Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $52,930
62%  
Woo hoo!! And we're now over 62%!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by Frumious Bandersnatch

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Could you, as a driver, handle the Autobahn?

    08/14/2014 8:13:50 PM PDT · 64 of 87
    Frumious Bandersnatch to WesternCulture

    Considering that I drove in Saudia for 5 years where anything under 100 mph was unsafe (although driving n Saudia itself is unsafe) I think tha I have at least a chance...

  • Holy Crap: Corruption in the Mississippi Senate race looks much worse than we thought

    06/30/2014 8:48:50 PM PDT · 34 of 152
    Frumious Bandersnatch to Viennacon

    If this is tha same Charles Johnson from LGF, I’d be very leery of the source and get independent confirmation direst.

  • FALLING AWAY FROM GOD'S GRACE

    06/03/2014 10:04:32 PM PDT · 126 of 129
    Frumious Bandersnatch to Cvengr

    One of the greatest gifts of God is the freedom of choice. Control, as it were, over our own decisions in life. Whether to do good or evil.

    A person who becomes an alcoholic has given up much of their God-given freedom in order to satisfy base desires. Thus allowing Satan to have that much more influence and control over him.

  • FALLING AWAY FROM GOD'S GRACE

    06/03/2014 10:00:13 PM PDT · 125 of 129
    Frumious Bandersnatch to PieterCasparzen

    Well, since we know that an angel, Lucifer fell from the grace of God, I don’t see how we are exempt.

    I think we will be judged by our thoughts and actions at the end of our lives. It is difficult to see how it could be otherwise.

    I do admit that without Christ’s sacrifice, all we do would be for naught.

    But if we do nothing are we worthy of his sacrifice and thus his grace?

    I think not. I believe those who claim otherwise make but a mockery of his existence.

    However, to paraphrase Queen Elizabeth I, there is only one Jesus Christ. The rest is detail.

  • FALLING AWAY FROM GOD'S GRACE

    05/26/2014 10:26:52 PM PDT · 29 of 129
    Frumious Bandersnatch to SADMILLIE

    Then what would you say to the likes of Stalin? At one time he was a seminarian, which argues very strongly he was saved.

    Personally, I feel that one can tell from a person’s actions whether or not they are saved.

  • Saudi Court Orders Two Thieves' Hands Cut Off

    05/09/2014 9:27:16 PM PDT · 26 of 28
    Frumious Bandersnatch to Cementjungle

    I new an American 18 year kid, who, about 3 years or so ago who was convicted of stealing gold from a neighbor and selling it in the Gold Souk. They kicked him out of the kingdom.

    He left the kingdom with all body parts he had entered it with.

    Unless they have changed the laws recently, removing hands (which I was done surgically, not by sword as has been implied). Has been illegal in Saudia for at least 10 years.

    I know that the Muttawa have been trying to get this changed, but I haven’t yet heard that they had been successful.

    Of course, if this sentence was indeed handed down as written, it wouldn’t be the first time that a Sharia court abused their status in the kingdom.

    Saudis have the right, however, to appeal directly to the king, so odds are that this will be overturned and the imams making such ha decision chastised for embarrassing the king.

    Not a good thing to embarrass the king in Saudia

  • Saudi Court Orders Two Thieves' Hands Cut Off

    05/09/2014 9:09:52 PM PDT · 24 of 28
    Frumious Bandersnatch to Sacajaweau

    The title of the article indicated the amputation is to be done in Sausia. Mthe video link indicates Mogadishu.

    Mogadishu is not in Saudia. I seriously doubt that this would be done in Saudia. Unless their laws have changed in the last 9 months. It has been illegal for quite a number of years to take off hands in the kingdom.

    So my question for you, are you talking of Saudia, and if you are, have tha laws changed in tha last 9 months?

  • Saudi Court Orders Two Thieves' Hands Cut Off

    05/09/2014 4:44:14 PM PDT · 13 of 28
    Frumious Bandersnatch to nickcarraway

    This sounds very suspicious to me. Unless they have changed their laws in the last nine months, the cutting off the hand punishment is bogus.

  • Moses' Egyptian Name

    02/13/2014 5:21:38 PM PST · 26 of 26
    Frumious Bandersnatch to gleeaikin

    I basically agree with the chronology (not nexessarily with the Reed sea,etc., because that is just supposition and I just don’t plain know).

    However, my biggest beef with many Egyptologists is that while the know there are discrepancies between dating per the Pentateuch and dating per Egyptian dynasties, the always make the assumption that the Egyptian version is correct, whereas there is plenty of evidence tha we don’t yet have Egyptian timelines nailed down yet.

    And yes, I believe that there is good evidence that it was the Hyksos who took advantage of a situation that has puzzled Egyptologists for a,LNG time.

    Oh yes, indeedy if Rameses had been the king, he would also would have been the chief bug squasher. I havee my doubts that he would have been stupid enough to follow the Israelites into what was clearly a trap.

