Earth Nearing 'Meteor Swarm' That May Have Caused 1908 Tunguska Event (cbsnews.com) 181
A reader quotes a report from CBS News: A swarm of meteors heading towards Earth could have the potential to cause a catastrophic impact, a new study from Western Ontario University says. The so-called Taurid swarm is a recurring event that some scientists believe could have played a role in the biggest Earth impact of modern times, in 1908, when a space rock slammed into Siberia with enough force to destroy an entire forest. What has become known as the Tunguska explosion of 1908 was so powerful that the blast leveled 80 million trees over an 800-square-mile area. It's considered to be a one-in-1,000-year event, according to Western Ontario University. But while the Tunguska explosion occurred just over a century ago, another such phenomenon could occur much sooner than its 1,000-year expectancy, the researchers say. That's why they're focusing new attention on the Taurid swarm.
The Taurid swarm is a dense cluster of meteors within the Taurid meteor stream. Earth periodically passes through the Taurid swarm, and it is one of the three space phenomenons that could result in a catastrophic collision. Near Earth Objects (NEOs) such as asteroids and meteoroids, as well as comets are the other two potential causes. The Taurid swarm is created when Earth passes through the debris left behind by Comet Encke, according to NASA. The comet's dust barrels through Earth's atmosphere at 65,000 mph, burns up and creates a meteor shower. This Taurid meteor shower is usually weak, but there are some years where it is more visible, NASA says. The Taurid swarm heightens the possibility of a large collision, Western Ontario University researchers hypothesized. This summer, Earth will approach within 30,000,000 km of the center of the Taurid swarm, the study says. That would be Earth's closest encounter with the swarm since 1975 and the best viewing opportunity we'll have until the early 2030s.
The Taurid swarm is a dense cluster of meteors within the Taurid meteor stream. Earth periodically passes through the Taurid swarm, and it is one of the three space phenomenons that could result in a catastrophic collision. Near Earth Objects (NEOs) such as asteroids and meteoroids, as well as comets are the other two potential causes. The Taurid swarm is created when Earth passes through the debris left behind by Comet Encke, according to NASA. The comet's dust barrels through Earth's atmosphere at 65,000 mph, burns up and creates a meteor shower. This Taurid meteor shower is usually weak, but there are some years where it is more visible, NASA says. The Taurid swarm heightens the possibility of a large collision, Western Ontario University researchers hypothesized. This summer, Earth will approach within 30,000,000 km of the center of the Taurid swarm, the study says. That would be Earth's closest encounter with the swarm since 1975 and the best viewing opportunity we'll have until the early 2030s.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, wouldn't not wanting to be hit again indicate rather some sort of "genetic memory" than a goal?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, wouldn't not wanting to be hit again indicate rather some sort of "genetic memory" than a goal?
Hmm, genetic memory, maybe yes because the evolutionary path changed due to the asteroid strike. In that sense there is a "genetic memory" of the strike. But can it create some sort of direction in evolution toward NOT being hit again? I don't know. Scientists would laugh - and they would probably be right to. But the fact is that the present end to the evolutionary path after the last major asteroid strike is becoming very interested it preventing the NEXT asteroid strike. And considering that we are not m
Re: (Score:2)
I dare say that we are not the earth. Unless we're really into self-hate.
Aside of that, it doesn't take any kind of memory to know that an asteroid hitting our planet is really, really bad for us. Looking at the past events shows what's in store for us if the pebble hits the ball.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes...and no. The Evangelicals would welcome a huuuuugggee asteroid strike. It would mean the End-O-The-World and Jesus would be coming 'round the corner any day.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes...and no. The Evangelicals would welcome a huuuuugggee asteroid strike. It would mean the End-O-The-World and Jesus would be coming 'round the corner any day.
Why do you think that the Evangelicals are so big on Israel? It isn't because of love for Judaism or the people who practice it.
Having grown up in a catholic family with evangelical grandparents, I understand The concept of prophecy, and the birth of Israel in 1949 was supposed to usher in the last generation. Now that was 70 years ago, so that prophecy was blown, but they are still jonesing for their Gog vs Magog moment. So there you have the continued screaming overreaction to anyone who would dare to
Re: (Score:2)
giving Israel anything Israel desires
A quick death at the hands of their Muslim neighbors.
Atrocity for atrocity. Both sides need to pump the brakes. But they won't. This isn't going to end until one or the other practices total genocide. Some serious irony in that.
