Slashdot Mirror


NYC Bans Mention of Dinosaurs, Dancing, Birthdays On Student Tests

New submitter SchroedingersCat writes "New York educators banned references to 'dinosaurs,' 'birthdays,' 'Halloween' and dozens of other topics on city-issued tests. That is because they fear such topics 'could evoke unpleasant emotions in the students.' Dinosaurs, for example, call to mind evolution, which might upset fundamentalists; birthdays are not celebrated by Jehovah's Witnesses; and Halloween suggests paganism. Homes with swimming pools and home computers are also unmentionables — because of economic sensitivities. The city asks test companies to exclude 'creatures from outer space' as well — for unspecified reasons."

470 comments

  1. April fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    April 1st is a few days away still yet...

    1. Re:April fools by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's what I was thinking, is this an Onion article that got out of control?

      They live in New York. Isn't the slogan "Fuck you and piss on your corpse."?

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    2. Re:April fools by jhoegl · · Score: 2

      Ask Madonna that last question

      But this is pretty surprising... I mean, it seems very unreal.

    3. Re:April fools by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Troll

      They live in New York. Isn't the slogan "Fuck you and piss on your corpse."?

      That's in the City where there are normal people.

      The real freaks live upstate.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:April fools by AmigaMMC · · Score: 1

      What happens if the test is about the Mesozoic? No mention of life form in that case? Let's pretend all there was was insects and fish?

    5. Re:April fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's funny. I heard the same thing from the people upstate.

      bigot.

    6. Re:April fools by Genda · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sorry, no can do... the earth is only 6,000 years old, in fact the universe is only 6,000 years old and all them fossils were the result of the great flood! God has an incredible sense of humor... he created a brand new universe that was already 14 billion years old, just to test our faith. Who do you believe, your eyes or God?

    7. Re:April fools by camperdave · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How old is Maggie Simpson, or Mickey Mouse? I'm not saying that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, but if a God did create something to look 14 billion years old, then that's how old it would look despite our best testing.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    8. Re:April fools by CaptainLugnuts · · Score: 5, Funny

      That all the freaks live upstate?

    9. Re:April fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      State motto, not slogan.
      Intellectual leaders for the nation, ask one...

    10. Re:April fools by flyneye · · Score: 2

      Apparently , that's the slogan that will appear on the tag of NYCs fleet of "short buses".

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    11. Re:April fools by Monchanger · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's been a long time since I studied this in detail back in school, but I'm pretty sure that Maggie Simpson and Mickey Mouse are "fiction".

      Kind of like the story of creation.

    12. Re:April fools by ancienthart · · Score: 3, Funny

      So, basically you're saying that God is the spiritual/intellectual equivalent of a Rick-Roller?

    13. Re:April fools by SJHillman · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      As someone upstate, we would gladly vote to get rid of NYC and Long Island even if it meant losing all of your tax revenue. You hippies ruin life for the rest of us.

    14. Re:April fools by PremiumCarrion · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm more upset that my religion which bans mention of the words "new", "york" and "city" hasn't been considered.

      Damn those insensitive clods who I'm unable to refer to.

    15. Re:April fools by Missing.Matter · · Score: 1

      Damn, looks like it's time again for the "April fools is x days away!" followed by "April fools was x days ago!" comments that always buffer April 1st. Wasn't funny last year, isn't funny this year.

    16. Re:April fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real freaks live upstate.

      Yeah, I'm sure all the absurdly PC people and Jehovah's witnesses live outside NYC. Moron.

    17. Re:April fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So God just wants to fuck with us? I bet he put all those fucking bones in the ground without them being in animals first, too!

    18. Re:April fools by philip.paradis · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think he's saying God is more like this.

      --
      Write failed: Broken pipe
    19. Re:April fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if God did that, wouldn't that make God a liar and a deceiver? Or in Internet parlance, a troll?

    20. Re:April fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By... bringing in a shitload of money?

    21. Re:April fools by the_bard17 · · Score: 2

      No, by introducing stupid concepts like those referenced by the summary & article above, which the really loony Upstate folks then use as a shining example of how life should be.

    22. Re:April fools by compro01 · · Score: 1

      You could always complain about the-city-formerly-known-as-New-Amsterdam.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    23. Re:April fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every civilization has had a "creation myth". Most of them have had a "flood myth". If you think that God set something up just to fuck with you, perhaps you're too smart for yourself by half. 99.9% of the people who ever lived had a pretty clear impression that disagreed with yours.

    24. Re:April fools by camperdave · · Score: 1

      I... can't... turn... away...! Help! Help me!

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    25. Re:April fools by FrootLoops · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's just a test. God values faith very highly, far above living morally (which is impossible). Making scientific evidence which contradicts His word is just a way to solidify our faith.

      The righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.
              - Romans 3:21

      All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith."

      Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.
              - Galatians 3:10-11, 23-25

      Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance.
              - James 1:2-3

      The science is wrong. It's just a test. No matter what people say I will keep my faith. God told me to expect this in advance:

      Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man.
              - Luke 6:22

      Now go away. I've got other things to think about:

      Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.
              - Philippians 4:6-8

      ...like pure, lovely, honest gay butt sex between men who love each other.

    26. Re:April fools by NemoinSpace · · Score: 1

      No, by re-enacting Woodstock every 10 years.

    27. Re:April fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, but if a God did create something to look 14 billion years old, then that's how old it would look despite our best testing.

      Of course, this is true, but it doesn't go far enough. The Church of Last Thursday believe, with complete consistency, that the world was created last Thursday - complete with evidence that it's older than that, such as our memories, or the week-old socks in the corner of my bedroom.

      But, if this is true, then we need to explain the fact that my memories and yours match up - that the evidence of an older world is all consistent. Either this is all a great coincidence, or God deliberately made it so, by running a simulation of the world up to the point at which it was created, so that each real object replaces one from the simulation, with a consistent history of interacting with other simulated objects. Which brings us to the Church of Next Thursday, who believe, also with complete consistency, that the world hasn't been created yet - we are just the simulation of the world, which will be brought into concrete existence next Thursday.

    28. Re:April fools by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I wonder how much tax revenue from NYC actually goes to the rest of the state. Seems to me NY would be better off split into 2 or 3: NYC and LI should be on their own (they have enough population to be their own state), the eastern edge of the state might prefer to join their neighbor Vermont, and the rest of the state is still large enough to be an independent state both population and land-wise.

      At the same time, Connecticut and Rhode Island should join into a single state, because neither of them is really large enough to be a separate state. They might even be better off joining with Massachusetts.

    29. Re:April fools by Benaiah · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Its funny that on the front page of /. we have an article belittling Europe's treatment of free speech and we have this article that says NY'ers can't even talk about dinosaurs because you might upset someone?

    30. Re:April fools by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      You could always complain about the-city-formerly-known-as-New-Amsterdam.

      They had to remove all mention of that city because it was insensitive to Morey Amsterdam.

    31. Re:April fools by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      Yeah but people who believe in God usually also believe that God us not trying to trick us.

    32. Re:April fools by C0R1D4N · · Score: 1

      It's like most civilizations were founded near waterways which, at some point or another flood!

    33. Re:April fools by ifiwereasculptor · · Score: 1

      bans mention of the words "new", "york" and "city"

      You could always complain about the-city

      *buzzer*

    34. Re:April fools by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

      Uh-uh. No one would be better off joining with Massachusetts.

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    35. Re:April fools by zubiaur · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Don't know if serious or really extrapolating things too far. I am no bible expert but I'm fairly sure that the galatians passage was about the old law of Moses. Things like feast, food laws, offerings and sacrifices. The James passage talks about religious persecution. Same thing with Luke. I see nothing wrong philipians either.

      You have to take in consideration that texts like Romans, Galatians and Philippians were letters, addressed to specific communities which might have been unde persecution at the time. Its not nice to cherry pick passages and bend their meaning to appeal hive mentallity, that stuff I expect from fox news or /r/circlejerk, not a slashdot commen (I .am new here). While not all christians seem to think so, faith has nothing to do with the practice of science and its discoveries, after all, doesn't science seek truth?

      Now lets focus on the topic and discuss this stupid ban

    36. Re:April fools by macshit · · Score: 1

      I suspect NYC would be ecstatic to be rid of the shackles-of-Albany as well—Albany is constantly screwing over the city to please suburban voters, even when the law/policy/agency in question mainly affects NYC.

      Not gonna happen of course, 'cause Albany likes those taxes...

      --
      We live, as we dream -- alone....
    37. Re:April fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If God did do that, then what predictive power would that have over the theory that the Earth is really just 14 billion years old?

    38. Re:April fools by jsternberg · · Score: 2

      The civilizations that had a "flood myth" also happen to correspond to every civilization that lived in the Mesopotamian area near the Black Sea. No other civilizations outside of that area have a flood myth. There's a lot of evidence that a flood occurred in that area, but there's no evidence of a "global" flood. Civilizations in the Americas don't have the same myth.

      Also, having a "creation" myth is par for the course. Doesn't mean there's any proof that any of those happened. Just that somebody tried to explain what happened (we're still, to this day, trying to explain where we came from).

    39. Re:April fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasn't funny last year, isn't funny this year.

      Neither are you.

    40. Re:April fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, having a "creation" myth is par for the course.

      So, what you're saying is, theism is pretty damn normal.

      Thank you for reiterating my point.

    41. Re:April fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And THIS, ladies and gentlemen, is why Poe's Law was invented. I have seen things that were completely serious quoting these exact same passages.

    42. Re:April fools by FrootLoops · · Score: 2

      You say I cherry picked passages and bent their meaning. I disagree. You didn't provide a single specific charge for me to refute (eg. "I'm fairly sure that the galatians passage was about the old law of Moses" -- great; so how did I misrepresent that passage?), so I can't do more than disagree.

      My post is both serious and not. Certainly the conclusion that God put dinosaur bones on earth to test Christian's faith sounds ridiculous, but how else would a young earth creationist explain them? Such people do get persecuted for their religious beliefs, by the way; I don't know what the point of most of your post is, but you seem to think my James and Luke passages weren't apt when they were.

      That said, I feel compelled to tell you that your discussion skills leave me very disinclined to listen to you. You...

        * ...claimed the Law of Moses talks about "Things like feast, food laws, offerings and sacrifices." You left out the 10 Commandments, the death penalty for man-on-man sodomy, and many other important things. I fail to see the relevance of this line of discussion, but still, your statement was very misleading regardless.
        * ...insulted me by comparing my post to stuff from "fox news or /r/circlejerk" while simultaneously forgetting to tell me specifically what I did wrong.
        * ...brought up some irrelevant musings about faith and science.
        * ...perhaps didn't read my entire post, particularly the last line?
      [ * ...have numerous grammatical and spelling issues. It's the internet, though, so that's not a big deal.]

    43. Re:April fools by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's called omphalism, and the minute you invoke it to explain away inconvenient time spans, you open the door to concepts like Last Thursdayism. If God can make a 6,000 year old universe look 13.8 billion years old, then why not a six second old universe look 13.8 billion years old? At the end of the day, it's just another form of epistemological nihilism

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    44. Re:April fools by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      They could always invade and annex it instead.

    45. Re:April fools by FrootLoops · · Score: 1

      But I am serious! Gay butt sex between loving men is fine for Gentiles [== not(Jews)] post-Jesus. For while it is written in the Law of Moses that

      If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
              - Leviticus 20:13

      it is also written in the New Testament that

      ...some...said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."

      [The council concluded] we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God [by requiring them to follow the whole Law of Moses]. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood."
              - Acts 15:5, 19-20

      Now sexual immorality is a rather vague phrase which I take to mean rape and generally non-consensual sex. You might be a little confused by the scattered references to homosexuality in Paul's letters which seem to imply that homosexuality is sexually immoral. However,

      Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders ... will inherit the kingdom of God.
              - 1 Corinthians 6:9

      discusses homosexual offenders, that is, people who break the law. Since sodomy is not illegal in my country, we're fine there. Next,

      For the law was not intended for people who do what is right. It is for people who are lawless and rebellious, who are ungodly and sinful, who consider nothing sacred and defile what is holy, who kill their father or mother or commit other murders. The law is for people who are sexually immoral, or who practice homosexuality, ..., or who do anything else that contradicts the wholesome teaching that comes from the glorious Good News entrusted to me by our blessed God.
              - 1 Timothy 1:9-11

      Here one must practice homosexuality for it to be a sin. The people I was imagining weren't actively practicing their technique; they simply did what came naturally. Some translations don't even list sodomy/homosexuality here, so the interpretation is also debatable. Finally we have,

      ...God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
              - Romans 1:26-27

      This one is trickier to interpret correctly. What is an "indecent act" or a "natural relation"? For gay men, an indecent or unnatural act would be sex with a woman. The men under discussion were essentially going "gay for pay". Again, the men I was thinking about were completely gay for each other.

      [On a serious note, I have no idea how some modern denominations rationalize away the above passages. I certainly wasn't able to without just calling the whole thing a load of crap.]

    46. Re:April fools by zubiaur · · Score: 0

      Sorry it seemed like an insult, it wasnt intended in that way, I also apologize for my spelling and overall english, the previous message was written on a touchscreen and in a language other than my own.

      I saddens me that your post had no relation to the article, what is happening on NY is wrong and sad, a complete lack of common sence a propper judgement, I wrote the above reply in a hurry and it seems that the points I was trying to make did not came out as clear as I desired, I had more than a couple of problem with your post, lest start with what you said here:

      That's just a test. God values faith very highly, far above living morally (which is impossible).

      The texts you cited (- James 1:2-3, - Galatians 3:10-11, 23-25, - James 1:2-3) make reference to the source of righteous behavior and the law of Mosses, they state that righteous behavior comes from faith and that the laws of Moses are deprecated(Its important to note that the ten commandments are not part of Moses law's) That doesnt mean that morality is not important anymore, not at all, morality is not following rules, a moral act is a good human act made with will and with full use of human freedom. Doing something good just because is law is not a proper moral act. Morality is ever so important in the life of a christian as evindenced in the following passage

      "What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,' but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it? So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead. Indeed someone might say, "You have faith and I have works." Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works. You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble." James 2:14-19

      Making scientific evidence which contradicts His word is just a way to solidify our faith.

      This was said without any backing whatsoever, science is a quest for truth, the bible is not a scientific text and cannot be taken as such

      The science is wrong. It's just a test. No matter what people say I will keep my faith. God told me to expect this in advance:

      For this you cited Jame, who was addressing a christian community which faced rejection and posibly persecution, you took the text out of context and bended the meaning, James was not addressing a bunch of science deniers whose faith consisted on dinosaurs walking earth among humans, this were different people thus, out of context both James and Lucas texts are not apt for the purposes you intended

      If you take your comment seriously you better try and make it look like one that actually is, there is a big gap between christian faith and what you try to pass as a serious post, if your post tried to be critique of christianity it would have to go deeper to be considered serious, if it was just a tasteless joke on the expense of christians and homosexuals well... you succeded.

    47. Re:April fools by garaged · · Score: 1

      I can give you a hand o/

      Never gonna give you up!
      Never gonna let you down!

      --
      I'm positive, don't belive me look at my karma
    48. Re:April fools by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      That it's normal doesn't mean it's true. There seem to be evolutionary advantages to having an religion, without it being true.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    49. Re:April fools by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      You could always complain about the-place-formerly-known-as-Nieuw-Amsterdam.

      FTFY. Nieuw is Duch for New, Nieuw Amsterdam was founded by the Dutch. Not fixing it because pedantry, but because city and new were illegal words according to GP.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    50. Re:April fools by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      Direct quote from the man:

      “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

      Matthew 5:17-20

      So...how many Christians do you know who follow all the Old Testament laws? Your new mission in life is to learn a few and point them out at every possible occasion. Ask them why they aren't out stoning children to death, etc., as stipulated in their laws.

      Also ... next time you see a Christian with an iPhone or a car you need to remind them that they're supposed to sell all their worldly goods and give to the poor. God will provide, it's harder for a rich person to enter heaven than to pass a camel through the eye of a needle.

      Don't feel bad about doing it, their immortal souls are on the line...

      --
      No sig today...
    51. Re:April fools by zoloto · · Score: 1

      Upstate (ie, the rest of the state) sends more welfare down to that city than they bring us up here. It's quite a drain, not to mention anything about their shitty politics being swung upstate in that shit slinging trebuchet called Bloomberg

    52. Re:April fools by noodler · · Score: 2

      ", but if a God did create something to look 14 billion years old, then that's how old it would look despite our best testing."

      But that would make the god a very childish one, for wanting to fool us this way.
      And besides, we are then nothing but puppets for its ammusement, aren't we?
      I mean, he had absolute power to design us like he wanted and yet he gives us black death and cancer and aids.
      I mean, why all the needless suffering?

    53. Re:April fools by MadFan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But I am serious! Gay butt sex between loving men is fine for Gentiles [== not(Jews)] post-Jesus. For while it is written in the Law of Moses that

      If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. - Leviticus 20:13

      it is also written in the New Testament that

      ...some...said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."

      [The council concluded] we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God [by requiring them to follow the whole Law of Moses]. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood." - Acts 15:5, 19-20

      Now sexual immorality is a rather vague phrase which I take to mean rape and generally non-consensual sex. You might be a little confused by the scattered references to homosexuality in Paul's letters which seem to imply that homosexuality is sexually immoral. However,

      Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders ... will inherit the kingdom of God. - 1 Corinthians 6:9

      discusses homosexual offenders, that is, people who break the law. Since sodomy is not illegal in my country, we're fine there. Next,

      What a cop out. The above quote in Leviticus 20:13, sets the law from God. Arguing that it isn't against the law of USA doesn't mean anything to the "kingdom of God". You could argue that in some African country it is legal to rape and kill, and hence "we're fine there", Next.

      For the law was not intended for people who do what is right. It is for people who are lawless and rebellious, who are ungodly and sinful, who consider nothing sacred and defile what is holy, who kill their father or mother or commit other murders. The law is for people who are sexually immoral, or who practice homosexuality, ..., or who do anything else that contradicts the wholesome teaching that comes from the glorious Good News entrusted to me by our blessed God. - 1 Timothy 1:9-11

      Here one must practice homosexuality for it to be a sin. The people I was imagining weren't actively practicing their technique; they simply did what came naturally. Some translations don't even list sodomy/homosexuality here, so the interpretation is also debatable. Finally we have,

      Here one must practice killing their father for it to be a sin. If you only do it once then it isn't a sin because you only killed your father once. About "what came naturally": The argument here is that homosexuality isn't normal. The argument goes along the lines of a male is designed for a female. and the union there of is a symbol of the relationship of God to Jews and Jesus to Gentiles. Because some closed closet homos decided to rewrite verse to make homos not listed there, doesn't subtract to what was written.

      ...God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. - Romans 1:26-27

      This one is trickier to interpret correctly. What is an "indecent act" or a "natural relation"? For gay men, an indecent or unnatural act would be sex with a woman.

      I call BS on that. There isn't Male, Female, Gay, Les, there are only Male & Female. For a gay man it's still an unnatural act even if he prefers & love doing it.

      The men u

      --
      John 11-35
    54. Re:April fools by SirSlud · · Score: 1

      What's the beef against Massholes? I've been there a ton of times and except for one cabbie who was convinced Obama is the spawn of Satan, lots of folks seem to be pretty chill and educated there.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    55. Re:April fools by SirSlud · · Score: 2

      Shit is rediculous, but don't muddy the waters in suggesting this is a free speech issue.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    56. Re:April fools by MadFan · · Score: 1

      There are many flood legends. http://creation.com/many-flood-legends
      http://creation.com/australian-aboriginal-flood-stories

      Evidence of a global flood, well off the top of my head,

      • 1 - the layers of the grand canyon are all smooth, if they were millions of years old they will be rough like the surface layer.
      • 2- Each layer in the grand canyon are all water base including a sand layer which had dunes in it (under water dunes)
      • 3 - layers of sedimentary rocks spanning 1000s of squared Kms in USA I think it was. - also in Australia but it broken into 2 groups because of another layer overlayed, I can't remember what the "pink color on the map" layer rock was now., look at map around the 3 sisters to see vast areas cut out.
      • 4 - a triangle of 100kms each side of coal on the south of Australia, 3 km thick, is very implausible to be a swamp, but easily explain as a flood.

      look around and you will find that you can explain alot with a great flood. Blindly saying theres no evidence will only get you applauses from people who dont want to know.

      --
      John 11-35
    57. Re:April fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That it's normal doesn't mean it's true.

      It means that an atheist who thinks that God "wants to fuck with us" is in the minority, and therefore, wrong. If he exists, God clearly isn't "fucking with" the minds of 99.9% of the people who have lived. And if he doesn't exist, the statement is irrelevant and still wrong.

    58. Re:April fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To rephrase that.

      The vast majority of the people who have looked around at the world and wondered how it came about, believed that it was due to a god.

      This atheist looked around and said "there obviously isn't a god, and if there is one, he's obviously trying to fuck with me, because he made stuff look like he doesn't exist".

      So if God designed a planet that 99.9% of people will look at and say "there's definitely a god" and 0.1% of people will look at and say "there's definitely not a god", it's obvious that it's not because he "wants to fuck with" the minds of the 0.1%. It's because you can't please everyone, all the time.

    59. Re:April fools by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      The texts you cited ...

      are pure fiction.

      Nobody has the first clue as to who wrote them and for what purpose. The only thing we know is that some fanatics think all that is written in it is literally God's word.

      You can say someone cherry picks sections and take them out of context, and this is true! But all sides do so, because the whole thing is a mess mixed with hate / love messages and just pure nonsense.

      You cannot interpret it literally as any cleric with a good knowledge of the book will point out. So all the people that make sense out of it - whatever sense that is - are just cherry picking stuff and ignoring the rest. Basically, they see whatever they want to see.

    60. Re:April fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well off the top of your head indeed. Talk to a bona fide canyon geologist and get it straight.

    61. Re:April fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus "fulfilled" the law by expanding upon it. He did this through his teaching and by example.

      “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.

      You take Jesus' quote and make it sound like he was a post enlightenment fundamentalist regarding the Jewish Scriptures. I submit that the entire testimony of the gospel writers shows a very different person, one who was quite creative in how he appropriated those scriptures.

    62. Re:April fools by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      Just call it The Great Apple and you're done.

      Oh, shit. I forgot it may offend those who don't believe the Adam and Eve story, or the People for the Ethical Treatment of Vegetables!

      Don't you Americans have better things to waste your time with?

    63. Re:April fools by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      As someone upstate, we would gladly vote to get rid of NYC and Long Island even if it meant losing all of your tax revenue.

      "We"? You speaking for the mouse in your pocket too?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    64. Re:April fools by thejynxed · · Score: 2

      The Bible is actually an exciting read in places though...murder, suicide, incest, rape, pillage, giants, midgets, wizards and witches, vengeful deities....

      Someone should turn it into an AD&D sourcebook...you'd make lots of $$$ just in modules based on the Old Testament.

      --
      @Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
    65. Re:April fools by darthdavid · · Score: 1

      I live upstate and it's true. This IS where all the freaks live.

    66. Re:April fools by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      Why then is there evidence that the world is older than the Bible claims it is? I can only come up with two explanations:
      1. The world is as old as it seems.
      2. The world is as old as the Bible claims it is, but God made it look older.
      Answer 2 means God is fucking with us (for whatever fine reason He may have, be that testing us for selection for heavon or something else entirely).
      The argument that 99.9% of the people that have ever lived believed in God is simply refuted: Most didn't have the evidence that the world is older than it can be according to the bible (whether that evidence is planted by God or not) so they did not have a reason to question their beliefs.
      Besides that: never forget there is no proof by popular vote. If we could get 99.9 % of the people to believe 2 + 2 = 30 it wouldn't magically become true.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    67. Re:April fools by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Shit is rediculous, but don't muddy the waters in suggesting this is a free speech issue.

      Why not? It's someone in authorities preventing certain words from being published in order to avoid upsetting people. Seems exactly like a free speech issue to me.

