The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by the Vicar of Piss Christ
"febrile writing skills"

"twitticisms"

I hate to say it, but the double-meanings here are really very well done.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by the Vicar of Piss Christ
I'm off to the Brickskeller for a Carlsberg. See you there S_A_M?

Even my love for free speech will not induce me to drink bad beer.

S_A_M

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by LessinSF
But it implicitly accepts our way of thinking, and that is a big step for Iran.

Shhhhh. You don't know who reads these boards... Don't let them know they're being duped here.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by sgtclub

• ST. PETERSBURG, Russia, Feb. 7 (UPI) -- A Russian astronomer has predicted that Earth will experience a "mini Ice Age" in the middle of this century, caused by low solar activity.
  
  Khabibullo Abdusamatov of the Pulkovo Astronomic Observatory in St. Petersburg said Monday that temperatures will begin falling six or seven years from now, when global warming caused by increased solar activity in the 20th century reaches its peak, RIA Novosti reported.
  
  The coldest period will occur 15 to 20 years after a major solar output decline between 2035 and 2045, Abdusamatov said.
  
  Dramatic changes in the earth's surface temperatures are an ordinary phenomenon, not an anomaly, he said, and result from variations in the sun's energy output and ultraviolet radiation.
  
  The Northern Hemisphere's most recent cool-down period occurred between 1645 and 1705. The resulting period, known as the Little Ice Age, left canals in the Netherlands frozen solid and forced people in Greenland to abandon their houses to glaciers, the scientist said.
  

And fat isn't bad for you either... Go figure. Must be a lotta mad left wingers out there these days. Bag the bran diet and stop construction of the windmill and solar tiled roof. I wonder what "religions" the left will come up with to make themselves feel superior next.

Its too damned bad cigarettes are definitely bad for you. I would so love to see a study proving the cancer/heart attack connection was all bunk. The reaction of the do-gooders would be so damned comical.

You know, with the gene mapping stuff going on, they're making great strides in determining who will get what diseases. there will come a day when certain people will be able to smoke and eat whatever they like with pretty good statistical comfort that they will not get a cancer or heart disease. I'm very saddened I won't live to see that day.

I have a dream of one day being able to gorge on cocaine, fliet, goblets of vodka, cartons of cigarettes and ice cream every weekend in a scene reminiscent of Scarface meeting the French and Roman Aristocracies bullimic balls.

Alas, I'll never see it. I've lived in shitty times. Too late for the 60s; too early for medical science to render me immortal.

ETA: Lets not forget silicon implants, either. Their linkage to disease has been shown non-existent as well. Can Dow Corning sue to get back all of those billions it had to piss away on those frivolous suits? How bout the shareholders? Why can't they sue to recover that money? BTW, who has that money?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I recall it was Hennessy (the only cognac I had), but not which one.

Here's a column by Anne Applebaum about the whole cartoon thing that I think is pretty good.

But I think there's a difference between Serrano's Piss Christ and what the Danish newspapers are doing, not so much re art ("art") itself, but in the way religious views are implicated. I'm a Christian, but I didn't particularly feel offended by Serrano. I mean, I didn't get the point, and he clearly had some issues, but that was his problem. To my (limited) understand, the Islamic belief about not portraying Mohammed is somewhat different.

To claim your attitude towards a bunch or born-agains burning up Arkansas for Piss-Christ would be the same as your support of these burners is silly. And their "Christianity" isn't yours, so you don't know how they would feel. Do you think Jesus approves of killing abortion doctors? they do.

dearborn isn't burning right now, so i know it's not all muslims who are violently reacting -- maybe there are similar shades of belief in Islam. It is ironic that a cartoon portraying the leader of the faith with a bomb-head results in the followers going out and bombing things.

The main point shown here is the violent shades think they can control what everyone worldwide does. how can you try and defend that?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
But I think there's a difference between Serrano's Piss Christ and what the Danish newspapers are doing, not so much re art ("art") itself, but in the way religious views are implicated. I'm a Christian, but I didn't particularly feel offended by Serrano. I mean, I didn't get the point, and he clearly had some issues, but that was his problem. To my (limited) understand, the Islamic belief about not portraying Mohammed is somewhat different.

In a civilized, adult society, free speech trumps a particular religion's heightened sensitivities.

You do see what these Islamists are doing, don't you? They can't change the law to fit their religious code, so they're indirectly doing it by force and fear.

When we make apologies and make allowances for Islam's "special status" as a religion we cannot indict or poke fun at in the public sphere, we're allowing a de facto form of shariah to take hold.

We have to set a precedent that secular freedom of expression trumps religious sensitivity. Without that bedrock principle, you're always slouching otward theocracy. And I'm not being hyperbolic here in the least. Preservation of that principle is essential to a democracy.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
In a civilized, adult society, free speech trumps a particular religion's heightened sensitivities.

You do see what these Islamists are doing, don't you? They can't change the law to fit their religious code, so they're indirectly doing it by force and fear.

When we make apologies and make allowances for Islam's "special status" as a religion we cannot indict or poke fun at in the public sphere, we're allowing a de facto form of shariah to take hold.

We have to set a precedent that secular freedom of expression trumps religious sensitivity. Without that bedrock principle, you're always slouching otward theocracy. And I'm not being hyperbolic here in the least. Preservation of that principle is essential to a democracy.

