Ray Comfort 180 movie

ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Ray Comfort 180 movie

 Ray Comfort can change your mind in 1 min about abortion. Something about Hitler.

 

 

 

Adding to his origins handout he will be giving out anti-choice videos at these colleges & universities.

THESE ARE SOME OF THE UNIVERSITIES BEING HIT!!

1. Princeton University (NJ) http://www.princeton.edu

2. Harvard University (MA) http://www.college.harvard.edu

3. Yale University (CT) http://www.yale.edu

4. Stanford University (CA) http://www.stanford.edu

5. University of Pennsylvania (PA) http://www.upenn.edu

6. California Institute of Technology (CA) http://www.caltech.edu

7. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MA) http://web.mit.edu

8. Duke University (NC) http://www.duke.edu

9. Columbia University (NY) http://www.columbia.edu

10. University of Chicago (IL) http://www.uchicago.edu

11. Dartmouth College (NH) http://www.dartmouth.edu

12. Washington University in St. Louis (MO) http://www.wustl.edu

13. Cornell University (NY) http://www.cornell.edu

14. Brown University (RI) http://www.brown.edu

15. Northwestern University (IL) http://www.northwestern.edu

16. Johns Hopkins University (MD) http://www.jhu.edu

17. Rice University (TX) http://www.rice.edu

18. Emory University (GA) http://www.emory.edu

19. Vanderbilt University (TN) http://www.vanderbilt.edu

20. Notre Dame (IN) http://www.nd.edu

21. University of California - Berkeley (CA) http://berkeley.edu/

22. Carnegie Mellon University (PA) http://www.cmu.edu

23. University of Virginia (VA) http://www.virginia.edu

24. Georgetown University (DC) http://www.georgetown.edu

25. University of California—Los Angeles (CA) http://www.ucla.edu

26. University of Michigan—Ann Arbor (MI) http://www.umich.edu

27. University of Southern California (CA) We have this one.

28. University of North Carolina—Chapel Hill (NC) http://www.unc.edu

29. Tufts University (MA) http://www.tufts.edu

30. Wake Forest University (NC) http://www.wfu.edu

31. Lehigh University (PA) http://www.lehigh.edu

32. Brandeis University (MA) http://www.brandeis.edu

33. College of William and Mary (VA) http://www.wm.edu

34. New York University (NY) http://www.nyu.edu

35. University of Rochester (NY) http://www.rochester.edu

36. Georgia Institute of Technology (GA) http://www.gatech.edu

37. Boston College (MA) http://www.uiuc.edu

38. University of Wisconsin—Madison (WI) http://www.wisc.edu

39. University of California—San Diego (CA) http://www.ucsd.edu

40. University of Illinois—Urbana - Champaign (IL) http://www.illinois.edu

41. Case Western Reserve University (OH) http://www.case.edu

42. University of Washington (WA) http://www.washington.edu

43. University of California—Davis (CA) http://www.ucdavis.edu

44. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (NY) http://www.rpi.edu

45. University of Texas—Austin (TX) http://www.utexas.edu

46. University of California—Santa Barbara (CA) http://www.ucsb.edu

47. University of California—Irvine (CA) http://www.uci.edu

48. Penn State University—University Park (PA) http://www.psu.edu

49. University of Florida (FL) http://www.ufl.edu

50. Syracuse University (NY) http://www.syr.edu

 

CANADIAN UNIVERSITIES BEING HIT ALSO

Ottawa University - http://www.uottawa.ca/

Carleton University - http://www.carleton.ca/

Queen's University - http://www.queensu.ca/

University of Toronto - http://www.utoronto.ca/

York University - http://www.yorku.ca/

McMaster University - http://www.mcmaster.ca/

Guelph University - http://www.uoguelph.ca/

Brock University - http://www.brocku.ca/

U of Western Ontario - http://www.uwo.ca/

Concordia University - http://www.concordia.ca/

McGill University - http://www.mcgill.ca/

U of New Brunswick - http://www.unb.ca/

Memorial U of Newfoundland - http://www.mun.ca/

Dalhousie University - http://www.dal.ca/

University of Manitoba - http://www.umanitoba.ca/

U of Saskatchewan - http://www.usask.ca/

University of Alberta - http://www.ualberta.ca/

University of Calgary - http://www.ucalgary.ca/

Simon Fraser University - http://www.sfu.ca/

U of British Columbia - http://www.ubc.ca/

University of Victoria - http://www.uvic.ca/

 

 

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
 I meant something about

 I meant something about Hitler and the Jews.

 

when I was a fundie minister I was anti-choice of course. Then after years of moving away from that I became pro-choice, mainly because there are too many fucking people in the world and we are destroying all our natural resources. 

 

There is a billboard not too far from my house that reads 

 

  I did some poking around before but I don't believe its premise.   I am not unsympathetic in regards to killing something living and how difficult it would be for someone to make that decision, but I really hate how Christians have made it their cause. I firmly believe there is no biblical support for it. Abortions have been around a long time. There is Egyptian record of abortion dated  1550 BC. China, Greece, Rome have documents regarding it even procedures. All this before Christ and Paul. And yet those guys don't even write one word about it. Paul worries about hair length (1 Corinthians 11).   

2 Samuel 12:13-14 - God the abortion doctor.

 

How many pregnant women were involved in his genocides?

  

Noah's flood - Genesis 6:6-7

  

Sodom and Gomorrah - Genesis 19:24-25

  

Ordering the Jews to kill every man, woman and child

    

Joshua 6:20-21; Joshua 8:25; 1 Samuel 15:2-3; etc, etc.

 

 

Then he (Jesus) will burn in hell nearly everyone including children, save a remnant. This god is blood thirsty.   

 

So are these Christians more "moral" than their god?    