      Americans criticise us for clamping down on inflammatory racial hate speech, but then seem perfectly happy to have your government dumb down your children even more than they are already. The small limitation on absolute freedom of speech in Europe seems trivial compared to the massive idiocratising that you do in the US with things like this and making schools teach creationism as though it was science.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    68. Re:April fools by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Except the way most people define the Christian God, he not only can do so, he knows exactly how to please everyone, all the time. He's supposedly omnipotent and omniscient. Therefore, if that God exists, he must have chosen not to please everyone all time, so clearly the atheist is correct: If that God exists, then he is clearly fucking with at least 0.1% of the population*. The question is whether the 0.1% are the butt of the joke, or the audience.

      * Actually, that number is probably at least 5%, 95% is about the maximum level of belief in a God that can be found in a country that doesn't publicly execute atheists. By contrast, in Sweden 59% of people reported believing that God doesn't exist and it's only the third most atheistic country in Europe.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    69. Re:April fools by kingramon0 · · Score: 1

      This could be a response to any number of comments in this thread, but the fact is that the Bible does not say how old the world is. The 6000 year theory is just someone's interpretation. As a Christian, it boggles my mind why other Christians hold on to that idea so strongly, when the Biblical evidence for that interpretation is so weak.

    70. Re:April fools by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      The Bible is actually an exciting read in places though...murder, suicide, incest, rape, pillage, giants, midgets, wizards and witches, vengeful deities....

      I dunno. I tried to read it once but stumbled on the very beginning: The Egypt plagues. There, for many many pages, you see God plaguing Egypt to convince its Pharaoh to free the israelites. After each plague, the Pharaoh is ready to let them go, but God works his magic to convince the Pharaoh NOT to free the Israelites.

      Since God can convince at will, wouldn't it have been easier to just convince the Pharaoh in the first place, hence avoiding the thousand of death resulting from the plague, which killed innocent Egyptians that weren't even aware of the issue?

      So apart from plaguing Egypt for fun, there isn't much sense in all that. It just looks like a cruel and mean god. I really don't know why people would trust Him, much less follow his words.

    71. Re:April fools by Rosy+At+Random · · Score: 1

      What is the difference between:

      * something that is A, and
      * something that is indistinguishable from A, even in principle?

      Is there any difference?

      Besides, time is an issue that people have a lot of funny and nonsensical 'common-sense' ideas about, especially in regards to theological causality and creation. There's a lot of layers that need to be peeled away here before we stop being distracted by pretty meaningless baubles and get to the interesting stuff, which I'm not about to go into just for the fun of it.

      --
      Would you like a slice of toast?
    72. Re:April fools by tenco · · Score: 1

      Let me cite:

      Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and those who enter through it are many. How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few. (Matthew 7:13-14)

    73. Re:April fools by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      1. Leviticus is Law of Moses territory. Given that the old law, the Law of Moses, was done away in Christ how do you reconcile that verse for modern usage?

      2. As we've studied the world around us it's been found that homosexual behavior is actually a natural phenomena. It has been observed in a number of animal species and such. Of course the arguement can be made that the natural man is an enemy to God, so one should abstain from homosexual relations. But that doesn't invalidate that homosexuality is a natural state, transitory or permanent, for some people and animals. Hell, I like bell peppers on my pizza and other foods, while my wife finds their flavor unbearable and won't eat foods that are "contaminated" by it. Which is the correct natural state there?

      3. Reading comprehension is not linked to a persons faith in logical fallacies such as the Christian defined God.

    74. Re:April fools by JigJag · · Score: 1

      Got mod points but I wanted to address this.

      You begged the question when you said "The world is as old as the Bible claims it is, but God made it look older." The Bible says nothing about old the world is. It helps pinpoint when *humans* appeared, but not for the universe, nor the earth, nor the plants, nor the animals. We can trace when humans started since we have a record of ages from Adam to the Flood, to Abraham entering Canaan (we can even deduce which day: 14 Nissan 1943 BCE), to the Exodus, to the splitting of the 12 tribes kingdom, to Jerusalem's desolation by the Babylonians, to their return from exile, to the rebuilding of the city walls, to Jesus' baptism.
      As for the other parts of creation (universe, earth, plants, animals), we just know in which order they appeared. And no, "one" day of creation is not 24 hours since:
      1) the seventh day is still running (no mention of "there came to be evening and there came to be morning" for the seventh day AND in Heb 4:1-10 Paul says he was still living in the seventh day, the one of rest), so the seventh day spans several millenniums, why not the other ones?
      2) Gen 2:4 uses the word "day" (singular) to cover all the 7 days, meaning that it is to be taken as steps, not as 24 hours.
      3) God said "it is not good for the man to continue by himself" (Gen 2:18-20), but the first man was tasked with naming the animals first and then he made the first woman. How much time do you think it takes to name animals? Suppose 5 minutes to decide based on immediate appearances. If he started at 00:10 (to have time to build all animals and man) and finished at 23:55 (to give time to build a wife, say), that's under 300 animals (wild beast of the fields, domestic animals and flying creatures of the heavens). And by the way, no sleep, no food, no rest in-between! No time to get bored, right? You're always busy with animals. You're not *by yourself*. Yet, Gen 1:27 says they were created the same "day", on in other words, the same creative period.

      So sure, the universe is millions or billions of years old and so is the earth, plants and animals, just man isn't. Strange that agriculture, spoken language, written language, metal working, herding, etc all appeared at the same time, isn't it?

      Finally, I don't expect you to agree with me and suddenly profess faith and all. But you started with wrong assumptions which lead inevitably to wrong conclusions. In this case, that the Bible says something about the age of the universe. It doesn't.

      JigJag

      --
      "The hallmark of humanity is the ability to move beyond sensory inputs" - Mary Helen Immordino-Yang
    75. Re:April fools by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      So God just wants to fuck with us?

      Actually, if you get into a real discussion about God with a Christian you will find out that, yes, God fucks with us quite a bit. That's part of why I left that faith. Insecurity is not what I'm looking for in a deity.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    76. Re:April fools by Alistar · · Score: 1

      http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2560#comic

      Yea, I know it's supposed to be an XKCD comic, but I like this one and found it an apt reply to your question.

    77. Re:April fools by camperdave · · Score: 1

      THE BIBLE DOES NOT SAY HOW OLD THE EARTH IS. Sure, you can take a book that is filled with metaphoric and apocalyptic language, poetic imagery and allegory, interpret it literally, and come up with some 6000 year figure, but that isn't proper bible study.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    78. Re:April fools by spiffmastercow · · Score: 1

      So apart from plaguing Egypt for fun, there isn't much sense in all that. It just looks like a cruel and mean god. I really don't know why people would trust Him, much less follow his words.

      Because if you don't do what He says, He'll burn your ass. Clearly you did not take take away the correct lessons from your reading.

    79. Re:April fools by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      But surely *next* year they'll be funny again, right?

    80. Re:April fools by Digz · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flood_myths#Americas

      Incorrect. Civilizations around the world have had flood myths, including ones of pre-Columbian origin in the Americas.

      --
      SYS 64738
    81. Re:April fools by Empiric · · Score: 1

      To see a world in a grain of sand, And a heaven in a wild flower, Hold infinity in the palm of your hand, And eternity in an hour.

      Hey, Blake, why not "in a minute", you... epistemological nihilist!

      Er, what?

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    82. Re:April fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fuck you get that from?

      New Yorkers can say whatever the fuck they want, on their own fucking time. They just can't fucking mention fucking dinosaurs and shit if they're a fucking teacher and it's restricted to their fucking school related work. Yes, this is fucking bullshit, but it's also fucking limited, and they can spend their weekend yelling that jesus fucked a dinosaur with an alien anal probe with a bullhorn in central park if they want.

      (Profanity included to prove a point. Mostly that it's fun to write!)

    83. Re:April fools by MadFan · · Score: 1

      In my christian point of view, (I may be wrong here as I havn't study this area), The Law hasn't been replaced. Jesus fulfilled the punishment required by the law but the law is still there telling what is right / wrong. Grace is given so we are forgiven for trespassing against the law. Like how a cop can let you go for smoking. despite him doing that, it's still against the law.

      For point 2: I had a rabbit that would bang everything and anything, female rabbits, male rabbits (back or front), your shoe. I've seen birds shag dead birds. I would probably say that Animals dont have morals installed in them like humans. Some animals eat there own young.

      so one should abstain from homosexual relations

      I dont understand that. If your an enemy of God, why not. E.g. Satan would do all he can to spite God.

      I think you might have a point here. Being a fallen, sin riddled state that we are in, it could be normal for some people to be gay, wither transitory or permanent. Yet even in that state, it still doesn't subtract that it's against God's will (according to the Bible).

      The pizzas analogy I dont think applies, its like saying one person likes blue and another green, while both doesn't matter to God.

      Reading comprehension is not linked to a persons faith

      This is a generic blanket statement, applies to some, and not to others. If someone doesn't understand something, they may or may not believe in it.

      3, I am curious, can you explain the logical fallacies of the Christian God please.

      Cheers

      --
      John 11-35
    84. Re:April fools by g0bshiTe · · Score: 2

      If only one guy was convinced Obama is the spawn of Satan how educated could the state actually be?

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    85. Re:April fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, Ithaca is just chock-full of ignorant morons, isn't it? You moron.

    86. Re:April fools by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      That's about like comparing the United States education against Carlos Mencia... wtf? It's ONE person.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    87. Re:April fools by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      Dude... civilizations existed longer than 6,000 years ago... (Sumerians, Babylonians, Akkadians, etc) Heck, even writing was used by Sumerians 5,500 years ago...
      There's one requirement for a civilization, and that's a Universe.

      If you're trolling, IHBH, HAND...

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    88. Re:April fools by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      That's representative of the narrow gate to "heaven", and the wide gate to "hell".
      ? what were you getting at?

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    89. Re:April fools by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      As a sentient human being, you should realize that the earth is far more complex than "there was a flood, and it made marks"....
      We've had impacts of continents, large glacial freezes, melts, very high temperatures, impacts from objects in space, etc. Quite literally it's been of biblical proportions that even the bible couldn't fathom.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    90. Re:April fools by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      Not you, evidentally.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    91. Re:April fools by rickett81 · · Score: 1
      There is a book I've read called "Crazy Love".

      The crux of the book is this: If people loved as the bible calls them to, everyone (even Christians) would think they were crazy.

      So the parent is correct. Most people who call themselves Christians are too in love with themselves and their stuff to actually do what Christians are supposed to do.

    92. Re:April fools by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      It also destroys the Christian Religion. Since you can spin it around.

      "If you can create a world to look 13.8 Billion years old then you can also create a bible and trick people into believing it. So your faith is proof that the Great Deceiver has you just playing into his hands."

    93. Re:April fools by SuperTechnoNerd · · Score: 1

      Hey Watch it!

    94. Re:April fools by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      Not a biblical scholar myself, so you'll want to check up on it yourself. But my understanding has always been that the Law of Moses was in addition to the Gospel. The Law of Moses came about because the people wanted specifics on exactly how far they could deviate from God's will and what the associated price of redemption was for each deviation. This excess body of laws was essentially wiped out with Christ, note that he always emphazied the spirit of the laws rather than the letter. His Atonement fulfilled the Law of Sacrifice, which had existed from Adam and Eve, significantly predating Moses.

      When I said "should abstain from homosexual relations" I was speaking in the context of a Christian who believes that what is natural is not important because the natural man is an enemy to God. If you believe that than essentially everyone is an enemy to God and merely less evil than others depending on their level of self discipline.

      It was a Peppers analoogy, pizza is just a delicous way to consume them! From conversations with my Mother in Law it would seem that my wife naturally do not like peppers. In that she at a very young age refused to eat them when everyone else around her liked them. I was simply using it as an example where a small subset of people naturally are disposed to dislike something that most everyone else likes.

      I would say that reading comprehension can be clouded by ones beliefs. I've known a number of people who can't understand how someone else could interpret a verse of scpriture differently than they do. I am no doubt affected by this as well but I do seem to notice it a lot in others, even among my own familial religion, which makes me think I might be more empathetic when it comes to differing points of view. Someone doesn't have to believe the same things that I do in order to understand what I write unless I am being overly ambiguous.

      The impossibility of God could be a very long subject so I'll try to be as short as possible for everyones sake. The relevant attributes of the Christian God being that he is just, never wrong and knows the future. The logical issues boil down to whether or not free will is possible. If we have free will then it is impossible for God to know the future but he can justly hold us responsible for our actions. If we don't have free will then God can know the future but he can not justly hold us responsible for breaking a law.

      Personally I'm inclined to believe that there is no free will. But I understand that it is expedient as a society for us to believe that we do.

    95. Re:April fools by FrootLoops · · Score: 1

      Thank you for your apologies and specific points.

      You mention, "Its important to note that the ten commandments are not part of Moses law's", though this is definitely false. For instance, the 613 commandments in Judaism attempt to collect all the commandments in the Law of Moses. On the version of this list I linked, "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is included as number 482 ("Not to murder"). The Law of Moses refers to the first five books of the Bible--Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The 10 Commandments appear both in Exodus 20:1-17 and Deuteronomy 5:4-21.

      You seem to be reading too far in to the first line you quoted from me ("That's just a test..."). I did not say that God does not value living morally ("That doesnt mean that morality is not important anymore"). I just said that faith is valued far more highly; it's certainly possible for God to value both highly. I was of course aware of the bit from James you quoted, though I actually view it as contradictory. The answer to the rhetorical question, "Can that faith save him?", would seem to be "Yes!" from the bits I quoted from Paul's letters even though James strongly implies "No." His point about demons believing in God is also quite damning to Paul's blanket statements about being saved by faith. Apparently only humans are saved by faith? And maybe works really are necessary even though Paul said they weren't? It's unclear. I never had these questions answered to my satisfaction when I considered myself a Christian, so I ignored them for the purposes of the above post.

      The second line ("Making scientific evidence...") was actually supported by my James reference (so it was not "said without any backing whatsoever"). It doesn't seem like a large leap to go from "your faith will be tested to develop perseverance" to "scientific evidence contradicting your faith in young earth creationism is a test". To be clear, you say "the bible is not a scientific text and cannot be taken as such", and while I agree, the argument above assumed a young earth creationist view--that is, that the earth is ~6000 years old, Genesis is literally true, etc. [This view came from the post I was originally replying to.]

      For the third line ("The science is wrong..."), I don't agree with your distinction. James may have been addressing a persecuted Christian community (which is actually quite unclear; that "letter" may not have been addressed to a specific community), but young earth creationists are also a persecuted Christian community anyway. My own post ridicules their views. The Luke reference was also quite general: in context it was spoken to all believers; making an exception for believers persecuted because of science and scientific evidence seems completely arbitrary.

      Finally...
      * "If you take your comment seriously you better try and make it look like one that actually is" -- I believe I dressed it up in the usual trappings of serious Biblical discussion with lots of scattered references. I could imagine a Christian making my same points (minus the joke at the very end) in all seriousness, either because they really believed it all or because they wanted to make fun of young earth creationists.
      * "there is a big gap between christian faith and what you try to pass as a serious post" -- I don't really know what this means, sorry.
      * "if your post tried to be critique of christianity it would have to go deeper to be considered serious" -- since your own critique is full of misunderstandings and mistakes (eg. the bit about the 10 Commandments; missing my James reference's relevance to one of my points; not knowing about the debate behind James' audience; not assuming a young earth creationist viewpoint), I'm not inclined to listen to you here; sorry.
      * "if it was just a tasteless joke on the expense of christians and homosexuals well... you succeded." -- you may have a point in the Christian half of this sentence. Perhaps I

    96. Re:April fools by Nothing2Chere · · Score: 1

      Don't you Americans have better things to waste your time with?

      It is obvious that some of us don't.

    97. Re:April fools by FrootLoops · · Score: 1

      Actually the concept of an afterlife is extraordinarily vague throughout the Old Testament. Heaven and Hell aren't found until the New Testament. The OT generally promised blessings for good behavior (in this life) and curses for bad behavior (also in this life). You don't really find "He'll burn your ass" until the NT.

    98. Re:April fools by CodeHxr · · Score: 1

      Aren't apples fruits? :)

    99. Re:April fools by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

      Oh nothing against them personally. But considering the state's nickname is "Taxachusetts", better to be on the other side of the state line is all.

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    100. Re:April fools by spiffmastercow · · Score: 1

      I think you misunderstand.. I was not implying anything about the afterlife here. The OT was all about "so and so pleased the Lord, and was spared the ". I meant "burn your ass" more in the sense of an example of something He would do to you if you didn't properly please thine God.

    101. Re:April fools by spiffmastercow · · Score: 1

      "spared the [really bad thing]" is what I meant to write.

    102. Re:April fools by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I wonder how much tax revenue from NYC actually goes to the rest of the state. Seems to me NY would be better off split into 2 or 3: NYC and LI should be on their own

      And each gets 2 senators? Sounds great to me.

      I'm guessing that New York City would like nothing else than to be severed from Upstate - and vice versa.

      Also Chicago. And Los Angeles. Suddenly the political landscape of the US looks a lot different, and a lot more democratic.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    103. Re:April fools by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Certainly the conclusion that God put dinosaur bones on earth to test Christian's faith sounds ridiculous, but how else would a young earth creationist explain them?

      It is only ridiculous if you dicount the value of faith. The other obvious explanation is that He put dinosaur fossils (not bones, rocks shaped like bones) on Earth to give the paleontologists something to do to entertain themselves. Some people like jigsaw puzzles made out of cut up pictures on cardboard, some like 3-D jigsaw puzzles made out of rock.

      He loves us and wants us to be happy. Who is happier than a paleontologist climbing out of a dig clutching a rock he thinks is a Dododecathon kneecap that nobody has ever seen before?

    104. Re:April fools by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      What about the western side of MA? Do the people in western Mass. really want to be in the same state as the people on the eastern side (i.e. Boston)? Maybe they'd prefer to split the state, and join with CT and/or RI? Or, maybe they'd rather split the state and join with VT and/or NH?

      Personally, I'd like to have a big county-by-county election where people in every county that borders another state are asked in a referendum if they'd prefer to stay in their current state, or switch to the neighboring state. Then, have subsequent elections for all the counties that, as a result of the previous election, are now bordering the newly-expanded state next to them to see if they'd like to do the same thing. I bet we'd find that a lot of state borders would be redrawn.

    105. Re:April fools by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      Empirical evidence would suggest they are immortal as none of them actually age either.

    106. Re:April fools by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      I disagree, for all three of those cases. I think the people in the more rural parts would all like to separate from those cities, as the cities dominate their politics and make all their laws (since the cities have so much population). However, I don't think the politicians in the cities want to lose control of the rest of the state; they get tax revenue from those places, as well as control of natural resources.

      I do personally think the country would be a lot better off overall with those cities made into city-states, however.

    107. Re:April fools by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      But the Pharaoh did exactly as God told him! When the time to liberate the Israelites came over and over again, God told him not to free them!

      So he didn't.

      So God fried his ass once more.

      Hopefully, it was for (int i=0 ; i<10 ; i++)... Imagine if i were to go to 1000!!! Egypt would just be a smoking crater by now.

    108. Re:April fools by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      Except that, from what I've read, Mass. is actually not very close to the top of the list for high-tax states. Obviously, compared to places like Wyoming, it's high, but compared to New York, Illinois, and California, it's pretty cheap. Mass. is probably somewhere in the middle.

      Here's some figures showing where states rank in various taxes:
      http://modernsurvivalblog.com/retreat-living/lowest-to-highest-taxes-by-state/

    109. Re:April fools by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

      First, detach all counties with a population of 500,000 or more to be separate states. Then do what you say. If the people of North Dakota can handle state functions, there's no reason the people of, say, Fairfax County, Virginia with twice its population couldn't do the same. And, generally speaking, the closer government is to people, the more responsive it is. (I say generally speaking because I realize one could trot out examples of how "you can't fight city hall", but I'd rather try that than fight Congress or even a state legislature!)

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    110. Re:April fools by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      It seems to me that counties with a population of 500k need to be broken up. We have that here in AZ, with Maricopa County having most of the Phoenix metro area (~4 million). It's so screwed up that they have a redistricting commission figuring out how to gerrymander^Hdraw congressional district lines, which are all inside the counties, because there's no way to divide the state's 14 counties (two of which are huge with Phoenix and Tucson, the rest of which have little to no population) evenly among the Representatives. Heck, every time I use one of those web forms that lets you send letters to your Representative, I have to give a full street address because the Congressional district line splits my ZIP code.

    111. Re:April fools by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

      Fair enough. I'm probably thinking this way because I grew up spending Christmas and summers with relatives in New Hampshire, so that's what I think of as "next to Massachusetts", as opposed to other (relatively) high tax states like R.I. or New York.

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    112. Re:April fools by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

      No argument here. To continue the Fairfax County, Virginia example, it's comprised of nine districts, all of which are easily large enough to be counties themselves. So, your turn, although you're probably realizing by now that there's basically no limit the amount of decentralization with which I'd happily agree. :-)

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    113. Re:April fools by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      NY isn't relatively high-tax, it's absolutely high-tax. It's probably in the top 3 states for taxation according to the sources I read. Of course, YMMV, since sales taxes and property taxes vary a lot between counties and municipalities and the articles like the one I listed above can only average them together (without making an article the size of War and Peace), and also because different people have different circumstances so the taxes will hit them differently: retired people don't care as much about income taxes, and property owners care more about property taxes, for instance.

      Just going off what I read in that one article, the highest tax states appear to be NY, NJ, IL, and CA. MA seems to have even lower taxes than Arizona where I live, except for the property tax, but our sales and income taxes are higher than Mass's. But the property tax one is hard to figure too; the property taxes here in Phoenix are likely much higher than in Navajo territory, for instance, but the number in the article is an average.

    114. Re:April fools by FrootLoops · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'm sorry if it wasn't clear, but my post was a joke. I'm fully aware that the points I made are ridiculous, especially in the "offenders", "practice", and "gay for pay" cases. I also obviously twisted Paul's words in the Romans case. I thought the absurdity of my points together with the last line (which you quoted) would clearly flag the whole thing as a joke, but I was apparently too subtle and accidentally crossed the line into Poe's Law territory.

      I am curious about your reasoning on a few points.

      There isn't Male, Female, Gay, Les, there are only Male & Female

      What does this mean? Gay men and lesbians certainly exist. Are you giving a pseudo-quote from Mark 10:6, "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'" (or Genesis 1:27 which it's paraphrasing)? If so, why? Did God not create me, a gay man, too? Are my desires for men and lack of desire for women not His work, in your view? Paul would call me evil and my homosexuality the fruit of evil, though Jesus said not to judge others (presumably especially if you know next to nothing about them). How do you judge me?

      For a gay man it's still an unnatural act even if he prefers & love doing it.

      What do you define as a natural act? Our definitions appear to disagree wildly. Me having sex with a woman would be extraordinarily unnatural inasmuch as it is not in my nature to desire sexual relations with women whatsoever (if anything I desire having no sexual relations with women). I imagine you feel the same way about sex with men. Perhaps you have a sort of idealized view of nature that differs sharply from the actual world around us? If so, what is that view? How do you suppose appealing to that view will convince others who only care about the world as it exists of anything? Also, do you consider gay sex indecent? A perversion?

      BTW, As a Christian, I love the gay man but I dont want him to butt fuck me. (Love the man, not the sin)

      Is this at all relevant? I don't want to butt fuck you either, by the way. For one thing it would be non-consensual. From your post, I'm really not sensing that you have any love for me whatsoever. If you do, how do you show that love?

      I am very surprise you can quote all these passages yet fail to understand that a gay man isn't a natural thing.

      You almost certainly didn't read the last line of my post: "[On a serious note, I have no idea how some modern denominations rationalize away the above passages. I certainly wasn't able to without just calling the whole thing a load of crap.]". If you did read it, why would you think some words in a book I called "a load of crap" would convince me of anything that contradicts my own experience?

