Sites We Like

RealUltimatePower

Poop Report

Fat Chicks in Party Hats

Xbox-Scene

TechLore

Photo

Entered on: March 13, 2005 12:00 AM by Ross

Just.... awesome.

PHOTO 179 - 103 Comments
From: The Bone Entered on: March 13, 2005 5:15 PM
Where'd you find this one?
From: Ross Entered on: March 14, 2005 8:18 AM
http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=2723
From: Swerb Entered on: March 14, 2005 11:02 AM
So, should we gather our forces in protest?     http://www.mlive.com/news/grpress/index.ssf?/base/n ews-20/1110626154324420.xml     The fucked up thing about this article (besides the obvious) is that it quotes two active, Christian morons.
From: BigFatty Entered on: March 14, 2005 1:57 PM
The Free speech thing is getting out of hand. I don't want to limit it, but I don't like people using it just because they can. Most people's 'ideas' on things are pretty much pollutants. I don't need to hear them when I am out and about. Just because you have an opinion on something doesn't mean you need to tell everyone. Why do people need a public forum to express themselves? We have been doing fine within our own little group. Can't they stay within theirs? If someone needs information on a subject, I am sure they can look it up. If not, well then I guess they would be very lucky to stumble upon some random yahoo spouting off on some topic that suddenly becomes important to the person.     I don't go around spouting off on the happy benefits of eating cheeseburgers. It is well within my rights. I guess I am not so full of myself to think that my ideas really are worth a damn. If I convinced myself that I was sweet, we could have a cheeseburger revolution with me spouting off my proproganda.
From: Ross Entered on: March 18, 2005 4:50 PM
Swerb, you might find this of interest:     http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2005/03/roy_mo ores_monu.php     Fatty: I have to disagree with you. The internet (and Jackassery especially) alone serves to give a voice to assholes about stupid shit. That's just how it works.     That said, I agree with the sentiment that this country has WAY too many morons willing to give their opinions. I remember reading about some british guy talking about this very topic - in england the schoolteachers would humiliate the retards and basically train them to keep quiet. In America, that's literally illegal, and everyone is encouraged to speak up, no matter what kind of garbage pours out of their mouths. Hence, the guests on Jerry Springer are produced in perpetuity.
From: The Bone Entered on: March 18, 2005 6:13 PM
Hilarious article.     I am a huge proponant of free speech. It doesn't mean that every voice has to be heard on the same level. Obviously it is impractical to give every asshole air time on national TV. There are many different levels of exposure. If you are a nutjob, your ideas won't make it past the streetcorner. If you inare a scientist, your ideas get published a journal. If it is important enough, it gets reprinted or summarized in a national magazine or you get to talk about it on the radio or TV. Same with the internet     I fully support the ridicule of backwards, incoherant ideas. It forces the public to think about what they say beforehand. It's not censorship. Censorship is the elimination of the platform which the person uses to convey his/her ideas.
From: Swerb Entered on: March 19, 2005 12:18 AM
I take zero issue with free speech (although, I could be persuaded to agree with one of the "laws" of Satanism from another post, that one should not express one's opinion unless asked or provoked). People can say whatever the fuck they want, no matter how stupid or ill-informed. The problem lies with the laziness and gullibility of some people... they take everything at face value, and don't take the effort to question anything. For example: I was talking to my uncle, and he was saying how he likes to watch Bill O'Reilly (ugh) and Hannity and Colmes (ugh again) because they "tell it like it is." Just because some idiot has a public forum and is paid to do so, doesn't mean they are intelligent, well-informed, or even telling the truth! Arrghhh!     And I'm one to talk, really, because I get paid to write what is, at its core, bullshit for the newspaper. But it's just movies and music - I couldn't handle the responsibility of being a news reporter or opinion-page columnist, because I'm at least a teeny bit skeptical of almost everything I see and hear.     Which I think opens up another can of worms, and that is, we, as a society, are totally bombarded with information, to the point of paralysis... so much "news" conflicts other "news" that it's hard to believe that anything not happening in front of your own face is true. Grappling with this may result in my being institutionalized, so please come visit me in the padded cell...
From: Ross Entered on: March 19, 2005 12:00 PM
My dad has been known to watch the O'Reilly Stanktor from time to time, much to my and my brother's chagrin. My dad has expressed a similar affinity for his "telling it like it is" - cutting thru the bullshit, I believe is more or less how he phrased it. To which I replied that sometimes what you're calling "bullshit" - is the complexity of an issue - and "cutting through" it means that you are oversimplfying things. This is the trade of conservative pundits - to boil things down so far that they are diluted and no longer resemble the original issue. It drives me fucking nuts.     I believe this is my father's primary fault in his worldview. He studided physics, where the goal was to reduce things down to a nice simple formula. The problem is, that only works on the smallest, simplest things in the universe, and even then, only on a general or statistical level. In the world of human behavior, that shit simply doesn't apply, not even a little bit. The world is complex! And people like GWB's ability to speak plainly is not an asset, it is a liability to the thinking world.
