Homosexual Liberal Atheists ~ What's UP with that?

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Actually, I've read (though I don't have time to find a citation) that the main reason McDonald's used such a dangerous temperature was that the hotter the Water, the farther the coffee grounds go. Hotter coffee doesn't equal better coffee, it just lets the grounds yield more. It had nothing whatsoever to do with quality or taste. Not surprisingly.

No matter what the reason is, McDonald's coffee is still too hot. My wife says she can not eat or drink things as hot as I can (as a point of reference), but when I get a cup of McDonald's coffee (decaf), I very often have to put a few pieces of ice (from the cold drink dispenser) into it, plus the "Half'n'Half".

[BJean 16]

Does anybody remember the original Mr. coffee coffee makers? They made horrid coffee. They were convenient as all get out, but the coffee was mediocre at best. I researched to find out why, because they were so much quicker than a percolator. Everywhere I turned, the answer was that in order for coffee grounds to yield a decent cup of coffee, very hot Water is necessary. Have any of you used the first hot tea makers that were designed like a Mr. Coffee coffee maker? They made lousy tea. Same reason, except their water was even less hot than the Mr. Coffee coffee maker. However, I would like to note here that good tea leaves do not need boiling water to produce a good cup of tea.

TOM, hot coffee is hot coffee. No one wants to be burned by hot coffee, no matter what. Therefore they must take the responsibilty to make sure that the hot coffee does not come in contact with parts of the body they are not intended for. Ok, I'll give you that McDonald's coffee was too hot. But sometimes my Starbucks coffee is way too hot. Even burnt once in a while. Exactly how far should the government go in regulating HOT coffee, for heaven's sakes? Am I going to have to start carrying a coffee thermometer to know if I should put my paper coffee cup between my legs?

[green 6]

TOM: Of course our kids would not have sued anyone if the boys were handicapped or had died. It was a chance they took. They knew of the risks and it was their decision to continue the pregnancy.

I would like to ask the question of that couple (I can't remember their names) who used in vitro fertilization to become pregnant. They were very active members of a church that does not believe in abortion. When the doctors told them that she was carrying 7 children and told the couple that for the sake of some of the babies, they should reduce the number of fertilized eggs in her womb. They cried foul. They said they would never dream of interfering with God's plan. Yes, the babies are handicapped. To the community's credit, they are all pitching in to help the couple. However my question is why is it okay to interfere with God's plan for them not to have children by using medical intervention, but when the doctors tried to do something to help at least some of those unborn babies, they said it was interference in God's plan?

We have recently gone through an interesting case up here. A Jehovah's Witness couple became pregnant with six kiddies. They were born prematurely and began to die off because JW folk do not believe in blood transfusions; it is against their religion and folks who choose to contravene the caveats of the church will find themselves shunned for life. A couple of the kiddies did die before the provincial government intervened and forced, through a court order, that the surviving infants received blood transfusions if necessary.

This business of where civil law begins and religious rights end is not only an issue in the United States. Canada struggles with this question, too, and so do the western European democracies. When I left France in early 1984 the big debate in France hinged upon the civil right of cultural minorities to circumcise their female children. There was a big court case going on at the time when I left.

With respect to this JW couple, they went through the trouble of having artificial insemination (and not through legal Canadian channels because the excess kiddies would have been culled), they then washed up on the Canadian medicare system, gave birth to their children prematurely and refused, for religious reasons, blood transfusions.

It is to the credit of the local system that the names of the couple and their children never were made public. Where I find myself adrift hinges entirely on the event itself. I don't think that it was such a good thing that this grrl was loaded up with so many babies in the first place and I am uncomfortable about the role my government chose to play with respect to forcing transfusions on the remaining children. The family does belong to a religious group which holds a passionate conviction on this very issue of blood transfusion. I find myself terribly confused and would welcome the comments of others....if ya want to, eh.:phanvan

[BJean 16]

mjsafari: Dang girl! You caught me. I am actually not only sitting at my computer too much today, I got hungry and ate a piece of birthday cake. :kiss

Old behavior is hard to change! Sure wish I had a nice cup of hot coffee with half 'n half to chase my cake with...

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

One question posed intrigued me greatly - did you go directly from being Christian to Atheist or did you claim to Agnostic at some point (paraphrasing)? This got me to thinking - I have been Agnostic since high school always believing that meant I didn't believe in a higher power, but I didn't preach against one and that being Atheist meant you preached against a Higher Power. This is from dictionary.com

LOL~ It depends on who wrote the dictionary. One an atheism forum I go to quite a bit we all started searching for every definition of atheism we could find. It was hysterical. They had a wide range of definitions and discriptions. The simple fact is:

Theism - With a God

Atheism - Without a God

It's that simple.

I started out Roman Catholic and was struggling with my faith. It just didn't add up and the more I read about the history of Christianity and how it came to be I realized it was quite impossible.

Then I started to notice that all the things that used to be to the credit of God were suddenly easily explained by science. Everything we used to credit to a God changed to, "Well, God didn't do THAT but he did everything else." "Everything else" is dwindling down to few things in life. The more science explains things the less there is a need create a God to take the credit.

