patrick.net

justme says

Strategist says

It was the Muslims.

Strategist says

They are all equally radical.

Strategist says

We don't want to kill "Muslims" we want to kill radical Islamic terrorists.

Can anyone else see how logic does not quite apply here?

Out of context.

Strategist says

Out of context.

[Smile]

justme says

Strategist says

Out of context.

[Smile]

Out of context! :) :)
[smile] [smile]

Strategist says

justme says

indigenous says

the Muslims did kill 3000 people on our ground at 9/11

Please keep in mind that it was not "the Muslims" that killed 3000 people. it was 20 crazed terrorists.

It was the Muslims. All you have to ask is if the 19 terrorists were not Muslims, would 911 have taken place? The answer is an easy NO.

Justme, you forgot to address the above.

Bill mahr is an ass

one timer says

Bill mahr is an ass

and an asshole

lahossain says

Religions of all stripes, not just islam, bleed into civic life way more than they should, and that, my friends, is a huge problem.

Good point the US is not an theocracy. Far too often religion gets conflated with the country by politicians seeking approval. This goes back to the beginning.

indigenous says

one timer says

Bill mahr is an ass

and an asshole

Ah, conservative hatred. Why do conservatives hate Bill Maher so much? Because he makes them look like the assholes and idiots they are.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/wVoZUo17PLg

http://www.youtube.com/embed/HMkerqSnjVU

Yep, idiots who believe in creationism but not climate change cannot be reasoned with or even talked to at an adult level.

Call it Crazy says

Ahhh... A Youtube video..

And here's another showing you conservatives in their natural habitat.

Funny thing about video. It doesn't lie.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/E48QqcTOXeY

Dan8267 says

Why do conservatives hate Bill Maher so much?

2 out the 3 vids are disabled?

I don't hate Maher? I don't think about him at all...

indigenous says

I don't hate Maher? I don't think about him at all...

If Bill Maher were your tail, you'd be this dog.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/EpHbwGRhf4A

Dan8267 says

If Bill Maher were your tail, you'd be this dog

Not everything can be explained by youtube videos, I don't give a fuck about Maher.

Strategist says

Strategist says

justme says

indigenous says

the Muslims did kill 3000 people on our ground at 9/11

Please keep in mind that it was not "the Muslims" that killed 3000 people. it was 20 crazed terrorists.

It was the Muslims. All you have to ask is if the 19 terrorists were not Muslims, would 911 have taken place? The answer is an easy NO.

Justme, you forgot to address the above.

Not speaking for justme, but was Timothy McVeigh Muslim?

one timer is a "conservative"

It was more an exchange of Liberal bodily fluids than an argument.

Dan:

Your comments about conservatives may also apply to Muslims practicing Sharia. Are they also "idiots...who can't be reasoned with or even talked to at an adult level"?

If you don't give equal time, by your own standards, Maher just slapped you.

deepcgi says

Your comments about conservatives may also apply to Muslims practicing Sharia.

Yes. Muslims practicing Sharia are conservatives, just with a different set of false myths.

deepcgi says

Are they also "idiots...who can't be reasoned with or even talked to at an adult level"?

Yes.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/r25alb0_xUk
I think this guy is a member of the Tea Party.

By the way, Dawkins nails it as usual.

deepcgi says

If you don't give equal time, by your own standards, Maher just slapped you.

Bullshit.

I am under no obligation or rational reason to give equal time to two different problems. Nor would Bill Maher say I am.

Christianity, not Islam, is the by far greater threat in the U.S. Therefore, it makes sense that I would devote more time to the problem that is more relevant to my society. If Islam were the greater threat, then I'd devote more time to it.

“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

Mathews 7:3-5

Oh, the irony of an atheist using the Bible to point out the hypocrisy of the Christian right...

CaptainShuddup says

It was more an exchange of Liberal bodily fluids than an argument.

Translation: A debate amongst liberals is as beautiful and delightful as making love on a midsummer night, whereas conservatives arguments are like flaccid and impotent.

Dan8267 says

A debate amongst liberals is as beautiful and delightful as making love on a midsummer night

A debate amongst liberals is like two cats fighting on a midsummer night

Fixed it for you

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

A debate amongst liberals is as beautiful and delightful as making love on a midsummer night

A debate amongst liberals is like two cats fighting on a midsummer night

Fixed it for you

Have you seen cats mating? Not much difference.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/wotlhsrveSM
Btw, that's the same reaction women have to Call It Crazy.

Good article on this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/09/opinion/bill-maher-isnt-the-only-one-who-misunderstands-religion.html

Heraclitusstudent says

Good article on this:

I disagree. The article makes incorrect assumptions about what Maher was stating as wall a fallacies like it's ultimate conclusion:

But failing to recognize that religion is embedded in culture — and making a blanket judgment about the world’s second largest religion — is simply bigotry.

There are several problems with the thesis of that article.