From: BigFatty Entered on: March 20, 2005 11:23 AM
I view our Jackassery as something akin to a private conversation in a public place. Its not meant to promote our ideas and thoughts to others, but they are able to come across them, much like you stumbling across anothers conversation out in public. The internet is used for self-promotion of one's ideas. But, I see it differently. I don't have to see other people's ideas unless I go looking for them. This is one of the reasons I hate pop-ups. They force me to look at unwanted information.     I guess I would not mind if people had certain areas to ramble on with their ideas - like Speakers Corner in Hyde Park, or on their own website. I don't like it when people come into my 'world' and accost me with their views. I get angry with the media for their choice of news. Most of their choice looks to be based on entertainment value of the news, or at least ratings. They are in fact forcing me to deal with unnecessary stupidity when they decide that Roy's Rock coming to GR is news. The news is a part of my world. I use it for information about the important going-ons in the world. It is frustrating to be at the mercy of the media to decide what is newsworthy for me (The internet is good on this point because you can pick and choose what you see). The Roy's Rock in GR is not important as news, but it serves to give voice and power to a certain group of people. Just being on the news creates an aire of being important - Its on the news! Just by running the story, this group gains in legitimaticy and support of its ideas. The media really controls what the masses think and believe in (At least to a point).     I hate it when celebrities think their opinions matter more because they are famous. They use their fame to promote their own agendas. Why are people asking famous actors their opinions on world affairs? How does being good looking and having the ability to memorize dialog make a person an opinion leader?
From: Ross Entered on: March 21, 2005 9:43 AM
The Washington Post has a good article on what a theory is, I recommend it:     http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4894 4-2005Mar19.html
From: Ross Entered on: March 21, 2005 9:45 AM
Fatty, I did want to comment on your riff about celebrities. I prefer to think of it this way: celebrities are people who happen to be famous. But they are people first. And they have the right, just like any of us, to spout of about whatever stupid bullshit they want to, or even start organizations and raise funds for stupid causes if they want to. The problem is that the population actually cares. Don't blame the celebrities - some of them do keep their mouths shut, but some of them, just like any other citizen - feel the need to make their opinions known and I have no problem with that whatsoever. I just have a problem with people paying too much attention to what someone says BECAUSE they're a celebrity.
From: Swerb Entered on: March 21, 2005 10:16 AM
What chafes my buttocks is that some dope like Bono, who has money pouring out of his anus, is up for a Nobel Peace Prize. Sure, I commend the guy for being politically active and trying to do positive, charitable things, but one could easily argue that he's nominated for the award BECAUSE he's Bono. I mean, I've heard the guy talk, and I've seen him perform, and he's a fucking moron.
From: Swerb Entered on: March 21, 2005 10:29 AM
That's a great article, Bert. You really don't even need to attack creationism as non-scientific when you point out that the creationists are fighting a war with deceptive language and publicity. The sad thing is, it's effective, because people will believe any sensationalist bullshit they hear on TV.
From: Creeko Entered on: March 21, 2005 10:54 AM
I guess it is hard to fathom how a single sell organism can evolve into such a superior life form so as to, one day, buy a pair of red shoes in order to adapt to a surrogate environment.     The Red Shoe analogy is to Evolutionists as the Watchmaker analogy is to Creationists. I?m a genius!     I just hope my royalties come in before I die.
From: Ross Entered on: March 21, 2005 11:36 AM
It would be more apt if your offspring were BORN with red shoes, Creeko. :)
From: Creeko Entered on: March 21, 2005 11:44 AM
For the record, Nora own's three pair of red shoes!
From: BigFatty Entered on: March 21, 2005 12:12 PM
I seem to be coming across as anti-free speechish. I don't mean to. Celebrities are people, I just don't like it because they get automatic credibility because they are famous. Its not their fault, its all the morons (like me) that pay attention to them. Its all a part of being famous. People have a psuedo-relationship with the celebrity in their minds. Its like they are listening to one of their friends because of the familiarity. Celebrities have a lot of power, I don't like it, but there is nothing I can do about it. Smart people use them and the power they wield to promote agendas - good or bad. Need a Goodwill Ambassador? Hell Angelina Jolie is frickin hot, she will certainly get some attention. She is a much better choice than some stuffy PHd that nobody knows and nobody will listen too. Laura Croft will bring all the attention, and dollars, they need. It is just frustrating to see these celebrities at conferences with actual statesmen working on problems. The one I saw on the news had Jolie, Bono, and Sharon Stone. I can't imagine how much input they have amongst people that have dedicated their lives to these causes. I can't knock these celebrities cause at least these are seemingly good causes. Their celebritihood does help out a lot. I just cringe when they open their yaps. Instead of pretending to be an expert on the subject, they could at least be honest - I feel really strongly on this subject so I figured to lend my support by letting the media feature my hot rack walking through a village of poor, dirty children. I even had to pet a skinny dog! Lets hope my big knockers bring in big dollars!'     What gets me more is the media's control of the news and what is newsworthy. The nonesense that is on the news now is maddening. But I have reached my typing limit, so I will have to write more another time.
From: Ross Entered on: March 21, 2005 12:26 PM
This is fucking hilarious:     http://wiggum4eva.blogspot.com/2005/03/sects-and-re ligionfuck-intelligent.html     A sampling:     Recently in Georgia in a place called Cobb county, a federal judge ruled that the school board could not put stickers criticizing evolution in high schools biology textbooks because by singling out evolution for criticism they were implicitly promoting the religious viewpoint of creationism. So now in Georgia schools they have to accept evolution as just another fact of biology. And I'd like to be the first to welcome them to the 19th century. I'll see you down at the kinetoscope viewing parlor in a fortnight. People say "Well if evolution exists, why are there still monkeys?" Listen, if intelligence exists, why are you still fucking retarded?