I agree with this. I do find it interesting, though, that many of the defenses of free speech and the of need to counter the childish reaction of militant Islamists seems to crowd out any consideration of judgment, and creates the implication that anyone who suggests that showing the cartoons was a poor tactical choice simply wants to cave to theocracy.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
But I think there's a difference between Serrano's Piss Christ and what the Danish newspapers are doing, not so much re art ("art") itself, but in the way religious views are implicated. I'm a Christian, but I didn't particularly feel offended by Serrano. I mean, I didn't get the point, and he clearly had some issues, but that was his problem. To my (limited) understand, the Islamic belief about not portraying Mohammed is somewhat different.

Why are you even discussing whose expression is or should be more "offensive" (the Prophet cartoon is more offensive because no likenesses are allowed, and the Piss Christ is not as bad because at least we, as Christians, get to draw Jesus, with his sandles and all!!). But if you really are so concerned about the content of the offensive cartoon: given that the last 5 years has seen countless massacres committed in the name of Allah, showing a sketch of the Prophet with a bomb on his head is not exactly surprising. It could mean many things - that people are hijaking Islam and turning it into a pro-bomb religion OR that some people view Islam itself as tolerating violence.

You say, there is a "difference" between Piss Christ and the Bombhead cartoons "in the way religious views are implicated." This is really splitting hairs. Yeah, maybe Islam says portrayals of Muhammed are bad, but on the other hand, I doubt Christianity would allow pissing on a statue of Jesus or shitting on Mary. What you're trying to do is justify why these cartoons were somehow more "wrong" than Serrano's image and that Muslims are more entitled to feel the rage than Christians were over the Serrano piece. (Even though we were made to pay for the Serrano piece with our taxpayer money, and nobody charged the Muslims to create the cartoons. Imagine that!)

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I agree with this. I do find it interesting, though, that many of the defenses of free speech and the of need to counter the childish reaction of militant Islamists seems to crowd out any consideration of judgment, and creates the implication that anyone who suggests that showing the cartoons was a poor tactical choice simply wants to cave to theocracy.

I think, in this case, the principle at the core of the dispute is a much more important consideration than the wisdom of printing the cartoon. Too often, apologists for loathesome behavior like that exhibited by the Radical Islamists in this case will retreat to the argument that "it was unwise to taunt" the Muslims.

No shit. I agree. Unless you've shit for brains, the cartoon was obviously unwise.

BUT, such an unwise move is the only way to put the underlying issue into debate. How is shrinking from printing anything potentially perceived as offensive by Muslims any different than allowing them to outright outlaw such expression? Same effect.

The pragmatic "yeh, but it was a dumb idea" argument is a cheap way to make a speaker with a bad argument sound wise (I use it a lot). But it also makes him, in this case and many others, a coward (or one of those annoying pricks who'd rather change the subject 50 times than concede even the smallest point).

There ought to be a rule that, when debating principle, argue on the merits, not the practicality of the thing. But then I'd have little to say...

ETA: I think the most frustrating thing in society today is people's refusal to concede anything, and quickness to change the subject to create confusion rather than lose a debate. That sort of shit impedes constructive resolution of everything, and understanding between people with different views. I'd rather not debate with half the people I know because there's no point if they're just going to dig in and play games if they find their position collapsing. I usually drink heavily when anyone engages me in a debate, because its the only way to avoid becoming frustrated. For the life of me, I can't understand whats so bad about admitting when you're wrong. I'm happy to do so. I view it as a concession that I've learned something. How is that a bad thing?

BTW, I'm not being inconsistent here. I will often argue practicalities as an aside, but I don't try to shift the debate to them. And I admit when I'm wrong.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
In a civilized, adult society, free speech trumps a particular religion's heightened sensitivities.

You do see what these Islamists are doing, don't you? They can't change the law to fit their religious code, so they're indirectly doing it by force and fear.

When we make apologies and make allowances for Islam's "special status" as a religion we cannot indict or poke fun at in the public sphere, we're allowing a de facto form of shariah to take hold.

We have to set a precedent that secular freedom of expression trumps religious sensitivity. Without that bedrock principle, you're always slouching otward theocracy. And I'm not being hyperbolic here in the least. Preservation of that principle is essential to a democracy.

am i on ignore?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
am i on ignore?

No, just incoherent.

You've really let Harvard down.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Quandary has a second 'a'.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
Quandary has a second 'a'.

Fag.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
No, just incoherent.

You've really let Harvard down.

Ty says we have to stop posted Mohammed cartoons because more extreme muslims riot when we do. I asked him whether we should stop abortions because more extreme Christians kill abortion doctors.

[the Vicar of Piss Christ]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Even my love for free speech will not induce me to drink bad beer.

S_A_M

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Even my love for free speech will not induce me to drink bad beer.

S_A_M

Your loss. There was also Tuborg and cheese danish that I picked up at the 7-11 on P Street. Afterwards I had a burrito at Burrito Bros., which is a nice post-Danish beer snack, albeit not quite Danish itself, although the Mexican press has seen fit to stand up to the extremist Islam thugs and publish the cartoons, which is a refreshing nod to free speech and a robust press in comparison with feckless cowards in the American media. As of today add the alternative weekly New York Press as another "newspaper" too chicken-shit to publish these newsworthy cartoons that Danes are now dying for.


Thomas Sowell may be presciently correct in a piece atTownhall when he notes that we may be at a point of no return.

Looking back at the history of tragic times often reveals that many -- or most -- of the people of those times were often preoccupied with things that look trivial, or even pathetic, in view of the catastrophe looming over them. Will later generations looking back at our times see a similar blindness, and even frivolousness, in the face of mortal dangers?

That is the point of no return -- and we are drifting towards it, chattering away about legalisms and politics.