You (all) lie!

[PresentTense Pirate Penske]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

that having a Harvard degree doesn't mean you aren't an idiot.

http://abovethelaw.com/2010/04/hls-3...al/#more-14384

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Something about this story isn't right. Who would want to carry a gun while jogging? I don't even want to carry my cell phone or keys. And if you're going to carry a gun because you're afraid of snakes, you wouldn't need to carry a .380 Ruger -- a .22 would do the trick.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

that having a Harvard degree doesn't mean you aren't an idiot.

http://abovethelaw.com/2010/04/hls-3...al/#more-14384

Of course, the genetic predisposition thing has been scripture on the right since The Bell Curve, no matter how many times that piece of tripe is debunked. I've had this argument many times, and learn each time that one can't argue rationally with scripture.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

He quoted the edited post. Anyway, he seems to want another chance -- I say give it to him.

I could call a whiff, but instead I'll offer this:

Hank walks into a bar on "open mike night" and declares to anyone who will listen that he can fart the Star Spangled Banner. After many unsuccessful efforts to ignore him, people finally agree to bet him $100 that he cannot.

Hank takes the stage, thanks his audience, then turns around. He drops his pants and bends over. Suddenly, a cloud of shit flies from his ass, hitting most of the audience. Everyone starts screaming at him, some of the screams are threatening.

And so, Hank turns around and yells into the mike, "Hey, whaddya want? Even Pavarotti has to clear his throat before singing!"

Hank 1, Crowd 0.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Something about this story isn't right. Who would want to carry a gun while jogging? I don't even want to carry my cell phone or keys. And if you're going to carry a gun because you're afraid of snakes, you wouldn't need to carry a .380 Ruger -- a .22 would do the trick.

Someone who is unsure of his manhood?

[Gattigap]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That can not be real. Where did you get it?

Here.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I was interested in the whole South Park censorship issue and heard The Daily Show's take and then I read the RevolutionMuslim webpage (p.s. their page isn't opening for me now). I understand RM is headquartered in NYC- thurgreed or anyone else, do you know if there are protesters there constantly?

of all the issues raised by the Islamists, the dual treatment of their concerns compared to the potential concerns of Chrisitans or Buddhists or Hindu etc scare me the most. (note RM webpage condemned the depiction of Jesus too).

can anyone make me feel better?

No.

But I think it's worth noting that the prohibition on even depicting Muhammad has no useful analogy in Christianity, though it does in Judaism. Each believes polytheism is a sin that cannot be forgiven. Add to that (1) Islam's belief that there actually is an afterlife where people are punished for sins and (2) Islamic belief that we are all as responsible for the sins we allow as we are for the ones we commit, and you can begin to get your head around the idea that faithful people are entitled to take unilateral action against sinners -- stoning the woman in the low-cut dress, or stabbing people who depict the Prophet.

I have no interest in defending these notions, but it makes me happy to describe them. So anyone who responds with "but . . . " is only going to get a response if they agree in advance that I am neither a Muslim nor an apologist for fascists. We should all be students of how other people think without being accused of sympathizing with them. As you might be able to tell, I feel burned by otherwise intelligent people on this board losing sight of that difference in the past.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

But I think it's worth noting that the prohibition on even depicting Muhammad has no useful analogy in Christianity.

Really?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

No.

But I think it's worth noting that the prohibition on even depicting Muhammad has no useful analogy in Christianity, though it does in Judaism. Each believes polytheism is a sin that cannot be forgiven. Add to that (1) Islam's belief that there actually is an afterlife where people are punished for sins and (2) Islamic belief that we are all as responsible for the sins we allow as we are for the ones we commit, and you can begin to get your head around the idea that faithful people are entitled to take unilateral action against sinners -- stoning the woman in the low-cut dress, or stabbing people who depict the Prophet.

I have no interest in defending these notions, but it makes me happy to describe them. So anyone who responds with "but . . . " is only going to get a response if they agree in advance that I am neither a Muslim nor an apologist for fascists. We should all be students of how other people think without being accused of sympathizing with them. As you might be able to tell, I feel burned by otherwise intelligent people on this board losing sight of that difference in the past.

I can't find a single fact in here that isn't highly questionable.

Seeing Adder slam you on iconoclasm is rich indeed. You're not the one I would have chosen to be entirely ignorant of a major theological issue in early christianity. But some notion of where you get the rest of your thoughts would be useful. Some of what you say sounds like some of the myths Geertz shredded 40 years ago - are you that old?

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Adder

Really?

Thou shalt make no graven images.

