Then you aren't using Chrome or Google's search, or Gmail or any other Google services, presumably. Or any Yahoo services. Otherwise, you would be... ooh... a hypocrite!
joyfully contribute to prosperous growth of the Great Firewall of China
-1 Troll
Opera to the favor of the Chinese Government
Yes, I'm sure the alternatives were "do this" or "you don't have to do this if you don't want to", rather than "do this" or "myseriously disappear from the face of the earth". But who cares about Opera's employees in China anyway, right?
The EU is an example of countries losing national sovereignty in this manner.
Yeah, like local states in the US lost their sovereignty when they were made part of the United States?
Losing national sovereignty to world political bodies
You live in a world where there are other nations. Your nation's sovereignty affects other nations. If your nation causes a lot of trouble for others, it needs to be dealt with. You don't live in a vacuum. If you think you can just go about your business and do whatever the hell you like, you are delusional. Your actions affect someone else.
By the way, what's so bad about world political bodies? If the global rules and laws are sound, it's a good thing to have authority above the national level in order to hold nations accountable for their actions.
If humans were intelligently designed, for example, there would be no parts included in the design which have no purpose (for example, the appendix). If humans were intelligently designed then the eye would not have been designed so that the majority of its area is covered in receptors that only work at dusk, that the optic nerve would have been created with enough bandwidth to transmit the image from the retina to the brain without horrible compression which causes all sorts of artefacts. It also wouldn't have been connected dead centre, so you couldn't see things you looked directly at. Oh, and the brain and genitalia wouldn't be attached in such a fragile way.
Why? Is everything that is designed also perfect? Do we humans never make imperfect designs?
has it been 100% proven? No! So I suggest shutting your mouth and getting your vocabulary straight before you criticize creationists
Epic fail. Nothing in science is "100% proven". Science deals with evidence, not with proof. Looks like you are the one who should get your vocabulary straight before spreading FUD about Evolution.
He wrote a book titled "The god delusion" and you're saying he doesn't ridicule?
Yes indeed. Please provide me with a specific example beyond an attention-grabbing title.
Religion and evolution are not incompatible and it is stupid to argue that except if you're setting it up as a straw man. Even the pope recognises evolution. What is so wrong with argueing that god could have created the mechanics for evolution and designed life so it would evolve?
Just because the pope willfully ignores the direct contradiction between his theology and science doesn't mean that he is right. Dawkins makes many excellent points about how Evolution is contrary to the God portrayed in the Bible.
Tell me, can you do the proof to E=MC^2? Can you even understand the maths and science behind someone else's proof? I'd doubt it. Yet you probably think it is correct. You're going on faith that other people are correct.
Wrong. We know from experience that scientific consensus works. No faith is required.
The evidence may be there but only a select number of people understand this evidence and you're trusting they're correct and no misleading.
No, I'm accepting scientific consensus because it has proven to work great so far.
They make the probability argument about the first self-replicating entity capable of evolving. Their argument is that the necessary complexity of that first entity is beyond reasonable probability of benign natural forces and must therefore have been created by an intelligent designer...
Which is the exact same fallacy that creationists are using against Evolution. And it's a fallacy in this case too. They are assuming that a fully working cell suddenly popped out of nowhere or something like that, which is wrong.
I still feel that given the long odds, the 'completely random permutation moderated by natural selection' isn't wholly sufficient to explain all life either.
That's because this is either a conscious straw man, or a result of your ignorance.
And, since the focus is on defense of those tenets, the best place to practice that is on hostile websites. So I believe the assignment is appropriate to the course aims.
So if white supremacists are taught a course in a white supremacist school, it's fine for them to have as an assignment to harass black communities online?
No, fundamentalists CREATED the name. It was created by creationists who were unable to force creationism into schools, so they decide to change the name and pretend that it didn't have anything to do with God (but they admitted privately that it did, and even published a document outlining how the new creationism, ID, would undermine science and replace it with faith).
I would like to point out that "RichardDawkins.net" is definitely presenting one side of this story, and anyone who takes a brief look at the site can tell which side that is. This is a philosophy course they're referencing and if you look at the tests you'll notice that the questions are just like any philosophy course.
So because it's fake "philosphy", encouraging students to troll "enemy" sites is acceptable? Heh.
What better way to make you understand and can use the material you've been taught then to have you defend it against people who will purposely be attacking it vehemently.
Actually, all the students need to do is what IDists usually do: Just copy and paste from some pre-prepared list of nonsensical claims and to 10 hit-and-run posts on various sites.