    115. Re:April fools by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      What's interesting is I actually used to live in Virginia, and was even born in Fairfax County, so I'm a little familiar with it. VA has a LOT more counties than AZ, probably close to 100 IIRC (I also used to live in TN, and remember there were 95 counties there). Things are very different that way from the west coast states like AZ and CA, where counties tend to be huge. There's only 14 of them in AZ, and many of those are bigger than many east coast states in land area, though are frequently unpopulated and mostly open desert.

      So one problem I see is that breaking Fairfax Co. up would create even more counties in VA, though it's probably still better overall. Maybe the least populated counties should be merged with neighboring counties to make up for this (subject to approval by referendum of course). There's some counties in central VA that have zero or maybe one stoplight in the entire county. A county that small should probably be merged with another county, as it obviously doesn't have the revenue base to really exist on its own effectively and efficiently. If they can't even afford a friggin' stop light, how do they afford to have a courthouse or jail or run their government?

      I would like to see a redrawing of State lines however, something like what was proposed with the 38 States. Fewer states would be more efficient than 50 states, and redrawing them this way would make their populations more equal too so you don't have giant states like NY and CA dominating the elections, plus make government in those areas more responsive by trimming it down (people in Napa Valley shouldn't have to fight with people in San Diego over things; the fact that they're in the same state is entirely a historical accident). Of course, the 38 States proposal needs some modification because things have changed significantly since 1975, with a lot of population moving south and a lot of immigration into the southwest, but the idea is sound and the fact that many state lines (particularly these out here in the West) were drawn for bad reasons, with zero regard for local culture, hasn't changed. All the lines out here are straight lines along an arbitrary parallel, after all.

    116. Re:April fools by FrootLoops · · Score: 1

      From conversations with my Mother in Law it would seem that my wife naturally do not like peppers. In that she at a very young age refused to eat them when everyone else around her liked them. I was simply using it as an example where a small subset of people naturally are disposed to dislike something that most everyone else likes.

      I just wanted to mention that, in my own case at least, this is an excellent analogy. Sometime in middle school when puberty kicked in, my male friends started to get horny for girls. I never did; I got horny for guys. I remember a scrap of Playgirl blown into a yard that I got to see briefly at a friend's house. It... interested me, to say the least, though I was far too closeted to admit it to anyone. I hardly even let myself steal more than a glance, and taking it home was out of the question, though I surely wanted to do both. I tried to develop an interest in girls, but it never went anywhere. I was always a little worried about getting a boner in the locker room, though thankfully that never happened--I imagine I was too nervous and too good at repression. But in any case, at a very young age I found I liked something that everyone else around me felt the opposite about, just like your wife and peppers. (Oddly enough I don't really like peppers either :)

    117. Re:April fools by FrootLoops · · Score: 1

      Hah, thanks for the laugh and the correction ["(not bones, rocks shaped like bones)"].

    118. Re:April fools by FrootLoops · · Score: 1

      Ok, sounds good. I took "burn your ass" to imply a stay in Hell when that's not what you meant; oops.

    119. Re:April fools by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

      Stoplights are overrated. I've lived in a country-with-an-r that has zero of them, the Commonwealth of Dominica, which has a total population of about 69,000 people. People there get by just fine without them. And once you see that you can have a successful country with a population like that, and that those who work in government are far less insulated from the people they supposedly represent, it raises the question whether all the centralization of power we see in the U.S. (and, in fairness, most of the rest of the world) is really all that advantageous for Joe Sixpack.

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    120. Re:April fools by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      However, I don't think the politicians in the cities want to lose control of the rest of the state; they get tax revenue from those places, as well as control of natural resources.

      Those rural areas get more money back in taxes than they put in. Especially in New York State.

      I don't think you'd find a lot of New York City politicians who would not want to separate themselves from Upstate. There is no downside.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    121. Re:April fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the way most people define the Christian God, he not only can do so, he knows exactly how to please everyone, all the time

      Two words, and I expect you know which two.

      Free will.

    122. Re:April fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why then is there evidence that the world is older than the Bible claims it is? I can only come up with two explanations:

      Explanation number 3 is that you're misinterpreting the evidence.

      Most didn't have the evidence that the world is older than it can be according to the bible (whether that evidence is planted by God or not) so they did not have a reason to question their beliefs.

      Oh look. An evolutionist who thinks that the theory that the world has been around forever is a relatively recent invention, in the timespan of history. How cute.

    123. Re:April fools by hellop2 · · Score: 1

      How does a flood "easily explain" 3km of coal?

      --
      How many more years will slashdot have an off-by-one error on your Score in your profile?
    124. Re:April fools by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Just call it The Great Apple

      Pros:
          Popular with the metrosexual hipster crowd.

      Cons:
          Popular with the metrosexual hipster crowd.
          Likely to attract a patent lawsuit.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    125. Re:April fools by Genda · · Score: 1

      About "what came naturally": The argument here is that homosexuality isn't normal. The argument goes along the lines of a male is designed for a female. and the union there of is a symbol of the relationship of God to Jews and Jesus to Gentiles. Because some closed closet homos decided to rewrite verse to make homos not listed there, doesn't subtract to what was written.

      Say you don't like homosexuality, say you don't agree with the practice, but don't call it unnatural. Virtually every species that has a sex practices homosexuality. In fact every single human being starts out female and it takes a very specific process at a very specific time to distinguish an embryo as male and if everything doesn't happen exactly right, brain gender or preference may be impacted. That my friend is God at work. There is now strong evidence that a number of social animals use homosexuality as a means to control overpopulation (that is, when a population approaches its carrying capacity the instance of homosexuality increases noticeably.) It makes perfect sense that when Jews numbered in the thousands that "God" informed them it was time go forth and multiply, and clearly homosexuality would have been a wrench in the works. Now that there are 7,000,000,000 of us, perhaps being gay might not be such a sin anymore.

      ...God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. - Romans 1:26-27

      This one is trickier to interpret correctly. What is an "indecent act" or a "natural relation"? For gay men, an indecent or unnatural act would be sex with a woman.

      I call BS on that. There isn't Male, Female, Gay, Les, there are only Male & Female. For a gay man it's still an unnatural act even if he prefers & love doing it.

      And I call B.S. on your calling B.S. Clearly you have NO knowledge of the huge number of intersexed children born every year. As I mentioned before, everyone starts out female. It is guessed that over 2% (some suggest as much as 4%, but that's probably pushing some of the minor deformities) of the population is born with some degree of intersexing, and that for the most part doctor make surgical changes at birth to cover up anomalies without ever telling the parent (except in those cases where the anomaly is significant.) There is clearly a genetic component to homosexuality so indeed God does make Gays and Lesbians, but on top of that, research indicate that Transsexuals have brain structures consistent with their gender of choice and not their somatic sex (literally brain of one sex in body of another.) There are even chimera walking around, people composed of the genetic components of 2 even 3 different fertilized eggs, sometimes even having different genetic sex. When it come to sex and preference my friend, God has an incredible sense of humor and there are literally hundred of combinations and permutations. So when you say Male and Female, its clear that A) You haven't got the foggiest clue of which you speak and B) You put your personal beliefs ahead of any kind of logic, understanding, enlightenment or pragmatic view of the real world in which you live. Silly child.

      The men under discussion were essentially going "gay for pay". Again, the men I was thinking about were completely gay for each other.

      [On a serious note, I have no idea how some modern denominations rationalize away the above passages. I certainly wasn't able to without just calling the whole thing a load of crap.]

      BTW, As a Christian, I love the gay man but I dont want him to butt fuck me. (Love the man, not the sin) I am very surprise you can quo

    126. Re:April fools by MadFan · · Score: 1

      Not a biblical scholar myself, so you'll want to check up on it yourself. But my understanding has always been that the Law of Moses was in addition to the Gospel. The Law of Moses came about because the people wanted specifics on exactly how far they could deviate from God's will and what the associated price of redemption was for each deviation. This excess body of laws was essentially wiped out with Christ, note that he always emphazied the spirit of the laws rather than the letter. His Atonement fulfilled the Law of Sacrifice, which had existed from Adam and Eve, significantly predating Moses.

      When I said "should abstain from homosexual relations" I was speaking in the context of a Christian who believes that what is natural is not important because the natural man is an enemy to God. If you believe that than essentially everyone is an enemy to God and merely less evil than others depending on their level of self discipline.

      I wouldn't say everyone is an enemy. Yes all have sin and fallen short but not everyone is a fool. a fool opposes God. Many try to live a "good" life to their best understanding.

      It was a Peppers analoogy, pizza is just a delicous way to consume them! From conversations with my Mother in Law it would seem that my wife naturally do not like peppers. In that she at a very young age refused to eat them when everyone else around her liked them. I was simply using it as an example where a small subset of people naturally are disposed to dislike something that most everyone else likes.

      I would say that reading comprehension can be clouded by ones beliefs.

      I agree.

      I've known a number of people who can't understand how someone else could interpret a verse of scpriture differently than they do. I am no doubt affected by this as well but I do seem to notice it a lot in others, even among my own familial religion, which makes me think I might be more empathetic when it comes to differing points of view. Someone doesn't have to believe the same things that I do in order to understand what I write unless I am being overly ambiguous.

      I agree. But there was ambiguity in the word "natural", as I could only see it being "natural" like how a floppy disk could corrupt on you when you have important data on it.

      The impossibility of God could be a very long subject so I'll try to be as short as possible for everyones sake. The relevant attributes of the Christian God being that he is just, never wrong and knows the future. The logical issues boil down to whether or not free will is possible. If we have free will then it is impossible for God to know the future but he can justly hold us responsible for our actions. If we don't have free will then God can know the future but he can not justly hold us responsible for breaking a law.

      That is an interesting decision to make, IMO, I believe both are true. It would be like putting a candy bar in front of a two year old and telling him not to eat it. The first thing he will do is eat it when he thinks your not looking. You "knew" he would do that and he had free will to do/not do that. There are times God will jump in according to the bible and tell people he will destroy a city unless they repent, and the city repented. This show that God can intervene and change the future.

      The knowing the future attribute is based on him existing in eternity. The creator who created matter & time has to be outside of space & time in order to create it. Eternity is not lots of time, it's outside of time altogether.

      Personally I'm inclined to believe that there is no free will. But I understand that it is expedient as a society for us to believe that we do.

      --
      John 11-35
    127. Re:April fools by MadFan · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'm sorry if it wasn't clear, but my post was a joke. I'm fully aware that the points I made are ridiculous, especially in the "offenders", "practice", and "gay for pay" cases. I also obviously twisted Paul's words in the Romans case. I thought the absurdity of my points together with the last line (which you quoted) would clearly flag the whole thing as a joke, but I was apparently too subtle and accidentally crossed the line into Poe's Law territory.

      Ah, my bad. I thought you were serious. well whooosh to me :-(

      I am curious about your reasoning on a few points.

      There isn't Male, Female, Gay, Les, there are only Male & Female

      What does this mean? Gay men and lesbians certainly exist. Are you giving a pseudo-quote from Mark 10:6, "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'" (or Genesis 1:27 which it's paraphrasing)? If so, why? Did God not create me, a gay man, too? Are my desires for men and lack of desire for women not His work, in your view? Paul would call me evil and my homosexuality the fruit of evil, though Jesus said not to judge others (presumably especially if you know next to nothing about them). How do you judge me?

      Of course Gay & Les exist. My statement of God not creating them is because God only create Adam and Eve. All humans since then are children of them. So you and me and not direct creations of God, but only based on the corrupted blueprints of the originals.

      somewhere in the bible: Judge not lest you be Judge. and somewhere else a Righteous man judges everything. The dont judge others I would assume applies to hypercrites which Jesus really hated.

      For a gay man it's still an unnatural act even if he prefers & love doing it.

      What do you define as a natural act? Our definitions appear to disagree wildly. Me having sex with a woman would be extraordinarily unnatural inasmuch as it is not in my nature to desire sexual relations with women whatsoever (if anything I desire having no sexual relations with women). I imagine you feel the same way about sex with men. Perhaps you have a sort of idealized view of nature that differs sharply from the actual world around us? If so, what is that view? How do you suppose appealing to that view will convince others who only care about the world as it exists of anything? Also, do you consider gay sex indecent? A perversion?

      I would define natural as something which is designed for. and hence unnatural as something not designed. e.g. (in an bad comparison) plugging a speaker cable into a power socket. When it comes to Humans, it was M & F, it wasn't M & M. The male loves the female. I am aware that gay people view what they do as part of themselves i.e "natural" to them, but feeling that way doesn't make it natural according to the design. The same way how it's feels natural for a catholic priest to "love" a little helpless boy/girl, doesn't make it natural. I believe feelings are not relevant here in what makes it natural.

      I dont not believe that my views will change anyone else. Yes I think it's gay sex is indecent just because it's M & M. and not indecent (in private) for M & F (ass)

      BTW, As a Christian, I love the gay man but I dont want him to butt fuck me. (Love the man, not the sin)

      Is this at all relevant? I don't want to butt fuck you either, by the way. For one thing it would be non-consensual. From your post, I'm really not sensing that you have any love for me whatsoever. If you do, how do you show that love?

      I give the origin of my views that I am posting from so people know why I think the way I do. I am not too sure how to answer that question of how am I showing love else from I am (trying) treating you with respect as a human. although I disagree with your views (if it is yours or

      --
      John 11-35
    128. Re:April fools by MadFan · · Score: 1

      The layer of 3KM thick of coal stretching in the shape of a triangle of each side being 100kms long, is very very big. The size means you would have to have a massive peat bog that sinks exactly at the rate at which the peat grows. If it sank too quickly the water drowns everything. This process would have to have been just right for over 100,000 years. We do not see peat swaps that size anywhere else on else. The flood explains this by the dumping of the huge vegetation in the plant at that time.

      That why we get things like the petrified forest in yellow stone, where logs are fossilised vertically through many layers of mud (which normally it would take millions of years to accumulate and the wood would of rot then.).

      --
      John 11-35
    129. Re:April fools by MadFan · · Score: 1

      Say you don't like homosexuality, say you don't agree with the practice, but don't call it unnatural.

      Sorry, A rose is still a rose by any other name.

      Virtually every species that has a sex practices homosexuality.

      Agreed I assume. That reminds me of a pet rabbit I had.

      Still is killing your own son/daughter natural? because animals do that as well.

      In fact every single human being starts out female and it takes a very specific process at a very specific time to distinguish an embryo as male and if everything doesn't happen exactly right, brain gender or preference may be impacted.

      No, humans are not female in the woem, just because they haven't developed a dick yet doesn't mean they are female. All the cells in the baby from day one says wither it's male or female.

      That my friend is God at work. There is now strong evidence that a number of social animals use homosexuality as a means to control overpopulation (that is, when a population approaches its carrying capacity the instance of homosexuality increases noticeably.)

      Thats interesting. I would need to look up on that.

      It makes perfect sense that when Jews numbered in the thousands that "God" informed them it was time go forth and multiply, and clearly homosexuality would have been a wrench in the works. Now that there are 7,000,000,000 of us, perhaps being gay might not be such a sin anymore.

      The commandment existed before the Jews. The argument of over population isn't addressed by lets all by gay, it's about not getting pregnant by either banging less or using the pill. by controlling your urges and not having more than 1 child per adult.

      And I call B.S. on your calling B.S. Clearly you have NO knowledge of the huge number of intersexed children born every year. As I mentioned before, everyone starts out female. It is guessed that over 2% (some suggest as much as 4%, but that's probably pushing some of the minor deformities) of the population is born with some degree of intersexing, and that for the most part doctor make surgical changes at birth to cover up anomalies without ever telling the parent (except in those cases where the anomaly is significant.) There is clearly a genetic component to homosexuality so indeed God does make Gays and Lesbians, but on top of that, research indicate that Transsexuals have brain structures consistent with their gender of choice and not their somatic sex (literally brain of one sex in body of another.) There are even chimera walking around, people composed of the genetic components of 2 even 3 different fertilized eggs, sometimes even having different genetic sex. When it come to sex and preference my friend, God has an incredible sense of humor and there are literally hundred of combinations and permutations. So when you say Male and Female, its clear that A) You haven't got the foggiest clue of which you speak and B) You put your personal beliefs ahead of any kind of logic, understanding, enlightenment or pragmatic view of the real world in which you live. Silly child.

      Yes I am aware there are genetic "freaks" out there, if they have these mutations then feel free bang male or female since they are both. If you are fully male than that is not a moral choice.

      It's an interesting point about transsexuals having a female brain. With them they believe they are female trapped in a male body. I am not sure what to make out with that else from if you can swing it (before it's chopped off) then you are still a man in a mans body despite you thinking like a girl. reminds me of seeing lady boys in thailand. strangely "cute" until my wife said what they were.

      The men under discussion were essentially going "gay for pay". Again, the men I was thinking about were completely gay for each other.

      [On a serious note, I have

      --
      John 11-35
    130. Re:April fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The vast majority of the people who looked around the world without modern scientific tools/methods wondered how it came about, and came up with the idea of a powerful being that created the world (people translating the local word for this being tend to equate it with "god").

      Modern scientific tools came around, and we were able to come up with new theories about where the world came from, and found that the early creation stories just didn't hold up to scrutiny. From there developed the atheist who realized God wasn't needed in the explanation anymore, and decided that with no evidence of his existence they won't believe in him

    131. Re:April fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for understanding what I meant

    132. Re:April fools by jitterman · · Score: 1

      Wish I had mod points for you. Positive ones :)

      --
      For conscience is the wound, and there's naught to staunch it
    133. Re:April fools by hellop2 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I guess that makes sense if you think the trees fossilized and the other trees turned into a gagillian kilograms of coal a few thousand years ago during the flood.

      You said, "Blindly saying theres no evidence will only get you applauses from people who dont want to know."

      So, I have to assume you're serious. In which case, what business do you have discussing geology since you believe all geologic processes happened in a few thousand years? Shouldn't you just say, "It's magic"?

      Magic put those sea fossils on Mt. Everest. Magic created limestone and chalk. Magic created the Grand Canyon. Magic created fossil fuels, not fossils. I read another of your posts. You seem like a reasonably intelligent fellow. (except for lacking the empathy to realize homosexuality is not a choice) But you seriously believe in Noah's Ark and the flood? Seriously man, don't come on Slashdot with that shit. It's called Trolling. Keep that shit to your self around here.

      --
      How many more years will slashdot have an off-by-one error on your Score in your profile?
    134. Re:April fools by hellop2 · · Score: 1

      New sig:
      MadFan- "reminds me of seeing lady boys in thailand. strangely 'cute'"

      Hey MadFan, how's it feel knowing that if anyone asks you the question, "Have you ever been sexually attracted to men?", technically, the answer is "Yes."?

      Remember, lying is a sin.

      --
      How many more years will slashdot have an off-by-one error on your Score in your profile?
    135. Re:April fools by hellop2 · · Score: 1

      MadFan loves buttsex!!!

      Genda- "By the way do you think hetero anal sex is deviant?"
      MadFan- "I wondered about this myself, Yes I loved doing that with an ex gf."

      If that ex. gf turns out to be a man trapped in a woman's body and get's a sex change, then I will start believing in God.

      --
      How many more years will slashdot have an off-by-one error on your Score in your profile?
    136. Re:April fools by MadFan · · Score: 1

      Hello Hellop2,

      I have a vested interest in this. But lets cut to the chase of this ad homian argument.

      What bussiness is this of mine because I am a milkman? Or let me rephase your statement to apply to you:

      what business do you have discussing geology since you believe all geologic processes happened in a few billion years?

      I am not the "christion" that can be bagged on because I dont know science. With my arguments I have IMO applied rational reasoning stating honestly why I choose to interprate the evidence in the manner I have. But I do have starting assumtions like you have. Can I say that you believe the big bang happen out of nothing? Magic yourself?, If not magic, please repeat in a science lab the BB again for me please. So both "sides" have their starting assumtions which both "sides" can way in the evidence.

      Young Earth Creationists, YEC, believe that there was a world wide flood ~5000 years ago. A creationist in the mid 1800 first raised the idea of patheia super continent and tectonic plates moving away but the idea was rejected by "scienceist" for 50yrs later until they could put millions of years into the idea.

      YEC came up with the idea of CTP, Catastrophic plate tectonics.
      The idea is that the super continent split a part, and the plates moved away at 40kms at first, slowing down as they collided with another continent.
      This raised the mountians and lowered the ocean trenches.

      Sea Shells on Mt Everest, would be a good evidence of this model.

      Flood laid down the layers for the Grand Canyon.
      The Grand Canyon layers are all water based, including one layer of sand (under water sand dunes).
      Since you have millions of years of the grand canyon, please explain why the border between each layer in the canyon is so horizontally smooth but the part exposed to the atmosphere is all worn away. If millions of years happened, then there would be erosion between the layers but there aint any.

      I dont know about limestome and chalk, so I can't comment on such things.

      For fossils you need to bury the dead/living thing quickly otherwise you dont get a fossil but it decays away. You dont see you pet cat that died in the back yard turning into a fossil.
      Also you dont need millions of years either. There are pictures of hats fossiled, wind mills, axes, etc.. all fossiled in running water. Japanese scienists recently also announce in Japan that it took them only 8 yrs to fossilise something.
      Yes there are stupid "christians" who thing God only put it there to deceive us. I am having this argument with my own paster :-( That is what happens when you try to please one religion with another. The outcome is niether are true.

      You seem like a reasonably intelligent fellow

      Thank you. usually I just expect to get yelled out.

      homosexuality is not a choice

      I am still thinking about that. The preferance might not a choice but the act still it.

      With the comment of trolling, I get that often. I thought slashdot was where many people talk about stuff.
      Would you prefer if we all thing the same? all shall love google, hate apple, hate sony. oh wait, hate google, love apple, hate sony.
      Just how thoese fanboys can express thier believes, why should I be filtered out when I have something you dont agree with? isn't that censorship which the bulk of slashdot dont like?
      If you really dont like what I have to say, either ignore me or if I am trolling, down vote me :-( .
      Please dont downvote me, I am talking intelligently and not saying "yo dang, you thought the earth of old."

      I think it is in the best interest so that all sides know what the real arguments are, and not to keep others thinking of a strawman "christian".

      --
      John 11-35
    137. Re:April fools by MadFan · · Score: 1

      I feel rather repulsed :-(

      --
      John 11-35
    138. Re:April fools by FrootLoops · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the respectful reply.

      I would define natural as something which is designed for. and hence unnatural as something not designed.

      Presumably, in your view God created me specially. He apparently designed me to be gay, since as far as I can tell I am innately gay (and in that sense I suppose my homosexuality is "natural" even with your definition). Around puberty when the other guys were becoming interested in girls I became interested in guys. I suspect genes conspired with conditions in my mom's womb to "flip a switch" an unusual way which only became apparent during adolescence. Why would God design me to be gay in light of the verses I quoted? It seems extremely cruel. The same argument can be made with "gay" replaced by "murderer", by the way. As far as I can tell the whole concept of being designed specially is flawed, but most people accept that conceit because of the comfort offered by believing in a benevolent all-powerful personal watchdog you can pray to and maybe get your wish from but who in any case makes everything work out for the best in your life, especially when it doesn't seem like it.

      In my own view, evolution may be said to have designed a penis to fit in a vagina, but even supposing I wanted to use your definition of naturalness via design, that fact is not enough for me to call gay sex "unnatural" since the connotations of the word (bad; wrong; evil; confused; etc.) are so incorrect and inflammatory. The bits I quoted about sodomy being "unnatural" and a "perversion" have been used to justify the death penalty and murders. This is not an old, abstract issue either. From Wikipedia's Sodomy law article,

      The precise sexual acts meant by the term sodomy are rarely spelled out in the law, but are typically understood by courts to include any sexual act deemed unnatural [emphasis in original]. [...] Sodomy laws can be found around the world. Today, consensual homosexual acts between adults are illegal in about 70 out of the 195 countries of the world (approximately 36%); in 40 of these, only male-male sex is outlawed.

      ...and a number of those countries have the death penalty or life in prison as penalties. Defending the term "unnatural" in this context is just not worth the awful cost.

