On Wed, 29 May 2013 18:30:29 -0700, Fidem Turbare, the
non-existent atheist goddess wrote:

On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:00:18 -0400
wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 16:54:15 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist goddess" wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 11:16:22 -0400
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 10:46:34 -0500, Mitchell Holman
nomailverizon.net wrote:
wrote in
news On Fri, 24 May 2013 20:05:00 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article ,
Alfred E. Newman wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:36:09 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article
,
Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

Boy Scouts vote to lift ban on gay youth
May 23 2013

GRAPEVINE, Texas -- The Boy Scouts of America voted
Thursday to end its controversial policy banning gay
kids and teens from joining one of the nation's most
popular youth organizations, ditching membership
guidelines that had roiled the group in recent years.
Over 61 percent of Scouting's National Council of 1,400
delegates from across the country voted to lift the ban,
BSA officials said. The final tally was 757 yes votes,
to 475 no.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...boy-scouts-vot
e-to- lift-ban-on-gay-youth?lite

It's about ****ing time!

Next step is to allow atheists. Until that day, the Boy
Scouts are still a bigoted organization.

--

JD

Jeanne, why do you say they are still bigoted? Is it because
you weren't allowed to join because of what you have between
your legs? Or was it because of what you don't have between
your ears?

I had the Girl Scouts available to me. A FAR better organization
than the Boy Scouts.

Nonsense. If that's true, why are so many girls trying to get
into Boy Scouts?


Who says they are?

I wouldn't expect you to know anything that's going on around you.

Your expectations are not a problem for atheists, so long as you're
not trying to impose your values on others.

Boy Scouts AND Girl Scouts are shrinking even
as the population of young teens is growing. They
are shrinking into irrelevancy.

...and you rejoice.

Actually, the elimination of organizations that are founded on
discriminatory ideals is of tremendous benefit to the psychological
health of modern societies.

By that "logic", you should be eliminated.

Does that mean you believe that organizations founded on discriminatory
ideals are beneficial to modern societies?

Careful: this is a very wide and woolly definition indeed!
In Europe, this rationale can and indeed is being used to
fight anything that smacks of "elitism", including schools
and universities that try to be centres of educational and
scholastic excellence. Ditto organisaitons and institutions
that practise positive discrimination, say for women or
minorities: these, too, would fall under that
categorisation.

"Alex W." wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:10:31 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:

"Free Lunch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 May 2013 20:49:33 -0400, wrote in alt.atheism:


Anyone with any knowledge of history knows the Eisenhower Interstate
Highway system was a defense project.

Nonsense. It was a civil works project to improve travel infrastructure.


It was both
They are NOT mutually exclusive

Just look at another military funded project that is in common PUBLIC use
today
The Internet

Just look al all the spin-off that came from Kennedy's "going to the
moon"


What people like you don't grasp is that the indirect benefits of such
projects are otten greater than the original purpose.

Got another one: the Hoover Dam. The construction cost at
the time was less than $50 million (around $800 million in
today's tax dollars). Benefits, however, are HUGE: from
providing water to 8 million people and irrigating a million
acres of farmland to an electricity-generating capacity in
excess of 2,000MW and creating commercial opportunities
(tourism and leisure activities).


Indeed
There are projects which when allied with a bit of vision, which is far too
rare in government, and the ability to finance over the long term with no
need for immediate profit, that are perfect for government projects
The opposite is government entities who are blackmailed to build sports
stadium which mostly only really benefit the sports franchise

We need to spend more time going to the Moon or Mars, than we do building
sports stadiums for business entities.

On Thu, 30 May 2013 09:04:50 -0500, Dakota wrote
in alt.atheism:

On 5/29/2013 9:20 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 20:18:56 -0500
Free Lunch wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 20:49:33 -0400, wrote in
alt.atheism:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 00:27:19 +0100, "Alex W."
wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 17:19:09 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 15:58:02 -0500, Free Lunch
wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 16:56:29 -0400, wrote in
alt.atheism:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 12:28:22 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:
On 5/28/2013 12:13 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 09:57:09 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:
On 5/28/2013 9:53 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 17:00:56 -0700, Fidem Turb?re, the
non-existent atheist goddess
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 00:01:11 -0400
wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2013 07:07:19 -0700, linuxgal
wrote:
Doug wrote:

Now taking to the next level, what do we do with
transgenders wanting to be in the boy scouts? That's
where I have a problem deciding.

"We" don't do anything, it's for the Boy Scouts to
decide.

...and pay the consequences, either way.

Though watch, they will now be forced to allow queer
adult leadership.

Do you mean "forced" by their democratic membership who
voted 61% in favour of it? Yeah, in that case I suppose
you're correct.

I'm sure you're too stupid to have heard of "pressure
groups". Idiot.

Like me, a straight, male Eagle Scout? Like that?

I'm sure you think a lot of yourself but you're really dumber
than a stump, like all lefties. Idiot!

Interesting, then, that I can follow a discussion and
contribute to it while you can't.

Lies are *not* contributions, Dumb****, anymore that taxes are
investment.

Taxes may be used to make investments. Capital investments exist
in both the public and private sector.

Taxes *IMPEDE* investments. For *every* dime the government
spends on such things the private sector cannot spend two. You
really are a dumb****.

Best example to the contrary: the interstate system, built
by the state using tax funds.

Anyone with any knowledge of history knows the Eisenhower Interstate
Highway system was a defense project.

Nonsense. It was a civil works project to improve travel
infrastructure.

Although it's not implausible for military projects to build or enhance
public areas (such as highways) that also benefit civilians. This, of
course, by no means vilifies the projects since they are paid for with
tax revenues and are of benefit to taxpayers -- it's a win-win.

The *only* thing government can
do reasonably well are things the private sector simply can't. Most
it fails at miserably or costs *way* too much. It's a natural law.

Why do reactionaries keep telling each other that. It is not true.

They're pushing an anti-government agenda. The fact is that government
employs a lot of competent people who do excellent work. If this
wasn't the case, then the government would fail. Sure, it's slightly
heavier on the paperwork side than most commercial organizations, but
there's an accountability factor there that many commercial entities
don't have to adhere to because they're structured differently.


What's astonishing is that they seem to think that building the
Interstate system or any other infrastructure project doesn't involve
the private sector. The government writes the check but nearly all of
the work is done by the private sector.

Same thing for Medicare and medicaid.

"Alex W." wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 29 May 2013 18:30:29 -0700, Fidem Turbare, the
non-existent atheist goddess wrote:

On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:00:18 -0400
wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 16:54:15 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist goddess" wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 11:16:22 -0400
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 10:46:34 -0500, Mitchell Holman
nomailverizon.net wrote:
wrote in
news On Fri, 24 May 2013 20:05:00 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article ,
Alfred E. Newman wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:36:09 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article
,
Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

Boy Scouts vote to lift ban on gay youth
May 23 2013

GRAPEVINE, Texas -- The Boy Scouts of America voted
Thursday to end its controversial policy banning gay
kids and teens from joining one of the nation's most
popular youth organizations, ditching membership
guidelines that had roiled the group in recent years.
Over 61 percent of Scouting's National Council of 1,400
delegates from across the country voted to lift the ban,
BSA officials said. The final tally was 757 yes votes,
to 475 no.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...boy-scouts-vot
e-to- lift-ban-on-gay-youth?lite

It's about ****ing time!

Next step is to allow atheists. Until that day, the Boy
Scouts are still a bigoted organization.

--

JD

Jeanne, why do you say they are still bigoted? Is it because
you weren't allowed to join because of what you have between
your legs? Or was it because of what you don't have between
your ears?

I had the Girl Scouts available to me. A FAR better organization
than the Boy Scouts.

Nonsense. If that's true, why are so many girls trying to get
into Boy Scouts?


Who says they are?

I wouldn't expect you to know anything that's going on around you.

Your expectations are not a problem for atheists, so long as you're
not trying to impose your values on others.

Boy Scouts AND Girl Scouts are shrinking even
as the population of young teens is growing. They
are shrinking into irrelevancy.

...and you rejoice.

Actually, the elimination of organizations that are founded on
discriminatory ideals is of tremendous benefit to the psychological
health of modern societies.

By that "logic", you should be eliminated.

Does that mean you believe that organizations founded on discriminatory
ideals are beneficial to modern societies?

Careful: this is a very wide and woolly definition indeed!
In Europe, this rationale can and indeed is being used to
fight anything that smacks of "elitism", including schools
and universities that try to be centres of educational and
scholastic excellence. Ditto organisaitons and institutions
that practise positive discrimination, say for women or
minorities: these, too, would fall under that
categorisation.




Indeed.
People who dive into such waters often fail to think ahead of the unintended
consequences of their beliefs and actions.

On Thu, 30 May 2013 10:01:10 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote in alt.atheism:

"Alex W." wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:10:31 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:

"Free Lunch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 May 2013 20:49:33 -0400, wrote in alt.atheism:


Anyone with any knowledge of history knows the Eisenhower Interstate
Highway system was a defense project.

Nonsense. It was a civil works project to improve travel infrastructure.


It was both
They are NOT mutually exclusive

Just look at another military funded project that is in common PUBLIC use
today
The Internet

Just look al all the spin-off that came from Kennedy's "going to the
moon"


What people like you don't grasp is that the indirect benefits of such
projects are otten greater than the original purpose.

Got another one: the Hoover Dam. The construction cost at
the time was less than $50 million (around $800 million in
today's tax dollars). Benefits, however, are HUGE: from
providing water to 8 million people and irrigating a million
acres of farmland to an electricity-generating capacity in
excess of 2,000MW and creating commercial opportunities
(tourism and leisure activities).


Indeed
There are projects which when allied with a bit of vision, which is far too
rare in government, and the ability to finance over the long term with no
need for immediate profit, that are perfect for government projects
The opposite is government entities who are blackmailed to build sports
stadium which mostly only really benefit the sports franchise

I happen to agree that welfare for billionaires is an evil that needs to
be eradicated, but in any government, those who use the argument that
there is corruption as an excuse to shut down all the good that the
government does are not people who actually care about corruption.

We need to spend more time going to the Moon or Mars, than we do building
sports stadiums for business entities.

"Free Lunch" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 May 2013 09:04:50 -0500, Dakota wrote
in alt.atheism:

On 5/29/2013 9:20 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 20:18:56 -0500
Free Lunch wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 20:49:33 -0400, wrote in
alt.atheism:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 00:27:19 +0100, "Alex W."
wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 17:19:09 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 15:58:02 -0500, Free Lunch
wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 16:56:29 -0400, wrote in
alt.atheism:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 12:28:22 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:
On 5/28/2013 12:13 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 09:57:09 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:
On 5/28/2013 9:53 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 17:00:56 -0700, Fidem Turb?re, the
non-existent atheist goddess
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 00:01:11 -0400
wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2013 07:07:19 -0700, linuxgal
wrote:
Doug wrote:

Now taking to the next level, what do we do with
transgenders wanting to be in the boy scouts? That's
where I have a problem deciding.

"We" don't do anything, it's for the Boy Scouts to
decide.

...and pay the consequences, either way.

Though watch, they will now be forced to allow queer
adult leadership.

Do you mean "forced" by their democratic membership who
voted 61% in favour of it? Yeah, in that case I suppose
you're correct.

I'm sure you're too stupid to have heard of "pressure
groups". Idiot.

Like me, a straight, male Eagle Scout? Like that?

I'm sure you think a lot of yourself but you're really dumber
than a stump, like all lefties. Idiot!

Interesting, then, that I can follow a discussion and
contribute to it while you can't.

Lies are *not* contributions, Dumb****, anymore that taxes are
investment.

Taxes may be used to make investments. Capital investments exist
in both the public and private sector.

Taxes *IMPEDE* investments. For *every* dime the government
spends on such things the private sector cannot spend two. You
really are a dumb****.

Best example to the contrary: the interstate system, built
by the state using tax funds.

Anyone with any knowledge of history knows the Eisenhower Interstate
Highway system was a defense project.

Nonsense. It was a civil works project to improve travel
infrastructure.

