Astrologer Sues NASA Over Comet Probe 999
0110011001110101 writes "NASA's mission that sent a space probe smashing into a comet raised more than cosmic dust -- it also brought a lawsuit from a Russian astrologer. 'Bai is seeking damages totaling $300 million -- the approximate equivalent of the mission's cost -- for her "moral sufferings," Izvestia said, citing her lawyer Alexander Molokhov. She earlier told the paper that the experiment would "deform her horoscope." ' "
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Far reaching aspects of this case (Score:3, Insightful)
This is so similar to how the record companies are fighting tooth and nail to stop people from changing the RIAA's business model.
Is someone entitled to make a living? Should the government be in the business of putting people out of work?
Astrologers are morons anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck these goddamn superstitious idiots anyway, we left the caves a long time ago.
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:5, Insightful)
sure, why not. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope, not a chance. The publicity would just legitimize astrology. When the suit was finally decided in NASA's favor, believers would just spin it that NASA had better lawyers.
People who believe in astrology don't do so because of logic. They cling to the hope that the universe is not just a giant machine, that they are somehow made unique among humans by their keen intelligence, inside knowledge, and special placement in it.
Re:Lets fire lawyers at the rock next time? (Score:2, Insightful)
you miss the important irony in this...
all US judges were
if you think that any judge would go against the money machine that got them where they are then you are very silly.
Judges are no more "honarable" than a lawyer, becaus ethey were lawyers. and THIS is one of the biggest problems in the American justice system
Re:Well then (Score:1, Insightful)
and the details of the complaint against
http://www.theinquirer.net/images/articles/utah.p
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:3, Insightful)
The very nature of astrology implies that the universe is a giant machine and that it determines your attributes. The placements of planets A, B, and C indicate that I have attribute X. While the belief is illogical, the motivation for it appears to be a fear of uncertainty (or freedom) and a desire to know one's "place" in the universe as opposed to the desire to be empowered individuals.
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:2, Insightful)
I couldn't agree more. As for the difference between crackpots and mainstream religions, it's easy: mainstream religions are entrenched. They've taken hold centuries and millenia ago, when people didn't know better, and they've permeated the way people live, think and the societies they now live in for a very long time. Therefore, they're much harder to displace than contemporary crackpots, who now run into the wall of science and reason, and so they don't have the time to take roots.
I think the only reasonably successful "new" religion that has arisen in recent times is the Latter Day Saints, and even that was over 150 years ago and it's only a variation of Christianity. And frankly, if you read who were Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and what they did, you can't help thinking they were brigands (no offense to you LDS folks, I really like most of you a lot, but really...). But I digress...
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:3, Insightful)
Arguably, I have more proof that the events of Star Trek or Lord of the Rings happened than anything in the bible. But I'd be "crazy" to believe one of these things...
Re:A point of clarification (Score:5, Insightful)
People who believe in astrology don't do so because of logic.
People who believe in anything that isn't objectively verifiable, do not believe because of logic. This includes religious belief, since it is, by definition, faith-based. Faith is not rational or logical- it is merely a manner in which we choose to structure our worldview.
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:5, Insightful)
Heres a hint. Making up numbers does not legitimize your point. In my experience, but then im from northern florida, the vast majority of the time its someone trying their best to convince me that I am going to hell because im an athiest. IF it were just a matter of "live and let live", that would be FINE. However, the religious zealots are most of the problem (again, from MY experience). I cant remember ever hearing of atheists assaulting religous people's person or property because they had a god sticker on it. However, I see and hear the reverse all the time. Happened to my wife (back when she was just my girlfriend). She had a pro Wicca bumper sticker and some god nut busted her windshield and wrote nasty stuff on her car with a magic marker, stuff along the lines that they should bring back witch burning. Kind and wonderful people, they are.
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll appoligize (as a christian) on behalf of whoever ripped off your fish, as that was a very "un-christian" act.