Re: It is very interesting (Score:1)
You don't know what you're talking about. It's fun to slag on religion, though.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't know what you're talking about. It's fun to slag on religion, though.
This is not a question of "knowing." I'm presenting an interesting thought of mine that humans may be the Earth trying to protect itself from asteroid strikes.
Re: (Score:1)
Sort of an enhanced Gaia theory, it would seem.
Re: (Score:2)
I happen to be an evangelical. And no, thank you; I am not hoping for an asteroid strike, huge or otherwise. Nor is anyone else that I know. I suggest you drop into a church on Sunday and ask people whether they are hoping one. You might be enlightened.
Re: It is very interesting (Score:2)
I sometimes wonder if evolution has a point, a goal, a direction
Unlike your post, you mean? ;)
Re: It is very interesting (Score:4, Funny)
I sometimes wonder if evolution has a point, a goal, a direction
Unlike your post, you mean? ;)
Sorry. I know I exist to entertain you and I've failed miserably.
Re: (Score:2)
I sometimes wonder if evolution has a point, a goal, a direction
Unlike your post, you mean? ;)
Sorry. I know I exist to entertain you and I've failed miserably.
No, it doesn't have a goal. We often think that evolution was a march forward to some sort of perfection. Evolution is what or who is able to survive under changing conditions. That's oversimplified, but will do to answer the question.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I understand that, but how abstract are those environmental conditions with respect to humans? Do they include very large asteroid strikes changing the environment? Something is not quite right with human evolution. We seem to have evolved far too much capacity for mere survival, even prosperity. In the exact same environment other successful animals evolved far less intelligence.
While something like the K-T strike that took out the dinosaurs is like an evolutionary wild card, you are correct that humans have their own evolutionary issues.
While we have developed a prodigious brain, and can do many amazing things, at heart, we are a hyper-aggressive species that has as one of it's core competencies, killing other of the same species, and for the most aggressive, finding great joy in killing other humans.
So it's a tightrope walk. I give it about a 75 percent chance that humanity
Re: (Score:2)
I sometimes wonder if evolution has a point, a goal, a direction
Unlike your post, you mean? ;)
The point is the possibility of what I would call a "Meta Evolution" layer to evolution that only includes humans and responds to a much larger "environment."
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it is likely that something like us develops as the apex predator. We're the first that can have this huge an impact on the planet, but in the end, we're no better or worse than any other species. Our goal is to minmax our life, minimize expending resources for the maximum possible gain. Taken to extremes this means letting others (machines, plants or animals) do the work while we do, preferably, nothing.
Extrapolate this and you have, well, us.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I tend to think we ARE 'better' than if a less social and less empathetic creature evolved tool use. Humans are very social - like our closest relatives the chimpanzees and bonobos, we care for our young and our disabled, and use display more often than violence to communicate territory. We show respect for the dead and, until modern iron-age history, tended to not use more resources than the environment around us could sustain. We don't kill because we're designed that way - we kill to supplement our diet.
Re:It is very interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
We care about our pack, just like any pack animal. We don't give a fuck about anyone else. The only reason most of us are capable of existing in larger societies are laws that punish behaviour the is detrimental to the benefit of the larger society, simply because most of us are too stupid to grasp the idea that not having to waste resources on defending what you have is less expensive than being able to take what someone else has.
If you want proof for that, all it takes is looking at groups where such laws don't exist, like failed states or war zones.
Re: (Score:2)
Even modern stable nation states put enormous effort into creating and sustaining shared symbolism, creating a kind of super-tribe, and have limited/mixed success achieving that.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what religions were invented for, today that function is taken over by CCTV. In between you had stuff like figureheads and nations as attempts to create larger structures than 5-20 individuals. In the end, all of them are crutches attempting to solve the problem that we're pack animals and not herd animals. We don't exactly care for anyone outside our immediate group.
Re: (Score:2)
WTF are you talking about?
Re: (Score:2)
Yelling "you are wrong" without providing neither a reason nor a correction is worthless.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully next time around the earth doesn't end up with a shitty species like homo sapiens claiming to be top dog.
How about Crakers next?
Phenomenons? (Score:5, Interesting)
Earth periodically passes through the Taurid swarm, and it is one of the three space phenomenons that could result in a catastrophic collision.
