This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Comments by some asshole

Go to: Are You a Believer? Take The Dawkins Test.

some asshole's Avatar Jump to comment 30 by some asshole

FYI to the "6.9 recurring" crowd: 0.9 recirring equals 1, so 6.9 recurring equals 7. Just sayin'.

Mon, 09 Apr 2012 12:08:02 UTC | #933281

Go to: Are You a Believer? Take The Dawkins Test.

some asshole's Avatar Jump to comment 3 by some asshole

Uh... How does editing the buy-bull preclude one from being an atheist? Isn't it well known that Jefferson simply and only appreciated the actual moral teachings of Jesus?

Mon, 09 Apr 2012 05:38:20 UTC | #933212

Go to: Four Bad Reasons to Believe Anything

some asshole's Avatar Jump to comment 15 by some asshole

It's a relief that Richard didn't write this. That's some crap grammar there. It's as if I wrote it after three glasses of Pinot Noir or something.

Tue, 20 Mar 2012 02:17:07 UTC | #928810

Go to: Marriage - two viewpoints

some asshole's Avatar Jump to comment 75 by some asshole

Comment 64 by Schrodinger's Cat :

It seems to me that the whole argument about re-defining 'marriage' is decidedly ass backwards. Indeed, I can put my finger on exactly where the logical error lies.....and where the rationality of the argument falls over.....

If you need to re-define a word to include you, then you cannot simultaneously argue that it's definition already includes you.

That is to say.....how can a person be discriminatorily 'left out' of something whose definition never included them in the first place ? There'd be no need to argue for inclusion if one was already included.

You can argue that marriage 'ought' to incorporate gays....but it doesn't, and the only way it can do is to re-define the word.

But....if you re-define the word.....then it is by definition no longer the very thing you wanted to get into in the first place !

1) I want to join group X.

2) Group X by definition excludes me

3) I get the definition of group X changed

4) Group X is no longer the group X that I wanted to join in the first place.

A bit of a pyrrhic victory.

Who gets to do the defining? Who are you to say that "marriage" is prima facie defined as the joining of a heterosexual couple? It's more accurate to simply say that marriage is a legal right that has historically been extended only to heterosexual couples.

When marriage became a legal institution, how safe was it to be openly homosexual? What you're essentially saying is that since homophobia used to be even more rampant and institutionalized than it now is, we should continue extending or denying legal rights based on sexual orientation.

Are you saying that since in the United States, a "voter" was originally defined as a white man, African Americans and women should have shut up and not gone for the "Pyrrhic victory" of being extended the legal right to vote?

Nazis defined wide classes of people as sub-human ("untermensch"). Does the definition stick?

Who gets to decide?

What a red herring that shit argument was!

None of you homophobes (yes, homophobes) can defend denying a legal right based on sexual orientation. You dance around "definitions", talk about what's "natural", pat each other on the back, and make no sense whatsoever.

Fri, 16 Mar 2012 02:42:24 UTC | #927694

Go to: Marriage - two viewpoints

some asshole's Avatar Jump to comment 73 by some asshole

Comment 37 by SalGagliano :

Now I have a question for you who seem to feel that this is the last great civil rights frontier: Why do you want this so badly? You live in a free society, where you're free to bond emotionally - and sexually - with whomever you choose. You're also free to enter into legally binding contracts, which can all but give you all of the legal rights and privileges associated with those of a married couple. You are even free to enjoy a marriage ceremony, with all of the mimes and pageantry associated with a traditional wedding, and no jack-booted Gestapo will break down the door and hall you off to some concentration camp. So what is it that you actually want? Well, I'll tell you: you want to employ the power of the State to compel verbal acknowledgement of conformity to your world view. Isn't that what you usually accuse religious factions of doing? The irony escapes you, no doubt.

I can only speak for myself, but what I want is equality under the law. "Verbal acknowledgement" has nothing to do with it. Bigots can go right ahead and continue hating homosexuals all they want. But to extend a legal right to one class of people and deny it to another is utterly indefensible.

