For that matter, the article makes it seem like most of the mcgyvering they did was in setting up the structure--the coke can supported an unexplained "device for measuring," etc. Sounds more like they jury-rigged a table than anything involving experimental physics.
I'm saying that everyone cherry-picks the parts of whatever religious source they use and ignores the parts they don't, and that's OK because religious texts are meant for piecemeal inspiration, not as a logical basis for action.
Saying "I'm a Christian, let me look to the Bible for guidance," and going to, say, the story of the Good Samaritan and saying "That sounds good, next time I find myself tempted to ignore someone because I don't know them, I'll remember this example and help them instead," or recalling to mind the story of the Hebrews who built the golden calf at a time when you're tempted to be impatient, and relying on that example being patient longer, is using the Bible for inspiration.
Saying "I'm a Christian, let me look to the Bible for absolute truth," and going to, say, the beginning of Genesis and saying "Hey, this proves that evolution is false," or to the battle of Jericho and saying "Hey, this proves that the sun goes around the earth," is using the Bible for reasoning and logic about the external world.
The former is using the Bible for its intended purpose, the latter is dragging it into a usage it's not meant for.
Of course, one can go to certain parts of Leviticus and say "Hey, here it says homosexuals are an abomination in the eye of the Lord, let me not be friends with that gay guy," and still be using the Bible for inspiration. I'm not arguing that it's impossible to draw bad ideas about one's conduct from the Bible, I'm arguing that it's incorrect to use the Bible as a link in a chain of logical reasoning a la young-earth creationism.
Obviously you don't find that part of the Bible morally inspiring. Neither do I.
The point I was making is that the Bible is not a series of logical arguments, which hang together and if you accept one you should accept the rest. It's a set of moral stories which, if you agree with the morals, inspires you to act according to those morals.
The writing in some of the middle ones borders on conspiracy-theory crazy--"If you are reading the mainstream newspapers or listening to National Public Radio, you are contributing to your own mental illness, no matter how astute you believe yourself to be at "balancing" or "deciphering" the code" from the one about Congo.
Many of these are important and swept under the rug, but many others are just these guys' pet issues, and their ideologies blind them to the shakiness of their claims.
In short, yes we know the MSM only covers things that they deem exciting. Yes, the average person never hears about lots of important things. No, these 25 are no more the "top 25 censored stories" than the "top 10 dead computer languages" from a few days ago were really the top 10 dead computer languages.
Very well said.
Furthermore, the arguments presented in the Bible are not logical arguments, which would lose their force if combined with shoddy reasoning. The Bible is a series of stories that advocate particular moral choices, and seek to make those moral choices attractive. If you find those moral choices attractive, it doesn't matter that the imperative to do them doesn't come coherently from the text, because the imperative to do them comes from yourself, and the Bible is only a way to encourage yourself to follow them, inspiration rather than command. Some may find the Bible inspiring enough to change their actions and principles to coincide with it, but they're not being convinced by any sort of logic--they're being convinced by the emotional attractiveness of the Bible's principles.
That's what religion is--a set of explanations of the world and moral principles that derive their force by making us feel good when we follow them. It's not necessary to accept every part of your chosen religion to get the benefit of it--you just have to like it enough to be inspired to act accordingly.
Clearly the Creationist Museum operators have taken a very different part of Christianity to heart than Conigs has.
"So, if you haven't got a clue when something is going to happen, and that thing could destroy mankind, it's only prudent to make it a priority. What's absurd about that?"
The precautionary principle, for one. The fact that there's a lot of bad stuff we could be dealing with that will happen 100%. The fact that we care less about the eventual death of the species than about having fun now.
What's with the rash of slashdot comments castigating us for having the wrong priorities?
This type of thought is incredibly stupid. "There are dire things going on, why don't we spend all our time and energy dealing with them?" Because we care disproportionately about what affects our lives most directly. Because we don't all agree with your political views enough to take our time to be activists for them. Because we think we can win this one but not the others. Because it takes 2 minutes to donate $2 to send peanuts to CBS for charity, and longer to volunteer in New Orleans. Because we donate to charity too.
Watered-down beer has to have prior art from the 1940s.
I think it was on here that I read about the beer where 80% of tasters in a double-blind taste-test preferred horse piss, and the other 20% thought both were horse piss. I forget which beer though.
Which is why the aggrieved shouldn't be allowed to dictate policy for the rest of us. That's how we get laws like we have, how we got into the Iraq war...
I know this will be flamebait and start a whole new thread of wangst, but that's why there's a mod for it.
Actually, the most minimal intrusion would be to make child rape punishable by life in prison. That wouldn't intrude on the liberties of people who piss in the bushes, and 19-year-olds who screw 17-year-olds, and would intrude on the liberties of people who really should have their liberties intruded upon.
Child rapists are capable of traveling 1000 feet, or 1000 yards, or however long to get to where the kids are. They're capable of making false internet identities. What they're not capable of is doing any of that while locked up.
Then why are they out of prison?
These registries are populated entirely by people who should be in prison for life or worse, and by people who should never have been punished. Nobody actually belongs on these lists.
Slashdot Mirror
For that matter, the article makes it seem like most of the mcgyvering they did was in setting up the structure--the coke can supported an unexplained "device for measuring," etc. Sounds more like they jury-rigged a table than anything involving experimental physics.
It's in his book "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman" which is worth reading regardless.
Have I argued otherwise? Cherry-picking is not what I'm arguing against.
