And yet here it is on Slashdot. Suck it up.
And yet here it is on Slashdot. Suck it up.
Because Pastafarianism has a clear founding based on it being a false religion as an example to show how insane the belief systems of other religions are. I.e. it was specifically made to take the piss out of other religions.
"Just think about it" - Lol. Reread my first post.
Possibly yes. And then you would meet the standard that Pastafarianism and Church of Scientology do not meet . The whole point of this exercise was to make a standard that they don't meet and others do - so go for it.
That said, there are certain generally accepted criteria for a religion versus a cult (e.g. you need to have enough followers that other people agree you are a religion - similar to census rules). And you'll need to be super thorough wiping all records, pretty hard these days.
Will you have one god or many?
(PS - you'll have to get a friend to do it - you've already made the postulation public)
I'm not discriminating based on age.
I'm discriminating based on verifiability of authenticity. I.e. Do we know they just made it up and no supernatural events occurred?
A factor of verifiability is time, but only in the sense that people die. If you had an immortal who could verify the aforementioned religions as false then they would be in the same basket.
'it "doesn't change the fact that by any standard one can come up with" the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is "as legitimate as any other" religion.'
Was your religion invented in living memory such that it's un-authenticity can be verified?
I believe Scientology and Pastafarianism both meet this criteria. Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, Judaism don't.
Of course it doesn't make the latter mentioned religions "true", only non-verifiable, whereas recent religions are verifiably "false" - making them not "as legitimate".
(they did say "any standard"...)
If borders were torn down overnight, there would be massive migrant influxes to some countries and cities such that those countries and cities would have their social and physical infrastructure overwhelmed. E.g. A ridiculous amount of people from Central and South America would flood into New Mexico and Texas.
It would need to be graduated to prevent this.
Note: Nationalism is not a subset of bigotry. They are two quite different things. Nationalism doesn't necessarily even have to be xenophobic (i.e. you can love you country without hating or fearing anyone else).
That's called a pleonasm.
Buy a keyboard with programmable key displays, then program the keyboard however you like.
They're used in conjunction with each other to accurately indicate blood pressure.
Just to be clear, the sphygomomanometer measures the pressure in the cuff. It does not measure blood pressure. It is an indirect indication of blood pressure that is non-inavasive and quite accurate and used extensively in an everyday clinical setting.
It takes both to accurately indicate pressure.
Accurate relative to what? I think palpation is best used as a quick clinical guide for simply indicating low, normal, or high BP in environments where you can't use a stethoscope. I only ever did palpation when it was inconvenient to pull over the Ambulance and the road noise was too loud to hear the Korotcoff sounds.
"It amazes me that so many people are smart enough to know sphygmomanometer instead of using "blood pressure cuff" but they are ignorant that a stethoscope is required for the procedure."
It's a weird phenomenon indeed.
Maybe too much google time and not enough actual knowledge.
"Then your country is a very rare exception."
It's not like your examples at all. It's a gradual process that happens through pressure on politicians from the population to achieve change. This happens over time along with gradual improvement in other areas. But if people don't ask for it or attempt it, it certainly won't change.
"We know that how?"
Firstly, I'm specifically not comparing it to third world style hell haven prisons. I've made that clear.
Secondly, using the US as an example, everyone on death row exhausts every appeal they have before they are finally executed because they want to live. Even in shitty US prisons they would prefer life over death. This is not something new. This is not surprising.
The difference is the "sheet of paper with laws voted on by a consenting group of people" and that some people think that legislating something makes it "right".
No, my argument is not that society is correct by definition. You asked a question - should we imprison people and is it OK? I didn't answer your question and instead pointed you to making your own mind up on it, and provided some information to help you.
I didn't say it was a tiny minority. I don't know the statistics and I doubt you do either. You're welcome to look them up but I wouldn't bother for the sake of this discussion.
My country has good quality prisons and reasonable rehabilitation rates.
My logic is not broken. In my first post I said that "Just because a group of people consensually agree that someone should die doesn't make it something else." Later I wrote that even if we were to legislate for wholesale punitive murder that "...even then, it still doesn't make it right". You've combined the two, but it's close enough that I'll accept it.
In regards to prisons, I never wrote that they are right. They aren't necessarily good. But we know from historical contexts that prison is better than the alternative of wholesale punitive murder. I.e. I've argued they are better than the alternative.
I'll reiterate my most salient points:
That sort of system would be such a clusterfuck of people killing people.
The dark ages but with modern weaponry? No thanks.
Let's organize this thing and take all the fun out of it.