Nice story, shame you forgot to add the link. Banno will love it.:smile:

raza, those who know about that level of technology don't talk about it and those who talk about it likely don't understand the 'reason' behind such an advancement in technology being installed on planes. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Things leak. Smarties join dots.

08/08/2018. Man grieved at wrong grave for 30 years due to misplaced headstone.

When you go to a grave, you sit and talk and say what your troubles are but the annoying thing is you're talking to a piece of ground where she isn't there.

Rather than a piece of ground with some old bones in it. Quite absurd when you think about it.

I sort of feel sorry for the old guy, he has not only been fooling himself for years but others have been doing it too.

So who do you think is right?

Should people be allowed to laugh at religion?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6990648/rowan-atkinson-religious-satire-brendan-oneill-opinion/

I think that we have the right to laugh at anything we want to, what ever makes us laugh.
But should we really make fun, tell jokes about other peoples way of thinking?
Not being religious, I find a lot of religious jokes funny. But why is it that Jews laugh at gentile jokes, christians laugh at muslim jokes and muslim laugh at ................ wait a minute, what do muslims joke about?

If you're a comedian, yes, because it's your job to make jokes. If you're a politician, no, because it's your job to be neutral about religious affiliation except in policy terms. Shouting "haha, look at those idiots, they look like letterboxes" is protected by free speech, yes, but free speech isn't the same as appropriate speech. And banishing moronic politicians like Boris Johnson for being opportunistic twats using inappropriate speech is a protected right of the PM. I hope she does banish him. She won't though.

If you're a comedian, yes, because it's your job to make jokes. If you're a politician, no, because it's your job to be neutral about religious affiliation except in policy terms. — Baden

Yes I guess context has a lot to do with it.

houting "haha, look at those idiots, they look like letterboxes" is protected by free speech, yes, but free speech isn't the same as appropriate speech. — Baden

Who decides on the appropriateness of these things? Another article about the same topic had a lot of comments from people that agreed with him. Some even mentioned treatment given to them when they visited muslim countries and even muslim run areas of cities. They did not seem worried about insulting other religions.
I know that it is probably only a minority of the people that do these insulting things on both sides, but why chastise one side and not the other?

And banishing moronic politicians like Boris Johnson for being opportunistic twats using inappropriate speech is a protected right of the PM. I hope she does so. — Baden

There will always be others to replace him, and some of them will be worse.

So who do you think is right?

Should people be allowed to laugh at religion? — Sir2u

Lol what year is it?

Lol what year is it? — Maw

You don't have a calendar on your computer? :wink:

Another article about the same topic had a lot of comments from people that agreed with him. Some even mentioned treatment given to them when they visited muslim countries and even muslim run areas of cities. They did not seem worried about insulting other religions. — Sir2u

None of those are politicians and especially not politicians in power.

Who decides on the appropriateness of these things? — Sir2u

It's mostly common sense isn't it?

None of those are politicians and especially not politicians in power. — Baden

But some of them are officials that represent the government. I was once discriminated against for being British. Back in the late 60's I went to Guatemala and they were refusing to let "that fucking English whores son" out of the airport. Apparently they had believed that Belize should be returned to them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belizean%E2%80%93Guatemalan_territorial_dispute
20th century to 1975

It's mostly common sense isn't it? — Baden

If that were true then racist comments would not exist. On both sides.

If that were true then racist comments would not exist. On both sides. — Sir2u

Common sense ain't so common but it's still common sense.

But some of them are officials that represent the government. I was once discriminated against for being British. Back in the late 60's I went to Guatemala and they were refusing to let "that fucking English whores son" out of the airport. Apparently they had believed that Belize should be returned to them. — Sir2u

Yes, and we both agree they shouldn't do that I presume.

Yes, and we both agree they shouldn't do that I presume. — Baden

Yup.

But I would still like to know why it does happen.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6048759/Riot-police-use-water-cannons-tear-gas-thousands-expat-Romanians-protest-Bucharest.html

Reading just the headline made me wonder. If £4billion were sent home by these people in one year,
do British people have a case for being pissed of at foreigners. Would it not be common sense to be angry about that money leaving.

Is it part of human nature to be racist, sexist, and what ever else you can think of to discriminate against?
Would better education and implementing laws against these acts really do anything to help. They certainly don't seem to have done much so far.

Should people be allowed to laugh at religion?

Sure.

People should also be allowed to laugh at science.

Seems to me that if one has a good grasp upon how thought and belief work, including the brute power of one's initial worldview and they couple that with also understanding what it takes to change one's worldview, we'd all be much better off and there would be a lot less making fun and a lot more respect simply because no one makes a mistake on purpose.

Is it part of human nature to be racist, sexist, and what ever else you can think of to discriminate against? — Sir2u

How to put this politely... In a nutshell, yes. It is part of human nature to be sexist, racist, nationalist, fascist, capitalist, socialist, democratic, autocratic, plutocratic, didactic, pragmatic, enigmatic, automatic--all sorts of things. Human beings are not, basically, nice. That's because we are not angels. (We're not demons either.) We're primates. Bright primates, true, 100,000,000,000 brain cells and all, but close relatives of pan troglodytes. Part of the animal continuum.

