HOME/ABOUT  Prayer  SCOTUS  ProLife  BangList  Aliens  StatesRights  ConventionOfStates  WOT  HomosexualAgenda  GlobalWarming  Corruption  Taxes  Congress  Fraud  MediaBias  GovtAbuse  Tyranny  Obama  ObamaCare  Elections  Layoffs  NaturalBornCitizen  FastandFurious  OPSEC  Benghazi  Libya  IRS  Scandals  TalkRadio  TeaParty  FreeperBookClub  HTMLSandbox  FReeperEd  FReepathon  CopyrightList  Copyright/DMCA Notice 

Calling all FReepers: We need to wrap this baby up within the next few days. If you have not yet made your donation, please do so today. Let's git 'er done. Thank you very much!!

Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Free Republic 2nd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $79,241
Woo hoo!! And now less than $8.8k to go!! We can do this. Thank you all very much!! Let's git 'er done!!

Posts by FateAmenableToChange

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • The Joyful Death of Catholic Ireland

    05/27/2015 3:05:44 AM PDT · 3 of 32
    FateAmenableToChange to markomalley

    That last sentence is a work of art.

  • Commie Pope: Environmental Sinners Will Face God’s Judgement

    05/13/2015 11:42:46 AM PDT · 56 of 74
    FateAmenableToChange to CdMGuy
    Jorge Borgoglio is not the first incompetent to be elected Pope, and he will not be the last. Let us hope that is reign is short, and that his successor follows in the footsteps of John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

    I just visited Krakow where John Paul II (then Bishop Karol Wojtła) was bishop for 40 years. The city is papered with plaques and displays showing his faith for Christ and his heroism against Communism. Sent chills down my spine and made me cry at one point thinking about the three lions of the West -- Thatcher, Reagan, and John Paul II -- and how they stood tall and put down the soviets as a rotten evil empire that denied their subjects the right to be human.

    This pope is nothing compared to John Paul II. I occasionally wonder why I never feel any pull whatsoever toward the RCC despite a deep respect for that church, its faith, and its theology. Then I see Francis and realize why. Very frustrating, and I can't imagine how frustrating it must be for my politically conservative catholic friends to hear him come out with stuff like this.

  • Speak Truth to Narrative

    05/07/2015 7:08:20 AM PDT · 10 of 19
    FateAmenableToChange to ctdonath2

    Perfectly said.

  • A medieval prayer wheel surfaces, but how it was used is anyone’s guess

    05/04/2015 2:46:28 PM PDT · 25 of 40
    FateAmenableToChange to dp0622; Harmless Teddy Bear

    I’m a sap for Army of Darkness. Steam powered whirlyblade car of doom. “Did you say the words?” Consistently getting three shots out of a double barreled Remington without reloading. Just awesome.

  • A medieval prayer wheel surfaces, but how it was used is anyone’s guess

    05/04/2015 2:27:45 PM PDT · 19 of 40
    FateAmenableToChange to dp0622
    I don’t know. I’ve seen way TOO many horror shows from the eighties that start with opening a book like this.

    And how many of them starred Bruce Campbell?

  • We've Already Redefined Marriage, by Accepting Contraception

    05/04/2015 11:25:49 AM PDT · 50 of 96
    FateAmenableToChange to C. Edmund Wright

    You’re missing the point, but that’s your prerogative.

  • We've Already Redefined Marriage, by Accepting Contraception

    05/04/2015 7:38:10 AM PDT · 21 of 96
    FateAmenableToChange to C. Edmund Wright; Cry if I Wanna
    The pill was just a new form of birth control. People have been using birth control for a very long time.

    There are many other forms of birth control, and a RCC friend once told me Catholics have a special name for those who rely on them: "parents".

    The pill (along with things like implants and IUDs), in contrast, was a revolutionary paradigm shift that turned contraception from something that might prevent pregnancy in 20% of couples using it over the course of a year into something that permitted women to prevent pregnancy reliably more than 95% of the time. Coupled with unrestricted abortion for those who fell in the remaining 5%, there is no meaningful comparison between the pill as birth control and any other mechanism.


    04/30/2015 10:14:12 AM PDT · 13 of 31
    FateAmenableToChange to C19fan

    This makes me want to puke.