      When it comes to Humans, it was M & F, it wasn't M & M. The male loves the female. I am aware that gay people view what they do as part of themselves i.e "natural" to them, but feeling that way doesn't make it natural according to the design.

      By "The male loves the female", are you implying that gay couples can't love one another? I'm not sure what the point of that sentence is. I hope the idea that gay couples can't love each other is as preposterous to you as it is to me.

      I want to be clear that being gay isn't just about sex (and some gay men don't even like anal sex). I personally am looking for a long-term relationship with a man who ideally would be both my lover and best friend (and hot) (as far as I can tell, this is identical to most single heterosexuals' desires). Why a man instead of a woman? For one, I want physical affection in the relationship--yes, sex, but also simple things like kissing or cuddling without them being forced. I actually had a girlfriend for a large chunk of high school, and I don't want a relationship with such a complete lack of physical affection again when there's the simple alternative of being with a man instead. Some badly reasoned, vague, and contradictory text and cultural attitudes are irrelevant to me in this regard.

      I'm reminded of a proverb, "A full person does not understand the needs of the hungry". You have a world where your desires for a woman to spend your life with (or the night with) are fully accepted. I do not. You're able to rationalize away my feelings, but only because you don't feel them yourself. If it helps, imagine a world where test tube babies a

    139. Re:April fools by MadFan · · Score: 1

      Hello Frootloops,

      Presumably, in your view God created me specially. He apparently designed me to be gay, since as far as I can tell I am innately gay (and in that sense I suppose my homosexuality is "natural" even with your definition). Around puberty when the other guys were becoming interested in girls I became interested in guys. I suspect genes conspired with conditions in my mom's womb to "flip a switch" an unusual way which only became apparent during adolescence. Why would God design me to be gay in light of the verses I quoted? It seems extremely cruel. The same argument can be made with "gay" replaced by "murderer", by the way. As far as I can tell the whole concept of being designed specially is flawed,...

      The argument here is that we are not a direct creation of God. It's the same argument with someone with down symdrome or the australian soldiers exposed to nuke blast in australia for british tests in 1950s/60 where they and their children are dieing from cancers, tumors, and ever thing under the sun that could go wrong. I put that historical example in to show mutations are a bad thing to the body. (extremly rarly good but thats another topic)

      In the christain belief system, The world & universe is cursed, basically alot of things a "f*cked up" (the * for any slashdot filters). Although Adam & Eve were perfect in the geans, each generation inherited the parent's mutations making them less functional. Some of these mutations can/will cause XXY, XYY kinds of people, maybe even female brain/male body types.
      To put it as an analogy, God created a Ferreira, and over time the design being copied like chinese whispers, is starting to look like a golf.
      Thats why the early generations (6000 years ago) lived for over 900 years, but with more generations the mistakes built up due to mutations so their live spans decreased like a half life graph, as genisicists would predict would happen. (note that the life span in the history in the bible doesn't actually prove it, it's just what would be expected given the asusmptions presented.)

      So when a mutation happens it might make you gay but that it not the blueprint that God designed. (The chritian scienist view is that all living things are devolving, if you want I can talk about the logic/evidence there.)

      but most people accept that conceit because of the comfort offered by believing in a benevolent all-powerful personal watchdog you can pray to and maybe get your wish from but who in any case makes everything work out for the best in your life, especially when it doesn't seem like it.

      I agree, but I dont think most people think too much about it.

      In my own view, evolution may be said to have designed a penis to fit in a vagina, but even supposing I wanted to use your definition of naturalness via design, that fact is not enough for me to call gay sex "unnatural" since the connotations of the word (bad; wrong; evil; confused; etc.) are so incorrect and inflammatory.

      Side argument: Actually scientists dont know how sex came about because asexual reproduction is vastly fitter than sexual reproduction. For sexual reproduction, the genitals needs to be form both male and female all awhile asexual is carried on. It doesn't make sence. heres a 10 min video of arguments from a creationist site: http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=1&fileID=Cu0IK-EB5F4. Lets argee to disagree here, I would still call the act not natural, even if you feel it is natural. Also I would admit that "natural" is a very bad/weak definition of a word for my point of view: e.g. some rabits are gay, so would that be natural?.

      The bits I quoted about sodomy being "unnatural" and a "perversion" have been used to justify the death penalty and murders. This is not an old, abstract issue either. From Wikipedia's

      --
      John 11-35
    140. Re:April fools by FrootLoops · · Score: 1

      I'm essentially certain that you'll never convince me to be a young earth creationist, though I'm not interested in pursuing that line of thought right now anyway. I'll say I disagree with all the science you mentioned, and that I have difficulty using the word "science" to describe it since "science" usually implies that you don't know your conclusion when you start exploring, whereas as far as I'm aware young earth creationists start from the conclusion that the Bible is true. Still, thanks for mentioning your viewpoint, it's at least interesting to hear.

      I'm very curious how you can take the Bible literally enough to believe in the existence of Adam and Eve, extreme longevity, and a 6000 year-old earth, while simultaneously saying

      Yes the bible in the old testament probably had a law to stone them. And many nasty things have been done to them in the past because of the fear of the straight man e.g. Alan Turning in England.

      The verse I quoted doesn't mince words: "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." You don't seem to believe this line, "they must be put to death". Why? How can you believe other parts of your book (that to me are just as crazy) without believing this one? Doesn't that strike you as inconsistent, to selectively ignore things? Once in a while it's argued that, while the Leviticus law once applied, it no longer does--but then it used to be okay (and right!) to kill gay people, but it no longer is. That just trades one form of inconsistency with another, though.

      As I see it, (a) either homosexuality really is so horrible it truly deserves the death penalty, or (b) I'm just a guy who likes guys instead of girls and the parts I quoted from the Bible are just plain wrong. I believe (b). I see no other, consistent options, and (a) completely contradicts my own experience, not to mention actually following it would create a worldwide genocide *far* larger than the Holocaust. As I said originally, I do not know how people who call themselves Christians can reconcile acceptance of homosexuality with the repeated, strong condemnation of it found in the Bible. I was completely unable to in my own case; I don't believe it can be done. The Bible has small pieces of very good advice, but most of it is, well, crap that should just be ignored. I think most Christians unthinkingly ignore the inconvenient parts of the Bible or don't think too hard about their real beliefs, which is hideously intellectually dishonest. What a grotesque way to deal with the world.

      I want to be clear once more--you say, "And many nasty things have been done to them in the past", but persecution of homosexuals occurs every day. I saw an estimate that Iran has put to death around 4000 homosexuals in the last few decades. Being a prominent LGBT activist in some parts of the world can be very dangerous, to say nothing of the bullying a large fraction of even western gay kids go through. The problem is real and current, and the bits of the Bible I quoted are one of the root causes. You say "love the man"; that rings extremely hollow in the face of the ugly reality Christianity has helped create.

    141. Re:April fools by MadFan · · Score: 1

      I'm essentially certain that you'll never convince me to be a young earth creationist, though I'm not interested in pursuing that line of thought right now anyway. I'll say I disagree with all the science you mentioned, and that I have difficulty using the word "science" to describe it since "science" usually implies that you don't know your conclusion when you start exploring, whereas as far as I'm aware young earth creationists start from the conclusion that the Bible is true. Still, thanks for mentioning your viewpoint, it's at least interesting to hear.

      I'm very curious how you can take the Bible literally enough to believe in the existence of Adam and Eve, extreme longevity, and a 6000 year-old earth, while simultaneously saying

      Yes the bible in the old testament probably had a law to stone them. And many nasty things have been done to them in the past because of the fear of the straight man e.g. Alan Turning in England.

      The verse I quoted doesn't mince words: "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." You don't seem to believe this line, "they must be put to death". Why? How can you believe other parts of your book (that to me are just as crazy) without believing this one? Doesn't that strike you as inconsistent, to selectively ignore things?

      I believe that law is still there but it has been covered by grace.
      From the Christain/Jew point of view, the law was given to show what is right and wrong. The the old testament gave that law and it has not been replaced.
      For a Christian (follower of Jesus), We are not under the law of the old testament but are under grace. The book of Romans talks about such logic. Jesus didn't replace the law but fulfilled them. So the law still there showing right and wrong but it is covered by grace which is holding back the punishment being applied to you. Hence it is still wrong to be gay, but we still love the man not the sin.

      Once in a while it's argued that, while the Leviticus law once applied, it no longer does--but then it used to be okay (and right!) to kill gay people, but it no longer is. That just trades one form of inconsistency with another, though.

      As I see it, (a) either homosexuality really is so horrible it truly deserves the death penalty, or (b) I'm just a guy who likes guys instead of girls and the parts I quoted from the Bible are just plain wrong. I believe (b). I see no other, consistent options, and (a) completely contradicts my own experience, not to mention actually following it would create a worldwide genocide *far* larger than the Holocaust. As I said originally, I do not know how people who call themselves Christians can reconcile acceptance of homosexuality with the repeated, strong condemnation of it found in the Bible.

      Form the Bible, The wages of sin is death. (First with the body normally naturally and then second death of soul from spirit).
      With sexual sins, several of them have the punishment of death for it. e.g. rape, adultery, gay, *fornication (sex out of marriage). *disclaimer: being a hypocrite here.
      God still hates any/all types of sins (not just sexual) with some assigned a physical punishment of earth.
      For me, I do not accept that homosexuality as being normal. (We will just disagree here) They shouldn't be punish for being gay as grace is now in effect, but God still made the dividing line of right and wrong and that hasn't change. Just the punishment is currently *neutered. (*lol, what a word for this conversation)
      I am remembering a story in the bible where Jesus walked to over to a well where a slut-hooker-lonely woman was. There were men trying to stone her, Jesus wrote something in the sand (the only time he wrote then covered up so it wasn't recorded *people think it's the names of the crowd for were the lovers of the woman) and the c

      --
      John 11-35
    142. Re:April fools by FrootLoops · · Score: 1

      How do you distinguish murder from sodomy? Both are prohibited in the Old Testament--does "grace" cover the penalty for murder, and if so, why do you (presumably) feel justified in punishing murderers but not homosexuals? In your parable, how is the woman's prostitution different from murder? (I have to admit, I do quite like some of the Jesus-related bits of the Bible, that story being one of them. I don't believe Jesus himself ever condemned homosexuals. I have a sneaking suspicion he was a radical in many ways ahead of his time who found a way to spread his message of love for one another by making it a religion that then got inevitably twisted.)

      Also, are you aware that you're arguing that killing gay people was alright before Christ came along? That is, if we were having this discussion 2100 years ago, you would be completely justified in killing me, according to your arguments. I'm sorry, all I see in your arguments is an elaborate rationalization--you seem to be pretty alright with gay people on the whole, certainly you're not interested in killing us, but you also want to believe your holy book, so all that's left for you is to add a bunch of twisted interpretation to the Bible that allows you to keep both views simultaneously. (I don't mean to be insulting, just direct.)

      I'm actually a mathematician, and I see the same basic pattern you're displaying in "crank" proofs. Cranks present (false) proofs of famous problems like this "proof" of Fermat's Last Theorem. The proof will typically be very long, vague, and/or hard to follow. Many of the individual steps are typically correct, though somewhere in the mass of details there's a faulty step or assumption. If the fault is pointed out, cranks either don't believe it or they do believe it only to make an even more complicated proof along the same lines whose faulty step or assumption is even more difficult to spot. In the case I linked, the faulty step occurs just after Figure 10, where it implicitly assumes an equation to hold that's equivalent to n=2. The contradiction later derived is merely a product of this faulty assumption; the methods employed are not nearly powerful enough to solve the actual problem, so the proof is essentially unfixable. He did get the first, infinitely simpler case right, though.

      As I see it, you are doing many of the same things as a crank. You've got a conclusion--gay people are pretty alright and the Bible is completely true--there's a flaw in that conclusion--the Bible condemns homosexuality very strongly--you notice the flaw and make your reasoning more complicated to avoid it--the condemnation is covered by grace in this particular case--but that only pushes the flaw further back--killing gay people was alright in the past. Next you'll either ignore the flaw by saying that killing gay people really was alright in the past (you seem too empathetic to go this route), or you'll come up with some new interpretation to get around that flaw only to repeat the cycle (this is the one I expect to occur).

      As for Christianity's part in persecuting gay people, why would God allow his own book to be so unclear as to allow such suffering for so long based on a misunderstanding? A single verse like, "and then Jesus said, 'Sodomy is sinful, but with my sacrifice comes grace. After I die, accept gay people as yourselves, do not persecute them, and let my father punish them (or not) as he chooses.'" It seems ludicrous.

      you take care and have platonic (non sexual) love with a child abuser who once rape 30 times a 5yr girl/boy? Most people dont separate the sin from the human.

      I would have to know the person on a case-by-case basis, but this reminds me a recent news story. A sex offender (rape I think) was being released and the local news used it as their top story of the night. I was furious: the offender had paid his debt and would have a hard enough time getting a job and a normal life with a felony on his record, but they felt the need to

    143. Re:April fools by MadFan · · Score: 1

      How do you distinguish murder from sodomy? Both are prohibited in the Old Testament--does "grace" cover the penalty for murder, and if so, why do you (presumably) feel justified in punishing murderers but not homosexuals? In your parable, how is the woman's prostitution different from murder?

      If you are guilty of breaking any part of the law, you are guilty of breaking it all..

      For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. James 2:10

      When it comes to sin, any form of sin is still sin, so both are bad, just like lying. I've heard of complaints about Christians that since they are forgiven they can get away with shit.

      Yes, grace can cover every sin. When Jesus died, he said "It is finished", at that point all sins and every type of sin was satisfactory paid for in full, including murder, sodomy and lying. There is nothing needed to be added to that payment, all one person needs to do is accept that righteousness (legaleses for blameless) which is given away freely. (since we can't pay for it for what it's worth)

      (I have to admit, I do quite like some of the Jesus-related bits of the Bible, that story being one of them. I don't believe Jesus himself ever condemned homosexuals.

      I remember one of his speeches where he was talking to the pharisees (really stuck up religious jews)

      Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city. Math 10:15

      That is a reference to a punishment God gave to 5 citys (two of them are S & G) for them being evil. (and very well known to by gay, God sent 2 angles to drag a man and his family out of one of the citys and the people there tried to rape the angles.)

      I have a sneaking suspicion he was a radical in many ways ahead of his time who found a way to spread his message of love for one another by making it a religion that then got inevitably twisted.)

      He hated "religion". He wanted people to have a direct relationship with God. Since he cleared the path with the issue of sin. Yes you could call him a radical.

      Also, are you aware that you're arguing that killing gay people was alright before Christ came along? That is, if we were having this discussion 2100 years ago, you would be completely justified in killing me, according to your arguments.

      And you could to me for fornication.

      I'm sorry, all I see in your arguments is an elaborate rationalization--you seem to be pretty alright with gay people on the whole, certainly you're not interested in killing us, but you also want to believe your holy book, so all that's left for you is to add a bunch of twisted interpretation to the Bible that allows you to keep both views simultaneously. (I don't mean to be insulting, just direct.)

      No insult taken. :-)

      I'm actually a mathematician, and I see the same basic pattern you're displaying in "crank" proofs. Cranks present (false) proofs of famous problems like this "proof" of Fermat's Last Theorem. The proof will typically be very long, vague, and/or hard to follow. Many of the individual steps are typically correct, though somewhere in the mass of details there's a faulty step or assumption. If the fault is pointed out, cranks either don't believe it or they do believe it only to make an even more complicated proof along the same lines whose faulty step or assumption is even more difficult to spot. In the case I linked, the faulty step occurs just after Figure 10, where it implicitly assumes an equation to hold that's equivalent to n=2. The contradiction later derived is merely a product of this faulty assumption; the methods employed are not nearly powerful enough to solve the act

      --
      John 11-35
  2. Barney is fucked! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stupid dancing birthday dinosaur. Also banned: fun, individuality, independant thought.

    1. Re:Barney is fucked! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's 'independant' thought?

    2. Re:Barney is fucked! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, comrade, we'll let you know.

    3. Re:Barney is fucked! by Chrutil · · Score: 5, Funny

      What's 'independant' thought?

      I think it's slang for a thought locked inside a necklace.

    4. Re:Barney is fucked! by Genda · · Score: 1

      These are thoughts that happen independent of you and are non of your concern, you can find more information on page 1272 of your citizens handbook.

    5. Re:Barney is fucked! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My guess is you can't mention that 2 + 2 = 4 either because there might be some offended dilholes that believe 2 + 2 = 5. Honestly, we have all kinds of people out there. Some of them believe some pretty outrageous stuff. While you can try to be polite to people of all beliefs, you really can't try to tailor reality to them. If some religious dude doesn't want to hear about dinosaurs, have him go to a religious school or be home schooled. The rest of us can't pretend there weren't any such things. We would be creating a society of people who lacked basic science information and couldn't compete with people from places where education teaches you reality. If some other person's family doesn't believe in celebrating holidays, that's fine - the family has the responsibility to teach the child why they don't agree with having birthday parties and why it "seems" to the kid like they are the only "mean" family on the block. If someone is upset that they don't have a pool (hell, I don't have one), teach them about the value of hard work combined with a smidgeon of luck.

      Reality folks - that's where we live. Believe what you want. My beliefs shouldn't affect you, your beliefs shouldn't affect me. And I sure as hell don't mind having my kids see yachts on a test even though we can't afford one. They can show churches on a test too - even though I don't go to one.

    6. Re:Barney is fucked! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "would be creating a society of people who lacked basic science information"

      By the sounds of things, this is exactly your (America's) goal.

      I don't disagree with your post at all otherwise though. Fucking reality sucks guys, it's time to toughen up and smarten up. My kids are going to learn about real math, real dinosaurs, and how to fucking avoid the goddam churchies.

    7. Re:Barney is fucked! by Dragonslicer · · Score: 4, Funny

      Stupid dancing birthday dinosaur.

      I say it's worth it then.

    8. Re:Barney is fucked! by ewanm89 · · Score: 2

      2+2=5 for large values of 2.

    9. Re:Barney is fucked! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2+2=12 for small values of base.

    10. Re:Barney is fucked! by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      Or teach them about climatic differences between regions of the country. Everyone and their brother has a pool here in Arizona, but it's a lot cheaper to do so here because you just dig a hole in the ground outside and line it with concrete, plus land isn't all that expensive. Then, you have a pool you can use year-round. In NY, you'd have to build a heated building around the pool to make it usable, not to mention all the power you'll use in heating the pool to keep it from turning it into a block of ice. In NYC, you'd have to be mega wealthy to have the land for a pool.

    11. Re:Barney is fucked! by C0R1D4N · · Score: 1

      But that...isn't true. Many people in NY have outdoor pools. They winterize them for the winter, but they don't need to be heated for use in the summer (when they are worth using).

    12. Re:Barney is fucked! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be 6

    13. Re:Barney is fucked! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Especially if the dinosaur is purple.

    14. Re:Barney is fucked! by MarkGriz · · Score: 1

      Stupid dancing birthday dinosaur.

      How did you guess my passphrase!

      --
      Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
    15. Re:Barney is fucked! by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      I hope you didn't post this just because of the bad spelling...

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    16. Re:Barney is fucked! by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      2+2=5 (mod 3)

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
  3. Nobody... by Lord_of_the_nerf · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...puts T-Rex in a corner.

    1. Re:Nobody... by ohnocitizen · · Score: 2

      T-Rex would be as bad at dancing as boxing or pushups.

    2. Re:Nobody... by dwye · · Score: 1

      T-Rex would be as bad at dancing as boxing or pushups.

      Except that T-Rex would just eat the judges.

      Always assuming that the OP wasn't writing about the band of that name, of course.

    3. Re:Nobody... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You only say that because you haven't seen its tail slam.

    4. Re:Nobody... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      T-Rex would be as bad at dancing as boxing or pushups.

      Yeah, the dead usually aren't much into physical activities.

    5. Re:Nobody... by surveyork · · Score: 1

      Especially, nobody puts Mohammed-Rex in a corner: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Mohammed-Rex/279099352158512

      --
      2019 is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop.
    6. Re:Nobody... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And nobody puts T-rex in the corner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  4. Hmm by lightknight · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And there was a time when people would strive to find things that challenged them, if only to learn more about themselves.

    --
    I am John Hurt.
    1. Re:Hmm by cpu6502 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      RTamerica has more about WHY they did this. The reasons ALMOT make sense..... if you want children to grow-up with no ability to deal with stressful words/ideas.

      "Dinosaurs were thrown out, for example, as they call to mind evolution, which might upset fundamentalists. Birthdays shouldnâ(TM)t be mentioned because they arenâ(TM)t celebrated by Jehovahâ(TM)s Witnesses. Halloween appeared on the black list as it suggests paganism. Dancing is taboo, because some sects object..... Terrorism was considered too scary. Poverty is on the forbidden list as well as words that suggest wealth because they could make kids jealous. Divorces, as well as diseases, are also set to be forbidden in order to not traumatize kids having relatives who split from spouses or are ill.

      "Officials say they are simply trying to avoid topics that "could evoke unpleasant emotions in the students.' " - http://rt.com/usa/news/school-test-list-ban-656/

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    2. Re:Hmm by jamstar7 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd love to know how they can call this 'No Child Left Behind' if they're never picked up in the first place. Seriously, they expect their kids to compete in the Real World when they can't teach natural history, history, science, and math?

      Oh, well, it was an interesting civilization while it lasted. Time for my Mandarin lesson...

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    3. Re:Hmm by Genda · · Score: 2

      What would a person have to believe in these days to even get a rise out of society... perhaps this?

      More important, why are we letting the mouth breathers and knuckle draggers dictate what our children will experience? Are we in fact trying to homogenize our young into a consistent state of profound stupidity? Is that now the goal of public education?

    4. Re:Hmm by harley78 · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of "Known Space". In Niven's Known Space there is a period of a few hundred years where the powers that be burn books etc to "breed out" aggressiveness etc...a rather large scale head in the sand. Is this how it starts?

    5. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No there wasn't.

    6. Re:Hmm by Obfuscant · · Score: 5, Insightful

      More important, why are we letting the mouth breathers and knuckle draggers dictate what our children will experience?

      Slow down. City-mandated standardized progress tests should not be the only thing that your children experience. You get to dictate what they experience at home. The "professional educators" get to dictate what they experience at school.

      That latter statement is why "we" are letting TMB and KD dictate, because we've turned the education of the children over to professionals that get paid to keep studying what the best way to educate children is. "Common sense" would mean an end to almost all education degrees and grants for education research.

      I lived through the change from "old math" to "new math". I saw the math that kids were being taught a few years ago and it bore no resemblance to math as far as I could tell. I no longer wonder why high school graduates can't figure out your change when they sell you a burger.

      Now, for the people who are insulting the yokels upstate and blaming them for this, if you read the fine article, you'd note that it is New York City officials calling for this, not New York State or Syracuse or Albany or Buffalo or Rochester.

      Are we in fact trying to homogenize our young into a consistent state of profound stupidity? Is that now the goal of public education?

      We are trying to equalize outcomes because equal outcomes is a measurement proxy for equal opportunity. If all the kids get the same score on tests, then they all obviously had equal opportunity to learn. (If there are 5% of male students playing school-organized softball then "equal opportunity" means that there will be 5% of female students playing school-organized softball. Even if only 1% of the female students want to play softball. This IS how schools are evaluated in Oregon.)

      Equalizing outcomes means slowing down the faster learners, thus bringing the average down, further lowering the "average standards", slowing the faster learners down even more. We're seeing the unanticipated consequences of valuing self-esteem over knowledge.

    7. Re:Hmm by pete6677 · · Score: 0

      Are we in fact trying to homogenize our young into a consistent state of profound stupidity? Is that now the goal of public education?

      Yes. Why else would Obama's boy Arne Duncan have been appointed to federal office?

    8. Re:Hmm by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      I take it that not even the teachers know about Nazis or WTC or anything unpleasant already so no need to ban them?

