What is the dumbest idea in history?

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

What is the unquivocal dumbest idea ever?

[wienerdog]

Oh man. That's going to be a tough decision.

btw, doesn't anyone know that French fries are actually Belgian?

[Ryokan]

Freedom fries #4, #3 went to Harvard

[Ishmael]

I think you left out a choice.

[spl_cadet]

I'd say translating the Bible into Klingon is the dumbest idea ever. Did someone actually do that?

[Hitch]

Character doesnt matter.

[GrayPilgrim]

03-13-2003 @ 10:12 AM
spl_cadet:

I'd say translating the Bible into Klingon is the dumbest idea ever. Did someone actually do that?

It used to be on the internet somewhere. But whether it was a translation or just a font switch, I don't know. Either way I agree.

[Stratnerd]

E-


translating the Bible into Klingon
Have you ever laughed with your mouth closed and with a bad cold? Too damn funny... now I need a tissue.

[Piebald]

They did the same thing with Saur Kraut I think. Or however you spell that stuff. They changed it to "Liberty Cabbage"

I can't wait til kids get called into the office of their highschool for 'Freedom Kissing' during lunch.

[GrayPilgrim]

03-13-2003 @ 12:47 PM
Hamster:

They did the same thing with Saur Kraut I think. Or however you spell that stuff. They changed it to "Liberty Cabbage"

I can't wait til kids get called into the office of their highschool for 'Freedom Kissing' during lunch.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Is that a constitutionally guaranteed right?

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

03-13-2003 @ 11:26 AM
GrayPilgrim:



It used to be on the internet somewhere. But whether it was a translation or just a font switch, I don't know. Either way I agree.
I had heard something on the news a few years back about an ivy league professor working in conjunction with a minister out east to do the translation. I don't know if they ever completed it.

[$cirisme]

The dumbest idea in history:

Translating the Bible into |-|/-\X0r.

:ahem:

[Faramir]

Solar Powered Flashlights (torches for you Brits)

[$cirisme]

LOL, Faramir! :lol: :rofl:

[HerodionRomulus]

Gee, I thought the dumbest idea in the world was a Pet Rock.

That was a XMas fad one year in the 70's. :rofl:

[Sozo]

Yesterday @ 01:59 AM
Eireann:

What is the unquivocal dumbest idea ever?

Some are dumb ideas because they were not thought out, but others are dumb, because they are designed to destroy lives.

I'll give you the top ten (in no specific order)...

1. Abortion

2. Evolution

3. Las Vegas

4. Cigarettes

5. Rap Music

6. Domesticating Cats & Dogs

7. Inheritance Tax

8. Psychology & Psychiatry

9. Boston trades Babe Ruth

10. Works Righteousness

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Yesterday @ 08:22 PM
Sozo:



Some are dumb ideas because they were not thought out, but others are dumb, because they are designed to destroy lives.

I'll give you the top ten (in no specific order)...

1. Abortion
Unless the mother's life is in immediate danger, I agree.


2. Evolution
I am not opposed to evolution, but I am in disagreement with the notion of evolution without guidance. I guess I would be what they call an IDer, although I'm not an expert by any means on any of the positions.


3. Las Vegas

4. Cigarettes

5. Rap Music
I agree 100%.


8. Psychology & Psychiatry
You already know where I stand on these.


9. Boston trades Babe Ruth
I love this one! Rofl! (for some reason, I can't seem to get the rofl smilie to work).

[Annabel Lee]

03-14-2003 @ 05:46 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=35623#post35623)
HerodionRomulus:

Gee, I thought the dumbest idea in the world was a Pet Rock.

That was a XMas fad one year in the 70's. :rofl:

I still have my pet rock.
Really

[Jimmy Higgins]

1) Maginot (sp?) Line
2) The XFL
3) KKK
4) Reagan supporting Saddam Hussein
5) Crossing the Alps with elephants

[Jimmy Higgins]

03-14-2003 @ 09:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=35638#post35638)
Sozo:
1. AbortionIf you'd folk just accept condoms...

