Really? I heard it was going to be Will Smith.

His books are some of the most manipulative literature I've ever read. Reading through the first chapter, you can see how he sets the stage just like a Vegas magician. Later, he acknowledges alternative explanations or opposing viewpoints only long enough to insult them and then squash them and will sign the death certificate himself without review. Perhaps, in 8th grade, you learned this as a pattern for "persuasive argument". He'll extend analogies for alternative theories to fairy tales and the stories of old fools, and then present analogies of his own, reasonable assumptions to historical figures who triumphed in the face of persecution. This is much more subtle, but not beyond detection.

My grandfather worked for Al Capone in the 20's in a speakeasy, and hustled pool to make money to get through engineering school. One thing he left me was the ability to spot a conman. Richard Dawkins is a very bright conman. I wonder how much of his tripe he actually believes.

And that proves you know nothing about the bible. If that were true, then there would be no New Testament past the gospels (and most of the gospels could be reduced in content by at least 70%). Jesus would have had no problems with the Jews -- since they were just worshipping him, but not the same way as the Christians, and none of the Paulesian epistles would have been written because any way to practice Christianity was the right way! (Whereas, the Paulesian epistles were wholly written as corrective measures for the wards going astray in their seperate ways)

The bible is not the same kind of instruction manual for Christianity that it was for Judaism. It does not outline the proper ordinances for baptism, sacrament, church (synagogue) attendance, temple attendance, receiving the holy ghost as an ordinance, priesthood ordinations, correctly-ordered hierchy, and many other fundamentals. What's left are corrective measures and a few testimonies. Therefore, you can deduce that any christian church that bases itself off the bible (no matter how well-intentioned) cannot be the true church -- as they are simply the creeds and herecies that Paul spent so much of his time decrying -- including the Nicene Creed. The bible is, categorically, not a blueprint for establishing a church, and explains that nonauthoritative attempts are not acceptable in no uncertain terms.

According to the people who wrote the bible, being a "True" Christian and being a "False" christian were the entire point of the bible. Jesus didn't have to say anything if doing whatever you wanted, as long as you believed in his very existence, was enough to merit someone as a Christian. In fact, Peter made the point, in one of his epistles, that using the bible to mean whatever you want it to mean was a condemnable sin.

"Faith" is the belief that the sun will rise tomorrow as it did today -- though you have not yet seen tomorrow's sunrise. It is not faith to believe that all the streetlamps in your town will turn into candycanes overnight. It is a fine line, but it is not an arbitrary one. Saying that anyone who has a "faith" is therefore definitely "crazy" is your own Strawman, and you'd be a better man to be rid of it.

These people are insane AND christian. It's not the christianity that makes them a bother, is his major point. It's like if he said "The killer butchered the children and ate their hearts, that's inhuman!" and you come out and say "Well, he's just as human as you are!" -- it's an exercise in pedantry and ignorance to the context of sanity/normalcy that he was establishing.

Close.

Whenever someone posts a job opening, nowadays, they get FLOODED with applications. HR (or anyone else involved in the hiring process) may take the first few resumes/cover letters seriously and consider each, but after they start seeing dozens piling up, they start looking for ANY reason to toss out a resume. It starts cutting down to:

• Oh, we can't afford him. I'm not sure he really knows what we're offering for this position.
• Oh, he lives too far away, and the commute will kill him, even if he doesn't know it yet.
• Oh, with his skills, he won't have trouble finding a different job, so I don't feel bad throwing this one out.
• We already have someone in the department with that name
• Fresh out of school? We need someone with experience
• Full of experience? This is more of a starting position.
• Still has a myspace account? Are you serious?
• I don't think someone with his qualifications will stay in this job after the economy picks back up!

There's nothing personal in this, it's prioritization of HR's time. With the deluge of applicants there are for any given job, there is simply not enough time in their day to seriously consider anyone who isn't a round peg for a round hole. This means you need your resume or cover letter to say something that will get their attention and say "We want THIS guy." -- so even if you have a mediocre review, they still want to consider you on the merits of how you presented yourself in the written form.

Laser chopsticks were invented to keep chow mein hot until the end of the meal.

I'm not a republican, and as long as republican leaders are shoring up the "tea party", I'm no tea party member either. There are perhaps a handful of good republican leaders in the entire United States, and there are even fewer good democratic leaders in the entire United States. The party itself, however, is a cesspool of corruption that is about as pious as the Richard Dawkins.

Now let me put it this way: Lust is the identical twin of Greed. It is never satisfied with what it has, it always wants more.

If it wasn't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college.

He probably doesn't -- he's "progressive." If depicted, non-authentic childporn was legal, he'd argue that childporn should be legal. If childporn was legal, then he'd be spending his time arguing that having sex with children should be legal. I could even give him an argument for that! "I'm pro-choice! It's up to me to decide what to do with my body! If they let women kill babies as a woman's choice, then they should let men screw babies as a man's choice! Killing is worse than loving! Geez, what's with the social stigmas?"

It's a poor argument, but stronger than any of his current ones. That's why it is important to use an old, common moral staple, such as the bible, to build the foundation of society's rules. Otherwise, those without a moral compass will argue for moral relativism and pretty much give you a very psychologically-disturbed (but free!) dystopia in a single generation.

Or perhaps some sensationalist, anti-religious zealot like yourself can't figure out that BOTNETS don't typically distribute your garden-variety porn. There are normal nets for that sort of thing.

Reading comprehension would have helped you right here. Don't call someone "ignorant" and then parrot what they said back to them using different terms -- it only makes you look like a self-indulgent, hypocritical, illiterate douchebag.

Typically, the people who AREN'T high have already recognized that anarchy is an extremely bad idea by the time they get out of highschool, around the same time they stop obsessing that "we're all just cattle, man, we're being bred to work for the corporations, don't you see, man?" like every stupid pseudointellectual, angst-ridden teenager.

Some of his theories, such as "natural equality" have been discredited. His "state of nature" theory, however, is still very strong.

And you fail to grasp that I'm basing my argument on every instance of anarchy there has ever been, and probably ever will be. Anarchy ends the minute someone brings a gun to the knife fight. Then you have an autocratic oligarchy. Congratulations on destroying your ability to vote for your favorite, underhanded sociopath, now you just get the most violent one. He doesn't have to posture, he doesn't have to smile and kiss babies. He just has to kill you if you don't do what he says, and he'll know that.

I know what anarchy is, but I have to admit that I don't know what you've deluded yourself into thinking that anarchy is. I don't know if you think it's some meritocracy, a complete lack of laws, or laws with vigilantes enforcing them, or laws with no enforcement -- and frankly, none of those work -- because humans are greedy, and it only takes One greedy human to overturn your entire utopia. You ignore greed in your crusade, and that is a fatal mistake.

I'll start by making them hate each other more than they hate me. I'll keep them grinding one-anothers gears to the point where they have fear that they will lose power if they turn against the will of the majority. If that ends up failing, I'll do what has to be done. They may be slimey, but under the current conditions, they are forced to squirm.

For $200 million, I would detail at least 10 BMW's.

Well, Ira is a woman's name after all.

It's not as big as it sounds. Milky Ways only have like 9 grams of fat. So this thing is like... 180 grams of fat. We'll live.

Fixed that for you.