  • Baltimore Is Nothing More Than An Informercial For U-Haul And The NRA

    04/29/2015 2:16:31 PM PDT · 35 of 41
    FateAmenableToChange to Albion Wilde
    The difference between 1950 and 2010 is probably the number of employed taxpayers who moved to the suburbs.

    And the difference from 1990 to 2000 is probably the result of an audit of the voting rolls to remove the registered dead.

  • Does the Catholic Church Teach That Adam and Eve Are Myths?

    04/22/2015 1:40:32 PM PDT · 26 of 205
    FateAmenableToChange to redleghunter
    However, that is not what is taught in Catholic schools and the footnotes of the NAB

    Nor is it what was announced by Pope Benedict: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19956961/ns/world_news-europe/t/pope-creation-vs-evolution-clash-absurdity/

  • Three Things You're Probably Getting Wrong about Praying to the Saints

    04/22/2015 7:23:02 AM PDT · 693 of 984
    FateAmenableToChange to NYer; ealgeone

    How do you keep going? Especially since your form of argument appears to be to just stick your fingers in your ears and pretend that no one has answered your questions.

    Your argument — that the RCC has never taught and then retracted errant interpretations of scripture — fails if anyone can show a single instance of the RCC changing its position. I have done so. The Hussite Crusades were (a) RCC-sanctioned violent wars to suppress a reform movement within the RCC; (b) for the purpose of forcing the Hussites to surrender their reform positions, including scriptural interpretations and the non-RCC manner of communion; (c) the Hussites could not be in communion with the RCC if they held those positions; and (d) if the RCC accepted communion with the Hussites, it would be admitting that non-RCC interpretations could be in communion with the church.

    (a) Crusades, especially violent crusades for the purpose of putting down heresy, are no longer part of RCC doctrine. RCC changed its position on whether scripture requires or permits violent wars to impose RCC doctrine.

    (b) Vatican II radically expanded freedom of conscience within the church. The Hussites might actually be merely a blip on the radar under Vatican II. Probably not, though, because of their radical departure from RCC doctrines.

    (c) & (d) The RCC ended the Hussite wars by permitting the Hussites to retain their distinctives but still remain within the RCC. But the RCC went to war five times over those distinctives. And then caved and changed its position.

    The only reason I’m using the Hussites is because I am reading about them now. But I could use any of the examples I have provided to show that the RCC has changed its position on what scripture does and does not require.

    Councilarism and the age of three popes is another good example. I already gave you mortification of the flesh. Every single example I have given you involved a practice justified by the RCC at one time as consistent with or required by scripture and tradition and then later not justified.

    Usury is another that comes to mind. Paying interest on your loans? That’s sinful. Except now it isn’t. Supremacy of papal authority over secular authority in secular affairs. I don’t see Pope Francis demanding that RCC leaders submit to him in secular affairs — it would actually be kind of refreshing if hypocrites like Nancy “Abortion is Catholic” Pelosi were refused communion and excommunicated, but the RCC refrains generally from interference in secular affairs and she apparently manages to find priests who can stomach giving her communion. Over and over and over.

    Instead of acknowledging what everyone else already sees, you keep moving the goal posts. You seem to now insist that I provide you with an official RCC document stating that “Oops, we got it wrong. Our bad.” While I would point to Vatican II as coming pretty close — Mass is properly only said in Latin because scripture says that Peter was the first pope and he spoke Latin and therefore we need to burn Wycliff and other reformers for suggesting that mass and scripture could be rendered in vulgar tongues. Except now we don’t. But I don’t even need to go there because the absurdity of your “the RCC never once in its history made and then changed an interpretation of scripture” point is so patently apparent that I can’t even believe I’m still having a discussion on this point.

    And I’m not even bashing the RCC. It is engaging in a natural progression of being conformed to God’s plan and purpose for the Church. Every discrete community of believers out there does this.

    As I said before, further disputation with you is futile.

  • Three Things You're Probably Getting Wrong about Praying to the Saints

    04/21/2015 3:03:11 PM PDT · 437 of 984
    FateAmenableToChange to NYer


    1. Peter and Paul. There was already a church in Rome at the time that both Peter and Paul arrived. The RCC for political reasons relating to a desire to obtain supremacy over Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and later Constantinople, first claimed they started the church at Rome. Then they dropped Paul. The development of this tradition was historically late and coincided with Rome’s claim to the primacy of the papacy over the other churches. Development over time.