Although it's not implausible for military projects to build or enhance
public areas (such as highways) that also benefit civilians. This, of
course, by no means vilifies the projects since they are paid for with
tax revenues and are of benefit to taxpayers -- it's a win-win.

The *only* thing government can
do reasonably well are things the private sector simply can't. Most
it fails at miserably or costs *way* too much. It's a natural law.

Why do reactionaries keep telling each other that. It is not true.

They're pushing an anti-government agenda. The fact is that government
employs a lot of competent people who do excellent work. If this
wasn't the case, then the government would fail. Sure, it's slightly
heavier on the paperwork side than most commercial organizations, but
there's an accountability factor there that many commercial entities
don't have to adhere to because they're structured differently.


What's astonishing is that they seem to think that building the
Interstate system or any other infrastructure project doesn't involve
the private sector. The government writes the check but nearly all of
the work is done by the private sector.

Same thing for Medicare and medicaid.



Except that some projects are better run than others

"Free Lunch" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 May 2013 10:01:10 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote in alt.atheism:

"Alex W." wrote in message
t...
On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:10:31 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:

"Free Lunch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 May 2013 20:49:33 -0400, wrote in
alt.atheism:


Anyone with any knowledge of history knows the Eisenhower Interstate
Highway system was a defense project.

Nonsense. It was a civil works project to improve travel
infrastructure.


It was both
They are NOT mutually exclusive

Just look at another military funded project that is in common PUBLIC
use
today
The Internet

Just look al all the spin-off that came from Kennedy's "going to the
moon"


What people like you don't grasp is that the indirect benefits of such
projects are otten greater than the original purpose.

Got another one: the Hoover Dam. The construction cost at
the time was less than $50 million (around $800 million in
today's tax dollars). Benefits, however, are HUGE: from
providing water to 8 million people and irrigating a million
acres of farmland to an electricity-generating capacity in
excess of 2,000MW and creating commercial opportunities
(tourism and leisure activities).


Indeed
There are projects which when allied with a bit of vision, which is far
too
rare in government, and the ability to finance over the long term with no
need for immediate profit, that are perfect for government projects
The opposite is government entities who are blackmailed to build sports
stadium which mostly only really benefit the sports franchise

I happen to agree that welfare for billionaires is an evil that needs to
be eradicated, but in any government, those who use the argument that
there is corruption as an excuse to shut down all the good that the
government does are not people who actually care about corruption.


Oh YAWN
Another tautological generalization

On Thu, 30 May 2013 08:42:41 -0400, Ben Kaufman
wrote:

On Wed, 29 May 2013 20:46:16 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 29 May 2013 02:46:05 -0400, Ben Kaufman
wrote:

On Tue, 28 May 2013 10:51:11 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 25 May 2013 16:52:36 -0400, Ben Kaufman
wrote:

On Fri, 24 May 2013 23:58:41 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 24 May 2013 09:13:03 -0400, Ben Kaufman
wrote:

On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:50:24 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On May 24, 5:36*am, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article ,
*Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

Boy Scouts vote to lift ban on gay youth
May 23 2013

GRAPEVINE, Texas -- The Boy Scouts of America voted
Thursday to end its controversial policy banning gay
kids and teens from joining one of the nation's most
popular youth organizations, ditching membership
guidelines that had roiled the group in recent years.
Over 61 percent of Scouting's National Council of 1,400
delegates from across the country voted to lift the ban,
BSA officials said. The final tally was 757 yes votes,
to 475 no.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...couts-vote-to-
lift-ban-on-gay-youth?lite

It's about ****ing time!

Next step is to allow atheists. Until that day, the Boy Scouts are still
a bigoted organization.

--

JD



It's so the perverts/paedos of America can get better access to
potential victims.


It seems like they've had pretty good access under the homophobic rules.

...and it can only get better with those attracted to the only sex
that is in Scouts?

An openly gay "trusted member of the community" is not any more likely to be a
pedophile than any other "trusted member of the community."

Utter nonsense. The issue isn't "gay", rather sex. It has no
business in Boy Scouts, which is why they banned women from
leadership.


You're truly are thick.. I just explained it to you and not one bit sank in

You "explained" nothing. You're too stupid.

If you think about it, from your own response, a gay scoutmaster would have a
giant flag on his head, but the guy pretending to be heterosexual with a wife
and kids might get all the trust and access he needs.

You really are an idiot. He *was* married, and *had* children. He
*WAS* gay.

You're comments reveal that you are the one with a much better shot at the
title.

You really are a loser. No wonder you're a lefty.


Another pathetic troll (or sock puppet).

More lies from a dumb**** lefty. You really don't have to try. It is
you.

On Wed, 29 May 2013 22:24:14 -0500, Free Lunch
wrote:

On Wed, 29 May 2013 22:57:21 -0400, wrote in alt.atheism:

On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:10:31 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:

"Free Lunch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 May 2013 20:49:33 -0400, wrote in alt.atheism:

On Wed, 29 May 2013 00:27:19 +0100, "Alex W."
wrote:

On Tue, 28 May 2013 17:19:09 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 28 May 2013 15:58:02 -0500, Free Lunch
wrote:

On Tue, 28 May 2013 16:56:29 -0400, wrote in alt.atheism:

On Tue, 28 May 2013 12:28:22 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:

On 5/28/2013 12:13 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 09:57:09 -0500, Tom McDonald

wrote:

On 5/28/2013 9:53 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 17:00:56 -0700, Fidem Turb?re, the
non-existent
atheist goddess wrote:

On Sat, 25 May 2013 00:01:11 -0400
wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2013 07:07:19 -0700, linuxgal

wrote:
Doug wrote:

Now taking to the next level, what do we do with transgenders
wanting to be in the boy scouts? That's where I have a
problem
deciding.

"We" don't do anything, it's for the Boy Scouts to decide.

...and pay the consequences, either way.

Though watch, they will now be forced to allow queer adult
leadership.

Do you mean "forced" by their democratic membership who voted
61% in
favour of it? Yeah, in that case I suppose you're correct.

I'm sure you're too stupid to have heard of "pressure groups".
Idiot.

Like me, a straight, male Eagle Scout? Like that?

I'm sure you think a lot of yourself but you're really dumber than
a
stump, like all lefties. Idiot!

Interesting, then, that I can follow a discussion and contribute to
it
while you can't.

Lies are *not* contributions, Dumb****, anymore that taxes are
investment.

Taxes may be used to make investments. Capital investments exist in
both
the public and private sector.

Taxes *IMPEDE* investments. For *every* dime the government spends on
such things the private sector cannot spend two. You really are a
dumb****.

Best example to the contrary: the interstate system, built
by the state using tax funds.

Anyone with any knowledge of history knows the Eisenhower Interstate
Highway system was a defense project.

Nonsense. It was a civil works project to improve travel infrastructure.


It was both
They are NOT mutually exclusive

It *WAS* a defense project. It's economic benefits were a secondary
consideration.

It was called that to keep the idiots like Taft from messing it up.

Taft? You lefties really are stupid ****s.


Just look at another military funded project that is in common PUBLIC use
today
The Internet

Excellent simile.

Just look al all the spin-off that came from Kennedy's "going to the moon"

Less direct but also to the point.

What people like you don't grasp is that the indirect benefits of such
projects are otten greater than the original purpose.

Usually by accident. Central planning just simply doesn't work.

The *only* thing government can
do reasonably well are things the private sector simply can't. Most
it fails at miserably or costs *way* too much. It's a natural law.

Why do reactionaries keep telling each other that. It is not true.

So when are you going to stop being a stupid reactionary ?
We're all waiting for it to happen.

I'm certainly under no delusion lefties will ever learn anything.

You have made it clear that you will never learn enough to be in the
position to critique what others know.

You're projecting again, moron.

On Thu, 30 May 2013 09:04:50 -0500, Dakota
wrote:

On 5/29/2013 9:20 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 20:18:56 -0500
Free Lunch wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 20:49:33 -0400, wrote in
alt.atheism:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 00:27:19 +0100, "Alex W."
wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 17:19:09 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 15:58:02 -0500, Free Lunch
wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 16:56:29 -0400, wrote in
alt.atheism:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 12:28:22 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:
On 5/28/2013 12:13 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 09:57:09 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:
On 5/28/2013 9:53 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 17:00:56 -0700, Fidem Turb?re, the
non-existent atheist goddess
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 00:01:11 -0400
wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2013 07:07:19 -0700, linuxgal
wrote:
Doug wrote:

Now taking to the next level, what do we do with
transgenders wanting to be in the boy scouts? That's
where I have a problem deciding.

"We" don't do anything, it's for the Boy Scouts to
decide.

...and pay the consequences, either way.

Though watch, they will now be forced to allow queer
adult leadership.

Do you mean "forced" by their democratic membership who
voted 61% in favour of it? Yeah, in that case I suppose
you're correct.

I'm sure you're too stupid to have heard of "pressure
groups". Idiot.

Like me, a straight, male Eagle Scout? Like that?

I'm sure you think a lot of yourself but you're really dumber
than a stump, like all lefties. Idiot!

Interesting, then, that I can follow a discussion and
contribute to it while you can't.

Lies are *not* contributions, Dumb****, anymore that taxes are
investment.

Taxes may be used to make investments. Capital investments exist
in both the public and private sector.

Taxes *IMPEDE* investments. For *every* dime the government
spends on such things the private sector cannot spend two. You
really are a dumb****.

Best example to the contrary: the interstate system, built
by the state using tax funds.

Anyone with any knowledge of history knows the Eisenhower Interstate
Highway system was a defense project.

Nonsense. It was a civil works project to improve travel
infrastructure.

Although it's not implausible for military projects to build or enhance
public areas (such as highways) that also benefit civilians. This, of
course, by no means vilifies the projects since they are paid for with
tax revenues and are of benefit to taxpayers -- it's a win-win.

The *only* thing government can
do reasonably well are things the private sector simply can't. Most
it fails at miserably or costs *way* too much. It's a natural law.

Why do reactionaries keep telling each other that. It is not true.

They're pushing an anti-government agenda. The fact is that government
employs a lot of competent people who do excellent work. If this
wasn't the case, then the government would fail. Sure, it's slightly
heavier on the paperwork side than most commercial organizations, but
there's an accountability factor there that many commercial entities
don't have to adhere to because they're structured differently.


What's astonishing is that they seem to think that building the
Interstate system or any other infrastructure project doesn't involve
the private sector. The government writes the check but nearly all of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
the work is done by the private sector.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You must be on drugs! "You didn't do that."

On Thu, 30 May 2013 10:01:40 -0500, Free Lunch
wrote:

On Thu, 30 May 2013 09:04:50 -0500, Dakota wrote
in alt.atheism:

On 5/29/2013 9:20 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 20:18:56 -0500
Free Lunch wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 20:49:33 -0400, wrote in
alt.atheism:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 00:27:19 +0100, "Alex W."
wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 17:19:09 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 15:58:02 -0500, Free Lunch
wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 16:56:29 -0400, wrote in
alt.atheism:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 12:28:22 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:
On 5/28/2013 12:13 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 09:57:09 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:
On 5/28/2013 9:53 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 17:00:56 -0700, Fidem Turb?re, the
non-existent atheist goddess
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 00:01:11 -0400
wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2013 07:07:19 -0700, linuxgal
wrote:
Doug wrote:

Now taking to the next level, what do we do with
transgenders wanting to be in the boy scouts? That's
where I have a problem deciding.

"We" don't do anything, it's for the Boy Scouts to
decide.

...and pay the consequences, either way.

Though watch, they will now be forced to allow queer
adult leadership.

Do you mean "forced" by their democratic membership who
voted 61% in favour of it? Yeah, in that case I suppose
you're correct.

I'm sure you're too stupid to have heard of "pressure
groups". Idiot.

Like me, a straight, male Eagle Scout? Like that?

I'm sure you think a lot of yourself but you're really dumber
than a stump, like all lefties. Idiot!

Interesting, then, that I can follow a discussion and
contribute to it while you can't.

Lies are *not* contributions, Dumb****, anymore that taxes are
investment.

Taxes may be used to make investments. Capital investments exist
in both the public and private sector.

Taxes *IMPEDE* investments. For *every* dime the government
spends on such things the private sector cannot spend two. You
really are a dumb****.