From: Jackzilla Entered on: March 21, 2005 12:24 PM
I know where you're coming from Fatty and agree wholeheartedly on the media bringing us crap news. That's why I tend to prefer to read the newspaper over watching TV news -- then I can skip the more sensational garbage and get more indepth on the (to me) important stuff.     Every so often I'll be in a conversation with someone and they'll bring up some sensational news item (like a husband that's buried his wife in the basement or something) and when it's clear I have no knowledge of this I get a "don't you follow the news?" kind of response. "Um, yeah, I read the paper every day! I guess I was distracted by the articles on Social Security Reform."     You would think CNN would have improved TV news, but from what I see they just repeat the same "highlighted" 20 min of news every hour and fill the rest of the day with a bunch of loud mouths. Larry King? Are you for real? This guys an idiot!     I would now like to give you a link to Jon Stewart on Crossfire but I'm too lazy. Plus I think the Michael Jackson Trial Re-Enactment Show is on...
From: Ross Entered on: March 21, 2005 12:30 PM
Larry King is incredibly retarded, you're right Jack. I love how he pretends that he doesn't actually endorse the so-called psychics that he's always having appear on his show. As if he does it for any other reason than for ratings. I loathe him.     I also tend to steer clear of the sensational news, but I do watch the Daily Show and so I do get a bit of it from there. But yeah, cable news sucks ass - the idea of a 24 hour news station is just really not that good.
From: Jackzilla Entered on: March 21, 2005 3:48 PM
If it wasn't clear -- I'm a Jon Stewart/Daily Show fan too. I agree with his criticism on that Crossfire show (someone linked it here last year). Isn't it ridiculous that a comedian seems more enlightened than a lot of the news shows?     Regarding Larry King. I'm positive it's his voice alone that has made him his money. (Ok, maybe the suspenders pulls in some weird demographic too.)
From: The Bone Entered on: March 21, 2005 4:10 PM
Fatty - why don't move to China you fucking communist bastard. :)
From: Swerb Entered on: March 21, 2005 11:56 PM
Bert, that blog is sweet! I laughed out loud several times.     And Jack, I totally agree. Any TV news I watch is taken with a grain of salt. If it isn't totally sensationalist, it's uninformed jackasses having a shouting match. But on the other hand, I'm a firm believer that American newspapers are competing more with TV than with each other, and have a firm grip on the "If it bleeds, it leads" philosophy. TV, newspaper, it doesn't matter... if they ask four scientists about what's going on with Mt. St. Helens, the one nutjob who says the eruption will take out most of the Pacific Northwest will be higher up in the story than the more reasonable ones. That's just the way it is.     And yeah, when everybody was talking about Scott Peterson, I had no idea what they were talking about, because, heinous as his crime was, I didn't fucking care. It's movie-of-the-week suffering, it happened, the guy was convicted, he's gonna fry, end of story. In the meantime, I'd rather focus my interest on the fact that the Happy Little Christians are trying to take over the government.
From: Ross Entered on: April 1, 2005 2:11 PM
Here's a sweet article on Salon about evangelical Christians:     http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2005/04/01/non _christian/index1.html     I love the last two paragraphs:     Government endorsement of any particular religion's conception of God is also an obstacle to the American dream, of a society where the state is neutral with regard to theology. The founding fathers signed into law a 1797 treaty with Tripoli (now Libya), which declares that "...the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" and adds that "it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims]." The idea of the United States government as religiously neutral was linked in this treaty with the notion of peace among nations. The treaty adds, "it is declared ... that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries..."     More than 200 years later, all the progress achieved in the realm of religious tolerance by the first generation of Americans is in danger of being wiped out by ignorant fanatics who are not good enough to shine their shoes. That danger arises even as the number of non-Christians has risen to record highs. The irony is that the true iconoclasts throughout Christian history would have recognized Judge Moore's two-ton behemoth for what it is: a graven idol.
From: Swerb Entered on: April 1, 2005 5:16 PM
"Graven idol" - what a great point. But this column confirms what I've suspected all along: There aren't any more fanatical Christians out there than before, but with Bush in office, they just get more exposure and publicity, and their voices are being heard and acted upon.
From: Ross Entered on: April 7, 2005 8:01 AM
So on one TV at the gym this morning the dickwipe who runs this site:     http://www.stopactivistjudges.org/     was on C-SPAN. He was such an asshole that I noticed my lips involuntarily curling and a low growl escaping my insides. What really stuck in my craw was not his ignorant beliefs, which millions of Americans share - no, it was his straight-faced inversion of the truth and his smarmy act of loving his brothers while you know all the while he'd like to kill all the Muslims if he had his way. He kept claiming for "Constitutional restoration", and how our laws are based on the 10 commandments and various judeo-xian principles, and that the bible is the ultimate authority, yadda yadda, we've heard it all before, it's one of those lies that they figure if they repeat enough people will believe. But then he goes to say that the Constitution is being dismantled by activist judges and liberals! I nearly fell off the treadmill at that one! How perfectly backwards can you get it? He's taking the (very valid) charges being currently levelled at an out-of-control Congress, and turning it back on the accusers.     What gets me most about this is not that he's wrong. It's that if people who don't know that much about the current state of affairs hear one group complaining about the excessive religiosity of our politicians, and at the same time groups like these claiming to be the persecuted minority and "just wanting things back the way they were", what will the viewer conclude? That NEITHER one has it right, and the truth must be somewhere in the middle. And nothing could be further from the truth. It's dishonesty of the worst kind, and yet it's genius. Sweet evil genius.
From: Swerb Entered on: April 7, 2005 10:28 AM
I think we talked about this before (or, more accurately, I contributed somewhat to one of your rants) about how these farkholes are history revisionists. The most frustrating thing is that the general public isn't very well-informed, but keep in mind, those same people are typically pretty apathetic and passive.     I agree, there are activist judges out there, but is it me, or are more of them radically conservative?     By the way, did anyone see the headlines on this weeks Onion?     "Pope's Renal System Proves Fallible"   "John Paul II's Last Words: "Pope Sled""   "Catholic Church Quietly Re-condemns Galileo"     Fucking funny.
