At 11/11/09 12:22 PM, Sajberhippien wrote: but on hentai there's no way to prove that >.<

Those hentai rules are the most ridiculous fucking thing. It proves that they're punishing for the thought and not for the actual abuse.

At 11/10/09 06:15 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Has not, evolution is a theory which several parts of have been falsified but sadly not removed, if you don't believe me then too bad cuz I don't give a shit.

Which parts exactly? I'll believe you if you can show me.

At 11/9/09 07:24 PM, TakeTheBait wrote: some religions just need to chill the fuck out and preach love, community, and morality, like most do anyway.

Why? Those are the source of the problems in the first place. Any qualified, sincere educator would encourage things like freedom, independence, responsibility, critical thinking, skepticism, thirst for knowledge etc. When the clergy just impose their values and morals on the public, nothing good ever results from it. Love, community and morality are good things within reason and moderation. The problem is, as an official religious dogma they never stay in moderation. "Love" or "fidelity" may eventually mean that condoms are evil and adultery should be punishable by death. Excessive emphasis on "community" at the cost of the individual justifies honor killings among other things. And whenever you hear the word "morality" in a religious context, you won't have to wait for long to find the rampant homophobia or some other form of bigotry that consists of condemning other people's lifestyles.

That's exactly why the Jesus camp teachers didn't like Harry Potter. Because it's "morally" evil.

At 11/9/09 07:09 PM, ToddM wrote: Why do you care about this? It does not affect me and I continue on with my life by not paying attention to them.

These children are the voters of the future. They get to decide who is control of the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons and the most potent army in the world.

At 11/9/09 05:16 PM, Ericho wrote: Okay, poxpower, if you really want to know about someone who at least believes in Jesus as an historical figure, you can look at Richard Dawkins.

You really don't understand. The issue is not who says Jesus is real but how they know he's real. Richard Dawkins is not a historian either, he's a biologist. It's entirely plausible that he's taken the word of the mainstream interpretation of history just for the sake of convenience. In his book The God Delusion, Dawkins writes that Jesus "probably existed", but no one on Earth considers Dawkins to be an infallible prophet, especially in a field that is not his own. What would be the point of atheism if we have to rely on the word of high-profile atheist figures? That's what religions with their popes and ayatollahs do. In atheism, we want to find things out by ourselves and no one's word is worth shit unless they have evidence or logic to back it up.

At 11/9/09 04:08 PM, GiantDouche wrote: If these people knew they were being filmed in a documentary demonizing them they would have probably toned it down a little bit.

How does that make them better people in any way at all? "Yeah, we brainwash schoolchildren, but ONLY when we don't know we're being filmed." It seems like you don't regret at all that they're indoctrinating vulnerable minds, you regret that they were caught doing so.

At 11/9/09 03:43 PM, 1Tyla1 wrote: There is nothing wrong with religion at all. The only thing that's "wrong" with it is the nutjobs that use religion to justify their actions.

The Holy Books of the three monotheistic religions are full of human sacrifice, executions for minor offenses and genocide. It's not just the people who "misuse" them, it's the teachings themselves that are dehumanizing, counterproductive, retarding and evil in the most profound meaning of the word. Monotheism implies that you owe your own life to a celestial tyrant. If you think there is nothing with being an eternal slave or wishing to be an eternal slave, I'm going to have to disagree.

At 11/9/09 09:31 AM, Snatah wrote: Sometimes i think christianity may be worse then the islam.

Don't jump into any conclusions, they know how to brainwash children in the Middle East, too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjbJnZUJT YU

That being said, I do think that the Catholic church, for instance, does more evil in Africa than any other single religious institution of any faith or denomination in the world. Not that the others aren't trying, though.

Pox has a girlfriend!

The similarity looks pretty impressive actually (from the angle it's the picture's taken at least). It doesn't just look like some bearded figure if you squint your eyes. To me, the most likely explanation is that someone drew it there with their fingers. They only had to do this once, because once the water condenses again, the face should appear exactly where the smudge from the fingers was left.

Some other recent Jesus spottings:
Ikea toilet door in Glasgow, although that can also be Benny from ABBA or Gandalf.
Jar of Marmite.

At 11/5/09 01:23 PM, poxpower wrote: Some might innocently be self-deluded but I'm sure a SIZABLE portion of them is full of shit and laughing all the way to the bank while fondling little kid's bums.