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:5, Insightful)
James Randi did an experiment where he handed out horoscopes to a class of (college) students and had them rate how closely they matched reality. Most of the students said the horoscopes were accurate. He then had them swap horoscopes, and they found out that they all had the exact same horoscope. Now, how could ONE horoscope match everyone? Because it was filled with generalities and vague statements, that's how. The students themselves filled in the details where they were missing, and sub-consciously remembered the 'hits' more than the 'misses'.
Now, without knowing the exact circumstances behind your case, I can't tell you for sure that's what happened. Only you can, if you choose to look at what happened objectively.
I've seen people healed by faith healers,
Really? If you can prove that, you might win $1,000,000! Go to www.randi.org for details.
I've met psychics who can vividly describe situations and people that later become part of my life.
I sense a... man, or maybe a woman. He is tall, maybe short. BLond hair, maybe brown or black. You'll like this person, or maybe hate them.
How'd I do??
And before you start talking about "cold reading", I have a solid background in psychology, and did not give these people a chance to meet me or be exposed to me to cold read me.
You may "have a solid background in psychology", but you don't understand what 'cold reading' is. Cold reading does NOT depend on meeting the victim before hand, or even knowing anything about them before hand. That would be 'hot reading'.
From Wikipedia: "Generally, the cold reader will make a series of vague statements, will observe the subject's reactions, and then will refine the original statements according to those reactions"..."even without prior knowledge of a person, a psychic could still obtain a great deal of his subject's history by carefully analysing his or her look and other background information, such as gender, religion, race, education level and place of origin."
So, let's apply Occams Razor. Either there are people in this world who can 'speak to spirits', 'read minds', and have other paranormal powers (but choose to eke out a living reading palms instead of, say, getting the winnign lottery numbers). OR, there are people in this world who are frauds. Fakers. Con men.
WHich is more likely?
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:2, Insightful)
This is not true. While there are certainly crackpots out there selling ineffective and even harmful snake-oil cures under the guise of alternative medicine, most alternative medicine practices have a long history and are probably effective to some degree.
The problem is that there is no money to be made in proving that they are effective, so no Big Pharma corp is going to spend money on real western medicine style drug trials.
Suppose that dandelion tea was an effective cure for cancer. Would Pfizer spend millions to do a ten year trial with thousands of patients? If they proved it worked then everyone would use the dandelions in their yard, or start cultivating them, and Pfizer would never make a penny from it. Multiply this by every naturally occuring substance on the planet.
Big Pharma has no motivation to prove the medicinal value of anything they cannot patent.
So chances are there are many treatments out there that are low cost, natural, and effective, but they will never be studied, put into JAMA, and introduced in your local doctor's office.
While I generally favor smaller government, this is one area where only government (well, possibly very well funded non-profits, too) can be effective. Gov't funded research in these topics could improve medicine, lower medical costs, and contribute to human knowledge.
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:5, Insightful)
Scientology, my friend, sciencefictionology...
Maybe it isn't wildly successfull among the people, but it seems to attract som wildly successfull people.
Re:Lets fire lawyers at the rock next time? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:5, Insightful)
Bad understanding.
Evolution theories are NOT creation theories. Whether current scientific theories of the evolutionary processes are complete and/or 100% correct is one thing. Feeling the need to say that, because the science is incomplete, creation dogmas might be valid is quite another thing.
Re:Waaa. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry. If that's what she honestly said (and meant), she's a loony.
1: It's not easy to land on a comet or asteroid. The gravity's quite weak, and not regular either. Especially as you don't know the composition or internal structure.
2: It's not like the comet was going to stay pristine. Comets travel through very harsh environments. It's unlikely that if we went back to Tempel I on its next orbit that we'd see the same surface features. There's no "preservation" really needed.
3: The impactor created an explosion equivalent to about 5 tons of TNT. That would've taken a lot of drilling, and it still would've only given localized information.
4: Finally, and most importantly, it's simply ludicrous to believe that this mission could've been replaced with one with a controlled, long duration landing probe for nearly equivalent money. We know very little about the surface of a comet. It's entirely possible had we tried to design a lander, we would've sent it there and then said "well, um, we found out all of its instruments are useless on comets!"