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    9. Re:Hmm by LBt1st · · Score: 1

      George Carlin answered this question already..
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q

    10. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it should be changed from "No Child Left Behind" to "No Slow Child Left Behind." Although, I suppose the fast children aren't so much left behind as "Wandering in their Own Direction Without Useful Guidance." Remember that only some fast children point themselves in useful directions, like not learning every aspect of the meth trade.

    11. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other news: in Russia state will pay to public schools only for part of the lessons: 2 hours of math, 2 hours of Russian language, 2 hours of sport and something a little more per student. For details look to federal law number 83.
      RT.com should be writting more about their home country instead of US.

    12. Re:Hmm by fafaforza · · Score: 1

      What child thinks about peganism when they think of Holloween? Not one. All they see is candy and costumes. It's their parents that are making these silly objection. When society is out of problems, it invents new ones.

    13. Re:Hmm by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      No child is left behind because they place barriers in front of the capable ones to prevent them getting ahead.

    14. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hence the need for classes that have various speeds. And I don't mean AP versus regular classes.

      For example, maybe have math classes that cover say chapters 1 through 6 for slower learners, and chapters 1 through 9 for faster learners. Although, I'm of the opinion that classes should be slowed down anyways so they can focus more on the proofs. In larger schools, it might also be a good idea to have staggered math classes. So, if someone is sick for a week or two, they could drop to another class that is 2 weeks behind, assuming they're not in the behind class to begin with. And a slight acceleration towards the end of the year to play partial catch up.

      Why don't they do surveys to find out the demand for a sport? I think PE classes have various purposes, one of which is to introduce various sports to the students. In that situation, if students, male and female, have equal opportunity to try the sport, then with a post-class survey, that should be good enough.

      We also need to realize that students are going to take different paths. This means some will go to four-year universities, some to vocational colleges, some to technical colleges, etc. Hence there is a need for different types of high schools.

  5. Nuts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    You know something is wrong when real life seems like a South Park episode.

    1. Re:Nuts by alonsoac · · Score: 2

      If I saw this in a South Park episode I would say "haha that's funny, 'cause it would never happen in real life". I guess it is that funny after all.

    2. Re:Nuts by Bodhammer · · Score: 5, Funny
      --
      "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
    3. Re:Nuts by Anarchduke · · Score: 1

      and yet, this one did get published.

      --
      who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
    4. Re:Nuts by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Actually the politically correct word for "buts" is "reality challenged"

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    5. Re:Nuts by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      NUTS. I meants nuts. Damn it...

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    6. Re:Nuts by Grishnakh · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      That one was published in 1998, 14 years ago. Times were very, very different back then. If you went back to 1998 and asked people if they'd consider voting for a Presidential candidate who wants to ban contraception, pornography, filter the internet for porn, etc., they'd think you're nuts. Yet today in 2012, there's a strong possibility a candidate like that will be elected this November.

      America took a really bad left turn in the early 2000s, and as a result we've had a Lost Decade, which is shaping up to be a Lost Two Decades, if not a complete decline and collapse.

  6. April Fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not April 1st yet, you released this too early.

  7. As a responsible teacher... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I now feel the need to write a single test question that involves every item on this list.

  8. Aren't they missing something? by Hartree · · Score: 5, Funny

    Shouldn't they just ban the tests, since tests make many students feel uncomfortable?

    1. Re:Aren't they missing something? by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 5, Funny

      Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?

    2. Re:Aren't they missing something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?

      Yes. However, not for the reason you suspect.

    3. Re:Aren't they missing something? by MachDelta · · Score: 5, Interesting

      My PolSci prof went on a rant today (after explicitly singling out the Education students) about how teachers are actually glorified HR managers trained to "identify problems and then direct them towards a specialist" in order to conform and "normalize" children, and that any "learning" that happens along the way is purely accidental. Then he accused the entire class of being illiterate (having seen several of our written-in-class short essay/exams) but clarified it by stating that no one needs to learn learn to spell anyways; we just need to learn to use a computer (eg: spell check).

      It was part of a larger rant on historicism, positivism, and the soulless guts of a technological society.

      He's a pretty entertaining prof.
      His exams do suck though.

    4. Re:Aren't they missing something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sad thing is this is being done at many schools internationally (specially many schools following the IB curriculum at the lower levels). Tests and correcting home work apparently are detrimental to the learning process. My son will not sit for a full on exam until year 13 ( grade 12 ) when he has to pass the IB board exam.

    5. Re:Aren't they missing something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      See me tomorrow in my office, Mr. MachDelta.

    6. Re:Aren't they missing something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this is news how, exactly?

    7. Re:Aren't they missing something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do they suck? Is he asking about how many dinosaurs had their birthday on Halloween?

    8. Re:Aren't they missing something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [...] but clarified it by stating that no one needs to learn learn to spell anyways; we just need to learn to use a computer

      But computers don't find find repeated words.

    9. Re:Aren't they missing something? by fafaforza · · Score: 1

      That question should be posited to Supernintendo Chalmers, as it is unpossible for any of us to answer.

  9. Great by Cosgrach · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is about the stupidest thing that I have read all day. These people need to grow up.

    --
    Why is it that most of the people that I encounter seem to have been shat from the Sphincter of Mediocrity?
    1. Re:Great by bmo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      It's the fucking New York Post.

      The Post is the Fox News of NYC newspapers.

      Putting this story on Slashdot is bullshit and more suitable for Fark, where I saw it *the first time*

      Protip for everyone: There's a lot missing to this story.

      --
      BMO

    2. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's the fucking New York Post.

      The Post is the Fox News of NYC newspapers.

      Putting this story on Slashdot is bullshit and more suitable for Fark, where I saw it *the first time*

      Protip for everyone: There's a lot missing to this story.

      --
      BMO

      The story's been reported elsewhere. Your journalistic version of ad hominem makes you look as stupid as anyone else who has created a media bubble with only "approved sources" given any credibility.

      But do go ahead and explicate...how does avoiding any and all "unpleasant emotions" (as defined by educators, I suppose) jibe with the task of, you know, "teaching"???

    3. Re:Great by Geof · · Score: 2

      I would really like to believe what you say. But a brief web search did not turn up any rational explanation. I have mod points to spend, but you won't get one - even if you're right - because I'm left asking for a citation.

    4. Re:Great by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      These people need to grow up.

      Poor choice of words. Adults are far more bitchy when it comes to hurt feelings than kids. Kids cry it out when their feelings get hurt, 5 mins later, they've forgotten about it. Grownups make idiotic, shortsighted changes in the laws when they get their feelings hurt.

    5. Re:Great by timeOday · · Score: 5, Insightful
      This isn't about bitchiness, it's just another stupid sensationalist headline amplified by slashdot, as usual lately.

      None of these things are banned from curriculum, nor are they banned from being spoken of our taught.

      The purpose of avoiding emotionally-laden terms on standardized tests is prevent biasing the test against any students. It is amply proven that emotional influences interfere with what the test is supposed to be measuring - knowledge and ability. Since this impact would be different on kids with different cultural backgrounds, those questions would be biased one way or another. This is simply a matter of good test design by eliminating unwanted variables.

      But whatever. Everybody go back to your ignorant whinging. No need to know anything about what you're commenting on when you've got "common sense" on your side.

    6. Re:Great by bmo · · Score: 5, Informative

      Oh look, if I look at CBS New York, there is a fuller article saying that it is a list of suggested words that may be banned from tests.

      And the CBS story has the whole list of words being mulled over.

      In other words, the debate over what should on the list is ongoing.

      The reason for this is that you want to make tests that are fair to everyone. If you're going to make a math test with word problems, you don't bring up the subject of murder. The obvious drawback is that it makes tests boring. Big fucking deal.

      TFS and The Post has taken this to mean they are already banned and that this is just more "educrat nonsense" and it's written in such breathless style (they even use the word bizarre to describe it) merely to be inflammatory. It's journalistic porn.

      While I agree the list, as it stands, is sub-optimal, it doesn't mean that the list is final and that it's probably likely that the list is going to get a lot shorter.

      http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/26/war-on-words-nyc-dept-of-education-wants-50-forbidden-words-removed-from-standardized-tests/

      I told you there was more to this, but hey, let everyone believe the fucking Post. The Post is in the business of selling newspapers, not news.

      --
      BMO

    7. Re:Great by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      Not only that, but if it were some ultra-conservative organization reporting on it, they'd at least leave out the part about dinosaurs since they agree with the ban on that.

    8. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The obvious drawback is that it makes tests boring. Big fucking deal."

      I almost failed out of school because it was so mind-numbingly boring. So. Yes, big fucking deal. Kids aren't going to learn if we make knowledge seem boring.

    9. Re:Great by wye43 · · Score: 1

      How dare you bring cold hard boring facts into a scandalous funny flamebait! :)

    10. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh, the very purpose of tests is to be biased against misinformation.

      Sure, if you flunk a math test because you can't survive hearing about dinosaurs, it's measuring something else besides your math skills there. But then again, you'd probably fail it if you couldn't read and write either.

    11. Re:Great by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      The purpose of avoiding emotionally-laden terms on standardized tests is prevent biasing the test against any students.

      Which is why you want to avoid mentions of rape, violence, dead parents, or other terms that are clearly emotional-laden to a good chunk of the students. How many students are bombing these tests because their parents are Jehovas Witnesses and they're upset about a mention of "birthday parties?" If the answer is "less than 1% of the students," then this is pointless regulation that only serves to justify someone's paycheck and increases the cost of the standardized tests.

    12. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, just make the tests use the raw symbolic algebra instead of obfuscating the question. There may be some use for testing applications but most of that can be taught in class. Most test writers can't manage to create plausible scenarios anyway.

  10. Leaked question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Question: A man walks into his house and flips the switch to his 60-watt lightbulb for 8 hours. How many kWh does the lightbulb use?

    Answer: None, because his electricity was disconnected several months ago due to the economic downturn.

    1. Re:Leaked question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also because the 60-watt lightbulb was forcibly replaced with a 20-watt CFL by the eeeeeevil jackbooted gubbermint thugs.

    2. Re:Leaked question by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Question: A man walks into his house and flips the switch to his 60-watt lightbulb for 8 hours. How many kWh does the lightbulb use?

      Answer: you cannot answer the question because the lightbulb is a modern CFL that is rated at 60W for light output but uses much less energy. The amount of energy depends on the specific brand and how modern the bulb is. Oops, the correct answer is "close to zero" because the CFL just burned out, but the electronics in the base still draw current anyway. (For "lightbulbs" that last so long, I seem to be replacing them on a regular basis.)

    3. Re:Leaked question by MisterMidi · · Score: 1

      If this were on my exam, my answer would be:

      This is a trick question, there are too few variables to answer it. The "flips the switch [...] for 8 hours" is easily mistaken for "switches it on and leaves it on for 8 hours". What's the age of the bulb? What is the flipping frequency? If it's too high and/or the bulb is too old, the bulb will die before the 8 hours are over and will not use any more power. What is the on/off ratio? Is it on for 1 minute, then off for 7 hours 59 minutes? What is the initial state? With low frequencies there will be huge differences between initially on and initially off. Is the bulb working? And finally, is the power working? :-)

    4. Re:Leaked question by omnichad · · Score: 1

      I've always wondered just how much electrical fluctuation is needed to cause early failures in CFL's. I have only replaced one CFL in 7 years. And really, I just didn't ever like the flicker of that one, as it was one of the early versions of a cheap brand.

  11. April 1st by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... isn't for another three days!

  12. I also propose to ban by gweihir · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Test", because it evokes unpleasant emotions.
    "New York", because it could be associated with stupidity.
    "Student", because that could be mistaken for somebody that wants to learn and has an open mind.

    Seriously, there is a limit. Modern human beings should have a reasonable level of tolerance for ideas that are not their own, and only reject them after they have looked at them carefully. (Yes, that includes actually looking at creationism and concluding for yourself that it is stupid.) They absolutely must have an open mind for all things scientific.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:I also propose to ban by DigiShaman · · Score: 0, Troll

      That's liberalism for you and all the politically correct BS that goes along with it. Coddled children grow up to be stupid sheeple that are just ripe to be controlled. If you even so much as dare show that you have a pair, they will cut them off. That at least is top priority in their view. Eunuchs! All of you!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:I also propose to ban by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's liberalism for you

      Yeah! They should put back all the questions! Except the ones about dinosaurs, they offend my religion!

    3. Re:I also propose to ban by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 0, Troll

      It is the religiously conservative parents that coddle children you retard. Liberal parents don't tend to beat their kids for doing minor bad things (ie, opposite of coddling), but I suppose you'll ascribe anything to liberals because, to you, it's now just a word that represents everything bad whether they actually represent real world liberals or not.

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    4. Re:I also propose to ban by headhot · · Score: 1

      Yea those damn sensitive liberal creationists.

    5. Re:I also propose to ban by headhot · · Score: 0

      Oh an those damn pagan hating liberals. And those damn liberal Jehovah's Witnesses. Its not the liberals who complain about BS like this. Its the fundy nutjobs.

    6. Re:I also propose to ban by pseudofrog · · Score: 5, Funny

      1) Find something I don't like.
      2) Assert that it "comes with liberalism."
      3) Raaage...raaaaaaaaage on the internet.
      4) Pretend that's what Jesus would have done.

    7. Re:I also propose to ban by Skidborg · · Score: 3, Informative

      As one of the fundy nutjobs, I'd like to say that this is ban is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen.

      --
      Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
    8. Re:I also propose to ban by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, while some of the "banned" test words were apparently added (supposedly) out of concern for religious sensitivity, there are other items on the list that were clearly put there out of concern for the delicate sensibilities of the children of non-religious people. I guess some facts are more equal than others.

      But thanks for the typical /. display of "tolerance" for ideas different than yours.

    9. Re:I also propose to ban by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      22 characters over tweet size!

      Here's 5 over.
      1 Find something I dont like
      2 Assert that it "comes with liberalism"
      3 Rage...raaaaaage on the internet
      4 Pretend thats what Jesus would've done

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    10. Re:I also propose to ban by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea those damn sensitive liberal creationists.

      Yeah. If dinosaurs were good enough for Jesus to ride, they're good enough for them liberal creationists.

      Oh well, looks like the Republicans didn't get all the crazy.

    11. Re:I also propose to ban by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Don't mod him down so quick. Which group loves to homeschool their kids these days to keep them away from them durn lib'rul teachers and their perverted sex ed. classes? Which group wants to pretend evolution and climate change aren't real things? Which group throws a shit-fit at any school subjects that might stir up white guilt? It's the pot calling the kettle black at the very least.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    12. Re:I also propose to ban by Anarchduke · · Score: 2

      I guess you aren't as conservative as you thought you were.

      --
      who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
    13. Re:I also propose to ban by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sheeple! /takes shot

      heh. captcha: antidote.

    14. Re:I also propose to ban by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 2

      Problem : Jesus was a liberal... ...well actually he was a communist : sell all you own, give it to the poor, live in a community and share resources ...

      Now watch the fundamentalists brains melt ...

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    15. Re:I also propose to ban by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      No brain melting needed. This debate has cropped up in so many places over the years it's not worth keeping track anymore. Basically, he was neither a communist or a capitalist. First link I could find below. Many others out there all biased in the answer you're looking for no doubt.

      http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/23/was-jesus-a-communist-or-a-capitalist/

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  13. reminds me of that scene in robocop 2.. by wierd_w · · Score: 1

    You know? The one where the psychologist chick fills his head with hundreds of "sensitivity" politically correct directives, transforming him into a total dumbass?

    Except in this case, its the city making schools look that way.

    NYC needs to wake up and smell the sewerage, and accept that you can't please everyone and it is retarded to try.

  14. Questions on Faith & Humanity? by malraid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I hope they get rid of those two. Because I just lost all my faith in humanity. “I Don't Want to Live on this Planet Anymore”

    --
    please excuse my apathy
    1. Re:Questions on Faith & Humanity? by TWX · · Score: 2

      NO OUTER SPACE QUESTIONS!

      They've banned outer space creatures! You can't do that!

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:Questions on Faith & Humanity? by antdude · · Score: 1

      Professor Farnsworth, is that you? :P

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  15. Yea, this helps, all right. by Cazekiel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Dinosaurs, for example, call to mind evolution, which might upset fundamentalists; birthdays are not celebrated by Jehovah's Witnesses; and Halloween suggests paganism.

    Once again, religious sensitivities prevail over having an eclectic set of experiences in the world around us. And mentioning swimming pools equates to classism? We're asking our kids to not acknowledge things in existence. What next? Closing down art museums because holy-hell, some features paintings with naked people? For real, can we get a grip already? Dinosaurs. They're worried about mentioning. Fucking. Dinosaurs.

    --
    You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
    1. Re:Yea, this helps, all right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're asking our kids to not acknowledge things in existence.

      No, no one is doing that. You just made it up. NYC asked test writers not to mention swimming pools at people's homes. What does that freak you out?

    2. Re:Yea, this helps, all right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. It's not the religious sensitivities that are prevailing. It's some BS committee making up their own ideas about what might upset X based on their own biases.

    3. Re:Yea, this helps, all right. by Cazekiel · · Score: 1

      Because there are people in the world who have swimming pools, and there's nothing wrong with that. Some of those people AREN'T living in mansions, my co-worker included. To insist that pool-ownership is classist is to toss everyone in the pot when they don't belong in it.

      --
      You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
    4. Re:Yea, this helps, all right. by Cazekiel · · Score: 1

      Besides the pools=richy-rich, yes, all the mentions above are biases. And all of those biases are religiously linked. Which ones aren't--the Fundamentalists, JWs or Paganism? Last I knew, those were religions. Amirite?

      --
      You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
    5. Re:Yea, this helps, all right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For that matter, since when is evolution invoked at the mere mention of a giant lizard? As both a bible believing follower of Christ and a scientist, I can honestly say the realms of known physical science do not in any way contradict God. I love studying the bible as well as dinosaurs, black holes, the quantum reality of spacetime, and will not exclude any hairbrained theories until I find them proven false (though I enjoy scientific discovery and proof of theory than wild goose chases).

      So yeah, fundamentalists and uniformitarianists and extremists of all types are free to continue broadcasting their dislikes, but truth is truth no matter how much you fear it. That goes for science and the bible.

    6. Re:Yea, this helps, all right. by LWATCDR · · Score: 5, Funny

      This makes perfect sense to me, you see this Dinosaur from outer-space decided to have a pool party for his birthday but no one came. He didn't relize that it was Halloween and all his friends where out trick or treating. Well he was so upset he made a map of his school in and practiced his assault using doom3. Latter that week he followed his plan a put peanuts all over the school and all the students died of allergic reactions. Of course that evil Dinosaur was a Fox news watching Muslim member of the the tea-party. It did happen but the media covered it all up a friend of mine was there and told me. You see real problem was that he was sensitive to EM radiation and the wifi drove him crazy. I blame it on his getting vaccinated as a child Dinosaur from outer space.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    7. Re:Yea, this helps, all right. by drrilll · · Score: 1

      Every time I hear the words "swimming pool" I beat a rich person. Its society's fault.

    8. Re:Yea, this helps, all right. by sjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They banned mention of Halloween becZause it suggests paganism. How do they suppose that makes the Pagan kids feel? They have just been told (indirectly) by the state that the mere mention of their religion is offensive.

    9. Re:Yea, this helps, all right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're evangelical Christian, and we have more toy dinosaurs and dinosaur books in our home than I ever imagined existed. It gets the kids interested in learning. "Each triceratops has how many horns? Okay then, you see nine horns sticking out from under the bed. How many triceratops are under there?" See, that wasn't stressful at all; it was fun!

    10. Re:Yea, this helps, all right. by wisnoskij · · Score: 2

      Well simply owning a house makes you above the really low classes. And owning a REAL pool shows that you are at least lowish-middle class levels of wealth and more likely moderately well to do middle class or above. A real pool costs thousands of dollars minimum to tens of thousands (for one you can actually swim in) of dollars and is likely to be the 3rd most expensive thing a normal person would own and any one time (house>car>pool=boat=sports car).
      Their are lots of families and whole communities in the US that have never seen a personal pool bigger then those couple hundred dollar inflatable ones.

      Not that there is anything wrong with pointing out that the wealth classes do exist.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    11. Re:Yea, this helps, all right. by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'd propose a ban on religion. I'd be willing to settle out of the legislature if religious people would agree to also stop trying to push their legislative agendas on the rest of us.

    12. Re:Yea, this helps, all right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking. Dinosaurs.

      You are doing it wrong...

    13. Re:Yea, this helps, all right. by Cazekiel · · Score: 2

      Agreed, they exist, and yes again, having a house that you're not killing yourself to pay for puts you a bit above. But it's a blanket-statement to equate something like a pool with "being rich". To some, it's simply a goal: "I don't make a lot of money, but I want a pool. Therefore, I'll make a good number of sacrifices over a period of time and save up to get one." That applies to putting expensive rims on cars, GETTING a classy sportscar, whatever else that elicits "man, they must makes millions, the bastards!" assumptions, when maybe, in SOME cases, it's something they simply worked hard for to have.

      Not all cases follow those lines, of course.

      --
      You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
    14. Re:Yea, this helps, all right. by lgw · · Score: 1

      BTW, you've also just described how most people become rich. Damn I wish that was ever taught in schools.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    15. Re:Yea, this helps, all right. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      When I was a kid we had a swimming pool, and we were fuckin' poor by first-world standards. It was about 15ft wide, made of plastic, and rolled up when you weren't using it. Worst case scenario, redneck pools are even cheaper (and dammit, that looks just like one of the neighborhoods I lived in as a kid...but less racially diverse).

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    16. Re:Yea, this helps, all right. by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      I think these guidelines don't go far enough. They shouldn't be allowed to talk about people who get 3 meals a day, because that's classist and indicates wealth. They also shouldn't be allowed to talk about people being healthy, because that's classist and indicates wealth. They shouldn't be allowed to talk about cars, since that's classist and indicates wealth, but they also shouldn't be allowed to talk about any kind of public transit, because that's classist and indicates wealth (people in countries like Somalia don't have public transit).

      They also shouldn't be allowed to say anything about women not wearing burkhas, because that'll offend someone. They also shouldn't be allowed to mention voting, since that'll offend someone too (even worse if they mention women voting).

    17. Re:Yea, this helps, all right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once again, religious sensitivities prevail over having an eclectic set of experiences in the world around us.

      Having a diverse and eclectic set of experiences in the world is absolutely essential to a good education. This is not about preventing that.

      What it's about is that it's a bad idea for a standardized test which seeks to eliminate bias and check purely on skill to risk upsetting a kid's concentration. You can't control for the kids' home environment and whatever emotional slant comes from that. You can try to expose them in the classroom, but unless you want an even more offensive list of "things that kids must get adjusted to seeing in an emotionally neutral way," then the best you can do is avoid landmines.

  16. Wait! by jd · · Score: 1

    The small furry creature from Alpha Centauri is now feeling discriminated against!

    Seriously, there's a lot wrong with tests - they generally measure your test-taking ability not your skill/knowledge in the subject, any test that can be passed by a simple keyword recognition system is measuring your memory only, etc - but the "problems" given are not amongst the things wrong.

    It is CERTAINLY wrong not to mention evolution - if you want to take an R.E. exam, that's down the hall, third on your right, through the window. Yes, the one without stairs on the outside.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  17. A British Test by dintech · · Score: 5, Funny

    MATHS TEST FOR STATE SCHOOLS
    Name:
    Nickname:
    Gang Name:

    1. Simon has 0.5 kilos of cocaine. If he sells an 8 ball to Matt for 300 quid and 90 grams to Ollie
    for 90 quid, what is the street value of the rest of his hold?

    2. Damon pimps 3 bitches. If the price is GBP40 a ride, how many jobs per day must each bitch
    perform to support Damon's GBP500 a day coke habit?

    3. Crackster wants to cut the kilo of cocaine he bought for 7,000 quid to make a 20% profit. How
    many grams of Strychnine will he need?

    4. Trev got 6 years for murder. He also got GBP350,000 for the hit. If his common law wife
    spends GBP33,100 per month, how much money will be left when he gets out?
    Extra Credit Bonus: How much more time will Trev get for killing the slapper that spent his
    money?

