worth

Today is the 66th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.


Discussion (89)¬

  1. Shaughn says:

    “Wenn ich Kultur höre … entsichere ich meinen Browning”

  2. philfinn7 says:

    Hans Johst.

  3. white+squirrel says:

    The final panel lacks an exploding irony meter- I demand you redraw it

  4. Plainsuch says:

    … and everyone knows that cultural imperialism is worse than cult imperialism.

  5. hotrats says:

    The critic Malcolm Muggeridge, on hearing Hanns Johst’s philistine dictum, responded with, “When I hear the word gun, I reach for my culture.”

  6. inquisador says:

    I am barmaid.

  7. Stephen Mynett says:

    A good quote by Muggeridge. It is a shame he became infatuated with the Albanian poison dwarf.

  8. Max T. Furr says:

    I’ve more than once had the exact same argument from Thumpers, especially with arguments about religion in public schools. If they can’t indoctrinate the children, then it is the liberal who is indoctrinating them with godless, tyrannical humanism (which allows people to believe what they want).

  9. Plainsuch says:

    I too miss the flip_take, I have to assume the barmaid took it.

  10. Nassar+Ben+Houdja says:

    Atheists demand every day
    That only they have a say
    Which is some what interesting
    How their pontification is twisting
    Like the sound of a mule, they do bray.

  11. Ah yes, Author. Preventing indoctrination requires indoctrination and the only thing we can’t tolerate is intolerance. Life is paradox. I’m okay with that. Thanks again for another great strip.

    Nassar, that is a slander against atheists. I certainly don’t demand that only we have a say. Do you think we want to ban the Thumpers (Max T. Furr, thanks for this term. I shall adopt it immediately.) from their churches, church yard signs, door to door visits and and bake sales? Not at all. All we ask is that they keep their “good news” out of places where we can’t avoid hearing it or must participate, like schools and courts of law, public spaces in other words. Pity you have destroyed one of your best rhymes with a stupid message.

  12. plainsuch says:

    Atheists demand every day
    That only they have a say

    And that’s why they are always knocking on my door with some tract about Big Bang Theory, or waving around Darwin’s book of evolution. That must be why Senators pray when they pass laws instead of doing a Urine Analysis for drugs and alcohol. If only the Jehovah’s witlesses and the Mormon’s surplus young men could do the same, the world would be a saner place for sure.

  13. plainsuch says:

    Actually, I always suspected that, because the old men back home took their girlfriends, those Mormon boys had to go out and recruit a bride or stay single.

  14. plainsuch says:

    EDIT:
    That must be why Senators do a Urine Analysis for drugs and alcohol before they make laws, instead of praying.

  15. Paddy says:

    Actually, mainstream Mormons don’t do the whole polygamy thing anymore; instead, it’s confined to a fringe sect now that most Mormons seem to view as something of an embarrassment.

  16. Paddy says:

    (But otherwise I agree)

  17. tfkreference says:

    Nassar’s rhyme would be closer to the truth if “only” were moved to the beginning of that line.

  18. Happy birthday UDHR.

  19. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Nassar, there are many reasons we think religion should be kept out of the public sphere, and here’s just one example:

    http://blogs.answersingenesis.org

    Not only is the rubbish spouted by idiots like Ham designed (sic) to keep minds firmly welded to the Bronze Age, it also acts as a conduit for spiteful, spineless attacks on those with the knowledge to show AiG for the bullshit it really is.

    http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2014/12/09/will-artificial-intelligence-destroy-humanity/

    Read the above article if you have the stomach for it, but here’s just a sample quote (emph. added): “Sadly, Hawking’s body has problems because of the effects of sin, but he can have a perfect, new body and be with the Lord for eternity if he will receive the free gift of salvation.”

    Enough said?

    HaggisForBrains, I’ve left a suggestion for your ‘Daddy Dancing’ question on the last thread.