1. Islam is not a religion. Neither is Christianity or Judaism. It's a family of religions -- note the plural -- and a mythology. Big, big difference.

2. Maher was talking about Middle Eastern Islamic religions like Shi'ism and Sunnism as opposed to Western Muslims like Malcolm X. The article completely misses Maher's point which is that it's the Middle East Muslim culture, not Islamic mythology, that is the problem. And yes, a culture that causes people to burn girls' faces with acid because they attend school is a bad culture.

3. Just because religions are embedded in culture does not mean they have to be. The entire march of humanity towards greater social justice has been a intrinsically linked to the removal of religion and superstition from our culture and our individual lives. One cannot have a rational discussion of any issue when religions prevent the questioning or outright rejection of dogma. Just look at people like Marcus who believe that atheists should never discuss the non-existence of any god least they offend the religious.

Actually I didn't listen to Maher's rant, so I won't comment.

But the article rightly points out that people don't really believe their religions anyway and that it's an identity problem, like so many propaganda driven ideology. Saying that it is a problem of identity doesn't mean religion is not bad. It doesn't mean no evil is done based on superstition. What it does however is point the finger to culture, something that is malleable and ever-changing, instead of raw beliefs in a fixed dogma that by definition don't change.
i.e. It offers a more hopeful perspective for the adversaries of religion.

Dan, we take out over 1.2 Billion dollars per day in new credit cards to continue our military actions in the Middle East. Those Muslims have the oil money and the religious inclinations to take flying lessons only for the take off experience but with no landings required. Keynesians who think this debt will never actually come due are a greater threat than the Christians. You are honestly intellectually dishonest enough to insinuate that flooding from global warming, prayer in schools, or Judeo-Christian morality in the judicial chamber are more deserving of predictable, politically-correct liberal derision than forced genital mutilations, limited or no voting rights for women, inadmissible female testimonies in court, or death penalties for peaceful religious beliefs? Sit your ass down. Those are the very reasons why Dawkins and Maher make the arguments they do. Hats off to you for displaying some few examples of Muslims as nutcases. I obviously agree. but shame on you for taking three steps back to lean on the increasingly agnostic Christians of America in contrast to those evil bastards in the Middle East who are taking all of the proceeds of our bottomless mountains of treasury debt.

Keynesianism is a religion and you bow lower to it with every passing day. Millions of dollars in debt wasted on those evil sexist bastards just in the space of time you been reviewing this thread - and all of it due back with interest. Maher has the guts to include Muslims in his Religilous Rants. Good for him. But more importantly, he called the liberals here to task for not doing the same.

deepcgi says

Dan

Wow that's a lot of b.s. to handle at once. Well, here goes...

1. Where the hell did you get the idea that I ever stated anything remotely like the Middle East isn't violent because of its religion (assuming that I translated your rant correctly)?

2. There is no such thing as an agnostic Christian by definition of agnostic and Christian. It's a contradicting term.

3. About a third of Americans are religious nuts who promote bad policies because of their religion including, but not limited to, advocating torture, starting wars, and committing genocide. That's not insignificant.

4. If you actually read anything I've written on economics on this site, you wouldn't call me a Keynesian.

5. WTF are you complaining about me for anyway? What, I'm not anti-Islam enough for you since I call for the end of all religion and not singling out just Islamic religions?

tatupu70 says

It was the Muslims. All you have to ask is if the 19 terrorists were not Muslims, would 911 have taken place? The answer is an easy NO.

Justme, you forgot to address the above.

Not speaking for justme, but was Timothy McVeigh Muslim?

You have to go back decades to find non Muslim terrorists. With Islamic terrorists you just have to go back minutes.
That is the difference. :)

deepcgi says

Keynesians who think this debt will never actually come due are a greater threat than the Christians.

I don't like Keynesianism either but what you are saying here reveals a deep misunderstanding of what a fiat currency is and what Keynesianism is trying to do.

The government can inject more money where it wants, when it wants, and it can take back the same money at will too. Given that this is the case, the gov debt is never a problem in a fiat system. It is not like a family or a business. Gov debt is not the problem with Keynesianism.

There are too many people, web sites and politicians who criticize this system without even trying to understand how it works (or in the case of politicians, in spite of understanding how it works).

Dan8267 says

Have you seen cats mating? Not much difference.

Btw, that's the same reaction women have to Call It Crazy.

I hope you learnt something. That female cat was screaming with ecstasy.

Dan8267 says

4. If you actually read anything I've written on economics on this site, you wouldn't call me a Keynesian.

I'd call you an Econ 101 dropout.

Dan8267 says

Christianity, not Islam, is the by far greater threat in the U.S. Therefore, it makes sense that I would devote more time to the problem that is more relevant to my society. If Islam were the greater threat, then I'd devote more time to it.

What are you talking about? Islam is a greater threat. Just look how much those wackos are costing us. When you complain about wages not increasing, part of the reason is our society is paying trillions to subdue Islamic terrorists. That money could have been used for our needs.

