It is still there in what racists of the Abrahamic theocentrist stripe support as their sacred writings, unashamedly: "You may treat [male or female slaves and children purchased among foreigners] as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." (If you cannot believe this, you can find it in the Bible, Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT.)
It is still there in what racists of the Abrahamic theocentrist stripe support as their sacred writings, unashamedly: "When the Lord Your God delivers into your hand [a city which was attacked by you and refused an offer of peace], use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby. However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them ... as the Lord your God has commanded you. Otherwise, ... you will sin against the Lord your God." (If you cannot believe this, you can find it in the Bible, Deuteronomy 20:10-18 NIV.)
The question is not: "In which country did the first same-sex marriage take place?" The question is rather: "Which country was the first to open civil marriage legally and equally to same-sex couples, without excluding the king (m/f) or an heir (m/f) to the throne (at the time the first weddings took place), and without allowing a wedding official to refuse to marry two people of the same sex in a civil ceremony?"
Those believing in eschatology had better watch it in England, because they may be convicted for telling fortunes (and/or misfortunes) in violation of the Watchcraft Witchcraft Act of the 1735th year of the Christianist Era.
Many a mother claims that she, many a father that he, only lives for her or his children; that children are the only worthwhile thing to live for. So far, so good; so long as the children are not going to claim in turn that they only live for their children; and so long as the children's children are not going to claim in turn the very same; and so on and so forth, regardless of the children's present or future good deeds and/or evildoings. If this is the case, we end up in an 'infinite progress' of which the foundation is as empty as that of an infnite regress: a cause without (final) cause turned upside down into a reason, good, bad, both or neither, without a good ultimate reason. The appeal to the present claim is made to depend on the emergence of an ultimate good claim sometime in the future. Normatively speaking, such an attitude leaves us, moment after moment, stage after stage, in an entirely valueless morass. A parent who makes the well-being of his or her child(ren) the sole aim in life is like a Baron Munchausen who lifts himself out of this morass by pulling on his own braid of hair. Once the good deeds or evildoings of the child do matter, however, they must also matter for the parent her- or himself. Note on Baron Munchausen / von Münchhausen: Baron Munchausen is the protagonist of Rudolf Erich Raspe's fictional 1785 book titled "Baron Munchausen's Narrative of his Marvellous Travels and Campaigns in Russia". This character was inspired by the real-life person Baron von Münchhausen (with ü and double h). The story about him saving himself from being drowned in a swamp by pulling on his own hair describes a well-known episode also referred to in philosophical writings, but, as far as i have been able to ascertain, without mentioning the primary source anywhere. (There is even a trilemma which received Münchhausen's name.) As a matter of fact, this story does not occur in Raspe's book at all. But Raspe's work in English was later extended by others in English, and then translated into German, and 'augmented' in German, by Gottfried August Bürger in 1786. In this 'Doré Munchausen', full of illustrations by Gustave Doré, it is Bürger who writes in Chapter IV: "Ein andres Mal wollte ich über einen Morast (morass, mire, bog) setzen, der mir anfänglich nicht so breit vorkam ... ... Hier hätte ich ohnfehlbar umkommen müssen, wenn nicht die Stärke meines eigenen Armes mich an meinem eigenen Haarzopfe (braid, plait (of hair), tresses), samt dem Pferde, welches ich fest zwischen meine Kniee schloß, wieder herausgezogen hätte." In the translated Doré Munchausen this equals: "Another time, I wanted to jump over a bog that hadn’t seemed too wide at first. ... ... Here I would have undoubtedly died, if not the strength of my own arm, grabbing my own pigtail, had pulled me, including my horse —which I squeezed tightly between my legs— out of it." In Adventures of Baron Munchausen, A New and Revised Edition, it is not a morass which the protagonist has to cross, but a lake. Raspe would have turned around in his grave reading this, because time and again he tells us that Munchausen, like the Dutch, is a good swimmer!
The future of a democracy may be undermined by political or religious terrorism; it may equally be undermined by population explodism. Thus, in Israel the percentage of people who consider themselves right-wing in politics has risen from 40 to 62 percent, even 70 percent among the young ones. (At the same time the number of left-wingers dwindled to a mere 11%.) For a large part, this change in politics is due to ultraorthodox judaism, and it is not what you would expect in a democracy: that people at one end of the political spectrum manage to convince people at the other end that their ideas have always been wrong, or at least carelessly one-sided. No, the sad fact is that ultraorthodox women bear as many as seven children on average, four to five more than what is physically necessary and morally justified for maintaining a natural human population equilibrium on Earth, whereas secular women 'only' bear two to three children on average, the number physically necessary and morally justified in view of environmental sustainability. If a predominantly right- or left-wing democracy makes its decisions depend, not even just on the opinions of a majority of persons, but on an identitarian group that is allowed to grow into a majority simply on account of its own uncontrolled anti-environmental explodism, it will become harder and harder to support that political ideal which has been suggested to be 'the least bad form of government' for so long now.
