OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!

[Arryn]

Originally posted by spirokeat:
And if anyone read the article, did you get that feeling of zombification creeping over you as the reasonable tone of the words just dulled you into submission ?

"You are getting sleepy ... very sleepy. When I snap my fingers, you will awaken, refreshed and reborn, and believe everything I tell you to believe." hehe

Well, what did you expect? After all, the actors have had HUNDREDS of YEARS to practice their lines and perfect their technique ...

[spirokeat]

Well, what did you expect? After all, the actors have had HUNDREDS of YEARS to practice their lines and perfect their technique.

cackle, yup, couldn't agree more. But they sure as hell didn't see Darwinism coming did they.

Spiro

[Zapmeister]

Originally posted by Arryn:
Wrong. You have confused religion, which is the practice of worship and a system of beliefs, with the question of the existence or non-existence of a deity. It is possible to accept the existence of (some) god, yet not accept *any* of the beliefs commonly associated with that entity, including human-written codices and bureaucratic power structures.

I agree, and don't believe I said otherwise, nor confused religion with metaphysics. My comment was based on your usage of the term agnostic, which I continue to claim means a belief in the unsolvability of a question. Your usage of the word "bunk" implies that you know a particular belief set is wrong, and hence have gone some way towards solving the problem.

[Zapmeister]

Originally posted by Arryn:
It was for heresy. The following Catholic page The Galileo Controversy has an excellent overview of it, despite playing semantic games about it being for heresy.

It mis-represents the facts. Galileo's hand-written confession, forced from him by the Inquisition, included these words:

But since I, after having been admonished by this Holy Office entirely to abandon the false opinion that the sun was the centre of the universe and immovable, and that the earth was not the centre of the same and that it moved, and that I was neither to hold, defend, nor teach in any manner whatever, either orally or in writing, the said false doctrine; and after having received a notification that the said doctrine is contrary to Holy Writ, I did write and cause to be printed a book in which I treat of the said already condemned doctrine and bring forward arguments of much efficacy in its favour, without arriving at any solution:...

[PrinzMegaherz]

Norfleet wrote:
Canada may have a system in which people who have money go to the US to seek health care....but this just underscores the point that Canada's healthcare system, while more ubiquitous, is still of inferior quality. You certainly can't deny that people do this: I've known several Canadians who do this exact thing: Travel to the US to get some operation performed....at their own expense.

I know some germans who went to America for some special treatment. But I am not sure whether this is proof for a general superiority of your system. It only shows that in certain regions of medicine one might be better of with your health system.

[ July 28, 2004, 09:57: Message edited by: PrinzMegaherz ]

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Zapmeister:
It mis-represents the facts.

Of course it does, and should not come as a surprise, given that the Church took 500 years to even come up with as little admission of stupidity as it managed to. But, when I said it was an "excellent overview", my intent was that it stated the issues in dispute, and why. I could have also pointed out that the page is full to bursting with misleading statements and self-serving, obfuscatory excuses for the Church's behavior. But I didn't because I felt that such should be obvious to anyone with a modicum of open-mindedness and some ability to comprehend written English. In short, being able to determine for oneself whether to take things at face value, or needing to read between the lines. Which, having such capabilities yourself, you noted. For those lacking, nothing I might have added would help.

I don't feel it's my place, nor do I have the time (unlike Graeme), to try to enlighten the willfully ignorant. So I tend to not include caveats and warnings, or speak in simple language. I expect people to be educated to a minimal standard, and I have little patience for the semifunctionally-illiterate.

Thankfully, Zap, you are one of those rare folks that has a clue.

[Arryn]

Originally posted by PrinzMegaherz:
I know some germans who went to America for some special treatment.

Coming to the US for special treatment does not mean that the US has a better system. All it shows is that there may be a doctor, team, or hospital here that is better at something than can be found somewhere else. The US does not have a monopoly on all the best doctors and medical technology on this planet. However, in many areas, we do. But it's a fallacy to generalize from specifics. Not to mention being impolitic and rude (arrogant) to the folks living somewhere other than the US.