I just thought it was time someone used a source more reliable than Wikipedia.

God, this shit is pathetic. My son is 13. He may make jokes about racial or ethnic "others" without sounding stupid. He is developmentally workiing out his discomfort with the huge amount of "isms" in our society and also working through the fact that people are viewed as different.

Aren't we a little older and more mature than that? We can tell racist, sexist, etc. jokes, but nobody over the age of 21 can legitimately say that they don't know those jokes will offend more people than they amuse.

Between this board and the PB (which I looked at because of Hank's cross-pollination), can I just suggest you all drop it? What are you, a bunch of fucking retards?

* Adder, I'm using this post as a jumping-off point, don't get pissy or I'll beat the craap out of you next week when I'm in DC.

** Yes, Hank, Earl Butz was forced to resign. He spent the remainder of his life paying for sex, looking for a pair of comfortable shoes, and never going outside so that he would always have a warm place to go to the bathroom.

[LessinSF]

Anyone with time on their hands want to summarize Salazar v. Buono (cross transfer from public to private land case) for me. Six opinions. 3–2-3–1 split. Best I've got so far from a comment on Volokh is:

Wow! On first read, this is really fragmented. Four justices (Stevens, Ginsburg, Sotomayer, and Breyer) would find that the transfer doesn’t solve the original establishment clause problem (that all nine justices seem to treat as “law of the case”). Alito and (maybe) Roberts would hold that the transfer solves the establishment clause problem. (That appears to be what Roberts says in his brief concurrence, although it shows him as joining Kennedy’s opinion, which says something else.) Kennedy (and maybe Roberts?) would remand the case to the district court to develop a factual record that Kennedy says the district court had yet to do vis-a-vis the land transfer. Scalia and Thomas wouldn’t reach the merits, but would reverse the court of appeals on the ground that Buono no longer has standing (since he only objected to the cross on government property). In short, there aren’t five votes for anything, which I guess makes Kennedy’s opinion the “judgment of the court” by default, since it is the closest to a middle (?) position.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

Thou shalt make no graven images.

I just thought it was time someone used a source more reliable than Wikipedia.

God, this shit is pathetic. My son is 13. He may make jokes about racial or ethnic "others" without sounding stupid. He is developmentally workiing out his discomfort with the huge amount of "isms" in our society and also working through the fact that people are viewed as different.

Aren't we a little older and more mature than that? We can tell racist, sexist, etc. jokes, but nobody over the age of 21 can legitimately say that they don't know those jokes will offend more people than they amuse.

Between this board and the PB (which I looked at because of Hank's cross-pollination), can I just suggest you all drop it? What are you, a bunch of fucking retards?

* Adder, I'm using this post as a jumping-off point, don't get pissy or I'll beat the craap out of you next week when I'm in DC.

** Yes, Hank, Earl Butz was forced to resign. He spent the remainder of his life paying for sex, looking for a pair of comfortable shoes, and never going outside so that he would always have a warm place to go to the bathroom.

move to other thread--

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Adder

Really?

I said useful analogy. The Christian iconoclast controversy is potentially a useful analogy to the Muslim prohibition on depiction of humans and animals in mosques. But I do not consider it a useful analogy for discussing a specific prohibition on depicting Muhammad anywhere, at any time, in any way. Ask me to find you a portrait of Jesus and at any point in history I could find you thousands, even if there were also thousands who wanted those portraits destroyed. Ask me to find a Muslim's painting of Muhammad, and I might not be able to do so even if I could travel the world.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I can't find a single fact in here that isn't highly questionable.

Seeing Adder slam you on iconoclasm is rich indeed. You're not the one I would have chosen to be entirely ignorant of a major theological issue in early christianity. But some notion of where you get the rest of your thoughts would be useful. Some of what you say sounds like some of the myths Geertz shredded 40 years ago - are you that old?

Hey, here's an idea -- if something's wrong, say another thing. As it is, you've merely invented an even more obnoxious way of saying "Cite please," which I'll grant you is an accomplishment.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

I said useful analogy. The Christian iconoclast controversy is potentially a useful analogy to the Muslim prohibition on depiction of humans and animals in mosques. But I do not consider it a useful analogy for discussing a specific prohibition on depicting Muhammad anywhere, at any time, in any way. Ask me to find you a portrait of Jesus and at any point in history I could find you thousands, even if there were also thousands who wanted those portraits destroyed. Ask me to find a Muslim's painting of Muhammad, and I might not be able to do so even if I could travel the world.

do you consider this sacred? we end threads at 5000 posts.