The James Randi Educational Foundation has a disturbing piece on a man Belgium who has--according to reports--come out of a persistent vegetative state and is now merrily communicating with the world.
Except, as they point out he's not. It's complete balderdash that gives people false hope and adds fuel to the notion that we absolutely must keep bodies alive, no matter the cost, no matter the condition.
Hat tip to Penn Jillette via twitter.
Showing posts with label europe. Show all posts
Showing posts with label europe. Show all posts
24.11.09
11.11.08
Remember
Today is remembrance day, the Eleventh of the Eleventh, and the ninetieth anniversary of the end of the First World War. I was asleep at 11am GMT, but I will be observing a minute of silence at 11am EST here in Kentucky.
In England, 3 of the 4 surviving British WWI veterans attended the traditional ceremony at the Cenotaph, and Prince Charles attended a similar ceremony in Verdun, France.
And in Australia, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said "We have all endured a most bloody century. Let us resolve afresh at the dawn of this new century.. that this might be a truly pacific peaceful century."
In England, 3 of the 4 surviving British WWI veterans attended the traditional ceremony at the Cenotaph, and Prince Charles attended a similar ceremony in Verdun, France.
And in Australia, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said "We have all endured a most bloody century. Let us resolve afresh at the dawn of this new century.. that this might be a truly pacific peaceful century."
19.2.08
21.5.07
Men (And Women) In Uniform
Following the news that legalising same-sex marriage in the UK did not cause the total and irrevocable collapse of civilisation comes the equally shocking news that allowing homosexuals and lesbians to openly serve in the military did not cause said military to devolve into a horrific pantomime of mistrust, violence and bigotry, nor, incredibly, has it destroyed the effectiveness of said military.
Seven years after the British Army changed its policies towards openly gay soldiers, the MoD says that the problems have been pretty much nonexistent.
Well who in all of the world would have thought it?
Oh, right. Almost everyone who doesn't have their head firmly up their own arse, that's who.
These two non-events have set a worrying precedent. Next these strange gay folk will want to do stuff like stand for political office, and be cops, and - gasp - teachers.
Y'know, be judged on their abilities rather than their sexual orientation.
What a novel thought.
Some, however, aren't convinced by silly, irrelevant stuff like facts and real-world experience. Being gay is immoral, gays in the military are a threat to everything and everyone, blah blah blah.
It's the 21st century, people. Aren't we supposed to be beyond this kind of medieval crap by now?
Seven years after the British Army changed its policies towards openly gay soldiers, the MoD says that the problems have been pretty much nonexistent.
Since the British military began allowing homosexuals to serve in the armed forces in 2000, none of its fears — about harassment, discord, blackmail, bullying or an erosion of unit cohesion or military effectiveness — have come to pass, according to the Ministry of Defense, current and former members of the services and academics specializing in the military. The biggest news about the policy, they say, is that there is no news. It has for the most part become a nonissue.
Well who in all of the world would have thought it?
Oh, right. Almost everyone who doesn't have their head firmly up their own arse, that's who.
These two non-events have set a worrying precedent. Next these strange gay folk will want to do stuff like stand for political office, and be cops, and - gasp - teachers.
Y'know, be judged on their abilities rather than their sexual orientation.
What a novel thought.
Some, however, aren't convinced by silly, irrelevant stuff like facts and real-world experience. Being gay is immoral, gays in the military are a threat to everything and everyone, blah blah blah.
It's the 21st century, people. Aren't we supposed to be beyond this kind of medieval crap by now?
27.1.06
Hate in the guise of charity
News of a French group - called Bloc Identitaire - reaches my ears (or, rather, eyes) which is rushing out to provide hot soup to the nation's homeless whilst the continent is in the grip of the worst winter in decades.
Nice.
Except they're giving out soup made from pork. Now, if this was a mistake, it'd be bad. But it's deliberate. It's deliberately done because Block Identitaire is a far-right white-supremacist group who knows that both Moslems and Jews are forbidden from eating pork. And they're not even trying to play innocent, they openly admit it.
Don't get me wrong, Bloc Identitaire has the right to be narrow-minded, ignorant, bigoted arseholes if they wish. That is their prerogative. But their ignorance may be their undoing in the case of Moslems. See, the Koran prohibits the eating of pork, but says "But if one is forced by necessity, without willful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits, then Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
So, a homeless Moslem, in a situation where it's eat pork or die, is allowed to eat.
Shoulda researched that better, hmmm?
Nice.
Except they're giving out soup made from pork. Now, if this was a mistake, it'd be bad. But it's deliberate. It's deliberately done because Block Identitaire is a far-right white-supremacist group who knows that both Moslems and Jews are forbidden from eating pork. And they're not even trying to play innocent, they openly admit it.
Don't get me wrong, Bloc Identitaire has the right to be narrow-minded, ignorant, bigoted arseholes if they wish. That is their prerogative. But their ignorance may be their undoing in the case of Moslems. See, the Koran prohibits the eating of pork, but says "But if one is forced by necessity, without willful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits, then Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
So, a homeless Moslem, in a situation where it's eat pork or die, is allowed to eat.
Shoulda researched that better, hmmm?
2.1.06
"Prove Christ Existed"
Oh, now this should be good. An Italian court has ordered that a priest appear to prove that Christ existed.
Theists have long argued that there is ample evidence that Christ - or, at least, some form of god - exists, and that it would be a simple matter to prove such to the satisfaction of a court of law. This is, of course, bull, but it doesn't stop the claim.
Once you dismiss the entire bible as inadmissible hearsay, with the caveat that it was, for over a thousand years, in the sole keeping of an organisation with a vested interest in promoting it as truth, you're left with non-biblical sources.
Namely; Josephus - the Jewish historian whose writings we have three versions of: the one that comes to us via the Vatican which calls Christ "a doer of wonderful works", the one that comes to us via the Jewish church which doesn't mention Christ at all, and the one that comes to us via archaeology, written in Arabic, which describes Christ as a "charlatan"; and Tacticus - the Roman historian who mentions "Christus", but fails to even mention - even to debunk - any rumour of any hint of any belief concerning any supernaturalism about the man.
Add zero archaeological evidence of the man himself - and even the Vatican admits that the Turin Shroud is a fake - nor any other records, and you've really got a lost cause.
Still, it'll be interesting to see how this one plays out.
Theists have long argued that there is ample evidence that Christ - or, at least, some form of god - exists, and that it would be a simple matter to prove such to the satisfaction of a court of law. This is, of course, bull, but it doesn't stop the claim.
Once you dismiss the entire bible as inadmissible hearsay, with the caveat that it was, for over a thousand years, in the sole keeping of an organisation with a vested interest in promoting it as truth, you're left with non-biblical sources.
Namely; Josephus - the Jewish historian whose writings we have three versions of: the one that comes to us via the Vatican which calls Christ "a doer of wonderful works", the one that comes to us via the Jewish church which doesn't mention Christ at all, and the one that comes to us via archaeology, written in Arabic, which describes Christ as a "charlatan"; and Tacticus - the Roman historian who mentions "Christus", but fails to even mention - even to debunk - any rumour of any hint of any belief concerning any supernaturalism about the man.
Add zero archaeological evidence of the man himself - and even the Vatican admits that the Turin Shroud is a fake - nor any other records, and you've really got a lost cause.
Still, it'll be interesting to see how this one plays out.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)