Best example to the contrary: the interstate system, built
by the state using tax funds.

Anyone with any knowledge of history knows the Eisenhower Interstate
Highway system was a defense project.

Nonsense. It was a civil works project to improve travel
infrastructure.

Although it's not implausible for military projects to build or enhance
public areas (such as highways) that also benefit civilians. This, of
course, by no means vilifies the projects since they are paid for with
tax revenues and are of benefit to taxpayers -- it's a win-win.

The *only* thing government can
do reasonably well are things the private sector simply can't. Most
it fails at miserably or costs *way* too much. It's a natural law.

Why do reactionaries keep telling each other that. It is not true.

They're pushing an anti-government agenda. The fact is that government
employs a lot of competent people who do excellent work. If this
wasn't the case, then the government would fail. Sure, it's slightly
heavier on the paperwork side than most commercial organizations, but
there's an accountability factor there that many commercial entities
don't have to adhere to because they're structured differently.


What's astonishing is that they seem to think that building the
Interstate system or any other infrastructure project doesn't involve
the private sector. The government writes the check but nearly all of
the work is done by the private sector.

Same thing for Medicare and medicaid.

Which are both failing socialist programs. You can't give an ROI on
welfare, moron.

On Thu, 30 May 2013 12:39:22 -0400, wrote in alt.atheism:

On Thu, 30 May 2013 09:04:50 -0500, Dakota
wrote:

On 5/29/2013 9:20 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 20:18:56 -0500
Free Lunch wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 20:49:33 -0400, wrote in
alt.atheism:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 00:27:19 +0100, "Alex W."
wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 17:19:09 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 15:58:02 -0500, Free Lunch
wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 16:56:29 -0400, wrote in
alt.atheism:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 12:28:22 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:
On 5/28/2013 12:13 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 09:57:09 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:
On 5/28/2013 9:53 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 17:00:56 -0700, Fidem Turb?re, the
non-existent atheist goddess
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 00:01:11 -0400
wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2013 07:07:19 -0700, linuxgal
wrote:
Doug wrote:

Now taking to the next level, what do we do with
transgenders wanting to be in the boy scouts? That's
where I have a problem deciding.

"We" don't do anything, it's for the Boy Scouts to
decide.

...and pay the consequences, either way.

Though watch, they will now be forced to allow queer
adult leadership.

Do you mean "forced" by their democratic membership who
voted 61% in favour of it? Yeah, in that case I suppose
you're correct.

I'm sure you're too stupid to have heard of "pressure
groups". Idiot.

Like me, a straight, male Eagle Scout? Like that?

I'm sure you think a lot of yourself but you're really dumber
than a stump, like all lefties. Idiot!

Interesting, then, that I can follow a discussion and
contribute to it while you can't.

Lies are *not* contributions, Dumb****, anymore that taxes are
investment.

Taxes may be used to make investments. Capital investments exist
in both the public and private sector.

Taxes *IMPEDE* investments. For *every* dime the government
spends on such things the private sector cannot spend two. You
really are a dumb****.

Best example to the contrary: the interstate system, built
by the state using tax funds.

Anyone with any knowledge of history knows the Eisenhower Interstate
Highway system was a defense project.

Nonsense. It was a civil works project to improve travel
infrastructure.

Although it's not implausible for military projects to build or enhance
public areas (such as highways) that also benefit civilians. This, of
course, by no means vilifies the projects since they are paid for with
tax revenues and are of benefit to taxpayers -- it's a win-win.

The *only* thing government can
do reasonably well are things the private sector simply can't. Most
it fails at miserably or costs *way* too much. It's a natural law.

Why do reactionaries keep telling each other that. It is not true.

They're pushing an anti-government agenda. The fact is that government
employs a lot of competent people who do excellent work. If this
wasn't the case, then the government would fail. Sure, it's slightly
heavier on the paperwork side than most commercial organizations, but
there's an accountability factor there that many commercial entities
don't have to adhere to because they're structured differently.


What's astonishing is that they seem to think that building the
Interstate system or any other infrastructure project doesn't involve
the private sector. The government writes the check but nearly all of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
the work is done by the private sector.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You must be on drugs! "You didn't do that."

And the people with businesses that rely on those roads did not do that,
the entire community as expressed in government did.

On Thu, 30 May 2013 06:36:16 -0400
"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

On this thread, we have fellatio ad homosexual attacks.

Ha ha! That's very clever.

[snip - malformed message text that was ignored]

--
Fidem Turb�re, the non-existent atheist goddess
"It offends me that an invisible god is given credit for every good
thing that happens in the world, while every evil is blamed on
humanity. ..."
-- Duke Earl J. Weber Lebourgeois, American-American (August 27,
2012)

On Thu, 30 May 2013 10:02:40 -0500
"Attila Iskander" wrote:
"Alex W." wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 29 May 2013 18:30:29 -0700, Fidem Turbare, the
non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:00:18 -0400
wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 16:54:15 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the
non-existent atheist goddess" wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 11:16:22 -0400
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 10:46:34 -0500, Mitchell Holman
nomailverizon.net wrote:
wrote in
news On Fri, 24 May 2013 20:05:00 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article ,
Alfred E. Newman wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:36:09 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article
,
Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

Boy Scouts vote to lift ban on gay youth
May 23 2013

GRAPEVINE, Texas -- The Boy Scouts of America voted
Thursday to end its controversial policy banning gay
kids and teens from joining one of the nation's most
popular youth organizations, ditching membership
guidelines that had roiled the group in recent years.
Over 61 percent of Scouting's National Council of 1,400
delegates from across the country voted to lift the ban,
BSA officials said. The final tally was 757 yes votes,
to 475 no.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...boy-scouts-vot
e-to- lift-ban-on-gay-youth?lite

It's about ****ing time!

Next step is to allow atheists. Until that day, the Boy
Scouts are still a bigoted organization.

--

JD

Jeanne, why do you say they are still bigoted? Is it
because you weren't allowed to join because of what you
have between your legs? Or was it because of what you
don't have between your ears?

I had the Girl Scouts available to me. A FAR better
organization than the Boy Scouts.

Nonsense. If that's true, why are so many girls trying to
get into Boy Scouts?


Who says they are?

I wouldn't expect you to know anything that's going on around
you.

Your expectations are not a problem for atheists, so long as
you're not trying to impose your values on others.

Boy Scouts AND Girl Scouts are shrinking even
as the population of young teens is growing. They
are shrinking into irrelevancy.

...and you rejoice.

Actually, the elimination of organizations that are founded on
discriminatory ideals is of tremendous benefit to the
psychological health of modern societies.

By that "logic", you should be eliminated.

Does that mean you believe that organizations founded on
discriminatory ideals are beneficial to modern societies?

Careful: this is a very wide and woolly definition indeed!
In Europe, this rationale can and indeed is being used to
fight anything that smacks of "elitism", including schools
and universities that try to be centres of educational and
scholastic excellence. Ditto organisaitons and institutions
that practise positive discrimination, say for women or
minorities: these, too, would fall under that
categorisation.

Indeed.
People who dive into such waters often fail to think ahead of the
unintended consequences of their beliefs and actions.

A little bit of Marxism can cure that "elitism" problem (as long as
the populace is willing to make an exception for the ruling class).

--
Fidem Turb�re, the non-existent atheist goddess
"If we're all God's Children, what's so special about Jesus [Christ]?"
-- Jimmy Carr (September 18, 2009)

On Thu, 30 May 2013 08:51:29 -0400, Ben Kaufman
wrote:

On Wed, 29 May 2013 18:42:27 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
goddess" wrote:

On Wed, 29 May 2013 03:05:42 -0400
Ben Kaufman wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 10:58:46 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 08:22:37 -0400, Ben Kaufman
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 22:27:54 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:
"Ben Kaufman" wrote
in message ...
On Fri, 24 May 2013 22:34:11 -0500, "Attila Iskander"

wrote:
"Not X" wrote in message
...
On 05/24/2013 08:20 AM, PV wrote:

[snip]

Sexual orientation is not a choice, however atheism is, so
why must Scouts
change to accommodate those that choose atheism?


Atheism is simply the state of NOT being afflicted by a
debilitating condition. It is NOT a choice, the same way NOT
having Alzheimer's disease
isn't a choice.


You are not born atheist
It's a choice you make somewhere along the way.

Actually, you were born atheist. You didn't believe in any gods
until an adult
spoon fed it to you as the facts.



NOPE !
You were born a blank page
That means at best you were born agnostic.

Get yourself a dictionary and learn the meaning of words


Nope, you can't even be an agnostic until someone tries to make you
believe that gods are real. And of course, young children are
vulnerable to this sort of brain washing.

You're born caring whether there is a God? That means that there must
be a God. God, you're an idiot!

You have zero reading comprehension, and an apparent severe learning
disability to continue spewing ad hominem after it was explained to
you how poorly this reflects on your ability to debate.

He was debating? I thought he was seeking an education.

Apparently at Troll University.

Another lefty liar. No surprise. With all of the religious zealots
in the group, it's to be expected.

Now, no longer wasting my time.

You're lying again.

On Thu, 30 May 2013 00:39:04 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist goddess" wrote:

On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:06:38 -0400
wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 16:47:29 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist goddess" wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 11:18:31 -0400
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 16:48:00 -0700, Fidem Turb?re, the non-existent
atheist goddess wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 09:33:27 -0400
wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2013 20:05:00 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article ,
Alfred E. Newman wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:36:09 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article
,
Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

Boy Scouts vote to lift ban on gay youth
May 23 2013

GRAPEVINE, Texas -- The Boy Scouts of America voted
Thursday to end its controversial policy banning gay
kids and teens from joining one of the nation's most
popular youth organizations, ditching membership
guidelines that had roiled the group in recent years.
Over 61 percent of Scouting's National Council of 1,400
delegates from across the country voted to lift the ban,
BSA officials said. The final tally was 757 yes votes,
to 475 no.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...couts-vote-to-
lift-ban-on-gay-youth?lite

It's about ****ing time!

Next step is to allow atheists. Until that day, the Boy
Scouts are still a bigoted organization.

--

JD

Jeanne, why do you say they are still bigoted? Is it because
you weren't allowed to join because of what you have between
your legs? Or was it because of what you don't have between
your ears?

I had the Girl Scouts available to me. A FAR better
organization than the Boy Scouts.

Nonsense. If that's true, why are so many girls trying to get
into Boy Scouts? Boy Scouts has a much larger and stronger
organization, with more programs, camps, and outings.

If girls really were trying to get into the Boy Scouts,

They are.

Can you prove that?

they'd most
likely be Catholic Girls coveting some new "experiences." If
their motives were purely to become Scouts, then your suggestion
seems ludicrous because there's another very similar organization
which is famously known as "Girl Scouts."

A poor imitation. But do pay attention (I know you're stupid, but
try). That's what the thread is about.

Your fallacious ad hominem attack doesn't help your position.

Even after having it explained to you, you're to stupid to get it and
think you have to repeat yourself. What a dumb****!

Your fallacious ad hominem attack, which includes a spelling error,
doesn't help your credibility.

With regard to the Boy Scouts being a "stronger organization,"
that's just a reflection of the behaviour exhibited by those who
feel threatened by homosexuality (even though a person's private
sexual encounters really are none of their business).

Idiot.

Your unsubstantiated ad hominem attack doesn't help your position.

See above, dumb****.

Ditto.

Completely irrelevant and wrong (but that's to be expected).

It is relevant because a fear of homosexuality has been a serious
hinderance to the reputation of the Boy Scouts as an organization.

There is no fear, dumb****.

It appears that 39% of the Boy Scouts might be homophobic.

The fear is in your remaining neuron, which is obviously getting
quite lonely.

What part of the concept of "non-existence" is it that's most troubling
for you?

Additionally, I contend that I am correct with regards to a person's
private sexual encounters being a matter that doesn't concern the Boy
Scouts, and I disagree with you that the inverse is expected.

It never did. Only their public actions.

What public actions? Were they publicly engaging in sexual intercourse
while also representing the Boy Scouts? If not, then it shouldn't be
an issue for the Boy Scouts as an organization.

You really are stupid!

