white but merely taints it. If I stir the black
in the
> paint becomes something other than it was originally, an unattractive
> grey. If other colours are added the paint changes again. It
is
> changed not improved. RH
I take a loaf of bread and add some butter, an egg, some bacon
and
some ketchup. It's now hopelessly adulterated, isn't it?
That's a rather simple minded parable, but then again that is what
parables are for, to impress the simple minded. You start with "a
moral" and then imagine a plot that leads your audience to
that
thought.
Diversity adds different flavours. There is no law that says all
such
amalgamation is always better or always worse. Hops added to ale
is
good. Mustard added to ham is good. Pepper added to egg is good.
Curry
added to custard is not good.
I don't think any society in human history has ever been above
improvement. Looking back at what immigration has done for Britain
in
the past I see improvement not adulteration. However I see no reason
to assume that will always be the case no matter who comes and no
matter what the numbers. I think diminishing returns have already
set
in. More immigrants from more countries will not have the same
cultural enriching as happened in the past, when you already have
11
herbs and spices in your seasoning you don't need to add a lot more.
More diversity now will just lead to lessening of the spirit of
community and identity, especially as the newer waves of immigrants
have not severed their links with their roots and not thrown their
lot
in with us.
As communication becomes easier immigrants will settle in
less and are more likely to maintain links with an outside community
which must therefore be their home. When the lower orders left for
the
American colonies they left families behind which grieved as if
for
the dead, those people became Americans in a generation, probably
within a year, possibly even
before they arrived in America. Immigrants today do not severe links
with their families abroad and so do not integrate into the host
community. This is new. The Jews integrated into British society
because they lost touch with their communities abroad. Even the
Caribbeans who came over in the fifties and sixties severed their
roots to a significant degree compared to what is happening today.
We
should not be complacent about immigration and expect that it will
all
be alright simply because it turned out OK in the past.
We must also be aware that the most recent waves of immigrants
are not
predisposed to integrate with our society and become British. We
have
had Muslim immigrants before but they were Muslim immigrants from
former colonies who knew and respected British culture, language
and
norms, at least to some degree. Past immigrants also chose Britain
because of the democratic and tolerant culture, not just because
it
was a country with a healthy economy and lenient welfare standards,
so
offered a good shot at the good life plus a safety net to fall back
on/sponge off.
Too many people look upon immigration as, well, a black and white
issue. It isn't. There are a lot of shades to it that are lost when
people try to think in terms only of entrenched positions of left
and
right or racist and anti-racist.
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
Are you a stealth racist?
Robert Henderson wrote:
> In article <40CE04C7.7070305@mail.com>, David Platt <platt@mail.com>
> writes
>>
>> Next, will be public random lie detector tests,
>
> There are much more sophisticated ways of judging racial prejudice
> these days, MRI brain scans which show activity associated
with
> dislike. Least year an American university carried out such
scans on
> a volunteer batch of its students, all of whom claimed to be
> liberals. They all showed prejudice. RH
Of course such tests will reveal "racist prejudice" if
that is what it
is set up to test. I bet if you wired me up to that test you would
find a positive result. But you'd find a much stronger aversion
to
skinheads, racists, men who drive in hats and gits who drive around
with their car windows open showing off the size of their, er,
subwoofer.
Everybody has got some prejudices, this is normal healthy human
behaviour. Racism is a problem when people take pleasure in irrational
hatreds and give greater weight to their prejudices than their direct
experience. It is not irrational to be afraid of a young black man
walking towards you on a dark night on a lonely street. It is
irrational to think Ian Wright is a monkey who wants to rape your
sister or Mr Patel in the corner shop is planning the overthrow
of the
English way of life.
The police force does attract people with racist attitudes. I know
that for a fact as I have seen several people express an interest
in
joining the force. Ironically the one who I personally would trust
to
the end of the earth did not join up and he is still a salesman.
The
two macho lads who I knew had some racist inclinations are now both
in
the force. Neither of them are particularly bright but I'm sure
they
are bright enough to keep their racism under wraps as long as senior
officers are watching.
I have enormous respect for the police and the tough job they do.
