|
i don't need a response. i read what you said
about big breasts being less sensitive than small breasts and
it is absolutely not true. the sensitivity is in the nipple.
I don't think I said that. Star speculated that larger breasts
have the same number of nerves spread over a larger volume,
which I suppose is plausible, but he didn't offer any evidence.
"Did you know that on the average, human breasts
receive more or less the same number of sensory neurons regardless
of how big or small they are? If this is the case, then according
to the laws of physics one can conclude that breasts with the
same number of sensory nerves but smaller surface area are more
sensitive."
If it is the case. It is one possibility. Nerve numbers
may be the same for all women, they (and therefore sensitivity)
may vary fairly randomly unrelated to size, they may go up in
larger breasts, but I doubt they do.
What I do know about women is that they vary. A lot. On purpose.
The female sexual response is designed to be fickle and idiosyncratic by
design so that experience with giving one woman pleasure
isn't much use with a different woman. A technique that has
one woman dancing on the ceiling might leave another cold and
a third would find it unbearable. And a fourth, fifth, six,
seventh etc. all different. And of course what will please
her one day is the last things she wants now. Fickleness allows
a woman to find any new lover exciting if she wants to "ooo,
hairy back, a small penis, breath like an anchovy's bottom,
and you're all done in two minutes, you're so manly unlike my
husband who's hung like a stallion, smells clean all the time
and goes in for endless foreplay- how dull."
I feel sorry for you
Why did you feel the need to send that message? To make me
feel better? To improve my life? To educate me? Because your
invisible friend told you to?
No sir, I can see you are educated, and i dont
know your life, so how can i say it needs improving? and i dont
know how that statement could make you feel better, but when
I wrote it I was wondering what you went
through to have that strong anti-Christ prospective
Do you have a strong anti-Zeus thing?
Would you have an anti-Zeus thing if everybody around you was
banging on about Zeus and making out that because you didn't
believe in Zeus you were evil, immoral, inacapble of making
an ethical decision, had no business expressing any opinions
and had no good reason not to kill yourself?
-- Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org
Who called you those things?
I don't think they were faithful followers of Zeus. Do you?
i dont think they were faithful followers of
Jesus either
No, anybody who does anything you don't approve of isn't a
True Christian. No matter what they say about the matter.
Do you ever tire of being right?
I just read a bit on the web about atheist protesting
crosses dedicated to fallen troopers. OK, I hear and somewhat
understand the seperation of state and religion but what
is all this fuss about these days all of the sudden when
historically, traditionally and always the US has and
is associated with Christianity? I would have to guess
it's the corporate culture that has led to the political
correctness which is really leaving a nasty ugly trail
in its wake.
If atheist don't believe in any God and feel that this
is the only life one has to live w/o penalty, what's
the problem w/ others expressing their religion? I don't
have an issue if you and others don't believe in a God.
That's your problem. However, the MAJORITY of us do
believe and we do believe in Jesus Christ. Of course,
I'm sure you all think like these bastard lawyers...who
cares about the rest and only focus on yourselves. If
you don't believe in God, I'm guessing you all have
to be very selfish people since there is no reprecussion
to doing whatever you want in this life.
Besides getting upset when I see such ignorance in
this world, I honestly feel sorry for people like yourself
who can be so naive as not to believe in a higher form
of life. |
Would God be naive not to believe in a higher form of life?
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org
your response, while a good one, shows how you can't
accept God as THE creator of all life and an "all knowing,
all loving" God. Your statement defies the very
concept of God. It's like trying to understand infinity...there
are some things that we finite human beings are not supposed
and can't understand. Jesus Christ was here to show
us how to live our lives and answer many questions...it
comes down to blind faith.
I'm looking in my archives for a very scientific description of how it
all began. I'll forward if I can find it. I'm sure you get
plenty of hate mail and that isn't my goal...just trying to understand
how one can live a life on this earth w/o believing in a hgher power? I
can't fathom how horrible it must be?
Michael |
No. You have been told that there are things that we
are not supposed to understand. The entire concept of "supposed
to" here is entirely defined by your religion. You are incapable
of thinking beyond your belief and so you might as well not
bother at all. Most Christians don't.
