User Profile: The Third Archon

The Third Archon

Member Since: November 02, 2010

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • October 25, 2014 at 2:54am

    “But what is a lie when you are lying for Jesus?”
    I don’t know if you were being sarcastic or intentionally making a joke by implied historical reference, but early Christians like Jerome, Eusebius, and Clement of Alexandria, and even as late as Martin Luther, all endorsed in varying degrees of explicitness the merits of “lying for the faith.”

  • October 25, 2014 at 2:44am

    War is a leading cause of death for women and children–as well as being a leading cause of widowhood and fatherlessness, which certainly can’t be good for spouses or children.

  • [1] October 25, 2014 at 2:39am

    “Where do you think our Laws came from?”
    England.

  • October 25, 2014 at 2:38am

    I would be quite entertained if you could find a snow plow with the words “there is no god but Allah” or “Mohammed the Prophet” painted on it.

  • October 25, 2014 at 2:28am

    LOL, they’re baptizing people on the football field. XD

  • October 25, 2014 at 2:19am

    Ghosts–and Obama. XD

    In reply to the story The Top 5 Things Americans Fear

  • [-2] October 24, 2014 at 5:49pm

    It’s ADORABLE–thank you for hating it and proving its point, go **** yourself! XD

    Responses (1) +
  • October 24, 2014 at 5:46pm

    Isn’t it a little late for this?

    In reply to the contribution The Case Against State-Sponsored Marriages

    Responses (1) +
  • [-7] October 24, 2014 at 4:23pm

    It’s an average–on AVERAGE (that is, accounting for all the losses and gains where they fall) women are paid less than men, not that IN EACH AND EVERY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL CASE a woman makes less (and EXACTLY a certain amount less) than a comparable man (assuming their is such a man to make the comparison to). Understand statistics before you start trying to draw conclusions from them.

    Responses (2) +
  • [-1] October 24, 2014 at 4:19pm

    Well he was mentioning things that make one awesome.

  • [-1] October 24, 2014 at 4:18pm

    “Julie Borowski is a Washington, D.C.-based political and policy commentator who also refers to herself as a “small-L libertarian.””
    …as opposed to a “big-L” libertarian? What the **** are you TALKING about?

  • October 24, 2014 at 4:17pm

    “So do you ask a Pregnant Woman when her clump of cells are do? Or do you ask when her Fetus is do? Do you throw a Clump of cells or a Fetus shower? Yeah YOU probably do what am I thinking.”
    Because names determine nature, LOL. XD

    “Just have to ask…at what point does a baby become a human being?”
    When it’s wanted or when it can survive without parasitic attachment to another human being, whichever comes first.

    “Did your mother have any children that lived?”
    Now that’s just a patently stupid question to ask an obviously extant person–EVEN for a fascist.

    “So a clump of cells supports killing another clump of cells. I have a 24 year old clump of cells. Wonder if I can get his brain vacuumed out?”
    Again, and the real point of the ‘clump of cells’ label (which fascists, stuck in label land, STILL don’t seem to get), is the HUGE MORALLY SALIENT DIFFERENCES in the functions, scale, organization, and JUST ABOUT everything else, as between a microscopic pairing or handful of pluripotent cells, and the macroscopic collection of intricately causally interconnected adult cells that we call a “person.”

    “Life begins at conception. If you don’t want to be pregnant use contraception.”
    Life began (on this planet) about 4 billion years ago (or so) and is a continuous ongoing process.

  • October 24, 2014 at 3:43pm

    Or we could just kill all the fascists who would morally equivocate between killing zygotes, and actually extant persons. Seems like a much simpler more satisfying solution to the problem to me than all the work setting up a lottery.

  • [-2] October 24, 2014 at 3:37pm

    Although incidentally, REGARDLESS of whether you characterize the belief as religious or not, we first have to pass the threshold issue of “why the **** we should care what you think?” since there’s PLENTY I object to vehemently and consider a tremendous moral failure to be involved in and have may tax dollars used for, yet NEVERTHELESS like clockwork these things (to name just two of the most heinous–prisons and war) they annually receive some of the largest amounts of funding of ANYTHING our government does ostensibly on behalf of us. So since “my personal objection,” moral, religious or otherwise, regardless of strength, doesn’t ever seem to have mattered in an of itself, what is the actual, additional, persuasive reason (if any) that the “moral/religious” objections of others to having their money support what they find “morally objectionable” (contraceptives, abortion, and the like) should matter?

  • October 24, 2014 at 3:31pm

    I actually don’t know if it’s so accurate to say taxpayers have been funding abortions for years, whether or not you think (like I do) that they SHOULD have been and be doing so–look up a little thing called the “Hyde Amendment.”

  • October 24, 2014 at 3:30pm

    “A recent regulatory change in California now requires all employer health plans in the state — including those offered by churches and faith-based organizations — to cover elective abortions, according to a conservative legal firm.”
    Well that would be awesome, if I believed it. But given the legislative history of THIS country with regards to abortion, that’s something I’d have to actually see the supposed law and its enforcement for myself before I believe the government has ACTUALLY finally gotten serious about maximizing reproductive autonomy and self-regulation.

  • October 24, 2014 at 3:16pm

    That is of course an option (ignoring the fact that the mayor doesn’t issue subpoenas, courts do, on request of parties to litigation to which the subpoenas are deemed to be relevant). And as it’s name “sub-poena” suggests, the consequence of that choice is criminal contempt of court.

  • [1] October 24, 2014 at 2:58pm

    I think “it was fine ~250 years ago” is a TERRIBLE starting place for moral analysis, legal analysis, really ANY analysis.

  • October 24, 2014 at 2:55pm

    Nom nom nom–kittens. XD

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] October 24, 2014 at 2:49pm

    And while we’re on the subject of pathetic and truly futile theistic attempts at misdirection, if anything, an examination and critique of Islam would only STRENGTHEN the critique of Christianity. How are Muslims to the Christians not EXACTLY what the Christians are to the Jews?

    You theists pointing to the absurdity of a subset of other theists to excuse YOUR (you argue marginally less absurd, most of the time, most of the place, right now) absurdities, inconsistencies, and failures is NOT a point for you side or a strong argument AGAINST the idea that clearly YOU’RE ALL BAT-**** and the problem is theism itself, not the absurd nonsensical distinction between “good” religions and “bad” ones. The only real “debate” is a purely factual one, independent to this point, as to the degree of visibility and egregiousness of the particular absurdities religion inspires under various contemporary circumstances.

123 To page: Go