My
father was a police officer and he was not in any way a racist,
imagine Inspector Fowler of Gasforth but in a more traditional 6
foot
2 inch frame. There are decent people in the police, but I am certain
that there are stealth racists too.
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
|
|
> Congratulations. This is a very impressive,
profound and logical
> thesis.
>
> I would like to expound on one part of your article if I may.
>
> "The extent of our ignorance of
> natural laws is impossible to measure. Two hundred years ago
> scientists would probably estimate that they understood half
of what
> was knowable, I guess today's scientists might guess the same,
in
> another two hundred years they still might guess the same.
The more
> science learns the more the extent of the unknown."
>
> Knowledge is like a light in the darkness. It reveals everything
quite
> clearly everything within it's circumference of light. As the
light is
> brightened
> the circumference is increased and reveals more knowledge.
> Unfortunately
> as the circumference is enlarged by the increased light it
also
> increases the circumference of the darkness, the unseen and
the
> unknown.
>
> It is unlikely that mere humans will ever be able to increase
the
> brightness beyond
> a some humanly limited circumference.
>
I'm not sure about that. I do not think there is an infinite amount
of
knowledge out there or any formal limit in what we are capable of
understanding. Although perhaps our brains are limited to a certain
number of levels of understanding, a limited number of arguments.
We can think about what we know, what we know somebody else knows
and
about what we know somebody else knows that we know. But how much
further can we take that process before our brains just drop the
subject? I cannot recall ever thinking six levels deep about anything,
probably four is the limit. Smart non-human animals seem to manage
two
levels.
We can write sentences that seem to show ourselves working on more
than four levels but I doubt it can actually be done, held in the
brain and processed at once, when we appear to be doing it we are
rather breaking it down into less complicated problems of two or
three levels in a chain rather than five or six levels at once.
Another analogy of growing knowledge I have come across is the
seas of
ignorance retreating, as the land of the known rises out of the
sea
the length of the coastline increases. To stretch this analogy I
expect we will be able to push back the tide of ignorance so that
the
east coast meets the west coast, maybe in a few centuries, but there
will probably always be a few boggy areas and quicksands. Of course
this is where the religious will pitch their camps.
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
> Learn to use a newsreader before babbling.
One expects you know the
> basics at least before jumping in. Have you read the FAQ?
>
If anybody here has (before reading this post) read the FAQs of
demon.local, alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,
talk.politics.animals, uk.environment.conservation,
uk.rec.birdwatching, scot.birds, uk.rec.gardening,
uk.business.agriculture, uk.rec.fishing.coarse
and sci.agriculture.poultry
I'll eat my (Barbour) hat.
I can put my hand on whatever organ you care to choose and solomnly
swear that I have never knowingly read the FAQ of any newsgroup.
I
don't even know how to go about doing such a thing, but I've only
got
five years experience on probably a mere few hundred newsgroups.
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
>>>>> Do you get a reflection
from human eyes by shining a torch at
>>>>> them?
>>>
>>> Ye gods and little fishes!
>>>
>>> Of course, you do, as you do for any mammal with a
comparable eye.
>>>
>> Really? And I thought, in
my innocence, that the reason that foxes
>> eyes reflected light and so glowed in the dark was because,
like
>> other mammals that hunt at night, including dogs and cats,
their
>> eyes have a reflecting layer, the tapetum lucidum, behind
the
>> retina, whereas other mammals, including man, don't have
this layer,
>> which I assume means both that our eyes and fox eyes are
not
>> comparable and that ours don't glow in the dark. Do they?
>
> Of course that's what he meant...lol
>
> Ah perhaps he suffers from camera flash too!
>
Human eyes do reflect back light but nothing like as strong as
eyes
that are designed to see in low light conditions by having the tapetum
lucidum reflect light back for a second chance to be detected. Our
eyes are optimized for life in the trees discriminating between
the
colours of leaves in daylight, they are rather over-engineered for
the
life of a diurnal omnivore, especially as far as colour discrimination
goes. Cats and foxes don't need terrific colour discrimination but
they do need extraordinary sensitivity to low light conditions for
hunting by starlight.
Human eyes reflect back pale pink (the colour of the retina) eyes
of
nocturnal animals reflect back almost as bright and clear as the
original light.