    2. I am not going to do your homework for you. I gave you a list of church practices that were taught by the RCC as having scriptural basis and that required adherence by the RCC faithful. Much like the tradition of praying TO the saints that you have tried to defend, the traditions and instances I listed have gone through multiple iterations. The example of the anti-Hussite crusades to enforce RCC doctrine on the Hussites, culminating in five defeats of RCC forces, and ultimately the RCC capitulating to permitting the Hussites to retain their distinctly non-RCC doctrines is illustrative and happens to be the one I’m reading about now. The political power of the papacy. etcetera etcetera. All of these are practices and traditions and acts that the RCC condoned, justified, and/or explained through scripture.

    Your entire argument depends (and loses) on the proposition that the RCC has never once undertaken any act, promoted any practice, or maintained any tradition that was contrary to scripture. This is wholly indefensible, prideful, and wrong. Historically wrong. Doctrinally wrong. Every church has done that, just as every believer. To insist otherwise is ridiculous.

    On purgatory, i’ll admit that I reversed it. The RCC didn’t realize that Purgatory was a necessary dogma of the RCC until the 15th century. So a failure to believe in purgatory was not a sin before the late 1400s, but was afterwards.

    Finally, on your last normative claim, please kindly go do your own work. This is an internet forum, I have other demands on my time, and clearly we will disagree.

    I am sure you will feel the need to respond. Please forgive me if I do not feel the same desire to continue this fruitless conversation. I refuse to engage in Catholic-bashing, but I will not back down from the obvious truth that the RCC has changed its teachings and indeed been mistaken about what scripture requires over its approximately 1600 years of existence.

  • Tea Party will never understand the Constitution: What the right misses about its favorite document

    04/21/2015 2:09:47 PM PDT · 70 of 161
    FateAmenableToChange to x
    Also, what Amar says and the things that the journalist attributes to him may not be the same thing. Amar doesn't say anything about the right wing or the Tea Party in the interview. There may be something about that in his book, but it doesn't appear to be the main focus there either

    Amar is a law professor, which means he has a strong incentive to sensationalize his theories so he gets published. That's ok, because that's what academics do in a post-modern world. As I understand it, his theory is that the constitution legally prescribes only one method for amendment, but practically we have to understand that amendments happen all the time. The SCOTUS amends the constitution regularly. Popular culture amends the constitution by incorporating popular beliefs into the framework within which judges interpret it and legislatures theoretically work within it and executives apply it. It's a positive account of what really happens, even if we don't like it.

    There are plenty of other academics saying that Amar is dead wrong, that the original language actually means what it says, and the SCOTUS is grievously in error when it adopts the living constitution stuff.

    The Salon article is stupid because it takes one guy who believes one weird thing about the constitution and says that wow, people who don't agree with that one guy are really wrong. And stupid. And tea party. Etc. The piece of garbage author doesn't even see the irony of his own stupidity.

  • Three Things You're Probably Getting Wrong about Praying to the Saints

    04/21/2015 1:55:33 PM PDT · 415 of 984
    FateAmenableToChange to NYer

    This is ridiculous. I did. This is not worth responding to.

  • Google Gives You the Ability to Delete All of Your Search History: Here’s Why You Might Want To

    04/21/2015 8:45:39 AM PDT · 34 of 49
    FateAmenableToChange to rktman

    And then it turned out that the last time I actually used Google search was last year when I stopped using Firefox because of the Brandon Eichs fiasco. I had an extension that sent bogus searches to Google every few moments just for the purpose of burying any real searches I might have made.

    But I deleted it all anyway. Google does not even deserve my sneers.

  • Three Things You're Probably Getting Wrong about Praying to the Saints

    04/21/2015 6:50:21 AM PDT · 267 of 984
    FateAmenableToChange to Elsie
    And yet the Scriptures tell us to be like Jesus...