2. EvolutionMight as add physics and medicine to that.

3. Las VegasI'm not a big fan of Las Vegas, New Mexico either.

4. CigarettesBut who would sponsor NASCAR?

5. Rap MusicYeah, lets strike down another's culture.

6. Domesticating Cats & DogsI'm sorry, has someone actually successfully domesticated a cat?

7. Inheritance TaxTaxation loop hole!

8. Psychology & PsychiatryYeah, who needs that when it will ultimately explain religion is a psycosis.

9. Boston trades Babe RuthThat ain't nothing. Montreal running Patrick Roy out to Colorado had to be the greatest act in stupidity.

[GrayPilgrim]

Today @ 11:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48209#post48209)
Jimmy Higgins:

If you'd folk just accept condoms...


Ummm... not to be too nit picky, but that is generally a Roman Catholic teaching based upon Natural Law Ethic and not given primary biblical support. The argumenT is generally given that tHE natural purpose of sex is procreation and thus to have sex without the possibility of procreation is a deviant act. Then they look in the Bible and misapply the account of Onan. He spills his seed in violation of the Levrite Custom and God smites him. He is smote for vioalting Levrite custom and thus acting faithlessly towards his dead brother. [I think both parts of the argument are flawed].

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 11:45 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48259#post48259)
GrayPilgrim:
Ummm... not to be too nit picky, but that is generally a Roman Catholic teaching based upon Natural Law Ethic and not given primary biblical support. The argumenT is generally given that tHE natural purpose of sex is procreation and thus to have sex without the possibility of procreation is a deviant act. Then they look in the Bible and misapply the account of Onan. He spills his seed in violation of the Levrite Custom and God smites him. He is smote for vioalting Levrite custom and thus acting faithlessly towards his dead brother. [I think both parts of the argument are flawed]. My bad. I wasn't aware that condom usage was acceptable to most christians in here. Thanks for setting me straight on that fact.

[Socrates]

Sozo rightly presents some crazy modern ideas, but then Jimmy "Hitler was a Christian" inserted some snide and misinformed comments:

Sozo:
1. Abortion
JH:
If you'd folk just accept condoms...First, as GP said. And even the Catholic Church distinguishes between preventing a new life from starting and destroying one that has already begun.

Secondly, since when is child-killing meant to be a back-up for contraception?

Third, condoms have been promoted more than at any time in history, but the abortion rate is still skyrocketing. Time to try chastity based education programs, which are already having successes, because sex-ed (really fornication education) has clearly failed miserably.


Sozo:2. Evolution
JH:
Might as add physics and medicine to that.No, because the founders of physics (Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Faraday, Kelvin etc.) and medicine (Pasteur, Lister, Simpson) were Creationist Christians. And these fields are branches of true operational science, not theories about the past based on a materialistic interpretation of data in the present.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 12:46 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48325#post48325)
Socrates:
Sozo rightly presents some crazy modern ideas, but then Jimmy "Hitler was a Christian"
I quote from Mein Kampf:
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.
I link to Mein Kampf (http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch02.html)

In no way am I supporting any view in the book other than using it as evidence of Hitler's faith.

[Patroclus]

In no way am I supporting any view in the book other than using it as evidence of Hitler's faith.

The idea that Christians will be known "by our fruit" applies here. Hitler had some really rotten fruit.


1. Abortion
What Socrates said


2. Evolution
I don't think it is such a bad idea.


3. Las Vegas
Initially, no. Now, yes.


4. Cigarettes
No, I think these are a good idea in moderation.


5. Rap Music
Jimmy, it isn't about culture, it is about genre. But I still disagree with you, Sozo.


6. Domesticating Cats & Dogs
About dogs, prove it. They have been a huge help. About cats, what Jimmy said.


7. Inheritance Tax
Yes, definitely a very bad idea.


8. Psychology & Psychiatry
Good Lord! I don't care to discuss this one again. Let me just say that I completely disagree.


9. Boston trades Babe Ruth
Yeah, that is pretty dumb. Jimmy, who the heck knows about that other guy anyway. His fame is nowhere near Ruth's.