Fichte was described by Heine as "the Napoleon of philosophy" and it was Hegel's dream to really become one. (Ever heard of Napoleon being called "the Fichte or Hegel of politics"?) I myself would hate to be called "the Napoleon of philosophy", let alone dream of ever becoming one. I just do not like to be called "the 'anyone else's name' of philosophy". However, if i had to, if i were forced to think of it, i would not totally object to being called "the Vincent van Gogh of philosophy", even tho a suggested likeness with someone who was a misunderstood genius in 'er own field is little appealing. First of all, i was named after Vincent van Gogh by real artists (the one a painter, the other a poet and painter), my parents. Secondly, i am as Dutch-born as Van Gogh and became a world citizen later in life, just as Van Gogh, more in the one respect and less in the other. Thirdly, in my own (again, different) way, i feel as creative as Van Gogh. I may not have written countless letters to a brother of mine, yet i have written and received a number of interesting letters too. Fourthly, i also once suffered an attack which damaged one of my ears, albeit a robbery with violence which caused my eardrum to burst and later disappear, eventually leading to a permanent hearing loss. Of course, there remains the undying hope that my philosophical, ideological and literary work will have as much influence as, or even a greater impact than, Van Gogh's artistic work during the shortening rest of my life or in the so much longer period after i am gone. But, unlike Van Gogh's, my last words will definitely not be La Tristesse durera toujours or The sadness will last forever. If anything, it is a state of neither sadness nor joy, a state of neither happines nor unhappiness, which will last forever, that is, an initial or final state in which there is nothing to strive for or not anymore. This is a catenically neutralistic perspective which Van Gogh never had.
What do you call a circular object which you can throw to a cow that has fallen into the water, to prevent her from drowning?
You think a nuclear bomb on Canterbury, or any other inhabited part of the world would be a disaster? Not so according to a former Archbishop of Canterbury under the reign of Elizabeth II! In 1954 of the Christianist Era, this highest church dignitary of England said that the most a hydrogen bomb (the greatest danger of those days) could do would be 'to transfer vast numbers of human beings from this world to another more vital one into which they would some day go anyhow'. Unfortunately, it is not only nuclear bombs which are today's problem, and different sorts of terrorists, but also religious idiots still are. Together with the British monarch of the day they steal the state from non-Anglicans, and then use their influence and power to spread immortalist garbage. Should such Christianist characters not be transferred from the free world to another one, one more appropriate to their states of mind?
Whereas Descartes 'endeavored to construct a complete philosophical edifice de novo' (Bertrand Russell's words in History of Western Philosophy) and merely adjusted 'imself to a traditional theocentrist worldview, i constructed a philosophical edifice de novo and founded on it an equally new normistic worldview.
In April-May of the year 1995 of the Christianist Era the Vatican daily, L'Osservatore Romano wrote: "We have crossed the Rubicon of shame and degradation". Was that the shame and degradation following the Catholic priests' and nuns' worldwide grand-scale child abuse and all those deaths of children left in their care in orphanages with not only orphans but also native (North American) children abducted from their parents? No, it was not, because all these horrible things were still to be discovered decades later. The shock the Catholic Church expressed (and which it did not express about the crimes committed by its own members until forced to) was about condoms being provided in a Prato library, and at discos and bars in Milan, Italy!
It is still there in what sexists of the Abrahamic theocentrist stripe support as their sacred writings, unashamedly: "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are." (If you, person, cannot believe this, you, person, can find it in the Bible, Exodus 21:7.)
It is still there in what sexists of the Abrahamic theocentrist stripe support as their sacred writings, unashamedly: "[A] girl [who is not a virgin on her wedding night shall be brought] to the entrance of her father’s house and there her townsmen shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father’s house." (If you, person, cannot believe this, you, person, can find it in the Bible, Deuteronomy 22:20–21.)