You claim that homosexuals have all the rights of heterosexuals, including the freedom "to enter into legally binding contracts, which can all but give you all of the legal rights and privileges associated with those of a married couple". I don't know where the hell you get that idea, but it's not true. How is it you figure homosexuals can become legally married throughout (for example) the United States? We are talking here about the right for homosexual couples to obtain a legal and valid certificate of marriage, are we not? You do understand that being legally married confers a special set of rights (and obligations) under the law, don't you? And you do understand that in most states, homosexuals are denied the right to obtain marriage certificates, right?

Hello, anyone in there?

Fri, 16 Mar 2012 02:05:03 UTC | #927683

Go to: The Lord’s Army Comes to America’s Public Schools

some asshole's Avatar Jump to comment 10 by some asshole

Comment 6 by Starcrash :

Perhaps we could get kids to spread the word of Islam or anti-theism by abusing the same loophole (in order to demonstrate to the Christians why it's wrong) but two wrongs don't make a right, and we don't want to indoctrinate children.

Two wrongs can sometimes make a right, if indirectly. In the schools where this is going on, I see nothing wrong with doing the same thing they're doing. When they go insane, let it go to court. All along, the point would be made as to what our motivations were: Not indoctrination, not even spreading our own message; just getting their religion out of places it doesn't belong.

Or, we can sit in the shadows, looking dejected and feeling sorry for ourselves like cowardly losers, not knowing what to do. Haven't we done that for long enough?

Thu, 15 Mar 2012 16:12:12 UTC | #927510

Go to: Marriage - two viewpoints

some asshole's Avatar Jump to comment 26 by some asshole

"gay marriage" has no natural basis, for it serves no group evolutionary strategy or purpose, and is therefore not a "marriage" at all.

Wow, SalGagliano, you've got it all figured out, don't you? So even if gay couples were to adopt and raise children competently, resulting in "healthy (mentally as well as physically) productive adults", that would serve no "evolutionary strategy or purpose"?

Even if your ridiculous claims were true, it does not defend the denial of the right to marry. Your argument could be twisted to apply to the right to own property and housing, the right to own weapons, or many other things--and it still would not make sense to exclude certain classes of people from those rights, based on what ignoramuses call "natural".

Homosexuality occurs in nature, and not just in humans. And I'd wager you know little about evolution.

Wed, 14 Mar 2012 18:44:57 UTC | #927060

Go to: The Lord’s Army Comes to America’s Public Schools

some asshole's Avatar Jump to comment 4 by some asshole

Let's start disseminating information in public schools on how kids can join the RDFRS. I'm sure no one will mind, since these people are so even-minded. Right?

Wed, 14 Mar 2012 18:36:00 UTC | #927057

Go to: Marriage - two viewpoints

some asshole's Avatar Jump to comment 23 by some asshole

[A] supposed "extension" of marriage to gay people in fact removes the right to marry from heterosexual people.

This can seem like a perversely contorted claim, but its logic is quite straightforward: the intended change in the definition of marriage would mean that marriage as traditionally defined no longer exists. Thus heterosexual people would no longer have the right to enter into an institution understood to be only possible for heterosexuals, as doubly recognising both the unique social significance of male/female relationship and the importance of the conjugal act which leads naturally to the procreation of children who are then reared by their biological parents.

Blah, blah, blah, YAWN. So if gay marriage becomes possible in my area, I've lost something? I guess this reasoning could be extended to anything. When women gained the ability++ to vote, men lost the right to vote. When blacks gained the ability++ to sit wherever they like on public transportation, whites lost the right to do so. How much brain damage do I need to submit to for this to make sense to me?

Isn't it ironic that, as usual, it's conservatives who put forth this ridiculous idea? They love "small government", "individual rights", yada yada, but oh--by the way--we'll deny your rights and peep into your bedroom window.

++ I say "the ability...", not "the right..." because I'd opine that "the right" was there all along--it had simply been denied.

Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:31:48 UTC | #927039

Go to: Melvyn Bragg attacks Richard Dawkins' 'atheist fundamentalism'

some asshole's Avatar Jump to comment 74 by some asshole

One of my mottoes is that "If you don't have enemies, you're doing something wrong". Richard Dawkins is most definitely doing something right!

Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:21:07 UTC | #927030

Go to: Christians have no right to wear cross at work, says Government

some asshole's Avatar Jump to comment 68 by some asshole

Comment 2 by ingold.a :

  Okay, I'm about as athiest/secular minded as one can get and I think this is outright ridiculous. I mean, come on it's a necklace. I know that the same respect wouldn't be given to me if I wanted to wear an atheistic symbol to work, but who cares?

Who cares if we receive unequal treatment? Are you serious? I care!

Sun, 11 Mar 2012 14:29:34 UTC | #926162

Go to: Rick Warren and the “Same” God Issue

some asshole's Avatar Jump to comment 3 by some asshole

Do children in Missouri appease the same Santa Claus as those in London? What does "same" mean when the thing in question is nonexistent?

Mon, 05 Mar 2012 16:33:03 UTC | #924634

Go to: One Jesus for liberals, another for conservatives

some asshole's Avatar Jump to comment 7 by some asshole

If Jesus were real, and if he indeed were anything like conservatives, I'd want nothing to do with the bastard.

Mon, 05 Mar 2012 15:09:57 UTC | #924612

Go to: Professor Stephen Hawking quotes on God and Religion

some asshole's Avatar Jump to comment 12 by some asshole

Hawking is an idiot. I know for a fact that Gawud exists, because just yesterday I was on a conservative web site, and one of the commentators said that they knew Gawud existed, because ... the moon, sun, and earth exist. What more do you need? TAKE THAT, HAWKING, YOU DUNCE!

Fri, 02 Mar 2012 13:59:02 UTC | #923746

Go to: SBC’s Richard Land: Romney Not a Christian, Compares Mormonism to Islam

some asshole's Avatar Jump to comment 2 by some asshole

It's OK if Mor[m]onism is similar to Islam, because after all, we've had a Muslim president since 2008, right?

Fri, 02 Mar 2012 13:42:23 UTC | #923743

Go to: Atheist group targets Muslims, Jews with ‘myth’ billboards in Arabic and Hebrew

some asshole's Avatar Jump to comment 8 by some asshole

Oh boy did I have a laugh at this site, if you can bear the ignorance.

http://conservativebyte.com/2011/11/atheist-group-to-sponsor-anti-christmas-billboards-featuring-jesus-santa-satan/

I read as many comments on that site as I could. A little part of my life essence faded away with each one, so I just had to stop. The last one I read was also my favorite. Here's an excerpt:

The right arm of hell is reserved for the unbelievers and the ungodly such as yourself. You will be chained together with others where you all will be bobbing up and down in the fiery river of hell.

And these are people who find an atheist billboard offensive!

You cannot reason with people like this. It is literally impossible, and a complete waste of time to even try.

I'm not too pleased with the "you know it's a myth" angle… after all, the religious believer doesn't know what they believe is a myth! ... What I do see these billboards doing effectively is saying that atheists are proselytising jerks, and I don't see why we would want to say that.

Silverman has indeed said these billboards are intended for non-believers stuck in those ridiculous communities. As far as "proselytizing jerks" goes, I don't give a damn. It establishes the presence of non-theists, it says we're not hiding anymore, and that's reason enough to put them up.

I grew up being told that if I didn't do the right things (which were never clear), I would be punished horribly forever. To a normal person, that constitutes emotional abuse. Consequently, today I want to shove a billboard up the ass of everyone who would repeat that same garbage I was fed as a helpless child. I see it done all the time online, but shockingly enough, no one does it to my face. Maybe they don't know what that 2-inch red "A" on my arm means.