  • Why December 25?

    12/18/2013 3:06:32 PM PST · 53 of 53
    Frumious Bandersnatch to stormhill

    Think youuu.

    Ya gotta admit that Lewis Carrol’s poetry makes a whole lot more sense than the POTUS

  • Why December 25?

    12/17/2013 3:47:52 PM PST · 27 of 53
    Frumious Bandersnatch to Vaquero

    Very likely. Not, of course all that important when we celebrate as long as we do. I did see a presentation once that made a good case that the star shining on Bethlehem that led the wise men there was on December 25.

    But whatever...

  • ‘Moderate’ muslims…a non-existent politically correct fabrication of the left

    12/11/2013 3:10:31 PM PST · 34 of 34
    Frumious Bandersnatch to bunkerhill7

    Uh huh. The entire country of Bahrain consists of around 1,000,000 citizens.

    While Islam is the dominant religion over there (at least, officially), there are plenty of other religions over there besides just Muslim and Catholic. A Muslim friend of mine estimated that ove 90% of current citizens are expats. There is a huge Hindi contingent over there too.

    To be fair, I did not the Catholics had such a big presence. That can probably be put down directly to the Portugese occupation of the place a couple hundred years ago.

  • ‘Moderate’ muslims…a non-existent politically correct fabrication of the left

    12/09/2013 6:54:46 PM PST · 32 of 34
    Frumious Bandersnatch to bunkerhill7

    Also, in Bahrain, it is quite common to see Muslim women going around in western clothing. There is no segregation of the sexes there either.

    There Christian churches there, at least one Jewish community center (and a Jewish cometary) as well as an assortment of Mosques. Also life didn’t stop during prayer time.

    But Saudi Arabia and Bahrain are the only two Arabic states that I have any personal experience with.

  • ‘Moderate’ muslims…a non-existent politically correct fabrication of the left

    12/09/2013 6:20:54 PM PST · 30 of 34
    Frumious Bandersnatch to bunkerhill7

    Admittedly not many, maybe a half dozen or so, although at least one of them, the wife of a local Sheik, I talked with many times many times in both private and public. She never went covered that I saw and she wasn’t the only one.

    Although fairly rare, it wasn’t all that unusual to see Saudi women going around in public with only the head scarf and Abaya. No Hijab (veil).

    Believe me, you’ve been misinformed on this issue. If you trespass into a women’s area, you can be arrested, but typically, they only kick you out

  • ‘Moderate’ muslims…a non-existent politically correct fabrication of the left

    12/09/2013 6:04:35 PM PST · 28 of 34
    Frumious Bandersnatch to bunkerhill7

    And also a bunch of bull.. Someone is totally pulling your leg on this one.

    There are women all over the place outside and in malls. If your story we’re true, they’d have to arrest every male in Saudia.

  • ‘Moderate’ muslims…a non-existent politically correct fabrication of the left

    12/09/2013 11:13:13 AM PST · 25 of 34
    Frumious Bandersnatch to bunkerhill7

    Apples and oranges man. Also a lot of strawmen here.

    You go to a country, you obey their laws, whether you agree with those laws or not. The fact that some extremists here break the law is no excuse.
    Period.

    The fact that they don’t observe Chrismas has NOTHING to do with the matter. They DO let others worship privately. As I and many many others can attest.

    I’m afraid that you don’ understand how things work over there. For example,their religious police CANNOT arrest anybody for any infraction WHATSOEVER and haven’t had this ability for years. Only the regular police have this ability and they only do it when they are forced to go around with the Muttawa. But I can tell you that they hate doing it.

    If a Muttawa tells you to do something and he doesn’t have a police escort, you can ignore them and there is nothing they can do about it. You can eve refuse (and should) refuse to get into a minivan of morality.

    Saudia officially has about 200 murders in the entire country per year (the number is probably (higher). Rapes are rare enough that when one happens, it is major news over there.

    How does that compare to Chicago?

    FYI, sharia law , as practiced in Saudia, is a whole lot different than in other countries. And while the courts are run by the Imams, there is quite a body of secular laws having nothing to do with ANY religion in effect is Saudia.

    As fare as wanting it all their way, I call B.S. On that one. Most Saudis don’t care one way or the other as to what religion you belong to, or what you do privately.

    Believe it or not, there is no theocracy over there, at least in the accepted sense of the term. It is a very secular state. They don’t worship their rulers (though they are venerated). There is an amazingly high degree of freedom of speech (don’t dis the Koran, ask about their wives or show disdain for the country. That is pretty much it).

    And they must be doing something right. Auto insurance was less than $400 per year for me. And this is in a country that has the world’s craziest drivers and one of the highest death rates by car. BTW, that rate covered the car. Which meant that whoever drove it was covered also.

  • ‘Moderate’ muslims…a non-existent politically correct fabrication of the left

    12/08/2013 10:46:43 PM PST · 22 of 34
    Frumious Bandersnatch to bunkerhill7

    If your stories about the U.A.E. are as accurate as your story about the bible shredding in Saudia, then you are full of condensed beans.

