I’m not sure whether the proper title would be “You’re doing it wrong” or “You’re doing it right.”

This is easily the most sense Jeremy Clarkson has ever made. It’s actually very thought-provoking.

himmelsblog:

shnelll:

How Social Engagement is Changing / Flowtown (@flowtown)

I can’t verify the numbers, but it’s interesting nonetheless.

Both funny, and informative (proof that correlation != causation.)

writer-a:

spytap:

[redacted due to length. Original post here]

Point taken Barrett and I agree with you on principle, but doesn’t the church, being a religious institution, receive a tax exemption?  If so, then they’re riding on the backs of the community, a portion of which are the hard working people whose children they’re exempting. They want to discriminate based on their beliefs; like you said, fine, they’re assholes and have that right. But not on my dime.

They may - in this case I don’t know one way or another whether the school does or not, or whether the church funds the school through donations to the church, or whether the school only uses tuition. That being said, I also know that there are many things my tax dollars go to where I don’t get a say - Iraq, war on drugs, enforcing laws I don’t agree with, Halliburton, etc. I also don’t agree with tax exemptions for religious institutions, for several very obvious reasons. While in a perfect world I would be able to say what my tax dollars went towards, or pick and choose which tax dollars I “agree” with, I don’t see a feasible way in which to accomplish this.

It’s imperfect, I agree, but I also can’t suggest a better fashion in which to handle it.

Here’s my take on this: It’s a horrible decision. It’s punishing the children because of an arbitrary religious law. It’s awful and shameful. But it’s the type of decision that a private institution is allowed to make.

I’m a product of a religious schooling background. The Jesuits taught me how to think, not just how to recite facts and figures. Was there religion involved? Absolutely. We had theology classes every semester. We were not required to be Catholic (nor, legally, could they only admit Catholics, so far as I know) but we were required within a Jesuit school to learn the sorts of religious lessons they saw fit to teach. It was a trade-off. They could teach the sort of things they desired since they received no state or federal monies to do so. People could choose to pay in order to receive these sorts of teachings. It happened that it was a fantastic school with a great reputation, however if its students were unable to get into colleges for lack of critical science or mathematics knowledge I think fewer parents would have chosen to admit their students.

This is why the separation of Church and State is so important. State schooling is religion-free and should stay that way. Religious schooling should be able to teach according to their own laws and morals within the boundaries of the law.

That’s the important distinction there. There’s no law saying I have to be nice. I can be an asshole to everyone, every day and it’s well within my rights. It’s a shitty way to live my life, but should I so choose, it’s a choice I can make. There’s no law (as far as I know) saying they cannot choose to not accept funds from this couple in order to school their children. Is it an abhorrent thing to do? Absolutely. Were I a member of the community would I protest? You’re damn right I would - not because I think it’s illegal, but because I want as many people to know that this place is willing to punish kindergardeners because it’s a couple centuries behind in the biological and ethical categories. Do I, and will I defend their ability to run a school according to their own rules and regulations within the scope of the law? Yes I will. They’re allowed to be assholes if they choose, just like I am allowed.

Part and parcel of me being an atheist is being on the reciprocal side of this argument - where people question my morality or my ethics because they’ve been told for decades that I’ve no moral compass. But as I said above, the Jesuits taught me to think for myself. Part of doing so is allowing others to do so as well. You can disagree with someone’s opinion, but facts are facts. They’re allowed to run this school as they so choose. They’re allowed to punish children for arbitrary distinctions in mistranslated scripture. They’re allowed to for the same reason that I’m allowed to not be forced to be a Catholic or abide by that doctrine.

It’s a classic case of disagreeing with someone’s ideas, but defending their ability to have them.

muppetbreak:

Because Barrett sends me cool shit.

Stefania Rotolo Goldrake Live Appearance Tilt 79 (via Portinaiodaltrimondi)

I am Barrett: destroyer of neural activity.

Welcome to nostalgia.

In a well-meaning attempt to be tolerant of other cultures and religions we often blithely subvert our values and morality, says Sam Harris, the outspoken critic of blind religious faith. We do this because we think that questions about good and evil or right and wrong cannot be answered definitively. But they can, he told a rapt audience at the Technology, Entertainment and Design conference Thursday — and they should.

What if Twitter… came to life?

We asked some of our friends to film their favorite tweets. We didn’t care how they did it. They could read it. They could act it. They could do it with puppets. Whatever they wanted. The only rules were it had to be a tweet written by someone else and it had to contain the entire tweet and nothing but the tweet.

This is what they gave us.

We hope you enjoy it.

@poeks & @sween

(via)

moth:

Ladies and gentlemen, the ten billionth (and first) tweet.

Twitter post #10000000001, above. (The ten billionth was private.)

It’s funny, because the ten billionth was the secret to life, the universe, and everything.

Jay Leno’s Hulu tags.