Your fallacious ad hominem attack doesn't help your argument.

Sadly, our troop leader was a bitch who favored her daughter
and her buddies over the rest of the troop, so I dropped out
as soon as I was allowed.

You learned well.

That's not a matter of learning, rather it's a matter of
exercising judgement based on values of fairness.

Being a bitch? You should know. You're hers.

Your fallacious ad hominem attack confirms that you feel threatened
and angered, most likely because you know that you're wrong. If you
didn't feel intimidated by your error, the need to respond ad
hominem would be non-existent (that last word is meaningful to me).

Not at all "fallacious" (you must have had mommy look that one up for
you). You really are her bitch, dumb****.

Can you substantiate your claim that I have a mommy and that she looked
up the word "fallacious" for me?

Your use of profanities to express your anger and frustration when
presenting fallacious assertions doesn't help your argument.

Do you feel intimidated when other people exercise judgement based on
values of fairness because it's not consistent with the various
religious delusions that many people suffer from?

Once again you show exactly how self-important you lefty loons are.

I did not claim to be important, and your fallacious ad hominem
attacks don't help your argument.

I bet your only grade is school was "present". What a dumb****.

Your implicit offer to engage in gambling is not accepted because your
fallacious ad hominem attack that follows in the next sentence fails to
add meaningful value to this social intercourse we're engaging in.

Proving again what an absolute dumb**** you are.

On Thu, 30 May 2013 07:09:30 -0500
"Attila Iskander" wrote:
"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
wrote in message
news:20130530004650.7bab5b0d9a42e3ee5d5b1dba@fidem turbare.com...
On Wed, 29 May 2013 23:04:52 -0400
wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 18:42:27 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the
non-existent atheist goddess" wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 03:05:42 -0400
Ben Kaufman wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 10:58:46 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 08:22:37 -0400, Ben Kaufman
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 22:27:54 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:
"Ben Kaufman"
wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 May 2013 22:34:11 -0500, "Attila Iskander"

wrote:
"Not X" wrote in message
...
On 05/24/2013 08:20 AM, PV wrote:

[snip]

Sexual orientation is not a choice, however atheism is,
so why must Scouts
change to accommodate those that choose atheism?


Atheism is simply the state of NOT being afflicted by a
debilitating condition. It is NOT a choice, the same way
NOT having Alzheimer's disease
isn't a choice.


You are not born atheist
It's a choice you make somewhere along the way.

Actually, you were born atheist. You didn't believe in any
gods until an adult
spoon fed it to you as the facts.



NOPE !
You were born a blank page
That means at best you were born agnostic.

Get yourself a dictionary and learn the meaning of words


Nope, you can't even be an agnostic until someone tries to
make you believe that gods are real. And of course, young
children are vulnerable to this sort of brain washing.

You're born caring whether there is a God? That means that
there must be a God. God, you're an idiot!

You have zero reading comprehension, and an apparent severe
learning disability to continue spewing ad hominem after it was
explained to you how poorly this reflects on your ability to
debate.

He was debating? I thought he was seeking an education.

Once again you prove just how illiterate you are.

Please clarify what you mean by "illiterate." The reason I make
this request is that I suspect you aren't conforming to the common
comprehension of it as an inability to communicate in written form
(by reading or writing) by using at least one intelligible language.

Illiterate at it's root, means not able to read
But it also means uneducated. from not doing much reading.

I do not object to that definition.

What a dumb****.

Your fallacious ad hominem attack doesn't help your position.

It was a declarative statement,not an ad hom

The context in which that declaration was asserted made it conclusory.

--
Fidem Turb�re, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Better than larger values
However true their show
This timid life of Evidence
Keeps pleading -- I don't know."
-- E. Dickenson

On Thu, 30 May 2013 14:46:08 +0100
"Alex W." wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 19:20:31 -0700, Fidem Turbare, the
non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 20:18:56 -0500
Free Lunch wrote:

Why do reactionaries keep telling each other that. It is not true.

They're pushing an anti-government agenda. The fact is that
government employs a lot of competent people who do excellent
work. If this wasn't the case, then the government would fail.
Sure, it's slightly heavier on the paperwork side than most
commercial organizations, but there's an accountability factor
there that many commercial entities don't have to adhere to because
they're structured differently.

Not sure I can agree with your comment on accountability.
True, the political leadership is accountable through
regular judgment by the electorate.

This, however, does not hold true for the civil service.
State employees generally work in a blessed state of
unaccountability: whatever they do and however badly they
cock things up, they can and do hide behind regulations,
departmental policies and practices, referral to other
offices and departments, etc. Effectively, the civil
servant's personal responsibility and with it his
accountability are diluted to the point of non-existence.
The guy in middle management who seriously miscalculated the
cost of a new plant will find himself held accountable by
his superiors and shareholders in very short order and will
probably be sent to explore exciting career enhancement
opportunities at monster.com -- but the civil servant who
does the same mistake with a new school or bridge will fac
no such censure or threat to his job. How many officials do
you think stand to be demoted or lose their jobs over the
collapse of the I-5 bridge north of Seattle?

Excellent points. I didn't mean to imply that civil servants were more
accountable, just that government work entails other factors of
accountability that private commercial organizations don't have to
contend with, and primarily because they operate under different rules.

I really enjoyed reading your response, and particularly enjoyed the
part about "exploring exciting career enhancement opportunities at
monster.com" as amazingly beautiful prose. Thank you for that.

--
Fidem Turb�re, the non-existent atheist goddess
"I find it ironic that the Republicans have such disdain for the lazy,
and yet their solution to every problem is: Do nothing."
-- Bill Maher

On Thu, 30 May 2013 01:08:39 -0700
Mike Painter wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 20:45:13 -0400, wrote:

You really don't have to prove how incredibly stupid you are.
Everyone here has known it for some time.

Really? I'm here and am not aware that your claim has any basis in
truth.

The topic of the Boy Scouts has really brought out quite a parade,
hasn't it?

I suspect this is new territory for many of them, given how careless
they are compared to many of the regular "alt.atheism" kooks. It feels
like going back to basics when dealing with some of their responses.

--
Fidem Turb�re, the non-existent atheist goddess
"The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism,
satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible."
-- Salman Rushdie

On Thu, 30 May 2013 12:54:33 -0400
wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2013 00:39:04 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist goddess" wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:06:38 -0400
wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 16:47:29 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the
non-existent atheist goddess" wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 11:18:31 -0400
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 16:48:00 -0700, Fidem Turb?re, the
non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 09:33:27 -0400
wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2013 20:05:00 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article ,
Alfred E. Newman wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:36:09 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article
,
Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

Boy Scouts vote to lift ban on gay youth
May 23 2013

GRAPEVINE, Texas -- The Boy Scouts of America voted
Thursday to end its controversial policy banning gay
kids and teens from joining one of the nation's most
popular youth organizations, ditching membership
guidelines that had roiled the group in recent years.
Over 61 percent of Scouting's National Council of
1,400 delegates from across the country voted to lift
the ban, BSA officials said. The final tally was 757
yes votes, to 475 no.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...couts-vote-to-
lift-ban-on-gay-youth?lite

It's about ****ing time!

Next step is to allow atheists. Until that day, the Boy
Scouts are still a bigoted organization.

--

JD

Jeanne, why do you say they are still bigoted? Is it
because you weren't allowed to join because of what you
have between your legs? Or was it because of what you
don't have between your ears?

I had the Girl Scouts available to me. A FAR better
organization than the Boy Scouts.

Nonsense. If that's true, why are so many girls trying to
get into Boy Scouts? Boy Scouts has a much larger and
stronger organization, with more programs, camps, and
outings.

If girls really were trying to get into the Boy Scouts,

They are.

Can you prove that?

they'd most
likely be Catholic Girls coveting some new "experiences." If
their motives were purely to become Scouts, then your
suggestion seems ludicrous because there's another very
similar organization which is famously known as "Girl Scouts."

A poor imitation. But do pay attention (I know you're stupid,
but try). That's what the thread is about.

Your fallacious ad hominem attack doesn't help your position.

Even after having it explained to you, you're to stupid to get it
and think you have to repeat yourself. What a dumb****!

Your fallacious ad hominem attack, which includes a spelling error,
doesn't help your credibility.

With regard to the Boy Scouts being a "stronger organization,"
that's just a reflection of the behaviour exhibited by those
who feel threatened by homosexuality (even though a person's
private sexual encounters really are none of their business).

Idiot.

Your unsubstantiated ad hominem attack doesn't help your position.

See above, dumb****.

Ditto.

Completely irrelevant and wrong (but that's to be expected).

It is relevant because a fear of homosexuality has been a serious
hinderance to the reputation of the Boy Scouts as an organization.

There is no fear, dumb****.

It appears that 39% of the Boy Scouts might be homophobic.

The fear is in your remaining neuron, which is obviously getting
quite lonely.

What part of the concept of "non-existence" is it that's most
troubling for you?

Additionally, I contend that I am correct with regards to a
person's private sexual encounters being a matter that doesn't
concern the Boy Scouts, and I disagree with you that the inverse
is expected.

It never did. Only their public actions.

What public actions? Were they publicly engaging in sexual
intercourse while also representing the Boy Scouts? If not, then it
shouldn't be an issue for the Boy Scouts as an organization.

You really are stupid!

Your fallacious ad hominem attack doesn't help your argument.

Sadly, our troop leader was a bitch who favored her daughter
and her buddies over the rest of the troop, so I dropped out
as soon as I was allowed.

You learned well.

That's not a matter of learning, rather it's a matter of
exercising judgement based on values of fairness.

Being a bitch? You should know. You're hers.

Your fallacious ad hominem attack confirms that you feel
threatened and angered, most likely because you know that you're
wrong. If you didn't feel intimidated by your error, the need to
respond ad hominem would be non-existent (that last word is
meaningful to me).

Not at all "fallacious" (you must have had mommy look that one up
for you). You really are her bitch, dumb****.

Can you substantiate your claim that I have a mommy and that she
looked up the word "fallacious" for me?

Your use of profanities to express your anger and frustration when
presenting fallacious assertions doesn't help your argument.

Do you feel intimidated when other people exercise judgement
based on values of fairness because it's not consistent with the
various religious delusions that many people suffer from?

Once again you show exactly how self-important you lefty loons are.

I did not claim to be important, and your fallacious ad hominem
attacks don't help your argument.

I bet your only grade is school was "present". What a dumb****.

Your implicit offer to engage in gambling is not accepted because
your fallacious ad hominem attack that follows in the next sentence
fails to add meaningful value to this social intercourse we're
engaging in.

Proving again what an absolute dumb**** you are.

You tried to start a bet, that's gambling, so your proof is refuted.

--
Fidem Turb�re, the non-existent atheist goddess
"I don't speak 'Lying Coward.'"
-- Michelle "hypatiab7" Malkin (May 29, 2013)

On Thu, 30 May 2013 12:52:10 -0400
wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2013 08:51:29 -0400, Ben Kaufman
wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 18:42:27 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist goddess" wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 03:05:42 -0400
Ben Kaufman wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 10:58:46 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 08:22:37 -0400, Ben Kaufman
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 22:27:54 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:
"Ben Kaufman"
wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 May 2013 22:34:11 -0500, "Attila Iskander"

wrote:
"Not X" wrote in message
...
On 05/24/2013 08:20 AM, PV wrote:

[snip]

Sexual orientation is not a choice, however atheism is, so
why must Scouts
change to accommodate those that choose atheism?


Atheism is simply the state of NOT being afflicted by a
debilitating condition. It is NOT a choice, the same way
NOT having Alzheimer's disease
isn't a choice.


You are not born atheist
It's a choice you make somewhere along the way.

Actually, you were born atheist. You didn't believe in any
gods until an adult
spoon fed it to you as the facts.



NOPE !
You were born a blank page
That means at best you were born agnostic.

Get yourself a dictionary and learn the meaning of words


Nope, you can't even be an agnostic until someone tries to make
you believe that gods are real. And of course, young children
are vulnerable to this sort of brain washing.

You're born caring whether there is a God? That means that there
must be a God. God, you're an idiot!

You have zero reading comprehension, and an apparent severe
learning disability to continue spewing ad hominem after it was
explained to you how poorly this reflects on your ability to
debate.

