Comment Re: And also cannot... (Score 1) 755
I believe the dispute was mainly of the distribution of money.
Which is to say, just like most other church schisms.
I believe the dispute was mainly of the distribution of money.
Which is to say, just like most other church schisms.
If you agree, publicly, that the vast majority of theists aren't wingnuts, sure.
You seem to be have some kind of demonic picture in your head about what an atheist is.
If I do, it's because that's what I see from pretty much everyone who calls themselves an atheist. I can only comment on what I see.
Simply not believing in a deity does not magically transform everyone into a cunt, you know.
Perhaps you're confusing cause and effect. Maybe being a cunt magically transforms you in to an atheist.
Which is not the same thing as denying they exist. My question stands.
Do you feel manly when you make fun of people on the internet? Does it make your dog horny to see you so masculine and shit?
I'm not Christian. Never claimed to be. So stop lying about what other people have said. Atheists seem to do that a lot. Just like the wingnuts at the other end of the spectrum. Honestly, I can't tell them apart. Since I can't be bothered to take either seriously enough to actually listen to their drivel.
There is a recognized atheist church in the United States. Tax exemptions and everything. In fact, they've recently had a schism, so technically, there's two atheist churches. At least.
... violates how language works, when one defines a concept in language it's drawn from the environment, there is no "god" to point to in our environment. If I say house I can point to it, if I say car, I can point to it. The same cannot be said for god.
I'm curious. Are you saying that you can point to, say, love, beauty, or freedom? Or are you saying that they don't exist?
What a sad, empty life it would be, to live in a world without abstract concepts.
And they say atheists can't be fundamentalist extremist asshole, too.
Well, at least it wasn't Bennett Hasselton.
Yeah, and I'd totally be able to afford and prevail in a legal battle with Google.
That's the biggest reason to have insurance. That way, you don't have to deal with it, your insurance company will. And they will fight tooth and nail because Google has very deep pockets.
And while they may, indeed, somebody be able to get rid of them, it won't be for a generation or more, and that has far more to do with insurance and liability than safety.
The order isn't against any person or entity in Ireland. It is against a US company, and US employees, who can access the data from their desks in the US. Under US law, it is certainly a valid order. Under Irish law, it is not. There is a conflict that the US prosecutor (and judge) do not want to (or can't, under current law) address. No matter what Microsoft does, they will break the law somewhere.
This is a surprisingly (for the source) thoughtful account of things so far, and explains the reasoning behind the order.
I doubt you will bother to ready it, and likely won't understand it if you do, and certainly won't care, but there it is.
There are provisions that the Irish government has apparently said would be the right way to go. But the US courts are a lot more lax on standards of probably cause, apparently, and for reasons unknown, prosecutors do not want to show their cards to the Irish courts.
He's a blowhard who takes himself far, far more seriously than anyone else does. And has no off switch.
He desperately wants to matter. And doesn't.
What is research but a blind date with knowledge? -- Will Harvey