For the second prong, I judge the posts to be controversial, non-inflammatory, relevant, and on-topic.
On the contrary, the requirement was to post on "hostile" sites. No "on-topic" or "relevance" required. Basically, go forth and spam any sites with ID comments regardless of whether it's on-topic or not.
The third prong is passed also, since "'hostile' websites" is approximately the same as "online community".
Actually, the fact that they are described as "hostile" prove that the intent is to troll.
I've never heard him speak - perhaps he gets carried away in person
On the contrary. He's so polite he lets the opponent get away with the most insane drivel in debates. He's just too polite to really call people on their bullshit.
Slashdot Mirror
Then you aren't using Chrome or Google's search, or Gmail or any other Google services, presumably. Or any Yahoo services. Otherwise, you would be... ooh... a hypocrite!
-1 Troll
Yes, I'm sure the alternatives were "do this" or "you don't have to do this if you don't want to", rather than "do this" or "myseriously disappear from the face of the earth". But who cares about Opera's employees in China anyway, right?
The best claims always start out this way. No need to provide any evidence for any assertions. Just refer to "someone".
Yeah, like local states in the US lost their sovereignty when they were made part of the United States?
You live in a world where there are other nations. Your nation's sovereignty affects other nations. If your nation causes a lot of trouble for others, it needs to be dealt with. You don't live in a vacuum. If you think you can just go about your business and do whatever the hell you like, you are delusional. Your actions affect someone else.
By the way, what's so bad about world political bodies? If the global rules and laws are sound, it's a good thing to have authority above the national level in order to hold nations accountable for their actions.
Intelligent Design states that God created everything, and that Evolution is completely false. Thus, it is completely incompatible with science.
It is, since ID is basically an organized campaign to undermine science and replace it with religion.
Why? Is everything that is designed also perfect? Do we humans never make imperfect designs?
ID is simply not falsifiable.
Epic fail. Nothing in science is "100% proven". Science deals with evidence, not with proof. Looks like you are the one who should get your vocabulary straight before spreading FUD about Evolution.
Actually, creationists (=IDists) are either ignorant or dishonest.
No, it's a completely rational and factual generalization. Even the "leaders of ID" are dishonest trolls.
Yep, a Microsoft shill and troll in one. Called it.
I'm not assuming. I'm looking at the description. And I also know from experience how creationists behave. This is learning how to troll indeed.
Nice attention span there. I even specifically explained that bundling in itself is not illegal.
Nice one, Microsoft shill. How much do they pay you to lie for them?
Yes indeed. Please provide me with a specific example beyond an attention-grabbing title.
Just because the pope willfully ignores the direct contradiction between his theology and science doesn't mean that he is right. Dawkins makes many excellent points about how Evolution is contrary to the God portrayed in the Bible.
Wrong. We know from experience that scientific consensus works. No faith is required.
No, I'm accepting scientific consensus because it has proven to work great so far.
He isn't right, technically. He is right, period.
Which is wrong, as the other person demonstrated.
Which is the exact same fallacy that creationists are using against Evolution. And it's a fallacy in this case too. They are assuming that a fully working cell suddenly popped out of nowhere or something like that, which is wrong.
That's because this is either a conscious straw man, or a result of your ignorance.
The founders of ID did it. ID == Creationism.
It does. The people who created the ID movement did this.
So if white supremacists are taught a course in a white supremacist school, it's fine for them to have as an assignment to harass black communities online?
Creationists created ID to get around laws against teaching religion in science classes. They did not hijack it.
No, fundamentalists CREATED the name. It was created by creationists who were unable to force creationism into schools, so they decide to change the name and pretend that it didn't have anything to do with God (but they admitted privately that it did, and even published a document outlining how the new creationism, ID, would undermine science and replace it with faith).
So because it's fake "philosphy", encouraging students to troll "enemy" sites is acceptable? Heh.
Actually, all the students need to do is what IDists usually do: Just copy and paste from some pre-prepared list of nonsensical claims and to 10 hit-and-run posts on various sites.
On the contrary, the requirement was to post on "hostile" sites. No "on-topic" or "relevance" required. Basically, go forth and spam any sites with ID comments regardless of whether it's on-topic or not.
Actually, the fact that they are described as "hostile" prove that the intent is to troll.
On the contrary. He's so polite he lets the opponent get away with the most insane drivel in debates. He's just too polite to really call people on their bullshit.