SpaceGazelle wrote:

GurtTractor wrote:

Scientists can be self important and murder people obviously, while using science to try and justify it.

If it's a Top Trumps thing I think you'll find religion wins on the murder stats. Scientists do murder people but it tends to be confined to the odd stabbing in a physics lab. Also, religious people like to murder scientists more than the other way around. Well maybe apart from Newton.

What about Nationalities vs religion? How many deaths are because people from one country are set against another for any number of reasons, not just religion.

Nation states haven't existed for particularly long, of course people's and tribes have a lot longer.

Religion is part of that. Just another identifier, another divider of humans.

Back to the cunt with knife, I'd love to know what the aim is.
What's the end goal.

SpaceGazelle wrote:

Yeah I just did some basic Google research and I think religious death murder stands at about 1/2 billion and scientist murderer is roughly about 31, give or take 2. Newton did kill a few but only in his treasury job, which doesn't count.

This is daft. My point was that the sorts of harmful biases and thought patterns that you might see in religious fanatics are clearly not unique to them.

SpaceGazelle wrote:

@Gazelle - The fuck man. It's like Hunk's comment in the politics thread. Perhaps you intended something else, but that can be taken for casual racism. I'll delete the quotation to offer you the same chance Hunk got.

It's not racism, it's thickism. The race or religion doesn't matter - don't kill people. It's not fucking rocket science. Christians who kill people, Muslims who kill people - all wankers, but to think you're doing it for the very fucking thing that specifically tells you not to do it is moronic. Tbf Catholicism wins this hands down. I'm not racist, I just hate cunts.

The fact that we're contesting justification after something offensive was written... I mean, that's the very definition of casual racism.

That classic line...

'I'm not racist'

The fuck.

When I hear news of an event like this, I wouldn't even want to condemn the perpetrator offhand without further detail, let alone a whole damn culture, because they're often one of the following:

A - Mentally ill
B - Exploited
C - Endangered

I digress... What you wrote, wasn't 'thickism', it looked quite specific to myself, and a number of other people here.
If you don't want to apologise for that, it's cool...

It's the fucking internet.

But when I think a line's been crossed, I'm going to call it out. Fuck pussyfooting around that one.

DarkSoldier had recently called me out for using the word 'retard', frivolously. I was a little peeved at first, but that's a fine standard to maintain. So I apologised.

Whether you want to do that, is up to you, but to channel DS, I don't want to see that kind of thing on this board.

That's quite the hole you're working on there.

dynamiteReady wrote:

SpaceGazelle wrote:

dynamiteReady wrote:

What you wrote, wasn't 'thickism', it looked quite specific to myself, and a number of other people here. If you don't want to apologise for that, it's cool... It's the fucking internet.

I'm not apologising for calling bullshit on god. That's not racism.

bad_hair_day wrote:

Just thought it a more measured way of scoring.

You just haven't been there for my anti-Catholic rants, which are long and very angry indeed.

SpaceGazelle wrote:

bad_hair_day wrote:

Andy wrote:

Terrorist 0 Evolution 1

Succinctly put.

Oh I'm sorry if it was too topical and not recognising historical crimes. Feel free to replace "Allah" with "Magic White Cunt living in the sky".

You would still be in the wrong. But with that response, you’re in the wrong and being a dick about it. Top work.

The processes to get there are helped with philosophy though. Philosophy is more than just noodling around about thinking about the depth of things but also about the structures we use to get to answers.

I also went to a talk today where the person (Tom Holland) argued that you don’t even get the pseudo intellectual dichotomy and circling pasta man of science and religion without the concept of Christianity to create those two ideas in the first place. (The example he gave was how Christians were better at predicting eclipses because they tried to work this out than the Chinese people who needed them for their practices) - I know no more than this.

SpaceGazelle wrote:

GurtTractor wrote:

Science and scientists need as much philosophical guidance as anything else.

No. Once you understand that nothing has a "Why?" and only a "How?" do you properly understand anything. That's not an excuse to be mean, it's a reason to be kind.

Science alone is unable to tell us what The Right Thing To Do is, that requires philosphical introspection and making important choices about things that might not have a fundamental rational justification. We have make the Why. I don't think religion in the traditional sense is the right way to go about this, but aspects of those teachings are incredibly important to think about and not immediately discard. Play gracefully with ideas.

Constantly going off on religion is fairly unhelpful, and it's especially unhelpful when talking about incidents such as these, don't feed that vicious circle.

The forum says, “STFU.”

SpaceGazelle wrote:

Constantly going off on religion is fairly unhelpfu

History says ""WTAF?".

Yes history does repeat itself doesn't it..


My whole point is not to criticise religion, it's that you should be criticising the kinds of infectious thought patterns that lead to so much harm in the world. Ignorance, bigotry, discrimination, conservatism and dogmatism, all these things are not the sole reserve of the religious, and it's a serious mistake to think that scientists and other 'enlightened' people are somehow immune to or above all those things. Constant vigilance.

What's Hitler's religion again? 

Are you suggesting that if there were only aethiest scientists in the Manhattan project that they wouldn't have developed the bomb?

Once again, are you serious?

SpaceGazelle wrote:

What you wrote, wasn't 'thickism', it looked quite specific to myself, and a number of other people here. If you don't want to apologise for that, it's cool... It's the fucking internet.

I'm not apologising for calling bullshit on god. That's not racism.

There's something not quite right about this line of discussion right now. It's probably booze.

Want to apply 'logic' to this? This is a law enforcement issue. The perpetrator is a parolee. Some part of the system broke there, because the judge thought there was a risk.

But if you want to be deliberately offensive, like a few drinks would likely do? Then fine. Invoke race and religion. It's the best way to obscure long-standing economic issues, as 'history' frequently demonstrates.

Seriously, when Gnozo occasionally raises that point about this country ending up with the government it deserves?... When I read shit like that post, how can I doubt that?

The 'rationalists' sound like racist fanatics. I often do wonder if they might be.

Me? I feel sorry for the victims, and further to that, hope this incident doesn't have the effect on the election that your comments suggest.

SpaceGazelle wrote:

GurtTractor wrote:

Science and scientists need as much philosophical guidance as anything else.

No. Once you understand that nothing has a "Why?" and only a "How?" do you properly understand anything. That's not an excuse to be mean, it's a reason to be kind.

What was the excuse of the German scientist in Nazi Germany then?