That's not black and white, either. I'm sure there's a smooth transition. Most of them probably start off with honest intentions. When they begin to discover how much is in it for them, that's when the self-deception starts to grow. They'll rationalize and convince themselves that what they're doing is still for the better of their fellow human beings, even if it makes them, the clergy, rich in the process. This effect becomes diluted over time until you're just a cynical, indifferent manipulator. But not everyone ends up that far.

At 11/5/09 11:15 AM, milinko959 wrote: Oh man. At first I thought this was going to be serious. That would have been a big fuck you to the current administration.

Current? Don't you mean the SAME AS THE LAST ONE? Haven't you heard that they're also shapeshifters?

Look, this is a warning. I just want to get this out there while my mind is still clear.

So, today I got my H1N1 vaccination (apparently I'm in a risk group). WORST MISTAKE OF MY LIFE! After the shot, I've been feeling really strange. I've had several blackouts. They've usually lasted for about 5-10 minutes. I'm told that during these blackouts, I've been desperately looking for a voting booth, obsessed with voting for the Center Party. Reportedly, I refuse to stop doing this despite being repeatedly told that the next elections won't be till 2011.

The swine flu vaccination is used to control the minds of voters in order to cement all the current world leaders into power, all of whom have committed to what is known as the New World Order, a Reptilian takeover on December 21st, 2012. The reptilian aliens, our future overlords, created the swine flu AND its vaccine in order to control us; they made it just lethal enough to cause worldwide panic, but not potent enough to create catastrophic death tolls - they want to keep us alive as slave labor.

How do I know this? Well during the blackouts I mentioned, I've been privileged to see a sneak peak of the reptilians' minds. It was unintentional, I'm sure. It was intended as a one-way street to control my mind, but something went wrong and it backfired against them.

Also, the Holocaust. Never happened. It was just a plot by the Zionist reptiles to control the Holy City, which is where they intend to build their reptilian capital on the Mayan doomsday.

At 11/4/09 02:26 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote: This is why I have more reading to do. Expect posts in the future with better construction.

I also recommend watching a recent lecture by physicist Lawrence Krauss titled A Universe From Nothing, one of the key points of which is that "nothing" isn't really nothing.

Figure skating. You see, during Winter Olympics, we straight men don't want to watch some pretty princesses dancing around in tiny skirts, we want to watch sweaty men pin each other to the boards!

I just thought he had a funny expression ;(

I don't think it exists in better quality.

Try with this base pic.

You see, God had to create us as sinners, so that we'd always be miserable and groveling, desperate for a savior, for a merciful father figure. If we weren't sinners, we wouldn't need God any more. We'd be free, independent, emancipated. God could no longer own our lives by offering non-existent handouts and pretending to help us. Sin is how God enslaves us.

Atheists don't believe in God. Sane people don't believe in God or ghosts. Not all atheists are sane people, but all sane people are atheists.

At 11/1/09 05:10 PM, Gagsy wrote: I feel like dying.

Cure?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buqtdpuZx vk

How do I make money on the internet?

At 11/1/09 10:36 AM, Ericho wrote: You're missing the point. The idea is that God is such a complicated thing humans would simply not be able to understand its (?) true origin. We are able to comprehend the existance of the Universe because it has a definite starting point (The Big Bang), but if there was in fact a being such as "God", don't you think it would simply be too complex for any human to understand?

Look, if it's true that we understand the Universe, then that's that. Problem solved. Why need God? We already know where everything came from.

And if we DON'T understand the Universe, then why explain it with God? We cannot understand God EITHER. Now we have TWO things we don't understand and we have no reason to assume the other even exists.

Either we understand the Universe or we don't; if we do, then we don't need God, and if we don't, then God doesn't explain anything anyway.

At 10/29/09 04:49 PM, JohnnyWang wrote: When someone is taken from their usual context, and put into a new one (say, the emigrate to another country), they may have culture shock. In order to assimilate into the new culture, they will have to unlearn ("deculturation") parts of their old enculutration, and learn new values ("Acculturation").

But this is never an easy process, and it's harder the bigger the difference between the cultures. And as said, ones enculturation more or less defines who you are. Unlearning that is unlearning your own definition. A soft landing should be arranged when possible.