    Agreed, which is why if you look back through my posts on this thread you will see that I consider the RCC position on praying to saints to be either unscriptural or potentially problematic. That said, Stephen's martyrdom calls us to stand firm for the gospel in the face of torture and death. Paul's tenacity and fearlessness in spreading the gospel is something I wish I had. These are examples of what the believer can do in Christ, supported by the power of the Holy Spirit, and within the will of God. Conforming one's life to the image of Christ does not mean ignoring the examples of faithful believers before us.

  • Will Pope Francis Break the Church?

    04/21/2015 6:41:41 AM PDT · 7 of 15
    FateAmenableToChange to marshmallow

    The hyperventilating concern trolls at the Atlantic are hilarious in their poorly disguised agendas.

  • Three Things You're Probably Getting Wrong about Praying to the Saints

    04/21/2015 5:56:50 AM PDT · 239 of 984
    FateAmenableToChange to RnMomof7; NYer
    YOPIOS. By what authority do YOU interpret scripture?

    This is really funny ... The magisterium has only "infallibly" interpreted a few verses of scripture.. every homily, every RC bible study, every RC apologist and every RC posting on FR are doing nothing more that YOPIOS ... and because of biblical ignorance have no idea what they are talking about

    I am not going to rehash old ground over interpretation according to the inspiration of the holy spirit versus interpretation according to the RCC. But RnMomof7's comment deserves emphasis. The RCC has through history taught and then retracted several interpretations of scripture. Every church comprises human beings, all of whom are often likely to incorporate their own biases into their interpretations of scripture. When Christ says "you are Peter and on this rock I build my church," for example, I see something totally different than RCC adherents. Indulgences require a tortured interpretation, in my opinion. Mortification of the flesh through flagellation. Crusades against intra-RCC reformers in the 13th-16th centuries. Kings waiting on baptism until the end of life so as not to be burdened by sins committed after baptism. Purgatory was valid, and now is not. As RnMomof7 points out, the RCC has wisely not asserted infallibility on more scriptural interpretations. If they had, we would be looking at the Mormon problem of backtracking on polygamy and whether dark-skinned peoples can be members of the church.

    Ultimately, the veneration of saints is a RCC tradition that as you describe it is not necessarily contrary to scripture. I don't agree with it, but I don't see your formulation violating core doctrines. And as models for believers' lives, many of the RCC's recognized saints are truly worthy of contemplation, respect, and emulation. OTOH, prayers to saints for those saints to intervene in the petitioner's lives does violate core doctrine because it gives glory to the dead saint rather than to God. But I think you agree with that, so it is not an issue. FATC

  • Three Things You're Probably Getting Wrong about Praying to the Saints

    04/21/2015 5:34:34 AM PDT · 227 of 984
    FateAmenableToChange to Petrosius
    When Catholics say that they pray to the saints they are using the legitimate meaning of making a request, i.e. for the saints to pray to God for us. To suggest that Catholics mean anything else is to bear false witness.

    Then there are a lot of Catholics bearing false witness. I'm sorry, but historically Catholic prayer to saints has been presented as prayer to dead saints for the saints personally to intervene in the world. I get that it can be reformulated to a more scripturally sound basis. But the article in question seems to be presenting prayer to saints for saintly intervention as a valid and scripturally supported practice.

  • Three Things You're Probably Getting Wrong about Praying to the Saints

    04/20/2015 3:36:52 PM PDT · 67 of 984
    FateAmenableToChange to NYer
    According to the Merriam Webster dictionary, one of the meanings of the word pray is "to seriously ask (someone) to do something". When you ask your friends to pray to God for you, essentially you are praying to them.

    No. That just does not work.

    Even the final sentence structure : "your friends to pray to God for you" makes clear that the prayer at issue here is a prayer to God. Incorporating a meaning that is not supported by scripture simply doesn't work. I will try to find time to go through a concordance, but exegesis will likely support my reading on this. The reading you suggest collapses a wholly secular meaning of prayer (any request or supplication) into the sacred meaning of prayer (communication with God in praise, worship, repentance, intervention, or guidance). The word is the same but the senses are entirely different.