10. Works Righteousness
Yeah, a bad idea, but an old one anyway.

Here are a few of my own:

1. The layout of DMV stations
2. un-regulated lunch breaks for DMV employees
3. The DMV
4. Appointing John Ashcroft to be the Attorney General (Bad Dubya :bonk: )
5. Timed street lights without weight pads
6. Electing Tricky Dick in round two
7. Letting Charles II back into England.
8. The formation of Iraq after WWII.
9. Warren G. Harding
10. Peeps Marshmallow Easter Candy.

[Patroclus]

Oh, how did I forget Trickle-down Reaganomics?

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 07:02 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48356#post48356)
Jimmy Higgins:


I quote from Mein Kampf:
I link to Mein Kampf (http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch02.html)

In no way am I supporting any view in the book other than using it as evidence of Hitler's faith.

Hitler's view of the "Almighty" and "Providence" is especially compatible with deism. In Mein Kampf Hitler also personifies nature by capitalizing it and equating the role of the strong in putting down the weak as obeying the law of the creator. Hitler does not recognize the deity of Christ in Mein Kampf, nor does he extol the ordinary "Christian" virtues.
It may be impossible to pin down Hitler's beliefs with certainty, but he appears to have drawn from the social evolutionary ideas of Haeckel, various ideas from Nietzsche, and the key element--Aryan superiority--from Volkism (which was part of the general German heritiage). Hitler's primary political interest in Christianity was in transforming the dominant (Lutheran/Roman Catholic) German religion into a vehicle for Naziism. Each of his moves with regard to the church fits that hypothesis, and is supported by the recently released testimony from Nuremberg.
http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/endC.htm

[Socrates]

Captain Ochre and Pilgrim are totally right. There is also the merely pragmatic argument that when Hitler was striving for power, he would try to cultivate the gullible Church by speaking their language. I have documented Hitler's REAL opinions of Christianity, and the fact that the Nuremberg prosecutors indicted Nazism for persecution of Christianity.

We see many known atheists pretending to gullible churchians that evolution is perfectly compatible with Christianity (while talking out the corner of the mouth "as long as this 'Christianity' is for all practical purposes indistinguishible from atheism").

One of the most vitriolic anti-creationists in my country has told people he is a Christian, yet he was Australia's Humanist of the Year 1995! Mind you, he has a German wife, so maybe Hitler is his precedent for this deceitful practice. And you Americans know full well how Wilhelm Klinton swore black and blue that he was an evangelical while promoting anti-Christian values such as abortion and homosexual activity, and appointing Joycelyn Elders who wanted kids to be taught fornication and masturbation.

[kiwimac]

Ah Solenoid,

More heifer-dust I see!

Deary me, will you never learn.

Kiwimac

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 02:30 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48368#post48368)
Patroclus:
Yeah, that is pretty dumb. Jimmy, who the heck knows about that other guy anyway. His fame is nowhere near Ruth's.Mention the name of Patrick Roy in Canada, and every single person, French and English speaking will know who you are talking about. Ask any hockey fan in the US who he is, and they'll let you know. He is arguably the best goalie ever. His '93 heroics in the Stanley Cup playoffs was the best single player performance in all sports of all time.

Besides, how many Cups did Ruth win?
:cool:

[Sozo]

Speaking of "dumb ideas", I forgot to add...

Leisure Suits

Hockey

Soccer

Zima

Country Music

Jerry Springer

Trailer Parks in Kansas

United Nations

700 Club

[Patroclus]

Mention the name of Patrick Roy in Canada, and every single person, French and English speaking will know who you are talking about. Ask any hockey fan in the US who he is, and they'll let you know. He is arguably the best goalie ever. His '93 heroics in the Stanley Cup playoffs was the best single player performance in all sports of all time.

Besides, how many Cups did Ruth win?

My mistake, Jimmy. I was on the baseball track, and didn't even consider the other sports.

[Ryokan]

turkey "bacon"

[Ric]

I LOVE "Freedom Fries"!
I LOVE "Freedom Toast"!
I LOVE a good "Freedom Dip"!
And I give my wife many "Freedom Kisses"!