I guess Christians love it because it generates so much emotion and now Ray Comfort will (ab)use it to pull people in as if this god has been on the right side all along.

bullshit, bullshit, bullshit

       

 

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Not even.

Only vaguely close.

 

http://www.fetalsure.com/fetal-heart.html wrote:

Angiogenic Cell Clusters are the building blocks of what will become a fetal heart tube known as the primitive heart tube. The primitive heart tube develops around three to four weeks and goes through an incredible transformation transforming into a four-chamber heart. The heart begins to beat on approximately the twenty-second day, which corresponds to the 5th week of 40 week pregnancy based on LMP.

 

Seeing as they sell fetal heat beat monitors, I figure they ought to know.

I don't think you were posting for the last go around on abortions.  For the record, my position is to abort or not is between a woman, her family, and her medical provider.  Period.  It is none of anyone else' business.

 

 

edit: getting my facts straight

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote: For the record,

cj wrote:

 For the record, my position is to abort or not is between a woman, her family, and her medical provider.  Period.

Except of course if she decides to abort it, taxpayers should pay for it. If she decides to deliver it and raise it, taxpayers should pay for it too.

cj wrote:
  It is none of anyone else' business.

I should just write checks to the government for women's choices, but it's no of business what they do with it. Abort 12 babies or deliver 12, it's none of my fucking business except to pay for it all.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote: Except of course

EXC wrote:

 Except of course if she decides to abort it, taxpayers should pay for it. If she decides to deliver it and raise it, taxpayers should pay for it too.

 

As long as we are imaging things. Or if she has the unwanted child, abuses it and it grows up harming innocent people where it winds up incarcerated  for the taxpayers to foot that much larger bill.

You assume her medical provider is a government clinic. It might have been her own insurance. Maybe she has her own money or the dick who got her pregnant is willing to pay.

 

EXC wrote:

 I should just write checks to the government for women's choices, but it's no of business what they do with it. Abort 12 babies or deliver 12, it's none of my fucking business except to pay for it all.

 

When did you start paying for it all? Taxes are a shared burden. There isn't any one single person happy with everything the government spends its money on. It is a composite picture of what Americans want, not just what one person wants. We have lots of conflicts and that is what you get with democracy. Peaceful resolution and compromise are all that is available and viable.

Would you recommend line items for your taxes? That would be interesting and impossible to set up or maintain. Perhaps this is the point of anarchy. Everybody gets what they want and no one can say different.

 

 

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3201
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister wrote: I meant

ex-minister wrote:

 I meant something about Hitler and the Jews.

 

when I was a fundie minister I was anti-choice of course. Then after years of moving away from that I became pro-choice, mainly because there are too many fucking people in the world and we are destroying all our natural resources. 

 

There is a billboard not too far from my house that reads 

 

  I did some poking around before but I don't believe its premise.   I am not unsympathetic in regards to killing something living and how difficult it would be for someone to make that decision, but I really hate how Christians have made it their cause. I firmly believe there is no biblical support for it. Abortions have been around a long time. There is Egyptian record of abortion dated  1550 BC. China, Greece, Rome have documents regarding it even procedures. All this before Christ and Paul. And yet those guys don't even write one word about it. Paul worries about hair length (1 Corinthians 11).   

2 Samuel 12:13-14 - God the abortion doctor.

 

How many pregnant women were involved in his genocides?

  

Noah's flood - Genesis 6:6-7

  

Sodom and Gomorrah - Genesis 19:24-25

  

Ordering the Jews to kill every man, woman and child

    

Joshua 6:20-21; Joshua 8:25; 1 Samuel 15:2-3; etc, etc.

 

 

Then he (Jesus) will burn in hell nearly everyone including children, save a remnant. This god is blood thirsty.   

 

So are these Christians more "moral" than their god?    

I guess Christians love it because it generates so much emotion and now Ray Comfort will (ab)use it to pull people in as if this god has been on the right side all along.

bullshit, bullshit, bullshit

       

 

 

Excellent points ex-minister.  I find it difficult to believe that an idiot like Ray Comfort could change someone from being pro-choice to anti-abortion in 44 seconds or 95 seconds, like the videos were "claiming". I would not be a bit surprised if that wasn't paid people, helping to pull off his propaganda stunts.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:cj wrote: For the

EXC wrote:

cj wrote:

 For the record, my position is to abort or not is between a woman, her family, and her medical provider.  Period.

Except of course if she decides to abort it, taxpayers should pay for it. If she decides to deliver it and raise it, taxpayers should pay for it too.

cj wrote:
  It is none of anyone else' business.

I should just write checks to the government for women's choices, but it's no of business what they do with it. Abort 12 babies or deliver 12, it's none of my fucking business except to pay for it all.

 

Sigh.  You can start your charitable contributions by sending me a check.  </sarcasm>

 

I would have thought that abortion would be your preferred option given that you think there are too many people in this world.  And it is a fuck of a lot cheaper than raising another juvie.

No birth control is 100% effective.  And the day humans stop having sex with each other is the day we are extinct.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister wrote:As long as

ex-minister wrote:

As long as we are imaging things. Or if she has the unwanted child, abuses it and it grows up harming innocent people where it winds up incarcerated  for the taxpayers to foot that much larger bill.

 I don't think you and CJ get at all where I'm coming from. I want legal abortion, in fact I want mandatory birth control.
 The problem of have is the total hypocrisy of the leftist and feminists, with their hands off my womb libertarian mentality. But then when it comes to either paying for the abortion or paying for the baby, they're all of a sudden socialists that want the government to interfere in people's lives to take money from one person to pay for the choices of another. "Hands off my womb!" How about hands off my paycheck, as well? 
ex-minister wrote:

You assume her medical provider is a government clinic. It might have been her own insurance. Maybe she has her own money or the dick who got her pregnant is willing to pay.