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Boron:
the main problem with the catholic church i have is that they are the most "aggressive" big world religion . they evangelise still intolerant .

However, almost all "evangelical" Groups, be they Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Jewish, or even Hindu, are intolerant. Kinda makes you wish the world had only one faith: Buddhist. Ever seen an evangelical Buddhist monk? I haven't.

fanaticism is evil .

Yes, it is. In any form. Especially PETA.

just look at bin laden . but the muslim faith is in general more tolerant bin laden is only a sect which isn't even tolerated by the muslim leaders while the catholic church seems to me much more fanatic and they tolerate , even support extreme and almost violent catholic sects .

Can you name an "extreme" Catholic sect that exists *today*? (And cite examples of what makes them "extreme" and "almost violent".)

Disregarding small Groups of disaffected people such as hard-core IRA, Orangemen, fanatical Israelis (the aforementioned three Groups mainly being about matters of tradition, vengeance, or land-ownership and not about religious differences), and the occasional sociopathic Christian anti-abortionist, can you name me any Judeo-Christians that go around blowing themselves up? Or brutally murdering hostages in the name of God? I don't think so. Not even Serbs and Croats commit their atrocities for the sake of their faith. Only practicioners of Islam have this reprehensible practice today. The rest of the world became, more or less, civilized and ceased such things as crusades, inquisitions (if we ignore the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security), and burnings-at-stakes. Despite all that you can say about Islam being a peaceful religion, a far larger percentage of its followers remain stuck in medieval barbarism than do the followers of any other religion. Please explain why this is so ...

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by Norfleet:
That assertion makes no sense, because obviously, Zaire does not have a great health care system if people there are leaving the country to seek their health care. Nobody goes *TO* Zaire to get treatment.

No, it simply illustrates that you can't judge whether a system works by ignoring all the cases where it doesn't. After all, that's what hius argument really is.

Canada may have a system in which people who have money go to the US to seek health care....but this just underscores the point that Canada's healthcare system, while more ubiquitous, is still of inferior quality.

I wasn't aware that the proper way to judge whether something was good was to ignore every single instance where that thing fails.

You certainly can't deny that people do this: I've known several Canadians who do this exact thing: Travel to the US to get some operation performed....at their own expense.

I won't deny that some people do this. I will still ask to see that the number of people who do this is statistically significant.

Healthcare, in whatever form, however, is not free, even in Canada. You STILL have to pay for it, but instead of paying for your OWN problems, you're ending up paying for someone ELSE's problems.

But so what really? When it comes down to it you pay less than if you weren't paying for everyone else's problems, and all of society benefits as a whole.

I don't see this as a good thing, as it certainly provides a strong disincentive for people to deal with their own personal problems.

Yes, because people don't bother to work hard when that means that they will make more money. I suppose that you also support the privatization of police forces, since only people that require them should have to pay for them.

If people have to deal with their own problems, the ones that are willing to work to overcome their issues succeed, the slackers perish. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Yep. The standard "people who fail are always lazy" fallacy of false causes.

[spirokeat]

posted by Boron

at least in europe the catholics are this way perhaps the american catholics are more moderate because they are not as dependent on the pope as the european ones and they are not the majority in the usa so they can't afford to be as arrogant as they are in europe .

Fan of the sweeping generalisation are we old bean ?

I think you will find that almost all major religions have a bloody past and to single out Catholics as having some kind of monopoly, past and present on attrocities is what's arrogant, never mind the MASSIVE insult you just curve ball'd at Europeans.

I think were I to be arsed digging up some information I would find that the US has had a fantastic record in crackpot religious cults slaughtering and generally making a nuisance of themselves in the name of God or Goverment. Lets face it, You have Bush right now, so that practically invalidates any arguement the US has for not being right at the top of psuedo-nutjob leaders list be they religious or not.


Spiro

[ July 28, 2004, 13:51: Message edited by: spirokeat ]