I am not asking you to fathom how horrible my life must be. Stop patronizing
and insulting me. You might believe that your faith makes you superior but
that too is part of your faith. Believing that faith is a good thing is your
prison.
I am not jealous of your faith, and any mental calmness that it might provide,
I find it totally pathetic and contemptible.
Don't bother sending anything to me unless it is original and spontaneous.
I haven't fobbed you off with anything second hand.
How about answering my question? Would God be naive not to believe in a higher
power? Would any god?
If you won't let your brain off the leash to address that one then don't bother
to reply at all. And don't bother to tell me Jesus loves me or to pray for
me. I don't care because I don't believe your myths.
A little tip: try to write the word god with a lower case G whenever it is
appropriate. It will help your thinking. Trust me on that. Better yet call
your god by his name, if this seems like too much for your error-check dangerous-thought-avoidance
protocols to handle then use "The Lord". Only use a capital G when you use
the word as the name of your god. The capital G trick and the use of
a category title (God) instead of a name has been a deliberate ploy to make
monotheism seem natural and the default belief. It is a cynical attempt to
make thinking "wrong thoughts" harder. Being an American Christian (hey, just
a stab in the dark, I can't see your biography although you could have checked
out mine) you are already at enough
of a disadvantage without letting somebody else castrate any more of your synapses.
Wow, you are a really angry sick person. Read
my email and then yours and see how ugly and pathetic
you come across. Wow, what a way to waste a life
that God gave
you. Unreal how closed you and the others can be.
I seriously believe you and the others need to leave this wonderful coutntry
FOUNDED by Christians and just go piss away your life somewhere else. No,
I'm not nealry as strong as Christ and may come across wrong and do often
as I have much to learn (you can run w/ this one huh) but I can admit
it. It's like we try telling you closed minded people, we Christians
don't profess to be perfect (far from it), just saved by Jesus Christ
our Lord and Savior...He is yours too
Merry Christmas and your following emails will not be read but dumped
as your very ugly w/ your wording. |
It really pisses me off when people assume I'm American.
I have been friends with an athiest for
over 7 years now. At one time she believed in Buddism and then
there was something else that I cannot remember. Now I don't
consider myself an athiest or hard core christian but I do believe
that I am a christian. I have questions I believe that we all
do. I can sit down and talk with my good friend but we have
never had to seriously argue at each other and force our beliefs
on eachother at anytime during our friendship. We are
human we grew up differently, we believe in different things
so therefore we have different views. I do believe that we should
never judge another person on their beliefs because who are
you to judge someone on how they were brought up, on how they
see their life. I think that on top of us believing what
we will, we judge others because they don't see it our way and
instead of talking alot of us argue and yell at eachother. (This
goes for Christians as well) For years more than the twenty-six
that I have lived we have had a such thing as Christianity.
There are other religions such as Islam, Judaism, Buddism, etc..
but it seems that the Christians get the short end of the stick. We
are the ones on the other side of the biggest debate this Country
seems to face. So what if you don't believe in it, thats your
choice, those are your beliefs but do you have to knock mine
because I could care less to knock yours down and stomp all
over it and look at it in disgust. I have an open mind about
alot of things and I listen without speaking first because I
love to learn about who I am and the people that walk this earth
along side of me. The reason I have questions is the fact
that for many years we have all celebrated the Christmas season,
if it is Hanahkuh, Kwanza whatever we have celebrated our own
Christmas season the way we have known it to be. If Athiest
does not believe in the origination of Jesus Christ, God etc..
why celebrate Christmas you have not known it to be anything
else but from its origination so why celebrate it and take away
from it such as wanting to take (Christ) out of Christmas ???
Give me a break have Christians ever tried to take away from
Kwanza believers and or Hanahkuh believers so again why do Christians
get the short end of the stick? Why not bother other non-athiest
they celebrate their holiday just as Christians do? But theres
no debate against them or other religious believers why is that?
There's definitely no such thing as St. Nick, or Santa Claus
but if you actually believe that, why can't Christians believe
in Jesus Christ??? Athiest just like any other non-believers
I have to question why celebrate Christmas at all??? Why knock
my beliefs, why change what I have known for twenty-six years
for what you believe in or don't believe in, now you are forcing
your beliefs on others and contradicting who you are as an Athiest
and if you don't see it that way then that's the mark you are
leaving on everyone regardless of their religious beliefs.