He was debating? I thought he was seeking an education.

Apparently at Troll University.

Another lefty liar. No surprise. With all of the religious zealots
in the group, it's to be expected.

Indeed, we do get more than our fair share of religious zealots and
religious right-wing-nuts here in this "alt.atheism" newsgroup. By the
way, your fallacious ad hominem assertion doesn't help your reputation.

Now, no longer wasting my time.

You're lying again.

I challenge you to prove that accusation.

--
Fidem Turb�re, the non-existent atheist goddess
"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate."
-- Unknown

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2013 12:52:10 -0400
wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2013 08:51:29 -0400, Ben Kaufman
wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 18:42:27 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist goddess" wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 03:05:42 -0400
Ben Kaufman wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 10:58:46 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 08:22:37 -0400, Ben Kaufman
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 22:27:54 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:
"Ben Kaufman"
wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 May 2013 22:34:11 -0500, "Attila Iskander"

wrote:
"Not X" wrote in message
...
On 05/24/2013 08:20 AM, PV wrote:

[snip]

Sexual orientation is not a choice, however atheism is, so
why must Scouts
change to accommodate those that choose atheism?


Atheism is simply the state of NOT being afflicted by a
debilitating condition. It is NOT a choice, the same way
NOT having Alzheimer's disease
isn't a choice.


You are not born atheist
It's a choice you make somewhere along the way.

Actually, you were born atheist. You didn't believe in any
gods until an adult
spoon fed it to you as the facts.



NOPE !
You were born a blank page
That means at best you were born agnostic.

Get yourself a dictionary and learn the meaning of words


Nope, you can't even be an agnostic until someone tries to make
you believe that gods are real. And of course, young children
are vulnerable to this sort of brain washing.

You're born caring whether there is a God? That means that there
must be a God. God, you're an idiot!

You have zero reading comprehension, and an apparent severe
learning disability to continue spewing ad hominem after it was
explained to you how poorly this reflects on your ability to
debate.

He was debating? I thought he was seeking an education.

Apparently at Troll University.

Another lefty liar. No surprise. With all of the religious zealots
in the group, it's to be expected.

Indeed, we do get more than our fair share of religious zealots and
religious right-wing-nuts here in this "alt.atheism" newsgroup. By
the way, your fallacious ad hominem assertion doesn't help your
reputation.

Now, no longer wasting my time.

You're lying again.

I challenge you to prove that accusation.

if he can't prove it does that mean you don't exist

On Thu, 30 May 2013 12:39:22 -0400
wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2013 09:04:50 -0500, Dakota
wrote:
On 5/29/2013 9:20 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
goddess wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 20:18:56 -0500
Free Lunch wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 20:49:33 -0400, wrote in
alt.atheism:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 00:27:19 +0100, "Alex W."
wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 17:19:09 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 15:58:02 -0500, Free Lunch
wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 16:56:29 -0400, wrote in
alt.atheism:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 12:28:22 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:
On 5/28/2013 12:13 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 09:57:09 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:
On 5/28/2013 9:53 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 17:00:56 -0700, Fidem Turb?re, the
non-existent atheist goddess
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 00:01:11 -0400
wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2013 07:07:19 -0700, linuxgal
wrote:
Doug wrote:

Now taking to the next level, what do we do with
transgenders wanting to be in the boy scouts?
That's where I have a problem deciding.

"We" don't do anything, it's for the Boy Scouts to
decide.

...and pay the consequences, either way.

Though watch, they will now be forced to allow queer
adult leadership.

Do you mean "forced" by their democratic membership who
voted 61% in favour of it? Yeah, in that case I suppose
you're correct.

I'm sure you're too stupid to have heard of "pressure
groups". Idiot.

Like me, a straight, male Eagle Scout? Like that?

I'm sure you think a lot of yourself but you're really
dumber than a stump, like all lefties. Idiot!

Interesting, then, that I can follow a discussion and
contribute to it while you can't.

Lies are *not* contributions, Dumb****, anymore that taxes
are investment.

Taxes may be used to make investments. Capital investments
exist in both the public and private sector.

Taxes *IMPEDE* investments. For *every* dime the government
spends on such things the private sector cannot spend two. You
really are a dumb****.

Best example to the contrary: the interstate system, built
by the state using tax funds.

Anyone with any knowledge of history knows the Eisenhower
Interstate Highway system was a defense project.

Nonsense. It was a civil works project to improve travel
infrastructure.

Although it's not implausible for military projects to build or
enhance public areas (such as highways) that also benefit
civilians. This, of course, by no means vilifies the projects
since they are paid for with tax revenues and are of benefit to
taxpayers -- it's a win-win.

The *only* thing government can
do reasonably well are things the private sector simply can't.
Most it fails at miserably or costs *way* too much. It's a
natural law.

Why do reactionaries keep telling each other that. It is not true.

They're pushing an anti-government agenda. The fact is that
government employs a lot of competent people who do excellent
work. If this wasn't the case, then the government would fail.
Sure, it's slightly heavier on the paperwork side than most
commercial organizations, but there's an accountability factor
there that many commercial entities don't have to adhere to
because they're structured differently.


What's astonishing is that they seem to think that building the
Interstate system or any other infrastructure project doesn't
involve the private sector. The government writes the check but
nearly all of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
the work is done by the private sector.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You must be on drugs! "You didn't do that."

Actually, it's called "outsourcing to specialists."

--
Fidem Turb�re, the non-existent atheist goddess
"My father was a creole, his father a Negro, and his father a monkey;
my family, it seems, begins where yours left off."
-- Alexandre Dumas, pere

"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
wrote in message
news:20130530094917.e21da935d677cd85ce403381@fidem turbare.com...
On Thu, 30 May 2013 10:02:40 -0500
"Attila Iskander" wrote:
"Alex W." wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 29 May 2013 18:30:29 -0700, Fidem Turbare, the
non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:00:18 -0400
wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 16:54:15 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the
non-existent atheist goddess" wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 11:16:22 -0400
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 10:46:34 -0500, Mitchell Holman
nomailverizon.net wrote:
wrote in
news On Fri, 24 May 2013 20:05:00 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article ,
Alfred E. Newman wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:36:09 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article
,
Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

Boy Scouts vote to lift ban on gay youth
May 23 2013

GRAPEVINE, Texas -- The Boy Scouts of America voted
Thursday to end its controversial policy banning gay
kids and teens from joining one of the nation's most
popular youth organizations, ditching membership
guidelines that had roiled the group in recent years.
Over 61 percent of Scouting's National Council of 1,400
delegates from across the country voted to lift the ban,
BSA officials said. The final tally was 757 yes votes,
to 475 no.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...boy-scouts-vot
e-to- lift-ban-on-gay-youth?lite

It's about ****ing time!

Next step is to allow atheists. Until that day, the Boy
Scouts are still a bigoted organization.

--

JD

Jeanne, why do you say they are still bigoted? Is it
because you weren't allowed to join because of what you
have between your legs? Or was it because of what you
don't have between your ears?

I had the Girl Scouts available to me. A FAR better
organization than the Boy Scouts.

Nonsense. If that's true, why are so many girls trying to
get into Boy Scouts?


Who says they are?

I wouldn't expect you to know anything that's going on around
you.

Your expectations are not a problem for atheists, so long as
you're not trying to impose your values on others.

Boy Scouts AND Girl Scouts are shrinking even
as the population of young teens is growing. They
are shrinking into irrelevancy.

...and you rejoice.

Actually, the elimination of organizations that are founded on
discriminatory ideals is of tremendous benefit to the
psychological health of modern societies.

By that "logic", you should be eliminated.

Does that mean you believe that organizations founded on
discriminatory ideals are beneficial to modern societies?

Careful: this is a very wide and woolly definition indeed!
In Europe, this rationale can and indeed is being used to
fight anything that smacks of "elitism", including schools
and universities that try to be centres of educational and
scholastic excellence. Ditto organisaitons and institutions
that practise positive discrimination, say for women or
minorities: these, too, would fall under that
categorisation.

Indeed.
People who dive into such waters often fail to think ahead of the
unintended consequences of their beliefs and actions.

A little bit of Marxism can cure that "elitism" problem (as long as
the populace is willing to make an exception for the ruling class).


Too bad you didn't study enough history to learn how that nonsense usually
turns out..
(Hint: Not well)

"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
wrote in message
news:20130530101321.38181880e003280dee1542ef@fidem turbare.com...
On Thu, 30 May 2013 07:09:30 -0500
"Attila Iskander" wrote:
"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
wrote in message
news:20130530004650.7bab5b0d9a42e3ee5d5b1dba@fidem turbare.com...
On Wed, 29 May 2013 23:04:52 -0400
wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 18:42:27 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the
non-existent atheist goddess" wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 03:05:42 -0400
Ben Kaufman wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 10:58:46 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 08:22:37 -0400, Ben Kaufman
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 22:27:54 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:
"Ben Kaufman"
wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 May 2013 22:34:11 -0500, "Attila Iskander"

wrote:
"Not X" wrote in message
...
On 05/24/2013 08:20 AM, PV wrote:

[snip]

Sexual orientation is not a choice, however atheism is,
so why must Scouts
change to accommodate those that choose atheism?


Atheism is simply the state of NOT being afflicted by a
debilitating condition. It is NOT a choice, the same way
NOT having Alzheimer's disease
isn't a choice.


You are not born atheist
It's a choice you make somewhere along the way.

Actually, you were born atheist. You didn't believe in any
gods until an adult
spoon fed it to you as the facts.



NOPE !
You were born a blank page
That means at best you were born agnostic.

Get yourself a dictionary and learn the meaning of words


Nope, you can't even be an agnostic until someone tries to
make you believe that gods are real. And of course, young
children are vulnerable to this sort of brain washing.

You're born caring whether there is a God? That means that
there must be a God. God, you're an idiot!

You have zero reading comprehension, and an apparent severe
learning disability to continue spewing ad hominem after it was
explained to you how poorly this reflects on your ability to
debate.

He was debating? I thought he was seeking an education.

Once again you prove just how illiterate you are.

Please clarify what you mean by "illiterate." The reason I make
this request is that I suspect you aren't conforming to the common
comprehension of it as an inability to communicate in written form
(by reading or writing) by using at least one intelligible language.

Illiterate at it's root, means not able to read
But it also means uneducated. from not doing much reading.

I do not object to that definition.


I don't give a rat's ass whether you object or not.


What a dumb****.

Your fallacious ad hominem attack doesn't help your position.

It was a declarative statement,not an ad hom

The context in which that declaration was asserted made it conclusory.


Still not a strawman
But your attempt at obfuscation is noted.

In article
Ben Kaufman wrote:

On Wed, 29 May 2013 20:46:16 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 29 May 2013 02:46:05 -0400, Ben Kaufman
wrote:

On Tue, 28 May 2013 10:51:11 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 25 May 2013 16:52:36 -0400, Ben Kaufman
wrote:

On Fri, 24 May 2013 23:58:41 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 24 May 2013 09:13:03 -0400, Ben Kaufman
wrote:

On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:50:24 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On May 24, 5:36*am, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article ,
*Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

Boy Scouts vote to lift ban on gay youth
May 23 2013

GRAPEVINE, Texas -- The Boy Scouts of America voted
Thursday to end its controversial policy banning gay
kids and teens from joining one of the nation's most
popular youth organizations, ditching membership
guidelines that had roiled the group in recent years.
Over 61 percent of Scouting's National Council of 1,400
delegates from across the country voted to lift the ban,
BSA officials said. The final tally was 757 yes votes,
to 475 no.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...couts-vote-to-
lift-ban-on-gay-youth?lite

It's about ****ing time!

Next step is to allow atheists. Until that day, the Boy Scouts are still
a bigoted organization.

--

JD



It's so the perverts/paedos of America can get better access to
potential victims.


It seems like they've had pretty good access under the homophobic rules.

...and it can only get better with those attracted to the only sex
that is in Scouts?

An openly gay "trusted member of the community" is not any more likely to be a
pedophile than any other "trusted member of the community."

Utter nonsense. The issue isn't "gay", rather sex. It has no
business in Boy Scouts, which is why they banned women from
leadership.