Fri, 02 Mar 2012 01:50:01 UTC | #923656

Go to: New evidence suggests Stone Age hunters from Europe discovered America

some asshole's Avatar Jump to comment 13 by some asshole

A remarkable series of several dozen European-style stone tools, dating back between 19,000 and 26,000 years, have been discovered at six locations along the US east coast.

This is nonsense. The world didn't even exist back then. This is Olmatta Gawud testing us once again.

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 13:26:26 UTC | #922779

Go to: Jessica "Evil Little Thing" Ahlquist on CNN

some asshole's Avatar Jump to comment 37 by some asshole

Seeing how Ms. Ahlquist has been treated is really quite illuminating. It shows the extent to which religion has been put on a pedestal. Take away a silly little prayer, then stand back and take in the whining and death threats. It doesn't matter if you're right or not. It's as if a bully has been stopped from being able to bully, and is now screaming with claims of being a victim. "Oh no; I can no longer bully others! How can we tolerate this discrimination against the right to bully?"

Sun, 26 Feb 2012 22:42:57 UTC | #922235

Go to: Enemies of Science Can Stop Gloating About the Fast Neutrinos

some asshole's Avatar Jump to comment 12 by some asshole

Oh, please, Krauthammer? I've always hated the writings of that man. Any scientist worth his or her weight in feces would have delighted at the newfound knowledge that neutrinos could travel faster than c, if that were the case. That's because--duh--science has the ability to say "Huh. Guess we were wrong!" and to learn and move the hell on. That's a good thing, not a bad thing. Idiots who don't get it never will. Next?

Sun, 26 Feb 2012 00:25:02 UTC | #921947

Go to: Catholics hear anti-Obama letter in church

some asshole's Avatar Jump to comment 1 by some asshole

Either the government can intercede in religious matters, or it cannot. It must be one way or the other. Even the dullest of minds can agree to that statement.

If you believe that the government cannot--under any circumstances--interfere with religious doctrine, then you absolutely must accept that terrorism, so-called "honor killings", and all the many other types of horror brought to us by religion must be protected by law. The government must allow all of it, and punish none of it.

If you believe that government can intercede, then congratulations, you're not a complete goddamned moron, let's PLEASE hear about something else in the news other than these asshole Catholics!

Sun, 26 Feb 2012 00:20:54 UTC | #921945

Go to: Graham Not Sold on Obama’s Christianity, Santorum Warned of Satan in 2008

some asshole's Avatar Jump to comment 6 by some asshole

I can't explain how abidingly I despise these people. It's quote time. This will be fun.

I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.

That was Rick Santorum in November, 2010.

Santorum spoke last week in regard to the president’s controversial mandate requiring employers to provide insurance that offers co-pay-free birth control. Santorum argued that this imposed a way of thinking on religious people that ran counter to their beliefs.

Santorum continued on that vein this weekend, saying, “It is imposing his ideology on a group of people expressing their theology, their moral code, and saying the government will force you to do what your faith says is gravely wrong.”

Let's follow that line of thought. Say some Christians take to heart the advice in the buy-bull to stone to death children who disrespect their parents. Santorum seems to be saying that government has no right to forbid them from brutally murdering their children. That must be the case, because forbidding the murder of recalcitrant children would be "imposing ... ideology on a group of people expressing their theology, their moral code, and saying the government will force you to do what your faith says is gravely wrong.” (Letting the children get away with it would be "gravely wrong", because hey, the buy-bull forbids their behavior and prescribes a punishment in no uncertain terms.)

In fact, Santorum seems to be saying that your private theology enables you to do whatever you want. This isn't hyperbole; it's his own words.

So, by extension, the many Muslim nutballs who feel that their holey book obliges them to blow infidels to red mist must not be impeded.

Why don't the Democrats play the righty game and sling that kind of filth right back at these scumbags?

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 02:14:47 UTC | #920901

Go to: Santorum Sacks Sinister Secularism

some asshole's Avatar Jump to comment 16 by some asshole

I don't think that either Santorum or Gingrich are sincere in the beliefs they shove in our faces. It's just a show for right-wing idiots to lap up.