If lamping does become more widespread it might make sense for
rural
cat owners to invest in a litter tray and of course never to venture
out after dark legless wearing mirrored sunglasses, which, come
to
think of it is good advice for the majority who don't live in the
countryside too.
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
> Condem the violence in Parliment Square
all you like. Thanks to this
> government those protestors now have no other way to express
their
> feelings apart from break the law.
Boswelox (tm)
A violent mob is a riot, and rioters should not expect to be treated
like gentlemen protesters if they are not acting like gentlemen
protesters.
If you lose a vote you carry on making your case in a legal manner.
An
acceptable alternative or additional strategy is carefully
choreographed non-violent direct action designed to get you arrested
with a gentle hand on your shoulder, rather than a baton-charge:
http://mwillett.org/Feedback/mike.htm#stunt
That sort of thing is acceptable, a small incident, a stunt, no
harm
done to anybody, no adrenaline surge in any arresting officers.
That
is virtually part of democracy. Breaching the security of the chamber
of the mother of parliaments is not acceptable. A surging mob is
not
acceptable.
>
> Any bill that turns at least half a million citizens of this
country
> into criminals is flawed at its heart. People have to be desperate
to
> run unarmed into baton weilding police. Would you do that unless
you
> were extremely passionate about something?
>
> DAMN THE BAN, DAMN THE GOVERNMENT AND DAMN TONY BLAIR. Who
> incidentally did not bother to vote on this issue. Perhaps
he agreed
> with those critics who think that the governments time could
be better
> spent on something like the ailing NHS or our public transport
system.
There is always a better thing to spend time on than passing a
bill
that you are opposed to, there always would be. That is a non-argument
that only those who know they will lose a vote want to put forward.
Let's assume the ban is fully enacted, and getting really wildly
hypothetical here, let's assume there is a new parliament with a
large
number of Tory MPs, how important would you consider repealing the
ban
would be? I hardly expect you would be saying that seven years into
a
Tory administration would be about right. Which priorities should
that
piece of parliamentary debate push aside?
>
> Personally I think he is afraid that 300 hunts in england and
wales
> will indeed shoot their hounds in public, and cause bad feeling
as he
> campaigns for the voting public to elect him and his supporters
back
> into government.
Funnily enough I think that too. His plans are to delay the
implementation of the bill until the middle of the next administration
and have all the stunts blow out and pass off well clear of an
election, perhaps when he is asking the country to focus on more
important matters such as a referendum on the European constitution
or
membership of the euro. That is an excellent strategy, giving the
rabid right the choice of two separate battlegrounds, he can delegate
the hunt issue to the police and Home Office and leave the field
clear
for the bigger issues. It is also rather hard for the hunt lobby
to
call foul and demand to be banned at once so they can crack on with
the fun of playing romantic outlaws as soon as possible, it would
make
them look even more of a laughing stock.
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
>> Well, I don't hold pro-hunting views,
but don't believe the
>> particular 'democratic process' involved here is any more
worthy of
>> preservation than hunting with dogs. Less so, actually.
>
> Seconded. I'm not pro- or anti-hunting, just rather uncomfortable
on a
> fence with attractive views on both sides. At any rate the
proposed
> law is well-meant but ill-conceived, rushed through for political
> rather than moral reasons. As Baroness Whosit said, if hunting
with
> hounds is that cruel, why wait 2 years or 18 months to ban
it?
Ah. It's a priority thing. Making voting on hunting a priority
(after
7 years) is wrong apparently, say the hunting lobby, and not banning
hunting at once is a evidence of poor priorities too. This doublethink
is typical of the hunting lobby who say that fox hunting is about
vermin control and also conserving foxes, that it's more humane
than
shooting but it's so ineffective that most hunts never kill a fox,
etc. It seems that whatever arguments seem to work that is what
they'll use and consistency be buggered. If they think they can
claim
the majority of people don't think a hunting bill should be a priority
they trumpet that, if they think most people who are in favour of
a
ban don't live in the country they say they are ignorant of the
issues
(so the public agree with the hunt, sort of, they are right, they
disagree and they're misinformed). No doubt if there was a Tory
majority in the commons next time (purely hypothetically you
understand) this minor trivial life and death cultural issue that
is
nothing to do with class and no concern of people from council estates
that should have been discussed at another time, any other time,
if at
all, never, will magically become a more important priority than
the
NHS and the transport system again. Tories don't have principles,
they
have causes.