The other comment I've heard, from a friend who studies all kinds of space things, is that he hoped NASA picked their comet-target right, because they probably changed its trajectory in minute ways
Do the math. Any change in its orbit is unmeasurable. Comets are still very big - Tempel 1 is in the 10^13 kg range. The impactor was 370 kg. Relative velocity was 10 km/s. That means you're talking about a delta-V in the neighborhood of a tenth of a micron per second.
It's just completely and totally pointless.
Re:Her parents should be proud... (Score:4, Insightful)
Joke:
*Something silly to enjoy
*Having a laugh at someone elses expense
*Having a laugh even though it may offend something slightly.
Taking things too seriously:
*Reading a joke and taking serious offense and getting all riled up.
*Not enjoying something silly just to make people laugh and be happy
*General Asshattery
Lighten up dude... sheesh.
Friend who studies all kind of space things? (Score:3, Insightful)
Tell that friend who "studies all kind of space things" to study some logic and probabilities too. Since all calculations done show that the comet isn't expected to impact Earth neither with the previous nor with the new trajectory, the probability that we have made it crash Earth in a few million years is the same that we have avoided a future crash.
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:4, Insightful)
To fix this, you should have a law liek Canada's where the loser pays the legal bills for both sides in a law suit. This ensure frivilous law suits have to think twice. While a suit with a legitimate chance of suceeding won't be unduly impeded.
I just don't get it. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:A point of clarification (Score:1, Insightful)
What about the hadron boot-strap? Branes?
I think we take a lot on faith without realising it. Much of that is based on someone elses faith too!
By applying logic, I've never really got beyond the questions of other minds and the existence of external actual reality as an explanation for sense-data. And I don't see Occam's razor as being a logical method.
McDonald's lawsuit was completely frivolous (Score:1, Insightful)
- During the time leading up to the suit, McDonald's sold more than 10 cups of coffee at that temperature. There were only 700 burn incidents. This is an excellent safety record, and shows that (statistically) everyone could drink this coffee safely. The coffee was safe.
- The plaintiff had purchased and consumed many cups of coffee at this same McDonalds previously with no incident. The coffee was safe, even in the plaintiff's own experience
- The plaintiff endeavored to dump the coffee into her own lap. This was her doing, not McDonalds' doing. The accident was 100% her own fault. McDonalds did not do this..
- The temperature McDonalds' sold the coffee at is the recommended optimum serving temperature.
- McDonalds, despite the phony claims in the linked article, claimed that their coffee was "hot". Precaution around hot liquids is taught at an early age. McDonald's gave sufficient warning.
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think that vandalizing someone else's property is generally considered to be a Constitutionally (or morally) defended form of expression.
It depends on who you sue (Score:3, Insightful)
Coming soon: All your spacecraft are belong to us!
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Intolerance is the way to go (Score:3, Insightful)
Tolerance has to end somewhere. For me, we've pretty much reached that point. If people want to believe in the supernatural (astrology, gods, devils, telekinesis, etc.) fine. When they get public with it, I mean to belittle them. The definition of supernatural I'm using is Oxford sense 1.
I've tried tolerance for half a century. That's all done.
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:1, Insightful)
I may not agree with em, but it's not my place to go burn them down if I dont.
(now please mod me as offtopic!)
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:4, Insightful)
IIRC quiet a few incidents described in the bible have been confirmed by other historical sources. I'm not talking about walking on water or plagues of locust, but wars, conquests, the names of rulers etc. By automatically dismissing everything in the bible as false, you show that you haven't critically evaluated it, which puts you in the same boat as those who assume everything in it is true.
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:3, Insightful)
And as far as getting references to the 10 commandments removed -- it ain't just the atheists. Don't forget about those who follow paths other than the Abrahamic religions. Even many Christians and Jews agree that the 10 commandments ought not to be displayed.
Re:Waaa. (Score:2, Insightful)
The first is typical of American-bashing that comes from mindless, spineless Euro-snobs. Everything done by Americans is bad. This comet is 83 million miles away and travelling at an enormous velocity, but this anonymous super-genius could land a gentle probe on it "for not much more money". That explains the stunningly successful European mission that did just that.