It is still there in what sexists of the Abrahamic theocentrist stripe regard as their sacred writings, unashamedly: "When the Lord your God delivers into your hand [a city which was attacked by you, man, and refused an offer of peace], put to the sword all the men in it. (The Lord 'thy' God does not address women, only men by means of a second-person singular pronoun reserved for males.) As for the women, the children, ... and everything else in the city, you, man, may take these as plunder for yourself." (If you, person, cannot believe this, you, person, can find it in the Bible, Deuteronomy 20:10–18.)
There is a writing rule which applies to fiction: Show, don't tell! There is a corresponding writing rule which applies to nonfiction. It is definitely not Tell, don't show, as many a writer of nonfiction seems to assume. The writing rule which applies to nonfiction is: Do not tell without showing or Tell and show! (The word show here may be interpreted as, for example, prove it to be true or relevant, and/or illustrate it by means of pictures or examples.)
There are theists who are fond of pointing out that murderous monsters such as Hitler and Stalin were atheists. Sometimes one may wonder if such a monster was really less of a theist than all those 'good people' who are nominal Christians, or cherry-picking Christians who read and follow what suits them and who 'never read' or who simply ignore what does not suit them. And then, of course, there is the plain lie: Hitler was not an atheist. Hitler saw atheism as uneducated, and he associated this 'state of animals' with communism and Jewish materialism. Why Jewish — isn't materialism bad enough? Well, read the New Testament, for example, where it assures Hitler and all of us that the Devil is the father of the Jews, and that they like to carry out their father's desires (John 8:44). Then ask yourself, "Why the/all Jews?", "Why this judgment?", "Why consider such a work a Holy Writ?", and so forth and so on. However, Ioseb Jughashvili, better known as Joseph Stalin, is a completely different matter, for this non-Jew did indeed 'declare himself an atheist, stalked out of prayers and refused to doff his hat to monks'. And yet, Stalin was not brought up an atheist and did not live in an atheist society, let alone in a society based on the primacy of norms and values instead of that of gods and demons, in the singular or plural. First of all, Stalin was born in Georgia, then part of Tsarist Russia, under an Orthodox Christian absolutist system which forbade the people in Georgia to use their own language in education, thus creating a nationalist, revolutionary mood among them. If you were poor and wanted some higher education there and then, you had no other choice than to attend a Russian-language Christian seminary for training Russian Orthodox male priests. (Stalin's mother wanted her only surviving child to become such a priest.) The Spiritual Seminary in Tiflis (Tbilisi) did much more than preparing its boys for the priesthood proper tho: it was a military training camp, and a prison to boot. It had a special isolation cell, and encouraged the pupils to spy on and tell on one another! (Sounds familiar, eh?) Later Stalin said it was this seminary and its Jesuitical methods that had made a revolutionary of him. All he had to do is to replace God with the Party and to leave the supreme authority the same. True, Stalin is also known for his prisons and labor camps in Siberia, where those were sent who were 'so lucky' as not to be executed right away at the dictator's command. These camps were a horror indeed, but they were not invented by Stalin or the Soviet Union. They had already been established there by Tsar Alexis in the 17th century of the Christianist Era.
The last proper criterion for considering a certain usage in a particular language right or wrong is its being right or wrong in a different language. To rail against a split infinitive (SI) in English because it does not exist in Latin smells of ethnical exclusivism in the linguistic field. Even opponents of SI have admitted that its 'ugly' use in English may sometimes give the best semantic results. (H.W. and F.G.Fowler mention the choice between Our object is to further cement trade relations, Our object is further to cement trade relations and Our object is to cement further trade relations. Their honesty even compelled them to admit that Shakespeare once used one: Thy pity may deserve to pitied be, in Sonnet 142.) I myself am not so much in favor of SI, or against, i am in favor of the freedom to choose between using or not using SI. SPP, however, is a totally different matter. By SPP or 'split personal pronouns' i mean pronouns meant to be for persons who are not looked on as persons at all by splitting these pronouns up into exclusively feminine and exclusively masculine ones while they are not reserved for contexts in which procreation and/or sexuality are relevant. Fortunately, in English this is only the case for the third person singular, where, traditionally, she or he must be used in all contexts. Mind you, there are languages in which no personal pronoun is split up this way, and there are languages in which they are all split up (with or wihout the exception of the first person), not to mention the beastly genderization of all nouns and adjectives. This in itself is neither an argument in favor nor one against: what counts is that a split personal pronoun such as he or she forces sexual irrelevantism on the language user if there is not a truly personal pronoun available instead or as well. I am definitely in favor of the third-person pronoun (')e for the singular in addition to he and she. The genderized two can then be used in contexts in which sex/gender is relevant, such as in wholly or partially verbal intercourse.