We're nice to the friends we like; we're usually good to our children; we treat our mates reasonably well most of the time. On the other hand, given some incentive (it doesn't seem to require a lot) we will happily gang up on your crowd and just kill you, your friends, your mates, and your children. Bombs away. "Oh dear, a bomb accidentally landed on a school/terrorist hideout. What a pity."

We are not typically, as a rule -- all day long -- fair, reasonable, polite, welcoming, generous, non-discriminating, accepting, cosmopolitan, etc.

We tend to be self-centered, egotistical, protective of our turf.

An extreme view, you say?

Probably. But we are certainly not the antithesis of all that, either. We're not a happy medium, either. We're on the rough side.

It's probably not polite to break out laughing during a funeral just because somebody mentioned life after death, but sure -- laugh at religion. All of them. Often. Loudly.

Like this:

A farmer had to go to town to get machine parts, so he told his wife to be careful because some reverend or another would probably stop by.

"If it's the Catholic priest, be sure to hide all the liquor, because you know how priests always get drunk. If it's a Lutheran minister, hide the food, because you know how they tend to eat everything. If it's a rabbi, hide the money. Now if the Baptist minister stops by" and here he turns to his young son, "you get up on mommy's lap and you stay there."

ROFL your posts are funny.

When you finished laughing, be angry, disgusted and horrified.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45190355

"We believe that the real number - of children whose records were lost or who were afraid ever to come forward - is in the thousands."

:rage:

Any other institution - a Red Cross, a lawfirm - would be shut down and burnt to the metaphorical ground. But not the Chruch.

It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones. — Jesus

"Waste of a good millstone." unenlightened.

What do you call it when someone behaves contrary to what the Bible preaches and yet the person acts in the name of religiosity? I don't think hypocrisy nails the issue on the head adequately enough... The very fact that one would behave contrary to what something teaches indicates some lack in understanding of some facet or feature of an ideology or doctrinal truth. What is meant by "contrary" and "understanding" in this context?

I want to say it's willful ignorance, but that's not right either...

Treason? Betrayal? Personally, my rage is not against the abusers, who I can think are themselves fucked up, and need stopping, and then helping. Rather it is those who are loyal to the reputation of the institution and betray those they pretend to serve, who really need that millstone. The crime is terrible, but the cover-up is worse, because it perpetuates and institutionalises the crime.

Well yes, certainly a line was crossed in this case. It just seems to me that you have a body of work, such as the Bible, with the potential to create inconsistency and misgivings about interpreting it that one never knows when they have the right understanding of it without divine intervention. So, how do you know when you've got it right, so to speak.

With the behaviors of the clergy outlined, it's simply indefensible what they did.

An extreme view, you say? — Bitter Crank

Naw, me thinks you and me have about the same opinion of the human animal. If the universe is lucky, maybe a new improved model will show up in another 100,000 years or so.

but sure -- laugh at religion. All of them. Often. Loudly. — Bitter Crank

That's what I say. They deserve it.

If it's the Catholic priest, be sure to hide all the liquor

Now if the Baptist minister stops by" and here he turns to his young son, "you get up on mommy's lap and you stay there. — Bitter Crank

From what I remember of my time in the south and what a lot of the news seems to be confirming, I think you have it backwards. Them ol' southern baptists loved their moonshine behind the Sunday school building, and the priests loved the choir boys behind the alter.

I don't think hypocrisy nails the issue on the head adequately enough.. — Posty McPostface

Sanctimoniousness, the quality of being hypocritically devout.

Unctuousness, smug self-serving earnestness

These comes to mind, but I think they still are a long way short of fitting the need.

I want to say it's willful ignorance, but that's not right either... — Posty McPostface

There is nothing ignorant about these people, a lot of them are highly educated people that know and understand the difference between good and bad as their holy book explains it.

They just think that they are better than the rest of us. How long did it take the church to decide to give mass in the native language of the country and not Latin? Just one of their many merry tricks to show their superiority over the common man.

From what I remember — Sir2u

That was an old joke (heard at least 50 years ago) aligned to 1970s realities and before, and was told in Luther Land. Priests were still well thought of and Baptists were a rarity. Rabbis there were none, but a Jew was needed for the joke. Most of the really good jokes I've heard are 50 years old, because over the last 30 or 40 years, the really funny joke has become impossible.

Of course, the priests were romping over the choirboys back then--even doing their mothers, occasionally. 1970 priests are the material in the current scandals. The several gay priests I knew back in the1970s may or may not have had the occasional choirboy, I don't know. most were sexually active but decent guys.

may or may not have had the occasional choirboy, I don't know. most were sexually active but decent guys. — Bitter Crank

LOL, that was a darkly funny comment. Kind of James Gunn-like there.

If you're a comedian, yes, because it's your job to make jokes. If you're a politician, no, because it's your job to be neutral about religious affiliation except in policy terms. — Baden

Indeed. He can't have his cake and eat it. He should choose between being a politician from the Conservative Party, with what that entails, or an uninhibited columnist for a rightwing paper.