I hate to be a grammar nazi, but please... the plural of phenomenon is phenomena.
That said, I'm slightly disappointed that TFA didn't mention the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis [wikipedia.org] which some say may also be associated with the Taurid meteor stream.
Re:Phenomenons? (Score:5, Funny)
phenomena
do do, do.do.do
phenomena
do.do.do
Re:Phenomenons? (Score:5, Informative)
Took me a while, but I finally got the Muppets reference... well played! ;-)
Re: (Score:3)
Took me a while, but I finally got the Muppets reference... well played! ;-)
I love it when Animal yells into the camera!!!
The Original (Score:1)
Mah nà mah nà - Piero Umiliani [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Potential downer here, but work with me for a moment please:
It is actually a song from a porno made in the 60s. Someone here on Slashdot referenced it and provided a link... a decade ago? I wish I still had it, but the porn was just typical porn from the late 60 early 70s, so I eventually lost it.
The OP also missed a 'do' at the end:
Manamana, Do Do Du Do Do
Manamana, Do do do do
It really was a cute reference though. I use the Muppet Manamana video for brain cleansing after watching SIPR porn (don't ask).
Re: (Score:2)
Potential downer here, but work with me for a moment please:
It is actually a song from a porno made in the 60s.
The muppets did a porno in the sixties? Was it Miss Piggie in her pre-sow days?
Re: (Score:1)
phenomenomenomenom
or
phe-nom-nom-nom-nom-...
The art to spelling 'banana' is knowing when to stop.
Re: (Score:3)
phenomena
do do, do.do.do
phenomena
do.do.do
I thought I was the only one who thought that every time I hear the word! So thank you for normalizing my weirdness, lol!
Re: (Score:2)
I thought I was the only one who thought that every time I hear the word! So thank you for normalizing my weirdness, lol!
You're welcome, it just shows you have a sense of humor. It's been looping in my head and now the joke is on me!!
Re: (Score:2)
phenomena
do do, do.do.do
phenomena
do.do.do
Best. Post. This. Month!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No it isn't. The last line is do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
when a space rock slammed into Siberia with enough force to destroy an entire forest. What has become known as the Tunguska explosion of 1908
The explosion in 1908 has not "become known" as that. We call it the Tunguska Event, which was an explosion.
And it isn't exactly clear what it was. If something hit the ground, there would be a crater, and maybe there is, but no one has definitively discovered it. Some scientists believe it was a comet that disintegrated in the atmosphere. There is at least one theory
Re: Phenomenons? (Score:1)
It was Chuck Norrisâ(TM) grandfather telling trees they need to lie the fuck down.
Re: Phenomenons? (Score:1)
but though very likely a massive explosion, it seems to have occurred in the atmosphere for reasons unknown.
There's plenty of examples of objects from space exploding above ground, one in Russia a few years ago in fact.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I hate to be a grammar nazi...
That's Greek second declension word was borrowed into academic late Latin and isn't consistent with either Latin or English grammar and spelling so there's no point in preserving its plural form. That is, it was a technical term in the astronomy circles which were largely Greek speaking even when it was used in Latin texts in the same way English borrows French words for cooking so being consistent with the plural forms' grammar when you're inconsistent with the pronunciation is bad English grammar in servi
Re: (Score:2)
I hate to be a grammar nazi...
That's Greek second declension word was borrowed into academic late Latin and isn't consistent with either Latin or English grammar and spelling so there's no point in preserving its plural form. That is, it was a technical term in the astronomy circles which were largely Greek speaking even when it was used in Latin texts in the same way English borrows French words for cooking so being consistent with the plural forms' grammar when you're inconsistent with the pronunciation is bad English grammar in service of Academic status signaling.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/phaenomenon#Latin
touché
Re: (Score:2)
I hate to be a grammar nazi...
That's Greek second declension word was borrowed into academic late Latin and isn't consistent with either Latin or English grammar and spelling so there's no point in preserving its plural form. That is, it was a technical term in the astronomy circles which were largely Greek speaking even when it was used in Latin texts in the same way English borrows French words for cooking so being consistent with the plural forms' grammar when you're inconsistent with the pronunciation is bad English grammar in service of Academic status signaling.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/phaenomenon#Latin
What an odd phenomenon.
Re: (Score:2)
No point, you say?! The point is to show how smart I am, and how dumb you octupuses...er, octipoids...er octipoda...er, crabs are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you missed the point of the change in words.