[Patroclus]

:hrm:

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Yesterday @ 09:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48946#post48946)
Ric:

I LOVE "Freedom Fries"!
I LOVE "Freedom Toast"!
I LOVE a good "Freedom Dip"!
And I give my wife many "Freedom Kisses"!
I went to McDonald's and told them my fries had better be so French that they scream, "Bon appetit!" when I bite into them. All these people getting on the bandwagon for "Freedom fries," well, we have a word for them where I come from -- childish! It's nothing more than childish petulance. We tried to bully the French into doing what we wanted, and they refused to bow down and kiss our feet. So now, jilted, we are carrying on like a bunch of whining babies!

[Sozo]

Today @ 04:46 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=49258#post49258)
Eireann:


I went to McDonald's and told them my fries had better be so French that they scream, "Bon appetit!" when I bite into them. All these people getting on the bandwagon for "Freedom fries," well, we have a word for them where I come from -- childish! It's nothing more than childish petulance. We tried to bully the French into doing what we wanted, and they refused to bow down and kiss our feet. So now, jilted, we are carrying on like a bunch of whining babies!


If only the French had opposed us in WWII we could be having German potatoes at Mcdonalds.

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 10:46 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=49258#post49258)
Eireann:


I went to McDonald's and told them my fries had better be so French that they scream, "Bon appetit!" when I bite into them. All these people getting on the bandwagon for "Freedom fries," well, we have a word for them where I come from -- childish! It's nothing more than childish petulance.


If you want to reduce the issue to such terms, then the French were arguably being childish as soon as they dug in their heels over not putting teeth (or more properly removing the teeth) in the UN resolution against Iraq.
The Security Council veto is France's last vestige of international importance, and they held onto it like an infant clings to a pacifier (pun intended).




We tried to bully the French into doing what we wanted, and they refused to bow down and kiss our feet. So now, jilted, we are carrying on like a bunch of whining babies!

We tried to shame the French into allowing the UN to actually stand behind the force of the earlier resolution, and they seized their veto power like a bunch of whining babies.
Talk about "bullying" others to get one's way: We French will not go along with any resolution which firmly calls for force as a last resort.
Do it the French way, or they'll veto. Coincidentally, they're in bed with Saddam economically.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/2003/0121incdeal.htm

Keep ordering those French fries, Eireann. Emphasize that you're willing to support a country that tries to lead the UN around by a nose-ring for the sake of economics--so long as it isn't the U.S. :wink:

[Jimmy Higgins]

Last time I checked, the French didn't veto anything.

[Ryokan]

jimmy, lets be honest. They would have. And you don't need to actually veto anything to use the veto. That is just a straw man.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 11:13 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=49472#post49472)
Captain Ochre:

If you want to reduce the issue to such terms, then the French were arguably being childish as soon as they dug in their heels over not putting teeth (or more properly removing the teeth) in the UN resolution against Iraq.
You can argue it until you're blue in the face for all I care. We tried to bully them, and it didn't work. End of story.


We tried to shame the French into allowing the UN to actually stand behind the force of the earlier resolution, and they seized their veto power like a bunch of whining babies.
They were standing behind the resolution. The resolution that called for inspections. We got impatient and fed up because the inspections weren't turning up what we had hoped they would turn up (note that thus far the war hasn't turned those things up either). We weren't trying to shame them into following anything but our own impatient example. We tried to bully them and it didn't work. End of story. You can go on your anti-franco campaign as long as you want, but the longer you carry it on, the stupider you look.


Keep ordering those French fries, Eireann. Emphasize that you're willing to support a country that tries to lead the UN around by a nose-ring for the sake of economics--so long as it isn't the U.S. :wink:
So your real issue isn't whether or not the UN is being led around by a nose-ring for the sake of economics, it is with who is doing the leading? Nothing wrong with it, as long as it's the US doing it, right? But woe be to anyone else who tries it, right?