 Most abortions are because the woman can't afford the baby, so she usually can't afford insurance. I'm for the government paying for abortions as long as it's part of a social contract and not a free benefit provided for nothing. The government doesn't go after men that don't take care of their offspring and force them to pay or have a vasectomy. They go after the easiest target.  

 

 

ex-minister wrote:

Taxes are a shared burden.

 Bullshit. Half the adult population pays no taxes, and you know it's highly skewed. A lot of people that have children expect others to pay for their burden. If we really had this "shared burden" idealized society, we wouldn't have taxes because everyone could pay for the services they use for their family. Taxes are just plain armed robbery they opposite of a shared burden society. A lot of men that are programmed to be such wienies when it comes to standing up to this leftist feminist hypocrisy. We're supposed to give women their precious reproductive freedom and respect their individual choices. But then when it comes time to pay for the baby or the abortion, then we're all on big caring family that 'shares the burden' unless of course they or the guy that knocked them up can't pay. It's like BP leaving a big oil spill and then expecting everyone else to pay for the mess they leave. But we have to respect their right to drill however, wherever whenever they want. The hypocrisy of this just reeks.   

 

ex-minister wrote:

Would you recommend line items for your taxes? That would be interesting and impossible to set up or maintain. Perhaps this is the point of anarchy. Everybody gets what they want and no one can say different.

Why would it be "impossible to set up or maintain"? Commercial companies have no problem charging for the services they provide, why not the government? The current system is unsustainable as we can see by our debt. The current system is designed for welfare queens and welfare kings in corporate board rooms.

The concept of taxation is highly irrational. It is designed to make the rich and powerful more so without any contribution to the economy. It keeps the poor in a permanent state of poverty with just enough benefits to keep them alive and voting for the people that give them welfare benefits to live on the edge of survival. It punishes work and innovation.

Every service and benefit a person receives can be pay as you go. If there are indigent people, put them into a job training programs paid for by people that receive benefits such as land/water usage and mining/drilling rights. And there must be mandatory birth control to keep population pressures from causing poverty.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

OK, I watched those videos. I am not going to bother with the responses because I need to get crap out first.

 

One: Ray Ray is a red sea pedestrian. It says so on wikipedia and he has never countered the deal.

 

My heart was beating just about as soon it could actually beat. I doubt that it looed much like it did the day that I was born. So fucking what?

 

Abortion? Kind of creepy if I think about the idea that I might not have been born but who am I to even have an opinion? I am a dude. Should I be abducted by aliens and a few months later, my belly starts to get big, I will want that shit ripped out of me but quick. The ladies have to make that call on their own individually.

 

Honestly, I would imagine that abortion must suck. Unless chickie is such a skank that it is a routine medical service but then she has bigger issues to deal with. I don't have stats at hand but I would tend to assume that most abortions happen as soon as the woman knows that she is preggers. The idea of later term abortion is used as a scare tactic.

 

Obviously, I cannot comment on what it is like to be preggers but from what I have seen with women around me, it does not really look like it is fun. The general idea that a woman would put herself through eight months of that crap only to say that she has changed her mind, well that doesn't seem to be sensible. On the other hand, if she finds out that she will die if she keeps going on, I would imagine that the choice would be fairly obvious. But then we are looking at a real attempt to squirt one out only to find out that there is a gigantic problem.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Goodie, another topic about

Goodie, another topic about abortion!

 

 

 


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

EXC, I see where you are going. It is at least partially valid. Remember that I have been a social worker for decades. Welfare sluts do exist. One example I have met had five daughters from five different men and she was knocked up yet again. The reason was that she felt like squirting out a boy.

 

The problem is bigger than you think though. Removing the financial incentive to have a manageable family size hits everyone. One of my brother's supervisors will be the case here. The last I heard, he makes about $300,000 but he is on food stamps. He is Roman Catholic and every time he has sex, his wife has to squirt one out. 13 kids at last count.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:cj wrote: For the

EXC wrote:

cj wrote:

 For the record, my position is to abort or not is between a woman, her family, and her medical provider.  Period.

Except of course if she decides to abort it, taxpayers should pay for it. If she decides to deliver it and raise it, taxpayers should pay for it too.

cj wrote:
  It is none of anyone else' business.

I should just write checks to the government for women's choices, but it's no of business what they do with it. Abort 12 babies or deliver 12, it's none of my fucking business except to pay for it all.

 

I agree. I go a step further though and say welfare drags people down as a whole. People who are raised by parents on welfare learn that welfare is a good wonderful thing some people are entitled to and work is .. I dunno who work is for anymore, people with that misguided ..sense of pride? 

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:cj wrote: For the

EXC wrote:

cj wrote:

 For the record, my position is to abort or not is between a woman, her family, and her medical provider.  Period.

Except of course if she decides to abort it, taxpayers should pay for it. If she decides to deliver it and raise it, taxpayers should pay for it too.

cj wrote:
  It is none of anyone else' business.

I should just write checks to the government for women's choices, but it's no of business what they do with it. Abort 12 babies or deliver 12, it's none of my fucking business except to pay for it all.

 

As it seems that the only people who are wanting government handouts and bailouts are those that don't need them, my first thought reading this was  "All those rich people are getting abortions?"

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:EXC wrote:cj

robj101 wrote:

EXC wrote:

cj wrote:

 For the record, my position is to abort or not is between a woman, her family, and her medical provider.  Period.

Except of course if she decides to abort it, taxpayers should pay for it. If she decides to deliver it and raise it, taxpayers should pay for it too.

cj wrote:
  It is none of anyone else' business.

I should just write checks to the government for women's choices, but it's no of business what they do with it. Abort 12 babies or deliver 12, it's none of my fucking business except to pay for it all.

 

I agree. I go a step further though and say welfare drags people down as a whole. People who are raised by parents on welfare learn that welfare is a good wonderful thing some people are entitled to and work is .. I dunno who work is for anymore, people with that misguided ..sense of pride? 

