Tophel

[quote name='Drizzt Do'urden']Basically the question at hand for everybody is: Is a comment made with no malicious intent still the same as making a hateful remark? [QUOTE] In short, yes. Maybe it differs in degree but it is still an offence and it is still offensive. Here is why: The offense arises not from the intent of the person making the comment but from a REASONABLE response from the person receiving it. So you may call a black person a '******' without malice, but that is still offensive. You may comment on a fellow worker's bottom or her breasts without intending offense, eg as a compliment, but that does not mean it is not reasonable for her to perceive it as sexual harassment. And this is as it should be because we cannot read someone's mind.

As for the questions posed by the OP, I should point out here, for those who may think these questions are thinly veiled attacks on religion this is not necessarily so. These are interesting and fundamental questions which have been discussed by theologians for a long time. Of course I cannot read minds and do not know if 13th had any ulterior motives which has more to do with creating mischief than with promoting discussion but I would like to take it on face value and assume the latter. Also, I think it is important that believers and non-believers talk to one another. I think it to be narrow-minded and dangerously insular to only talk to people who share your own belief system. Talking does not need to be prosetylizing, either one way or another. Talking helps in many ways, not the least of which is the strengthening of one's faith by understanding it better and more clearly. Talking is not weakness and questioning is not disloyalty. The substantive answer to the questions posed by the OPer has been made by one or two posts already in this thread. It is the fundamental idea of Free Will. This is fundamental to the Christian faith. Let me explain. Why does God let suffering happen? One answer is that we cannot understand the mind of God. This answer is simple, requires little thought and covers everything. Unlike other progressive theologians who may argue that such an answer is contrary to the divine gift of Reason to Man, I don't think it is any less valid. To me, it is a legitimate point of view. But it is limited, and it does shut down any and all discussions. And I understand also why it may be regarded as a 'cop-out'. So putting aside that all-out excuse, why does God let suffering occur? If we say that suffering occurs because it is caused by Man so it is our fault and responsibility, that doesn't really answer the question. If we accept God is omnipotent and God is good, it should not matter who is responsible for the suffering. God, being infinitely compassionate, would not let it happen. There does seem a contradiction. If God is all-powerful that means He can do anything. If God is all loving, this means He would not tolerate suffering. The two, together, seems to suggest that there should be no suffering. Either God is all-powerful but not infinitely compassionate, so He can tolerate suffering (for what ever reason), or He is infinitely compassionate but not all-powerful (so he cannot intervene). How do we explain this contradiction? It seems to me the answer lies in Free Will. If Man is really created in God's image, we are all God's Children. As such we all have a soul and we are endowed with Reason and Free Will. If God intervenes, His presence is demonstrated and Free Will is ripped from us. To know God, not through Faith but through Science, through what we regard as 'Proof', is to be imprisoned and bound by that knowledge. Our divine gifts of curiosity, intellect and reason would not be exercised. We would fall totally dependant on God. We would no longer have Free Will but be slaves. If God is truly loving and compassionate, this is not what He would want. So God cannot intervene, so suffering exists.

[quote name='Rachmaninoff']I find it interesting that you took the time to comment on what you felt was off with Esther's post and yet completely ignored Chabichou's equally offensive and flagrantly incorrect post.[/quote] From my reading, both seemed on the ends of the spectrum but I would consider Esther's post a lot more vitrolic, based on prejudice and huge ill-informed whereas Chabi, whilst taking a spin on things, at least demonstrates an understanding of the issues and is better informed. Equally offensive? Debatable. Flagrantly incorrect? No where near the universe that esther's post inhabits. [quote name='Rachmaninoff']If you're going to compare them to Nazi Germany then someone needs a serious history lesson.[/quote] Godwin's law in effect. That was specious and not a good idea. I understand where it comes from, i.e. the ruthlessness of the Israeli state, but Nazi comparisons should be limited IMO. Too easy. However, the terrorist state comment is defendable. You may not agree with it, but one can certainly make that argument based on the facts. Israel has ultimate power in that area. It's military is unmatched. It can and does rain terror whenever it sees fit. And if someone thinks the Palestinians in Gaza are living under terror, they aren't being honest. Or if they think the 'terror' from rockets Hamas fires is anywhere the near the equivalence of the terror that is now raining down on Gaza, again they are being disingenous. IMO it is amply clear, beyond any reasonable interpretation, that Israel does inflict terror. The reasons for that can be debated and people can have different opinions but it isn't a clearly absurd or flagrantly incorrect statement. [quote name='Rachmaninoff']Nice insinuation that American's fund terrorists and yet you conveniently overlooked this one Retri.[/quote] Well that is silly. I mean your point. Again, it is well established that America is tied to the hip with Israel. So much so, there has not been a single President who has ever rebuked Israel or taken a negative view of the state. Except for Jimmy Carter, but that was AFTER he left office, and he took a huge beating about it. The blind American support towards Israel is, to the rest of the world, even including Britain, quote at odds with the factual situation on the ground. American support is clear and obvious, both politically and militarily (in terms of weapons and intelligence) and if one takes the view that Israel is a state that practices terror, then that insinuation can be made quite easily. [quote name='Rachmaninoff']I'm sorry, but who's the one who's goal in their government literally[I] is[/I] that it will destroy the state of Israel? And yet we're supposed to believe that Hamas actually wants peace?[/quote] Hamas is impotent. Israel is not. The ball is obviously in Israeli's court. To suggest that Hamas and Israel are equal powers or have equal responsibilities is an absurdity. As for the much talk about clause in the Hamas charter (it seems we keep talking about this for some weird reason), as I've said so many times in this thread. Empty words. --- sorry gotogo be back later to edit