Banning hunting is a moral issue, the will of the commons is clear.
The timing is of course political and was aimed at averting backbench
rebellions in the short-term and putting off a messy period of
conflict and civil disobedience until after the election, while
at the
same time having the quite reasonable excuse of giving the hunts
time
to adapt to the new realities. Neither of those points detract from
the fact that the majority of people dislike hunting and the majority
of MPs want to see it banned and have voted accordingly.
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
>>> Of course they hold strong views
about the supremacy of the
>>> commons, since they happen to command a majority in
it at the
>>> moment, and don't like to be thwarted.
>>
>> It wasn't the current lot that passed the Parliament Act.
Even the
>> pro-hunters there, and even most Tories, accept that principle.
>
> It could be argued that the Parliament Act is illegitimate,
because it
> received Royal Assent without the approval of the Lords, and
before
> the Parliament Act existed to legitimise ignoring the Lords.
But, in
> any case, how many times has the Parliament Act been used,
> previously, on trivial matters?
And where does the ultimate legitimacy lie in your system? In the
crown on the head of the daughter of the man whose (great)n
grandfather was the toughest meanest hardest bastard around with
the
biggest army of thugs working for him.
Britain has an unwritten constitution, things evolve. We don't
get
strung up on minor details, we play the game. OK, so what if Webb
Ellis Minor* has done something a little different, the referee
has
allowed it to stand and you can score the same way, if you can.
Play up and play the game boys.
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
* Yes, I checked, William Webb Ellis had an older brother called
Thomas, and I checked it out just to make that post look as annoying
as possible. How sad is that? Seriously, one day I really will have
to
get a life.
But not yet.
> You have unwittingly put your finger
on the source of the problem,
> the UK has an unwritten constitution capable of interpretation
in
> whatever way suits the party with a majority in the Commons.
That's
> OK as long as the majority is wedded to the notions of tolerance
and
> inclusivity, but potentially disastrous when the majority has
> dangerously totalitarian tendencies, as at the moment. A better
> system, IMO, would be for the UK to have a written Constitution,
> approved clause by clause by referendum, which, amongst other
things,
> defined the powers and limits of powers of the elected legislature.
> Obviously, that would not include the power to vary the Constitution
> without the approval of the people, via a referendum.
>
> There is of course little chane of something like this coming
about,
> since those who hold the reins of power are seldom willing
to
> relinquish them, not peacefully, anyway.
Horrors. Have you ever looked at what the US Supreme Court does?
Our system evolves, new members of the Commons go in full of fire
in
their belly and go native within months. But they never totally
lose
touch. Over time things evolve. Like science evolves, often because
those with the outmoded attitudes die off and the newcomers don't
swallow all the nonsense they're fed.
When I was first learning about parliament they were thinking about
introducing microphones and some people thought that was terrible.
Now
that is fully accepted. The British constitution is far stronger
than
any piece of paper because it is an agreement on how things are
done.
A consensus across far more than just a few hundred members. The
consensus extends to huge numbers of potential MPs, commentators,
civil servants and listeners to Radio 4 and readers and editors
of the
newspapers. If parliament was burnt to the ground along with every
book ever written on the British constitution it would be running
again within the week.
If people know what the rules are nobody needs to get the book
out.
The Conservative Party might not like what has happened but they
know
that is not against the rules. The Labour Party made it quite clear
that they would bring things to a conclusion on the matter of hunting
and the will of the commons would prevail, whatever it took. This
is
constitutional case law, a test case, and the government are winning.
The Parliament Act exists to stop the Lords thwarting the will of
the
Commons. It has never been used lightly, it has never been used
trivially or to force through an issue for which no mandate exists.
The mandate here is clear, two parliaments have voted for a ban
on
hunting and the last election manifesto clearly stated the intention
of preventing a Lords veto.
They've shot your fox.
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
>>
>> That's all a bit Upton Park if you ask me.