From: Ross Entered on: April 7, 2005 3:05 PM
This is of the utmost importance:     http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?orgid =EA040605A&ID=17916&c=42&MX=2019&H=1
From: Ross Entered on: April 10, 2005 9:25 AM
This is a really fine article. Don't be put off by the length of the page, it's mostly comments:     http://www.alternet.org/story/21641/
From: Swerb Entered on: April 10, 2005 9:48 AM
How about THIS for ignorance? It's a letter to the editor that ran in the Press yesterday... I just love it when people just lie outright, then compare their ideological opposition with fascist dictators... shit like this gets me fuming. I'm not certain why the Press would print this - I'm sure they would dismiss as wacko a letter claiming the Earth is flat, and the moon is made out of limberger cheese...         A new morality based on the "life-affirming scientific foundations" of evolution is what our society needs to replace the Ten Commandments, according to a guest column by free-thought adherent Geoffrey Saint. ("Religion should be personal matter, not state-sponsored," Press, March 26).     Is evolution really scientific? Life-affirming?     Evolution is not a scientific, but rather a religious/philosophical belief that was popular already in the time of the ancient Greeks, long before Darwin proposed natural selection as a mechanism.     Real science, based on tests and experimentation, shows the opposite of evolution: non-life does not become life, and simple forms of life do not mutate into more complex forms.     There are also no plausible biochemical explanations for how such events might happen. Neither does evolution have life-affirming foundations.     It is hard to imagine what life-affirming morality could be derived from evolution, a world view that asserts that humans are nothing but mutated bacteria.     Mass murdering evolutionists like Hitler and Stalin must have overlooked evolution's "life-affirming" foundations in favor of the evolutionary principles of struggle, death and survival of the fittest (strongest). What happened under these evolution-inspired regimes is to be expected whenever people reject the Creator.     As St. Paul wrote: "For since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities. . .have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made. . .Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God. . .they became filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. . . .They are. . .heartless and ruthless." Let us turn away from the unscientific and deadly delusion of evolution.     As St. Paul told the evolutionist Greek philosophers on Mars Hill, God has demonstrated his creative power "so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us."     RICHARD RYSKAMP     Gaines Township
From: Ross Entered on: April 10, 2005 11:01 AM
Well allow me to retort! Is evolution really scientific? Life-affirming? Yes, it is scientific, as much as any science is. Life affirming? Not sure what that means, but if it means that it affirms the grandeur and importance of life, then I would answer resoundingly "yes," as it gives one more an appreciation of life than any religion ever has. Evolution is not a scientific, but rather a religious/philosophical belief that was popular already in the time of the ancient Greeks, long before Darwin proposed natural selection as a mechanism. The modern theory of evolution has philosophical implications, yes. But it is not a philosophy in and of itself. Furthermore, it does a great disservice to biologists to posit that the ancients had even an inkling of insight about life that we do now. Real science, based on tests and experimentation, shows the opposite of evolution: non-life does not become life, Evolution does not discuss the origins of life. That is called abiogensis. and simple forms of life do not mutate into more complex forms. There are also no plausible biochemical explanations for how such events might happen. Patently false. See here. Neither does evolution have life-affirming foundations. It is hard to imagine what life-affirming morality could be derived from evolution, a world view that asserts that humans are nothing but mutated bacteria. Again, what does "life affirming" mean, and what does it have to do with the veracity of evolution? He is simply saying "I don't think evolution is true because I don't want it to be true, it's distasteful to me." It is not the role of science to push moral agendas. We don't find things to be true because they appeal to our ethical sensibilities. I sure as hell don't like the fact that other stars and planets are so fucking far away that I'll never get to visit them, in all likelihood. But I accept it. We observe and describe nature. That's the essence of science. We can draw our conclusions from that. This guy is doing it in reverse, and that is incredibly harmful not only to science, but to humanity in general - it's called ideology and as far as I'm concerned, they're all bad. Mass murdering evolutionists like Hitler and Stalin must have overlooked evolution's "life-affirming" foundations in favor of the evolutionary principles of struggle, death and survival of the fittest (strongest). What happened under these evolution-inspired regimes is to be expected whenever people reject the Creator. Now we see that this guy has fallen totally off his rocker and we question why we bother to even respond to such childishness. He is referring to Social Darwinism, and no serious scientist equates the two. If anything, an appreciation of how nature works makes you realize when it can be cruel and moves people to resist it. As for Hitler, he was not an evolutionist, you moron. As St. Paul wrote: "For since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities. . .have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made. . .Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God. . .they became filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. . . .They are. . .heartless and ruthless." Let us turn away from the unscientific and deadly delusion of evolution. As St. Paul told the evolutionist Greek philosophers on Mars Hill, God has demonstrated his creative power "so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us." As Ross Johnson wrote: quoting some joker from 2000 years ago who didn't know the earth was round is hardly grounds to regard what he has to say with reverence. As many religious people will tell you, acceptance of evolution does not necessarily lead to rejecting religion. Furthermore, I resent the implication that doing so would lead to "wickedness, evil, greed and depravity," considering there is no evidence for this anywhere. Take a look in our prisons - are atheiests over-represented there? Nope. Quite the contrary.
From: The Bone Entered on: April 10, 2005 11:40 AM
Wow - some great reading as I sit here with my morning coffee. (much better than the tubgirl)     I can't possibly imagine why the Press would publish Ryskamps letter without a response fro the editor. Of all the ignorant, ill-informed counter arguements to Evolution, his certainly is the weakest. I'm horrified that America is filled with people like that. Fuck - if Bush issued a proclamation that it was high time for an old fashioned Witch Hunt, there'd be scientists going up in flames all over the country - with scientific books as the fuel for the fire.     I hadn't really thought of this one before, "Take a look in our prisons - are atheiests over-represented there? Nope. Quite the contrary." - I fucking love it.
