Monday, August 30, 2010

The new Selma

At some time over this past weekend (8-28/10--8/29/10) heavy construction equipment which was parked on the proposed site of an Islamic Center (not just a "mosque" as it seems to have been characterized by opponents with the full compliance of the SCLM) in Murfreesboro, TN was doused with an "accelerant" and at least one vehicle burned. Google Maps says that from 51 Park Place (not Hallowed'n'Holy Ground Zero--H'n'HGZ), Borough of Manhattan, NYC, USA!USA!!USA!!! Zip Code 11llty1!, is 886.03+/- from Murfreesboro, TN. So, it seems that while we may not know how far away from H'n'HGZ a MOSQUE has to be in order to not OFFEND the sensibilities of KKKristian MerKKKa we do know that a bit under 900 Googlemapped miles is just not enough. I am beginning to wonder if Memphis, Egypt UAR is far enough away from Memphis, TN or if Mecca and Medina (both in Saudi Arabia) are far enough away from their namesakes in CA, NY and Ohio to not cause offense--those filthy ayrabs want to steal our country--they already done stolet the names of our cities. Oh, shit, I almost forgot about Cairo, IL ('sides they pronounce it KayRo down there). It's just too much to expect that the poor, persecuted WhiteMerKKKans will not rise up and cast off their chains of bondage, rout the infidel and carry this Holy Crusade to the very gates of--oops, 'scuse me, I was speaking raytorikly. Anyhow. I just think that it is a very good idea and a civic duty to remind the folks who see the Mooslims as the OTHER (and an other that has a big shiny sword, a big hooked nose and a few "dirty" bombs secreted about his person and in his hollowed out Koran) that they are carrying forward the good work done by the likes of Bull Connor and those brave citizens and auxiliary members of the KKK who "terminated with extreme prejudice" those three commiejewoutsideagitatin' n*****lovers before they could ruin a century of amicable, separate but equal (har, har) law for blacks and real people./s Seriously, I am at the point where when people say "those people" I gotta ask them if they slept through history class or their own pre-1964 life. That we, a nation (supposedly) of laws, should think that others, with whom we do NOT share common religious beliefs, should be deprived of the freedom to practice theirs is morally reprehensible--as well as the fact that it stands the first amendment on its head. One more thing to note. This guy: is listed as being a Roman Catholic. His occupation is "terrorist". He blew up a building filled with, afaia, 168 people who were NOT muslims. I guess that's why it's OKAY to have a statue of guess who? "On a corner adjacent to the memorial is a sculpture of Jesus weeping erected by St. Joseph's Catholic Church. St. Joseph's, one of the first brick and mortar churches in the city, was almost completely destroyed by the blast. The statue is not part of the memorial itself but is popular with visitors nonetheless." But is JESUS weeping for all those killed by Timmy or is he weeping for Timmy, himself?

Saturday, August 07, 2010

If it's your own work, is it still "cut'n'pasted"?