>>
>
> Upton Park?
It's two stops short of Barking. Innit?
:D
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
>> You could always go drag hunting,
shouldn't have any trouble finding
>> a fairy to dress up from your lot?
>
> Drag hunting requires the use of hounds. Hunting with hounds
is
> banned, isn't it? You also make continual references to fairies
and
> paedophiles. Methinks you do it suspiciously often, almost
as though
> you like talking about such things. Are you outside the closet
> pissing in or inside the closet pissing out?
"Hunting wild mammals with dogs" is going to be banned
(as far as I
can see, and correct me if I'm wrong, if you can prove it). Chasing
after dogs chasing an aniseed trail left by people is not covered
in
the legislation, even if you are dressed up in a scarlet coat you
claim is Pink. All the talk about exercising horses and hounds and
having a good day out are all rendered meaningless when we see that
hunt people don't really care that much for those aspects, if they
did
they would arrange draghunts that only a tiny handful of animal
rights
nutters would think to protest about (like those arseholes who protest
about the Grand National, and get very little support).
There will be no ban on meeting up on horseback for a drink and
riding
across the countryside with your mates. The bill is not a class
war
thing, even if it is used that way by those who wish it was, it
is a
measure designed to stop people getting involved in organized cruelty
to animals.
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
|
|
> I often wondered why they called it
'pink', so I just Googled and got
> this from Country Life:
>
> HUNTING PINK
> 1974
>
> A hunting coat of any colour, black, red or green could quite
> correctly be called a Pink coat. The word Pink had nothing
to do with
> the colour but was the name of a well-known and exclusive firm
of
> tailors who specialised in hunting clothes.
> Yours, John Bowerman
>
>
>
> We live and learn!
Indeed, or the first part has been wasted.
Just to confuse the issue further, you do know that red tape is
pink,
don't you? Lawyers tie their briefs together with red tape, the
proverbial scourge of bureaucracy, that is actually pink. English
language and culture is idiosyncratic and full of fossils from earlier
times. We still speak of small enclosed spaces as being cockpits
even
though hardly anybody these days has seen a cock fight. The traditions
of hunting will still leave their mark on our culture even when
the
current crop of wannabe martyrs has gone to earth for the last time.
I'd like to see our children learn all about hunting, the right
way,
like we learn about little boys being sent up chimneys or runaway
slaves having their feet cut off, it gives our children a sense
that
things do get better and we don't have to put up with barbarity
for
the sake of tradition.
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
|
|
>>> Sheesh. Can't say our stock
have notices these advantages of
>>> hedging.
>>
>> But do they need shelter from rain?
>
> Whatever for. They have waterproof coats.
>
So do we, but we tend to like shelter.
Actually now I come to think about it my coat isn't waterproof.
An
English raincoat, bought in Manchester, is not waterproof. What
a
crazy world we live in. If you want a good waterproof coat I hear
the
Australians make them. The world is mad...
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
>
> Do you honestly think that by making it illegal, that already
illegal
> hare coursing will stop? Of course it won't. People who do
these
> things
> don't care whether it is legal or not.
I guess the so-called Royal family might think twice about hunting
when it is illegal.
>
> I grew up in the countryside, but I have never actually been
hunting
> with dogs, although I knew many people who did.
> I am not actually for or against it. I regularly went out on
the
> game bird shoots, and never once saw any sort of cruelty towards
any
> animal. I don't doubt that there may be a very very small number
of
> people who
> are cruel to animals, but the cases highlighted the extremes
of the
> hunting fraternity. I am sure the huge majority of the hunting
> community do nothing of this sort. These extremes can be shown
in
> anything from farming to greyhound racing - but that does not
mean
> that all farmers are like that. It's like banning farming completely
> because a small fraction of farmers treat their livestock
> appallingly. Action needs to be taken against specific
> people, not everyone.
>
> This ban has been pushed through by people who simply do not
> understand
> the issues (as the majority of people on here) The countryside
need
> managing - just as towns do. Imaging outsiders coming into
town and
> seeing that at traffic light junctions, that is where most
people die.
> They decide to remove all the traffic lights from towns to
stop people
> from being killed. It would be chaos! This is the same level
of
> ignorance which has been applied to hunting - do not doubt
it.