[quote name='Gavin'][SIZE="1"]I can assure you Tophel that any mocking of vegan/vegetarians/etc is light-hearted and tongue-in-cheek rather than anything serious. Surely you can see the ridiculousness of this move by PETA as much as anyone else which has thus lead to the satire of what PETA stands for. As for calling OB a "conservative board" I have to admit you've given me a good chuckle with that one. While there are an array of political views expressed here on Otakuboards, I would say that those in the centre and left-wing far outnumber those on the right.[/SIZE][/QUOTE] Yes, I see the ridiculous nature of PETA's latest move. I think I said earlier that this move was likely to hurt more than help their cause. It's not like they haven't been written off as nut jobs and this move by them only further marginalises them. Stupid IMO. And OB, from what I have seen of it, is a conservative board. It seems to me it is a little like moderate Republicans. Socially progressive, i.e. not your born-again Christian Bush supporter. But politically conservative, i.e. Hugo Chavez probably doesn't have a strong fan base here. Just check out the Israel thread. While brief passing reference is made to the Palestinians, the bulk of the comments are in support of Israel. But if there was a thread in support of gay or lesbian rights, then you are likely to get more sympathy. Methinks.

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]And if you look really closely you suddenly notice a distinct omnivorous nature to the human digestive system. We weren't designed to eat just meat or just veggies. We were designed for both. Fortunately our systems don't seem to break down when one or the other are omitted, or vegetarians would be up a creek. (Of course, we wouldn't have to deal with Vegans then, but eh. I like my sane vegetarian friends, thank you.)[/FONT][/QUOTE] I really don't mean to be disrespectful here. I say that openly. But IMO I believe you need a bit more care with what you say. Omnivore classification for humans is a cop out. Most people are aware we can eat vegetables or meat. We do it all the time. But where does our evolutionary history take us? I think it is very clear, in terms of science anyway, our bodies are more vegetarian than carnivore. We can eat meat, yes, but that is not only a recent development and it is not where we are biologically speaking. There is a simple test. There are many people who can go on for weeks, months, even years, eating vegetables and not touching any meat. Compared that to how many people go weeks/months/years eating JUST meat and no vegetables. So it really isn't true that we can omit vegetables. Then you will see that we are more vegetarian than carnivore, and we aren't truly omnivores. Yes, I know on a conservative board like this one, it is cool to mock vegans/vegetarians/etc but putting value-laden considerations aside, purely speaking in terms of our biology, we are certainly more vegetarian than anything else.

[quote name='Manic Webb']However, I'm not going to deny my natural instinct to eat meats and fishes (especially considering their health benefits) just because killing animals for the purpose of ingestion is less than kind.[/QUOTE] Well, actually, if you're talking modern day lifespans of 80+ yrs, meat is actually not good for you. Certainly not on a daily basis. Humans can eat meat yes but we were never really carnivores. If you look at our digestive system and especially our teeth we are more vegetarian than carnivore. Meat, in particular, red meat is a booster. So when we had lifespans of 40+ yrs (which was only until a couple of centuries ago), the protein in meat provided easy and quick energy. It also helps a little with brain development. But as you age the consequences of eating meat build up and the negative begins to outweigh the positive. Which is why nutritionists normally recommend eating red meat only about 3 times a week. Anyway, the short of it is that meat, in this modern urban age does not really have 'health benefits'. Generally speaking, provided you do it reasonably and sensibly, being a vegetarian is better for you than being a steak-a-day or even 3-steaks-a-week carnivore. But all of this is moot because most people separate fish meat from red meat. The most unhealthy is red meat followed by fowl followed by fish. Sea kittens are actually good for you. :animesmil