  • Three Things You're Probably Getting Wrong about Praying to the Saints

    04/20/2015 2:03:51 PM PDT · 15 of 984
    FateAmenableToChange to NYer
    Scripture repeatedly calls for us to pray for one another (e.g., 1 Thessalonians 5:25; 2 Thes. 3:1; Colossians 4:3; Hebrews 13:18), to make “supplications for all the saints” (Ephesians 6:18), and for “supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings” to be made “for all men” (1 Timothy 2:1). Neither in praying for one another nor in asking one another for prayers do we risk offending God in the slightest. Quite the contrary: “This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:3-4).

    Prepositions are our friends. Prayers FOR others are supported in scripture. Prayers TO each other, which is what the article admits is going on between earthbound believers and saints in heaven is not scriptural.

  • Wind Turbines Kill More Birds Than BP Oil Spill

    04/20/2015 12:26:30 PM PDT · 20 of 32
    FateAmenableToChange to Pelham

    I missed the sequel!!! I can’t believe it didn’t come to my local theatre.

    But I’ll always have the Rifftrax....


  • Wind Turbines Kill More Birds Than BP Oil Spill

    04/20/2015 11:28:06 AM PDT · 16 of 32
    FateAmenableToChange to Pelham

    Like in Birdemic! Awesome.

  • PA: Only 1-2 Million Jews Died During the Holocaust

    04/19/2015 5:50:00 PM PDT · 34 of 44
    FateAmenableToChange to Joan Kerrey
    I understand that Palestinian arabs lost as many as 9 homes during the 1967 war.

    That comment should win the Internet for the day.

  • PA: Only 1-2 Million Jews Died During the Holocaust

    04/19/2015 5:46:56 PM PDT · 33 of 44
    FateAmenableToChange to AppyPappy

    1 million at Auschwitz alone. With records.

  • NASA probe nearing close encounter with unexplored Pluto

    04/16/2015 8:46:25 AM PDT · 15 of 43
    FateAmenableToChange to Mr. K
    wow that’s a pretty big moon

    As Ben Kenobi once said.... "That's not a moon."

  • RFRA & My Wedding Ring (Terrific Essay)

    04/15/2015 1:03:22 PM PDT · 9 of 17
    FateAmenableToChange to mojito

    Outstanding article.

  • Can the Pope Decide a Sin is No Longer a Sin (Like Eating Meat on Fridays)? (Catholic Caucus)

    04/14/2015 2:06:13 PM PDT · 13 of 62
    FateAmenableToChange to BipolarBob

    Well said. I love many things about the Roman Catholic Church, but the ability to add pharisaical rules over an above what scripture teaches and requires and then to declare violation of those man-made rules to be a sin is heresy.

    That the author sees no problem with deeming disobedience to apparently arbitrary church doctrine to be a mortal sin is deeply disturbing. This is exactly the hypocrisy that Jesus taught against for the pharisees.

  • Indiana Pizza Parlor To Reopen Today

    04/08/2015 8:34:18 AM PDT · 35 of 51
    FateAmenableToChange to thorvaldr

    Well, I think gofundme.com takes like a 5% cut, (leaving roughly $800,000) and she will have to pay taxes on it. If she just kept the money, after state and federal taxes she’d be looking at netting $500,000 on the gifts. Everything she gives to charity reduces her tax burden and deprives the federal beast of the dollars we gave. And covering the legal expenses of at least one of the florists makes the gift even better.

  • Indiana Pizza Parlor To Reopen Today

    04/08/2015 7:25:03 AM PDT · 2 of 51
    FateAmenableToChange to conservativehoosier
    and Washington florist Barronelle Stutzman, 70, who was fined after declaring she would not serve a gay wedding

    Love this.

  • Look for big backlash against 'gay intolerance'

    04/07/2015 6:25:25 AM PDT · 26 of 31
    FateAmenableToChange to Arm_Bears

    Same here. Totally done with Apple. Unfortunately, I just bought a new iPhone, and we moved everything in the house to mac a few years ago.

  • The Post-Indiana Future for Christians

    04/03/2015 3:01:07 PM PDT · 58 of 58
    FateAmenableToChange to mountainlion

    Got mine in a few minutes later, thanks!. I think I just hit a busy period the first time. I’m seeing this as God blessing these people for their faith.