What counts as evidence of understanding the issues, apart from
agreeing with you, or is it just that simple? Ten year old children
that support the hunt understand the issues, octogenarians who have
lived most of their life farming in the countryside who don't support
hunting (like my late grandfather) don't understand the issues.
Is
that it?
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
|
|
>> Contemporary means alive and active at the same time.
The closest you
>> have is Flavius Josephus who, downhill with a following
wind, might
>> conceivably have been conceived within a month or two of
the alleged
>> ascension.
>
> Ancient history for the first century is written based on Tacitus,
> Suetonius and Cassius Dio. The demand for only contemporary
witnesses
> is an example of obscurantism, I'm afraid, because it rarely
works in
> antiquity.
I am not demanding first person contemporary disinterested witnesses,
I am just pointing out that there are none for Jesus although
Christians do make out that the accounts that do exist offer a perfect
witness, even claiming that there is more evidence for a historical
Jesus than for any figure before the twentieth century. The reality
is
that there is a small amount of evidence that taken at face value
shows some support for the thrust of the gospel stories. But there
are
excellent reasons to be wary of taking such evidence at face value,
not least the existence of the Christian church well before any
of the
historians in question were old enough to hold a pen. The church
was
telling the myth of Jesus as if it was history, and to any sceptic
hearing parts of the story there was no obvious reason to doubt
the
simple existence of the Christians' eponymous hero, just as if I
told
you the story of my brother David buying a battered rat at a chip
shop
you would have no obvious reason off the cuff to doubt the existence
of my brother even if you dismissed the bit that sounds like a myth.
(Although my mother would be rather startled at the suggestion that
I
had a brother).
>
>> (And his account has been partially forged by Eusebius)
>
> This story has been forged by modern atheists.
And your proof for that assertion is...
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
> Good PR?
> OK, so who are apt to believe, Moses or the Lord Jesus Christ?
No.
> Wrap
> your brain around this one John 5:37, the answer is in John
1:1-4 & vs
> 14. And by the way, if you haven't heard of the second law
of
> thermodynamics you would do well to look it up, it called "Entropy",
> and incidently the very fact there are laws of physics requires
a law
> "MAKER".
The so-called laws of thermodynamics were declared as laws by men,
partly as a goad to other men to disprove them.
In my work in a shop I often get ignorant customers coming up to
me
and stating that they know their rights. No, they know the name
of a
law, which they recite, and have a hazy idea that it might have
some
relevance to their claim and hope that expressing the name of their
talisman will make me bow down and accept whatever piece of nonsense
they think that the law might say. A related phenomenon is Christians
who have heard a sermon a year or two ago along the lines of "The
Second Law, mark that word, LAW, of Thermodynamics, proves evolution
is false because of entropy. Believe it. Praise the Lord!"
And they
think they can scare people away by reciting the words "Second
Law of
Thermodynamics!"
and "entropy!" and the evil evolutionists who are
smarter than they are and know about science stuff will know they
are
beaten and meet them in church next Sunday. Dream on.
Nobody is going to convince me by pointing me in the general direction
of something they haven't read and wouldn't understand and hoping
I'll
do their job of conversion for them.
http://mwillett.org/atheism/thermodynamics.htm
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
>> All the non-Christian sources are dated at least three
decades later
>> than the time the early church was established and none
of these
>> sources reveals the source of their second hand information.
You
>> cannot get away from those facts with bluster.
>
> You really don't know a damn thing about practical study of
ancient
> history, do you?
I studied history at university but not ancient history. I do know
something about the subject and have read several books on the matters
in question from different perspectives.
>
>> Yes, I'm repeating myself here, so are you. Your assertion
that the
>> existence of the gospels prove there is no fiction is unsupported
by
>> logic or evidence.
>
>> The events described in the gospels are just what you would
expect to
>> see if Jesus was an attempt to get Jews to believe in a
pagan god-man
>> mystery religion like all the rest of the civilized world
were doing
>> at that time.
>
> You're using the exact argument that the nutcases who deny
the reality
> of Shakespeare do. "All the evidence that Shakespeare
wrote his own
> plays is just another part of the conspiracy."