  20. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Because I’m all heart and have no desire for anybody here to run the risk of destroying their grey matter unneccessarily (I’m old enough now to be able to risk sacrificing a cell or two for the greater good) by visiting AiG, I’ll briefly summarise Ham’s purely scientific reasoning behind why he disagrees with Hawking that AI poses a potential threat to humanity.
    God won’t let it happen. Only He has the means to destroy His favoured pets. And that’s about it, really.
    Ham has apparently never heard of man-made thermonuclear weapons and obviously doesn’t believe the established fact that is AGW (God controls the weather, of course). He doesn’t understand that humans have been destroying both the environment and each other since we first stood on two feet.

    Good news about his Ark project, though. The state of Kentucky had, back in 2010, promised him tax breaks for what he claimed was a planned ‘Biblical-based theme park’, a tourist attraction that would put much needed dollars into the state coffers.
    Kentucky has now informed him that he will not be getting the tax breaks after all. Why not? Because they have received information to the effect that far from being a tourist attraction – an all-inclusive theme park – the Ark project was to be used as an extension to AiG ministries aimed soley at promoting AiG’s creationism.
    But where did the information come from?
    From the AiG website! 🙂

    Ken Ham took his gun, loaded it, pointed it at his feet and fired.

  21. plainsuch says:

    Paddy
    The fringe that refuses to keep a low profile is probably embarrassing, true. But, if you live in a Mormon community and there is a pregnant teenage girl living with you and your wife. (Because it’s Charity! and Good Works!) What law have you broken?
    If she still goes to church with you 10 years and 3 children later, along with your official wife, another pregnant teenage girl and more children; is the Mormon Church going to say anything? Not as long as they are getting a full 10% of your gross income.

    If you stupidly blab about multiple wives on TV – they will distance themselves and throw you in jail. It’s a matter of speculation whether that’s because they don’t condone polygamy, or, because they don’t condone talking about it.

  22. Shaughn says:

    I love all these cultural observations.

    A culture, isn’t that what you can find in petri dishes too?

  23. Mary2 says:

    Aos, I don’t think Ken Ham has the intelligence to shoot himself in the foot – even accidentally.

  24. Stephen Mynett says:

    “Aos, I don’t think Ken Ham has the intelligence to shoot himself in the foot – even accidentally.”

    Good point Mary2, do you think Ham’s brain damage may be caused by the fact he shot himself in the head when aiming at his foot?

  25. HaggisForBrains says:

    AoS – Got it thanks. Clever, but a bit too subtle for everyday use.

  26. white+squirrel says:

    surely to get ‘answers in genesis’ would first require getting the questions right -which creationists clearly dont
    GI=GO

  27. Mark S. says:

    As an atheist, I don’t have a philosophical problem with men wanting to have multiple wives, much as I don’t have a problem with a woman having multiple husbands. I don’t have some god standing behind me telling me to stop them from doing it, and I know it is possible for such relationships to work.

    There are certain practical problems with poly relationships that most people are not equipped to deal with. They are just harder to maintain. I think children should be taught how to have successful relationships of all kinds, rather than the current approach of “welcome to the world; figure it out”. One of the things they could be taught is how to engage in a polyamorous relationship; then they can choose if they really want to work that hard at a poly marriage.

    (Yes, I realize this is a different model than the mormons use, which appears to be “man takes multiple wives, who cares how the women feel”.)

    A more significant practical problem is that human children come out something like 51% male and 49% female. This would appear to be an evolutionary adaptation to differential mortality. A man who has multiple wives is consuming women who are (presumably, but not necessarily) unavailable to other men. In the more extremist mormon communities, the excess young males are effectively driven out of the community because the young women have been taken up by the more powerful older men.

    In some other other primate species, this leads to the young males hanging out on the periphery of the group until they are strong enough to violently displace the alpha male — perhaps not a model that we want to encourage in our society.

    To prevent that problem, it really makes sense to limit multiple wives to at least a somewhat unusual (though not necessarily stigmatized) case and to just a few each. But then most men will want to be one of the few…

    The same is true of multiple husbands, though the statistics work out better that way. The problem there (from my observation) is that men are less likely to be satisfied in a MMF relationship than women are in a FFM relationship.