You're truly are thick.. I just explained it to you and not one bit sank in

You "explained" nothing. You're too stupid.

If you think about it, from your own response, a gay scoutmaster would have a
giant flag on his head, but the guy pretending to be heterosexual with a wife
and kids might get all the trust and access he needs.

You really are an idiot. He *was* married, and *had* children. He
*WAS* gay.

You're comments reveal that you are the one with a much better shot at the
title.

You really are a loser. No wonder you're a lefty.


Another pathetic troll (or sock puppet).

That doesn't change anything in your case. You're still a
mentally crippled lefty.

On May 29, 5:53*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 23:41:52 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last









wrote:
On May 28, 7:53 am, wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 17:00:56 -0700, Fidem Turb?re, the non-existent

atheist goddess wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 00:01:11 -0400
wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2013 07:07:19 -0700, linuxgal
wrote:
Doug wrote:

Now taking to the next level, what do we do with transgenders
wanting to be in the boy scouts? That's where I have a problem
deciding.

"We" don't do anything, it's for the Boy Scouts to decide.

...and pay the consequences, either way.

Though watch, they will now be forced to allow queer adult leadership.

;
Do you mean "forced" by their democratic membership who voted 61% in
favour of it? *Yeah, in that case I suppose you're correct.

;
I'm sure you're too stupid to have heard of "pressure groups". Idiot.

Really! *Sounds interesting.

Fact.

Also sounds as if you are more aware,
in depth, of the behind-the-scenes political
maneuvering than I have been able to find in the media
reports I've read.

You can't read. *That's no surprise.

So, spill the beans! *Tell us, by name, which pressure
groups were involved, and what was the exact nature of
the pressure they could bring against BSA representatives
(supposedly the embodiment of courage and truth) that
could force them to vote against their own principles?
;
;
Corporate America. *Intel had already dropped all support. *Many
others were threatening because of the threats they had had.

You mean the "treats" corporations got from millions like me
who signed petitions expressing our distaste with
anti-gay bigotry?

OK.

So, when it came time for Ellie Mae Peacher of
Turner's Holler, Kentucky -- twenty year den mother
and lifelong Baptist -- to cast her vote, she swallowed
hard, tried to shut out the voice of the preacher in her
head, held her nose, and caved in to "Corporate America"?

Do tell us more about how the CEO of "Coroprate America"
is actually a human-reptoid hybred, won't you?


(that would be the Reptoids from Alpha Draconis, of
course. everyone knows the so-called Alpha
Epsilon "reptoids" are just some nutcase theory)


NBL

On Thu, 30 May 2013 13:29:31 -0500
"Attila Iskander" wrote:
"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
wrote in message
news:20130530094917.e21da935d677cd85ce403381@fidem turbare.com...
On Thu, 30 May 2013 10:02:40 -0500
"Attila Iskander" wrote:
"Alex W." wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 29 May 2013 18:30:29 -0700, Fidem Turbare, the
non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:00:18 -0400
wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 16:54:15 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the
non-existent atheist goddess" wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 11:16:22 -0400
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 10:46:34 -0500, Mitchell Holman
nomailverizon.net wrote:
wrote in
news On Fri, 24 May 2013 20:05:00 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article ,
Alfred E. Newman wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:36:09 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article
,
Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

Boy Scouts vote to lift ban on gay youth
May 23 2013

GRAPEVINE, Texas -- The Boy Scouts of America voted
Thursday to end its controversial policy banning gay
kids and teens from joining one of the nation's most
popular youth organizations, ditching membership
guidelines that had roiled the group in recent years.
Over 61 percent of Scouting's National Council of
1,400 delegates from across the country voted to
lift the ban, BSA officials said. The final tally
was 757 yes votes, to 475 no.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...boy-scouts-vot
e-to- lift-ban-on-gay-youth?lite

It's about ****ing time!

Next step is to allow atheists. Until that day, the Boy
Scouts are still a bigoted organization.

--

JD

Jeanne, why do you say they are still bigoted? Is it
because you weren't allowed to join because of what you
have between your legs? Or was it because of what you
don't have between your ears?

I had the Girl Scouts available to me. A FAR better
organization than the Boy Scouts.

Nonsense. If that's true, why are so many girls trying to
get into Boy Scouts?


Who says they are?

I wouldn't expect you to know anything that's going on around
you.

Your expectations are not a problem for atheists, so long as
you're not trying to impose your values on others.

Boy Scouts AND Girl Scouts are shrinking even
as the population of young teens is growing. They
are shrinking into irrelevancy.

...and you rejoice.

Actually, the elimination of organizations that are founded on
discriminatory ideals is of tremendous benefit to the
psychological health of modern societies.

By that "logic", you should be eliminated.

Does that mean you believe that organizations founded on
discriminatory ideals are beneficial to modern societies?

Careful: this is a very wide and woolly definition indeed!
In Europe, this rationale can and indeed is being used to
fight anything that smacks of "elitism", including schools
and universities that try to be centres of educational and
scholastic excellence. Ditto organisaitons and institutions
that practise positive discrimination, say for women or
minorities: these, too, would fall under that
categorisation.

Indeed.
People who dive into such waters often fail to think ahead of the
unintended consequences of their beliefs and actions.

A little bit of Marxism can cure that "elitism" problem (as long as
the populace is willing to make an exception for the ruling class).

Too bad you didn't study enough history to learn how that nonsense
usually turns out..
(Hint: Not well)

I wasn't advocating complete Marxism, therefore your assumption that I
"didn't study enough history" lacks credible justification.

In addition to that, your concession that history isn't a reliable
guide, as implied by your use of the word "usually," has been accepted.

--
Fidem Turb�re, the non-existent atheist goddess
"The phantom of the opera is there, inside your mind..."
-- Andrew Lloyd Weber

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2013 13:29:31 -0500
"Attila Iskander" wrote:
"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
wrote in message
news:20130530094917.e21da935d677cd85ce403381@fidem turbare.com...
On Thu, 30 May 2013 10:02:40 -0500
"Attila Iskander" wrote:
"Alex W." wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 29 May 2013 18:30:29 -0700, Fidem Turbare, the
non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:00:18 -0400
wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 16:54:15 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the
non-existent atheist goddess" wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 11:16:22 -0400
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 10:46:34 -0500, Mitchell Holman
nomailverizon.net wrote:
wrote in
news On Fri, 24 May 2013 20:05:00 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article ,
Alfred E. Newman wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:36:09 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article
,
Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

Boy Scouts vote to lift ban on gay youth
May 23 2013

GRAPEVINE, Texas -- The Boy Scouts of America voted
Thursday to end its controversial policy banning gay
kids and teens from joining one of the nation's most
popular youth organizations, ditching membership
guidelines that had roiled the group in recent years.
Over 61 percent of Scouting's National Council of
1,400 delegates from across the country voted to
lift the ban, BSA officials said. The final tally
was 757 yes votes, to 475 no.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...boy-scouts-vot
e-to- lift-ban-on-gay-youth?lite

It's about ****ing time!

Next step is to allow atheists. Until that day, the Boy
Scouts are still a bigoted organization.

--

JD

Jeanne, why do you say they are still bigoted? Is it
because you weren't allowed to join because of what you
have between your legs? Or was it because of what you
don't have between your ears?

I had the Girl Scouts available to me. A FAR better
organization than the Boy Scouts.

Nonsense. If that's true, why are so many girls trying to
get into Boy Scouts?


Who says they are?

I wouldn't expect you to know anything that's going on around
you.

Your expectations are not a problem for atheists, so long as
you're not trying to impose your values on others.

Boy Scouts AND Girl Scouts are shrinking even
as the population of young teens is growing. They
are shrinking into irrelevancy.

...and you rejoice.

Actually, the elimination of organizations that are founded on
discriminatory ideals is of tremendous benefit to the
psychological health of modern societies.

By that "logic", you should be eliminated.

Does that mean you believe that organizations founded on
discriminatory ideals are beneficial to modern societies?

Careful: this is a very wide and woolly definition indeed!
In Europe, this rationale can and indeed is being used to
fight anything that smacks of "elitism", including schools
and universities that try to be centres of educational and
scholastic excellence. Ditto organisaitons and institutions
that practise positive discrimination, say for women or
minorities: these, too, would fall under that
categorisation.

Indeed.
People who dive into such waters often fail to think ahead of the
unintended consequences of their beliefs and actions.

A little bit of Marxism can cure that "elitism" problem (as long as
the populace is willing to make an exception for the ruling class).

Too bad you didn't study enough history to learn how that nonsense
usually turns out..
(Hint: Not well)

I wasn't advocating complete Marxism, therefore your assumption that I
"didn't study enough history" lacks credible justification.

In addition to that, your concession that history isn't a reliable
guide, as implied by your use of the word "usually," has been
accepted.

and then i vetoed the acceptance

On Thu, 30 May 2013 11:09:38 -0700
"%" wrote:
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2013 12:52:10 -0400
wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2013 08:51:29 -0400, Ben Kaufman
wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 18:42:27 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the
non-existent atheist goddess" wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 03:05:42 -0400
Ben Kaufman wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 10:58:46 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 08:22:37 -0400, Ben Kaufman
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 22:27:54 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:
"Ben Kaufman"
wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 May 2013 22:34:11 -0500, "Attila Iskander"

wrote:
"Not X" wrote in message
...
On 05/24/2013 08:20 AM, PV wrote:

[snip]

Sexual orientation is not a choice, however atheism is,
so why must Scouts
change to accommodate those that choose atheism?


Atheism is simply the state of NOT being afflicted by a
debilitating condition. It is NOT a choice, the same way
NOT having Alzheimer's disease
isn't a choice.


You are not born atheist
It's a choice you make somewhere along the way.

Actually, you were born atheist. You didn't believe in any
gods until an adult
spoon fed it to you as the facts.



NOPE !
You were born a blank page
That means at best you were born agnostic.

Get yourself a dictionary and learn the meaning of words


Nope, you can't even be an agnostic until someone tries to
make you believe that gods are real. And of course, young
children are vulnerable to this sort of brain washing.

You're born caring whether there is a God? That means that
there must be a God. God, you're an idiot!

You have zero reading comprehension, and an apparent severe
learning disability to continue spewing ad hominem after it was
explained to you how poorly this reflects on your ability to
debate.

He was debating? I thought he was seeking an education.

Apparently at Troll University.

Another lefty liar. No surprise. With all of the religious
zealots in the group, it's to be expected.

Indeed, we do get more than our fair share of religious zealots and
religious right-wing-nuts here in this "alt.atheism" newsgroup. By
the way, your fallacious ad hominem assertion doesn't help your
reputation.

Now, no longer wasting my time.

You're lying again.

I challenge you to prove that accusation.

if he can't prove it does that mean you don't exist

No -- it would simply mean that his accusation lacks credibility and
therefore shall remain classified as "unproven," although failing to
meet a challenge to satisfy a burden of proof doesn't help either.

--
Fidem Turb�re, the non-existent atheist goddess
"In the realm of metaphysics, the fact that one feels the need of a
unifying principle does not prove the existence of that principle."
-- Camus

On Thu, 30 May 2013 13:33:28 -0500
"Attila Iskander" wrote:
"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
wrote in message
news:20130530101321.38181880e003280dee1542ef@fidem turbare.com...
On Thu, 30 May 2013 07:09:30 -0500
"Attila Iskander" wrote:
"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
wrote in message
news:20130530004650.7bab5b0d9a42e3ee5d5b1dba@fidem turbare.com...
On Wed, 29 May 2013 23:04:52 -0400
wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 18:42:27 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the
non-existent atheist goddess" wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 03:05:42 -0400
Ben Kaufman wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 10:58:46 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 08:22:37 -0400, Ben Kaufman
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 22:27:54 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:
"Ben Kaufman"
wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 May 2013 22:34:11 -0500, "Attila Iskander"

wrote:
"Not X" wrote in message
...
On 05/24/2013 08:20 AM, PV wrote:

[snip]

Sexual orientation is not a choice, however atheism
is, so why must Scouts
change to accommodate those that choose atheism?