That is indeed a strawman. However the existence of works attributed
to Shakespeare is not in itself evidence that Shakespeare wrote
them,
other evidence is required to confirm that. Other evidence does
exist
in the case of Shakespeare. In the case of Jesus that other evidence
is not there, that which is claimed to be evidence is too late to
be
considered free from the influence of the stories told by early
Christians. There is no contemporary evidence to confirm the existence
of Jesus. Everything, including the gospels themselves, was written
after the time in question and after there was an oral tradition
of
Christianity. The evidence that exists cannot and does not exclude
the
possibility that the entire Jesus story is a myth that was designed
to
be taken as fact (or the interpretation and exaggeration of fact)
by
the uninitiated.
It is hard enough to prove conspiracies in our own time, to prove
a
two thousand year old conspiracy is asking a lot. The best that
can be
done is to show that it is possible, who would gain from a conspiracy
and to show them involved with it. Conspiracy is perhaps the wrong
word to use here. It suggests that the motives were insincere or
perverse. It isn't necessary to think that to see a deliberate
creation of a myth. Just think about the matter for a few moments.
How
do mystery religions form? Somebody has to create the myths. There
are
dozens of mystery religions around in the Eastern Mediterranean
and
Middle East about this time. They would all have been created. It
is
quite absurd to imagine that they all were created with very similar
features and themes by people with no contact between them or that
they were all dictated from on high by the one true god who keeps
changing his mind slightly about his nature and his favourite tribe
and goddess mother/sister. Myths are made by men.
How did the myths of Attis, Osiris, Orpheus, Mithras, Bacchus,
Dionysus and the rest form? Nobody these days thinks they were
divinely inspired by genuine gods, do they? So why the double
standards? Why do we assume that the Jesus myth must have been real?
Hello? Wake up and smell the humus here. The only significant
difference between this mystery religion and the others is the
perverse habit of Jews to want their mythic heroes to be real men.
Fine, tell the tale that way. It wasn't that unusual after all,
as men
like Pythagoras were real men who did magic and toured around
impressing people, so tell the story like that, the Jewish god-man
acts like Pythagoras, you can even throw in that thing about the
number of fish, how does it go? Matthew, can you remember? Get back
to
us on that one. So there was this guy, Yahashua, born of David's
line
of course (that shouldn't be hard to do) that goes about doing the
things that Pythagoras, Apollonius and that crowd did, with 12
disciples, naturally, we could write ourselves into the plot there,
might be good for a sainthood, saying the same sort of things too,
and
he gets unjustly hanged on a tree - crucified - I like it, dies,
rises
on the third day, yada yada yada. No problem. A piece of pitta my
friends. Oh, go on then, and a little wine too. Here's to bringing
enlightenment and civilization to the Jews! Praise the Lord!
>
>> If you took a yellow highlighter pen and underlined
>> everything included to show the fulfilment of a "Scriptural
prophesy"
>> and a green pen to show all the elements introduced to
align Judaism
>> with pagan mystery religions there would be very little
of the story
>> left not underlined. It is all there for those who have
eyes to see.
>
> In short, you've never even made a serious attempt to read
the
> Gospels. Hell, you've never even seen a production of "Godspell",
> have you?
As it happens, no. I find musicals and works of religious fantasy
to
be dull. I have read histories of the period and have of course
read
large chunks of the various gospels both directly and in quotation.
I
have not sat down to read the gospels as entertainment or
enlightenment, they offer neither prospect for me.
>
>> Why do we assume that a Roman emperor would be afraid of
the truth
>> carried by members of a cult?
>
> Because Roman emperors claimed to be gods?
And so knowing that a claim to be a god does not make one a god
why
should they be scared of other people making such claims? You are
working under the popular assumption that under every believer in
a
foreign religion and every atheist is some kind of a Christian in
denial.
An emperor who claimed to be a god could hardly believe that there
was
one true god and it was another man who was now dead. That is an
absurd suggestion. They were either cynical atheists or misguided
egotistical polytheists. You do accept the concept that people who
express other views actually hold other views, do you? Or is everybody
who disagrees with you knowingly lying to themselves and should
stop
it at once?
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
|
|