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 22:47:37 UTC | #920564

Go to: Richard Dawkins in ‘single-celled ancestor’ shock

some asshole's Avatar Jump to comment 12 by some asshole

@ Comment 6 by Graxan:

Anyone who doesn't recognize the satire is a lost cause to begin with.

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 13:26:01 UTC | #920368

Go to: Attacks paid for by big business are 'driving science into a dark era'

some asshole's Avatar Jump to comment 3 by some asshole

If only so many average citizens weren't the intellectual equivalent of a bag of rocks...

Mon, 20 Feb 2012 23:28:56 UTC | #920158

Go to: Santorum Sacks Sinister Secularism

some asshole's Avatar Jump to comment 2 by some asshole

Nothing new here. This is how you reach out to righty nitwits; you "other" everybody who is sane and who believes in equality and fairness. The facts that secularism is not the slightest bit irreligious and that those who are religious should support secularism more strenuously than anyone cannot be brought to light. No, you have to equate "secularism" with "atheism", and of course "atheism" with "Democratic", and your work is done. Go home, wash your KKK outfits and call it a day.

Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:23:05 UTC | #920057

Go to: The Right’s Anti-Woman Agenda

some asshole's Avatar Jump to comment 25 by some asshole

Just think--every one of the sick, idiotic "representatives" who has submitted this kind of disgraceful legislation was elected into office. And no doubt many/most will be reelected. I find it hard to be hopeful when so many Americans are such complete imbeciles.

Mon, 20 Feb 2012 00:05:16 UTC | #919834

Go to: Freedom of and From Religion

some asshole's Avatar Jump to comment 24 by some asshole

The solution was so simple. Catholics were whining that their freedom of religion was being infringed by the requirement that they subsidize contraception. OK, so all you have to do is cut off all federal funding for Catholic organizations. Ta-da! No more First Amendment (that is, church/state) issue, real or imaginary. Do what you want, but don't ask for one goddamned red cent from us ever again.

Sun, 19 Feb 2012 17:32:31 UTC | #919685

Go to: The Devil, the internet, Richard Dawkins and God

some asshole's Avatar Jump to comment 49 by some asshole

It's articles like this--and some of the comments that follow it--that makes me wish stupidity was terminal.

Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:34:12 UTC | #918810

Go to: In the Spirit: Some florists won't deliver to atheist

some asshole's Avatar Jump to comment 12 by some asshole

Did we need more proof that religion poisons everything?

We're talking about HAVING FLOWERS DELIVERED. And religion is somehow able to sprinkle its feces all over even that.

Someday, I'll cease to be amazed. But not yet.

Tue, 14 Feb 2012 01:13:44 UTC | #917435

Go to: Atheism in America

some asshole's Avatar Jump to comment 13 by some asshole

...49 per cent [of idiot Americans] would refuse to back an atheist for president[.]

This sickens me. The vast majority of these idiots probably do not even realize what bigots they are.

I live in the Buy-bull Belt, and it does suck living here and being an atheist. So far, my push-back has involved getting the "A" tattoo, a matching bumper sticker on my car, and a "Science fish" emblem on there as well. The latter is a middle finger at the idiots who have bumper stickers that say things like "REAL MEN LOVE JESUS", but the other two are mostly for other atheists who recognize the "Out Campaign" symbol, to show them they're not alone. I have no idea if anyone has actually recognized either "A" symbol. I've considered getting an "A3IST" license plate, but I wouldn't be surprised if the DMV shot it down.

I think the Christi[ns]anity is slowly being watered down, as more sane people trickle into the Buy-bull Belt areas. Of course, initiatives like the ones being led by Dawkins and Faircloth are also of immense value.

People might not like the Buddhists and Mormons but at least they feel like they’re people who believe in [similar superstitious bullshit] and that confirms their beliefs. But somebody like an atheist, it just throws their beliefs into their face.

Except that pure Buddhism is essentially atheistic, this comment nails it.

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 16:50:16 UTC | #915066