FWIW, my undergrad major was zoology.
Re: (Score:2)
"We don’t just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary." --James D. Nicoll
Re: Phenomenons? (Score:2, Informative)
You're complaining about "phenomenons", but have no problem with "A swarm of meteors heading towards Earth"? A "meteor" occurs when an object hits the Earth's atmosphere. It is not the object itself.
Re: (Score:1)
> A "meteor" occurs when an object hits the Earth's atmosphere. It is not the object itself.
Are you saying they don't meet those criterions?
Asteroid Nazi (Score:3)
The evidence points to an asteroid fragment rather than one from a comet as the bolide in the Tunguska Event.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
A large part of what has driven speculation about a comet or a whole host of non-asteroid explanations is the absence of a crater. More recent analysis suggests that a meteor entering the atmosphere with the right mass, speed and composition can result in an airburst.
The recent Chelyabinsk Event appears to be a smaller-scale version of Tunguska, and it explode
Re:Phenomenons? (Score:4, Interesting)
That said, I'm slightly disappointed that TFA didn't mention the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis [wikipedia.org] which some say may also be associated with the Taurid meteor stream.
Apologies, I digress, this comment is actually why I'm here. We keep going through the Taurids twice a year, you can only beat the odds so many times and it seems crazy that we keep ignoring this.
We have the technology now to watch and maybe even deflect these objects. The question I often find my self asking is "Why aren't we already doing this" and I can't say I've found an answer. The thing is, if we're alone in the universe as intelligent beings we have the responsibility, over our petty tribalism, to safe guard sentience in the form of Homo Sapiens. Surely it is in the interest of the international community to collaborate on protecting the Human Race from a potential reset of our civilization? Then again no one is going to be around to file a lawsuit.
It's fair to say we've made mistakes and created a host of problems. However what we've built, despite its flaws, is magnificent. We have a toehold on eternity as a race however if we don't safeguard (spaceguard?) our existence then how will we ever realize our true potential?
close? (Score:2)
What constitutes going "through"? The article says we'll be 30 million km from the center of the stream this time around, and apparently that's closer than usual. If that's correct, it's nearly as far away as Venus at the closest (38 million km, https://www.universetoday.com/... [universetoday.com]). I realize the stream is spread out, but it sounds like we'll be a long ways from the stream's center.
Re: (Score:2)
What constitutes going "through"? The article says we'll be 30 million km from the center it sounds like we'll be a long ways from the stream's center.
30 million kms isn't very far in space. The very fact that we encounter objects from it means it is uncomfortably close.
Re: (Score:1)
"The Taurid swarm is a dense cluster of meteors within the Taurid meteor stream"
There is differentiation between the whole stream, which we catch twice a year apparently, and a specific cluster within it. The article mentions this is the closest to the *swarm* that we have been since 1975, so 44 years ago. The university release doesn't appear to mention how close the swarm was for Tunguska, or how often we are this close.
Re: (Score:2)
I hate to be a grammar nazi, but ...
Has that phrase ever not immediately been followed by an example of grammar nazism?
Re: (Score:2)
"I hate to be" rather presupposes that it will be followed by such an example. If they'd said, "I'm not a grammar nazi, but", or a counter-factual like "I wouldn't want to be taken for a grammar nazi, but..", then your comment might fit better.
And no, I don't want you to think I'm a grammar nazi, but next time...
No story, same meteor shower as every year (Score:3)
Taurids (Score:3)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Southern Taurids (STA)
Occurs during Sep 10 – Nov 20
Date of peak Oct 10
Velocity 28 km/s
Northern Taurids (NTA)
Occurs during Oct 20 – Dec 10
Date of peak Nov 12
Velocity 66.9 km/s
There are about 5 per hour for both the Northern and Southern Taurids.
So the phrase "heading into" is a tad bit early as we are still 3 months away.
Re: (Score:3)
This is a different context - the Tunguska event was on June 30th, 1908.
The event that ended the previous period of human civilization (e.g. the people who built Gobekli Teki) 12,800 years ago was a Taurid object.
The impactor that ended the dinosaurs probably was too.
There are objects the size of a small moon in Earth's orbit, offset by a phase, that we're going to have to clean up if our descendants are going to continue to collect cat memes instead of fighting off the next version of sabertooth tigers.
htt [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The nearest pass is supposed to occur around June 23 – July 17.