The second comment from your friend who studies these things seems at odds with the endless comments about how we lack the technology to prevent a comet or asteroid from colliding with the Earth. The largest atomic weapons could not budge an asteroid in time, we are told. It is already too late for us, and yet, this rather insignificant probe can alter the course of this comet enough to cause a collision over such vast distances. In that case, why don't we launch another probe or two to swat it away?
Then you were modded up as informative by the same nitwit teenagers who endlessly bash organized religion, with enough bile to fill the Pacific ocean.
I'm going to sue this Russian bimbo for $300 million for causing me such morale outrage.
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:3, Insightful)
It is fascinating to see self-proclaimed athiests talk about science being their god. Science proves the existence of God (a supreme creator) at every corner. Every new discovery validates more and more how beautiful and intricate the universe is. There are architects that lay the foundations of man's institutions on earth who are powerful indeed, but they can never approach the glory of God, no matter what they force-feed their cattle.
I think a lot of people are bitter because a nun slapped them on the knuckles too many times in Catholic school or something. Man corrupts things and the church is built by man. These corruptions do not invalidate the existence of God, they just validate that man needs guidance more than ever.
The latest election shows how people really think. These self-proclaimed intellectuals just like to shout loud so that they seem more numerous than they are.
You are in the silent majority, even on
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:2, Insightful)
Society has determined that things like murder are fundamentally wrong. Its generally accepted, but do we really know that death is terrible? What if there is a life after this that is so incredible that we are actually doing people favors by killing them? (I don't actually believe this, but it's some thing that we could be wrong about).
As time goes on and as people start ignoring things like morals, society will degrade until we are back to the stone age. You may disagree, but then again that is just opinion.
Really, as it turns out people all live some sort of religion. Some don't recognize being agnostic or atheist as its own religion, but it is. It is riddled with its own beliefs and doctrine. None of it has any more proof of truth than any other form of belief.
So to deal with this we have a system here in the United States that deals with majorities (like Christians) and minorities so that each has their rights preserved. For the most part majorities get their way (that's democracy) and so the standard for morality is set by them. But minorities have the opportunity to be able to speak and make impacts to influence the majority (hence the importance of free speech).
But we can't have every minority wielding huge influence otherwise we will end up with laws permitting murder. Of course the majority isn't perfect either. But you have to remember that the premise of democracy is that the majority is usually right as long as they are well informed. Of course this isn't a true democracy but a representative democracy...
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:McDonald's lawsuit was completely frivolous (Score:5, Insightful)
Negligence maybe?
Re:A point of clarification (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would you post a list of "laws" you are not legally required to follow in a house of secular law?
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:3, Insightful)
Astrologers believe their is some mystical relationship between the positions of the planets, sun aand the future of someone born at that particular point in time.
A favorite example is a clock in a railway station. There is no direct physical connection between the position of the hands of the clock and departing trains but there is a relationship set by a higher intelligence (in this case the timetable set by the rail company).
Raise this line of thought to the astrological level, with train timetables being replaced by planetary almanacs, then there is the conclusion that being born at different times leads you to different paths in life.
Re:McDonald's lawsuit was completely frivolous (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know where you get that the temperature, which was not too much below boiling, is the recommended optimum serving temperature for coffee. Recommended by whom, McDonalds? Not surprising! The reason the coffee was that hot is that it is what McDonald's felt was the optimum storage temperature. Coffee should be made with very hot water, not stored for long, and served at a temperature where one can safely drink it. The latter was certainly not true of this coffee.
The plantiff did not intentionally dump coffee on herself to cause injury. Thus your use of "endeavor" is misleading (as is "dump"). Just because she spilled coffee on herself does not mean McDonald's had no part in causing her burns.
Clearly you are not a lawyer.
Re:A point of clarification (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't faith, because you don't forget that it's based on an assumption. Science isn't about absolute truth, it's about coming up with a usable model. Maybe Quarks "really exist," and maybe they don't. They're part of our model. No matter how much experimental evidence we have, and no matter how beautifully our model clicks together, there will never be any reason to believe that quarks exist. It may be useful to assume that they exist, but that's not belief.