    It’s an interesting case in choosing the importance of group priorities vs individual priorities. But there is a lot more to it than “multiple wives – yuck!” or “god said so”.

  28. Mark S. says:

    One of the arguments for the existence of god is “Mozart, therefore God”, essentially that the beauty of Mozart’s music somehow can be attributed to God, rather than Mozart’s talent, hard work, and excellent choice of parents.

    I wonder if there is not some argument that goes something like “Ken Ham, therefore no god”, essentially that the stupidity of Ken Ham can be attributed to the lack of a god to tell him to back down from his crazy beliefs. Surely if God really talks to Ken Ham, he is saying “Knock it off, dude! You look like an idiot!”

  29. plainsuch says:

    Reality trumps fiction again.
    <dramatization >
    Kentucky Development Finance Authority: Here’s some money but remember; 1) tax dollars can not support a ministry, and 2) you can not discriminate in hiring for any reason.

    AIG: Oh, but we CAN discriminate on the basis of religion when hiring, because we ARE a ministry.

    Kentucky: Eh? LOL Are you deaf or stupid? No tax dollars for you.

    AIG: Noooooo! Curse you our “intolerant liberal friends”.
    </dramatization >

  30. hotrats says:

    A clear example of an evangelist getting his safety pants in a twist. So excited about using it as a tool of his ministry, he couldn’t stop boasting about how amazing it was going to be, forgetting that it was supposed to be a nudge-wink secret until after they got the money. Attention deficit disorder? No, they’ve done tests, and apparently he’s just incredibly thick.*

    (*Jack Dee’s gag).

    Progress (of a sort) – believe it or not, here is now a niche market for gay Mormon porn, for both sexes. No, really, there is; I won’t post a link, but Google will offer several. The underwear and prayers are apparently authentic.

    Despite Utah state trying for 6 years to make ISP’s responsible for blocking porn sites (a Federal judge finally struck down the application in 2012), Utah has the highest per capita rate of online porn subscriptions in the US (a close second, before you ask, is Alaska).

  31. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Stephen Mynett says:

    December 12, 2014 at 10:21 am

    ……..Good point Mary2, do you think Ham’s brain damage may be caused by the fact he shot himself in the head when aiming at his foot?

    Absolutely not. Had he shot himself in the head he would have missed his brain by around six feet.

    Mark S. says:

    December 12, 2014 at 7:23 pm

    One of the arguments for the existence of god is “Mozart, therefore God”,

    Funny how that argument never runs ‘Ghengis Khan, therefore God’ or even ‘Jeremy F. Kyle, therefore God’.
    It’s the same with the pro-lifers. They’ll claim abortion is bad because the woman could be aborting the next Tchaikovsky but don’t consider that the foetus could just as easily be the next Stalin (or Dawkins).

    hotrats, gay Mormon porn? You mean there are other kinds? 🙂

  32. Chiefy says:

    AoS, so every time Ham shoots himself in the foot, his odds of survival are 50%? Seems his luck should run out before long.

  33. jerrywww says:

    I could never be a Mormon, I think having one wife is already one too many.

  34. plainsuch says:

    Chiefy
    You are assuming his brain is as large as his shoe size. All available evidence suggests his odds of survival are much greater than 50%.

  35. plainsuch says:

    the pro-lifers. They’ll claim abortion is bad because the woman could be aborting the next Tchaikovsky

    Taken to it’s logical conclusion, female pro-lifers should stay continuously pregnant by never saying no to sex with any available male. Because every menstruation is flushing another Tchaikovsky down the tubes, and every missed coitus could avert the conception of another Tchaikovsky.

  36. IanB says:

    Aos said “Ken Ham took his gun, loaded it, pointed it at his feet and fired.”

    If only banana man would use a real gun, a .357 with a wad cutter will do and point it at his head then there would be a perceptible increase in the overall intelligence of the planet.