Why celebrate Christmas? Because it is a good time and the
message of Peace on Earth and Goodwill to all Men is not and
never has been a Christian monopoly. Why do you object to me
celebrating it? What harm does it cause you? Is your attitude
to me celebrating Christmas one you would like to have associated
with the term Christianity?
Christmas has been used as a weapon by Christianity for a
long time "Say your prayers or no Christmas for you laddie." It
seems you want to continue with this excluding and shunning.
But it isn't going to work. Christians
don't own Christmas and they don't run the world. I am doing
my bit to blunt the weapon of Christmas. If you want to sell
Christianity you will have to do it with your myths and dogmas,
not Christmas trees and parties. I am teaching people that anybody
can have a good time at Christmas without guilt that they are
not going to church or they don't believe a word of the myth.
Who is taking your Christmas? Nobody. If you want to run an
exclusive Christmas for Christians only then don't leave church.
Out in the outside world Christmas is not under anybody's control.
Christians left the martyrdom
phase behind sixteen hundred years ago. For the newly
ascendant religious right to making out that they are
suffering from religious oppression as they are busy introducing
their own Taliban regime is just obscene, it is as transparent
nonsense as the idea that Hitler had to invade Poland
because of the intolerable Polish aggression he faked. |
 |
Hullo,
I'm researching a story on animal abuse in rural Utah, about 30 miles west
of Salt Lake City, USA. Your website happens to be the top google hit for "eat
horses law". Congrats.
I read the whole dialog/debate regarding the ban of horse meat.
You might be interested to know/note (it was not in your debate) that abuse/neglect
of horses (in my community, at least) has already increased as a result of
the ban.
I spoke with a local veterinarian who said, "They just passed a bill where
no more horses can be slaughtered for human consumption ... without federal
inspectors the [horse meat packing] plants can't keep going ... there were
three slaughter houses and that meat went overseas ... [before the law passed]
if they've got an old horse that need to go, they could get a couple hundred
bucks for 'em at auction."
In the above quote, I believe he was saying "there were three slaughter houses
[in Utah]" but I have not clarified that with him yet.
He said, more less, that he's already noticed an increase in horse neglect
because farm/ranch families are confused as to what to do with their aged,
useless work horse. Slaughter houses have shut down because federal regulators
of horse slaughter have already been sacked. So there is no market for the
old nags.
It costs money to use humane methods to put down the horse, and it costs money
to put the horse in the landfill. It doesn't cost anything, surely, to just
shoot the horse and bury it in the field, but either that seems like a lot
of work or just some sort of waste because hesitating to take that action is
precisely, the veterinarian said, what is leading to increased horse neglect.
So, where an old horse used to fetch a couple hundred bucks, it now sucks a
couple hundred out of the pocket book.
The bottom line is that horses that used to be sold to slaughter houses are
now being neglected. Perhaps this increase will dissipate as Americans adjust
to the ban and figure out they've just got shoot the damn things, but it sure
seems like a waste, or so it seems to me.
How come the so called horse lovers didn't have the
common sense to work out what would happen?
Doesn't anybody teach the basic concepts of economics
in America? A horse doesn't kill and bury itself. Of
course it makes more sense to sell a horse for slaughter
than to have to pay somebody to dig a hole to bury the
thing and have half its weight in flies emerge over
the next few months.
A meat trade ensures horses have a value, and things
that have a value are obviously going to be better looked
after than things which are simply liabilities. People
look after horses because they are valuable to them,
when they are no longer valuable to them it must be
better for the horses that somebody finds they still
have a value. |
Americans lacking horse-sense? |
I have read your comment that you believe that religion
is unstoppable. You base this on the fact that, so far,
the faithful have not turned away in spite of the advances
of scinece and technology. I believe that the contrary
is indeed true.
While most people do have faith in a god of sorts,
they are turning away from organized religion in droves.