Sure, you can believe in quarks if you want to, but I think that's a foolish way to create your worldview.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
No, no, no! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:4, Insightful)
And your logic is what? We would all be better off if we stopped brushing/stopped using condoms?
Re:McDonald's lawsuit was completely frivolous (Score:4, Insightful)
In the MacDonald's case, the plaintiff was found by the jury to be partially at fault. MacDonalds did serve thier coffee too hot, but the plaintiff was an idiot to balance the coffee in her lap.
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet a significant proportion of the students said that the horoscope matched them. This is the entire point - that it wasn't a genuine horoscope, but people believed it fit them. It was written in horoscope style - full of vague waffle that could fit just about anyone. And of course people will generally remember the hits and ignore the misses [skeptics.org.nz]. It's just human nature - and professional con-artists are very well aware of how to take advantage of human nature.
Wow. Just.... wow.
And you seriously just accept that? The notion that, for a very small expenditure of time on their part, they could walk away with one million dollars.... one million dollars that they could donate to any charity in the world (if they weren't interested in the money themselves)... and yet they say they're not interested?
Bullshit. Sheer undiluted bullshit.
Oh, and by the way - I can turn invisible and fly through the air. I just don't feel like demonstrating it to anyone, not even for money. You see, money's not that important to me, so that's why I make my living working an eight-to-six office job. So... what do you mean, I'm talking crap?? Don't be so close-minded!
Just out of interest, why don't you ask your psychic pals exactly how much money would have to be offered to make it worth their while? Ten million? A hundred million? A billion? Ten billion? If they just keep saying that "it's not worth their effort"... at some point you just have to realise that it's bullshit.
If I could earn (cue Dr Evil voice) "one meeeellion dollars" simply by demonstrating an ability I possess, you can bloody well be certain that I'd do it.
The reason your "psychic" acquaintances don't take up the Randi challenge is because they know it's incredibly unlikely that they'd pass, and it'd be an embarrassing waste of time for them... though I suspect the embarrassment factor would be the biggest component.
Pot, meet kettle.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." -- Philip K. Dick.
If your psychic acquaintances had any genuine abilities, they shouldn't disappear just because they're faced with a sceptic. The reality is that very few "psychics" have enough faith in their own abilities to put them to a genuine test.
Re:A point of clarification (Score:4, Insightful)
> of which supercedes which might determine whether they're agnostic or if they're religious.
Religion may be logical, but it is based on flawed principles. It is very easy to show the problems with the basic principles, and the rest comes crumbling down. I am referring to religion having any bearing on the physical world, e.g. creationism. Leave it in the spiritual realm where it belongs and you won't have any problems.
jfs
Re:Her parents should be proud... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:5, Insightful)
The sad thing about sick minds is that they can pervert any belief system. That's not the fault of the belief system, that's the fault of the minds.
-1: Oh, please. (Score:3, Insightful)
Two deadly flaws with your idea:
"Alternative" medicine is an oxymoron. Something is biologically active or it's not, which is also why homeopathy doesn't really exist except on the labels of tiny bottles of very expensive water.
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, you realize that a Linux fish is essentially a mobile insult against their religious expression, which is their right to express, as is your mockery.
Something akin to the statement 'They have a right to express their religion. You have a right to express your mockery of their religion.' It doesn't include anything about vandalism.
Re:McDonald's lawsuit was completely frivolous (Score:5, Insightful)
As a long-time coffee drinker, I frequently have a cup of coffee in the car. It spills. But third-degree burns are not part of any rational person's expectations of the consequences of spilled coffee. If you're going to serve something that carries that sort of danger -- one beyond normal expectations for the product -- to a place where it's well-known that spills will occur, at the very least there should be clear warnings. Maybe you disagree, but twelve people who actually listed to all the facts (and were not predisposed one way or the other) didn't.
Of course, now you often can't get McDonald's coffee that's hot enough and they put warnings on their cups, which isn't necessary (though to do otherwise may make them guilty of not protecting their stockholders). So it seems silly in retrospect, as the beverage is just as hot as you'd expect, but with warnings. Still, warnings never hurt anyone.