  37. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    IanB, as much as I hate to be a pedant (!), wasn’t Banana Man that other loon, Ray Comfort?

  38. white+squirrel says:

    Taken to it’s logical conclusion, female pro-lifers should stay continuously pregnant by never saying no to sex with any available male. Because every menstruation is flushing another Tchaikovsky down the tubes, and every missed coitus could avert the conception of another Tchaikovsky.

    Reincarnation ?

  39. white+squirrel says:

    yes it was Ray Comfort who was amazed that his hands had a grasping ability
    and that god had designed the penis to fit the hand perfectly

  40. white+squirrel says:

    Another thing that wil amaze Ray Comfort
    is that ‘god’ made the human anatomy perfect for the wearing of clothing, hats, shoes and spectacles.
    the same ‘god ‘ btw that also made two parts of the male anatomy of sufficiently similar size as to make gay sex possible

  41. white+squirrel says:

    to make the point clearer for anyone of a creationsit level intellect
    if A] ‘god’ created everything with ID
    and
    B] ‘god’ hated homosexual activity as strongly as some claim the myth
    indicates

    then ‘god’ would have intelligently designed male [and matching female] anatomy to prevent B from being possible iny any way whatsoeevr -even if the desire to do so was there

  42. white+squirrel says:

    sadly, Hawking’s body has problems because of the effects of sin,

    surely slander/libel
    given that Hawking is a married man with children
    its is hard to see what ‘sin’ would qaulify for such a punishment
    he is not gay or a prostitute frequenting philanderer or an indulger in mass rape or mass murder or violent genocide
    so why him and not the men who are?

    a diety that arbitary is not worth a second thought never mind resepct

  43. white+squirrel says:

    ps the grouping of gay with the other ‘sins’ was using the fundies value judgements not a sane or rational one

  44. Shaughn says:

    white+squirrel: its is hard to see what ‘sin’ would qaulify for such a punishment.

    Easy: he denies creation and genesis religious myths, in favour of big bang and evolution scientific theories. Fie on him.

  45. plainsuch says:

    Mark S.

    I have no problem with any group of adults organizing their affairs, pun not intended, in any way that makes them all happy. There would be messy legal problems to be worked out concerning property rights, child support, divorce and the human rights of all concerned; I assume those could eventually be solved.

    I know little about polyamory, but all cases of polygamy I can think of involve women who have been conditioned to think of themselves as chattel. The Koran measures 1 man as being worth 2 women. If Mormon husbands decide to allow their wives into heaven, the women get to spend eternity endlessly bearing children as a member of their husband’s harem. Then there is the common image of The Pimp living a life of luxury off the earnings of his harem of intimidated women.

    Do you know of cases where people organize into stable polyamorous groups where human rights are respected?

  46. plainsuch says:

    Hawking is a married man with children its is hard to see what ‘sin’ would qaulify for such a punishment

    That easy.
    (Deuteronomy 5:9)–“… I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,”

    It was his great-grandfather’s sin. But, the punishment didn’t kill him because:

    )(Deuteronomy 24:16)–“Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin.”

    I hear some people get paid to do this kind of explaining.

  47. plainsuch says:

    white+squirrel
    If you can keep the same personality characteristics after reincarnation, regardless of the unique genetic make-up of your new body, doesn’t that invalidate all genetic research including evolution?

  48. plainsuch says:

    white+squirrel
    if A] ‘god’ created everything with ID
    and
    B] ‘god’
    made our arms exactly this long:

    Then obviously we were designed to masturbate.

  49. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    When God made religio-fundies
    He made them late at night.
    Too tired to pay attention
    He forgot to make them bright.

  50. white+squirrel says:

    white+squirrel
    If you can keep the same personality characteristics after reincarnation, regardless of the unique genetic make-up of your new body, doesn’t that invalidate all genetic research including evolution?

    it would yes -if it were true – you have just summarised [one of ] the reasons I dont accept the concept
    my intention was to prompt an amusing reply/debate -which i got

  51. white+squirrel says:

    so does masturbation reverence ‘god’ then ?