Happy Saturday, Dear readers: I been spending way too much time arguing with GODbot boneheads, but the following comment to a gent who signs as "oitotheworld23" (and people think I have a weird handle?) is representative of what's in this comment thread: over at SciencBlogs. Have a great weekend. @ comment 117 Dear OinkyoinkRevelations3:5-16: Well, when you put it that way... Scuse me for being rude, asshole. The problem with GODbots like you is that you make a special pleading, based on YOUR particular idea of what YOUR sects superstitious belief in an invisible SkyDaddy wants the world to be like. You might take a look at any law, ordinance passed or ruling handed from ANY U.S. legislative body or court* and see if you can find a phrase, "Wherefore, it being the WILL OF GOD...". I'd wait for you to do some research, but research seems not to be your forte. The result of your search would be fruitless. The reason for that search being fruitless is that the U.S. Constitution prohibits such nonsense in fairly clear language. Not that you'd agree with it, but I am not seeking your agreement. One of the things that fairly clearly illustrates the lack of critical thinking in the minds of dolts like you is that your GOD is on the one hand the "GOD Of The 3 O's"** who can AND will make the world in whatever image he deems appropriate (reserving the right to capriciously change his own "perfection" at times and places of his choosing) and YET you insist that he needs YOUR help in getting it right! Talk about hubris. Man if there was such a place as hell, being ruled by a being known as Satan (or any of his other labels), based on the way you and folks like you disrespect the wisdom of your GOD's actions, I'd suggest you all get your coffins with air conditioning and make sure they're fireproof. You don't like teh GAY? I got no problem with that. I heartily dislike KKKristian assholes like you. I would prefer not to hear, see or read about you and your ilk's nonsensical bleating on such subjects as gay marriage, the imminent demise of western culture via gay marriage, abortion, duckass haircuts***, engineer boots with metal cleats****, pegged trousers*****, halter tops, women's suffrage, etc., ad nauseam. So, as you can see (or, quite possibly, you can't) we all got us some differences of OPINION with each other. My differences with you do not make it legal for me to discriminate against you and deprive you of your right to be a clueless moron on the subject of other peoples' rights, under the U.S. Constitution. I realize that you have a hard time understanding this line of thought--your previous comments have made that fact abundantly clear. I DO sincerely hope that you live your life according to whatever marching orders you are given by your minister, priest or whatever middle manager your faith employs to bullshit the rank and file into submissiveness. I also sincerely hope that you stay the hell out of meddling in other peoples' lives (a forlorn hope, I'm fairly sure) and confine your attempts at eradicating "sin" to your own dark and twisted psyche. If I thought for a second that saying, "Fuck you, your church AND your precious GOD!" would make you go away and quit wasting the time of those who read your idiotic, logically fallacious and hatefully sanctimonious comments--while you, in the best tradition of "True Bleevers(TM)" refuse to actually, y'know, educate yourself instead of regurgitating the "received wisdom" spewed from the pulpits of your churches, the pages of your "newspapers" and the pieholes of Rush, Sean, the FauxNewsTeam and the rest of the reichwing disinformation apparatus. I suspect, however, that saying, "Fuck you, your church AND your precious GOD" will only further energize that fevered little brain of yours--so I won't say that. Since you did call me a "bigot" already (although I think you are not clear on the meaning of the word) I guess I should say, "Go fuck yourself!"--although I have to admit that saying it like this robs it of most of its immediacy and makes it less pungent and smackalicious. But, hey, if you're gonna be called a sinner, you may as well do the sinnin'. What is it that they used to say in my church? Oh, yeah, "Ite in pace", in english (the original language of the Wholly Babble) "Go in peace". Well, I certainly hope you'll go, in peace or not, just fuck off, m'kay? * Any, that is that has not been or will not be judged unconstitutional. ** Those "3 O's" = Omnniscient, Ompnipotent amd Omnipresent. Personally I subscribe to the theory of the "GOD Of The Three I's", the "Three I's" = Inscrutable, Invisible and Imaginary. ***,****,***** Okay, those three were only part of the dress code at MY Cath-O-Lick HS--eventually they got us all in to uni's. There were other rules about conduct that were equally nonsensical, but I digress--MAN, do I digress! Posted by: democommie | August 7, 2010 9:06 AM

Sunday, August 01, 2010

Good Morning: I was trying to decide on what to write about, there is just SO much that is fucked up and so little that I can do about most of it. I spend a fair amount of time at "Dispatches From The Culture Wars", Ed Brayton's site at ScienceBlogs and there's been a thread running for two days under the headline, "Sign at NOM Rally; "Kill the Gays". In that thread a number of bright, articulate, humorous and well read commenters have said their piece--I have also contributed.--and then, of course, the usual "defe nders of the faith" and an assortment of fuckwadtrolls have put forth their arguments, some coherently and some in the "Crayon on butcher paper" style of debate. It's a long thread, but it has some great stuff. This one, from earlier this morning, is as close as I get to the "polite discourse" of behavio, which I find so sadly lacking in our fucking culture.