Re:McDonald's lawsuit was NOT completely frivolous (Score:1, Insightful)
Is it reasonable to assume that if you spill hot coffee in your lap you will be burned. YES
Is it reasonable to assume that you will recieve 3rd degree burns and require skin grafts to recover. NO
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:3, Insightful)
Why does beauty or complexity have to indicate the presence of a divine creator? Quite a lot of complexity has shown to arise naturally without intervention being necessary, provided a source of energy.
The latest election shows how people really think. These self-proclaimed intellectuals just like to shout loud so that they seem more numerous than they are.
Congratulations. An essentially war-time president running on a campaign of fear barely managed to edge out the pathetic loser the democrats chose. A mop and bucket with a face drawn on it would have had as much leadership potential as Kerry. If thats going to be the bar for how the "people really think" maybe you should go check out Bush's current approval ratings.
/.
You are in the silent majority, even on
The lurkers support me in email!
Re:Her parents should be proud... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A point of clarification (Score:3, Insightful)
A certain degree of faith is included in the scientific process. Science and religion both share the common root of philosophy. The difference between religion and science is religion is based on blind faith, science is based on tempered faith.
When you drop a rock, you believe it will fall. This belief is based on huge amounts of historical evidence. However, science doesn't actually dictate what will happen to the rock, it merely gives a reasonable prediction based on our knowledge. One of the biggest mistakes people make in science is to say we observe X because of theory Y, because theory doesn't dictate behavior. All we can say is we observe X, which is consistant with the prediction of theory Y.
Faith also gives birth to our new ideas. Einstein's faith that the universe neither expanded nor contracted led him to create the cosmological constant. Even the idea that we somehow can explain the behavior of the universe is based in faith. Since we can't know everything, we must make assumptions. In the absence of knowledge all we have is faith.
Scientists working on string theory do so because of faith. String theory is unfalsifiable, and it explains no known phenomenon that isn't already explained by another theory. I would argue string theory right now sits in the same ballpark as creationism. The difference is that those working on string theory will reformulate if they have conflicting observations. While creationists will tend to dismiss or give alternate explainations on conflicting observations.
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:1, Insightful)
Funny doesn't get you karma. And it was substantive, I guess you just missed the point. My point was that just because you can't disprove something, it doesn't mean it isn't stupid to believe it. You saying "disprove it" over and over is meaningless, yet you parrot it as if you are somehow "winning the argument".
You think my comment was funny, so I guess you'd ridicule somebody who truly believed that there are pink unicorns living on Mars. What is the difference between that and Christianity? Because somebody wrote a book a couple of thousand years ago? If I wrote a book about pink unicorns today, would it be sensible for somebody to believe in them in the year 4005?
You know, many Christians point out that a lot of the Bible is historically verifiable and contains many things that we know to be true. Did I mention that the book I am writing is set during World War 2 and features Winston Churchill riding pink unicorns into battle against Hitler?
Maybe in the year 4005, people will dig up evidence that Winston Churchill and Hitler existed, that many of the events portrayed in my Pink Unicorn Bible actually happened, and so on. Then the Pink Unicorn worshippers will be vindicated and all the disbelievers will see the error of their "scientific" ways.
Re:Intolerance is the way to go (Score:2, Insightful)
________
Would these be the same Founding Fathers who decreed that black people were 3/5ths of a white person? You know the ones I'm talking about...they forgot to outlaw slavery in those original documents too.
And what religion would they disapprove of being removed from schools? Christianity? Sorry but a religion that decrees that I must kill my neighbor if he works on the Sabbath and also also fails to condemm slavery has no place in schools.
The Founding Fathers put together a remarkable country and are to be commended for it but we really need to get away from this idea that we should operate today by what the Founding Fathers intended.
Just my $.02
Yesterday's thread (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:3, Insightful)
Condoms do provide limited protection from HIV and a handful of the other dozens of STDs out there, but kind of like a hitman using lead-free bullets, they don't actually fix the problem.
The real cause is a culture that encourages massive sexual promiscuity. Myths are perpetuated across the african continent such as the belief that shagging a virgin will cure a man of HIV, of course exacerbating the problem.
That, my friends, is the sin.