You're referring, I take it, to Leviticus and its ilk?
Saying "I'm a Christian, let me look to the Bible for guidance," and going to, say, the story of the Good Samaritan and saying "That sounds good, next time I find myself tempted to ignore someone because I don't know them, I'll remember this example and help them instead," or recalling to mind the story of the Hebrews who built the golden calf at a time when you're tempted to be impatient, and relying on that example being patient longer, is using the Bible for inspiration.
Saying "I'm a Christian, let me look to the Bible for absolute truth," and going to, say, the beginning of Genesis and saying "Hey, this proves that evolution is false," or to the battle of Jericho and saying "Hey, this proves that the sun goes around the earth," is using the Bible for reasoning and logic about the external world.
The former is using the Bible for its intended purpose, the latter is dragging it into a usage it's not meant for.
Of course, one can go to certain parts of Leviticus and say "Hey, here it says homosexuals are an abomination in the eye of the Lord, let me not be friends with that gay guy," and still be using the Bible for inspiration. I'm not arguing that it's impossible to draw bad ideas about one's conduct from the Bible, I'm arguing that it's incorrect to use the Bible as a link in a chain of logical reasoning a la young-earth creationism.
Obviously you don't find that part of the Bible morally inspiring. Neither do I. The point I was making is that the Bible is not a series of logical arguments, which hang together and if you accept one you should accept the rest. It's a set of moral stories which, if you agree with the morals, inspires you to act according to those morals.
The writing in some of the middle ones borders on conspiracy-theory crazy--"If you are reading the mainstream newspapers or listening to National Public Radio, you are contributing to your own mental illness, no matter how astute you believe yourself to be at "balancing" or "deciphering" the code" from the one about Congo. Many of these are important and swept under the rug, but many others are just these guys' pet issues, and their ideologies blind them to the shakiness of their claims. In short, yes we know the MSM only covers things that they deem exciting. Yes, the average person never hears about lots of important things. No, these 25 are no more the "top 25 censored stories" than the "top 10 dead computer languages" from a few days ago were really the top 10 dead computer languages.
Very well said. Furthermore, the arguments presented in the Bible are not logical arguments, which would lose their force if combined with shoddy reasoning. The Bible is a series of stories that advocate particular moral choices, and seek to make those moral choices attractive. If you find those moral choices attractive, it doesn't matter that the imperative to do them doesn't come coherently from the text, because the imperative to do them comes from yourself, and the Bible is only a way to encourage yourself to follow them, inspiration rather than command. Some may find the Bible inspiring enough to change their actions and principles to coincide with it, but they're not being convinced by any sort of logic--they're being convinced by the emotional attractiveness of the Bible's principles. That's what religion is--a set of explanations of the world and moral principles that derive their force by making us feel good when we follow them. It's not necessary to accept every part of your chosen religion to get the benefit of it--you just have to like it enough to be inspired to act accordingly. Clearly the Creationist Museum operators have taken a very different part of Christianity to heart than Conigs has.
"So, if you haven't got a clue when something is going to happen, and that thing could destroy mankind, it's only prudent to make it a priority. What's absurd about that?" The precautionary principle, for one. The fact that there's a lot of bad stuff we could be dealing with that will happen 100%. The fact that we care less about the eventual death of the species than about having fun now. What's with the rash of slashdot comments castigating us for having the wrong priorities?
A dark void...like our parents' basements?
If you were e real Browncoat you'd know it was spelled Jayne.
This type of thought is incredibly stupid. "There are dire things going on, why don't we spend all our time and energy dealing with them?" Because we care disproportionately about what affects our lives most directly. Because we don't all agree with your political views enough to take our time to be activists for them. Because we think we can win this one but not the others. Because it takes 2 minutes to donate $2 to send peanuts to CBS for charity, and longer to volunteer in New Orleans. Because we donate to charity too.
Watered-down beer has to have prior art from the 1940s. I think it was on here that I read about the beer where 80% of tasters in a double-blind taste-test preferred horse piss, and the other 20% thought both were horse piss. I forget which beer though.
This is like goatse vs tubgirl.
And overrated and redundant.
PotC vs Matrix? Fun pirate movies vs overwrought pop philosophy and bad physics? Is this even a choice?
Won't labels buy radio stations and just pay themselves royalties?
And how much of that is spam, spyware, and porn?
Sounds good to me, pot smokers shouldn't be in jail to begin with. Besides, there are more pot smokers than rapists.
Being 19 and screwing a 17-year-old? Check out Genarlow Wilson's case for a particularly egregious example.
Which is why the aggrieved shouldn't be allowed to dictate policy for the rest of us. That's how we get laws like we have, how we got into the Iraq war... I know this will be flamebait and start a whole new thread of wangst, but that's why there's a mod for it.
Read what I wrote. You're responding to a strawman here.
Mod this one up!
Actually, the most minimal intrusion would be to make child rape punishable by life in prison. That wouldn't intrude on the liberties of people who piss in the bushes, and 19-year-olds who screw 17-year-olds, and would intrude on the liberties of people who really should have their liberties intruded upon. Child rapists are capable of traveling 1000 feet, or 1000 yards, or however long to get to where the kids are. They're capable of making false internet identities. What they're not capable of is doing any of that while locked up.
Then why are they out of prison? These registries are populated entirely by people who should be in prison for life or worse, and by people who should never have been punished. Nobody actually belongs on these lists.