When you screen huge masses of people needlessly, almost all to all of your hits are going to be incorrect. Additional testing of these false positives are harmful. Biopsies, radiation, no-fly lists -- harmful.

Nobody is saying that we should never wiretap if we have evidence. That's testing a small population. The problem here is that we are wiretapping everybody to attempt to find evidence.

If only I had mod points to give... thanks.

is an EVIL one...

Wasn't this core technology discussed on Slashdot a number of years back? If you google "Seam Carving" you'll find some nice wikipedia articles that discuss content-aware image resizing. This may be a variant on the same technology, and i actually doubt that this is an early release of an April Fool's Day joke (no matter how Star Trek this technology seems).

I'll whore out our little game we just released. It's free, fun, and addictive.

http://qdideas.com/gtf

Actually, there was a study that compared the joint problems of joggers and non joggers over decades. Surprisingly, the joggers had fewer problems.

The vast majority of people who don't immunize aren't doing it for religious reasons. There's a growing segment of 'educated' people who have 'researched' the issue and have decided that the risks outweigh the benefits.

Unfortunately there are 'professionals' within the health care system that spout this idiocy, including nurses and chiropractors.

You're misunderstanding me.

The reason children 'get pulled out of homes' in your example is not because the parents are religious, but because the state believes that harm is being done. The focus is on the act (or lack of action) by the parents, not on the fact that the parents are teaching religion to their child.

Dawkins is not advocating against the specific things that can lead to harm, but rather that religion itself is harmful and tantamount to abuse in and of itself. That is unreasonable.

I think a non religious environment can be potentially abusive too. So what?
OK, why?

I suspect you think I am saying that a non religious environment is conducive to abuse (compared to a religious one). I am not. I think any environment has a potential for abuse and the religion aspect is a non issue.

It's fine to look at a *specific* act or ideology and debate its merits. He is not. He is not saying 'potentially abusive', or 'more likely to be abusive'. He is saying that teaching a religious doctrine is child abuse. That is just not reasonable.

Saying that some religious teachings or philosophies are bad is no different than saying that some non religious philosophies are bad

I think a non religious environment can be potentially abusive too. So what?

There are plenty of non religious people who perpetrate atrocities. Would it be reasonable to paint Pol Pot or Stalin as model atheists?

And I quote,

"How did September the 11th change you? Well here's how it changed me. Let's all stopped being so damned respectful."

This is from the atheist's call to arms from Tedtalks 2002.

Now who's lying to promote their own agenda?

You honestly believe that religious people are all abusing their children? You think that concept is 'reasonable'? It's staggering that you got modded up.

I'm not saying that fundamentalists weren't responsible for the twin towers. I'm saying that painting them as representatives for all religion is offensive. But that is his intent after all...

He's said that people who teach their kids religion are child abusers.

He ends one of his lectures by saying how religious fundamentalists crashed into the twin towers, and therefore it's time to stop being so respectful of religion.

Those are pretty offensive comments to me...

Actually in many of his lectures he implies that religious people are less intelligent. He delights in in the studies that have shown this kind of correlation.

I mispelled it. It's actually Ovol.