Yes! Get the rich people off welfare and get them to work! Then the poor people who are working and still need the help will have it.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
 EXC wrote: Most abortions

 

EXC wrote:

 Most abortions are because the woman can't afford the baby, so she usually can't afford insurance. I'm for the government paying for abortions as long as it's part of a social contract and not a free benefit provided for nothing. The government doesn't go after men that don't take care of their offspring and force them to pay or have a vasectomy. They go after the easiest target.

 

 

Wall Street Journal wrote:

Most women getting abortions pay for them out of their own pockets, with private insurers picking up the cost for just 12%, according to a new survey.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703612804575222460289939490.html

I think you need to find some backing for your assumptions.

 

 

EXC wrote:

 "Taxes are a share burden" - ex-minister

Bullshit. Half the adult population pays no taxes, and you know it's highly skewed. A lot of people that have children expect others to pay for their burden. If we really had this "shared burden" idealized society, we wouldn't have taxes because everyone could pay for the services they use for their family. Taxes are just plain armed robbery they opposite of a shared burden society. A lot of men that are programmed to be such wienies when it comes to standing up to this leftist feminist hypocrisy. We're supposed to give women their precious reproductive freedom and respect their individual choices. But then when it comes time to pay for the baby or the abortion, then we're all on big caring family that 'shares the burden' unless of course they or the guy that knocked them up can't pay. It's like BP leaving a big oil spill and then expecting everyone else to pay for the mess they leave. But we have to respect their right to drill however, wherever whenever they want. The hypocrisy of this just reeks. 

When I said taxes are a shared burden, I said nothing about who pays for taxes and what is fair. (You are paying for it all, are you?) For those who pay taxes it is a shared burden. Just you and I are not  smart enough to be the people who pay no taxes. I don't buy it is armed robbery simply because you don't have to pay. If others can find a way around it why not you? I pay my taxes because I am grateful to be a U.S. citizen and I like to have police and paved roads. But as I said earlier I don't get today to pick and choose what my taxes go to. 

 

 

EXC wrote:

 Why would it be "impossible to set up or maintain"? Commercial companies have no problem charging for the services they provide, why not the government? The current system is unsustainable as we can see by our debt. The current system is designed for welfare queens and welfare kings in corporate board rooms.

The concept of taxation is highly irrational. It is designed to make the rich and powerful more so without any contribution to the economy. It keeps the poor in a permanent state of poverty with just enough benefits to keep them alive and voting for the people that give them welfare benefits to live on the edge of survival. It punishes work and innovation.

Every service and benefit a person receives can be pay as you go. If there are indigent people, put them into a job training programs paid for by people that receive

benefits such as land/water usage and mining/drilling rights. And there must be mandatory birth control to keep population pressures from causing poverty.

Ok. You got a plan. What's next?

 

 

 

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister wrote:When I

ex-minister wrote:

When I said taxes are a shared burden, I said nothing about who pays for taxes and what is fair. (You are paying for it all, are you?) For those who pay taxes it is a shared burden. Just you and I are not  smart enough to be the people who pay no taxes. I don't buy it is armed robbery simply because you don't have to pay. If others can find a way around it why not you? I pay my taxes because I am grateful to be a U.S. citizen and I like to have police and paved roads. But as I said earlier I don't get today to pick and choose what my taxes go to. 

 I'm sure I could easily make money ripping people off and paying no taxes. I guess I want to sleep well at night.

Aren't you also grateful to have food and clothes on your back. So why don't, we make these paid for by taxes as well? If you really want to have good police and paved roads in the future, taxation makes no sense to pay for it. As time goes on more people can't or won't pay because they don't have to. So the question is why can't all services be pay as you go? No taxes, just user fees?

 

ex-minister wrote:

Ok. You got a plan. What's next?

 

Probably nothing. Hoping for a world without taxation is like hoping for a world without religion. Most people just shake their heads at all the misery in the world and refuse to see how it is caused by so much irrational behavior. We're all just sheep.

A good start could be only supporting politicians that will start to reform the insane tax code.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10348
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
My plan is socialism.

My plan is socialism. Welfare bums cannot exist, because if you refuse to work then you get nothing from the government. No food, shelter, or public services. Nothing.
No more wasted tax dollars on people who don't want to work.
Of course, most people still think socialism MUST provide for the lazy, and MUST do so at the expense of the taxpayer, and refuse to listen to arguments to the contrary, so don't hold your breath on it actually happening any time soon.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote: Taxes are just

EXC wrote:
Taxes are just plain armed robbery they opposite of a shared burden society.

Non sequitur.

EXC wrote:
A lot of men that are programmed to be such wienies when it comes to standing up to this leftist feminist hypocrisy. We're supposed to give women their precious reproductive freedom and respect their individual choices. But then when it comes time to pay for the baby or the abortion, then we're all on big caring family that 'shares the burden' unless of course they or the guy that knocked them up can't pay.

The fact that women are 'more' equal, is a different topic. If you want to debate that, start a new thread.

 

EXC wrote:
It's like BP leaving a big oil spill and then expecting everyone else to pay for the mess they leave. But we have to respect their right to drill however, wherever whenever they want. The hypocrisy of this just reeks.

I think you're misinformed, if you think a company like BP can just set up and drill wherever they want without anyone's permission.
 

EXC wrote:
The concept of taxation is highly irrational.

Saying it does not make it so.
 

EXC wrote:
It is designed to make the rich and powerful more so without any contribution to the economy.

You have a funny way of connecting the dots. How is there 'no contribution to the economy' if the money is spent on goods and services? Are they burning taxation dollars?
 

EXC wrote:
  It punishes work and innovation.

How do you think infrastructure gets built?
The US used to be in the Top 10 in infrastructure in the world, not too long ago. I think it's barely in the Top 30, currently.
 
