|
|
Post by merkavah12 on Jun 30, 2009 3:24:17 GMT
In honor of Billy Mays, I will now extol the virtues of Oxyclean to complete strangers on the street.
|
|
|
|
Post by noons on Jun 30, 2009 3:27:53 GMT
IN HONOR OF BILLY MAYS, I WILL NOW EXTOL THE VIRTUES OF OXYCLEAN TO COMPLETE STRANGERS ON THE STREET. FIXED IT FOR YA |
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Jun 30, 2009 12:40:44 GMT
IN HONOR OF BILLY MAYS, I WILL NOW EXTOL THE VIRTUES OF OXYCLEAN TO COMPLETE STRANGERS ON THE STREET. FIXED IT FOR YA I'LL TRIPLE THE OFFER! |
|
|
|
Post by turoldus on Jul 1, 2009 8:19:30 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jamierobertson on Jul 1, 2009 10:35:10 GMT
Hear that, lads? We're in a cartel with the Musims, Hire Krishnas and Scientologists!
|
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Jul 1, 2009 13:48:24 GMT
I do have misgivings about these attempts to rehabilitate euthanasia For example, this guy was only 23, his condition wasn't terminal and there was genuine hope for improvement. www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article4964392.eceSeeing him being encouraged to top himself just seems wrong to me. |
|
|
|
Post by jamierobertson on Jul 1, 2009 15:11:04 GMT
Debbie Purdy's case is similar, Humphrey - her multiple sclerosis is a lifelong, currently incurable condition, but the life expectancy of MS patients is only about 5 years less than the rest of us.
Logically, though, if one supports euthanasia, why should it only be for "terminal" patients? If you're all for a patient's autonomy with respect to actively hastening death, the exclusion of physically healthy(er) patients is without obvious reason, as far as I can see. Personally I find the concept of "death on tap" for anyone that wants it as horrific, but at least it's consistent.
|
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Jul 1, 2009 18:58:56 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jul 2, 2009 0:27:53 GMT
Utter drivel. Now I'm going to burn all my ABBA records (ok, delete them off my computer). Humphrey, you've publicly confessed to many sins on this forum, but owning Abba records is surely the most unforgivable! : ) |
|
|
|
Post by eckadimmock on Jul 2, 2009 2:15:34 GMT
I liked this little contradiction
combined with this:
.
Which is why we tolerant people shouldn't tolerate them!
|
|
|
|
Post by jamierobertson on Jul 2, 2009 11:18:05 GMT
It's a frequent thing to see "secularism" treated as something on a higher level to "religion". Yet at the end of the day (like democracy v fascism) secularism is a standpoint, or worldview, or opinion, however you want to put it. As such, I've yet to see why person A's worldview (secularism) is automatically above person B's worldview (Islam, say). All that the CiF commentators have come up with (that i can see) is "religion is nonsense and based on supernatural rubbish", which isn't the question. Actually, Andrew Brown has articulated what I'm trying to say at tiny.cc/0upT5 , though he tends to conflate atheism with secularism. |
|
|
|
Post by acornuser on Oct 25, 2009 3:13:25 GMT
I've noticed this broader trend though in polemics about history. Some of the New Atheists seem to imply that anyone in history who disputed or rebelled against the prevailing religious beliefs or institutions at the time was basically an atheist, and therefore the New Atheists are part of the same role in history as Gallileo etc. Or some might say that if such people were in the present, they would be atheists now. I am highly skeptical of that entire idea, and I think it is mostly commenters who argue along those lines. Maybe they are trying to claim apostolic succession?  |
|