[quote name='Drizzt Do'urden']I'm sure there is at least one PETA supporter here, but in my opinion they needed shut down years ago. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with a group that makes sure animals aren't treated overly cruel, but that's not what they're about. [/QUOTE] Well I wouldn't paint the entire group with the same brush. Though whoever thought this idea up obviously hasn't thought this through. It actually does damage to PETA which in turn reduces their capacity to do good for animal welfare. Unless its some satirical joke campaign. Even then, they should know better, and that people would much rather not get it, take them seriously and make fun of them. It's a shame, I thought PETA used to do quite a lot for animals. Now they're just the butt of jokes.

[quote name='Rachmaninoff']What is important is getting both sides to stop. And that includes holding Hamas responsible for accepting that Israel has the right to exist. I grow tired of all the anti-Israel sentiment when the other side is equally to blame for idiotic stunts.[/QUOTE] And I grow tired of people sympathising with Israel and blaming everything on Hamas. I have never suggested that Hamas is not at fault. But if you read this thread, until I came in and cleared up some misapprehensions, most posters were fully behind Israel's actions. Any qualifications were short and glib at best. The focus was entirely on the wrongs of Hamas. After I made a couple of posts critical of Israel people were more open about the complex nature of this conflict. The reality, as I see it, is that there is plenty of blame to go around. Israel's hands are NOT clean. If we are tough on Hamas for its violence and indiscriminate launching of rockets, we ought to be EQUALLY tough on Israel and its siege on Gaza to punish the entire 1.5 million people, its refusal to deal in any way with Hamas or recognise its legitimacy as elected representatives of the people of Gaza. Although you may not agree with her, here is an article I recommend people read to see the 'other side'. It is written by a Jew. [URL="http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/shocking-cynicism-of-a-poisoned-homeland/2009/01/07/1231004100045.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1"]http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/shocking-cynicism-of-a-poisoned-homeland/2009/01/07/1231004100045.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1[/URL] [quote name='Aaryanna'][COLOR="Sienna"][FONT="Tahoma"]I'm beginning to wonder why people don't read up on WHY things happen instead of pointing fingers.... Perhaps they shouldn't have been digging a tunnel under the border in the first place. So now they're the bad guys for stopping that? I sincerely hope you're not serious. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] Firstly, you are taking the word of the Israeli military at face value, as if they are completely objective. Not a good idea when this is the military force of one of the sides. But let me engage in a discussion, let me try to be constructive, let me accept your argument. If you want people to go further and understand WHY Israel made the incursion, then I would ask you why stop there? Have you ever considered, again ASSUMING FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT, that Hamas was at fault there and they were building a tunnel to smuggle arms/kidnap Israeli soldier/whatever, why Hamas was doing this? Could it possibly be because one of the CONDITIONS of the ceasefire between Hamas and Israel was that Israel would lift the blockade on Gaza. Has Israel kept its part of the deal? No, the blockade was not lifted. Another condition was Israel release ELECTED government officials that Israel keeps behind bars. They are still there. So it isn't really as simple as you may want to believe. Israel are not the angels you may want them to be, and Hamas may not be the demons they have been portrayed as, regardless of whatever has been said about them. Ultimately I will again give the example of the PLO, mainly because I don't think people have absorbed what I said earlier. The PLO (or now Fatah) was an ugly nasty terrorist organisation. These people massacred the entire Israel athletics team during the Munich Olympic Games. The hijacked and blew up planes. Their leader, Yasser Arafat, was targeted by Israel for assasination several times. Year after year, Israel refused to deal with them. How do you negotiate with fanatics who want you dead? But finally, about 20 years ago, Israel changed tactics, they conducted secret talks with the PLO. These led to the Oslo accords, and Yasser Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres signed the agreement on the Whitehouse lawn. These mortal enemies hate each other, Rabin has often said he would not be in the same room as Arafat. But on that day, he shook Arafat's hand, urged by Clinton who stood between them. Rabin hated it, but he did it anyway. You don't make peace with your friends or people you like or respect. You make peace with your enemies, people you dislike and distrust. The idea of sidelining Hamas and demanding they surrender their weapons and recognise Israel before talking to them is the surest way to ensure this conflict continues. So I would just ask that people keep an open mind.