(@ comment 253)

James Hanley:

This is from Wiki:

"Intellectual dishonesty is dishonesty in performing intellectual activities like thought or communication. Examples are: the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows or believes to be false or misleading the conscious omission of aspects of the truth known or believed to be relevant in the particular context. Rhetoric may be used to advance an agenda or to reinforce one's deeply held beliefs in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence.[1] If a person is aware of the evidence and agrees with the conclusion it portends, yet advocates a contradictory view, they commit intellectual dishonesty. If the person is unaware of the evidence, their position is ignorance, even if in agreement with the scientific conclusion. If the person is knowingly aware that there may be additional evidence but purposefully fails to check, and then acts as though the position is confirmed, this is also intellectual dishonesty. The terms intellectually dishonest and intellectual dishonesty are often used as rhetorical devices in a debate; the label invariably frames an opponent in a negative light. The phrase is also frequently used by orators when a debate foe or audience reaches a conclusion varying from the speaker's on a given subject. This appears mostly in debates or discussions of speculative, non-scientific issues, such as morality or policy." Not that Wiki is the most authoritative source, but I think it's close enough for what I think of Christian Cynic's style of debate on issues re: christianity. That I see it in that light certainly doesn't mean I'm correct, but it is, as is your opinion of the man, one I see buttressed by his words in the comment threads. I will also note that Christian Cynic does not spend a lot of time on the comment threads unless the issue in the thread is christianity. I defer to others (occassionally;)) in the face of superior knowledge. When it comes to factually deficient, woo based nonsense--whether it's flat earth theory, ID, other religious based foolishness or religions themselves I am firmly in favor of people holding whatever views they like (while I am NOT interested in reading/hearing them, generally). What I will never be in favor of is having arguments from those defending such things allowed the advantage of not having to admit that NONE of their precious religions (or those religions tenets, laws and practices) are justified by anything other than their own dogged belief in a supernatural agent--on (or more) who is invisible, unknowable and, apparently, irrationally capricious. I think that the majority of the non-trolls here understand that Mosaic Law was probably of some, or a great deal of, importance, in a time, the "Bronze Age", when rough justice and arbitrary rulemaking by those in power might well make the difference between a society thriving or dying out. That is no longer the case. When people like heddle and Christian Cynic defend the Wholly Babble as a masterwork by an omniscient GOD, while simultaneously saying that, of course "reasonable" christians don't follow the admonitions of The Book of Leviticus it rings hollow. Science is, and must be falsifiable; religious faith is not and cannot be falsifiable. To allow those whose arguments are "faith based" to act as if they are based in fact is unfairly advantageous to them. Most commenters here would laugh and point their fingers at anyone whose sole "evidence" rebutting the theory of AGW, the germ theory of disease, theoretical nuclear physics or any of a host of other real world fact based "theories" was that "GODDIDIT"--and we can't, by our nature, know his mind. This is exactly as it should be. I have no complaint with heddle, Christian Cynic or even the more than slightly deranged mroberts and his ilk holding onto and cherishing any beliefs that do not threaten me or the rest of society in their application. I have a huge problem with such beliefs when they are used to justify the withholding of rights from or the persecution or exclusion of other members of our society. I don't cut Republicans or Democrats slack when they say that folks like Sarah Palin or Charlie Rangel are outliers and, anyway, they would never act on any of their idiotic sociopathic ideas. When christians, other religious types or, indeed, unbelievers don't denounce the douchebags in their midst--particularly when said douchebags are well funded and have the tacit support of media or governing bodies they are being -best co-opted and, at worse, accessories to the acts of those douchebags.

Posted by: democommie August 1, 2010 10:11 AM

And that, folks, is the way I genuinely feel about those who stand mute in their churches or political meetings (at any level) and do not question or disagree with the elements of their congregation or caucus that are hateful, wrongheaded, deliberately indignorant "true believers". If there was a GOD, I would pray that he educate, elevate OR eliminate his most credulous followers--and the lying sacks of shit that egg them on. '