Memes like religion rely on organizations to reinforce
and spread them, but the believers are leaving the means
through which the memes are spread. Translation: the
faith of the faithful is not unshakeable! It's already
weakening.
I just don't think that enough time has passed for
them to realize that they infected with religious memes.
With time, I'm sure that all will come around. Science
may become the meme to replace religion (as religion
replaced superstition, and as superstition replaced
total indifference).
Punisher |
Look at America, North and South. Look at Africa. Look
at the Islamic world.
Rationalism is gaining some ground in Europe but in
many parts of the world faith in religion is as strong
as ever.
I can see religion being the preserve of the ignorant
bigots with their fibreglass dinosaurs and Genesis theme
parks and a tiny handful of paid stooges in universities.
But I cannot see religion disappearing. Ever. Anywhere.
Literally anywhere.
Show me a country with no religious people. Just one.
If this is an unstoppable trend that is well under way
you should be able to give me one place where it has
happened.
I doubt you could even name me one university (a few
thousand people) that didn't have religious people in
it. |
Actually, here in the U.S. churches are shrinking.
That's the reason why they are sending evangelists to
campuses: the older generation of the religious faithful
in this nation is falling away and they are having difficulty
replacing those bodies in the pews! Churches are even
compromising their doctrines in vain attempts to appeal
to larger audiences (ideas fail when they give ground,
especially ideas that present themselves as absolute truth).
The complete implosion of religion in this country might
not happen for a while (perhaps not even in your lifetime),
but the ball has gained much momentum over the last half-century
and, I'm convinced, keep gaining momentum.
As for your comment on the fools with their Genosis
theme-parks: let's see ho many visitors they get in
the next few decades. These operations require finances
to continue; if no one pays the admissions fees, they
will in time whither and die. This will take time (seeing
how there are still a considerable number of church-goers
ready to support it), but when those pews empty these
little operations will empty too.
As for S. America, Africa, and the Isamofacists; I
can't say we'll be rid of them anytime soon. But at
least we can sweep our own boarders clean of religion
in time. Well get to them in due time, even if we have
to exterminate their religion by force...
You asked me to show any place that has successfuly
rid itself of religion. Well, I don't know if anyone
has yet. Then again, the British monarchy made similair
comments on the thirteen breakaway colonies and their
intentions to start a functioning republic. Keep in
mind that all ideas have a maximum lifespan and, sooner
or later, will die.
It may not have happened yet, but we are approaching
such a thing everyday. After all, you can't expect ideas
as entrenched as religion and morality to just disipate
overnight, right? |
"Keep in mind that " is not an invitation
to consider a new unsupported claim disguised as a jogging
of the memory. I am not aware of any rule or natural law
that says all ideas will die, and neither, I suspect,
are you.
Do not let wishful thinking cloud your perception of
what is actually happening.
You acknowledge that religion has not yet died anywhere
and yet you are trying to tell yourself and me that
its decline and death everywhere is inevitable.
I do not for one moment suggest that religion is on
the rise or is not in decline in many places. My assertion
is that religion will always be able to evolve into
a form which will ensure its survival. Both here on
our planet and everywhere that communicating intelligences
of a sufficient level of complexity exist.
The Genesis theme parks illustrate part of the problem.
The fight to preserve religion is a duty felt by many
religious people, they represent a counter-attack paid
for by religionists who feel wounded by science. In
contrast there is very little money raised for any direct
attacks on religion. Defending irrational belief is
seen as a charitable cause, attacking it is seen as
bad taste, political and not worthy of charitable status.
Trying to kill religion (or a religion) by force is
bound to fail, they thrive on repression and martyrdom.
The only prospect is to blow people away with the power
of your culture and then introduce them to new beliefs.