From: The Bone Entered on: April 10, 2005 11:49 AM
Also, awesome article you posted Bert. I want to print it out and carry it with me so whenever I encounter a superstitious fool, I'll have them read it rather than waste my breath explaining my position.
From: Ross Entered on: April 11, 2005 10:42 AM
Another great article on religion, by the author of The End of Faith, a great book I read a few months back:     http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-153185 1,00.html
From: BigFatty Entered on: April 11, 2005 5:43 PM
This was a bit of an eye-opener for me. I have not really thought of some of these unstable countries getting high-grade weapons. Wasn't it GW that just approved the sale of F16s to Pakastan?     I am not sure, but I think I am reading too much on this religious 'battle'. I am starting to get a little paranoid. Bone's investment advice on stock-piling shotguns and ammo seem to be pretty good. Soon, I'll be one of those kooks hiding out in Wyoming, waiting for the war to come.
From: Ross Entered on: April 11, 2005 6:18 PM
When you think about it, we're about as unstable as they come and we have the most weapons. Good thing that 'ol Dubya hasn't found a way to target the atheists on his own soil just yet.
From: Ross Entered on: April 12, 2005 8:16 AM
I can't take it! Check out these kids placemats some dude found in a diner:     http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/jmeert/front.jpg     http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/jmeert/back.jpg     They're from www.drdino.com which is probably one of the most offensive sites on the web. More offensive than tubgirl any day, and I'm serious.
From: BigFatty Entered on: April 12, 2005 9:01 AM
Ross, you fail to grasp the simple fact: If you say something, it makes it true.
From: Ross Entered on: April 12, 2005 10:14 AM
Well it's certainly true that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it. But truth? Come on...
From: Jackzilla Entered on: April 12, 2005 10:20 AM
Dinasaurs are cool. But not as cool as robots. Do you think Noah had robots on the ark? That would be sweet.
From: The Bone Entered on: April 12, 2005 10:25 AM
It's some fucked up repugnant shit.
From: Ross Entered on: April 12, 2005 10:30 AM
Dinosaurs weren't on the ark, because "scientists think that the T Rex could probably breathe fire"! So that's a huge fire hazard, don't you know?
From: Creeko Entered on: April 12, 2005 11:42 AM
And besides, their arms fall off too easily, and you can't run the risk of a dinasaur bleeding to death on open water. They're too hard to throw overboard!
From: The Bone Entered on: April 12, 2005 11:51 AM
That website has all kinds of books spewing crazy bullshit they pass off as science. It's fucking abominable.     What scientist has ever theorized that T-Rex could breathe fire? Ain't no scientist I ever heard of. Pure unadulterated madness I tell you.
From: The Bone Entered on: April 12, 2005 11:54 AM
Read the testamonies on the dr dino website. The loonies are out in full force.
From: Ross Entered on: April 12, 2005 6:17 PM
I've got to tell you guys, I'm terrified by shit like this:     http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3830 8-2005Apr8.html     This Phyllis Schafly is the person I mentioned back in this thread:     http://www.jackassery.com/viewcomments.jsp?id=249&t ype=news     It makes me ashamed to be an American to think that enough people in this country are paying attention to the garbage that she spews to keep her employed. She should be rotting on the street like the scum that she is.
From: Ross Entered on: April 12, 2005 6:55 PM
This is also enough to make me want to go postal. Seriously, one jaw-dropper after another:     http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/723 5393?pageid=rs.Home&pageregion=single7&rnd=1112953 055207&has-player=unknown
From: The Bone Entered on: April 12, 2005 6:53 PM
I keep saying that right now the judicial branch is the only thing keeping this country from being an oligarchy. No wonder the right wing religious crazies want them out. I too find it terrifying.
From: Ross Entered on: April 13, 2005 8:18 AM
This guy Carl Zimmer is sweet. This entry in his blog has him smacking down the nefarious buttholes at Answers In Genesis after they attacked him. It's fun to watch smart people shred dummies who deserve it:     http://www.corante.com/loom/archives/2005/04/12/bli nding_new_evidence.php
From: Swerb Entered on: April 13, 2005 2:05 PM
The most disturbing thing about those two articles you posted, Bert, are the implied violent threats in them. I mean, that one guy fucking quoted Stalin! I can't believe it! Also scary is the lack of anybody with any clout speaking out against this stuff.     I'm having a hard time reading this shit. It makes me fucking furious.
From: Ross Entered on: April 14, 2005 9:29 AM
Die die die!!!!     http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0413/p15s02-usju.html
From: Swerb Entered on: April 14, 2005 2:09 PM
That's it. I'm tempted to send my life savings to the ACLU. That meager sum should pay for about 20 minutes' worth of lawyers' fees, but at least it's something.     I'm waiting for SOMEBODY to call bullshit on this stuff, but it ain't happening. Maybe I'll just build a barracks around my house and stock up on guns and ammo and form my own little atheist country. You guys are invited to join the commune, of course. Now I know how those fuckin' militia guys feel...
From: Swerb Entered on: April 14, 2005 2:16 PM
Speaking of Tom DeLay...     http://www.onion.com/wdyt/index.php?issue=4115
From: Ross Entered on: April 14, 2005 3:40 PM
Hilarious respite from reality, that link. I would kill DeLay with my bare hands if I met him in real life. He makes Newt Gingrich look like Santa Claus.
