The really zealous religious people should be able to make science not exist for them.
You know, like how dwarves can walk through magical walls in the Dragonlance series because they don't believe in magic, since magic doesn't make sense.
Though I guess that's more of what science does. People can live in a world without magic. People can live in a world without faith. But people can't live in a world without science.
As the poster above me says, there are heaps of discrepancies in the Bible. You have to pick and choose what's right and wrong. The Bible isn't a living document that can change with the times. Sure, it still has relevant points, but so does ANY work of literature, no matter how old. The Bible is valid as a document of socio-anthropological study for the time periods in which it was written.
And those are the main differences between religion and science: science evolves and changes, whereas religion is static. Science can and does exist on its own, whereas people can't get through their days without using the scientific method.
I don't know what kind of classes he's teaching, but when I was in school asking questions and having some sort of discussion as part of the lecture was just as important as the textbook.
Hearing perspectives and having those perspectives challenged and evaluated by your professors and fellow students is an integral component of the college experience. I doubt listening to iPod lectures would be nearly as useful.
Giving out information for free is a great idea, but the electronic media can't replace human interaction.
I agree with this statement wholeheartedly. Not everyone learns well through lectures, just like not everyone learns through text.
That's why textbooks haven't replaced classrooms before now: not everyone learns well through reading.
I could see this happening if classes were more like video conferences. But that would still be a kind of "classroom setting", just not in an actual classroom. Still, that'd save universities the costs of needing to build new classrooms and dorms.
So it is legal for the US. Just fantastically depressing knowing that you won't sign the fucking geneva convention.
Why the hell should we sign it? If the US is dragged into a war I want us to use the most effective weapons possible to kill as many of the enemy as possible while exposing as few of our troops as possible. That's been our policy since WW2 and I don't think we owe anybody any apologies for it.
The purposeful killing of civilians goes against the rules of just war. Colateral damage should be minimized as much as possible. The general civilian public is as innocent as any of our people. We might not like all of their views, sure, but they re not part of the war. Herding people into buildings, telling them they'll be safe there before bombing the place to bits, is just wrong. And it does nothing to help save American lives... in fact, it makes the remaining populace so disgusted with American activities that more hatred brews, giving rise to more war.
Wouldn't WE be outraged if our civilians were suddenly killed?
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
It's good to know that I'm not the only one who feels this way. The whole "'us' vs. 'them'" syndrom seems remenicent of the Cold War-- heck, any modern war in general.
Even when we're not at war with people, we're at war with people. Our mentalities don't change. That's why we can never seem to make peace.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, like how dwarves can walk through magical walls in the Dragonlance series because they don't believe in magic, since magic doesn't make sense.
Though I guess that's more of what science does. People can live in a world without magic. People can live in a world without faith. But people can't live in a world without science.
As the poster above me says, there are heaps of discrepancies in the Bible. You have to pick and choose what's right and wrong. The Bible isn't a living document that can change with the times. Sure, it still has relevant points, but so does ANY work of literature, no matter how old. The Bible is valid as a document of socio-anthropological study for the time periods in which it was written.
And those are the main differences between religion and science: science evolves and changes, whereas religion is static. Science can and does exist on its own, whereas people can't get through their days without using the scientific method.
I don't know what kind of classes he's teaching, but when I was in school asking questions and having some sort of discussion as part of the lecture was just as important as the textbook.
Hearing perspectives and having those perspectives challenged and evaluated by your professors and fellow students is an integral component of the college experience. I doubt listening to iPod lectures would be nearly as useful.
Giving out information for free is a great idea, but the electronic media can't replace human interaction.
I agree with this statement wholeheartedly. Not everyone learns well through lectures, just like not everyone learns through text.
That's why textbooks haven't replaced classrooms before now: not everyone learns well through reading.
I could see this happening if classes were more like video conferences. But that would still be a kind of "classroom setting", just not in an actual classroom. Still, that'd save universities the costs of needing to build new classrooms and dorms.
So it is legal for the US. Just fantastically depressing knowing that you won't sign the fucking geneva convention.
Why the hell should we sign it? If the US is dragged into a war I want us to use the most effective weapons possible to kill as many of the enemy as possible while exposing as few of our troops as possible. That's been our policy since WW2 and I don't think we owe anybody any apologies for it.
The purposeful killing of civilians goes against the rules of just war. Colateral damage should be minimized as much as possible. The general civilian public is as innocent as any of our people. We might not like all of their views, sure, but they re not part of the war. Herding people into buildings, telling them they'll be safe there before bombing the place to bits, is just wrong. And it does nothing to help save American lives... in fact, it makes the remaining populace so disgusted with American activities that more hatred brews, giving rise to more war.
Wouldn't WE be outraged if our civilians were suddenly killed?
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
"People having their flesh burned to the bone while they are alive."
No, no, you seem to have misunderstood, this game is about Fallujah, not Viet Nam
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/apr/04/iraq.iraq Guess someone doesn't read the news much?
But the US policy of Good vs Evil is NOT helpful.
It's good to know that I'm not the only one who feels this way. The whole "'us' vs. 'them'" syndrom seems remenicent of the Cold War-- heck, any modern war in general.
Even when we're not at war with people, we're at war with people. Our mentalities don't change. That's why we can never seem to make peace.