    5. If an average can of spray paint covers 22 square metres and the average letter is 1 square metre,
    how many letters can be sprayed with eight fluid ounce cans of spray paint with 20% extra paint
    free ?

    6. Liam steals Jordan's skateboard. As Liam skates away at a speed of 35mph, Jordan loads his
    brother's Armalite. If it takes Jordan 20 seconds to load the gun, how far will Liam have travelled
    when he gets whacked?

    MATHS TEST FOR PRIVATE SCHOOLS
    Name:

    (If longer please continue on a separate sheet)
    School:
    Daddy's/Mummy's Company:

    1. Harry smashes up the old man's car, causing x amount of damage and killing 3 people. The old
    man asks his local Chief Constable to intervene in the court system, then forges his insurance claim
    and receives a payment of y. The difference between x and y is three times the life insurance
    settlement for the three dead people. What kind of car is Harry driving now?

    2. Fiona's personal shopper decides to substitute generic and own-brand products for the designer
    goods favoured by her employer. In the course of a month she saves the price of a return ticket to
    Fiji and Fiona doesn't even notice the difference. Is she thick or what?

    3. Tristram fancies the arse off a certain number of debutants, but he only has enough Rohypnol left
    to render 33.3% unconscious. If he has 14 tablets of Rohypnol, how is he ever going to shag the
    other two thirds?

    4. If Verity throws up 4 times a day for a week she can fit into a size 8 Versace. If she only throws
    up 3 times a day for two weeks, she has to make do with a size 10 Dolce & Gabbana. How much
    does liposuction cost?

    5. Henry is unsure about his sexuality. Three days a week he fancies women. On the other days he
    fancies men, ducks and vacuum cleaners. However he only has access to the Hoover every third
    week. When will he stand for parliament?

    1. Re:A British Test by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Funny

      Brillo! But, it's LSD that you cut down with strych, mate! Coke is don ewith laxitive powder.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    2. Re:A British Test by jhoegl · · Score: 2

      Boy, Gang slang has gotten more "Britishy" since the 90s.

    3. Re:A British Test by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      Brilliant.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    4. Re:A British Test by nasalicio · · Score: 5, Funny

      Congrats, you pass! A+

    5. Re:A British Test by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      Thank so much, "Super Hans".

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    6. Re:A British Test by jxander · · Score: 1

      But not too Britishy I didn't see a single mention of Chav ... captcha: inmates

      --
      This signature is false.
    7. Re:A British Test by darthnoodles · · Score: 1

      You Sir, are a God for typing that out!!

    8. Re:A British Test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      6. Liam steals Jordan's skateboard. As Liam skates away at a speed of 35mph, Jordan loads his
      brother's Armalite. If it takes Jordan 20 seconds to load the gun, how far will Liam have travelled
      when he gets whacked?

      Is that a trick question? 35mph? on a skateboard? Must have snagged the back of a passing garbage truck or something. Anyway, in 20 seconds, Liam is over 1000 feet downrange. That puts it in long rifle range, doable with training, but unlikely that Jordan has that kind of experience, especially on a moving target. Not to mention the likelihood of cover somewhere in the intervening distance.

      More likely, Liam stops at the 7-11 a mile away and then Jordan catches up with him.

    9. Re:A British Test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Simon has 0.5 kilos of cocaine. If he sells an 8 ball to Matt for 300 quid and 90 grams to Ollie for 90 quid, what is the street value of the rest of his hold?

      Matt got screwed. An 8 ball is only 3.5 grams.

    10. Re:A British Test by bemymonkey · · Score: 1

      The entire lecture hall is looking at me... damn you for making me laugh!

    11. Re:A British Test by damburger · · Score: 1

      Fluid ounces? British fail. About as many people in the UK use fluid ounces as use hogsheads and firkins. Older people sometimes use ounces for weights in cooking, but all fluids are measured in milliliters now (with the exception of blood, beer, and milk which for the time being still come in pints - although the latter is in the processes of transition)

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
  18. 'creatures from outer space' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'Creatures from outer space' is offensive to those who choose not to follow the tenets of imagination.

    1. Re:'creatures from outer space' by TWX · · Score: 1

      I think someone's just offended by Barbara Rush or perhaps Richard Carlson...

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  19. There's always math by bamboo7 · · Score: 1

    So maybe there's hope for them yet.

    1. Re:There's always math by nitehawk214 · · Score: 2

      So maybe there's hope for them yet.

      Kids are afraid of math, that's been banned too.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    2. Re:There's always math by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      Yup. If NY can make a case that mentioning out space aliens can evoke xenophobia (or whatever the fear of the week is) and exclude such questions; it shouldn't be very long before math is banned because it elicits anxiety and inadequacy. Heaven forbid that doing anything should stir up emotion. I think we need to take a look at banning everything. Good lord, the color blue is supposed to activate melancholia or something, shouldn't it be banned?

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
  20. Aliens by HelioWalton · · Score: 1

    Presumably the banning of aliens is so as not to offend scientologists?

    1. Re:Aliens by cubby96 · · Score: 1

      FTFS: "...The city asks test companies to exclude 'creatures from outer space' as well — for unspecified reasons." I suspect it is not re: offending scientologists, but rather students who hold no legal status in the country, such as citizenship or a green card. They are often referred to as illegal aliens.

  21. Scientology Needs Compassion Too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The city asks test companies to exclude 'creatures from outer space' as well — for unspecified reasons." Well, Dinosaurs upset another religion. So, this covers Scientologists.

  22. Why JWs don't celebrate birthdays by tepples · · Score: 5, Informative

    There's a reason JWs don't celebrate birthdays. Both mentions of birthdays in the Bible, one in the Hebrew Scriptures and one in the Greek Scriptures, ended up with the birthday boy ordering someone's execution. See Genesis 40:20-22 and Mark 6:21-27.

    1. Re:Why JWs don't celebrate birthdays by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      That reminds me of the first season of Spartacus...

    2. Re:Why JWs don't celebrate birthdays by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      There's a reason JWs don't celebrate birthdays. Both mentions of birthdays in the Bible, one in the Hebrew Scriptures and one in the Greek Scriptures, ended up with the birthday boy ordering someone's execution. See Genesis 40:20-22 and Mark 6:21-27.

      So the lesson is... people with birthdays are assholes?

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    3. Re:Why JWs don't celebrate birthdays by Cazekiel · · Score: 4, Funny

      My birthday's coming up on Sunday, April 1st. I celebrate it, even though I can't tell you how many times I was subjected to intricate pranks. The worst one? When I was around 9 or 10, my mom came into my room to wake me up and said, "Hey... it snowed a ton last night, and they canceled school," only to leap outta bed, look out my window and see nothing but sunshine and green grass. The scarring. Oh, the scarring... I may as WELL have been executed. Woe is me!

      --
      You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
    4. Re:Why JWs don't celebrate birthdays by camperdave · · Score: 1

      They're forgetting Job 1:4, where the whole family gets together and has a pleasant time. It's just the rulers birthdays you have to watch out for.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    5. Re:Why JWs don't celebrate birthdays by Neriak · · Score: 1

      They're forgetting Job 1:4, where the whole family gets together and has a pleasant time. It's just the rulers birthdays you have to watch out for.

      Except that the Hebrew words for "day" and "birthday" are not the same. The word "day" at Job 1:4 denotes a interval of time from sunrise to sunset. A banquet was held at each day at a different son's house. This was done yearly, but has no relation to their birthdays.

    6. Re:Why JWs don't celebrate birthdays by clarkn0va · · Score: 1

      And therefore it shouldn't be mentioned on a test? Maybe we should take its mention out of the bible too? Hey, I don't drink coffee, but you won't hear me crying that the name of "coffee break" should be changed to something else more sensitive.

      --
      I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
    7. Re:Why JWs don't celebrate birthdays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're forgetting Job 1:4, where the whole family gets together and has a pleasant time. It's just the rulers birthdays you have to watch out for.

      Yeah, and it was all rainbows and cupcakes after that...

    8. Re:Why JWs don't celebrate birthdays by darthnoodles · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I was a Jehovah's Witness for the first 30-odd years of my life, and neither me nor the many hundreds of other Jehovah's Witnesses that I knew would have ever been offended by the mention of birthdays in a test. Why are they being over-sensitive in retarded ways?

    9. Re:Why JWs don't celebrate birthdays by RussR42 · · Score: 2

      Assholes are like birthdays... every body has ... um, wait...

    10. Re:Why JWs don't celebrate birthdays by Cazekiel · · Score: 1

      Bicentennial baby, 1976. So 36. Though mentally around 16.

      --
      You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
    11. Re:Why JWs don't celebrate birthdays by BitwiseX · · Score: 1

      I was a Jehovah's Witness for the first 30-odd years of my life, and neither me nor the many hundreds of other Jehovah's Witnesses that I knew would have ever been offended by the mention of birthdays in a test. Why are they being over-sensitive in retarded ways?

      My entire immediate family are Jehovah's Witnesses, and that's the religion I was raised in (as I got older I realized I just didn't agree with some of the basic principles of Christianity). They aren't the kind of people to raise a stink at the existence of the term "birthdays". They explain to their children what birthdays are, and why their faith disagrees. Same with Halloween. Same with Easter. Same with CHRISTMAS.

    12. Re:Why JWs don't celebrate birthdays by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      I was a Jehovah's Witness for the first 30-odd years of my life, and neither me nor the many hundreds of other Jehovah's Witnesses that I knew would have ever been offended by the mention of birthdays in a test. Why are they being over-sensitive in retarded ways?

      They aren't.

      This whole proposal is coming from the professional educators, not the people the professional educators are claiming might be offended.

      Professional educators are trying very hard to find ways to keep test scores from dropping so they won't look like failures at education and they can keep their jobs. Every way except actually teaching things that are hard and cause lack of self-esteem in children who would have a hard time learning something hard.

    13. Re:Why JWs don't celebrate birthdays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses (NOT brought up as one, chose it for myself age 22, 31 years ago) and I am well aware that other people mention / celebrate birthdays. That's their business, they can do whatever they want. It has nothing to do with me. If they want to discuss why I don't do what they do, well fine, but if they want to have birthday parties that is also their own choice. Nothing to do with me. Political correctness is just ridiculous sometimes.

    14. Re:Why JWs don't celebrate birthdays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So? I don't celebrate THOSE assholes' birthdays.

    15. Re:Why JWs don't celebrate birthdays by heathen_01 · · Score: 1

      You're not alone.

  23. Give my regards to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one applaud NY for at least trying to be consistent about their censorship, rather than merely pandering to one demographic's agenda.

    Now we've got another answer to the morons in places like Tennessee if they want to remove references to evolution and dinosaurs: "in that case, we should go the New York way and do it properly".

  24. I wonder by M0j0_j0j0 · · Score: 1

    How do these kids or parents react when they go to the natural museum of history and have to deal with a huge Trex fossil, they just ignore it? say it's fake?

    1. Re:I wonder by TWX · · Score: 1

      Schools inform parents of pending field trips and require a parental consent permission slip to be signed and returned before a student is allowed to go on each and every trip. That curtails an avenue of complaint, as the school district actually keeps those permission slips and will produce it if a parent complains about what a kid was officially exposed to on a field trip. The parent is notified about where the child is to go, and if the parent disagrees then they are free to simply not sign or return the slip, or to note negatively on the slip, depending on how the school district handles such things.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  25. At least someone is thinking of the children by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

    Next on the list, they should either:
    A) Ban children from libraries, or
    B) Ban any books than mention any of these subjects

  26. No Offence! by layabout_guy · · Score: 1

    Life isn't and shouldn't be so sheltered. If anyone is offended (which is highly doubt) they should 'man up' and deal with it. At no point did anyone in the chain of command think this was a stupid idea

  27. someone needs to put down the pipe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is the most ridiculous thing i have heard since sponge bob first aired!

    1. Re:someone needs to put down the pipe by camperdave · · Score: 1

      this is the most ridiculous thing i have heard since sponge bob first aired!

      No Kidding!

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  28. Test limitations by danielpauldavis · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Does anyone realize that some test-takers don't know what a "pillow" is? So yeah, the poor kid will stare at some word, wondering what it is, get a worse than accurate score, because the test is testing something that WASN'T TAUGHT IN CLASS. That's what this little rule is trying to avoid. Fair testing for all. 'Bout time.

    --
    Cranky educator.
    1. Re:Test limitations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does anyone realize that some test-takers don't know what a "pillow" is? So yeah, the poor kid will stare at some word, wondering what it is, get a worse than accurate score, because the test is testing something that WASN'T TAUGHT IN CLASS. That's what this little rule is trying to avoid. Fair testing for all. 'Bout time.

      I see your point, but I know in our schools(southern ontario) kids learn about dinosaurs, dress up at school for halloween and bring in cupcakes for other students birthdays. That doesn't happen in New York?

    2. Re:Test limitations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uh then they should fucking learn? I mean, this is america..just about everyone knows what a pillow is before 1st grade.. jesus fucking h christ on a stick..

    3. Re:Test limitations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a bullshit rule that was poorly thought out. There's no reason that any kid, poor or not, cannot raise their hand and ask the teacher for clarification on any test question. There, pillow problem solved. Putting the word "pillow" in a test does not mean the test is now testing knowledge of the word "pillow." I swear, the ridiculous notion of what constitutes fair some people have.

      Secondly, this ban on words has nothing to do with "fairness," according to the explanation I've heard given by NYC, it is to avoid offending people. If you are offended by the words "dinosaur" and "birthday" consider it to be the sensation of growing up.

      The only way to fix education is to have qualified teachers and let them run their classes and write the tests they, as the single most qualified person to test their own class, write their own tests.

      It's almost as offensive to sensibility to have a 3'd party contracted to write tests as it is to have this list of banned words.

  29. Dinoaurs? by busyqth · · Score: 1

    Dinosaurs, for example, call to mind evolution, which might upset fundamentalists...

    What? Why does NYC think that fundamentalists have a problem with dinosaurs?
    Noah's ark was plenty big enough for two of each kind of dinosaur baby.

  30. No one has the right.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Sorry, but no one has the right to not be offended. Suck it up, grow a thicker skin, and get over it.

  31. Years ago .. by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Funny

    I knew a woman who worked as a kindergarten teacher. She had a bunch of Jehovah's Witnesses kids in her class. When any of those JW kids annoyed her past her tolerance limit (which if you are a Kindergarten teacher must be pretty high to start with) she would send home a note to the parent mentioning that they would be celebrating another kids birthday that week. When the JW parents saw such notes they would yank their kids from school for that day - thus instant relief! The kicker was that the parents never worked out that they celebrated more birthdays during the year than there were kids in the class.
     
    And to dick with the parents some more she used to make sure all the kids knew how to sing "Happy Birthday".
     
    On the flip side I once had some JW come to the door soliciting their beliefs .. on Christmas day .. with kids in tow. Talk about cruel to the kids.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:Years ago .. by Cazekiel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A small part of me says "dude, that's kind of an abuse of power, not sure I agree with that on an ethical level."

      A large part of me says "FUCK ethics, give that teach a raise."

      --
      You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
    2. Re:Years ago .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Random anecdote:

      Firstly, I have awesome neighbors. One of whom called me a few weeks back to warn of JW's cruising through the neighborhood.
      Secondly, I have an awesome GF, who is rather uninhibited and willing to answer the door nude (no you can't have my address)

      Let's just say that the the look on their faces was absolutely PRICELESS.

    3. Re:Years ago .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jehovah's Witnesses don't take their kids out of school just because there's a birthday. Nice try at trolling though.

    4. Re:Years ago .. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I heard the story of a teacher who had once worked in Utah, and whenever she had the kids do a free-topic essay, every story was about Jesus. Every...single...one. When she moved, she laid out a rule that stories could not be about Jesus, for this reason. Probably happened back in the '90s when people mostly just laughed off Christians' cries of persecution. Nowadays she'd become the latest media chew-toy.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    5. Re:Years ago .. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I knew this guy who's a crazy metalhead, he'd crank up the metal and answer the door naked while holding meat and yammering a bunch of gibberish when the JWs showed up. And he lived in a shack in the middle of nowhere so it must have looked perfect.

      The other day I was working on my car and was re-tuning the engine, some JW woman comes over, sticks her head under the hood and tries to yell over the engine screaming near the redline. Can't fault them for effort.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    6. Re:Years ago .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      she used to make sure all the kids knew how to sing "Happy Birthday".

      You were wise to not mention the name of either the school or the teacher, or the MAFIAA would have sued them for $666,000 for each student she taught to violate copyright in such a flagrant manner.

    7. Re:Years ago .. by BitwiseX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A large part of me says "FUCK ethics, give that teach a raise."

      We're marking that insightful now? Listen, I was one of those kids. I took shit about my beliefs from teachers and students alike, and when it comes from teachers it will fuck you up majorly. Having someone you are supposed to be able to trust ridicule you for your beliefs or for your family's beliefs. THAT is cruel.
      It is hard to be a JW and go to public schools. It shouldn't be. I thought this was America.

      Christians attacking other Christians..... *sigh*

    8. Re:Years ago .. by supersloshy · · Score: 1

      Somebody mod this man up. I would but I wasted my mod points on the GNOME article earlier today.

      --
      "Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
    9. Re:Years ago .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Jehovah's Witnesses" are not Christians.

    10. Re:Years ago .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't mind going out as a child. Also, I found people happier to talk on Christmas Day than most other days! It is nice.

    11. Re:Years ago .. by Cazekiel · · Score: 0

      I'm an atheist, so 'Christians attacking other Christians' doesn't apply here. Sorry if I come off strong, but I have no sympathy for a group that is abusive to its own members.

      --
      You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
    12. Re:Years ago .. by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 2

      I think the point is that nobody cares what you believe. But if your beliefs are such that you force everyone else to censor themselves around you, then yes, you will draw ridicule. The ridicule shouldn't come from teachers but I'm not surprised that happens.

      I can't think of any subject that bog-standard Christians forbid from being mentioned in public. Homosexuals, maybe? The theory that Christ was a black man? No, I've seen fundamentalists discussing that in reasonable tones. The Albigensian heresy? I've never had a public conversation about that, I might have to try some day.

      But a subject as mundane as birthdays? If your religion forbids them from being mentioned then I'll happily ridicule you, and you'll deserve it.

      (Note: I'm an atheist. Feel free to call me a smug atheist prick, it won't offend me.)

      --
      Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
    13. Re:Years ago .. by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      It is hard to be a JW and go to public schools.

      Then stop being a JW, which is stupid to begin with. Hell, any religion that indoctrinates you as a child should be considered child abuse.

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    14. Re:Years ago .. by David+Chappell · · Score: 1

      "Jehovah's Witnesses" are not Christians.

      Only for contrived definitions of "Christian". A Christian is one who believes that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, our Savior, and the Son of God. Jehovah's Witnesses vigorously assert all these points.

      The "Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians" nonsense is disinformation invented by resentful clergymen. They claim that a Christian must also believe that Jesus of Nazareth and the God of the Old Testament (Jehovah) are one and the same person. This is problematic because Jesus of Nazareth, the writers of the New Testament, and some of the early Church fathers made numerous statements which (if taken at face value) flat-out contradict this view. This doctrine (known as the Trinity) became firmly established in the Church about three centuries after the death of Christ. (If you are interested in this, you might start by reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity#History.

      In other words, when one bends the definition of "Christian" far enough to exclude Jehovah's Witnesses, one casts doubt upon the Christianity of the Apostles, the Gospel writers and some of the early Church Fathers.

      (To those who would nit-pick the above explaination: I am aware that Trinitarians have explanations for the statements in the New Testament which seem to contradict their views. I am also aware that the vast majority of currently existing Christian denominations accept the Trinity doctrine in some form.)

    15. Re:Years ago .. by David+Chappell · · Score: 1

      But a subject as mundane as birthdays? If your religion forbids them from being mentioned then I'll happily ridicule you, and you'll deserve it.

      I don't think you'll get the chance. This has nothing to do with anyone's religion and everything to do with political correctness. Politicial correctness is the practice of imagining reasons why others might be offended and then taking steps to prevent the alleged cause of offense. The politically correct often get it wrong. For example, many schoolteachers tell children that they mustn't say "American Indian". This dispite that fact that American Indians do not generally consider the term offensive and in fact somewhat prefer it to "Native American". (See: http://www.infoplease.com/spot/aihmterms.html)

    16. Re:Years ago .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude man... you're what's wrong with society nowadays. "NO JOKES ABOUT MY RELIGION! EVERYTHING MUST BE PC, BECAUSE I AM DISALLOWED FROM HAVING A SENSE OF HUMOUR, SEEING SARCASM, OR IGNORING ANYTHING THAT OFFENDS ME!"

      Let it go. You HAVE to know that you're in a religion that's not particularly popular with the rest of society. Basically, JW's are damn close to being up there with that preacher in Florida who keeps threatening to burn piles of the Koran, or Westboro Baptist Church.

      Basically, you're the Scientology of religions before Scientology came along.

      So if you absolutely cannot stand people making fun of your religion, It's prooooobably a good idea to actively avoid any even remotely close to religious conversation.

      On another note, I was unaware that you guys didn't celebrate birthdays. Next time a JW comes up and starts blithering their anti-evolution, completely-not-based-in-scientific-reality preachings, I'll just yell through the door that we're too busy celebrating a birthday. With alcohol.

    17. Re:Years ago .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christians attacking other Christians..... *sigh*

      Statements like that are the real problem here. Why does religion always have to come into everything. People attacking People... that's what we should be worrying about. Not who believes in the flying spaghetti monster and who doesn't.

  32. I got it! "creatures from outer space" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Scientology. We can't hurt their Thetan feelings can we.

  33. United States of Idiocracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In almost constant events like these in this society, a comment like this can not really be looked at as trolling, when it is merelly postulating the future outcome of moronic policies like these.

  34. Yet another problem with government schools by Kohath · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Government schools are not appropriate unless the culture is homogeneous. In in a heterogeneous mix of cultures, government schools inevitably tax a person to pay for compulsory lessons that are counter to his culture's beliefs. This is unjust.

    1. Re:Yet another problem with government schools by Artifakt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's a problem with everything. The position as you state it is a conservative claim, and an extension of similar claims about such things as the National Endowment for the Arts, which inevitably picks some artists viewpoints (and 'art as a form of speech') to favor over others. it sounds pretty logical to many libertarian types.

      BUT, it applies to everything! (which is what the people who came up with this argument can't stand to see addressed): The Amish don't want their tax dollars spent on grading high speed curves by the Dept of Transportation. The people who seriously believe the Moon landings were fake don't want a NASA budget just to 'do more fake moonshots'. The Pacifists oppose spending anything at all for the Dept of Defense. The anti-vaccine persons oppose the Center for Disease Control, at least as it stands today. Just ask the nation's 50 million Pot smokers if they want a single dime of their taxes to go to the DEA, or even the BATF, FBI, and others. Many people would claim to oppose a tax on moral grounds if it got them a bigger refund (or whatever) regardless of whether they had an actual moral opinion. If every person has a right to not pay taxes if they run counter to his or her beliefs or alleged beliefs, then there will be next to no taxes at all, and government itself becomes unaffordable. Ultimately, you are demanding absolute Anarchy..

      That's fine if you are really an Anarchist. The problem is, are you? Most of the people advancing your argument want it to apply to the parts of government they don't see a need for, and not the rest. Are you willing to apply your argument to Police, Courts, National Defense and such, or just to the things you want "justice tested"
      Do you want all taxes to be voluntary, or do you want some of yourrs to be avoidable while mine continue to be manditory?

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    2. Re:Yet another problem with government schools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that many different groups oppose that many different gov't agencies on a fundamental level maybe you have some deeper problems that shouldn't just be papered over with "ya, but whaddya want me to do about it huh?" I'm just saying.

    3. Re:Yet another problem with government schools by Kohath · · Score: 2

      Yeah, that's why small government is better than big government. There's less injustice.