Strategist says

When you complain about wages not increasing, part of the reason is our society is paying trillions to subdue Islamic terrorists. That money could have been used for our needs.

Isn't that a perfect keynesian stimulus? Same kind that broke the depression?

Heraclitusstudent says

Strategist says

When you complain about wages not increasing, part of the reason is our society is paying trillions to subdue Islamic terrorists. That money could have been used for our needs.

Isn't that a perfect keynesian stimulus? Same kind that broke the depression?

It does count as a fiscal stimulus. Wish we could have spent the stimulus on infrastructure or scientific research.

Strategist says

I'd call you an Econ 101 dropout.

I'm sorry, you must have be confused with someone who gives a damn what you think.

deepcgi says

Keynesians who think this debt will never actually come due are a greater threat than the Christians.

As misguided as Keynesians are, it is highly unlikely they would start a nuclear war. The Christian right, on the other hand, would gladly do so in order to be "raptured" into heaven.

deepcgi says

Keynesianism is a religion and you bow lower to it with every passing day

deepcgi says

Keynesians who think this debt will never actually come due are a greater threat than the Christians

Like many (most?) you clearly don't understand Keynesians. Keynes advocated balanced budgets on average. Deficits, when needed and surpluses when not needed.

Dan:

1. I didn't insinuate you thought the Middle East isn't violent because of its pervasive religion.

2. While many Christians believe the Bible to be more or less a historical record, more and more Christians and Jews, who still hold the Bible aloft as a treatise of wisdom for society, believe the tales to be more apocryphal. And they subscribe more to a cultural adherence than a strictly orthodox one.

To quote you, " Islam is not a religion. Neither is Christianity or Judaism. It's a family of religions -- note the plural -- and a mythology.". and..."Just because religions are embedded in culture does not mean they have to be."

Judeo-Christian values are rich part of our American culture. I don't have to believe that dinosaurs missed a ride on the ark to find moral value in the Bible. It is certainly filled with structure worthwhile to our civilization.

There is a difference between the separation of church and state and the separation of morality and law. Without a cultural agreement on the meaning of morality there would be no teeth in judicial action.

3. I remember late May 2011 well. President Obama reauthorized the Patriot Act with no substantive change. In fact, I recall the ACLU (Richardson?) climbing down his back for being so blatantly hypocritical on not just a campaign-promise, but a central campaign-pillar. Did you do much bitching on the blogs that week? I suspect not.

And exactly which third of the American public advocates committing genocide? Did your professors at the University allow hyperbole like that to pass through on your term papers? Shame.

4. There is no money for foreign war or domestic entitlements. There is no financial leverage on either side to even argue over how the government spends money. Both parties are Keynesians. You still divide the voters the way you are told to divide them...by red and blue.

5. No particular reason except that you used the phrase "bull shit" too soon in the argument.

Strategist says

I'd call you an Econ 101 dropout.

"Econ 101" Is that the class where you learn the quantity of currency doesn't change anything in the economy at equilibrium except prices?

deepcgi says

There is a difference between the separation of church and state and the separation of morality and law. Without a cultural agreement on the meaning of morality there would be no teeth in judicial action.

Too many confusions in 2 sentences.
- The teaching of morality doesn't require religion in any way.
- To say morality is 'cultural', is sometime called 'cultural relativism'. There is a wider morality on which everyone can agree. Don't kill your neighbor for no reason. That kind of stuff.
- The US law is hardly based on morality. In fact corporate or financial immorality (or amorality) is often seen as good behavior. For the most part, it's just: play by the rules - whatever the rules are.
- Finally, to loop back, a spiritual pursuit by itself has nothing to do with morality. Eastern religions don't try to teach morality and they are right. Mixing morality and religion was a stupid idea from Zoroastrianism that unfortunately got borrowed by Babylonian slaves.

Heraclitusstudent says

Strategist says

I'd call you an Econ 101 dropout.

"Econ 101" Is that the class where you learn the quantity of currency doesn't change anything in the economy at equilibrium except prices?

I think it's more Micro Econ - basics of demand and supply.

There isn't a "wider morality upon which everyone can agree". That is the very point I am making. The Bible WAS this society's treatise on morality. It seems easy to believe that we could all agree that as long as some behaviour doesn't harm others, that it should be allowed. That is a typical amoral liberal pipe dream. People can't even agree on whether or not people should be allowed to eat meat - if not for the burden of public health care costs, then the climate damage from cattle methane! What seems quite simple is clearly not.

We shouldn't kill each other - and yet we do it all the time. Obama did it today, I'm sure. It's not a matter of semantics, it's a question of morality.

"Thou shalt not kill...unless I the Lord God tell you to...or unless the other person is a terrorist, or the other person is insane, or the other person generates too much carbon dioxide, or unless the other person has ebola and won't cover his mouth when he sneezes..."

We have lost our morality in the name of progress.