Do you think that has anything to do with that dumb Bible thumping 'Gawd Fearun' Christian redneck G.W. Bush starting a decade old bombing/rebuilding spree in the Middle East?
America's a 'Christian Nation Y'all' after all.
Sounds like an internal problem to me.
He's a born and bred 'Mericun who worships the baby Jesus, and will 'spend' America into a hole to go after 'Eeeevil Doers', just like the good book says.
That's what America wanted; a President like that.
And that's what they got.
The majority of Americans proved not once, but twice, how stupid they are by voting that clown into office.
 
It's official. It's an internal problem. America has got it's head up it's own ass.
 
 
 
 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:My plan is

Vastet wrote:
My plan is socialism. Welfare bums cannot exist, because if you refuse to work then you get nothing from the government. No food, shelter, or public services. Nothing. No more wasted tax dollars on people who don't want to work. Of course, most people still think socialism MUST provide for the lazy, and MUST do so at the expense of the taxpayer, and refuse to listen to arguments to the contrary, so don't hold your breath on it actually happening any time soon.

Doesn't sound like any socialism I'm used to. Maybe communism? Actually, I don't know my isms very well in this specific area.

BTW, it's a complete red-herring to go with "No more wasted tax dollars on people who don't want to work". The proportion of such 'wasted tax dollars' compared to the 'wasted tax dollars' going to corruption and cronyism high up in the food chain is tiny tiny tiny. Ignoring Canada for a moment, just to make a point: If Americans were serious about protecting their tax dollars from getting 'wasted', they would trim back their fucking military by a measly 1% and suddenly have enough money for just about any social program you could imagine. Does the military ever shrink? No. And corporations and billionaires keep getting ridiculous tax cuts. Go figure.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote: Does the

natural wrote:

 Does the military ever shrink? No.

No is right.

Source:  http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5564

 

"Hugh d’Andrade and Bob Wing's 2002 Map 1 entitled "U.S. Military Troops and Bases around the World, The Cost of 'Permanent War'", confirms the presence of US military personnel in 156 countries. 

The US Military has bases in 63 countries. Brand new military bases have been built since September 11, 2001 in seven countries. 

In total, there are 255,065 US military personnel deployed Worldwide.

These facilities include a total of 845,441 different buildings and equipments. The underlying land surface is of the order of 30 million acres. According to Gelman, who examined 2005 official Pentagon data, the US is thought to own a total of 737 bases in foreign lands. Adding to the bases inside U.S. territory, the total land area occupied by US military bases domestically within the US and internationally is of the order of 2,202,735 hectares, which makes the Pentagon one of the largest landowners worldwide (Gelman, J., 2007)."

natural wrote:
And corporations and billionaires keep getting ridiculous tax cuts. Go figure.

Spend more and more on fighting the world, and lower taxes, and borrow money to fund it all. Fucking brilliant...

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10348
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
It's only one area that tax

It's only one area that tax dollars could be saved, and I mentioned it only because it is one of the most common arguments against socialism that I've ever run into (argued the subject with exc a number of times over the years, and its one of his hangups). Rather than a red herring, it was a pre-emptive tactical strike. Eye-wink

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:It's only one

Vastet wrote:
It's only one area that tax dollars could be saved, and I mentioned it only because it is one of the most common arguments against socialism that I've ever run into (argued the subject with exc a number of times over the years, and its one of his hangups). Rather than a red herring, it was a pre-emptive tactical strike. Eye-wink

Gotcha. Makes sense. I do that kind of thing a lot, too. Sometimes too much, but that's another topic.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote: The fact that

redneF wrote:

 

The fact that women are 'more' equal, is a different topic. If you want to debate that, start a new thread.

 

 

What is there to debate, it's pretty much a given. For example, only women have this special 'right to privacy' that allows them to be left alone by the government.
 

redneF wrote:

I think you're misinformed, if you think a company like BP can just set up and drill wherever they want without anyone's permission.

Yes I know. We can control their activities but not that of breeders.
 

redneF wrote:

EXC wrote:
The concept of taxation is highly irrational.

Saying it does not make it so.

I guess only completely bankrupt governments and a collapsed society would convince you that not correlating benefit with cost is a highly irrational way to run things. It would be nice if more people became convinced before it happens.
 

redneF wrote:

You have a funny way of connecting the dots. How is there 'no contribution to the economy' if the money is spent on goods and services? Are they burning taxation dollars?

 

You see the economy as dollars spent rather than products and services delivered. What we should want is high productivity(lots of goods and services at low cost). Taxation leads to lots of spending with little benefit and a debt filled society. 
 

EXC wrote:
  It punishes work and innovation.

I guess only completely bankrupt governments and a collapsed society would convince you that not correlating benefit with cost is a highly irrational way to run things. It would be nice if more people became convinced before it happens.

redneF wrote:

How do you think infrastructure gets built?
The US used to be in the Top 10 in infrastructure in the world, not too long ago. I think it's barely in the Top 30, currently.

The gas tax and vehicle registration fees are somewhat rational because they do somewhat function as user fees for roads rather than a non benefit receiving tax.

But, we've allowed the politicians to use this money for political payoffs to welfare recipients(corporate and individuals) and labor unions. So the gas tax is becoming a burden without benefit, not a good idea in a competitive global economy.

 
 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:redneF wrote: The

EXC wrote:

redneF wrote:

 

The fact that women are 'more' equal, is a different topic. If you want to debate that, start a new thread.

 

 

What is there to debate, it's pretty much a given. For example, only women have this special 'right to privacy' that allows them to be left alone by the government.

There's plenty to debate, if you're comparing the cost 'burden' of society paying for an abortion, vs what the cost 'burden' is for an unwanted child brought up in less than ideal conditions.

