Of course, this guy would arrive at this conclusion. He has to in order to maintain his position on killing handicapped, terminally ill, etc. These "bioethicists" as they are called would have a lot in common with the nazis. They praise people who seem to devalue human life. Devaluing human life is the next logical step when you realize that we are nothing, but slightly improved apes.
Re:Who censored your cr/lf?
on
Fahrenheit 451
·
· Score: 1
Welcome to the internet. And thanks for the complement coward.
Re:Unpopular things are often censored
on
Fahrenheit 451
·
· Score: 1
Enjoyed your reply. #1) Evolution is defined as a science, but often plays the role of a religon. Certainly, there are things which evolution explains. However, it isnt that well proven. It's considered proven by those who have a self-interest in believing that it's so. The very fact that the exact form of evolution is being debated is an indication that they dont really know how it happened. They simply believe that it did. Sounds like faith to me. There is MUCH evidence missing. For instance, we really do not know how Humans got to be so complex. In fairness it is one of those questions which will never be proven as the "flat Earth" analogy you used earlier. That is simply because we were not there. We can only speculate and try to reproduce what might have happened. Even if Evolution were possible it doesnt mean that it did happen. We will always be speculating and assuming. In addition, it's the science establishment which defines what is science and what isnt. That's the line which you are touting. In actuality, for someone who seeks truth, they must realize that if there is a God that he might impact our world in one manner or another. We don't usually expect a "divine intervention" and probably shouldnt. However, a scientist isn't required to be a naturalist at all times. When it comes to questions of such an unsual nature such as "where did we come from?", there should be an allowance for alternate explanations. Even evolutionists are starting to talk about life being seeded here by aliens. If that concept is tollerated, why not creation? Obviously, Creationism has gotten a bad reputation. Some of it probably deserved. Much of it due to a bias in the science establishment towards naturalism and intellectual snobbishness. We as humans are arrogant and like to believe that we are the supreme beings. "No one can tell us what to do". Lets get back to trying to be "objective". #2) Thanks for pointing out my spelling error:-) . True about the ACLU. They do do some things which suprise me. However, I believe they cause alot of problems too.
Unpopular things are often censored
on
Fahrenheit 451
·
· Score: 1
That sounds obvious I'm sure, but there are other things ( which dont get the same press) which are often censored. Right now I'm specifically thinking of the of removing Bibles from school libraries. Why do that? Especially when other religous literature can easily be found there. In particular, you can find many books which present the New Age world view but are presented as self-help, etc. At least if you are going to do it lets remove all of it. Lets also remove censorship of Creation and Evolution. I think both should be taught. (That's another posting) Let ideas flow freely and trust the people to decide. The majority of people will probably make a good, fair, middle of the road position which should protect everyone's interests. Conservatives have often been accused of being the only ones interested in censorship of any kind. In truth, it is a human tendency - not just conservative. In fact, most liberals would be over-joyed ( and noticably silent) probably to find out that Janet Reno had shutdown Rush Limbaugh's radio program (classifying it as Hate Speech or some other such nonsense). Given that that statement is true, then most liberals are hippocrates. In another way, censorship often takes place in more suttle ways. Libraries and bookstores for instance have limited space (even big ones have a limit). Consequently, they cannot hold every book that their internet counter-parts can sell. Thus, they must decide what books should be available to the people who come in to their facility. By doing so, someone is in fact censoring some books in favor of others. If you dont have internet access then that censorship impacts you more. (Obviously, if you're reading this you do have internet access...it was a general 'you'). People usualy cry fowl of censorhip only when it effects them. If you like seeing internet porn, then of course your going to protest when people try to limit access to it. We as Americans need to once again stand for the ideals for which our country is based. We need to remember those ideals first. Then we must stand on them. We should fight for the rights of individuals even though their speech may make us upset. We should because when one person's rights are violated and we stand silent we are telling the government that it's ok. Then the government will become a little more bold and take more rights. Again we will be silent. This will repeat until our democracy degrades into a dictatorship.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, this guy would arrive at this conclusion. He has to in order to maintain his position on killing handicapped, terminally ill, etc. These "bioethicists" as they are called would have a lot in common with the nazis. They praise people who seem to devalue human life. Devaluing human life is the next logical step when you realize that we are nothing, but slightly improved apes.
Welcome to the internet. And thanks for the complement coward.
Enjoyed your reply. #1) Evolution is defined as a science, but often plays the role of a religon. Certainly, there are things which evolution explains. However, it isnt that well proven. It's considered proven by those who have a self-interest in believing that it's so. The very fact that the exact form of evolution is being debated is an indication that they dont really know how it happened. They simply believe that it did. Sounds like faith to me. There is MUCH evidence missing. For instance, we really do not know how Humans got to be so complex. In fairness it is one of those questions which will never be proven as the "flat Earth" analogy you used earlier. That is simply because we were not there. We can only speculate and try to reproduce what might have happened. Even if Evolution were possible it doesnt mean that it did happen. We will always be speculating and assuming. In addition, it's the science establishment which defines what is science and what isnt. That's the line which you are touting. In actuality, for someone who seeks truth, they must realize that if there is a God that he might impact our world in one manner or another. We don't usually expect a "divine intervention" and probably shouldnt. However, a scientist isn't required to be a naturalist at all times. When it comes to questions of such an unsual nature such as "where did we come from?", there should be an allowance for alternate explanations. Even evolutionists are starting to talk about life being seeded here by aliens. If that concept is tollerated, why not creation? Obviously, Creationism has gotten a bad reputation. Some of it probably deserved. Much of it due to a bias in the science establishment towards naturalism and intellectual snobbishness. We as humans are arrogant and like to believe that we are the supreme beings. "No one can tell us what to do". Lets get back to trying to be "objective". #2) Thanks for pointing out my spelling error :-) . True about the ACLU. They do do some things which suprise me. However, I believe they cause alot of problems too.
That sounds obvious I'm sure, but there are other things ( which dont get the same press) which are often censored. Right now I'm specifically thinking of the of removing Bibles from school libraries. Why do that? Especially when other religous literature can easily be found there. In particular, you can find many books which present the New Age world view but are presented as self-help, etc. At least if you are going to do it lets remove all of it. Lets also remove censorship of Creation and Evolution. I think both should be taught. (That's another posting) Let ideas flow freely and trust the people to decide. The majority of people will probably make a good, fair, middle of the road position which should protect everyone's interests. Conservatives have often been accused of being the only ones interested in censorship of any kind. In truth, it is a human tendency - not just conservative. In fact, most liberals would be over-joyed ( and noticably silent) probably to find out that Janet Reno had shutdown Rush Limbaugh's radio program (classifying it as Hate Speech or some other such nonsense). Given that that statement is true, then most liberals are hippocrates. In another way, censorship often takes place in more suttle ways. Libraries and bookstores for instance have limited space (even big ones have a limit). Consequently, they cannot hold every book that their internet counter-parts can sell. Thus, they must decide what books should be available to the people who come in to their facility. By doing so, someone is in fact censoring some books in favor of others. If you dont have internet access then that censorship impacts you more. (Obviously, if you're reading this you do have internet access...it was a general 'you'). People usualy cry fowl of censorhip only when it effects them. If you like seeing internet porn, then of course your going to protest when people try to limit access to it. We as Americans need to once again stand for the ideals for which our country is based. We need to remember those ideals first. Then we must stand on them. We should fight for the rights of individuals even though their speech may make us upset. We should because when one person's rights are violated and we stand silent we are telling the government that it's ok. Then the government will become a little more bold and take more rights. Again we will be silent. This will repeat until our democracy degrades into a dictatorship.