|
Post by Undecided on Apr 15, 2009 17:30:47 GMT -5
Manga, because it inadvertently promotes literacy.
Berserker Polar Bear or Stealth Penguin?
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Apr 13, 2009 18:22:16 GMT -5
I agree with a lot said here. If it were Indonesia making the complaint, it'd be cool.
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Apr 13, 2009 18:18:53 GMT -5
Pizza. It's more wholesome, in my opinion.
Placing one's hand in lava or liquid nitrogen?
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Apr 13, 2009 17:53:26 GMT -5
Black. I could walk, you see.
Gene or meme? (Interpret as you will)
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Apr 12, 2009 6:53:35 GMT -5
I was undecided about what nickname I wanted to choose. No, no pun intended, that's what actually happened.
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Apr 9, 2009 17:47:44 GMT -5
As to the OP, it is worth noting that I lol'd. The argument is so obviously inconsistent with the U.S. judicial precedent of the last 200 years that it's almost not worth rebuking. Atheism is protected under the U.S. Constitution 1st amendment to the same extent that other beliefs of a religious nature are. Source: www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/019.pdf
|
|
|
DIAF
Apr 9, 2009 17:33:23 GMT -5
Post by Undecided on Apr 9, 2009 17:33:23 GMT -5
My issue is that that type of person is indirectly advocating the non-existence of people they disagree with, and so asking them to die in a fire would make me no better than them, even though the internet is not really very serious business. And yet, there has to be a way to succintly and concisely voice my frustration which is not cliché or overly violent.
What's looking to be expressed is something like: "Your ideas are stale, undeveloped, inconsistent with reliable evidence, and incompatible with the fundamental tenets of analysis and criticism which are universal across all fields of knowledge. Under normal circumstances, we would ask you to recuse yourself from the argument until you can support your position with evidence that the proper authorities would understand to be valid, but you seem to show no legitimate desire to improve your understanding of the universe. Furthermore, the areas of study which are relevant to your flawed idea are progressing quite rapidly, and have no need for the technically unsound opinions of those who lack the necessary qualifications, i.e., you. Please, then, do not feel obligated to make such a feeble attempt to contribute to the aforementioned fields: we can wholeheartedly assure you that your intellectual presence is neither required nor desired."
Or
"The solution you propose is unethical, anti-social, uncaring, egocentric and ethnocentric, and merely serves to illustrate your ignorance of the diversity of our society today. If you were to attempt to implement this solution, you can be certain that we and many like-minded people would stop you."
...
I just like being verbose. "DIAF" is too blunt.
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Apr 8, 2009 16:38:34 GMT -5
In many cases, the choice between single and double quotes is a matter of style, not grammar.
|
|
|
DIAF
Apr 8, 2009 16:30:42 GMT -5
Post by Undecided on Apr 8, 2009 16:30:42 GMT -5
I was reading through old quotes and I was astonished at the number of times this four-letter initialism was used. I have used it several times myself. However, stating that a fundie who wants nonbelievers to die should die in a fire now seems to me far too ironic. From a rhetorical perspective, it is not very useful.
As such, I pledge that I will not use the phrase "die in a fire" or any of its variants on the internet again.
As an alternative, I propose the more apt phrase "NO U" and its variants, specifically towards fundies who wish nonbelievers would disappear somehow, to illustrate how ridiculous it is to hope for one's enemies to simply vanish.
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Apr 7, 2009 16:49:49 GMT -5
There are so many alternative delimiters to choose from.
For quotes: “double quotes” ‘single quotes’ «double angle brackets» 〈single angle brackets〉 —em-dashes— 『Japanese big quotes』 「Japanese small quotes」
For parantheses: (round brackets) [square brackets] {curly brackets} —em-dashes (again)—
For emphasis on the internet: *asterisks* _low lines_ <less-than and greater-than signs>
...and the list goes on to include every symbol in every font, ever...
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Apr 7, 2009 5:55:55 GMT -5
Perhaps: a culture which favours absolute rules and beliefs over compromise, evidence and empathy?
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Apr 7, 2009 5:53:15 GMT -5
body { color: black !important; background-color: white !important; }
Putting this code in your user-defined CSS stylesheet will override all the colours in any HTML document.
edited for colours.
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Apr 7, 2009 5:39:03 GMT -5
I read them again over the past week.
I felt that he took a lot of cheap shots at various ostensibly un-Christian things like science, atheism, vegetarianism, feminism, etc., through how he portrayed the various villainous characters. The allegories are really strong.
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Mar 24, 2009 19:25:42 GMT -5
Yeah, except theoretical physics is so much more interesting than the economy, I think.
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Mar 18, 2009 20:38:28 GMT -5
Atheism would still exist, but we probably wouldn't bother to give it a name because there'd be nothing from which it could be distinguished.
|
|