Then I started reading the bible and that did it for me. I realized that a God that created the world must surely know the earth isn't flat with four corners that sits upon pillars. I have pages and pages of examples of things a God should have known better. I understand people of the time not knowing much about science but if a God is going to write just one book, shouldn't it contain at least a little of what the people of the time did not know? Shouldn't he have taught them just a little tiny bit about their world?

I didn't want to leave religion completely because I bought into the whole thing that there just has to be something out there. I went to all kinds of churches and such and finally decided on the Jewish faith. Went to all the nifty classes and everything. That wasn't it either.

Tried New Age, that wasn't it.

Finally I realized that I was trying to trick myself into believing something I merely lacked any belief. I could either continue playing mind games with myself or just accept that I lack belief.

BTW, I'll PM you a link that explains everything from soft agnosticism to hard atheism and everything inbetween. Not sure I buy into that line of thinking but many feel it is accurate.

[BJean 16]

Green: I'm opting out on this one. Oh shoot, I can't. Here goes. I believe that if people have religious reasons for denying medical treatment for themselves and/or their children, it is their right. If someone declares that they have religious reasons for not wanting to kill someone in war, they have a right to serve their country in a non-combat role. Etc., etc. You get my point. Religion is a personal right. I believe in personal rights when they do not impinge on the laws or rights of others in society.

[BJean 16]

TOM: We would have done whatever was needed in the case of the twins being handicapped or sick. Just like we do now with every member of our family. The money would have come from somewhere. We would not have thought even for a second that the medical community owed it to us for "allowing" it to happen.

The family with 7 children must have been the same ones you were talking about. Is there another family like that? If it is, the children were all born healthy, but developed handicaps later.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Some on this thread have made fun of "stupid labels" on some products including where not to stick the curling Iron. Someone else made fun of not taking a curling iron or blow dryer into the shower, but why?

I bet very few know why it is dangerous to bring a curling iron or hair dryer into the shower. Saying that it is dangerous is not an answer. Why is it dangerous and are there times when it is not dangerous?

My point is not to get into a pissing contest (though I will win because of superior equipment), but to make the point that things today are not easily understood.

A few days ago, I pulled up to a BJ's Warehouse gasoline pump, where as member, I get about a 10 cent per gallon discount. Scotch taped to each of the 12 pumps was a hand written note saying "Do not use cell phones while in pump area. It is dangerous".

Is it dangerous? Does anybody know why? If you open a computer up, there is a sign on the power supply saying "Do not touch with power on. Electrical shock hazard". Is it an Electrical shock hazard? Do you know why?

Everyone can say, that this or that is common sense. Sense is neither common, nor universal, nor always what it seems to be.

If I hold a dollar bill at one of the short edges between my index finger and thumb allowing the length of the bill to droop down and then I blow across my fingers where they touch the dollar bill, what will happen to the bill?

If you are riding a motor cycle at 50 miles per hour and want to change lanes to the left, which way do you move the handlebars?

Most people not know physics, so how are they to understand the consequences of their actions?

Regrettably, we need the government or some knowledgeable body to warn us of many hazards. If you think the warnings are stupid, thank God, you have a good education.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Green: I'm opting out on this one. Oh shoot, I can't. Here goes. I believe that if people have religious reasons for denying medical treatment for themselves and/or their children, it is their right. If someone declares that they have religious reasons for not wanting to kill someone in war, they have a right to serve their country in a non-combat role. Etc., etc. You get my point. Religion is a personal right. I believe in personal rights when they do not impinge on the laws or rights of others in society.

Parents have a right to refuse medical treatment for themselves, but not for their children. In some cultures, you can sell children into slavery or prostitution. In some cultures, you can send a child out to do strenuous manual labor before the child is 10 years old. In some cultures, you can kill the first born if it is a female.

In this culture we allow parents a lot of latitude raising their children, but they are not allowed to kill them, sell them, or cause them physical harm by neglect or abuse. That is the rules of the game. Maybe if enough religious activists become congressman, children will someday be allowed to be sacrificed for the beliefs of their parents.

God help us!!

[Alexandra 55]

TOM, you are so right about explanations being necessary. Right here on this board it comes up again and again because doctors just issue instructions, not explanations. Why do we have to be on liquids? Why mushies for so long? Why can't I eat a steak post-op, I'm hungry!!

If the doctors would just take a minute to explain the reasoning, no warnings would be necessary.

[BJean 16]

Carlene, help. Do we mean that warning labels are unwarranted?

Actually TOM we don't mean that at all. My gasoline pump place, or filling station some would call it, has a large rectangle sign that tells you not to smoke or use a cell phone while pumping gas, and it also tells you to close your car door. All these are good operating tips. We all need them, even if we have a good education. We didn't invent the things so we need instructions. At least most of us do. My husband doesn't need instructions except as a last resort when putting a barstool together.