Atheism is simply the state of NOT being afflicted by
a debilitating condition. It is NOT a choice, the
same way NOT having Alzheimer's disease
isn't a choice.


You are not born atheist
It's a choice you make somewhere along the way.

Actually, you were born atheist. You didn't believe in
any gods until an adult
spoon fed it to you as the facts.



NOPE !
You were born a blank page
That means at best you were born agnostic.

Get yourself a dictionary and learn the meaning of words


Nope, you can't even be an agnostic until someone tries to
make you believe that gods are real. And of course, young
children are vulnerable to this sort of brain washing.

You're born caring whether there is a God? That means that
there must be a God. God, you're an idiot!

You have zero reading comprehension, and an apparent severe
learning disability to continue spewing ad hominem after it
was explained to you how poorly this reflects on your
ability to debate.

He was debating? I thought he was seeking an education.

Once again you prove just how illiterate you are.

Please clarify what you mean by "illiterate." The reason I make
this request is that I suspect you aren't conforming to the
common comprehension of it as an inability to communicate in
written form (by reading or writing) by using at least one
intelligible language.

Illiterate at it's root, means not able to read
But it also means uneducated. from not doing much reading.

I do not object to that definition.

I don't give a rat's ass whether you object or not.

That's your choice, and it's probably a relief for any nearby rats too.

What a dumb****.

Your fallacious ad hominem attack doesn't help your position.

It was a declarative statement,not an ad hom

The context in which that declaration was asserted made it
conclusory.

Still not a strawman

Okay.

But your attempt at obfuscation is noted.

What you regard as obfuscation is actually the result of clarity gained
through the use of Occam's Razor.

--
Fidem Turb�re, the non-existent atheist goddess
"I was only an aspiring dictator. I was never a real dictator."
-- Augusto Pinochet

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2013 11:09:38 -0700
"%" wrote:
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2013 12:52:10 -0400
wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2013 08:51:29 -0400, Ben Kaufman
wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 18:42:27 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the
non-existent atheist goddess" wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 03:05:42 -0400
Ben Kaufman wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 10:58:46 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 08:22:37 -0400, Ben Kaufman
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 22:27:54 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:
"Ben Kaufman"
wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 May 2013 22:34:11 -0500, "Attila Iskander"

wrote:
"Not X" wrote in message
...
On 05/24/2013 08:20 AM, PV wrote:

[snip]

Sexual orientation is not a choice, however atheism is,
so why must Scouts
change to accommodate those that choose atheism?


Atheism is simply the state of NOT being afflicted by a
debilitating condition. It is NOT a choice, the same way
NOT having Alzheimer's disease
isn't a choice.


You are not born atheist
It's a choice you make somewhere along the way.

Actually, you were born atheist. You didn't believe in any
gods until an adult
spoon fed it to you as the facts.



NOPE !
You were born a blank page
That means at best you were born agnostic.

Get yourself a dictionary and learn the meaning of words


Nope, you can't even be an agnostic until someone tries to
make you believe that gods are real. And of course, young
children are vulnerable to this sort of brain washing.

You're born caring whether there is a God? That means that
there must be a God. God, you're an idiot!

You have zero reading comprehension, and an apparent severe
learning disability to continue spewing ad hominem after it was
explained to you how poorly this reflects on your ability to
debate.

He was debating? I thought he was seeking an education.

Apparently at Troll University.

Another lefty liar. No surprise. With all of the religious
zealots in the group, it's to be expected.

Indeed, we do get more than our fair share of religious zealots and
religious right-wing-nuts here in this "alt.atheism" newsgroup. By
the way, your fallacious ad hominem assertion doesn't help your
reputation.

Now, no longer wasting my time.

You're lying again.

I challenge you to prove that accusation.

if he can't prove it does that mean you don't exist

No -- it would simply mean that his accusation lacks credibility and
therefore shall remain classified as "unproven," although failing to
meet a challenge to satisfy a burden of proof doesn't help either.

can you prove that cause i'm really going with you don't exist now

On Thu, 30 May 2013 10:01:10 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:

"Alex W." wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:10:31 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:

"Free Lunch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 May 2013 20:49:33 -0400, wrote in alt.atheism:


Anyone with any knowledge of history knows the Eisenhower Interstate
Highway system was a defense project.

Nonsense. It was a civil works project to improve travel infrastructure.


It was both
They are NOT mutually exclusive

Just look at another military funded project that is in common PUBLIC use
today
The Internet

Just look al all the spin-off that came from Kennedy's "going to the
moon"


What people like you don't grasp is that the indirect benefits of such
projects are otten greater than the original purpose.

Got another one: the Hoover Dam. The construction cost at
the time was less than $50 million (around $800 million in
today's tax dollars). Benefits, however, are HUGE: from
providing water to 8 million people and irrigating a million
acres of farmland to an electricity-generating capacity in
excess of 2,000MW and creating commercial opportunities
(tourism and leisure activities).


Indeed
There are projects which when allied with a bit of vision, which is far too
rare in government, and the ability to finance over the long term with no
need for immediate profit, that are perfect for government projects
The opposite is government entities who are blackmailed to build sports
stadium which mostly only really benefit the sports franchise

Might make for an interesting cost-benefit analysis. A
sports stadium will encourage economic activity (think
increased tourism, travel and hospitality, or the influx of
a bunch of high-earning high-spending players) but whether
this is enough to outweigh the investment of several hundred
million is another issue.



We need to spend more time going to the Moon or Mars, than we do building
sports stadiums for business entities.

.... or funding the Olympic boondoggle every four years....

On Thu, 30 May 2013 10:23:46 -0700, Fidem Turbare, the
non-existent atheist goddess wrote:

On Thu, 30 May 2013 14:46:08 +0100
"Alex W." wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 19:20:31 -0700, Fidem Turbare, the
non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 20:18:56 -0500
Free Lunch wrote:

Why do reactionaries keep telling each other that. It is not true.

They're pushing an anti-government agenda. The fact is that
government employs a lot of competent people who do excellent
work. If this wasn't the case, then the government would fail.
Sure, it's slightly heavier on the paperwork side than most
commercial organizations, but there's an accountability factor
there that many commercial entities don't have to adhere to because
they're structured differently.

Not sure I can agree with your comment on accountability.
True, the political leadership is accountable through
regular judgment by the electorate.

This, however, does not hold true for the civil service.
State employees generally work in a blessed state of
unaccountability: whatever they do and however badly they
cock things up, they can and do hide behind regulations,
departmental policies and practices, referral to other
offices and departments, etc. Effectively, the civil
servant's personal responsibility and with it his
accountability are diluted to the point of non-existence.
The guy in middle management who seriously miscalculated the
cost of a new plant will find himself held accountable by
his superiors and shareholders in very short order and will
probably be sent to explore exciting career enhancement
opportunities at monster.com -- but the civil servant who
does the same mistake with a new school or bridge will fac
no such censure or threat to his job. How many officials do
you think stand to be demoted or lose their jobs over the
collapse of the I-5 bridge north of Seattle?

Excellent points. I didn't mean to imply that civil servants were more
accountable, just that government work entails other factors of
accountability that private commercial organizations don't have to
contend with, and primarily because they operate under different rules.

On the whole (and speaking from some small personal
experience) I must say that the experience of trying to
enforce accountability from commercial entities is slightly
less protracted and painful than trying to get a government
agency to do the right thing. To start with, as an arm of
government, agencies as a matter of principle stand on the
point that what they did must be right because they enact
the law of the land. Companies, by contrast, operate under
the law like individual citizens, and they know this.
Secondly, the civil service is not really concerned with the
fallout from lawsuits or even publicity: it's what
politicians are elected to deal with, and damages or career
consequences don't ever hit bureaucrats personally. Again,
in this a firm is different because the lines of power and
responsibility are short and clear.



I really enjoyed reading your response, and particularly enjoyed the
part about "exploring exciting career enhancement opportunities at
monster.com" as amazingly beautiful prose. Thank you for that.

You're welcome. I do try to please...

On Fri, 31 May 2013 00:07:03 +0100, "Alex W." wrote
in alt.atheism:

On Thu, 30 May 2013 10:01:10 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:

"Alex W." wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:10:31 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:

"Free Lunch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 May 2013 20:49:33 -0400, wrote in alt.atheism:


Anyone with any knowledge of history knows the Eisenhower Interstate
Highway system was a defense project.

Nonsense. It was a civil works project to improve travel infrastructure.


It was both
They are NOT mutually exclusive

Just look at another military funded project that is in common PUBLIC use
today
The Internet

Just look al all the spin-off that came from Kennedy's "going to the
moon"


What people like you don't grasp is that the indirect benefits of such
projects are otten greater than the original purpose.

Got another one: the Hoover Dam. The construction cost at
the time was less than $50 million (around $800 million in
today's tax dollars). Benefits, however, are HUGE: from
providing water to 8 million people and irrigating a million
acres of farmland to an electricity-generating capacity in
excess of 2,000MW and creating commercial opportunities
(tourism and leisure activities).


Indeed
There are projects which when allied with a bit of vision, which is far too
rare in government, and the ability to finance over the long term with no
need for immediate profit, that are perfect for government projects
The opposite is government entities who are blackmailed to build sports
stadium which mostly only really benefit the sports franchise

Might make for an interesting cost-benefit analysis. A
sports stadium will encourage economic activity (think
increased tourism, travel and hospitality, or the influx of
a bunch of high-earning high-spending players) but whether
this is enough to outweigh the investment of several hundred
million is another issue.

The problem is that something (stadium subsidies that will be hitting a
billion a pop soon) that is foolish in the aggregate may not appear to
be foolish locally and the folks running the teams know that. Rarely is
there a city like Los Angeles (where the NFL needs LA more than LA needs
the NFL). All of the professional team owners in the country (with the
exception of the owners of the Packers) could easily write a check for
an adequate stadium that holds the number of people they want. They
choose instead to demand a much more glorious one. If they pay
something, it will still be less than they would have paid had they had
to pay for it themselves.

Sure, cities want to have major league teams, but if they pay for a
major share of the cost of the business, shouldn't they have a vote on
the team equivalent to their investment?

We need to spend more time going to the Moon or Mars, than we do building
sports stadiums for business entities.

... or funding the Olympic boondoggle every four years....

Many cities have used the funding to build capital infrastructure, eg
subways, improvements that have been badly needed, but others have ended
up with a huge amount of waste at the end.

I vote for holding them at Olympia the way the gods wanted.

"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
wrote in message
news:20130530151638.278d3c2446462a5bc78ce7ca@fidem turbare.com...
On Thu, 30 May 2013 13:29:31 -0500
"Attila Iskander" wrote:
"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
wrote in message
news:20130530094917.e21da935d677cd85ce403381@fidem turbare.com...
On Thu, 30 May 2013 10:02:40 -0500
"Attila Iskander" wrote:
"Alex W." wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 29 May 2013 18:30:29 -0700, Fidem Turbare, the
non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:00:18 -0400
wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 16:54:15 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the
non-existent atheist goddess" wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 11:16:22 -0400
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 10:46:34 -0500, Mitchell Holman
nomailverizon.net wrote:
wrote in
news On Fri, 24 May 2013 20:05:00 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article ,
Alfred E. Newman wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:36:09 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article
,
Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

Boy Scouts vote to lift ban on gay youth
May 23 2013

GRAPEVINE, Texas -- The Boy Scouts of America voted
Thursday to end its controversial policy banning gay
kids and teens from joining one of the nation's most
popular youth organizations, ditching membership
guidelines that had roiled the group in recent years.
Over 61 percent of Scouting's National Council of
1,400 delegates from across the country voted to
lift the ban, BSA officials said. The final tally
was 757 yes votes, to 475 no.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...boy-scouts-vot
e-to- lift-ban-on-gay-youth?lite

It's about ****ing time!

Next step is to allow atheists. Until that day, the Boy
Scouts are still a bigoted organization.

--

JD

Jeanne, why do you say they are still bigoted? Is it
because you weren't allowed to join because of what you
have between your legs? Or was it because of what you
don't have between your ears?

I had the Girl Scouts available to me. A FAR better
organization than the Boy Scouts.

Nonsense. If that's true, why are so many girls trying to
get into Boy Scouts?