    I never had any problem with it and yes I did transport my family’s personal scriptures (up to 6 sets) to and from Saudia over the years. If the Saudis think that you are bringing in bibles to proselyte, they will confiscate them and possibly deport you. But lashes? Extremely unlikely to happen. And DID not happen in 2012!!! Period. Even if the bibles were confiscated, the claim that they were destroyed by shredding is not verifiable by eye witness accounts.

    I repeat, Christians have no problem getting scriptures over their for their own personal use. Lashing for having a quantity of bibles is NOT the punishment given to foreigners. Deportation is.

    As far as the minister proselytizing in the UA.E. Is concerned, it is against their laws and the minister was not ignorant of it. While you might not like the law, it behooves you, as a guest, to respect such laws while residing in said country. Otherwise, how can you honestly expect them to respect our laws when they are over here?

    As for rape, murders, etc., there are more in Chicago each year than in Saudia and probably more than in the U.A.E. too. Mote, meet beam.

    If the Al Jouf incident is the same one I’m thinking of, then it was totally misrepresented in the western press. What actually happened was that the Muttawa raided a private religious observance of the sabbath held by Sudanese Christians and had them deported before they could be hauled before the sharia court where they would have had to be acquitted according to Saudi law. The Arab News made a big stink about this at the time.

    But it is not illegal to celebrate Christmas in Saudia. You can’t buy Christmas ornaments around Christmas time and the Muttawa do try to crack down on the practice. But we bought our first artificial tree over there from a street vendor in Riyadh. We bought a better one the next year from Manama, where even the Muslims openly celebrate Christmas.

    We even had Christmas lights festooning the outside of our villa (a common practice amongst Westerners over there BTW) with no problems.

    I’m not saying that there are not any,problems, by any means, but the amount of misinformation I here back in the states about that area is absolutely astounding.

  • ‘Moderate’ muslims…a non-existent politically correct fabrication of the left

    12/07/2013 2:57:27 PM PST · 20 of 34
    Frumious Bandersnatch to bunkerhill7

    The Koran contains the Books of Moses (although they are somewhat different from tha accepted Christian canon).

    Yes there are stonings, rape and murder, but none that is condoned by the government. Also, there are only about 200 murders a year in all of Saudia. How does that compare to LA.? Rapes are rare enough, that it is major news when it happens there. Honor killings happen, but in the 5 years I was there, I only heard of one being committed.

    Typically, governmental punishment of crimes over there consists of imprisonment, whipping or (in the case of capital crimes) beheading. Oh yes. The most common one is banishment.

    Why were the British tourists thrown intor prison? Firstly, the story sounds kind of fishy, because Saudia doesn’t have a tourist industry. Thy do have visas for Muslims going to Hajj or Umrah and they have business visas and they do let relatives of foreigners visit, but that is,about it, except those who qualify for the Iquama foe work purposes.

  • ‘Moderate’ muslims…a non-existent politically correct fabrication of the left

    12/07/2013 10:28:04 AM PST · 13 of 34
    Frumious Bandersnatch to bunkerhill7

    Moses is a prophet revered by Islam.

    I agree that there are a lot of idiots in Islam. But I just came back from Saudi Arabia in July, where I had lived for over 5 years. And I can state with absolute certainty, from personal experience, that the cluelessness on this thread approaches that of our esteemed president

  • Bahrain: Security Forces Detaining Children

    09/17/2013 11:23:01 PM PDT · 6 of 6
    Frumious Bandersnatch to skinkinthegrass

    I lived in Saudi Arabia for over 5 years. In fact, I just got back from there in July. Quite often I and my family would spend holidays 2 to 3 times a year in Bahrain. It is a nice place about a 5 hour drive from Riyadh. In fact it felt like being back in the USA again.

    Religious worship of various faiths is open and accepted there. There are at least 2 Catholic cathedrals there, as well as a whole host of other faiths, including Judaism (there is also a Jewish cemetery and a cultural center in Manama).

    In point of fact, Christmas is openly celebrated there even by the Muslims.

    Given all of this, I would suggest that the info being fed tou you by these activists is somewhat suspect. Consider also the nasty, and untrue things they have said about the US.

  • The Catholic League: MSNBC OUTDOES NEW YORK TIMES

    08/30/2011 2:35:09 PM PDT · 3 of 10
    Frumious Bandersnatch to NYer
    I am no Catholic, nor do I hold any brief for Catholicism (having a different set of religious beliefs myself, this is not too hard to understand). However, one thing I've learned over the years, is that if I want to learn more about Catholic beliefs, I go to the Catholics, not their enemies (personally, I've found the official Catholic website to be a veritable wealth of info).
    Also, I'd say to those who would trash leaders of another sect to first look into the mirror. As the master would be say, "Let he who is perfect cast the first stone."
  • Rick Perry Needn't Sweat His Global Warming Skepticism

    08/30/2011 2:02:17 PM PDT · 25 of 88
    Frumious Bandersnatch to Paradox

    Well there is certainly a whole lot of evidence available as well as uncertainty of what that evidence means. It seems to me the High Priests of Global Warming are actually more the deniers than the sceptics.

  • EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed

    11/06/2007 7:03:08 PM PST · 206 of 271
    Frumious Bandersnatch to edsheppa
    Oh but he did. The Coyoteman tried to change it to a scientific discussion. He also posed it as an evolution vs. ID debate. Rather than defend any of his assumptions, he presented them as dogma without any logical debate.

    Plus, he was a bit guilty of being somewhate selective of his facts concerning the debates in the19th and 20th centuries. But all of that was beside the point, because it had nothing to do with the logic of the underlying assertion. It was all noise and had no logical point to the challenge I offered.

    I grant you that he tried to use induction, but not very effectively. Besides, he is a three exclamation point evolutionists, and therefore is disqualified from using anything other than deduction (because he disallows it automatically from IDers).
  • EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed

    11/06/2007 6:53:41 PM PST · 203 of 271
    Frumious Bandersnatch to js1138
    This is all true, but besides the point. A logical device addresses the method and affects the outcome. IOW, a conclusion may or not may be correct, even though the logic may be.

    What I'm addressing here is the fact that an assertion stated as scientific fact should logically be a closed loop. If a position cannot be put in logical terms that can be easily understood and makes logical sense, then either the subject matter is not known well enough or the conclusions are incorrect.

    All I'm trying to do is get those who believe in one side or another to put up or shut up on their logic. Thus far, I've either gotten people who want to rewrite the rules or go into what-if scenarios which have little to do with the problem at hand.

    Tis simple enough, really. Just using deduction, induction and Occam's razor, justify your position. That's not all that hard to understand (though it may be difficult to do).

    Once a logical justification has been formulated, then we can critically examine it to see if it holds water. To this point, no one on either side has successfully made a reasonable defense.
  • EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed

    11/03/2007 11:42:03 PM PDT · 94 of 271
    Frumious Bandersnatch to raygun
    The entire idea of this exercise is that we are not discussing whether or not ID is scientific. Rather, we are discussing whether or not it is logical. True, deduction cannot be used in proving the logic or illogic of ID, but induction can.

    As for your statement that it is untrue that a rational reason needs to be offered for disbelief (I'm assuming you are talking of a logical discussion here), that is not necessarily so, since every disbelief can be couched in terms of belief. In fact, by implication we can see this is so, since a disbelief simply is a belief to the contrary of a given position.

    I'm not addressing here the lack of belief one way or another.

    In a logical debate, the burden of proof is always on the person making the assertive statement regardless of that statement being positive or negative. Traditionally, the first person in a debate makes such an assertion and opponents challenge it, followed by his defense, etc. This formula hasn't been followed generally in recent history unfortunately IMHO. I do believe, though, that we are talking of the same thing, just using slightly different terminology.

    But again, this is not about science, per se. Rather, it is a challenge to both sides of the debate to logically prove their points either for or against ID. The reason for this, is that many in the scientific community (Dawkins included) believe that ID is a superstition while those on the side of ID believe that such anti-IDers are being close-minded. Both sides feel that the other is being unscientific, so it is useless to apply to that overbroad brush to determine the issue.

    Rather, I have set up a challenge wherein logic only is to be used. I have stated before and will probably do so again that logic is only a part of science, but if a position cannot be explained logically, it is either not well understood or false.

    So, given that, it should be reasonable to suppose that the logicalness of a position should be able to be established, more especially since this debate has raged on for 150 years or so.

    Also, I might point out that those adhering to ID have such a wide-ranging set of opinions, to assume that ID must necessarily be separated from evolution in an "either-or" position is not a tenable solution.

    And herein lies a problem for the anti-IDers. Because they tend to equate all IDers with those whose belief system does preclude evolution, they have ignored those who don't, thus invalidating their generally accepted dictums.

    In fact, they refuse to address such issues. Just as they refuse to address the fact that they do accept design, just not the designer.

    This is merely a logical exercise. I say "merely" but can attest to the fact that it aint easy for either side.

    The standards of evidence should apply equally to both sides. If one side is not allowed to use inductive reasoning because of it's uncertain nature, then neither is the other side. IOW, if one side is not allowed to use an argument or a tool because it is not falsifiable, neither is the other side. I would suggest that both IDers and anti-IDers be careful is what arguments they will and won't allow in such a discussion, because they are bound by the same rules. If not thought through carefully, it could get messy right quick.

    Lead on McDuff...
  • Italy: Film condemned as 'concerted attack on Catholicism'

    11/03/2007 10:57:13 PM PDT · 80 of 81
    Frumious Bandersnatch to RobbyS
    True, in many ways about the Henry Tudor, less true about Elizabeth. Henry was a very adroit politician who had his eye more on winning the war than any particular battle and he seemed to prefer the velvet glove more than the iron hand (although he wasn't all that hesitant about using the iron hand, either).

