Comments on: Brian protests against religious tolerance

By: davey

davey — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 11:40:16 +0000

duncan

Irrational doesn’t equal immoral. We make irrational choices all the time, picking things on a whim. Love, to pick one example, makes you do many irrational things, does that make love immoral?

By: Duncan Bayne

Duncan Bayne — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 08:46:57 +0000

> Horrible generalization coming up, but what is it with christians?
> Just a complete inability to see blatant, obvious contradiction.

Same problem as with any faith - faith itself. Faith, the belief in something without or contrary to any evidence, is irrational, and immoral to the extent that it is irrational.

By: jh

jh — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 21:06:52 +0000

Mohammed likely to top British boys’ names list by year-end

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070606062208.yii0bwst&show_art icle=1
jh

By: Kevyn

Kevyn — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 11:58:30 +0000

mattb02, What it is with Christians is they have the same foibles as all other humans. The inability to see blatant, obvious contradiction is shared by marxists, socialists, pacifists and pretty much every other ist and ism you can think of. Believing what someone else says saves time and energy. And in our hectic modern lives those are very important things to do. After all if we can’t find the time to do really important things like watching TV and videos we risk a lifetime of psycholgical trauma due to living in perpetual uncertainty because we might have missed the episode of Sex and the City where everyone else learnt the proper attitude to take towards some particular sexual proclivity. The angst of not knowing what everybody else knows doesn’t bare thinking about.
Why get a life when you can get a TV?

By: mattb02

mattb02 — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 11:05:40 +0000

Horrible generalization coming up, but what is it with christians? Just a complete inability to see blatant, obvious contradiction. Tamaki and his established church claim is simply one to add to the shambles that is christian doctrine.

By: jh

jh — Sun, 03 Jun 2007 09:36:24 +0000

# kahikatea Says:
May 31st, 2007 at 12:02 pm

# jh Says:

> The official PC position is that all religions are benign; none is better or worse than another.

Who defines the ‘official’ PC position, as opposed to unofficial PC positions?
—————————————
I think you could do an analysis of variuos religions and count and catagourise the number of statements, that taken at face value are advocating behaviour that more enlightend societies don’t condone. I think it would show Islam to be one above the Inca religion.
jh

By: Kevyn

Kevyn — Sun, 03 Jun 2007 04:24:55 +0000

A recent study of travel to school by the US Transportation Research Board provides good evidence of just how endemic gender bias is in a western society.

http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/sr/sr269.pdf

The study took into account distance travelled by age and gender.

School bus travel had no gender difference for deaths or injuries.
Car travel (adult driver) had no gender difference for deaths but 30% more reported injuries for girls.
Car travel (teen driver) had no gender difference for deaths but 60% more reported injuries for girls.
Walking had had 25% more injuries for boys and twice as many deaths.
Cycling had twice as many injuries and three times more deaths for boys.

The lack of gender difference for deaths in cars and school buses is most likely because the risk is determined by the driver not the child. The difference for injuries is that the risk of being sued removes any reporting discretion from school bus drivers whereas car drivers appear to be 30% more like to report an injury crash if a girl child is involved. This suggests a more protective attitude to girls from both parents and older siblings. Assuming a similar bias for walking and cycling injuries brings the gender difference into line with those for walking and cycling deaths.

It seems that parental gender bias in relation to risk taking/risk management is either causing or reinforcing risk taking behavioural differences in childhood. When attitudes are endemic they are absorbed by children almost subconsciously and are likely to be manifested in equally subconscious ways in adulthood.

Ie, BB and katie are probably both partly right.

By: davey

davey — Sun, 03 Jun 2007 04:07:12 +0000

Perhaps, perhaps not. You claim that “as soon as we present a reasonable argument that they cannot deal with they simply accuse us of being racist or sexist, we are then forced to defend those accusations rather than deal with the issue being debated.” You seem to be tarring the entire left with the same brush, condemning the many for the actions of a few. Wasn’t that what you were opposing a few posts ago?

By: big bro

big bro — Sun, 03 Jun 2007 02:18:40 +0000

Davey

Then you are the exception to the rule.

By: davey

davey — Sun, 03 Jun 2007 01:19:52 +0000

Again with the “Them and Us mentality”. I’m left as well as being a proud white heterosexual male, so I’m well used to dealing with…myself?
I have never had to justify being any of those things, and personally I try not to accuse anyone of racism, sexism or any other ism unless I can rationally prove it.