  • The Post-Indiana Future for Christians

    04/03/2015 1:38:16 PM PDT · 56 of 58
    FateAmenableToChange to mountainlion

    Tried to give $10 based on your link. Said there is a problem with the account. Bummer. Will keep trying.

  • The Great Worker Shortage

    04/01/2015 12:38:17 PM PDT · 23 of 27
    FateAmenableToChange to Old Teufel Hunden

    I’m actually fairly involved in some of the issues surrounding this. 10 years tops. Too much money at stake. The only saving grace is that they might need human presence in the event of an emergency, but I doubt it. Your drone comment is probably accurate — much easier to have drone monitoring capabilities on the trucks rather than a single driver.

    As for safety, it is pretty clear that the trucks only a few generations from current tech will actually be more safe than with human drivers. They will have fewer accidents but will have different causes than human driver based accidents. Congress will give an agency statutory authority to regulate the use of driverless trucks and vehicles, and the agency will make a safety evaluation that will clear the vehicles. Congress critters will have their hands clean because it was an agency that gave final permission.

  • The Great Worker Shortage

    04/01/2015 8:25:26 AM PDT · 18 of 27
    FateAmenableToChange to SeekAndFind

    The market is responding to the fact that government benefits are very nice right now, and there is a very real possibility of self-driving automobiles in the next 5-10 years.

    Does anyone really doubt that the technology will be put in passenger cars first, rather than in commercial long-haul trucking? How will trucking companies respond when they learn they can run the trucks 24 hours / day rather than 8 hours on and then sleep and rest breaks? Is there really a future in trucking?

  • Rare-Earth Clocks, Sm-Nd and Lu-Hf Dating Models 2: Radioactive Dating, Part 6

    04/01/2015 8:21:26 AM PDT · 9 of 15
    FateAmenableToChange to DuncanWaring

    (1) Such a case is impossible to make because it is both non-provable and non-disprovable. It is entirely possible, assuming nothing about the nature of a creator, to imagine a creator who would put together a universe that would appear older than it really is.

    (2) Assuming the creator of the universe is the Judeo-Christian God of Genesis, we have aspects of that God revealed to us through both scripture (special revelation) and creation itself (general revelation). The God of the bible abhors falsehood. A creation that is deliberately set up to appear older than it really is would be dishonest.

    (3) The dishonesty/deception point does not, however, completely resolve the issue. Some passages suggest that God does deceive — the deception of Ahab is an example that troubled even John Calvin: 1 Kings 22:20-22 20 And the LORD said, ‘Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?’ “One suggested this, and another that. 21 Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the LORD and said, ‘I will entice him.’ 22 “ ‘By what means?’ the LORD asked. “ ‘I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,’ he said. “ ‘You will succeed in enticing him,’ said the LORD. ‘Go and do it.’” There is an apologetic that suggests that God merely allows us to be deceived about the nature of the world as a mechanism for separating the faithful from the unfaithful. I don’t buy it, but there is an argument.

    (4) The ICR types provide a valuable challenge to settled ways of thinking about secular creationism. The problem is that any evidence of an earth older than 6000 years undercuts their positions. For me, ice cores showing at least 30,000 years of clear annual layering and up to 60,000 years of possible separations between older annual layers suggest that the earth is old and we should understand that young earth accounts are interpreting the Genesis creation stories incorrectly. Radiometric dating might do it for others.

    (5) Ultimately, the point of science is to better understand God’s creation. If the ICR folks can create a coherent cosmology that adequately models the world in a manner superior to the OE models, or even one that works just as well, then more power to them. But the model actually has to work coherently within creation as we actually observe it, not as we wish it were. It follows from this point that even if God created the world 6000 years ago over a literal 24 hour period but made it look really really old, to understand the world as it is we have to use models that comport with an Old Earth theory. If that is true, then it follows that a better understanding of creation is actually leading us away from the truth and therefore away from the nature of God.

  • College Debt Bubble Crisis: 33% Of All Student Loans Are Delinquent On Repayments

    03/31/2015 2:08:00 PM PDT · 17 of 41
    FateAmenableToChange to Smokin' Joe
    I think I would like to see the delinquent percentages broken down by major field of study.

    And we have a winner.

    I have told my children that I will assist them as far as possible with college expenses as long as they can show me a business plan at the beginning of every semester that provides a rational basis for a positive return on investment for their time and my money. They can deconstruct Kafka on their own time.