    Elizabeth, OTOH, felt that her safety rested in the goodwill of the common people (a rather radical notion for the day) and was very adroit politician. She was also a good judge of people and surrounded herself with those who were very able. One of her ablest prime ministers, for example, came from the opposition party.
  • Italy: Film condemned as 'concerted attack on Catholicism'

    11/02/2007 11:23:00 AM PDT · 63 of 81
    Frumious Bandersnatch to RobbyS

    The Estates General were supported by the English when the Spanish used heavy-handed tactics in their rule. While England ultimately lost there, her actions help considerably in freeing a good portion of the Netherlands from Spanish rule. I believe that Ben Jonson met the champion of the Spanish army in personal combat and won.

  • Italy: Film condemned as 'concerted attack on Catholicism'

    11/02/2007 10:22:02 AM PDT · 59 of 81
    Frumious Bandersnatch to RobbyS

    Sorry, my fat fingering is wrong. I meant that England and Spain have been natural allies whilst England and France have been natural enemies throughout history. The exception to this is during the reign of Elizabeth I, things switched around due, in great part, to Spanish meddling in the Lowlands, France, England, Ireland and Scotland.

  • EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed

    11/02/2007 9:45:08 AM PDT · 46 of 271
    Frumious Bandersnatch to js1138
    Again, you miss the point. Explain logically please. Why is ID logically invalid? You claim it is a tautological argument, but without giving logical validation. That's a premise, or at the very least, an assertion. Without logical backup, it is also a "trust me" statement. Sorry, I don't buy that.

    While your argument about ID having to be discussed within the context of evolution as a whole *may* be logically valid (I don't know, there are some logical holes in your projections of evolutionism vs ID and I haven't looked into this aspect of it very much), it still doesn't address the issue of the validity of ID. Dismissing out of hand is not only logically absurd, it is not very scientific, either.

    In your previous post, you implied that it is either a case of evolution or ID, but not both. If that is what you meant, then this post is a non-sequiter. Indeed, it appears that the question has been begged as in this post you admit the design but deny the designer. Forgive me for using biblical terms, but this is equivalent to straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.

    Even though you don't say so, it appears that you have conceded the fact that you can't logically prove that it has to be either ID or evolution. And you do this by recasting the entire question as a meaningless exercise.

    This is disappointing, but again, not unexpected. The entire point of this exercise it to be able to logically defend your position. Making logically unsupported assertions and dogmatic "trust me" statements do not logically invalidate ID.

    Surely you can do better than that?
  • Political Processes Matter (Hillary on "Process")

    11/02/2007 9:12:23 AM PDT · 6 of 19
    Frumious Bandersnatch to imd102

    Sniff sniff. Ahhh. Nothing like the odor of BDS in the morning.

  • EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed

    11/02/2007 9:03:59 AM PDT · 44 of 271
    Frumious Bandersnatch to js1138
    The problem here, is that you are offering an apples and oranges argument. Evolution is not the issue in discussion here. ID is.

    My challenge was to those holding to either side to logically validate their positions. Attempting to discredit ID by presenting an argument for and in behalf of evolution is a strawman. In order for that argument to be logically valid, then you have to assume that your premise, evolution and ID are polar opposites, is true. Any such assumptions, themselves, must be supported logically. That is the name of the game.

    So your task, if you believe that proving ID automatically disproves evolution is to show how, logically, believing in one automatically generates disbelief in the other. Then you have to show how evolution is logically valid and ID is logically invalid.

    Since I believe that you are doomed to be foresworn in trying to logically prove your premise, would it not be better to concede that point? That way, you are relieved of the responsibility of logically validating your premise and evolution and are only left with the problem of logically invalidating ID.

    Granted, that logic alone does not actually prove or disprove a position. But a proven position should be able to be logically defended. Otherwise, the position is not valid or not very well understood.
  • Rumors halt donations to Brentwood family

    11/02/2007 7:54:42 AM PDT · 9 of 19
    Frumious Bandersnatch to SmithL

    Maybe they are innocent, maybe they aint. You can’t help but be suspicious since every one of these style of incidents over the last few years has proven to be bunk.

  • Wednesday Cable Ratings: Olbermann in the tank - again

    11/02/2007 7:50:01 AM PDT · 25 of 35
    Frumious Bandersnatch to HD1200

    I’ve heard Rush put this in perspective. He has basically indicated that those who are mean spirited and small minded tend to fail.

  • Democrats must avoid Hillary

    11/02/2007 7:41:41 AM PDT · 20 of 29
    Frumious Bandersnatch to rface

    While the author may be right about Hillary, his BDS is showing - big time. I agree that the Republicans seem to be pretty corrupt. It is just that they are mere amateurs compared to the Dems (I’m talking of the leadership here)>

  • Issue of Illegal Immigration Is Quandary for Democrats

    11/02/2007 7:36:55 AM PDT · 14 of 64
    Frumious Bandersnatch to 3AngelaD

    Of course. It is ironic that the author of this piece was “Staff writer Hsu.” Wonder if he contributed anything more substantive?