      Since there's no perfect government, your "anarchist" argument is silly. No one is proposing (or could ever possibly propose) a perfect government. It's impossible to optimize to perfection, and the "where's the perfect dividing line?" questions are completely beside the point.

      But smaller is better than what we have now. See this Slashdot story as evidence. A class of 10 students with no Jehovah's Witnesses can celebrate birthdays. A class of 10 students with all Jehovah's Witnesses can read from the Watchtower every day. No one is unjustly taxed to support alien or offensive beliefs, nor is anyone unjustly restricted. Clearly, that would be better for everyone involved. Do you want to argue otherwise?

    4. Re:Yet another problem with government schools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Government schools are not appropriate unless the culture is homogeneous. In in a heterogeneous mix of cultures, government schools inevitably tax a person to pay for compulsory lessons that are counter to his culture's beliefs. This is unjust.

      Well, it is best to have a public school system as devoid of culture as possible. After all, have you looked at culture lately?

      http://www.googlebattle.com/?domain=Britney+Spears&domain2=George+Washington&submit=Go%21

      Anyway, it is better to have a school system that challenges cultural beliefs, then one that indoctrinates students with them. I would rather have a school that teaches students to question cultural beliefs.

    5. Re:Yet another problem with government schools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm totally willing to apply the argument to police.
      I've been the victim of several crimes some of them violent in nature. The police only provided me with the immensely enjoyable experience of sitting my bruised and bleeding body down and wait for an officer to take my statement. The perpetrators were never caught (big surprise!). My property was never recovered. Police officers are in my opinion largely ineffective when it comes to fighting crime. If you're an honest person they're more likely to cause you trouble than anything else.

    6. Re:Yet another problem with government schools by maccodemonkey · · Score: 1

      "Yeah, that's why small government is better than big government. There's less injustice."

      YOUR version of small government.

      The problem with small government is it's in the eye of the beholder. There are certainly people out there's who's definition of small government is keeping all the programs you hate and gutting all the programs you like.

      I agree with small government. The problem the small government I want is never the same small government conservatives want.

    7. Re:Yet another problem with government schools by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Anyway, it is better to have a school system that challenges cultural beliefs....

      People say this, but they don't actually mean it. Do you want evolution challenged? Do you want global warming orthodoxy challenged? Do you want the idea of government schools challenged? The idea of free speech? Do you want neutrality on torture and terrorism? Should kids be challenged on their ideas about whether violence against each other is OK? Maybe try pro-violence in October and anti-violence in Nov? Pro-slavery in Dec, pro-racism in January, anti-racism in Feb, feminism in March, passover in April, burqas in May?

      No. You don't really want cultural beliefs challenged in schools for children. Not if you actually care about children.

    8. Re:Yet another problem with government schools by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Let's compromise and get rid of half the programs you like and half the programs conservatives like.

    9. Re:Yet another problem with government schools by Anarchduke · · Score: 1

      So you are saying we should have "separate but equal" classes for every demographic in this country? I think you should get the opportunity to go to Harlem and give that speech. Tell me how it goes for you.

      --
      who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
    10. Re:Yet another problem with government schools by maccodemonkey · · Score: 1

      Let's compromise and get rid of half the programs you like and half the programs conservatives like.

      Which is how the current system is designed.

      The problem is liberals are in favor of replacing components of government with more effective forms, not just tossing it into a fire. That's where the breakdown happens. I would love for the government to end our series of wars, end oil subsidies, and patch up and simplify our tax code and end all these ridiculous loopholes that let major companies not pay a dime in taxes.

      In return, I'd like a tiny fraction of that money to be redirect towards funding college education and implementing universal healthcare. Both programs improve the quality of our workforce, and keep us competitive with the world. This increases our revenue stream, which increases our tax base. But of course a large majority of what we used to collect simply goes back to the tax payer, and the tax payer is better off since we have created a better environment for business (who no longer even have to deal with supplying their employees healthcare and have a large supply of well educated workers) who will in turn create more jobs.

      But that doesn't fit with the conservative idea of simply just cutting things instead of making things smarter. If you come into reforming government with the idea that government is bad and should be mutilated and handicapped at every turn, you end up with a government that's both dumber, more incompetent, and less effective. Government needs to be put on a treadmill and taken back to school, not taken out back and slashed with a hatchet and turned into a drooling brain dead zombie.

      I guess what I'm saying is that none of that fits into the simple mold of coming up with an arbitrary programs, slashing them, and calling it a day.

    11. Re:Yet another problem with government schools by Kohath · · Score: 1

      I'm saying every parent should choose. If you choose to send your kids to school A, you don't get to complain that school A has birthday parties. If you choose school B, you don't get to complain that they read the Watchtower.

      In a free society, associations are voluntary. Voluntary associations are the bedrock of a peaceful society.

      Separate is not equal. But if you choose separate for your children, that's your choice and no one else's.

      --

      Additionally, instead of the government paying $20k per student to warehouse 35 kids together against their will, the parents can each pay $8k to hire a teacher for 10 children who are actually brought together voluntarily. Which of these classes will have more motivated students? Which will have a more motivated teacher? Which will have more satisfied parents?

    12. Re:Yet another problem with government schools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Additionally, instead of the government paying $20k per student to warehouse 35 kids together against their will, the parents can each pay $8k to hire a teacher for 10 children who are actually brought together voluntarily. Which of these classes will have more motivated students? Which will have a more motivated teacher? Which will have more satisfied parents?

      And all those parents who can't afford $8k? Now you've gone from "separate but equal" to "separate and nowhere near equal".

    13. Re:Yet another problem with government schools by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      It depends on the age of the kid. Above an undetermined age the kid should start learning to question everything. However, this is after the kid had learned to be carefull with a lot of stuff, and weigh cost-benefit ratios. Con-pro violence experiments have a long lead time to test IRL and the pro-violence test has a high risk of permanent damage. This could be used as an example why some things should be worked out in thought and by studying history.
      This critical thinking will help the kid in the long run.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    14. Re:Yet another problem with government schools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're kind of miles off topic here, but I was always curous about envisioning a tax system in which you fill out some kind of checklist about what you want your taxes going to, so the number of dollars you are paying doesn't change, but you have some say as to what it goes for. People who like the TSA give their taxes to the TSA. People who like the EPA give there taxes to the EPA. Things that people really want get funded sky high, and unpopular stuff withers and dies on the vine.

    15. Re:Yet another problem with government schools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Do you want to argue otherwise?

      I think the basis of your argument is sound (no interaction => no conflict), but there are practical issues. If you do what you suggest, you need more class rooms and more teachers.

      Also, you probably have more than one issue per person. You might have to split the JW group into three: the vegetarians, the vegans and the ones who don't care. Then split those sub-subgroups into homophobes and the rest. And so on. If you take this really seriously you'd pretty much have to teach everyone with just one teacher, and that teacher would pretty much have to be a clone of the student, else they might represent some offensive difference.

      Totally impractical!

      So it might be better to preach tolerance and acceptance, aiming for inclusion. We're all different, and yet we get along. Well, apparently that doesn't work too well, so... this proposal basically says: acknowledge the eggshells and walk around them.

      I would prefer the opposite course: actually, directly, dealing with the differences, spend time actively sorting them out instead of letting them be the elephant in the room that just keeps getting bigger and bigger. In the end what most people want most isn't so different that we couldn't get along if we focused on that, but by not really dealing with the differences and talking about them rationally and constructively (which is incredibly hard, of course) they just grow out of proportion and tend to be all we see in the other person.

      We talk about people using a label, i.e. Christians, instead of focusing on the commonalities and making it obvious that it's just one aspect of them: another human being like me who happens to believe in an idea called "God" (and likes Taccos). Another human being like me who happens to not want animals to needlessly suffer for his comfort (and really loves The Rolling Stones). Another human being like me who happens to tend to find other human beings with the same body parts as his kinda cute (and can teach you everything you ever wanted to know about Python). Short: another human being like me.

      Why? Because somehow my security depends on other people not saying or doing certain things that go against my world view. It's just sad that there's no conscious effort to help kids grow up with a less fragile world view. I.e. one that allows them to acknowledge reality without becoming all scared, defensive and hatin'. Instead we let the parents pass on their myths, even though they suffered under the same problem to begin with. Cause every parent things they know what's best for the child. Of course what I say threatens that belief, too, sooo... let the flamewar begin. :)

    16. Re:Yet another problem with government schools by Kohath · · Score: 1

      And you want to sacrifice children to politics and sloganeering. Nevermind education and learning. Children are just little hostages -- leverage to secure political power (and money ?) for you.

    17. Re:Yet another problem with government schools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Duh. They're right and you're wrong. You're hung up the golden rule, or treating all citizens equally under the law, or something.

  35. 1984, anyone? by mark-t · · Score: 3

    It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought ... should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words.

  36. "Effete Corps of Impudent Snobs" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Education is being redefined at the demand of the uneducated to suit the ideals of the uneducated"

  37. Re:Dinoaurs? (sic) by Cazekiel · · Score: 2

    There are big differences between an everyday Christian and Fundamentalist; the most showcased of all differences is that a Fundy has to believe that the Bible is the end-all, no mistakes included way of the world. No picky-choosy, ever. In order to do that, they need to believe that the world (and the encompassing universe) is only 6,000 years old. To acknowledge the fact that dinos existed, with its carbon-dated proof is to instantly dispute the Bible's teachings. Therefore, they will dismiss anything, anything, that goes against one iota of the Good Book's teachings, no matter how much proof is given.

    --
    You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
  38. Fortunately, furries are still permitted by greenreaper · · Score: 1

    'creatures from outer space' leaves an awfully big hole! Who needs to go to other worlds; you just need a bit of imagination.

    1. Re:Fortunately, furries are still permitted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'creatures from outer space' leaves an awfully big hole!

      Oh, you've been abducted for an anal probe too!

  39. oh dear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    im sensative to tests.. and they make me upset.. so lets scrap them all together.

  40. what about the test by zlives · · Score: 1

    Testing always caused unpleasant emotions for me...

  41. While They Are At It... by SrLnclt · · Score: 1

    Better strike WW II from the history books as well. Wouldn't want to offend any German immigrants regarding the events between 1939 and 1945, or bring back bad memories for any Jews living in NYC.

    For that matter lets just ban all history books... most of the events in history involve a struggle between two or more parties, and are therefore offensive.

  42. Halloween... by Aryden · · Score: 5, Insightful

    and Halloween suggests paganism.

    You mean the religions that most of the christian holidays are based on in the first place?

    1. Re:Halloween... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they're going to dump on paganism, why not ban christmas because it suggests christianity?

    2. Re:Halloween... by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Well since it is a birthday I think it might be covered under that already.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    3. Re:Halloween... by BitwiseX · · Score: 1

      and Halloween suggests paganism.

      You mean the religions that most of the christian holidays are based on in the first place?

      which happens to be the reason Jehovah's Witnesses don't celebrate them.

    4. Re:Halloween... by Aryden · · Score: 1

      Which is understandable, but they aren't just targeting JW's with this.

  43. Don't forget... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't forget to ban "morons", we wouldn't want the New York educators to get upset.

  44. Halloween by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Actually, Halloween suggests Christianity.

    Halloween is a contraction of "All Hallow's Eve", where "Hallow" is archaic for "Holy". All Hallow's Day was supposed to be a day when you remembered all the dead saints; All Hallow's Eve was the night before it, just as we have Christmas Eve. True, it supplanted the pagan festival of Samhain, but it's in good company there, as Christmas supplanted the pagan festival of Yuletide. The only really legitimate Christian festival is Easter (the timing of which can be traced Biblically to the Jewish Passover), and even then, the name is derived from a pagan goddess (Eostre).

    1. Re:Halloween by mithran8 · · Score: 1

      Actually Easter is one of the most blatantly pagan of the major holidays. While the 'official' intent is to celebrate Christ's return, look at the primary symbolism: rabbits, eggs, and flowers.

      Rabbits are the very model of prolific breeding, and springtime is when they really ramp up. Eggs are important because chickens generally don't start producing eggs until the daylight is longer than night - i.e. after the spring equinox. The only reason we have eggs year-round is due to artificial lighting. And flowers are self-explanatory.

      There's also the timing: Easter is always the first Sunday after the first full moon, after the first day of Spring. Aside from the nominal 'Sunday' addition, this is one of the most 'naturalistic' ways possible to derive a holiday.

      The current celebration is highly religious, but it's a far cry from 'legitimately Christian'.

      --
      An object at rest cannot be stopped!
  45. They missed the elephant in the room by sjames · · Score: 1
    Above and beyond all of those, the number one thing that 'could evoke unpleasant emotions in the students.' is .......(drumroll please.....)

    TESTS!

    Ban them!!!

  46. creatures from outer space by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 1

    The city asks test companies to exclude 'creatures from outer space' as well - for unspecified reasons.

    So how are they going to get their qualifications? THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!

  47. They talk about the War on Drugs... by Phrogman · · Score: 1

    ... and now they seem to be gearing up for the War on Hacking. Why is no one talking about the War on Education? It seems to be well under way in the US, every time I check the web I see another instance of Religious Fundamentalists or Politicians doing their utmost to ensure the US population is as ignorant as possible.
    I think they should take away the tax exempt status for all religious institutions, so there is less money to be had by promoting it. That will eliminate a lot of the tele-evangelist types/scammers and just leave us with the true religious people. If they are busy scrabbling to pay the taxes on all those churches, maybe they won't be so able to foster ignorance in lives of others.

    --
    "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
  48. New York City: by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    What are you, retarded?

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  49. Seriously? It's the Post by slimjim8094 · · Score: 1

    Take everything they say with a massive fistful of salt. I expected better of most people here... it's pretty well known as a trash rag

    --
    I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    1. Re:Seriously? It's the Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was also reported on CBS
      http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/26/war-on-words-nyc-dept-of-education-wants-50-forbidden-words-removed-from-standardized-tests/
      2 days ago, I might add.

  50. dear slashdot editors: by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    i demand you retract this story. there are some posts here that hurt my feelings

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  51. Swiming Pools? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just checking... How many people have swimming pools in NYC? I mean I don't live there, but isn't it pretty solid urban? Do they have suburbs of detached homes?

    Condos with pools and gyms, sure. But houses with personal pools?

  52. stoooopid by chr1st1anSoldier · · Score: 1

    I'm a Christian and I find this completely silly.

  53. NY Post is a Rupert Murdoch Vehicle by Phoenix666 · · Score: 1

    So I'm disposed to treat this as a hoax. Any NY kid who's too sensitive to read about religion or wealth or any of the above mentioned topics in a test question is going to spontaneously combust the second he looks up from his test and looks around at the classmates sitting next to him. Even when you live in a neighborhood strongly associated with a particular group, say the hasidic part of Williamsburg, Brooklyn, you're still gonna encounter at least 50 other ethnicities and religions before the day is done. It's New York.

    Saying any kid is going to be more tramautized by a test than that daily reality is absurd, and no New York official would be so daft as to take that policy position.

    --
    Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
  54. Tragedy of the Commons? by davids-world.com · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is tyranny of a set of minorities, who all expect to have their irrational beliefs respected and tolerated. Is this another instance of what the ecologist Hardin called the Tragedy of the Commons? By making use of simple, seemingly reasonable demands, a large number of individuals exploits a shared resource (culture, education) up to the point where the total of the actions disables the system. Religious and political freedom may now destroy the education system and with it the environment that makes these freedoms viable in the first place.

  55. I am officially gob smacked. by bdwoolman · · Score: 2

    How do well-intentioned people paint themselves into such ridiculous corners? It really beats me. Unpleasant emotions are part of life. Tests are supposed to be pleasant? Since when? And since when do people need to be insulated from customs in which they don't take part? A JW kids knows he does not get a birthday party. He is probably proud of the fact that he doesn't; that is, if he has bought into his religion and is proud of that. But he should know that other kids do celebrate birthdays and then be taught to be glad for them. No mention of Hanukkah because some celebrate only Christmas or vice versa? Please. And some other kids celebrate Ramadan and Kwanzaa etc etc. It is called diversity and reasonable people think it is a good thing.

    Dinosaurs in the fossil record are established scientific fact. Kids love dinosaurs. There is no controversy concerning them. Especially in a public school setting. Has NYC suddenly gone creationist? If this were in Kansas I might not be surprised. But NYC? Whoa. Come on. No school trips to the natural history museum, kids. They teach "science" there. WTF! If somebody's kid freaks because evolution is invoked he should be counseled. Or, if his parents are also freaked, then they can send him to a religious school that provides a spiritual non-scientific view of the universe. Public schools should try to teach facts.

    Most kids celebrate Halloween, which has pagan roots. So? So do many religious customs. Candle lighting echoes Zoroastrian fire worship. No one should make a kid participate in Halloween fun, of course. But he should know that some people do like to do so. If a kid feels bad because his parents won't let him. Tough. Kids feel bad all the time because their parents restrict their behavior for religious and other family centric reasons.

    Lastly. I do agree about the space aliens. They have no place on a test about the real world because there is no evidence to date that they exist. I will concede that it stands to reason that they are out there (Thanks, Dr Sagan.). But no one has delivered up any credible proof to date. So no aliens for the children. No aliens whatsoever. And that is final.

    PS If this is a pre-April Fools joke by Rupe and his no-ethics thugs at News Corp to make us liberals look bad, then I have been punked into a rant. But screw them. Fake news is not funny when it has an ulterior political motive. Hmmm. The more I think about this the more likely I think it is that this nasty story is a News Corp send up. But what the heck. I'll post and be punked.

    --
    "No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
    1. Re:I am officially gob smacked. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      space aliens... have no place on a test about the real world because there is no evidence to date that they exist... no one has delivered up any credible proof to date. So no aliens for the children.

      And... prayer in schools?

  56. Re:Dinoaurs? (sic) by busyqth · · Score: 1

    Fail

  57. The truth is unconfortable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The city asks test companies to exclude 'creatures from outer space' as well — for unspecified reasons."

    Because THE TRUTH! is uncomfortable.

  58. you like childs left behinds? no wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you like childs left behinds? no wonder you can't compete in the Real World any more.

  59. and in china they just tech the test and it's all by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    and in china they just tech the test and it's all about the test and how to pass it not about how to under stand whats on the test.

  60. Speaking as someone born and raised in NYC... by Zakabog · · Score: 2

    Speaking as someone born and raised in NYC all I have to say is, what... the... fuck!

    I did a glance over the summary and thought 'Oh some bible belt city banned mentioning dinosaurs on city tests, hah!' Then I did a double take and read NYC...

    We have community pools, the natural history museum that every city school seems to visit (featuring the only thing most kids remember, THE DINOSAUR EXHIBIT) and paintings of the virgin mary made from elephant shit. If there was a place any of these things might offend a group of people, this isn't it!

    I can't believe this PC bullshit actually made it past the board of ed without any parents kicking up a shitstorm...

  61. Re:Dinoaurs? (sic) by sjames · · Score: 1

    a Fundy has to believe that the Bible is the end-all, no mistakes included way of the world. No picky-choosy, ever (except the parts they don't fancy)

    FTFY

  62. Facepalm. by sethmeisterg · · Score: 1

    What the hell is happening to this world.

  63. The Onion by Crasoose · · Score: 1

    Anyone else have to check their URL bar?

    1. Re:The Onion by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Mix up your Onion news with the rest of your RSS feeds, it's highly entertaining.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  64. Re:never happen in real life by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The new secret is to propose stuff so preposterous that it numbs the sanity checkers into a coma and then gets passed. I mean, don't "promote religious tolerance", ban everybuddy's favorite prehistoric animal, Dinosaurs, because ... wait for it... a TurboFundy Christian might be upset.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  65. Must play hell with civics class by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just imagine not being able to mention Congress given the fact it's packed full of dinosaurs. Then again there's no evolution taking place so maybe it is a safe subject.

  66. (sigh) by retchdog · · Score: 1

    yes, it's stupid. no, it's not a ban; it's just part of a spec sheet on ordering standardized tests. it's also relatively, if not completely, harmless. this cannot necessarily be said of standardized testing in the first place.

    it's sillier to get into a froth over this, than it is for it to have happened in the first place. there is no slippery slope. this doesn't affect learning in any way.

    --
    "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
  67. Re:Dinoaurs? (sic) by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

    ...a Fundy has to believe that the Bible is the end-all, no mistakes included way of the world. No picky-choosy, ever.

    Until they get to the rules that they don't like. Not eating pork and shellfish, stuff like that.

  68. Re:Dinoaurs? (sic) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, a regular christian just gets to pick and choose which ridiculous things from the bible are true, and dismiss anything that goes against what they personally want to believe? That's SO much better.

  69. Pardon my french but by kehren77 · · Score: 1

    Are you fucking kidding me?

    What the fuck is wrong with this country? Are people this fucking uppity that they see a harmless words like birthday, dinosaur and Halloween and they can't deal with it?

    What happens when they get on the internet and they see words like cunt and cocksucker and fucktard?

  70. I can side with this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My friend was eaten by a dinosaur.

    It was part of a fraternity hazing. I miss him. :

  71. Re:Dinoaurs? (sic) by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

    But many get still incorporate dinosaurs into their beliefs by saying they existed alongside man and where made extinct by the great flood.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  72. Dumb kids by kwiqsilver · · Score: 1

    What about when the dumb kids (i.e. those subjected to bureaucratic government "education") start finding the tough questions objectionable? Or when the illiterate ones start finding written questions objectionable?

  73. Offense=$$$$ by owlnation · · Score: 1

    This is all about money.

    NGO's, Charities, pressure groups, etc... they all try to make money when someone is "offended". Plead outrage -> release angry statement -> remind people that they exist, and make it look as though they are doing something about their cause -> then go cap in hand for donations = profit.

    It's easy, easy, easy money. Usually costs nothing more than a press release, and rakes in a lot of $$$

    Nobody -- absolutely nobody -- is ever actually fucking offended, nor outraged, nor emotionally damaged by any of these things. Sticks and stones. It's just the parasitical rights orgs that are taking up the offense on their behalf, in order to cash-in.

    Obviously NY doesn't want the political hassle or potential lawsuits. In some ways I can understand that, the one word that people who always bang on about minority rights all the time cannot tolerate, is the word "no". It's about time someone did say "no" to them, and they lose their easy gravy-train. By giving in to this politically correct garbage, they are just taking society towards Idiocracy all the quicker.

    But then, Education is really all about money too (higher education, especially). At the end of the day, very few of them actually care whether anyone actually learns anything, as long as the checks keep coming in.

  74. But dinosaurs existed! by Kaz+Kylheku · · Score: 2

    So you're not going to mention dinosaurs, which existed (rational evidence given by their fossilized bones), because it might ruffle some people who believe in something for which there is no rational evidence?

    Say, don't creationists simply believe that dinosaurs were created and are therefore not offended by dinosaurs?

    1. Re:But dinosaurs existed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Say, don't creationists simply believe that dinosaurs were created and are therefore not offended by dinosaurs?"

      Yup, thats what god did on his day off. Created dinosaurs, then killed them all off and threw the bones in the middle of the desert during a bigass sandstorm to make them look old before throwing them back in the ground. And probably did something with the carbon in them too.

      Thats what god does in his free time - fucks with your head.

  75. Obvious Answer to All Test Questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am a fish I am a fish I am a fish I am a fish I am a fish I am a fish I am a fish I am a fish I am a (damn you lameness filter!)

  76. Doesn't the word TEST bring up unpleasant emotions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Forgive me but this is either a way too early April Fool's prank or the worst case of trying to be politically correct I have ever seen. Unpleasant emotions are part of life. Learning to deal with them in a constructive manner is also part of life. Not learning to deal with unpleasant emotions can lead to murder, rape, theft and every other crime in the book. Perhaps this is why the prison system is overloaded?

  77. Why do they care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With people like this teaching, it's no wonder that masters degree's as worthless enough to maybe apply at McDonald's. I don't think they should bend over for every retard out there just because they're pissed one day out of nowhere. I mean where is the common sense anymore? I think my grandfather would have gone into some office just to call someone an idiot just as a principle lol... I don't get why everyone is all emotional and shit now. wtf. it already ruined music (especially rap, if you can still call it that), what else do they want???