From: The Bone Entered on: April 14, 2005 4:38 PM
I like this one from the Onion:     http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4115
From: Ross Entered on: April 20, 2005 9:30 PM
Just when you thought you'd heard the most outrageous stupidity of all time, a new topper comes along:     http://mosnews.com/feature/2005/04/19/deepimpact.sh tml
From: Swerb Entered on: April 21, 2005 12:50 AM
I'm speechless.
From: The Bone Entered on: April 21, 2005 2:36 AM
Well done!
From: Ross Entered on: April 22, 2005 10:52 AM
Everyone remember Salman Rushdie? He wrote a great article here about religion's role in society:     http://www.telegraphindia.com/1050320/asp/opinion/s tory_4506104.asp
From: The Bone Entered on: April 22, 2005 11:44 AM
What does Darrow mean he doesn't believe in Mother Goose? That's ludicrous.     Good article.
From: Ross Entered on: April 22, 2005 11:49 AM
Whaddaya mean you don't believe in Mother Goose? Goose is GOOD!
From: Jackzilla Entered on: April 22, 2005 1:58 PM
There are few things in this world as glorious as the feeling of warm goose meat in one's belly.
From: The Bone Entered on: April 23, 2005 1:43 AM
This is a fucking outrage:     http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=202 6&ncid=2026&e=5&u=/latimests/20050422/ts_latimes/2 evangelicalswanttostripcourtsfunds
From: Ross Entered on: April 23, 2005 4:06 PM
The judiciary is the only thing in this country that is still semi-sane! All checks and balances must be erased, apparently. Don't these people study history? Don't they know that even if they are doing this for what they believe are the right reasons, that they're opening the door for all kinds of abuses? How do these motherfuckers get elected?     I know it would never come to this, but if Congress actually succeeded somehow in shutting down major judges, I will actively participate in the ensuing civil war to bring this whole goverment down. Fucking rethuglicans.
From: Swerb Entered on: April 23, 2005 7:03 PM
I'm on the fence whether I actually believe whether the Republickans will actually succeed in f'ing the judiciary in the a. I have a teeny tiny degree of hope that some of the more moderate right-wingers will threaten the party's majority, just like what happened with the fucked-up Bolton guy being nominated to represent us at the U.N. It's a glimmer of hope that, if we're lucky, won't be obliterated...     By the way, speaking of right wing dinks, this is pretty... disturbing? Strange? Appropriate? You decide:     http://www.mlive.com/news/grpress/index.ssf?/base/n ews-21/111418306791010.xml
From: Ross Entered on: April 23, 2005 9:16 PM
Fuck Calvin, Fuck W, and Fuck GR for that matter for hosting fucking the lot of them.
From: Swerb Entered on: April 25, 2005 12:03 AM
The website didn't post the article where a lot of the Calvin professors were uneasy about the W speech - one was quoted as saying he wasn't sure Bush was capable of giving an adequate commencement speech... which could be interpreted as meaning either 1) he could taint it with his politics, and try to sell his Social Security plan or someting or b) the guy's public speaking skills are detestable. Both are probably true. Actually, the guy who spoke at last year's Grand Valley commencement was Bush's previous secretary of education (I forget his name now), and he not only tainted it with his rah-rah rhetoric for the No Child Left Behind bullshit, but he also had poor public speaking skills. Coincidence? Probably not.     Oh, and guess who was the speaker at Calvin's 2001 graduation? William fucking Rehnquist. It's interesting how people I know who went to Calvin aren't right-wing loonies, and neither are the professors, but hosting two extreme Republicans certainly dictates public perception - and shows that the board must lean heavily to the right.
From: Jackzilla Entered on: April 25, 2005 8:07 AM
Being a Calvin graduate, I guess I should ring in here. First, politics aside, it's pretty sweet to have the President of the United F'in States be your commencement speaker. I can't remember who was at mine, but I'm pretty sure it was someone of lesser stature.     The same article (which was truncated on the web-site) also mentioned concern by the students and faculty that having Bush speak would make people think Calvin's and Bush's worldviews were the same -- Which is certainly not true. It also mentioned Calvin was aware of the perception of having two high-profile conservative speakers and was actively looking for a major left-wing speaker now. I gotta kick out of the professor who questioned if W could even prepare a proper commencement speach.     By the way, this really shows how divisive W has been in this country. I can't think of another recent president that would have people questioning a close association with him.     Also, be aware that Calvin is a Christian school that actually teaches (gasp!) evolution! Does anyone remember that Butterball Turkey magnate (his name escapes me) who years ago was buying expensive full-page ads in the G.R. Press lambasting Calvin for teaching evolution in their science classes? I think it was the late 80's. These fundamentalist nuts are nothing new.     I believe in the swinging pendulum of politics. And it's gonna start swinging back. The next elections should be interesting.
From: Ross Entered on: April 25, 2005 8:25 AM
My favorite blogger wrote an op-ed for the Star Tribune about Intelligent Design. It's very good. The newspaper link requires registration but he posted the article on his blog as well:     http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/yay_im_ in_the_star_tribune/     As for Calvin, how about they just get a reasonable CENTER leaning speaker, instead of presenting nuts from both ends of the spectrum?
From: Jackzilla Entered on: April 25, 2005 9:31 AM
Bert - Good idea. But they already do get center-leaning speakers. And left. And right. That's why it's annoying that some people would assume they share W's agenda just because he does the commencement.
From: Swerb Entered on: April 25, 2005 10:37 AM
That's what I mean when I say public perception is everything. The more the religious nuts claim that secularists are twisting the Constitution to suit their agenda, and the more people believe it, doesn't mean it's true.