  • Italy: Film condemned as 'concerted attack on Catholicism'

    11/02/2007 7:31:20 AM PDT · 25 of 81
    Frumious Bandersnatch to vladimir998
    Are you mixing up the Holy Inquisition with the Spanish one? While it was true that guilt was not a foregone conclusion, even in the Spanish Inquisition, the burden of proof was on the accused, not on the accuser (this is the standard generally still applied in the world today). Therefore, the Inquisition assumed the accused was guilty until proven otherwise (similar to feminist study program in the U.S. today).

    And while your chances of being put to death were small in the Inquisiton, imprisonment (which was not considered a punishment) and torture were not.
  • Italy: Film condemned as 'concerted attack on Catholicism'

    11/02/2007 6:47:07 AM PDT · 10 of 81
    Frumious Bandersnatch to FrogBurger
    I've not seen the movie, so I can't address that (I tend to be sympathetic for religious victims of film makers), but the fear of the of the Spanish Inquisition was very real in England during Elizabeth's time.

    It is doubtful that Elizabeth would have sanctioned privateers to carry out an "unofficial war" against Spain if neither spain nor the vatican had not intrigued against England constantly.

    Pope Sixtus' comments here were rather enlightening.

    The French treatment of their protestants (see St. Bartholomew's day massacre) was horrifying to the English mind. But as far as interferring with French politics, Elizabeth did less interfering than King Philip did. In fact, for a time, France (a natural enemy of England) became allied with England against Spain (a natural ally).

    The trial of Mary Stewart certainly had it's moments, but was a lot fairer than many caught up in the Spanish Inquisition (and some in the Holy Inquisition). It is a truism that Elizabeth was reluctant to act against her cousin and did so very reluctantly when Mary was so foolish as to reveal just what an idiot she really was (of course, she had already shown that when she was ruled Scotland).

    Now, as I've said, I've not seen the movie, so I am only addressing the critic's remarks and am indicating that his history statements seem to be somewhat slanted too.
  • 'Parent report card' proposal draws national attention, local opposition

    11/02/2007 6:30:58 AM PDT · 14 of 28
    Frumious Bandersnatch to Blue Turtle

    As B.B. would say “What a maroon.”

  • Beer After Exercise May Be Better Than Water, Study Finds

    11/02/2007 6:28:27 AM PDT · 26 of 77
    Frumious Bandersnatch to Kimmers

    LOL, sounds like a vicious circle. Exercising to get rid of beer gut, then drinking beer afterwards.

  • EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed

    11/02/2007 6:06:11 AM PDT · 37 of 271
    Frumious Bandersnatch to dirtboy; RussP
    Too true. There is to much sound and not enough enlightenment in the debate.

    This is why I requested that both sides logically present their cases. I was please when Coyoteman accepted my challenge, but disappointed when he tried to change the rules after failing to make the grade.

    It is no shame to fail. Heck, I do it all the time. After all, it is not easy to come up with a logically supportable solution. It rarely is in science. It took me many a year to come up with a logical solution and I'm continually refining it and testing it.
  • Online Crooks Target Macs With Porn Ruse (Apple)

    11/02/2007 5:56:42 AM PDT · 23 of 24
    Frumious Bandersnatch to esoxmagnum
    LOL, perhaps you do not understand sarcasm (of course it may be my bad for not using the /sarcasm tag).

    As for games, there are tons for the Mac. Now I'm not going to get into a war about this, that or the other thing, but I've used wintel, MacOS, Linux, VAXen and quite a few others.

    I run Linux and Mac at home (I have a son who has a windows XP machine).

    But if you want to get into case points, the most secure popular system commercially (which is extant) is VMS, bar none. The least expensive commercial system overall (TCO, if you care to know) is Mac (Linux may actually be cheaper, but I don't think that you can really call that commercial). The most popular is Windows.

    I agree with your opinion on Al Gore. It was indeed a boner of a stunt for Jobs to go all so political. But he has a habit of doing boneheaded things (such as not opening up the IPhone to multiple providers at the get-go).

    This is not to excuse him or anything, but before giving Apple the cold shoulder, perhaps we should take a closer look at the Bill & Melissa Gates foundation first.
  • EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed

    11/01/2007 10:38:13 PM PDT · 28 of 271
    Frumious Bandersnatch to Coyoteman
    You got it backwards. I asked you to give a logical explanation. Not only do you *not* do this, you also continue to break the rules by using argumentum ad-hominum. You also refuse to give a logical validation of your premises.

    Again, you are assuming that Darwinism is science and ID is not. These are premises for which you have yet to give logical support for.

    If you wish to continue play this game, please do so by the rules (which I thought you agreed to when you indicated that my challenge was "Fair enough").

