Comments on: Sorry, no cracker today

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 02:43:37 +0000

Scott, I intend to respond, in time, to some of the interesting and more serious points you bring up.
But for now, I have to express my disappointment about your not touching the hair issue: I put that in there just for you!
*ducks and runs*

By: Scott Wright

Scott Wright — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 13:26:46 +0000

Politics and religion don’t mix too well do they? I’m not touching the whole eating my own hair thing… I think the intent was to get people to vote along moral lines, putting the eternal over the next 4 years. However it’s so difficult to know what someone really believes as viewed by his political actions. Voting sheets at church should not be required. I think it’s more a sign of laziness than firm direction. How many people actually do much research on the candidates before they vote? But look at how many poor moral choices have affected everything around us. The economy is in shambles due to poor moral choices. As with anything balance is required. We should vote along our beliefs. That does not make one a blind follower as we are always called to think first.

By: Paul

Paul — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 22:16:52 +0000

“And body-covering fur! (lanugo) Where did it all go, eh”

That was a rethorical question!

DO NOT answer it!

Believe me, I KNOW where it all went!

(At about a month before birth, we shed it all, then ate it, then pee-ed it all out again and then probably ate some more of it.
Oh drats, now I have answered it anyway… oh well…
But maybe that nasty experience explains why we so intensely hate even a single hair in our soup!
“WAITER!! There’s a hair in my soup!”
“So? You once ate your own whole furry coat, you didn’t complain THEN, did you?”
“No, but that was my OWN hair!”)

By: Paul Claessen

Paul Claessen — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 15:23:01 +0000

Scott, I have absolutely no problem with religious debates in my blog. Especially since my blog sometimes deals with the subject of, IMHO, “religion being taken too far”. And although I agree that such debates are unlikely to resolve any of the differences in world view, they sometimes DO reveal interesting insights in the various standpoints.
HOWEVER: this particular blog post was neither about religion nor about abortion (which, btw, I more see as a rather difficult ethical problem than as strictly a religious issue). This post was all about abuse of power: Based on one’s actual or assumed authority deeply influencing other people’s lives by telling them how to live that life. I mean, telling people not to steal and murder is one thing, to INSTRUCT people not to vote for a certain president, just because his views aren’t in line with yours, well, that goes dangerously in the direction of instructing people to drink cyanide laced Kool Aid. Too much authority taken too far.

And no, turkeys do not equal babies. Although, at some point in their early lives, turkey chickens and human babies very much DO look alike (ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny) 😉
(Yes, you and I didn’t start out as just very tiny human looking babies: we once had a fish-like tail and gill slits too! And body-covering fur! (lanugo) Where did it all go, eh 😉 )

By: Scott Wright

Scott Wright — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:04:27 +0000

We all know better than to start a religous debate in a blog, however turkeys do not equal babies. Possibly later in life there might be an argument with some people.