The Tunguska event occurred on June 30th, also from the same direction of the sky.
Meteor definition is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems someone is unclear what a meteor is when they say "A swarm of meteors heading towards Earth".
By definition a meteor is "a small body of matter from outer space that enters the earth's atmosphere, becoming incandescent as a result of friction and appearing as a streak of light."
So being pedantic, a meteor only exists within the Earth's atmosphere; a meteor is not in space (in space this object is usually called an asteroid) and a meteor never impacts the Earh's surface (any impacted material from the meteor is called a meteorite).
Also the Tunguska Event was an air-burst where the meteor exploded close to the Earth's surface; there was no impact to the Earth's surface. The forest was destroyed by the strong winds resulting from the explosion just like the winds from a Nuclear weapon detonated close to the Earth's surface.
Re: (Score:1)
You are not wrong, but really, it is just rocks moving about with different terms based on if they are not in the atmosphere "asteroid", if they are in the atmosphere and still moving "meteor", and if they are sitting on the ground "meteorite".... but they are all just rocks.
This whole discussion could be avoided just by using the term 'rock'.
Re: (Score:3)
When? (Score:2)
Beta Taurids (Score:3)
Details here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Of course it can happen sooner (Score:3)
A 1 in 1000 years event has a 10% chance to happen within the next hundred years, a 1% chance in 10 years and a 0.1% chance in one year. Doesn't matter when it happened last time.
Newsflash (Score:2)
At least 1 of the larger rocks in that crowd is no longer around to cause us problems
Such alarmism nowadays! (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
No, Earth has cleared its orbit, but the meteor swarm is in a different orbit, intersecting the Earth orbit at one point.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how this works (Score:2)
another such phenomenon could occur much sooner than its 1,000-year expectancy
That's not how this works. And shit like this is one of the most annoying things in science reporting. A "x year event" does not mean one happens X years. Nor does it mean an even can be "early" or "overdue". Its statistical analysis showing the probability of an event occurring every year given the known data. The likelihood of such an event happening tomorrow does not increase because it didn't happen today.
What are the other two? (Score:2)
Am I the only one who thinks it's weird to specifically say that something is one of three without even acknowledging what the other two are?
Re: (Score:2)
Am I the only one who thinks it's weird to specifically say that something is one of three without even acknowledging what the other two are?
I am going to go out on a limb and say no, you aren't the only one.
However, I present here from the summary the next sentence after the one that you quoted:
Near Earth Objects (NEOs) such as asteroids and meteoroids, as well as comets are the other two potential causes.
Sigh, as always, Read The Friendly Paper (Score:2)
Oh, that's a bit different to the press release.
The paper is here [arxiv.org].
At lea
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I debated with myself for a couple of hours on this post - to 'up'-tick the best posts that had good/interesting material - - - or devoutly pray that all 'true believers' actually GET the Heaven they "ESPOUSE". Kinda' like a karma-blast on omnipotent steroids. Put your life where your mouth is - you devout purveyors of prejudice, superstition, and "ABSOLUTE FAITH IN THE WRITTEN WORD" - - - duh, that was written by men . . . fallible, frail, weak, and 'with agendas', just like every sentient entity that ha
Re: (Score:1)
What? Unless you're a child, religion can only hurt you if you let it hurt you.
"Never again the Burning Times", fucker.
Re: (Score:1)
I have no idea what you're trying to say. Religion has no control over your life unless you let it. It's a free choice, at least in developed countries. So nobody can "use religion to hurt [you]" unless you're a masochist. Just don't subscribe to bullshit and you're OK.
There is much more harm to be done than just what can happen within a religion. Not being of a particular religion can get you killed.
You need to go back and catch up on history, It's full of people harmed by religion. The Crusades are one example, In addition, there is a lot of European Christian vs Jew persecution.
Much of the world is more civilized today, but examples of People harming others in the name of religion, because of being unbelieving isn't hard to find.
Re: (Score:2)
People always mention the Crusades without mentioning some of the key factors and other religions that led up to it.
Look up Moors, Charles the Hammer, Mamluks.. etc..
Re: Dear God.. (Score:4, Insightful)
People always mention the Crusades without mentioning some of the key factors and other religions that led up to it. Look up Moors, Charles the Hammer, Mamluks.. etc..
Are you insinuating that I left out everything else as some sort of diss against Christians?