Who says they are?

I wouldn't expect you to know anything that's going on around
you.

Your expectations are not a problem for atheists, so long as
you're not trying to impose your values on others.

Boy Scouts AND Girl Scouts are shrinking even
as the population of young teens is growing. They
are shrinking into irrelevancy.

...and you rejoice.

Actually, the elimination of organizations that are founded on
discriminatory ideals is of tremendous benefit to the
psychological health of modern societies.

By that "logic", you should be eliminated.

Does that mean you believe that organizations founded on
discriminatory ideals are beneficial to modern societies?

Careful: this is a very wide and woolly definition indeed!
In Europe, this rationale can and indeed is being used to
fight anything that smacks of "elitism", including schools
and universities that try to be centres of educational and
scholastic excellence. Ditto organisaitons and institutions
that practise positive discrimination, say for women or
minorities: these, too, would fall under that
categorisation.

Indeed.
People who dive into such waters often fail to think ahead of the
unintended consequences of their beliefs and actions.

A little bit of Marxism can cure that "elitism" problem (as long as
the populace is willing to make an exception for the ruling class).

Too bad you didn't study enough history to learn how that nonsense
usually turns out..
(Hint: Not well)

I wasn't advocating complete Marxism, therefore your assumption that I
"didn't study enough history" lacks credible justification.


Is "a little Marxism" like being "a littel bit pregnant" ?
History also shows that "a little marxism" also has a tendency to grow
bigger over time.


In addition to that, your concession that history isn't a reliable
guide, as implied by your use of the word "usually," has been accepted.


Made no such concession
That is PURELY of figment of your fantasy
Nothing to do with reality
Now go look up the meaning of "usually" you dummy.

"%" wrote in message
...
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2013 13:29:31 -0500
"Attila Iskander" wrote:
"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
wrote in message
news:20130530094917.e21da935d677cd85ce403381@fidem turbare.com...
On Thu, 30 May 2013 10:02:40 -0500
"Attila Iskander" wrote:
"Alex W." wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 29 May 2013 18:30:29 -0700, Fidem Turbare, the
non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:00:18 -0400
wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 16:54:15 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the
non-existent atheist goddess" wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 11:16:22 -0400
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 10:46:34 -0500, Mitchell Holman
nomailverizon.net wrote:
wrote in
news On Fri, 24 May 2013 20:05:00 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article ,
Alfred E. Newman wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:36:09 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article
,
Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

Boy Scouts vote to lift ban on gay youth
May 23 2013

GRAPEVINE, Texas -- The Boy Scouts of America voted
Thursday to end its controversial policy banning gay
kids and teens from joining one of the nation's most
popular youth organizations, ditching membership
guidelines that had roiled the group in recent years.
Over 61 percent of Scouting's National Council of
1,400 delegates from across the country voted to
lift the ban, BSA officials said. The final tally
was 757 yes votes, to 475 no.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...boy-scouts-vot
e-to- lift-ban-on-gay-youth?lite

It's about ****ing time!

Next step is to allow atheists. Until that day, the Boy
Scouts are still a bigoted organization.

--

JD

Jeanne, why do you say they are still bigoted? Is it
because you weren't allowed to join because of what you
have between your legs? Or was it because of what you
don't have between your ears?

I had the Girl Scouts available to me. A FAR better
organization than the Boy Scouts.

Nonsense. If that's true, why are so many girls trying to
get into Boy Scouts?


Who says they are?

I wouldn't expect you to know anything that's going on around
you.

Your expectations are not a problem for atheists, so long as
you're not trying to impose your values on others.

Boy Scouts AND Girl Scouts are shrinking even
as the population of young teens is growing. They
are shrinking into irrelevancy.

...and you rejoice.

Actually, the elimination of organizations that are founded on
discriminatory ideals is of tremendous benefit to the
psychological health of modern societies.

By that "logic", you should be eliminated.

Does that mean you believe that organizations founded on
discriminatory ideals are beneficial to modern societies?

Careful: this is a very wide and woolly definition indeed!
In Europe, this rationale can and indeed is being used to
fight anything that smacks of "elitism", including schools
and universities that try to be centres of educational and
scholastic excellence. Ditto organisaitons and institutions
that practise positive discrimination, say for women or
minorities: these, too, would fall under that
categorisation.

Indeed.
People who dive into such waters often fail to think ahead of the
unintended consequences of their beliefs and actions.

A little bit of Marxism can cure that "elitism" problem (as long as
the populace is willing to make an exception for the ruling class).

Too bad you didn't study enough history to learn how that nonsense
usually turns out..
(Hint: Not well)

I wasn't advocating complete Marxism, therefore your assumption that I
"didn't study enough history" lacks credible justification.

In addition to that, your concession that history isn't a reliable
guide, as implied by your use of the word "usually," has been
accepted.

and then i vetoed the acceptance


The shihead creates false definition that he then "accepts"..
How stupid is that ?
(A: VERY ! )

"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
wrote in message
news:20130530153459.ab1347df19ea07a59ebc9f1b@fidem turbare.com...
On Thu, 30 May 2013 13:33:28 -0500
"Attila Iskander" wrote:
"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
wrote in message
news:20130530101321.38181880e003280dee1542ef@fidem turbare.com...
On Thu, 30 May 2013 07:09:30 -0500
"Attila Iskander" wrote:
"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
wrote in message
news:20130530004650.7bab5b0d9a42e3ee5d5b1dba@fidem turbare.com...
On Wed, 29 May 2013 23:04:52 -0400
wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 18:42:27 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the
non-existent atheist goddess" wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 03:05:42 -0400
Ben Kaufman wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 10:58:46 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 08:22:37 -0400, Ben Kaufman
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 22:27:54 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:
"Ben Kaufman"
wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 May 2013 22:34:11 -0500, "Attila Iskander"

wrote:
"Not X" wrote in message
...
On 05/24/2013 08:20 AM, PV wrote:

[snip]

Sexual orientation is not a choice, however atheism
is, so why must Scouts
change to accommodate those that choose atheism?


Atheism is simply the state of NOT being afflicted by
a debilitating condition. It is NOT a choice, the
same way NOT having Alzheimer's disease
isn't a choice.


You are not born atheist
It's a choice you make somewhere along the way.

Actually, you were born atheist. You didn't believe in
any gods until an adult
spoon fed it to you as the facts.



NOPE !
You were born a blank page
That means at best you were born agnostic.

Get yourself a dictionary and learn the meaning of words


Nope, you can't even be an agnostic until someone tries to
make you believe that gods are real. And of course, young
children are vulnerable to this sort of brain washing.

You're born caring whether there is a God? That means that
there must be a God. God, you're an idiot!

You have zero reading comprehension, and an apparent severe
learning disability to continue spewing ad hominem after it
was explained to you how poorly this reflects on your
ability to debate.

He was debating? I thought he was seeking an education.

Once again you prove just how illiterate you are.

Please clarify what you mean by "illiterate." The reason I make
this request is that I suspect you aren't conforming to the
common comprehension of it as an inability to communicate in
written form (by reading or writing) by using at least one
intelligible language.

Illiterate at it's root, means not able to read
But it also means uneducated. from not doing much reading.

I do not object to that definition.

I don't give a rat's ass whether you object or not.

That's your choice, and it's probably a relief for any nearby rats too.

What a dumb****.

Your fallacious ad hominem attack doesn't help your position.

It was a declarative statement,not an ad hom

The context in which that declaration was asserted made it
conclusory.

Still not a strawman

Okay.

But your attempt at obfuscation is noted.

What you regard as obfuscation is actually the result of clarity gained
through the use of Occam's Razor.


snicker
the last time you had anything that qualified as "clarity gained" was in a
porcelain bowl after when you flushed.

On Thu, 30 May 2013 15:52:35 -0700
"%" wrote:
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2013 11:09:38 -0700
"%" wrote:
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2013 12:52:10 -0400
wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2013 08:51:29 -0400, Ben Kaufman
wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 18:42:27 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the
non-existent atheist goddess" wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 03:05:42 -0400
Ben Kaufman wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 10:58:46 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 08:22:37 -0400, Ben Kaufman
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 22:27:54 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:
"Ben Kaufman"
wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 May 2013 22:34:11 -0500, "Attila Iskander"

wrote:
"Not X" wrote in message
...
On 05/24/2013 08:20 AM, PV wrote:

[snip]

Sexual orientation is not a choice, however atheism is,
so why must Scouts
change to accommodate those that choose atheism?


Atheism is simply the state of NOT being afflicted by a
debilitating condition. It is NOT a choice, the same way
NOT having Alzheimer's disease
isn't a choice.


You are not born atheist
It's a choice you make somewhere along the way.

Actually, you were born atheist. You didn't believe in any
gods until an adult
spoon fed it to you as the facts.



NOPE !
You were born a blank page
That means at best you were born agnostic.

Get yourself a dictionary and learn the meaning of words


Nope, you can't even be an agnostic until someone tries to
make you believe that gods are real. And of course, young
children are vulnerable to this sort of brain washing.

You're born caring whether there is a God? That means that
there must be a God. God, you're an idiot!

You have zero reading comprehension, and an apparent severe
learning disability to continue spewing ad hominem after it
was explained to you how poorly this reflects on your ability
to debate.

He was debating? I thought he was seeking an education.

Apparently at Troll University.

Another lefty liar. No surprise. With all of the religious
zealots in the group, it's to be expected.

Indeed, we do get more than our fair share of religious zealots
and religious right-wing-nuts here in this "alt.atheism"
newsgroup. By the way, your fallacious ad hominem assertion
doesn't help your reputation.

Now, no longer wasting my time.

You're lying again.

I challenge you to prove that accusation.

if he can't prove it does that mean you don't exist

No -- it would simply mean that his accusation lacks credibility and
therefore shall remain classified as "unproven," although failing to
meet a challenge to satisfy a burden of proof doesn't help either.

can you prove that cause i'm really going with you don't exist now

It's not necessary because I've not presented a claim that carries a
burden of proof.

Regarding my response to the hypothetical state of my existence, my
focus was on the ostensibility of proving a claim.

Regarding any assertions concerning my hypothetical state of existence,
please see my web site: http://www.fidemturbare.com/

Any atheist who proclaimed "I don't believe in Fidem Turb�re, the
non-existent atheist goddess" would be acting rationally.

--
Fidem Turb�re, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Any thinking is not good for religion -- their way leads to yet
another sect forming; rational thinking leads away from deism."
-- Mike Painter (February 18, 2012)

"Alex W." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 May 2013 10:01:10 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:

"Alex W." wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:10:31 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:

"Free Lunch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 May 2013 20:49:33 -0400, wrote in
alt.atheism:


Anyone with any knowledge of history knows the Eisenhower Interstate
Highway system was a defense project.

Nonsense. It was a civil works project to improve travel
infrastructure.


It was both
They are NOT mutually exclusive

Just look at another military funded project that is in common PUBLIC
use
today
The Internet

Just look al all the spin-off that came from Kennedy's "going to the
moon"


What people like you don't grasp is that the indirect benefits of such
projects are otten greater than the original purpose.

Got another one: the Hoover Dam. The construction cost at
the time was less than $50 million (around $800 million in
today's tax dollars). Benefits, however, are HUGE: from
providing water to 8 million people and irrigating a million
acres of farmland to an electricity-generating capacity in
excess of 2,000MW and creating commercial opportunities
(tourism and leisure activities).


Indeed
There are projects which when allied with a bit of vision, which is far
too
rare in government, and the ability to finance over the long term with no
need for immediate profit, that are perfect for government projects
The opposite is government entities who are blackmailed to build sports
stadium which mostly only really benefit the sports franchise

Might make for an interesting cost-benefit analysis. A
sports stadium will encourage economic activity (think
increased tourism, travel and hospitality, or the influx of
a bunch of high-earning high-spending players) but whether
this is enough to outweigh the investment of several hundred
million is another issue.



Already been done
http://www.npr.org/2011/08/05/139018592/the-nation-stop-the-subsidy-sucking-sports-stadiums



We need to spend more time going to the Moon or Mars, than we do building
sports stadiums for business entities.

... or funding the Olympic boondoggle every four years....

Agreed.