Guys relax. It's a joke. Just read the content. It is so outrageous (and funny in a dark twisted way) that is yells 'satire' or some such thing. Enjoy it. Or if you don't find anything funny about it, just ignore it. I'm pretty sure I'm right about this but I'm not 100% certain (can anyone be 100% certain of anything?) :)

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial] Actually, I found the slogans to be rather clever. My favorite was this one: [INDENT][I]?Atheism: Sleep in on Sunday mornings,?[/I][/INDENT] I admit it. I snerked. :animesmil[/FONT][/QUOTE] Yes, that was a good one. A shame the Australian authorities didn't see the funny side of it and banned/refused it for their buses. Heheh. Does this mean Australians lack a sense of humour compared to the British? Hmm.... :animesmil

[quote name='TimeChaser']I wouldn't take a full personality profile of Richard on just a South park episode; they send up EVERYONE.[/quote] :rotflmao: No I've seen his documentaries and interviews. He seems a little obssessed with convincing everyone that he is right. An overabundance of ego combined with a lack of empathy. [quote name='TimeChaser'] The issue is this: religion has somehow achieved this charmed status where people are allowed to get very offended if someone is at all critical of it. Richard and his contemporaries want to put religion on the table of rational criticism, and allow us to discuss it open and freely in the same we we debate politics and music and any other intellectual subjects.[/quote] Well actually I would have to disagree. He doesn't really want to engage in any sort of debate/discussion. He would rather lecture. Like priests lecture us about sin, Hell and fire and brimstone, only he lectures about evolution and the evils of religion. Same pulpit, same tone, just a different message. I consider him a secular fundamentalist. [quote name='Mr. Blonde'] The man believes there is no God, so because he insists it he has a chip of his shoulder? What of someone who insists there is a God, do they as well?[/QUOTE] Yep. They're called Bible thumpers. :animesmil

[quote name='NinjaGirlSango']I'm an atheist, and therefore terribly biased, but if churches can display a link to a website that says "you're going to hell" instead of "you're probably going to hell", why must an atheist ad include the "probably"?[/QUOTE] Because the statement is on the website and not in the ad itself? I thikn that is fair enough. I agree with Shy that the majority of atheists, in my experience as well, are more cynical/jaded/unhappy than their religious counterparts. This doesn't mean that I haven't met a happy atheist (I have) or an unhappy Christian (many times). But there seems, IMO, something intrinsic in human nature that requires we have some sort of 'spiritual' side. At least that is the only reason to me to explain why 95%+ of the world's population, even today with all the advances in science and communications and travel, are religious in some way even if they are not devout. By the way, is it just me or does Richard Dawkins have some massive chip on his shoulder about religions? He comes across to me as a smug mean and grumpy guy. I love the South Park episodes. Heheh.

I have seen most of Book 1 and I have to say this is a decent show. I know the puritans might disagree but I classify this as anime. Sure it isn't done by Japanese but IMO anime refers to a style, and there is no question in my mind that this animation references the anime style. I have enjoyed a series like this since... hmm... Cowboy Bebop probably.

Not sure I'm a fan of the new Doc. I hope they're not going for the teen crowd. He seems a little too young for my liking. Oh well, Moffatt is in charge and he did well with his scripts, hopefully he knows what he is doing.

[quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]I suppose the only good news is that most of those areas aren't quite the same as far as size goes as the U.S., which means that they won't be quite as stranded as we would be if we had no gas. 50 miles is a long way to bike to work and back every day. Not that it's any consolation.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] I don't think its that kind of 'gas'. :animesmil Shy's right Russia is just trying to bully Ukraine. It will end the same way that the same crises ended in 2006 (yep Russia tried the same stunt a couple of years ago, that's why the disruptions, esp in western europe, would not be as bad because they learnt their lesson and have big stores of gas to cover temporary supply cuts). It will end in some sort of agreement between Russia and Ukraine. For those who might not understand the background, Russia supplies Ukraine's natural gas needs. Russia is trying to bully Ukraine into accepting huge increases (double or triple the cost) for 2009. Also Russia is insisting Ukraine pay some $600 mil in 'penalties' or something. Ukraine obviously is not happy about all this. The complication is that Russia sells its gas to Europe but the pipes go through Ukraine. Also Ukraine is arguing that if needs to pay more for gas, then it needs to get a bigger cut of the money from the gas going through the country. Long story short, it is a ***** fight which is mainly commercial but has political overtones. Europe is trying not to get involved.