Pay a little now vs pay a lot more later...
 

 

EXC wrote:

redneF wrote:

You have a funny way of connecting the dots. How is there 'no contribution to the economy' if the money is spent on goods and services? Are they burning taxation dollars?

 

You see the economy as dollars spent rather than products and services delivered.

Strawman. That's not my position.

Don't overstate what I said.

EXC wrote:
What we should want is high productivity(lots of goods and services at low cost).

I never made any statement to the contrary, so I have no idea why this is in response to what you quoted.

EXC wrote:
Taxation leads to lots of spending with little benefit and a debt filled society.

That's like arguing that 'guns' kill people.
 

EXC wrote:

redneF wrote:

How do you think infrastructure gets built?
The US used to be in the Top 10 in infrastructure in the world, not too long ago. I think it's barely in the Top 30, currently.

The gas tax and vehicle registration fees are somewhat rational because they do somewhat function as user fees for roads rather than a non benefit receiving tax.

The gas tax (in theory) is scaled to be linear with road deterioration. That is a sound strategy.

EXC wrote:
But, we've allowed the politicians to use this money for political payoffs to welfare recipients(corporate and individuals) and labor unions. So the gas tax is becoming a burden without benefit, not a good idea in a competitive global economy.

I'm not even convinced that the gas tax covers the maintenance of roads, nevermind your claim that it's being diverted for other uses.

What about Cheney and Halliburton, and the Bush family and Dresser which merged with Halliburton and got multi million dollar contracts from the Department of Homeland Security?

Do you blame 'taxation' for that spending?

 

Let's talk about ROI.

What about the government paying $14.00 for a stamped washer that goes on a nut and bolt on a military tank. I ain't making that up (but I'm too lazy to search for a source), I saw an investigation done on 60 minutes or CNN.

What's the ROI on that?

Is 'taxation' the reason why a washer is valued at $14.00?

Can you estimate what the US space race to the moon has cost since it's inception?

WTF is the ROI on that?

How the fuck did the race up to the moon and the knowledge of what moon dust is made up before the Russians 'benefit' the average American?

Pride??

I bet a lot of Americans would have argued that it was worth the price just for the 'pride' of beating the Russians in the race to the moon.

Kennedy was certainly for it.

 

WTF are churches providing 'services', collecting income from patrons, and not paying taxes?

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote: There's

redneF wrote:

 

There's plenty to debate, if you're comparing the cost 'burden' of society paying for an abortion, vs what the cost 'burden' is for an unwanted child brought up in less than ideal conditions.

Pay a little now vs pay a lot more later...
 

I could see paying for abortions in cases where people don't just view it as a free benefit. If society is going to have to "pay a lot more later" for someone's child, doesn't that argue for mandatory birth control as a condition for public benefits.

 

redneF wrote:

I never made any statement to the contrary, so I have no idea why this is in response to what you quoted.

You're arguing that money spent by the government is contributing to the economy, right. I don't agree, it's stuff people aren't willing to work or produce to receive. So it's a burden on productivity.

redneF wrote:

EXC wrote:
Taxation leads to lots of spending with little benefit and a debt filled society.

That's like arguing that 'guns' kill people.

The proof is in the pudding. More government spending = more debt everywhere in society.

 

redneF wrote:

I'm not even convinced that the gas tax covers the maintenance of roads, nevermind your claim that it's being diverted for other uses.

All the money from taxes just goes into a slush fund for politicians to pay off the people that put them in power and keep them there. That is our broken system of government right now.

 

redneF wrote:

What about Cheney and Halliburton, and the Bush family and Dresser which merged with Halliburton and got multi million dollar contracts from the Department of Homeland Security?

Do you blame 'taxation' for that spending?

Yes conservatives are just a bad. Military speding is one of the worst offenders. It's all free money they didn't have to earn.

Taxation is like giving a Lamorgahni to a teenager. He's just going to wreck because he didn't have to earn the money to buy it. If politicians actually worked for us and had to earn the money the get from us just like any business, we could fix our problems.

But most people just accept taxation as necessary, but the truth is society would function way better with just user fees. Why do you object to making everything a user fee and treating politicians as having to earn your money, instead of it being their right to take what they want?

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Joker
atheist
Joker's picture
Posts: 180
Joined: 2010-07-23
User is offlineOffline
EXC, the problem is that

EXC, the problem is that taxation, while you may not like it, is necessary for any society larger than a township to function properly.  Taxes are what build roads, educate people, ensure infrastructure and also protect us in times of danger, IE fires, emergencies, etc. Taxation works under the principal that insuriance companies are supposed to, the idea that in essence everyone pays in a bit here and there so that if there is an emergency we have the resources at our disposal to deal with it. Taxes are part of the social contract. You've benefited from public funding and taxation all your life, roads, schools, police, fire departments, food and drug regulation, etc. Not to mention the fact that frankly corporations do need regulation, they exist only to produce profit, not to promote the public good. This means that we need to make sure that they don't pollute and poison groundwater or release chemicals that cause problems for residents of an area as well as making sure that their products are safe to use.

Part of the problem too is that you seem to believe that anyone on relief is just going to stop working. During an economic recession people are being fired who may have been hard workers and skilled, but the company either decided to cut the budgets or that the stock price needed to be a bit higher, so out you go. Relief means that people aren't starving to death and that parents can feed their children while they look for work. I could also point out that a society should be compassionate to their least fortunate but I imagine you'd argue that we should just let those that can't find a job in a bad economy starve?

Also, more government spending doesn't mean more debt. During the depression Roosevelt spent heavily setting up massive public works projects to employ people and give them hope as well as producing things that could be useful or just be nice to look at (planting trees and the like.) As well as funding the arts to provide people with something to help them pull themselves from a grinding hopelessness. Even if it wasn't perfect it was a damn sight better than nothing at all and it provided people with work experience as well as producing things like the hoover damn which helped bring electricity to many homes in the US.