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 12:29 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=49486#post49486)
Ryokan:

jimmy, lets be honest. They would have. And you don't need to actually veto anything to use the veto. That is just a straw man. Well if the US was so sure about how right their action was, why didn't they force France to stand on their own words? France didn't veto anything.

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 10:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=49733#post49733)
Eireann:


You can argue it until you're blue in the face for all I care. We tried to bully them, and it didn't work. End of story.


No discussion, then? You deny the equivalency without rationale?
Fallacy of argument by assertion.



They were standing behind the resolution. The resolution that called for inspections.


The resolution called for full cooperation and for severe consequences in the event of a material breach, which would include:
1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);
http://www.efreedomnews.com/News%20Archive/Iraq/SpecialReportWaronIraq/M32UNResolution1441.htm

In case you missed it, the above equates lack of cooperation with weapons inspectors with material breach. France wants to ignore material breach indefinitely, which is contra1441.



We got impatient and fed up because the inspections weren't turning up what we had hoped they would turn up (note that thus far the war hasn't turned those things up either).


Correction: We got impatient when it became apparent that the UN did not have the resolve to back up resolution 1441, instead displaying a willingness to continue to play the same games that resolution 1441 deplored at great length (feel free to make use of the link again).



We weren't trying to shame them into following anything but our own impatient example. We tried to bully them and it didn't work. End of story.


Argument by assertion (logical fallacy). I've linked to the resolution. I suggest that you read it and make some attempt to reconcile the language of the resolution with your funhouse mirror view of the situation.



You can go on your anti-franco campaign as long as you want, but the longer you carry it on, the stupider you look.


You've announced your intention to avoid dealing with the issue over which I would allegedly look stupid, making your statement above yet another baseless argument-by-assertion.
:zzz:



So your real issue isn't whether or not the UN is being led around by a nose-ring for the sake of economics, it is with who is doing the leading? Nothing wrong with it, as long as it's the US doing it, right?


The point, since you missed it, is that the appeal to the techniques and motivations used by the US are the same as those used by the French.
The French, however, are the ones acting contrary to resolution 1441. Their current stance shows that they are willing for Iraq to continue making the UN look ridiculous.



But woe be to anyone else who tries it, right?

No; simply using such techniques is business-as-usual in international politics. You're the one who tried to condemn the US for doing what everybody does, thus diverting attention away from the main issue. Is it acceptable for Iraq to continue to ignore the terms of the Gulf War ceasefire brokered by the UN?
The US and their coalition allies say that it stops now. The French, Germans, and Russians (all countries with major economic ties to Iraq) say that the pattern of the last 12 years may continue, which is precisely contrary to the purpose and intent of resolution 1441. Individual (addle-pated, imo) protesters the world over agree with the French, and don't seem to be able to offer any effective alternative to the course taken by the US and its allies.
At least the French have a rationale for being the lead UN peacenik: Eagerness to maintain their semblance of international importance and economic interests. The protesters don't even have that, afaics.
Some, like Eireann, hate war so much that they are willing to starve the common Iraqi to death in order to achieve capitulation on Saddam's part.:huh:

[Ric]

Today @ 05:46 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=49258#post49258)
Eireann:


I went to McDonald's and told them my fries had better be so French that they scream, "Bon appetit!" when I bite into them. All these people getting on the bandwagon for "Freedom fries," well, we have a word for them where I come from -- childish! It's nothing more than childish petulance. We tried to bully the French into doing what we wanted, and they refused to bow down and kiss our feet. So now, jilted, we are carrying on like a bunch of whining babies!


Well I'm glad that God likes my childish ways! :cool:

[Jaltus]

Besides, how many Cups did Ruth win?
Not sure, how many cups could $50,000 buy in 1923?

Although I must admit, that Roy deal was really dumb.

At the same time, it has not even been 15 years since his trade. Since the trade of Babe, the Yankees have won 27 World Series, the Red Sox none.

[wienerdog]

Hey, the Trail Blazers had the opportunity to get Michael Jordan right out of college, and turned him down for...I think his name was Sam Bowie, who got an injury and was out within a few months. Can you imagine that? They could have had Jordan and Drexler on the same team! Arrrrrrrrggggh!