My first provider has always had an admirable social goal for society: to provide access for all to all information on the internet. No one will be surprised that their forte is computer science rather than linguistics, and that their clients are mainly Dutch-speaking. Only an attentive anglophone —i'm thinking of a friend of mine— will think that it is kind of weird that a provider's goal in life should be excess for all, because that 's the way you are supposed to pronounce their name "Xs4All". English-speaking people are familiar with the difference between the first vowel in access, which is an ash, and the first vowel in excess (if pronounced with stress on the first syllable) which is an e, like in the English and Dutch word best. In English they are two different phonemes, whereas Dutch does not have a separate ash. (I mean the phoneme.) Altogether, i am not very pleased with the excess part in my first provider's name, but the for all part is fine. Let's say, both are well-meant, and this provider's excess is just a slip-up.
Claiming that group identity is the most important thing about a person, and that this identity rather than individual merit determines what is just or unjust, is the identitarianist answer to the erroneous chicken-and-egg question. That question is erroneous, because it focuses on the wrong time span (the present static one) and the wrong material of change (the chicken or egg instead of the genetic material). Like collectivism and communitarianism, identitarianism poses the primacy of the group (community or society) over that of the individual, and suggests that the latter needs the former to be defined and to be kept alive and healthy. But the reverse is equally one-sided, if not preposterous, if we do not think of one particular individual, but of individuals and small groups in general. For in culture the medium of transfer is the idea, the idea formed in the individual mind but accepted or not accepted by others as their idea as well. Therefore, what was first was the new idea (the genetic material) and that idea then became part of both (other) individuals (the eggs) and groups (the chickens). Individual merit it is to come up with an innovative, creative idea which when incorporated into a lifestyle will benefit all or most individuals and all or most human groups/communities/societies, even all or most species, without being (more) detrimental to others in the present or in the future at the same time.
Portions written down as integers, that is, in the figures for integers, corrupt that science which is so wishfully called "exact".
Contemporary Cuba is an example of orthodox religious groups and individuals that are free to express their religious beliefs, and then use their freedom (in this case successfully) to prevent same-sex couples from having the same kind of state-sanctioned relationship as other citizens. Everywhere on Earth, evangelical Protestants, Vatican Catholics and other such Abrahamites (such followers of Abrahamic religions) are notorious for this selfish exclusionist behavior.
I was born in that 'half' of the world which was, and perhaps still is, called "the Eastern Hemisphere" for the wrong reason, in the part of the Eastern Hemisphere which is called "Europe" for a dubious reason. I was born in that part of Europe which is called "the Netherlands" or "Low Countries" for a very appropriate reason; in a country calling itself "Kingdom of the Netherlands" for the wrong reasons. I myself was given my father's family name (a surname in the languages of our part of the world) for the wrong reason, while my father himself was also given his father's family name for the wrong reason. The first name my parents gave me was Machiel for an unknown reason. The second name, my middle name, became Vincent for the best reason possible; if not at the moment itself, then in hindsight. (From the standpoint of human migration Afro-Eurasia should have been considered the Western Hemisphere from which part of the people migrated to the East, thereby discovering the Eastern Hemisphere with Greenland in the far North and Fireland in the even further South. From the fact that i was born in that part of the world which was called "the Eastern Hemisphere" for the wrong reason it should not be inferred that i myself was born for the wrong reason. It is the actions of persons who give other persons or persons-to-be or personified beings names which may be right or wrong, or neither.)
I knew already that in the original Hebrew it does not say (in the Torah) "Thou shalt not kill" but "Thou shalt not murder", which enables you to approve of numerous kinds of killing, among which the killing of human beings that do not belong to your tribe or that do not believe in your god, completely innocent children included. Now something has to be added again: the Hebrew text shows a form of the verb which is exclusively used when addressing a man. At this moment the only right translation is therefore: Thou, man, shalt not murder. What's next?