But if you smoke while pumping gas, whether there's a posted sign or not, and you overpump the gas and it spurts out on your shoe where the amber from your cigarette has landed and you catch on fire, and in your shock the handle of the gas pump flies out of your hand with the little widget still on that keeps the gas pumping without pressure from your hand, and the gas flies all over your car and the car catches fire and the car blows up and catches all the other cars on fire in a chain reaction, that the gas company should be sued?

[BJean 16]

EEEEEKKKK TOM. I hadn't thought about the religious fanatics with children. I guess that means that we have to step in if some of them start training their children on how to make bombs and on the use of an automatic weapon?

[BJean 16]

TOM: Previous post was done tongue in cheek. I think I have way too much time on my hands today.

I completely agree that society should protect the rights of children.

[green 6]

Does anybody remember the original Mr. coffee coffee makers? They made horrid coffee. They were convenient as all get out, but the coffee was mediocre at best. I researched to find out why, because they were so much quicker than a percolator. Everywhere I turned, the answer was that in order for coffee grounds to yield a decent cup of coffee, very hot Water is necessary. Have any of you used the first hot tea makers that were designed like a Mr. Coffee coffee maker? They made lousy tea. Same reason, except their Water was even less hot than the Mr. Coffee coffee maker. However, I would like to note here that good tea leaves do not need boiling water to produce a good cup of tea.

TOM, hot coffee is hot coffee. No one wants to be burned by hot coffee, no matter what. Therefore they must take the responsibilty to make sure that the hot coffee does not come in contact with parts of the body they are not intended for. Ok, I'll give you that McDonald's coffee was too hot. But sometimes my Starbucks coffee is way too hot. Even burnt once in a while. Exactly how far should the government go in regulating HOT coffee, for heaven's sakes? Am I going to have to start carrying a coffee thermometer to know if I should put my paper coffee cup between my legs?

Oh yah, I am certainly on the same page as BJean. I have been served excessively hot coffee from chain store restaurants from time to time when I have been on the run. I have helplessly watched the servers heat their caffienated beverages up to centre of the earth temperatures and I have not been pleased. Because I am an adult I end up throwing this scalding crap out if I am anxious to go somewhere else ASAP and then I never order it again from any of these dumps.

I would certainly never, ever hold hold an item which was drifting into thermo-nuclear heat values near my own personal set o genitals. This would be an act of serious blondeness. (I figure I gets to say this because I have been blonde all my life. :heh: :heh: :heh: So hah, hah, hah, etc.)

It is understood that it is important that people understand that they must stand up on their own two hind hooves and take responsibility for themselves. I suspect that because Canada has maintained a much more intimate relationship with Britain throughout the first and second world wars the emotional and intellectual philosophy which animates our courts and the considerable differences in our legal systems is in part that of common sense and stiff upper lip. This is why it is much more difficult to pursue a lawsuit north of the border.

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

TOM, you are so right about explanations being necessary. Right here on this board it comes up again and again because doctors just issue instructions, not explanations. Why do we have to be on liquids? Why mushies for so long? Why can't I eat a steak post-op, I'm hungry!!

If the doctors would just take a minute to explain the reasoning, no warnings would be necessary.

A lot of times they do, repeatedly and for whatever reason it doesn't sink in.

Each time I go to Mexico for whatever reason I get a list of room numbers of all the patients getting bands. They usually like talking to someone a few months out. They believe me about the level of pain over the doc because I'm one of "them" and I'll tell them the truth. And I do. They also ask lots of questions, why this, why that, how does this work. I answer everything.

When my friend was banded she was annoying me and I was annoying her one morning. I decided it was a great time to go visit other patients. I was talking to one gal and she asked the reasoning behind the liquid/soft food phase. After explaining the doc came in and he essentially repeated everything I did. He told her the same info the previous day as well. So, three times it was explained to her. Not just the instructions but why they are necessary.

Day #4 after surgery she called me (we exchanged contact info) and announced she really had a great deal of stomach pain. Come to find out she just PBed on chewy candies and chicken. I asked why she was eating that, she said she was hungry. I reminded her that we discussed the diet in detail. She had no clue. I was there for two out of three of the conversations, she was talking and asking appropriate questions showing she was understanding. Yet four days later she has no clue.

Finally she admitted she knew she was supposed to be on liquids but didn't know why. She did know why. People tend to hear what they want to hear and that has been my experience in medicine as well.

My own father was diagnosed with terminal cancer and chemo MIGHT be an option but it would never be a cure, just prolong things a bit. Yet what he heard was he has cancer and with chemo has a 90% chance of recovery. He died a few weeks later. Of course the evil step skank never corrected him and encouraged him to believe that so that didn't help matters.

Sometimes people don't like what they hear, sometimes they justify what they want to do instead, sometimes the emotional trauma is too much and the brain just switches off. But I'd venture a guess that sometime before or after surgery these things are explained to people and for a variety of reasons, they don't hear.

Personally, I did so much research before being banded that I was very comfortable that I knew what to do, what to expect, and the challenges I would be faced with. I didn't have many questions.