  78. Homes with computers a luxury? by TheGinger · · Score: 1

    'Homes with swimming pools and computers are also unmentionables here' This makes me think this article is a rehash about something 10-15 years out of date.

  79. The words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Test" and "Exam" are scarey words for me, and questions upset me too. Ban them all!

  80. Looks like I have a fan club by schrodingersGato · · Score: 1

    wonder how the poster got an idea for the name

  81. Glad they're preparing these kids. by Zadaz · · Score: 1

    What a way to prepare them for the real world where there are no dinosaurs or birthdays.

    Last week I overheard a conversation in a cafe. A woman was telling a friend how her family was having a hard time because she had decided to no celebrate Easter or Christmas with her family. I thought "Good for her, not thoughtlessly letting religion set her celebrations."

    Then I heard the reason she wasn't going to celebrate them was because they were based on Pagan rites and no proper Christian should celebrate such wickedness.

    You can't win for losing.

  82. Not a Matter of Sensitivity by DSS11Q13 · · Score: 1

    This is a matter of making tests fair by challenging what many assume to be common knowledge and correcting this accordingly. It has long been known that white kids outperform black kids on IQ tests. Actually I guess it's not that well known since it's a very unpopular fact... But one of the reasons offered for this is that the base knowledge that the testers assume of the test takers doesn't match. The examples of the home computer and swimming pool are perfect examples of this, can they give an unfair advantage to kids that do know about these things. Similarly, asking a question such as "Sam's birthday is Oct 8, Henry's birthday is October 7, Jeff's birthday is June 9, which birthday is closest to Jeff's" could produce a major "WTF?" for a child who has no grasp on the concept of birthdays, even if they are quite good at math. I'm all for producing an equal testing environment, and it's not like we're running out of ways to ask questions.

  83. Serpents throughout history = demons (maybe dinos) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe it could be possible that Dinosaurs were demonic beings in physical form.

    It's curious to me why the "serpent" mentioned in Genesis is always depicted in artwork as a "snake" without limbs when it wasn't until it was cursed and made to travel on its belly, thus what we view now as "snake-like".

    Instead, the artwork should correctly depict what the "serpent" looked like PRIOR to its transformation. Some ancient texts do depict dragon headed like creatures, sometimes with legs and/or a serpent tail and hands, sometimes with claws and sometimes with wings.

    The next time you're out in nature, and you see a snake and/or lizard, watch to see how it looks at you, if at all. Many of the smaller lizards, even if you remain motionless, will look at you and move their head around examining you very carefully, rather than being occupied with insects available or not close to them.

    The, "Don't tread of me!" flag (the same symbol of the snake appearing on Metallica's black album cover and the theme appearing in a song) is Illuminati based and God gives us, as The Bible states, power over all of the enemy, including serpents and scorpions. Serpents and scorpions, I believe, are spiritual enemies/demonic, apart from the serpents and scorpions you see in nature. The Bible also tells us we fight against evil invisible powers.

    People who bash religion or religious beliefs, really I could care less for your answers, I've been there, I entered the realm of 'non-belief' and nihilistic brain washing for a period of time, until I was "awoken" and the blindness was cleared from my eyes.

    These evil beings still exist, but they are cowards when you attack them through Yahweh, Jesus Christ, and The Holy Spirit, they run faster than the wind! Do not be afraid of them if/when they appear, even if only as noises in your environment which may persist, instead, make the sign of the cross and call upon Yahweh, Christ Jesus, Holy Spirit and command them to leave and follow up with scripture. Ask God to fill you with His power and for His angels to have charge over you.

    God's power and the power He gives to us is real, but we are not to marvel in us, so The Bible says, but instead know that we have it.

    The ghost shows, fake though many or most must be, are also rooted, IMO, in the Satanic nature which blinds and moves like a vile cloud around the Earth. God is there to talk to, all of the time, everywhere. The people who promote "ghost hunting" are, IMO, in on the Satanic conspiracy festering "behind the scenes" in today's world.

    The non believers love to try and use logic, many of them are Satanists who have studied Christianity and know, like the demons who tremble, the truth, instead they are lost in their own blindness through pride or other pitfalls, and try and sway as many belivers as possible, often through science, which is limited.

    Bonus points for rabid attacks, mocking, indifference, or mention of unicorns of FSM, but real points awarded for those who choose the TRUE light, not the FALSE light(s), the TRUE light of GOD.

    Blessed is he who comes in the name of The Lord.

    Peace be with you, reader.

  84. don't overreact to this one by awilden · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While I acknowledge the apparent insanity of the political correctness that seems to be the cause of this case, these sorts of exclusions are there for a reason. Tests should evaluate the topics they're designed to evaluate, not grade people on how "normal" their family background is. As an example, my mom was a nurse for a head start preschool and when she was going through records she noticed one kid had been labeled as having a low IQ. She could see he clearly wasn't dumb, so she looked into where the label came from. One of the main causes was that during an IQ test the kid was shown a picture of a birthday cake and he didn't recognize it and said it was a candle pie. A little research showed that he was a member of a religious group that didn't believe in celebrating birthdays, so he literally had never seen a birthday cake before.
    PCness can certainly get out of control, and it sounds like it has in this case, but this is a serious topic. There are consequences for low scores on tests. This kid had been labeled dumb because he had never seen a birthday cake. When low scores are based on some sort of cultural gap, that's punishing kids who come from social groups that are out of the mainstream. Kids from _all_ social groups should be required to learn the same material, and as an example, I strongly object to parents keeping their kids from being taught evolution because of their religious beliefs. At the same time I think it's wrong to test kids on topics related to evolution (including dinosaurs) before the school has taught you about them.

    1. Re:don't overreact to this one by quenda · · Score: 1

      That anecdote is even more ridiculous than TFA. You claim a kid was labelled low-IQ because of ONE question? I could do the same to you for believing that.
        I also find it hard to believe that any kid can start school without knowing about dinosaurs already. But then, I don't live in the US.

      These "PC gone mad" stories are usually a media beat-up. Is the NY Post a reliable source?

    2. Re:don't overreact to this one by Inda · · Score: 1

      You have to be very sheltered to not know what a cake is, know what a birthday is and not know it's a huge tradition in many places worldwide.

      I cannot beleive in 2012 children can be that removed from society.

      But, the child failed the test; it highlighted a problem; a birthday cake was shown with the words "this is a birthday cake". Problem fixed in less time than it took me to write this sentence.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    3. Re:don't overreact to this one by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Point taken, but on the other hand, that's only one question of the IQ test. Are you saying that this one question weighed so much that it alone affected his score that much?

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    4. Re:don't overreact to this one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The kid was flagged for a low IQ because of a single question about a birthday cake? Really? One question????? No matter how stupid the question is, it is not likely to throw off a student's overall evaluation. This just smacks of an urban legend.

    5. Re:don't overreact to this one by David+Chappell · · Score: 1

      You have to be very sheltered to not know what a cake is, know what a birthday is and not know it's a huge tradition in many places worldwide.

      I cannot beleive in 2012 children can be that removed from society.

      But, the child failed the test; it highlighted a problem; a birthday cake was shown with the words "this is a birthday cake". Problem fixed in less time than it took me to write this sentence.

      If I understand the story correctly, the child was about four years old. At four I was just beginning to think about the idea that there was a world beyond my immediate experiance.

  85. Re:never happen in real life by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

    Given all the fundamentalist Jews living in NYC, I wonder if they weren't the reason for the ban on dinosaurs. I even had a friend tell me they had to program all the elevators in NYC to automatically go through a cycle on Sundays (or is it Saturdays) to open the door, close it, go to the next floor, open the door, close it, go to the next floor, etc. in a loop, so that Hassidic Jews wouldn't have to use the elevator controls on that day, because their religion forbids them from doing any kind of work that day (but somehow, walking into the elevator is OK).

    NYC never seemed like a hotbed of fundamentalist Christianity; that's the southeast and the heartland.

  86. NY Is Multicultural by Paul+Slocum · · Score: 1

    FTA: In fact, sensitivity guidelines recently published by a group of states creating new high-stakes exams also caution against mentioning luxuries, group dancing, junk food, homelessness or witches. Yet a comparison shows the city's list, at 50 topics, is nearly twice as long and has fewer exceptions.

    The reason it's twice as long is probably because New York City is extremely multicultural relative to most of the rest of the US. It's hard to grasp how extreme until you've lived here for a while. There are women in burkas on the beach. There are huge communities of people here who live almost like the Amish. The fact that NY's list of excluded words is twice as long as other places seems like a big "so what".

    1. Re:NY Is Multicultural by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      you would think that in nyc every kid would be required to write an essay about the homeless..

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  87. So, what's the birthday of the dancing dinosaur? by porky_pig_jr · · Score: 1

    Those new yorkers will never know. l

  88. What about the genuinely stupid? by Serindipidude · · Score: 0

    Don't you have to leave out reason and common sense so as not to intimidate the genuinely stupid? Oh, I see what you're doing now....

  89. Space Aliens by hemo_jr · · Score: 1

    Real space aliens would surely find any imaginary creatures from outer space which might creep into tests, offensive. And even if they are not around now to take offense, that doesn't mean they will never be around, never dig into historical test records and never take offense to what might be there. And, being space aliens and all, who knows what kinds of imaginings about them will be offensive.

  90. Re:never happen in real life by pete6677 · · Score: 0

    Urban legend.

  91. Raptor Jesus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Raptor Jesus will not take kindly to this.

  92. Not pagan, Christian by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 4, Informative

    They banned mention of Halloween because it suggests paganism.

    Hallowe'en is short for "All Hallows Eve" is a Christian feast coming before All Saints Day (see Wikipedia). While it was conveniently timed to coincide with a traditional pagan holiday so was Christmas. Hence Hallowe'en suggests paganism as much as Christmas does.

    I suggest a new rule: those put in charge of education should be required to have had one.

    1. Re:Not pagan, Christian by sjames · · Score: 1

      Yes, I am aware of that. NEW YORK CITY is the one that conflated the two, THEN claimed that anything that might even suggest Paganism is offensive. I can't imagine Pagan children or their parents find that terribly amusing (or Constitutional). Honestly, Catholics and perhaps other Christian denominations would be quite righteously ticked off as well.

      Just what we need, hate speech on a government letterhead.

      It's funny the way the more PC you are, the greater the chance of tasting your loafers.

  93. Dangerous Nanny State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a stupid, weak, pathetic, cowardly, insane load of Nanny-State idiocy.

    They are are endangering their kids' minds.

    They are endangering freedom of speech.

    By breeding stupified, scared, intolerant ninnies who cannot accept diversity in the world, they are endangering kids, adults and society in general.

    I really would have expected better of New York.

  94. Wait what? by Luckyo · · Score: 1

    So the argument is that it's better to teach kids to avoid talking about sensitive issues then talk about them in the open to get the potential pressure relieved?

    Looks like we don't have enough divorces and other similar situations often caused by people preferring not to talk things out until it blows up yet.

  95. face palm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I enjoy reading stuff like this, at first i giggle and think it's just a joke, then i step back into reality and face palm hard.

  96. dissapoint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh America, what happened to you? You used to be cool.

  97. Going to far! by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

    Can they mention pigs because Jew's don't eat unblessed pork?. Can they mention the big bang because God created the universe in 7 days etc.... How far will this go, make the cry babies grow up and move into the 21st century!

  98. Dinosaurs offensive? by kimvette · · Score: 1

    That is because they fear such topics 'could evoke unpleasant emotions in the students.' Dinosaurs, for example, call to mind evolution, which might upset fundamentalists

    Does anyone really deny dinosaurs existed?

    Also, why on earth are they seeking to offend EVERYONE by making these tests so completely politically correct?

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  99. What happens if Barney sings Happy Birthday? by istartedi · · Score: 1

    What happens if Barney sings Happy Birthday while dancing? Maybe the heads of NYC school administrators and perpetual copyright fascists will both explode. Flash mob in Barney suits at NYC board of ed HQ? Ummm... too much effort. Purple shirt. Something purple and/or with a dinosaur on it. Everybody sings Happy Birthday. Just name the time; but I won't be there. It ain't worth a 3000 mile trip.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  100. Personally, by javascriptjunkie · · Score: 1

    I find all mention of the word water offensive, as I am a witch from Oz, which means that water is very dangerous to me. I'm sure there are enough witches from the Land of Oz, that feel the same way. I just hate how the city administrators are so indifferent to our cause. We are a totally viable minority, and we do contribute to the community. Sure, we occasionally go on a rampage and destroy a city here and there, but we're people too. I'm very disappointed that they're not censoring their tests, and other public documents with us in mind.

  101. Of course they can't mention... by metacell · · Score: 1

    Of course they can't mention "creatures from outer space". That would upset our benevolent alien overlords.

  102. IT IS ABOUT EXAMS by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    I am totally fine with these highly important (politically) school testing programs be completely politically correct. They should create even more regulations for test designers that go beyond a simple banned word list.

    Have you read any of these tests? I have. The math problems were in english? yes, testing math by using reading comprehension. One problem used a banister - for a 3rd grade math problem! Ban the use of words like that. I don't think I've heard somebody ever use the word banister in conversation now that I think of it.

    Some problems have cultural biases, consumer biases, and a few looked to me like IQ problems more than anything else. Spacial relations problems? really? they do nothing to develop those skills anymore-- all that stuff was removed for more teaching for the test. One principal was clever in that he made all the parents take their child's test. It was sad how they did on it but he woke many of them up.

  103. Yea, this hurts my brain. by TemplePilot · · Score: 1

    "For that matter, since when is evolution invoked at the mere mention of a giant lizard?"
    Peeks into bible book ... oh right, "Giants", yeas I recall some of those in there just prior to the "Great Flood" event right? Nephilim weren't they? Whose height was as the height of cedar trees, and in some accounts 300 cubits tall or 450 feet (600' if using Jewish cubit measurements) high huh? Nothing that 'giant' could possibly have existed.
    Unless, we're to believe of unearthly beings, from off planet in a galaxy far far away?
    Ponders the "giant" hologram of Ra, used in one of the Stargate SG-1 episodes... oh yah with awesome technology? Yowie. I think I hurt my brain again.
    On the other hand I have SEEN the bones of Whales, and horn of the Unicorn of the seas so called Narwhal... and verily so I have SEEN with these ocular orbs in my head the bones of dinosaurs. I'm pretty convinced they once existed, and were of a reasonable gigantic size. But NOTHING have I seen bears out anything living 450 feet tall walking on the earth unless trees once had legs and wandered at will like the great Moose.
    M'kay then... back to this NYC test criteria thing a majig... sigh. Yeah in a nutshell this "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS" Bool - Shyet, really needs to come to a full and complete stop. No passing GO or collecting $200.
    Its just nuts. Really, c'mon folks we're human beings for crying out loud.

    --
    This strange comment at the bottom of the message is illogical.
  104. I'm sorry, you came to (or were born) in the USA by Red_Chaos1 · · Score: 1

    A country founded on personal liberties. You're free to to practice your religion as long as it doesn't infringe on others rights to various freedoms.

    You don't get a choice to decide you don't want to allow others those freedoms, nor should we have to walk on eggshells to avoid hurting your precious little feelings. Get with the program, or get the fuck out. It's that simple.

    Fucking stupid that South Park has become reality in this fashion. You're offended? Good. Watch this (relevant bit at ~3:40 mark) and then go fuck yourself.

  105. ET by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The city asks test companies to exclude 'creatures from outer space' as well — for unspecified reasons.

    That's because it might upset said extraterrestrials - the politically correct term is 'persons of extraterrestrial origin'. Although recently they find that just as upsetting too, since it defines the universe as terrans and non-terrans.

  106. Don't fear to teach science! by azrael29a · · Score: 1

    A nation that fears to teach real science is doomed to fail. Teachers shouldn't fear to teach about evolution, big bang, solar system, etc.

  107. April fool is in 3 days by aepervius · · Score: 1

    You are 3 days early with april fool article. Because this is an April fool article, right ? ..... right ..... ?

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  108. Obligatory xkcd merchandise reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://store.xkcd.com/xkcd/#NoRaptors

    1. Re:Obligatory xkcd merchandise reference by Sky+Cry · · Score: 1

      Obligatory xkcd: http://www.xkcd.com/135/

  109. Can't hold...back... by MitchDev · · Score: 1

    Oh yeah, this is a great idea... Can;t have them kids hearing about ideas and concepts they aren't comfortable with, it's not like any of those things actually exist in the real world that they'll have to deal with when they grow up. Can;t have anyone's feelings hurt. In the real world you'll never encounter anyone or anything different that challenges your worldview.... /sarcasm off Sweet jumping Jesus listening to an expensive iPod on a pogo-sticking Veociraptor bouncing into Allah's swimming pool while Bhudda sees who's sharing his birthday on the his new computer abnd choosing how big of a wart to wear on his Halloween witch's costume....

  110. Actually, Universe was Created .035 Seconds Ago by nukenerd · · Score: 1

    ... complete with all the fake fossil records and our fake memories of anything earlier.

    Or : we are just wired-up brains in jars set up three days ago and controlled by a megalomaniac sky fairy.

    Prove me wrong ... But I suppose we all might just as well go along with the illusion as there is nothing else to do.

  111. Re:never happen in real life by GungaDan · · Score: 4, Informative

    Not so. Shabbat elevators can be found all over NYC.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabbat_elevator

    For those buildings where the True Believer nutjobs can't afford such a fancy elevator, they can simply bring in a Shabbat goy - a non-Jew to do the "work" of button pushing for them.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabbos_goy

    The world is not so small as to be comprised of only "urban legends" outside your realm of experience.

    --
    Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
  112. unpleasant emotions ? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    In school, regardless of content the tests themselves often gave them to me.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  113. Proposed words by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    its bad enough these words are even on the list in the first place.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  114. April fools? no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yet another indication that what will destroy the human race will be not nuclear war, but base, mindless, idiocy...

  115. pastafarians by samsonov · · Score: 1

    Might not be able to mention spaghetti either. His Noodliness and followers may be offended ;)

    --
    "You killed my yogurt!" --Fred Fredburger
  116. Another banned topic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think they should ban any mention of "New York educators" as that phrase may evoke thoughts of lobotomies, heavy drug use, brain donors, electrocution of the brain's pain centre, stupid people and muppets.

  117. Pagan, common knowledge by 1800maxim · · Score: 1

    There's nothing "Christian" about All Hallows Eve. It is common knowledge, and even says so in the link you yourself provided:

    "The Halloween holiday is commonly thought to have pagan roots, even though the etymology of the word is Christian."

    Perhaps "Christian" in the sense when pagan beliefs and Christianity were "fused" together under Constantine, thus forming Christendom, but certainly that would not be a practice for the first-century Christians.

    There's a night and day difference between original Christians and the mainstream Christianity that followed.

    1. Re:Pagan, common knowledge by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      There's nothing "Christian" about All Hallows Eve.

      Just because it has pagan roots does not mean that it was not adapted by early christianity to make it easier to convert pagans. The same is true of Christmas.

  118. Censor reality itself. by concealment · · Score: 1

    We need to make sure that no one is offended by parts of the big wide world out there that might be difficult.

    First we can remove hurtful words, like "fat" or "stupid."

    Then we can remove hurtful topics, like death and taxes.

    Finally, we can ensure that nothing that anyone does can infringe on any of the 458,013 special interest groups that currently inhabit America.

    After that, we can tell each other "Good day, how are you?" and "I'm well thanks" because that's all that will be left to say.

  119. Dirty Words by halfkoreanamerican · · Score: 1

    Education is going to be a dirty word in the future if they are not careful. Idiots.

  120. About Muslims by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no obligation to obey any law that is not constitutional, even if it has not been declared unconstitutional.

    Freedom of speach is very clearly a right. If I want to mention any of those things, i will do exactly that, and I am not concerned about offending other groups.

    Clearly this is about Muslims. It's a first step to laws preventing offending speech to muslims, while allowing them to talk their hate towards anything they do not like.

    ANY and EVERY New Yorker that does not stand against that nonsense is a coward and a traitor. After being there durring 9/11/2001 and seeing it all first hand, then allowing the spread of Islam, and being stupid enough to believe the muslims that tell you it is peaceful, and being coward enough to allow a victory mosque to be built and actually used (ground zero mosque); I believe all New Yorkers to be a bunch of traitors and cowards.

    I would love to see the headlines in the papers tomorrow read "Ground Zero Mosque - Burned to the ground".

    I'm just say'in.

  121. Oh noes, aliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The city asks test companies to exclude 'creatures from outer space' as well â" for unspecified reasons."

    Seems pretty obvious to me - it would really freak out children of batshit scientologists (yes, I know, redundant)

  122. Another way a birthday is like an anus by tepples · · Score: 1

    So the lesson is... people with birthdays are assholes?

    As RussR42 pointed out, a birthday is like an anus in that everybody has one. But also like one's anus, not everybody needs to be excessive in exhibiting one's birthday. Instead of holding back generosity until one day a year, it's better to be generous in smaller portions throughout the year so that someone can give when someone else really needs it. See more of my thoughts on birthdays.

  123. No binge I understand. But cosplay when? by tepples · · Score: 1

    Same with Halloween. Same with Easter.

    I understand that as with what would otherwise be birthday presents, JW parents spread candy throughout the year instead of letting their kids binge two days a year. But if not at Halloween, when are Jehovah's Witnesses allowed to do public cosplay?

    1. Re:No binge I understand. But cosplay when? by CODiNE · · Score: 1

      International assemblies.

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
  124. Don't forget the rape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It gets mentioned twice because God likes rape.

  125. I am now gifted with the ability to multi-troll. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Femshep wants to buy a birthday gift for her Asari lover.
    The stuffed dinosaur costs $4 and the Siari goddess statue costs $2.
    How much will FemShep spend all together on her?

  126. Selective pressure by omems · · Score: 1

    Hey NY, you're raising wimps!

  127. Re: scary thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since our education system was designed to create a class of people just smart enough to read, follow instructions, and work in the factories, and we pretty much don't have any factories left, are they gutting education down to just smart enough to read at an internet level (spell-checkers for all) and jack-booting the police and legal system until all we are able to do without a lifetime's incarceration is follow orders from anyone who says that they are our authority figure?

  128. Re:April fools (bible discussion) by cellocgw · · Score: 1

    Why are all you turkeys arguing about an English translation? It's not the same (literally or idiomatically as the original Greek/whatever language it was first written in.
    If you can't read the original, it's probably a sign from God that you're not worthy of enlightenment anyway.

    --
    https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
  129. Re:never happen in real life by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    You think that's daft, take a look at this.

    Essentially, they create an extremely complicated set of things you aren't allowed to do, and then create an extremely complicated set of rules for exemptions.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  130. Already been said... by CodeHxr · · Score: 1

    With the number of comments in this thread, this has bound to have been said repeatedly and in various forms, but that's not enough - I need to say it myself.

    This is the stupidest load of horseshit I've heard of in a loooong time. This is *reality* we live in. Being offended because someone shared an opposing opinion seems completely idiotic and closed minded. Creating laws/regulations around such closed minded attitudes sets a dangerous precedent. This *might* be putting on the tinfoil hat for a moment, but, really... how long before this gets accepted as normal, then big brother starts using this precedent to stifle any discussion that opposes its views? That might be *slightly* unrealistic and contrived, but my original point is still valid. (Unless you happen to be offended by my original point, in which case I should lose the right to express it, correct?)

    Sorry... I feel better now, thanks for reading! :)

  131. Re:Barney is ******! by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

    No, that's wrong. I should really learn to proofread before hitting "Submit".

    2+2=1, 4, 7, ... (mod 3). Not 5.

    --
    "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
  132. Re:Barney is ******! by ewanm89 · · Score: 1

    Darn, you beat me to the correction, I'll stick to using large values of 2.

  133. And so as to not upset the parents... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And so as to not upset the parents, no mention will be made of taxes, price of gasoline, or politician's pensions/slush funds/kickbacks/etc.