That sounds plausible, but I see a potential for danger with this. If you encourage people to maintain and cherish certain cultural traits and habits, you also run the risk that you're discouraging them from integrating and learning the skills they need in the new society. Instead of being curious and seeking knowledge of the new culture, they'll seek refuge in their own state-subsidized minority culture, which can result in enclaves, ghettos and cultures within a culture, instead of a big melting pot of cultures. Besides the support, you also need an incentive to learn the rules of the new society.

Free market provides all the wiggle room and soft landing there's needed. If McDonald's refuses to hire a woman because of a hijab, then that's not only a stain in their image, but also a rather pointless move which doesn't help their business at all.

At 10/29/09 03:59 PM, JohnnyWang wrote: But sometimes certain behaviour is necessary to maintain face in ones culture, witht eh hijab being a good example. If they can't go to work with it, muslim women who have pride in wearing one won't go to work. And then they become dissasociated with society.

THere should be some leverage room, really. As I said, if I were to decide the dress code for a company, the guy in question here wouldn't have been fired (though he was an idiot for turing down a subsitute pin).

Your cultural background is not something you're forced to stick with. If your family, especially the men, pressure or bully you into wearing something you can't wear at work, then it's a problem between you and them, and you have every right to tell them go fuck themselves. It's certainly not the employer's problem. No matter where you come from, you can always change (or dilute) your religion and move from one culture to another.

I'm not suggesting that Muslim headscarves should be banned at workplaces, nor am I going as far as Geert Wilders who thinks that Muslim women should have to pay a special tax for the permission to wear a headscarf. I just think it should be left for the employer to decide. At the moment, I'm not too worried that Muslim women will be rejected from work because of their headscarves. Most companies want to have a "multicultural" image and are happy to hire these women. All I'm saying is that there should be no legal mandate for such policy.

At 10/29/09 03:37 PM, Luxury-Yacht wrote: Of course, there's a difference between wearing clothing mandated by a religious belief and wearing something promoting some sort of theistic values that is worn purely out of individual choice.

There should be no legal difference. If you violate the dress code, then you violate the dress code, and the boss doesn't have to care whether you do it to avoid the wrath of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or to resist the temptation of the dark side of the Force. Having a religious belief is a purely individual choice in the first place, or at least it should be treated as such.

At 10/29/09 03:14 PM, HellboundNinja wrote: where as "turbans" ARE part of the Islamic religion and they would not fire a Muslim if he choose to wear one.

The vast majority of Muslim men don't wear any kind of headwear. There are also a lot of Muslim women (I can name at least two) who don't wear headscarves either. If they're Muslims and don't wear these clothes, then no one else can claim they have to wear them either.

If the employer wants to make a policy of permitting religious clothing, then that's entirely his choice. However, it's nonsense that he should be FORCED to this apply kind of policy by the law.

At 10/29/09 02:56 PM, Snake-Arsenic wrote: Unless someone can prove that specific button is a part of his specific religion then he shouldn't have worn it at work. Islamic dress is a part of Islamic religion and the fact that it is makes it very different to wearing a button with an excerpt from the declaration of independence.

Whether or not he had a specific religious motivation to wear the button is irrelevant. If you have a dress code at work, then you abide by it, period. If your religion tells you to wear something at work that your boss doesn't like, then you need to change your job or change your religion.

At 10/29/09 01:53 PM, JohnnyWang wrote: Arabs don't wear turbans.

Anyway, this wasn't about clothes, it was about decoration.

I would imagine that in a workplace, certain religious clothings would be even more disruptive and cumbersome than religious pins, buttons, jewelry etc., although religious clothing isn't necessarily making some sort of statement like in this case. Either way, if employers have the right to fire people for wearing religious decorations, they should also have the right to fire people for wearing religious clothing. If you have a dress code at work, it's only fair that it applies to everyone, and no religion should have any special privileges mandated by the law.

I have enormous amounts of respect for her. She's free to choose her own lifestyle and anyone who calls her a slut or a whore is a bigot who should mind their own business.

At 10/28/09 07:40 PM, AndrewGlisson13 wrote: God made the people who live in Heaven incapable of feeling compassion or sorrow for the damned in Hell.

Welcome to Heaven, where we destroy everything that makes you human.