    Since it now appears that you are a three exclamation point evolutionist, I would suggest that you either have to logically prove the fallacy of ID or accept the fact that your's is merely a religious belief. Of course, you could concede the point and admit ID has validity. Yeah, and it could snow here in the valley in the next five minutes too - but I doubt it. If you are not a three exclamation pointer, then you still need to show your points by, at the very least, induction.

    It is off topic a bit, but I did not actually state that Darwinism is a religion, though it certainly could be. Or, to put it another way a faith-based belief.

    I have to admit though, that this response of yours, though disappointing, is not entirely unexpected. First you agree to logically show ID is a bunch of bunk. Then when you will not (or cannot), you change the rules of the game and say that it up to me to show whether or not ID is scientifically valid.

    Sorry, but that is a cop-out and is not intellectually honest. First, this is a logical exercise as I've indicated time and again. Second, you were supposed to be able to defend yourself logically.

    Instead, you hide behind a sophism. This is not about whether or not I can or even desire to defend ID.

    If you can't or don't know how to develop a logical construct to support your position, just admit it. That would be, at the very least, honest. Such an admission wouldn't be to your discredit either. Such a logical answer is not easy to come up with, by either side. I seriously doubt that many people could. Certainly not Dawkins who seems to be more interested in shutting down debate than answering uncomfortable questions.

    To be taken seriously, you need to come up with a logical explanation as the linchpin of your argument. This especially important since evolutionism uses many hypotheses regularly which haven't met the tests that you postulate are needed for the acceptance of ID (e.g. Open and Closed Darwinian paths). BTW, I merely used the Darwinian paths to make my point about common use of constructs within evolution which are neither falsifiable nor testable. I did not do it as a critique on the tools themselves. That is beside beside the point since we are doing a logical only analysis.
  • JOHN R. CHRISTY: My Nobel Moment (2007 Nobel Peace Prize)

    11/01/2007 10:05:26 PM PDT · 8 of 16
    Frumious Bandersnatch to neverdem

    Sasha!!!

  • Online Crooks Target Macs With Porn Ruse (Apple)

    11/01/2007 9:58:49 PM PDT · 15 of 24
    Frumious Bandersnatch to Grizzled Bear

    I’m a Mac user. Just one question. What’s a virus?

  • EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed

    11/01/2007 9:44:08 PM PDT · 25 of 271
    Frumious Bandersnatch to Coyoteman
    Sorry, but you have not logically made your case. Please *logically* show (through deduction, induction and Occam's razor) why ID is invalid. Justify logically, for example, just why ID is merely a religious premise while Darwinian paths are not. Your second paragraph doesn't hold together logically either. It can be shown, for example, that scientific observation and experimentation alone can't account for all phenomona in the natural world (e.g. hunches, intuition). For that matter, one could get into an argument on what makes up the natural world, but that is not logically germane to the argument.

    ID being tossed from schools is beside the point. None of your arguments can deductively show that ID is a non-starter.

    By it's very definition science *must* be wrong more often than not (a thing called "trial and error"). As time goes on, we (hopefully) improve our understanding, but make many more mistakes than we achieve successes. Its the name of the game. The only problem here is that scientists, like anyone else, can be quite dogmatic in support of their beliefs and pet theories.

    One could also discuss the many debates between creationists and anti-creationists in the late 19th and early 20th centuries wherein the antis got thoroughly trounced. But all that is beside the point.

    Using the logical constructs indicated, show that ID is a non-starter. Given all the facts we have available to us, show that evolution is *not* ID based. So far all that has been given is open-ended logic. There are too many holes in your presentation. You have a premise that ID is a religious belief, which it well may be, but much the same could be said of evolution also (after all, atheism, itself is a religious belief). Certainly the tactics used by Dawkins, et al are similar in certain aspects to the tactics used by a certain anti-war Baptist church or Code Pink to shut down debate.

    All premises (as I've said before) need to also be justified logically. Therefore your premise that ID is invalid because it is religious based needs to be logically validated. For that matter, the assumption that ID is merely religious based also needs to be examined by you.

    All you've shown thus far are side issues that have little or nothing to do with the logic of your position. Believe me, I'm not flaming you on your beliefs on this. I just want you to show me logically your position. Please. I do wish to know, just to see how strong your arguments are from a logical standpoint.

    This is a far harder exercise than you might imagine - for both sides of the debate. First, you have to strip all ad-hominum from the debate (which you didn't quite succeed with your comments about the Discovery Institute as well as ID being sneaked back into schools). Then you need to take the claims of ID, which can be boiled down to "Something or someone was responsible for creating the universe" and show, logically that this is fallacious. If you use "ID" and "Creationism" as synonyms, then you must show that the IDers are homogeneous in their beliefs. To top it all off, your logic must be bullet-proof (if using deduction) or probable (if using induction) and explained so that any layman can understand.