In the term criticophobia, phobia is used in the correct sense of the word again, since it refers to a dread or fear, something that in itself is quite different from a feeling of hatred, let alone, an objectionable theory or practice. Besides Islamophobia, homophobia too is a word often used in a way which does not convey its proper meaning, because in the first place it should refer to a fear of one's own actual or possible erotic contact with a member of one's own sex; and only in the second place, if applicable, of the homosexuality of others, but still as a problem of the homophobe him- or herself. To label a heterosexist who hurts, injures or kills human beings that are not exclusively hetero "a homophobe" is blatantly off target, because if such a character really possesses enough power or influence and hates homo- or bisexuals, without being afraid of them —as probably in most cases— he or she is in the first place a social problem of all human beings that are not exclusively heterosexual, altho also a societal problem of all those who refuse to put up with bullying and criminal violence regardless of whom it hits. Of course, a heterosexist may very well be homophobic in addition to this. If so, this human being will also have a mental or psychic problem, if his or her fear stands in the way of what he or she really desires or would like to do or have, or to be able to do or have. Fear is not a moral flaw; hurting, wounding or killing others out of hate definitely is.
Passing criticisms on people and things is a form of free speech which ought to be possible, but, like so many other activities in life where space-time has to be shared with others, it need not be allowed at any moment at any place. According to some people you may, even if the time and place are not unsuitable, pass criticism —not just unfounded sentiments, of course— on anything whatsoever, also political and nonreligious ideologies —preferably constructive, of course— except on religions, that is, religious denominational ideologies. (The idea behind this may be that religion is so much more important in someone's life than a political ideology, but if so, then it works both ways: not only its positive, also its factual or possible negative influence needs so much more attention.) An example is the situation in which you may criticize anything except Islam, in which case some Muslims, but also non-Muslims, rush into using the term of abuse Islamophobe. This term is not totally undeserved, or even totally deserved, when somebody fears Islam exclusively for reasons which (may) equally apply to Judaism and Christianism, the predecessors and relatives of Islam. (Should someone be 'Judeophobic', Christianophobic and Islamophobic simultaneously, each of these three terms is inappropriate separately, provided that Judeophobic is meant to refer to 'Judaismophobia', an irrational fear of the Judaist religion.) However, it is an entirely different matter when criticism and, perhaps, hatred of Islam is confused with a lack of respect or, worse, a hatred for Muslims as persons or fellow citizens, as if criticism of communism / capitalism were automatically a lack of respect for communists / capitalists as persons or fellow citizens. The fear underlying a cowardly self-immunization strategy which does not even allow of rational criticism of the theory one has or the religious or nonreligious doctrine one follows or adheres to is what i would like to call "criticophobia". If it concerns the protection of religion in general from criticism, then it is religious criticophobia; if it concerns especially the unequal position of religious citizens vis-à-vis fellow citizens with a different or no religion, then religionist criticophobia. Thus, among others, the Islamist or, more generally, Abrahamic criticophobia could be distinguished.
Also in Canada, where people speak of 'an inclusive society' more often than ever before, the head of state is made to depend on theocentrist grace and is the defender of a religionist and otherwise exclusivist faith: by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and His or Her other Realms and Territories King or Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.
It can be very nice to have a parent-sib or, as the case may be, a mother- or a father-sib, to play and talk with, but let it not be such a scandalmongerer who makes the private affairs of others less private, even public, in order to be a happier and a much holier sib himself or herself. (The word gossip derives from Old-English godsibb, that is, from god and sibb, the latter meaning related.)
The other day a British student failed 'er French exam, because 'e had translated Outre-Manche as on this side of the English Channel.
When people are distinguished on the basis of their being (fully) vaccinated or not against COVID-19, some immediately object to this vaccination (or, perhaps, any vaccination) being a criterion for admittance, for instance. They claim that they are being discriminated against, suggesting that the distinction drawn, which might be relevant, is irrelevant by definition. "We've become completely unmoored from our moral foundation," they may complain. However, there is no adequate morality without the recognition of relevancy, that is, of the irrelevance, but also of the relevance, of a distinction made or to be made. For also this coin has two sides in that a distinction must not be drawn because it is irrelevant and in that a distinction may, ought to or even must be drawn because it is relevant. Those who argue that a distinction is discriminatory only because it is to their disadvantage, even regardless of their own behavior, are unmoored from the relevant foundation.