  52. plainsuch says:

    Good point! That would explain both ‘gay Mormon porn’ and the experience of ecstasy that causes the uncontrolled vocalizations known as glossolalia. I have to say the answer to your question is: “Only if you do it right.”

  53. white+squirrel says:

    clearly then the answer is to keep practicing till we get it right

    continue masturbation until we hear voices/ the angel Gabriel

  54. IanB says:

    Acolyte of Sagan says: “IanB, as much as I hate to be a pedant (!), wasn’t Banana Man that other loon, Ray Comfort?”

    Yes you’re right I am mixing up my creationist idiots[1] but the point about a head shot stands I think.

    [1] A superfluous verb I think

  55. plainsuch says:

    It’s a simple case of our Religious Freedom. Let’s spread the Good News!

  56. hotrats says:

    IanB:

    Superfluous adverb, surely?

  57. plainsuch says:

    IanB, hotrats

    Given the amazing variety of idiots, I don’t think ‘creationist’ is a superfluous adverb. I don’t think the word ‘idiot’ is redundant there, but I’m not certain.

    Is there a Pedant or a Pundit in the House?

  58. HaggisForBrains says:

    “my creationist idiots”
    As a resident pedant and founder member of UPOTWA, I should first say that you are discussing an adjective and a noun. As the quote stands, “creationists” is defining a subset of “idiots”, so just as all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares, all creationists are idiots, but not all idiots are creationists. Therefore the expression “creationist idiots” is not tautological, but “idiot creationists” would be.

  59. oake says:

    “Is there a Pedant or a Pundit in the House?”

    Pedant here.

    It’s a modifying noun in this context – a noun acting as an adjective.

    It defines the kind of idiot being referenced.

    As in “soup spoon” or “picnic table”.

  60. eoinkenobi says:

    I love you guys. Seriously. I think I’ve found a little subculture that makes me feel right at home – atheists, pedants, lovers of crude and stupid jokes. Great to meet you all.

  61. blackflag1961 says:

    oake,
    isn’t that a ‘gerund?’

    On another tangent, isn’t the concept of cultural imperialism itself a product of a particular culture, and its dissemination outside that culture, therefore, imperialistic? I Think we should be told.

  62. blackflag1961 says:

    Ah, no. It isn’t a gerund. Excuse my lack of concentration.

  63. blackflag1961 says:

    As the sesame seed said, don’t stop me, I’m on a roll.

  64. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    oake, it’s ‘idiots’ that is superfluous in that sentence. As soon as the word ‘creationist’ is used then ‘idiots’ is assumed. A creationist is an idiot as a circle is round.
    There are occasions when both words are justifiably used together, such as when differentiating between breeds of idiot, so if, for example, you find yourself in a room with a creationist, a Scientologist, and an Arsenal F.C. supporter you will specify which idiot you mean, but in general ‘creationist’ requires no further clarification.

    eoinkenobi, welcome to the Cock and Bull.

  65. oake says:

    AoS: “oake, it’s ‘idiots’ that is superfluous in that sentence”.

    No disagreement from me on that, but it wasn’t my sentence. I was just responding to the request for a pedantic analysis of the words IanB used!

  66. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    My mistake, oake.

  67. Sandra'sGhost says:

    Is this irony, sarcasm or just fucking blatant idiocy?

    From this news page :

    A post dated on 14th December, the day before the attack, said:
    “Islam is the religion of peace, that’s why Muslims fight against the oppression
    and terrorism of USA and its allies including UK and Australia.”
    Man Haron Monis.

    “Islam is the religion of peace …”.
    ” … that is why Muslims fight …”.

    Don’t they teach logic in islamic schools?

    Personally, I’d go for the last option in that multiple choice question … but I’m a cultural imperialist.