    Frankly, I don't envy you the task, for I think that it is promethean in it's scope.
  • State Department Replacements

    11/01/2007 8:27:13 PM PDT · 11 of 12
    Frumious Bandersnatch to Grams A

    Wow. Talk about a slap in the face to the whiny weenies! That said, there are plenty of foreign service personnel who are brave enough. My brother has served three tours in Iraq - two as a soldier and one as a member of the foreign service.

  • EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed

    11/01/2007 8:19:02 PM PDT · 22 of 271
    Frumious Bandersnatch to Socratic
    It is true that generally accepted facts can sometimes be misleading (which is why I pointed out the "barking dog" as an example of inductive reasoning). However, we do the best we can with what we have. Sometimes we don't have enough information and don't know it. Thing is, my example of deduction is pretty solid, because we know all the relevant information. Deduction is used quit often in science and math.

    The point of this entire exercise is to show the logical basis of the anti-IDers vs IDers (note that I didn't say anything about evolution. The debate is between those who say ID is suitable for scientific discussion and those who oppose this worldview).

    A hint. Neither side can support their positions through deductive analysis. I just threw that in there because those who are three exclamation point posters (evolutionists!!! and IDers!!!) have only two options. Either they must prove their point through the use of deduction, or they are involved in a faith-based belief system.

    So, anyone who says that ID is false or has no scientific validity or that ID is absolutely true must back themselves through the use of deduction or risk being tagged as religious cults.

    OTOH, anyone who is not so dogmatic is free to use deduction, induction and Occam's razor to their heart's content to make their points.
  • EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed

    11/01/2007 8:00:32 PM PDT · 19 of 271
    Frumious Bandersnatch to Socratic
    Also, your question about whether the earth revolved around the earth more than once in a year is a strawman since, by definition, a year consists of one revolution (except in the case of Bolivia, which has more).

    Let us leave out the "what ifs" and logical fallacies please. Too often there are those who are willing to manipulate the facts to fit their worldview (i.e. MSM). Please don't fall into that trap.
  • EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed

    11/01/2007 7:50:43 PM PDT · 17 of 271
    Frumious Bandersnatch to Socratic
    When you change the facts around as you do, the underlying assumption, of course, changes. Given the facts that I gave you, then it an absolute certainty I was correct. The underlying assumptions, in this case, were that you understood that twelve months equals one year and that January comes before June in the hierarchy of months. Furthermore, the concept of "birthday" is generally well understood to mean the anniversary of the date of one's birth. While the way we count birthdays has changed (we used to speak of a 13 year-old as being in his 14th year), the sequential nature of them has not.

    I gave an example to show the use of deduction. Without changing the facts around or the generally acceptable underlying assumptions which I made, can you show that I did not use deductive reasoning?
  • EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed

    11/01/2007 7:22:28 PM PDT · 13 of 271
    Frumious Bandersnatch to Coyoteman
    I see that you start with the same premise as that which IDers decry. Try this on for size, if you can't logically explain your position using deduction, induction and Occam's razor to the common layman, either your position is faulty or you don't understand your subject well enough.

    Now I will be the first to agree that logic is not the be all and end all of science. There is more to science than that. But illogic has no place in scientific thinking.

    Therefore, I ask you to *logically* explain your position about ID without resorting to argumentum ad hominum or question begging premises (circular logic). Any assumptions will, of course, have to be logically shown to be valid for the purposes of this discussion.

    Since this is a logical exercise, then any falsifiability or testability arguments either for or against ID must be waived, since it must be conceded that both sides have problems in this regard. IOW, if a point is made using either of these arguments it is to be assumed that logic is being sidestepped, therefore the point is invalid.

    A word to the wise. Be very careful about relying overmuch on "scientific evidence." Scientists seem to be wrong more often than not. As an example, I give you the evidence on climate change, which has flip-flopped at least four times in the last century - each time, the consensus of scientific opinion was absolutely certain they were correct.

    Remember, this not a full-blown scientific enquiry, only an exercise in logic. The main purpose for suggesting this logical exercise is to let both sides see the logical strengths and weaknesses of their respective positions. This is not designed to get people to change their minds (since it obviously won't do that), but it will force people to give reasonable apologia for their positions (something I wish our politicians would do).

    For those who don't understand the logical rules I have stated, deduction is something you can absolutely show is true from the available facts (e.g. if a girl was 14 in January of 2006, then in June of 2007, it can be shown conclusively that she had passed her 15th birthday), induction is drawing reasonable conclusions with a high probability of accuracy without knowing absolutely for sure from the given facts (if a dog inside a house doesn't bark during a burglary, then it is reasonable to assume an inside job. However, there are burglars who have a way with animals, such that dogs won't bark at them. So while the odds are that it is an inside job, it is not conclusively so) and Occam's razor basically states that the simplest explanation that fits the facts is the answer you are looking for.

    So, using the tools of deduction, induction and Occam's razor, en evant mes enfants. Let the games begin.