Pledge your soul for a loan
Offline I found this quite funny. I hope atheists in Latvia are taking advantage of this great money maker 
Would you pledge your soul as loan collateral?
RIGA (Reuters) - Ready to give your soul for a loan in these difficult economic times? In Latvia, where the crisis has raged more than in the rest of the European Union, you can.
Such a deal is being offered by the Kontora loan company, whose public face is Viktor Mirosiichenko, 34.
Clients have to sign a contract, with the words "Agreement" in bold letters at the top. The client agrees to the collateral, "that is, my immortal soul."
Mirosiichenko said his company would not employ debt collectors to get its money back if people refused to repay, and promised no physical violence. Signatories only have to give their first name and do not show any documents.
"If they don't give it back, what can you do? They won't have a soul, that's all," he told Reuters in a basement office, with one desk, a computer and three chairs.
Wearing sunglasses, a black suit and a white shirt with the words "Kontora" (office) emblazoned on it, he reaches into his pocket and lays out a sheaf of notes on the table to show that the business is serious and not a joke.
Latvia has been the EU nation worst hit by economic crisis.
Unemployment is soaring and banks have sharply reduced their lending, meaning that small companies offering easy loans in small amounts have become more popular.
Mirosiichenko said his company was basically trusting people to repay the small amounts they borrowed, which has so far been up to 250 lats ($500) for between 1 and 90 days at a hefty interest rate.
He said about 200 people had taken out loans over the two months the business was in operation.
Slowly building a blog at ~
- Login to post comments
So we are now discussing time travel.
It is my assertion that all of the paradoxes that have come up in stories, while they may make for a good tale, are really only literary devices. Further, I assert that it is not possible to do things that create a problem with time travel.
For example, the classic is if you were to kill your grandfather before he married your grandmother, would you have never been born and therefore you cant have gone back in time to kill him?
The first problem with this is the assumption that prior to the modern era, nobody ever fucked before they got married. The reality of the matter is that teenagers fuck.
Now, a hundred years ago, if a chick missed her period, that meant that they had to get married. Preferably in less than nine months but if that was not possible, then polite society would retreat behind a maxim that “first children are often premature”.
The second problem being that there is more adultery going on than most people care to admit. If adultery was something that was quite rare, then the number of babies who were not the children of the nominative father would also be rare.
As it happens, we know from the public records of divorce cases that when the man alleges adultery and gets a court ordered paternity test that about 1:5 children are not fathered by the husband of the wife.
So what can we conclude from the above?
Well, let's say that you did go back and kill gramps. Whoppee!!!1!1! You killed some dude. However, if you did do that, then you could not have caused a paradox because you did the deed.
Since it is certainly possible that you did not kill the right person or f you did get the right guy, you were late for the job, then there is sufficient room for the reason why this so called paradox is not really a problem.
So we are now discussing time travel.
It is my assertion that all of the paradoxes that have come up in stories, while they may make for a good tale, are really only literary devices. Further, I assert that it is not possible to do things that create a problem with time travel.
For example, the classic is if you were to kill your grandfather before he married your grandmother, would you have never been born and therefore you cant have gone back in time to kill him?
The first problem with this is the assumption that prior to the modern era, nobody ever fucked before they got married. The reality of the matter is that teenagers fuck.
Now, a hundred years ago, if a chick missed her period, that meant that they had to get married. Preferably in less than nine months but if that was not possible, then polite society would retreat behind a maxim that “first children are often premature”.
The second problem being that there is more adultery going on than most people care to admit. If adultery was something that was quite rare, then the number of babies who were not the children of the nominative father would also be rare.
As it happens, we know from the public records of divorce cases that when the man alleges adultery and gets a court ordered paternity test that about 1:5 children are not fathered by the husband of the wife.
So what can we conclude from the above?
Well, let's say that you did go back and kill gramps. Whoppee!!!1!1! You killed some dude. However, if you did do that, then you could not have caused a paradox because you did the deed.
Since it is certainly possible that you did not kill the right person or f you did get the right guy, you were late for the job, then there is sufficient room for the reason why this so called paradox is not really a problem.
So we are now discussing time travel.
It is my assertion that all of the paradoxes that have come up in stories, while they may make for a good tale, are really only literary devices. Further, I assert that it is not possible to do things that create a problem with time travel.
For example, the classic is if you were to kill your grandfather before he married your grandmother, would you have never been born and therefore you cant have gone back in time to kill him?
The first problem with this is the assumption that prior to the modern era, nobody ever fucked before they got married. The reality of the matter is that teenagers fuck.
Now, a hundred years ago, if a chick missed her period, that meant that they had to get married. Preferably in less than nine months but if that was not possible, then polite society would retreat behind a maxim that “first children are often premature”.
The second problem being that there is more adultery going on than most people care to admit. If adultery was something that was quite rare, then the number of babies who were not the children of the nominative father would also be rare.
As it happens, we know from the public records of divorce cases that when the man alleges adultery and gets a court ordered paternity test that about 1:5 children are not fathered by the husband of the wife.
So what can we conclude from the above?
Well, let's say that you did go back and kill gramps. Whoppee!!!1!1! You killed some dude. However, if you did do that, then you could not have caused a paradox because you did the deed.
Since it is certainly possible that you did not kill the right person or f you did get the right guy, you were late for the job, then there is sufficient room for the reason why this so called paradox is not really a problem.
Oh, treat... you're blatantly breaking rules now. Posting the same content in multiple threads is a clear-cut bannable offense. Should I push the button now, or would you like to reconsider this tact? You seem to be having a lot of fun trying to get banned, but I'm afraid this one will seal the deal.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Ok, now I get it I was asking about this in another thread. Somone else posted it, too, but I think they were doing it to get back at him. Seriously what kind of a nab is this guy?
Anyway, it looks like a good idea and I commend them for their philanthropy. Obviously the soul thing is just a joke and a good one at that.