I gave an example. You provide the perfect example of why this happens, by justifying the Crusades, as a retribution for wrongs.
Here's the problem with your tit for tat example. The never ending justification of the next atrocity for the last atrocity ultimately leads to never ending war, that can only end in utter destruction. Perhaps Floopy Nooper stole one of GooGoo's sheep 3000 years ago. Never forget! death to the infidel Nooper's. We must eliminate all of Nooper's race, because Nooper's race is race is trying to eliminate all the GooGoos!
Your outlook is the perfect example of why we can't have nice things. Because revenge is never-ending.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the problem with your tit for tat example.
So you're saying no one should ever retaliate after being wronged, because it could cause a never ending revenge loop? Sounds like something loser doormat pretending to have a moral high ground while covering in fear would post.
Oh no no - not a doormat at all. You misread what I write. Any country that I ran would be like me - slow to anger, but once I decided that war was the answer, I would completely destroy my enemy, or be destroyed in the attempt. No quarter asked or given. This tit for tat BS is a sign of weakness. If your enemy survives, you have lost.
So if it was me involved, the mideast wars would have been over centuries ago, Either my people dead, or the other side. There would no longer be anyone to retaliate agai
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not saying that what you describe doesn't happen in certain times and places, but surely you can't put the top level /. comment into the same bag. Asking fictional beings to hurt someone has never actually hurt anyone, so "attempting to use religion to hurt others" is a ridiculous response to that.
You are looking at this from a belonging to a religion aspect only.
I share your knowledge that what religious people worship doesn't exist. But the people exist. They just use their religion to harm people. There are plenty of people even today, who are outside of a religion, who are harmed or killed in the name of whatever gawd is getting the credit. Man makes God according to his own image. That often includes killing those who do not share that image. That's why I take exception to your idea that rel
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm looking at this from the perspective of the 2nd level comment saying "you are such a a-hole. Attempting to use religion to hurt others..." as a response to a top-level comment saying "God, have a giant rock fall on Kendall". I've already acknowledged what you're writing about in the comment to which you were responding, which has nothing to do with this, however.
You know, if you want to express yourself better, you shouldn't wite zingers like: "Religion has no control over your life unless you let it. It's a free choice, at least in developed countries."
Which is simply not true, in or out of whatever context you demand it be in. Tell me that I chose to be circumcised. Tell me that I wasn't forced into religion, by physical force as needed, and that I wasn't subject to all day lectures by a crazy evangelical grandmother, lest the force comes into play.
If y
Re: (Score:2)
Which is simply not true, in or out of whatever context you demand it be in. Tell me that I chose to be circumcised. Tell me that I wasn't forced into religion, by physical force as needed, and that I wasn't subject to all day lectures by a crazy evangelical grandmother, lest the force comes into play.
Then you don't live in a developed country; it's as easy as that. That is clearly a violation of the rights of a child. Around here your risk of suffering this would be virtually zero.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is simply not true, in or out of whatever context you demand it be in. Tell me that I chose to be circumcised. Tell me that I wasn't forced into religion, by physical force as needed, and that I wasn't subject to all day lectures by a crazy evangelical grandmother, lest the force comes into play.
Then you don't live in a developed country; it's as easy as that. That is clearly a violation of the rights of a child. Around here your risk of suffering this would be virtually zero.
So what country do you live in where a child gives consent from birth. Are you an anti-vaxxer? What baby gives consent to that? Your argumernt technique is amusing, I'll give you that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What do anti-vaxxers have to do with this?
Very little in fact. But you seem to think newborn babies can give consent, so that's the sort of thing an anti-vaxxer might say. So I thought I'd ask.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are people being physically harmed by "religion" right now. You don't have to go back into history. Radical Islamists are whacking people like it's the national past time.
The thing with religion to me has always been humans, using whatever likes or hatreds, construct a "god" in their own image. This God, just so happens to have all of the loves and hatreds that the originators have.
Human aspects impressed upon a "god" in order to assert authority not of humanity, but of some "God" that will reward or punish those who don't act in accordance with the originators demands. Why does this happen? Because humans have an innate desire to control things that are not controllable.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea what you're trying to say. Religion has no control over your life unless you let it. It's a free choice, at least in developed countries.
Must be nice to live in a utopia with no peer pressure, no random strangers beating you up because of your sexuality, where job interviews are completely unbiased, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Meatier, right.