From: Ross Entered on: April 26, 2005 11:02 AM
Great article on atheists in America. Man, this guy is on target:     http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Apr05/Whitney0425.htm     Not sure I agree with his socialist ideals, though. But the rest is pretty good stuff.
From: Ross Entered on: May 1, 2005 1:18 PM
Salon has an awesome interview with Dawkins. MAN, I love that guy!     http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/04/30/dawkin s/print.html     This is a great Q/A:     Still, so many people resist believing in evolution. Where does the resistance come from?     It comes, I'm sorry to say, from religion. And from bad religion. You won't find any opposition to the idea of evolution among sophisticated, educated theologians. It comes from an exceedingly retarded, primitive version of religion, which unfortunately is at present undergoing an epidemic in the United States. Not in Europe, not in Britain, but in the United States.
From: Ross Entered on: May 1, 2005 9:12 PM
I can't believe I used to read all the comics so uncritically every Sunday as a kid. I didn't know it at the time, but BC by that ignoramous Johnny Hart has got to be the worst. Take a look:     http://www.comics.com/creators/bc/archive/images/bc 2005050209261.gif
From: Swerb Entered on: May 1, 2005 11:53 PM
Bert, you beat me to posting that BC comic. My jaw dropped when I read it in the paper this morning. Johnny Hart is a complete fucking uneducated religious turd wacko asshole. He has often attacked the ACLU as being un-American in his comic strips, too. It's infuriating. I'd like to see Dawkins refuse a handshake and call him a bigot to his face...     Actually, this is an interesting piece about Hart that's slightly off topic, but does point out what a fucking creep the guy is (it's an essay written by the comic book writer Mark Evanier, who I know best from the Groo comics):     http://povonline.com/cols/COL341.htm
From: Ross Entered on: May 2, 2005 8:31 AM
That's a nice dismantling of Hart's claims. What a joke that guy is. I think I knew he has been overtly injecting Christianity into his strips for a while now but I guess I'd just forgotten. Now I will try to do so again, as he doesn't warrant any more attention...
From: Swerb Entered on: May 2, 2005 10:34 AM
As an avid comics-page reader, I tend to read BC just to see if it's banal or infuriating. I read an interview with Hart once where he said he tries to inject the gospel into every strip, even in the most subtle ways. Screw him...     Also infuriating: I just realized the Press runs James Dobson's Focus on the Family Q-and-A column every Sunday. Arrrghhh!!!! I just tripped across it yesterday (I don't normally read the section), and in it, he was equating "alternative lifestyles" with drugs and crime while explaining negative forces acting against teenagers. What a crock of shit that is...... it's bad enough that the paper runs the advice column of that asshole who wrote Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus (Is his name John Gray? I just remember Penn and Teller dismantling him), but Dobson is far, far worse.
From: Ross Entered on: May 2, 2005 11:17 AM
I agree, Dobson is a menace to society. There are just so many of them coming out of the woodwork these days...
From: Ross Entered on: June 16, 2005 4:20 PM
Did you guys know that the dinosaurs died in Noah's flood? Yup, they attacked the ark (along with some fallen angels) and get waxed by God's wrath:     http://www.livejournal.com/users/theferrett/519211. html     "This event is NOT a fable and NOT a "myth"... It is a verifiable scientific FACT!
From: Ross Entered on: August 12, 2005 8:21 AM
The guy who wrote that book "End of Faith" has written another great article called "Widespread Ignorance". Good stuff:     http://alternet.org/story/23964/
From: Ross Entered on: February 5, 2006 1:21 PM
Sam Harris, the End of Faith guy, is back in the news lately with some supremely sweet atheism-supporting argumentation:     http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/200512_an_atheist_ manifesto/     http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060203_sam_ha rris_answers/     This guy is like a young Dawkins: he just cuts right to the heart of the matter and guts organized religion like a fish. This paragraph had me cackling with glee:       The notion that the bible is a perfect guide to morality is really quite amazing, given the contents of the book. Human sacrifice, genocide, slaveholding, and misogyny are consistently celebrated. Of course, God?s counsel to parents is refreshingly straightforward: whenever children get out of line, we should beat them with a rod (Proverbs 13: 24, 20:30, and 23:13-14). If they are shameless enough to talk back to us, we should kill them (Exodus 21:15, Leviticus 20:9, Deuteronomy 21:18-21, Mark.7:9-13 and Matthew 15:4-7). We must also stone people to death for heresy, adultery, homosexuality, working on the Sabbath, worshipping graven images, practicing sorcery, and for a wide variety of other imaginary crimes. Most Christians imagine that Jesus did away with all this barbarism and delivered a doctrine of pure love and toleration. He didn?t (Matthew 5:18-19, Luke 16:17, 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 20-21, John 7:19). Anyone who believes that Jesus only taught the Golden Rule and love of one?s neighbor should go back and read the New Testament. And pay particular attention to the morality that will be on display if he ever returns to Earth trailing clouds of glory (e.g. 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9, 2:8; Hebrews 10:28-29; 2 Peter 3:7; and all of Revelation). It is not an accident that St. Thomas Aquinas thought heretics should be killed and that St. Augustine thought they should be tortured. (Ask yourself, what are the chances that these good doctors of the Church hadn?t read the New Testament closely enough to discover the error of their ways?) As a source of objective morality, the bible is one of the worst books we have. It might have been the very worst, in fact, if we didn?t also happen to have the Koran.