But how are you ever going to get a powerful culture
to become free of religion in the first place? I don't
know. I hope your optimism is right but I am not convinced.
|
I just feel there is no reason for a women to walk
around with the curve of waist and hips showing at belly
button level or below
Their is no reason for a woman with a sexy midriff to show her navel
other than to make men think they are on the make
Today's young women say it is only fashion, or Shania may say my belly
button is no sexier than a man's elbow - I have never seen a man
wiggle his elbow
I am frustrated by women who say you only regard me as a sex object,
and then dress provocatively
I rarely see men in public without shirts that cover their waists, but
many women walk around with low cut jeans and tops too small showing
2-3 inches above and below the navel framing the navel if you will and
then give you dirty looks if you notice What gives? I do not walk around
with my fly unzipped, which I kind of feel is the male equivalent of
a women leaving her navel sticking out
And it puzzles me, that, at last years Super Bowl, they had half naked
cheerleaders doing bumps and grinds and practically belly dancing on
the sideline, but a glimpse of Janet Jackson's nipple caused a moral
outrage
The cheerleaders showed cleavage to just above the nipple, thighs up
to their place, tight shorts on their butts, and winking belly buttons
BUT THIS WAS GOOD CLEAN ENTERTAINMENT UNTIL WE SAW JJ's NIP!!!!
Just a Confused middle aged man
Sincerely,
Jerry
|
Here's an experiment I'd like you to try, or imagine
if you have a good imagination.
Mark on your naked chest the area where breasts and
cleavage would be if you were a woman, then try on your
clothes. Do you own any clothes which cover most of
your torso but expose parts of your breasts when worn
in the normal way?
Can you provide any evidence that any men own such
garments? |
Dear Sir,
Why do you not consider Josphus in Arabic to be historical support for
the existence Jesus?
Regards,
Tim Surrency |
Josephus was not born until at least a year after the latest
date offered for the death of Jesus. Nobody can be a reliable
witness to something that happened when they were nothing more
than a twinkle in their father's eye.
An Arabic translation is better evidence in that it has probably not been through
Christian hands more recently but it does not overcome the fundamental obstacle
which is the fact that there is no evidence to suggest that the account of
Jesus in Josephus is anything other than a reporting of the word of Christians.
If the reports in Josephus had a clear anti-Christian bias or disputed or ridiculed
Christianity in some way that would be strong evidence but that is not what
the texts reveal. The texts show that Josephus has accepted, at least in part,
the version of the story told by Christians, therefore it cannot be good evidence
for a historical Jesus but only evidence that there was a belief put about
by Christians, at least to outsiders, that Jesus was historical.
Josephus clearly regarded Christians as a minority Jewish sect of no great
significance and not a major threat to Pax Romana. People do not tend
to go out of their way to ridicule the beliefs of relatively insignificant
sects. I should know, I do go out of my way to ridicule religions, but I don't
bother with small insignificant sects. Josephus giving the Christians the benefit
of the doubt on the historicity of Jesus as a man does not seem especially
significant.
Sometimes I wonder about people like the author of "The
Big Problem".
How could he decide himself about his own justification
for living on this gifted planet? Will he be thinking
that his time will come to say that he should move on
to make a space for some other folk who may be more
able to do good at spreading his message?
Is it true that some people are happy to hear that
people in Africa are dying at a faster rate then they
are bringing more healthy children into the world?
Not good.
This world is made for all of us.
Honi soit qui mal pense!
Kathryn Pollard
Australia |
Is a life of utter misery worth starting to live?
I am not suggesting that anybody be killed, just that people
(everybody, equally) restrict breeding to sustainable numbers
and yet some people are so brainwashed that they see this as
something terribly bad. Why is it bad? Yes I know it seems heartless,
but why is it bad?
If there is no population excess there will be no famine. It is a very simple
concept to understand. Why do you so easily grasp the wrong end of the stick
and start thrashing about with it?
The world is not made for all of us, and more world is not being made. Without
intelligent action to limit population there will always be a tendency for
more people to be born, a tendency which will not self-limit at the point of
sustainability. Ignoring this iron law of biology because you don't want
to think about it is evil, it ensures that the usual population limiting
factors of starvation, disease and war are left to do the job.
The world economy doesn't have any work for the current destitute and starving.
We don't have any more productive land to give them. There is room for billions
more (space for shacks and hovels) but the only work we have for them is begging
and looking miserable for the television cameras. You are not doing them any
favours by pretending that this is a sustainable strategy.
Unless you are fully prepared for yourself and everybody else to make do with
substantially less, every year, for ever, your I-don't-want-to-think-about-the-nasty-subject
strategy is fundamentally flawed. |