In trying to justify their theft of state religionists in Egypt call the Abraham religions that profit from this theft "Abrahamic religions", which is correct. They may also call them "the monotheistic religions". However, this term covers more than is meant, not only because of religions which are or were clearly monotheistic as well without being Abrahamic, but also because of religions which are or were polytheistic on the surface and of which (the) followers may take all divine manifestations together and speak of a relation with (only) one god. Yet, let us forget about this Abrahamic appropriation of the term monotheist and concentrate on something really serious: the appropriation of the state, which belongs to all of us, by a part of society (majority or minority) which distinguishes itself on ideological grounds, particularly on (religious or irreligious) denominational, rather than on political or politico-economic, grounds. The attempt at sanctifying the religionist act of stealing the Egyptian state from the diversified Egyptian society to which it belongs goes a good deal further than the relatively objective labels Abrahamic and monotheistic lead one to suspect. In order to 'better' distinguish them from all other religions, those considered to be inferior or alleged to be nonexistent, the thieves of state continue to call their own beliefs "revealed religions", "divine religions" or "heavenly religions". You would say that revealed, divine and heavenly suffice to set the Abraham religions conveniently apart from those religions to which these labels are not allowed to apply. But, no, according to the Egyptian thieves of state the Abrahamic religions are also divinely revealed religions! As if this were not enough, a further distinction must be drawn, because —it has been said before and elsewhere— 'some animals are more equal than others'. The followers of what is implicitly embraced by the stolen state as the 'superior religion' of Islam cannot be mixed up with the followers of those two 'inferior superior religions', Judaism and Christianity, either. Only in the peace of submission are the latter granted their privileges. At least, Judaists and Christianists are treated as second-class citizens in Egypt: those who believe in the primacy of norms and values, instead of that of God/Allah and Devil or demons, are not respected as fellow citizens at all in the stolen state of Egypt.
Monarchists in the (Northern) Netherlands publicly admit to having a principle of discretionary powers —in Dutch opportuniteitsbeginsel, that is, 'principle of opportunity'— at their disposal. This contradictio in terminis —especially in Dutch— functions as an ermine cloak for their total lack of (democratic) principles in this matter. What it amounts to is that the monarchist elite (Crown and cronies together) will be allowed to flout any and every legal principle in order to remain in power and/or to keep their privileges forever. In this way the Orangeist motto Je maintiendrai (I shall maintain) in the coat of arms of the country does indeed acquire a very nasty taste. Not only is not everyone equal before the law of the Kingdom, where the monarch can do no wrong officially, but in practice legal action never need be taken either against close relatives of the monarch for something that really matters.
Everywhere in the world you find public areas and private properties where men and/or women are first basking in the sunshine, and then in mutual affection.
Christianists and their fellow travelers have had their Second Millennium celebrations and now they should prepare for the advent of an era with a new culture or civilization.
If i die in this year of my life (that is, at my present age), it will be nice if people tell one another, this year or later, that i died at tomupu (a more informal and practical term without segment weight indicators) or even nicer that i died at to suten pu suman (a more formal and literary term with all segment weight indicators). (A factual or praising but not a eulogistic or, for that matter, dyslogistic apposition, or longer comment, could be added too.) It will also be nice if people are just speaking of 'die', because this suggests a natural death implying that the person concerned has not been assassinated or murdered.
Impotence is a little hardship, where much hardness is the desire of men.
读万卷书不如行万里路, 但行一里不如读一本书。
A None box checking American soldier in Vietnam was asked by an angry commanding officer whether 'he' (sex being made 'relevant' here) was "one of those fucking atheists", and politely answered, "Yes, sir, I am an atheist." Afterwards, and not being dependent (anymore) on such an ill-mannered sourpuss, it is usually so much easier to think of a better answer. I suggest: "If you insist on it, because i'm definitely not one of those fucking theists, or rather theodemonists, who believe in gods and/or demons in the plural or the singular, and who deny the primacy of norms and values, which could have cured them of their sexual inhibitions and obsessions, and which might have restrained them from fuckingly overpopulating this planet with even more fucking theodemonists who believe in gods and demons, and who could not care less about fundamental norms and values, and so on and so forth."
Native anglophones who are so helpful as to change the written form of my Dutch first name Machiel into Michael without asking me seem to think that i (not a God or something else of that Ilk) am one of those dyslexics who cannot even spell their own name. (It is pronounced |mah-GHEEL|, with short |ah| and guttural |GH|, as in one pronunciation of the Scottish word loch.) I myself prefer the assumption that it is they who are the dyslexics. But then, of course, both variants derive from the original Michael, pronounced something like |meeghah-EL| (in which neither h represents the sound |H|). Come to think of it, it may have been the entire Dutch speech community that was so dyslectic as to turn the classic Michael into not only Michiel, but also Machiel, in the first place.