  • Lombardy, the new Caspian for caviar

    03/25/2015 8:35:06 AM PDT · 14 of 19
    FateAmenableToChange to SAJ

    I didn’t know that, and think it’s really cool in terms of preserving established stocks. Caviar is one of my personal favorites.

  • Lombardy, the new Caspian for caviar

    03/25/2015 8:32:54 AM PDT · 12 of 19
    FateAmenableToChange to JohnnyP


  • Christian Answers to Two Roman Catholic Questions on “Catholic Answers”

    03/24/2015 1:35:47 PM PDT · 26 of 99
    FateAmenableToChange to Jack Black
    For the first 1,500 years Christianity was Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

    Actually, for the first 600 years, the Roman church was only a small part in the great sea of Christendom. Rome's invention of the primacy of the papacy was a late addition to Roman dogma. So if you used lowercase catholicism, it's probably closer to the truth.

    Rome adopted the synod(s) at which the canon was compiled in the 4th centuries, not the other way around. The primacy of the papacy dogma had not been articulated at the time the canon was completed, unless you're also counting the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books added in the counter-Reformation.

    That said, I agree that the Roman church is Christian and the title is offensive. I don't like or agree with the Chick-tracts libels that are applied to the doctrinal differences that arose within European Christendom in the 16th century.

  • Why God Is a Moral Issue (Radical atheism)

    03/23/2015 4:07:19 PM PDT · 11 of 13
    FateAmenableToChange to rusty schucklefurd
    His main argument against the Christian view of God is the existence of human suffering. The writer thinks that is the smoking gun that thwarts all belief in a “good” God.

    Wow. That is an incredibly novel argument. I wonder why no one has ever thought questioning why God allows suffering in His fallen creation before this NYT piece? I mean, that would just shake any person's faith...

    except not. See Job. What's amazing about amateur philosophers like this is that like angst filled college kids, they are convinced that they have come up with an unassailable argument that no one has ever thought of before. It's tiring just dealing with the repetition.

  • Night at The Museum 3

    03/23/2015 12:16:48 PM PDT · 6 of 8
    FateAmenableToChange to Paul46360

    Had to watch it with my kids and didn’t preview it first. Huge mistake. Plot was contrived, characters were flat and unbelievably stupid. Actually Hugh Jackman kind of stole the entire movie with his 3 minute scene.

    The full on face smooch with the monkey grossed me out. The only reason I didn’t turn it off was because I didn’t want to draw their attention to it. On the other hand I did pull the “oh, hey look, it’s almost bedtime, we should fastforward.”

    Terrible movie.

  • Night at The Museum 3

    03/23/2015 12:12:53 PM PDT · 5 of 8
    FateAmenableToChange to Paul46360

    What, the part about his kid holding a rave at his apartment and then only getting told to clean up the mess after?

    The part about the kid telling dad “let’s reboot this conversation [about me going to college]”

    The homoerotic theme between the tiny cowboy and the tiny centurion?

    The even more homoerotic and bestiality based loving kiss between Dexter the Monkey and Larry ?

    Need I go on?

  • Scientists unknowingly tweak experiments (selecting optimal statistical method)

    03/20/2015 1:07:37 PM PDT · 16 of 22
    FateAmenableToChange to exDemMom

    Model selection, or even the choice of nonparametric modeling, is also not cut and dried. People can have honest differences of opinions on these, although I take the article to say that there is a bias in favor of justifying models that get you published (e.g., Hey, look, p=.048 under this model!!).

  • Scientists Take DNA Sample From Woolly Mammoth Leg for Cloning Project

    03/17/2015 2:02:09 PM PDT · 47 of 67
    FateAmenableToChange to jjsheridan5
    One of many reasons that it is hilarious when chickens are advertised as being fed a "vegetarian diet." Fools liberal idiots, but anyone who has ever seen a chicken on the jungle floor knows that they really are little T-Rexes. I doubt they are particularly happy, or healthy, having to subsist solely on plants.

    We keep poultry and occasionally throw a duck carcass out with the chickens. Chickens are like piranha, and there is something intensely predatory about them. Silly, but predatory. A handful of chickens will have a duck carcass picked to the bones within minutes.

