Lateralus

Actually, it was a pivotal moment and focused the attention of the entire world on what was happening in Vietnam.

This is probably a little too personal but are you going to meet the donor one day? You don't need to answer that if you don't want to. I was watching something on tv the other day about kids meeting their donor parents so figured I would ask. I was told something about how children born from sperm donors have the legal right to see the records kept by the donor clinic if they want to meet their biological father. I have to say I don't understand this at all. Firstly, if you donate to a sperm clinic you shouldn't have to have anything to do with any children that might come from your donation, even if it only amounts to hanging up the phone or slamming a door in their face. Your records should be kept private. Secondly, I don't understand the impulse to want to meet your biological father in scenarios like these.

I don't even read that comic and it's the first thing that came to mind. I would say physics interests me the most, but it's all gravy.

It's Hari, actually - Assuming you're talking about Foundation. So I get points for the reference and the correction. That's why I thought, but what's the reference to the burnt mouth? I'd guess it's to do with knowing the future because psychohistory. It doesn't fit entirely of course, since psychohistory works with large numbers.

It's Hari, actually - Assuming you're talking about Foundation. So I get points for the reference and the correction.

I've been listening to The Exploited a little lately. They're good, but I'm not a huge punk fan. I like The Clash and that's about it. If you're open minded enough you could check out Billy Bragg - He has a punk influenced folky sort of sound.

If there were 100% hardcore proof that being gay isn't a choice then that looks like a pretty big plus for homosexual supporters. Who would argue that it is wrong to be gay even when those who are gay have no control over it? It would equate it to other uncontrollable factors such as race - and we all know how racist discrimination just derives from ignorance. A fair point, but it's leverage that I don't think the argument requires. Religious discrimination is treated in much the same way as racial discrimination, religion being a choice and race being out of anyone's control. I should hope that it's bigots people don't like, not specifically racists or sectarians or homophobes.

I've never understood the importance of arguing whether or not being gay is a choice. It doesn't matter if it's nature or nurture either. Whether it's choice or not, or natural or not has nothing to do with the argument really. These aren't sensible criteria to use when we deciding to interfere with peoples lives.

I don't think I would resent my parents if I was a child in that situation. Saving your brother's life seems like a pretty great reason for being born to me. As long as the parents raise the child lovingly - and there's no reason why they shouldn't - I don't see the problem. There's plenty of people who exist because their mother had a little too much wine and daddy thought bareback would be worth the risk.

What's your status? Self-employed, freeloader, or bum? :P I'm a student. Somewhere between freeloader and bum.

I don't have a boss, never have and I'm doing my very best to make sure I never do.

Nothing else to add - I don't care about peoples' eating habits.

It's a series of letters from Hitchens to a fictional student - "Dear X", that sort of thing - about how to adopt various contrary positions and the importance of dissent. There's lots of references to people who Hitchens admires so you can branch out onto a variety of writers and philosophers after you've read it.

I would recommend going a bit further into the past if you haven't already. You can appreciate how much raw talent is in every sentence people like Dostoevsky write. That said, Hitchens is probably my favourite writer (and person, ha). Have you read 'Letters to a Young Contrarian' and 'Love, Poverty and War'? Young Contrarian is especially good.

I re-read that a few weeks ago, and it's probably the funniest book I've ever read. It's not often that books are laugh out loud funny but still cutting and relevent satire. Silly Orr with his apples in his cheeks and chesnuts in his hands.

"Lying is just easier" is exactly what it comes down to, but that doesn't mean I'm at all comfortable about it. Like I said in my first post, things will most likely be different if/when I have children, but I'm retaining my idealism just now. I would feel cheap lying to my children in that way.

Then don't lie to your children. I don't think I will, unless my future-husband wanted to. I'd hate to have all the credit (of buying presents) go to some fat guy who doesn't exist. Plus, it shatters them when they find out that Santa's not real. I believe in Santa Claus, and I'm fourteen years old. I know the history of St. Nicholas, I know he's dead, but I believe Santa is just a coat-wearing spirit of Christmas. Who says it's lying? Are you never going to tell your children bedtime stories, for fear that they'll be traumatized if they never sell a cow for magical beans? If your four-year old daughter asks where babies come from, are you going to go into excruciating detail or just tell her a stork brought it? Lies aren't evil. The fairy tale analogy is poor. There's a difference between stories, and legends which you tell as truth. It's not the telling of the story I disagree with, but things like "Be good or Santa Claus won't come this year!". Even if you don't say that, the message is still there with Santa's naughty and nice list. It's cheap and lazy parenting. Same goes for the stork story, it's just a diversion to make things less uncomfortable for the parent. If you don't want your five year old knowing about the mechanics of sex then tell her that.

I'm still not okay with the idea that I'll need to lie to my children about Santa Claus or anything else like that. I'm sure it'll be different when I actually have children, but the thought of it makes me die inside just now.

I'm the guy who loves to get reassurance by defining himself.

The point is that there are certain inalterable constraints we exist within. You can dream whatever you like, but the creation and implementation are limited. The limitations make some dreams worthwhile and useful, and make others nonsense.

If what you're talking about is retaining a sense of wonder and majesty towards life as you get older, then I agree with you of course. However, I absolutely disagree that this sense of wonder should be derived from delusions. The reality of things is more beautiful than I could possibly hope to explain. There's times when I feel like I'm going to burst because of how overwhelming and glorious life really is. I won't turn this into a critique of religion, but if you honestly think that without a god or creator or magical fairy tale creatures that life would be bleak and impossible to endure then I really think you're missing something.

I don't make any claims about the origin of the universe. Did my question seem insulting? Is that why you avoided the question and gave me such a fatuous reply? I'd like a real one.

I think atheism is on the (slow) rise in the first world, but not in the third world. The number of atheists worldwide plummeted with the fall of communism also. A quick Google search also suggests that religious people have more children than non-religious, so that's a nice bolster for theism. However, the same search also suggests that the rate of conversion from belief to non-belief is higher than non-belief to belief.

If we're only fragments then how can we be omniscient? We'd only be part-knowing as opposed to all-knowing. That would be the point in fragmenting yourself - maybe he is 'bored' of knowing it all so that is the reason behind giving himself an adventure of mystery. Just because we don't know everything right now that doesn't mean we don't have a long way to go ahead of us. Is this what you actually think? It seems wildly speculative. What's the basis for these ideas?

Dan Brown is a hack.