Let me ask you a different question, do you understand that governments can't save money? IE they can't bank it, so what they get they have to use, either returning it in tax cuts or spending it to build up infrastructure and expand programs. I would also ask how you would suggest that governments 'earn' money. Do they have to put out petitions for every individual tax increase? If so most people would reject them because all they understand is 'taxes bad!' and thus necessary funding is lost. But then I imagine your greatest goal is looking out for number one, right?


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3186
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Of course, most

Vastet wrote:
Of course, most people still think socialism MUST provide for the lazy, and MUST do so at the expense of the taxpayer, and refuse to listen to arguments to the contrary, so don't hold your breath on it actually happening any time soon.

which is total bullshit.  anybody who grew up in any former communist country (i.e., socialist country ruled by a communist party) can tell you that if you didn't work, you went to prison.  period.  and while the state did carry the burden of those prisons, a little research will tell you that burden was liiiiight.  suffice it to say, weight-lifting TV junkies earning their bachelor's degrees were unheard of.

hell, decent meals and proper heating were unheard of.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Joker wrote:EXC, the problem

Joker wrote:

EXC, the problem is that taxation, while you may not like it, is necessary for any society larger than a township to function properly.  Taxes are what build roads, educate people, ensure infrastructure and also protect us in times of danger, IE fires, emergencies, etc. Taxation works under the principal that insuriance companies are supposed to, the idea that in essence everyone pays in a bit here and there so that if there is an emergency we have the resources at our disposal to deal with it. Taxes are part of the social contract. You've benefited from public funding and taxation all your life, roads, schools, police, fire departments, food and drug regulation, etc. Not to mention the fact that frankly corporations do need regulation, they exist only to produce profit, not to promote the public good. This means that we need to make sure that they don't pollute and poison groundwater or release chemicals that cause problems for residents of an area as well as making sure that their products are safe to use.

I think you misunderstand my position.

Not everyone drives a car or flies on planes. So we have user fees such as gas tax, airport security fee etc... The government mandates you carry auto-insurance, but they can leave the insurance to private companies that are regulated. There is no reason with modern technology the same principles can't be applied to fire, police and every other service no provided by our now bankrupt governments. The only government employees need only be a small percentage of managers and business regulators, that can be fired when they screw up. Only a nation of slaves requires politicians to be our leaders.

If companies are in a business such as chemicals, why should I pay taxes to regulate their business? There should be user fees on such businesses to cover their costs. Fire protection should be paid for by the people that need it the most, not out of a general fund manipulated by politics.

Taxes today are means of wealth transfer. Do you find the concept of user fees and insurance mandates irrational or is letting politicians play games with other people's money(that they didn't earn) a better way to go?

 

Joker wrote:

Part of the problem too is that you seem to believe that anyone on relief is just going to stop working. During an economic recession people are being fired who may have been hard workers and skilled, but the company either decided to cut the budgets or that the stock price needed to be a bit higher, so out you go. Relief means that people aren't starving to death and that parents can feed their children while they look for work. I could also point out that a society should be compassionate to their least fortunate but I imagine you'd argue that we should just let those that can't find a job in a bad economy starve?

But all you do is delay the the starvation with welfare. You raise taxes and debt to pay for welfare, you're just kicking the can down the road. The basic problem is too many people chasing after too few jobs and too few resources. All welfare can do is delay the day of reckoning or the Malthusian catastrophe.

The concept of aid to the poor can only be net beneficial to society if there is also mandatory family planning, mandatory education and work in areas the economy needs.

Joker wrote:

Also, more government spending doesn't mean more debt. During the depression Roosevelt spent heavily setting up massive public works projects to employ people and give them hope as well as producing things that could be useful or just be nice to look at (planting trees and the like.) As well as funding the arts to provide people with something to help them pull themselves from a grinding hopelessness. Even if it wasn't perfect it was a damn sight better than nothing at all and it provided people with work experience as well as producing things like the hoover damn which helped bring electricity to many homes in the US.

I don't have a big problem with what Roosevelt did. The problem today is the welfare systems works where if you have more babies you get more money. You can study whatever you want in college while we have massive labor shortages in areas like health care for the elderly. The current system is insane.

Joker wrote:

I would also ask how you would suggest that governments 'earn' money. Do they have to put out petitions for every individual tax increase?

Government is the sovereign authority over a portion of land. So they should charge people a user fee for the right to use the land. This would force conservation of natural resources. With services like fire and police, do what we do with auto insurance, mandate everyone that everyone buy a minimal coverage based on one's potential risk of needing these services. Move toward privatizing these services. Also fees for things like patents, copyrights, bank regulation, etc... Why do you find income tax rational?

I don't see why a government can't 'earn' it's money just like every business. By getting paid when it provides a service or grants a license, not when it puts a gun to your head like an armed robber.

Joker wrote:

If so most people would reject them because all they understand is 'taxes bad!' and thus necessary funding is lost. But then I imagine your greatest goal is looking out for number one, right?

Who doesn't look out for number one? Aren't all the government unions that have bankrupted us just looking out for themselves? So how could any corporation be any worse? At least you can fire them if they rip you off, instead with these unions, we're on the hook to pay our their generous pensions for the rest of our lives.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Joker
atheist
Joker's picture
Posts: 180
Joined: 2010-07-23
User is offlineOffline
EXC, I would like to

EXC, I would like to contineu the debate, but this seems like the wrong place for it, not to mention that the full counter to your statements would take a while.


Feredir28
Feredir28's picture
Posts: 45
Joined: 2011-01-08
User is offlineOffline
Refuting 180

I wish I could have commented on Ray's newest cinematic abomination earlier, but better late then never.

I am going to avoid talking about the pros and cons of abortion and strictly stick to fact-checking Ray's BS movie.

Shortly after Ray made this movie, I made a response article on RationalWiki, which I invite everyone to read,

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/180_%28movie%29

 

(Please feel free to read and comment on it. If you can think of anything to improve it, please share).

It cracked me up when Ray called himself a Jew.

In the article, I first wanted to explain why Ray's history was not only poor but also completely dishonest. I volunteered at the Museum of Tolerance for nearly 7 months and led people in tours, educating the public what actually happened, and I could easily spot when Ray got his facts wrong about Hitler and the Nazis. Ray tries to give the impression that Hitler was not a Christian and all Nazis are anti-christian, which is totally bogus.

 

Eventually, addressing abortion would be inevitable, but I wanted to remain as neutral as possible. So, I just checked to see if Ray's arguments had any consistency or logic in it... and surprise, surprise it did not. For instance, Ray says "why punish the child for the crimes of the father" and all I had to do was point out that is exactly what God does: he punishes us for the crimes of Adam and God killed a child for the crimes of David (and god is supposed to be righteous and perfect).

It appears the Bible did not agree one bit with Ray's arguments, which is probably why Ray did not ring up the Bible at any time while he was interviewing these people (who could have been prompted).

I pointed out every fallacy I could, which was mainly appeal to emotion.

I was actually surprise that Ray did not mention Darwin or evolution in the movie, but after some digging I knew it was too good to be true. Ray claimed in a "180 Course Book" that Hitler used Darwin's theory to justify his views, so I had to include it in the article for the unfortunate people who bought and read Ray's pile of garbage.

 

So anyway, I welcome all feedback on this article as well as any improvement. If you like it, spread it around. The places I think I do need help with is Ray's 180 Course guide. I found the first 18 pages online, but these are only the questions. If anyone could find the "Answer Key" to this booklet, that would deal a big blow in Ray's face.


Feredir28
Feredir28's picture
Posts: 45
Joined: 2011-01-08
User is offlineOffline
Refuting 180

I wish I could have commented on Ray's newest cinematic abomination earlier, but better late then never.

I am going to avoid talking about the pros and cons of abortion and strictly stick to fact-checking Ray's BS movie.

Shortly after Ray made this movie, I made a response article on RationalWiki, which I invite everyone to read,

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/180_%28movie%29

 

(Please feel free to read and comment on it. If you can think of anything to improve it, please share).

It cracked me up when Ray called himself a Jew.

In the article, I first wanted to explain why Ray's history was not only poor but also completely dishonest. I volunteered at the Museum of Tolerance for nearly 7 months and led people in tours, educating the public what actually happened, and I could easily spot when Ray got his facts wrong about Hitler and the Nazis. Ray tries to give the impression that Hitler was not a Christian and all Nazis are anti-christian, which is totally bogus.

 

Eventually, addressing abortion would be inevitable, but I wanted to remain as neutral as possible. So, I just checked to see if Ray's arguments had any consistency or logic in it... and surprise, surprise it did not. For instance, Ray says "why punish the child for the crimes of the father" and all I had to do was point out that is exactly what God does: he punishes us for the crimes of Adam and God killed a child for the crimes of David (and god is supposed to be righteous and perfect).

It appears the Bible did not agree one bit with Ray's arguments, which is probably why Ray did not ring up the Bible at any time while he was interviewing these people (who could have been prompted).

I pointed out every fallacy I could, which was mainly appeal to emotion.

I was actually surprise that Ray did not mention Darwin or evolution in the movie, but after some digging I knew it was too good to be true. Ray claimed in a "180 Course Book" that Hitler used Darwin's theory to justify his views, so I had to include it in the article for the unfortunate people who bought and read Ray's pile of garbage.

 

So anyway, I welcome all feedback on this article as well as any improvement. If you like it, spread it around. The places I think I do need help with is Ray's 180 Course guide. I found the first 18 pages online, but these are only the questions. If anyone could find the "Answer Key" to this booklet, that would deal a big blow in Ray's face.


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2368
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is onlineOnline
Feredir28

                       Hitler and the nazi's and several other bastards have use something called Social Darwinisim; which in brief means servivl of the richest or servival of the most effective bully. Darwin would be appalled to have his name used for such idiotcy. Comfort is just one more idiot who wouldn't know Darwin if it hit him in the face. Worse yet Comfort doesn't want to know.

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


rambof07
Posts: 3
Joined: 2012-10-26
User is offlineOffline
I like to watch movies or

I like to watch movies or you can say me a movie geek. Horror movies are specially like to watch. Above discussion was really interesting about movies. I would like to share some of good horror movies which i have seen and enjoyed too much.........Hope every one would like them.

 

Alien
The Shining
Diabolique
The Thing
Nosferatu

 

Rambo Finch


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Jeffrick

Jeffrick wrote:

                       Hitler and the nazi's and several other bastards have use something called Social Darwinisim; which in brief means servivl of the richest or servival of the most effective bully. Darwin would be appalled to have his name used for such idiotcy. Comfort is just one more idiot who wouldn't know Darwin if it hit him in the face. Worse yet Comfort doesn't want to know.

 

Ray is poisoning people's brains with this crap. First off Hitler was a politician, not a scientist. NO western scientist or western atheist would ever value the pseudo science Hitler concocted.

Funny though, some people at the top of our wealth chain do have the "sink or swim" attitude. They are just as clueless that while getting resources is part of evolution, so is the importance of the stability of the ecosystem, and so is cooperation.

Evolution can work through force or cooperation and the kind side of humanity prefers cooperation. The dark side of evolution is that people can get to the point of selfishness and live in a bubble at the cost of others.

That is why to avoid fascism of any kind, religion, political party, or class, our system must protect diversity and foster more economic stability.

Ray really needs to be put to task by the skeptic community in mass. He is dumbing down society and poisoning peoples minds.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37