Oxford University Press bans use of pig, sausage or pork-related words to avoid offending Muslims

Originally Posted by Moses View Post
This isn't a blanket thing, is it? It was guidance to a specific author writing for a specific project? 'Cause that's understandable, if for example it's a book aimed at the Middle East/Indonesia/whatever. Recently I read about a publisher providing geography textbooks to the region with an 'interesting' take on Israel/Palestine... I'll find the article... but that doesn't mean all atlases around the World will have a warped view of the facts on the ground with Israel/Palestine.

Edit :: http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...tbooks-borders

Harper Collins, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...t-9951550.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...m-9953993.html
Click to expand...
 
D Cameron has already said "I am delighted to be able to support the Save Our Bacon campaign," I'm(maybe) voting for him. :)
 
If only the offices of Charlie Hebdo had had a couple of rashers of bacon hung over the outside door to ward off terrorists, same as garlic for vampires.
 
I always thought they banned bacon because it tastes so good. They banned everything that was pleasurable in the magic books. Pretty much anything that was enjoyable and pleasurable was seen as bad and people were made to feel guilty for it.

Strange how people take health advice from a 2000 year old book. Always cracks me up.

Funny thing is that Leviticus was apparently written by this moses character for the jews. A bit further down on the "unclean animals verses" is verses on human sacrifice, because a god loves nothing more than the smell of human flesh apparently, it pleases him to smell it.
 
Just ban books. Knowledge is what they truly fear. Knowledge lets you see religion for what it really is, absolute bull****.
 
anything I don't mind said:
Strange how people take health advice from a 2000 year old book. Always cracks me up.
Click to expand...

The Quran is only 1400 years old.

It's newer than the bible, so by your reasoning (by the reversing the "but it's old" fallacy) the Quran more relevant than the Bible.

The age of a book has nothing to do with it's relevancy or accuracy - go read Hipparchus Trignometry thesis - 2200 years old. If you're going to argue against religion, at least do it properly - you're giving the rest of us atheists a bad name :p
 
Last edited by a moderator:
amigafan2003 said:
The age of a book has nothing to do with it's relevancy or accuracy
Click to expand...

Of course it does. New books supersede books that come before it. Unless you believe that the earth is flat or that we cure head aches by drilling a hole through the skull?

By modern standards all the magic books offer little to no insight in to any subject. Modern psychology, modern biology, modern philosophy and ethics have all surpassed the level of knowledge in the magic books. There are some old works that amazingly still offer wisdom, the magic books do not fall in to that category though.
 
Nonsense - more often than not new books supplement old books. Very rarely are books made obsolete.
 
anything I don't mind said:
Of course it does. New books supersede books that come before it. Unless you believe that the earth is flat or that we cure head aches by drilling a hole through the skull?

By modern standards all the magic books offer little to no insight in to any subject. Modern psychology, modern biology, modern philosophy and ethics have all surpassed the level of knowledge in the magic books. There are some old works that amazingly still offer wisdom, the magic books do not fall in to that category though.
Click to expand...

They aren't magic books, and people didn't actually believe the earth was flat to any appreciable extent.
 
spoffle said:
They aren't magic books, and people didn't actually believe the earth was flat to any appreciable extent.
Click to expand...

They are magic books and everyone did believe the earth was flat and anyone who disagreed was put to death for witch craft or blasphemy.

magic: the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.

supernatural metaphysical entity aka god wrote the books through humans, by talking to them in their sleep or by appearing to them in fire or in a bush etc.

exodus 3. god appears in a bush.

Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian, and he led the flock to the far side of the wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. 2 There the angel of the Lord appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. 3 So Moses thought, “I will go over and see this strange sight—why the bush does not burn up.”
 
Last edited:
Yup, I'm sure he does eat chicken nd drink milk.

What I meant was I've just seen a similar guff posting on Facebook re:milk from a vegan. In a similar manner to Zoomee he was trying to justify what is an ideological choice by claiming there is some scientific rational behind it.
 
spoffle said:
In his original post he includes a link from where he copied it from.

Copying and pasting isn't stealing either.
Click to expand...

Fair enough if he did. But plagiarism is intellectual theft. Now as he acknowledged where he got it from he didn't do that.

See it's that easy when you are wrong just say so!
 
everyone did believe the earth was flat and anyone who disagreed
Click to expand...

Contradiction highlighted for your own convenience.

This service was bought to you courtesy of critical thinking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom