Thats nice and all, but it didn't really answer my question. Or actually be relevant to the discussion? Close enough to sound related, but it doesn't really seem to follow.
Adding unnecessary and seemingly redundant rules seems more like an attempt to create loopholes than to establish standards.
If you follow the conversation back, you find that the second highest parent made a claim involving "ID" and "good science" being put together. Thus it was implied that ID be discussed (taught) in class. This comment was originally made by the same poster as the parent to my message. Someone who is arguing that "both sides" be taught.
Also, why should evolution get more time in science class than any other equally accepted theory? Other than pushing agendas unrelated to the teaching of proven science that may require the theory of evolution to seem weak to students? My reaction is to the attack on science, evolution vs creationism is just a convenient vehicle for that. Its not that I fear someone seeing the flaws in evolution, that in itself is good. I fear the flaws being displayed out of proportion and context in order to confuse students.
Anyway, long story short. Please try reading the thread before you try to discredit me based on the last message or two out of context.
The debate has already happened. ID is not science. It does not belong in science class. This isn't really an issue of censorship, this is an issue of not confusing students with false information. Its not about saying your not allowed to talk about ID. This is about not teaching ID as science, which it is not. This is more about not lying to students. Although this particular lie seems to be driven by willful ignorance and religion rather than malicious intent, it is still a lie.
Any further ideas, debate and advancement of evolution or ID do not belong in grade school science class. Those classes are there to teach the basics. Unproven and highly questionable ideas shouldn't go directly to those classes. To get there the ideas should have to prove themselves. This is not censorship, this is reason.
Then lets point out that "The Newest Evolution of Creationism: Intelligent design is about politics and religion, not science." is the overview at the end.
Lets also point out that as it states, every article for creationism is immediately followed by a response from a proponent of evolution.
Finally lets reread this part of your quote from the article:
[quote]The report, printed in its entirety, opens with an introduction by Natural History magazine and concludes with an overview of the ID movement[/quote]
Now in case you missed it "concludes with an overview of the ID movement" and that overview is titled "The Newest Evolution of Creationism: Intelligent design is about politics and religion, not science."
True, that doesn't mean your reference is correct in its conclusions... But that your using an article which seems to come to a conclusion that is opposed to your own as evidence for your argument, listing it as "good science to support ID" does make me question your credibility, ability to read, and reasoning.
We are not limitless beings. We cannot hear every side, we cannot consider every possibility. This is the reason the schools try to only teach well proven ideas. That is part of the reason slashdot has a moderation system.
Evolution is a scientific theory, as such it is not perfect. Every theory, even the ones that gain 'scientific law' standing will likely have holes in them. Science is not an end all answer to everything. Its a method to prove and further our current understanding.
ID may or may not be ultimately correct, but that doesn't make it science. Its difficult to prove or disprove, you can wrap it in layers of reasoning but the basic problem is still there, even if a bit obscured. Since it cannot currently be proven or falsified, or even shown to be falsifiable, why should it get any time in science class? Philosophy or religion classes maybe, but not science class.
In the second link you posted the overview of the article is titled: "The Newest Evolution of Creationism: Intelligent design is about politics and religion, not science."
Maybe you should bother to read your own supporting evidence before whining about being moderated down.
Europe is not one country, the countries within Europe can vary quite a bit.
Yes, there may be problems in areas with higher Muslim populations in European cities. You haven't really covered why this is or more importantly, how this is relevant to freedom in the USA.
Your statement that mob mentality is being pushed is interesting, but you don't really elaborate. Also your argument on human rights doesn't seem to really go anywhere or touch on the issues. Are you implying that people can have freedom without any sort of established rights? Maybe you see anarchy as freedom?
As for your unemployment comment. You don't really back it up at all, you just say they lie. How do I know you don't lie? You seem angry, spiteful not rational. Also what does this have to do with freedom?
Overall to me your response reads as "us versus them" to me. You see "your" side being attacked, so you attack back, pointing out all the flaws in "my" side. Sadly the two sides don't exist as such. Even if they did, pointing out the other side's problems doesn't make your side's problems vanish.
If you want to go onto the list of continents to be fucked over, let us know. This is why the USA gets compared to a playground bully. Reading that line its not hard to believe or understand where the parent quote comes from:
Barely tolerably backwards and getting worse is more the perception in Europe. I'm just hoping you where aiming at humorously proving that point and are just a bit too subtle... but I fear not.
Many sources such as the Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index seem to be showing a trend of decreasing freedom in the USA over the last few years. I'm guessing that trend started somewhere in 2000-2001.
People tend to lag behind reality with the image they have of themselves.
The USA is still a very free country, generally a pretty nice place to be. It would however, appear to no longer be a leader in freedom, liberty or human rights.
And then a law was past which makes it illegal for anyone who is not trained on it, to use it. Uhh... where did that little tidbit come from?
Wikipedia says there is a court order that it is to be only used for religious counseling and that a warning is displayed on it. But nothing about any training requirement. A training requirement would imply a government organization involved or similar would it not? Anyone can build or use such a device if they want, as long as they aren't making claims about it having medical value...
Looking up your claims on the e-meter's sensitivity and on the "pinch test" on the web of course produces interesting results... and doubt. But I have no personal experience or access to such a device to check.
I feel like I should be saying something along the lines of: if your trying to live, looking for meaning is a crutch... then there should be the comment about life being a crutch...
Though it often does seem that in the search for meaning the idea of a god or gods is a bit of a dead end that leaves you with blind faith. Then I've got to ask how blind faith is so different from just accepting that meaning might be beyond your ability to comprehend... Guess god gives you prettier packaging on the same product. Whee crutches!
The reason people make it sound so bad is because it should be an improvement. The problems it has are pretty unacceptable for a product that represents years (they had what, 5 years?) of development and 'improvement' over XP. If you look at it by itself, it may not be so bad. But compared to its predecessor and competition... well you have to ask some questions.
Uhm... 1. In any reasonable well designed system wouldn't the patches be, ya know, signed? 2. Any third party software that you run could tamper with your system. Kinda sounds like a flimsy excuse used by someone who doesn't want to state their real reasons.
Slashdot Mirror
Thats nice and all, but it didn't really answer my question. Or actually be relevant to the discussion? Close enough to sound related, but it doesn't really seem to follow.
Adding unnecessary and seemingly redundant rules seems more like an attempt to create loopholes than to establish standards.
If you follow the conversation back, you find that the second highest parent made a claim involving "ID" and "good science" being put together. Thus it was implied that ID be discussed (taught) in class. This comment was originally made by the same poster as the parent to my message. Someone who is arguing that "both sides" be taught.
Also, why should evolution get more time in science class than any other equally accepted theory? Other than pushing agendas unrelated to the teaching of proven science that may require the theory of evolution to seem weak to students? My reaction is to the attack on science, evolution vs creationism is just a convenient vehicle for that. Its not that I fear someone seeing the flaws in evolution, that in itself is good. I fear the flaws being displayed out of proportion and context in order to confuse students.
Anyway, long story short. Please try reading the thread before you try to discredit me based on the last message or two out of context.
The debate has already happened. ID is not science. It does not belong in science class. This isn't really an issue of censorship, this is an issue of not confusing students with false information. Its not about saying your not allowed to talk about ID. This is about not teaching ID as science, which it is not. This is more about not lying to students. Although this particular lie seems to be driven by willful ignorance and religion rather than malicious intent, it is still a lie.
Any further ideas, debate and advancement of evolution or ID do not belong in grade school science class. Those classes are there to teach the basics. Unproven and highly questionable ideas shouldn't go directly to those classes. To get there the ideas should have to prove themselves. This is not censorship, this is reason.
First lets link to the source: http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/darwinanddesign.html
Then lets point out that "The Newest Evolution of Creationism: Intelligent design is about politics and religion, not science." is the overview at the end.
Lets also point out that as it states, every article for creationism is immediately followed by a response from a proponent of evolution.
Finally lets reread this part of your quote from the article: [quote]The report, printed in its entirety, opens with an introduction by Natural History magazine and concludes with an overview of the ID movement[/quote] Now in case you missed it "concludes with an overview of the ID movement" and that overview is titled "The Newest Evolution of Creationism: Intelligent design is about politics and religion, not science."
True, that doesn't mean your reference is correct in its conclusions... But that your using an article which seems to come to a conclusion that is opposed to your own as evidence for your argument, listing it as "good science to support ID" does make me question your credibility, ability to read, and reasoning.
We are not limitless beings. We cannot hear every side, we cannot consider every possibility. This is the reason the schools try to only teach well proven ideas. That is part of the reason slashdot has a moderation system.
Evolution is a scientific theory, as such it is not perfect. Every theory, even the ones that gain 'scientific law' standing will likely have holes in them. Science is not an end all answer to everything. Its a method to prove and further our current understanding.
ID may or may not be ultimately correct, but that doesn't make it science. Its difficult to prove or disprove, you can wrap it in layers of reasoning but the basic problem is still there, even if a bit obscured. Since it cannot currently be proven or falsified, or even shown to be falsifiable, why should it get any time in science class? Philosophy or religion classes maybe, but not science class.
In the second link you posted the overview of the article is titled: "The Newest Evolution of Creationism: Intelligent design is about politics and religion, not science."
Maybe you should bother to read your own supporting evidence before whining about being moderated down.
Sure, both sides of an argument should be presented to a student of those sides are both equally valid and are the best current information we have...
Uhm, did you bother to read the Natural History Magazine article you linked?
So what do you suggest? Allowing the legal definition to be so wide open that each and every person can redefine it at will?
Maybe you should visit them, spend some time there. Look at it from the point of view of locals before you go and say that.
They may be similar from your point of view, but that doesn't mean the culture of each of those countries is the same.
Europe is not one country, the countries within Europe can vary quite a bit.
Yes, there may be problems in areas with higher Muslim populations in European cities. You haven't really covered why this is or more importantly, how this is relevant to freedom in the USA.
Your statement that mob mentality is being pushed is interesting, but you don't really elaborate. Also your argument on human rights doesn't seem to really go anywhere or touch on the issues. Are you implying that people can have freedom without any sort of established rights? Maybe you see anarchy as freedom?
As for your unemployment comment. You don't really back it up at all, you just say they lie. How do I know you don't lie? You seem angry, spiteful not rational. Also what does this have to do with freedom?
Overall to me your response reads as "us versus them" to me. You see "your" side being attacked, so you attack back, pointing out all the flaws in "my" side. Sadly the two sides don't exist as such. Even if they did, pointing out the other side's problems doesn't make your side's problems vanish.
Reading that line its not hard to believe or understand where the parent quote comes from: Barely tolerably backwards and getting worse is more the perception in Europe. I'm just hoping you where aiming at humorously proving that point and are just a bit too subtle... but I fear not.
Many sources such as the Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index seem to be showing a trend of decreasing freedom in the USA over the last few years. I'm guessing that trend started somewhere in 2000-2001.
People tend to lag behind reality with the image they have of themselves.
The USA is still a very free country, generally a pretty nice place to be. It would however, appear to no longer be a leader in freedom, liberty or human rights.
Wikipedia says there is a court order that it is to be only used for religious counseling and that a warning is displayed on it. But nothing about any training requirement. A training requirement would imply a government organization involved or similar would it not? Anyone can build or use such a device if they want, as long as they aren't making claims about it having medical value...
Looking up your claims on the e-meter's sensitivity and on the "pinch test" on the web of course produces interesting results... and doubt. But I have no personal experience or access to such a device to check.
I feel like I should be saying something along the lines of: if your trying to live, looking for meaning is a crutch... then there should be the comment about life being a crutch...
Though it often does seem that in the search for meaning the idea of a god or gods is a bit of a dead end that leaves you with blind faith. Then I've got to ask how blind faith is so different from just accepting that meaning might be beyond your ability to comprehend... Guess god gives you prettier packaging on the same product. Whee crutches!
The reason people make it sound so bad is because it should be an improvement. The problems it has are pretty unacceptable for a product that represents years (they had what, 5 years?) of development and 'improvement' over XP. If you look at it by itself, it may not be so bad. But compared to its predecessor and competition... well you have to ask some questions.
Uhm...
1. In any reasonable well designed system wouldn't the patches be, ya know, signed?
2. Any third party software that you run could tamper with your system. Kinda sounds like a flimsy excuse used by someone who doesn't want to state their real reasons.