From: BigFatty Entered on: February 6, 2006 11:04 PM
I am so pissed about the fucking Dutch Cartoon about Mohammad. Really, we are going to have riots? Many are calling for the death of the artist? ITS A FUCKING CARTOON! Fuck everyone. What are all those religious fucknuts waiting for. It is in everyone's best interest if they all kill themselves so they can go to fucking heaven, have their fucking virgins (or raisins) and all have a good laugh when we are burning in hell for all enternity. If I am going to burn for that long, at least give me a couple of decades without your crazy asses fucking shit up. GODS CALLING BITCHES! GO HOME AND MEET THE FUCKER! YOU WILL BE GLAD YOU DID. I know I will be glad you did.
From: Ross Entered on: February 9, 2006 12:07 AM
This op-ed sums up perfectly my feelings on teh whole cartoon affair:     http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2023870,0 0.html
From: Swerb Entered on: February 9, 2006 11:35 PM
What a terrific column. Loved the way he ended it...     I haven't seen these "offensive" cartoons yet. Anyone have a link?
From: Ross Entered on: February 9, 2006 11:52 PM
http://flickr.com/photos/52819048@N00/     They're not at the very top, just a few pics down.     Not really very good cartoons at all, either. Muslims are just looking for any excuse to get pissed off, seems like.
From: Swerb Entered on: February 10, 2006 9:10 AM
You'd think they'd be more thick-skinned about it... but it seems to be a case of Muslims thinking everyone, regardless of their beliefs, should live by the tenets of Islam. Of course, that's narrow-minded, like the Christians who write letters to the editor assuming everybody in America follows their faith. Hello, not just Christians live in this country...     I can see how the cartoons could be inflammatory (I laughed at the one about the virgins), but there are bigger battles to fight, aren't there? And why don't Christians get mad when, say, South Park depicts Jesus in an unflattering light?
From: Ross Entered on: February 10, 2006 9:48 AM
Christians do get mad; they just don't kill people.     Also, keep in mind that Islam prohibits ANY depiction of Muhammed, not just unflattering ones. More evidence that RELIGION IS CRAP!
From: Swerb Entered on: February 10, 2006 10:00 AM
You said what I was trying to say Bert, just more concisely.     I can understand being pissed about the Muhammed with a bomb in his turban, because it is a stereotype... until Muslims react with death threats and violence... but ANY depiction? That's ridiculous. But again, they're applying the standards of their faith to people not within that faith, and then getting mad. Dumb.     Do Hindus hate people who eat beef, just because their (stupid) religion says cows are sacred? Are they up in arms about it? No. So a non-Muslim who draws a picture of Muhammed, flattering or not, shouldn't have to face the wrath of a god which doesn't exist in his mind.     What a logical whirlpool that is. So yes, I agree: religion is crap.
From: Ross Entered on: February 17, 2006 4:31 PM
I simply cannot believe how much the crazy Muslims are living up to every bloodthirsty, barbaric stereotype anyone has ever levelled against them:     http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060217/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ prophet_drawings
From: BigFatty Entered on: February 17, 2006 9:08 PM
It is exasperating. How can this be? What is wrong with these people. Every shred of decency and reason is lost.     So the moral of the story is 'Don't displease a Muslim, they will kill you!' because that makes the world just.
From: Ross Entered on: February 18, 2006 6:25 PM
Which is exactly the image description that they rebel against! It's a vicious circle.
From: Ross Entered on: February 27, 2006 1:06 PM
Man, Germans are fucked up, too:     http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060223/wl_nm/crime_rel igion_germany_dc_2     Never let people tell you America isn't free. We may be peopled with morons, but we would still never punish someone for shit like this.
From: Jackzilla Entered on: February 27, 2006 1:10 PM
WTF? Insulting religious beliefs is a criminal offense? Oh well... I s'pose things HAVE been worse there...
From: Swerb Entered on: February 27, 2006 9:28 PM
Gee, talk about circular logic... overcompensating for fascism by being kinda, you know, fascist.
From: Ross Entered on: March 21, 2006 8:43 AM
Best T-shirt ever:     http://www.tshirthell.com/store/product.php?product id=586
From: Ross Entered on: March 24, 2006 12:53 PM
This is freaking awesome. A discussion on "what they really think":     http://hellboundalleee.blogspot.com/2006/03/civil-d iscussion.html
From: Swerb Entered on: March 24, 2006 10:54 PM
Did anybody else see this week's South Park episode? It's a scream! They bash the whole Isaac Hayes/Scientology thing, and it's hilarious. If you're not up to speed on the controversy (Hayes allegedly quit voicing Chef because he's a Scientologist), it's documented really well here:     http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/sectio n?category=SCANNERS     Funny stuff.
From: Ross Entered on: March 25, 2006 8:57 AM
Yes! I watched it last night, I laughed my ass off. I liked the whole "fruity little club references", and how they so-obviously spliced together prior recordings of Chef. Great stuff.
From: Bunky Entered on: August 10, 2008 2:19 PM
Poor Chef  (Isaac Hayes) from South Park died today
From: Ross Entered on: August 10, 2008 5:12 PM
He was a bit of a douchebag, though.  Didn't you hear that he quit South Park after they made fun of Sicentology?  He's one of them.
From: Bunky Entered on: August 10, 2008 8:18 PM
I know he was a scientology douche bag. I did love Chef though. The episode that made him quit and the one right after was freakin' hysterical. I don't know much about Scientology other than it is lame. What is their life after death belief?
From: Jackzilla Entered on: August 10, 2008 8:34 PM
Scientologist or not, Isaac Hayes was a bad mutha funker!
From: Ross Entered on: August 11, 2008 7:43 AM
From this site: Afterlife Scientology does not include an official belief about the afterlife. However, it reports that during auditing, a person often recalls memories of past lives and that Scientology ascribes to the idea of being born again into another body.