  • The melting of Antarctica just got worse, study finds.

    03/17/2015 1:40:30 PM PDT · 82 of 105
    FateAmenableToChange to Sgt_Schultze

    It said the water in the melting trench / tunnel is 1.5 degrees warmer than other water, so it is actually minus 58.5 degrees, not minus 60.

    I’m still pretty convinced that that shouldn’t do much melting, but who am I to know such stuff.

  • An open letter to the homophobic doctor and florist who humiliate LGBT families (Pretzel logic)

    03/12/2015 1:48:59 PM PDT · 5 of 38
    FateAmenableToChange to 2ndDivisionVet

    The stupid in this open letter... it hurts. It hurts my head.

  • Why the government should fund research into finding a replacement for alcohol

    03/06/2015 8:28:20 AM PST · 19 of 30
    FateAmenableToChange to albie
    We already have alternatives to alchohol…Miller Lite and Bud Light. You just won the internet for today.
  • Why Doesn't Someone Invent An Insurance Company That Provides You A List You Choose From ?

    03/05/2015 11:08:15 AM PST · 34 of 40
    FateAmenableToChange to knarf; isthisnickcool

    isthisnickcool’s response is also highly worth reading. The NFIP was a perfect example of why Obamacare couldn’t work.

  • Why Doesn't Someone Invent An Insurance Company That Provides You A List You Choose From ?

    03/05/2015 8:48:21 AM PST · 21 of 40
    FateAmenableToChange to knarf

    Theoretically possible, but the complexity of the actuarial calculations is stunning.

    Remember that insurers make money by creating risk pools, estimating the actuarial risks across those pools, setting premiums at *slightly* above the projected costs to insure and administer those risks, and then investing the revenues until they have to pay out. (I know of one insurer, for instance, that actually for several years in the 1990s priced its disability policies below the market price for the insured risks because it was able to make a profit on investing the premiums).

    The pools are important, and this is what Obamacare is trying to get at. The larger the number of people in the pool, and the more standardized the policy, the easier it is to sell those policies at profit. That’s why Obamacare policies for men include coverage against ovarian cancer and for mammographies, and women have to pay for policies that include screening for prostate cancer. With the larger pools, there are more healthy people (who would often otherwise not buy insurance or would buy only catastrophic insurance) in the pool and fewer actuarial variations that have to be priced out.

    It also involves a moral hazard issue. Under the a la carte plan, the only people who will buy insurance for diabetes, for instance, are people with a history of diabetes in their families or those who are risk averse. The cost to insure that pool will increase until it equals (1) the actual medical cost, discounted to present value, of treating diabetics plus (2) a profit margin and overhead for the insurer. At the theoretical top end of this, it would be cheaper to simply pay out of pocket for treatment because you don’t have to pay for the insurer to get in the mix.

    That’s why insurance for known, necessary expenses is just stupid. Think about hair cuts. Unless you do it yourself or are bald, you need haircuts. We could set up an insurance system to cover those expenses. Assuming the bald and DIYers are permitted to opt out, the only people who will purchase the insurance are those who are likely to need it. So you go to your barber with your hair cut insurance card. The barber used to charge $10 on a cash basis, but now has increased administrative costs to deal with the insurance policies and increased risk of non-collection because insurers suck. The barber will have to increase charges to cover these costs, so your haircut will now cost $15. Additionally, the insurer will have to charge you premiums to cover the expected costs of the haircut ($15) plus its overhead and profit, meaning that your premiums will increase to $20 per haircut that used to cost $10 without insurance.

    Additionally, because of the smaller and more specialized risk pools, with fewer healthy people in the mix to balance out the risk and pay premiums that cost more than their actual risk, the cost of insurance will rise across all risk pools.

    So the long and short of it is that the insurance market simply cannot make it on an a la carte basis because of the moral hazard and actuarial problems it raises.

    The possible responses to this are two-fold. The statist, communitarian response is Obamacare: force everyone into the risk pool. The market solution is self-insurance and catastrophic risk policies. There are actually lots of ways to mix those that may produce a workable market while making sure the stupidest people will still have access to health care. Rezident Zero, of course, chose the absolute worst of all options.