  68. white+squirrel says:

    cultural imperialism is bad ?
    then presumably we should not condemn the nazis for building death camps
    or Russia / Africa for hoping to cleanse LGBT
    Or Isil for beheading journalists
    or India for its honour rape epidemic

    its just their culture -how dare we condemn them

  69. white+squirrel says:

    after all they are merely performing ‘cultural cleansing’ so whats the harm?

  70. white+squirrel says:

    Islam is the religion of peace, that’s why Muslims fight against the oppression
    and terrorism of USA and its allies including UK and Australia
    really?

    first war by islam- around 630 CE
    foundation of UK around 800 CE
    America around 1600 CE

  71. white+squirrel says:

    Australia around 50,000 BCE- clearly it must be Australia to blame for the war by Islam

  72. white+squirrel says:

    Islam is the religion of peace,
    in which
    jihad agianst infidels is a sacred duty
    stoning of gays and rape of women ordained by sharia
    the beating of wives laid out in detail in the quran
    public human sacrifice in Arabia acdeptable

    clearly a religion of peace then

  73. Mark S. says:

    plainsuch asks “Do you know of cases where people organize into stable polyamorous groups where human rights are respected?”

    Yes, I do, right here in the US with the crazy conservatives all around. Many practitioners of this sort of relationship tend to be discreet about it, but open with their friends. The motivation to remain closeted is the same as for someone who is gay.

    I’ve met some triads personally, though it has been some time since I moved in those circles where that happens regularly. There was a burst of openness of “alternative sexuality” in the US in the 1990’s, which caused much of it to peek into the public awareness. If you looked in the right places, you would see more than just furry handcuffs. The most serious I’ve met personally were triads who might as well have been a married triplet.

    b.t.w. I think that the polygamy of an arranged marriage doesn’t really count as polyamory, because polyamory is about love. Arranged and/or chattel marriages are not.

  74. white+squirrel says:

    Don’t they teach logic in islamic schools?

    no that would be haram – they only teach islamic logic

  75. two cents' worth says:

    Plainsuch, I thought the “superfluous verb” was “am mixing up.” But I think that “superfluous” might not be the mot juste in your footnote, IanB. Would an acceptable re-write of the footnote be Not that I need to mix them up; they’re mixed up enough already?

  76. hotrats says:

    Sorry chaps, posting with my reading glasses off, late at night, I mistook IanB’s (!) for his (1), and took issue with the first ‘as’ in ‘as much as I hate to be a pedant(!)’. The pedantry of presbyopia.

    Of course we all hate to be pedants, but someone has to do it.

    eoinkenobe, welcome.

  77. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    You really did have your glasses off, hotrats, that’s me you’re quoting.
    Acolyte of Sagan says:

    December 13, 2014 at 2:38 pm

    IanB, as much as I hate to be a pedant (!), wasn’t Banana Man that other loon, Ray Comfort?

    Sandra’sGhost, re ‘“Islam is the religion of peace …”.
    ” … that is why Muslims fight …”.’

    I hate to say it, but I think he was motivated by Author…………..
    http://www.jesusandmo.net/2010/03/19/peace/

  78. plainsuch says:

    From what I read the ‘self-proclaimed sheikh and alleged serial sex offender’ was just proclaiming his victim status with ‘“Islam is the religion of peace …”.” … that is why Muslims fight …”.’. We have a cultural flaw that allows a victim unlimited retaliation rights. Exhibit A is Bugs Bunny, he is a first rate a-hole but it’s OK because he is always a victim first.
    Religious idiots like to claim the moral high ground of Victim status when they’re indulging in a bit of subcultural imperialism imposing their ideology on others. Banksters, common criminals, grandiose psychopaths and terrorists(1) just play victim because it works. It sounds like Sheek Moron was a grandiose psychopath, I noted that he originally said he had to get out of Iran because he was “too liberal” as a Moslem. Then when he needed to get out of Australia, he switched brands of religion to a far right Sunni, and pulled a stupid bloody stunt. It’s pure speculation, but if he had made it to Iraq and ingratiated himself with ISIS he probably would have risen in the ranks quickly. Brutal grandiose psychopaths seem to thrive there.

    (1)I know, “terrorists” is redundant in that list.

  79. plainsuch says:

    Mark S.
    I believe you. I also asked my autistic friend, Google, and learned a new word, “polygyny”. From the little I read it sounds like the individual members of polyamorous groups tend to change over time, analogous to serial monogamy I suppose.
    Realistically, some would say cynically, I am still sceptical how many people could do that full-time. Monogamy is simpler and I see many couples who don’t manage that. I know people that do organize into stable groups of two where human rights are respected. I also know a smaller group of people that form pairs revolving around self-interest, convenience or abuse. Polyamory would require an incredible level of maturity from all parties involved, and I just don’t see most people being that mindful.

  80. plainsuch says:

    Brutal grandiose psychopaths seem to thrive there.

    Mohamed is the role model for Moslem men.

    Just saying.

  81. hotrats says:

    AoS:

    Had I had my glasses on and noticed that it was you, I would not have let ‘as much as I hate to be a pedant’ pass without comment – which would have to be, ‘that can’t be very much’.

  82. hotrats says:

    I enjoyed this, and I hope you do. Merry Christmas, one and all!

    https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=810470152332645

  83. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    hotrats says:

    December 16, 2014 at 10:23 am

    AoS:

    Had I had my glasses on and noticed that it was you, I would not have let ‘as much as I hate to be a pedant’ pass without comment – which would have to be, ‘that can’t be very much’.

    Hence the (!) after pedant. I try to cover the bases.

    Regarding the Australian seige, I’ve been listening to the news on and off all morning and am quite frankly getting sick to the eye teeth of the ‘leading Muslims’ (leading what, exactly?) queueing up to say that the hostage taker/killer/serial woman-beater/sex offender was absolutely, positively, certainly not acting like a True Muslim.

    And in other news. Between 80-120 people, mainly children, dead after yet another Taliban attack on a school.
    Of course, one can guarantee that the ‘leading Muslims’ will once again be forming an orderly queue of denial.

    I’ve posted the ditty here before, but it seems appropriate to re-post it now. So, to the tune of My Bonny lies over the ocean:
    All together now….

    Islam, Islam,
    Religion of tolerant peace are we.
    Islam, Islam,
    We’ll kill you if you disagree.

  84. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Whoops, bold type fail. Apologies for the apparent shouting, even though in light of what I was talking about shouting seems appropriate.

    By the way, hotrats, excellent video. I must gather a group of local children and teach them that one for when they’re going door-to-door.

  85. white+squirrel says:

    Mohamed is the role model for Moslem men.
    does that inlcude gay men?

    and for women Aisha Bibi? or another of his wives/ concubines/war booty sex slaves

  86. plainsuch says:

    No True Moslem male is gay.
    No True Moslem male is a woman.
    No True Moslem male is an infidel.
    Therefore why worry about them?

    There’s no need to discuss it because my imaginary invisible friend says it’s true.

  87. Chiefy says:

    Thanks for the video, hotrats. Makes me want to go caroling.

  88. Robert+Andrews says:

    Sometimes Christians will say.”we czn’t allow this in our community”. They say this in response to the question: shouldn’t sexual deversity be taught in our schools?

    So they think two things:
    1) It’s basically evil; nuf said.
    2) It’s somehow their community.

    “I know your religion isn’t true, the same way you know other people’s isn’t true”-Mark Twain

  89. Maxx Carter Maxx Carter says:

    Just to say ,,, I have been surprisingly diverted…..intelligent , amusing , and tolerant….except to religious stupidity…. Keep on keeping on ….thanx

Comment¬

NOTE: This comments section is provided as a friendly place for readers of J&M to talk, to exchange jokes and ideas, to engage in profound philosophical discussion, and to ridicule the sincerely held beliefs of millions. As such, comments of a racist, sexist or homophobic nature will not be tolerated.

If you are posting for the first time, or you change your username and/or email, your comment will be held in moderation until approval. When your first comment is approved, subsequent comments will be published automatically.