So another geriatric ultra-conservative in exactly the same mould as Benedict and John-Paul II.
Cynics might say he has been elected in an attempt to halt the decline in Catholicism in Latin America, one of the sects most important regions. Otherwise the only place in the world it would seem to be growing is Africa.
How relevant is it in the developed world? What percentage of Catholics actually attend mass each week? How many Catholics solely practice "natural" birth control methods or have issues with gay marriage?
Oh, and interesting to see that this supposed bastion of morality has no problem, again, with someone who has cosied up to a fascist regime.
The only newspaper in the UK with a right wing bridge column. Noted for its trenchant attitude to the EU, the ECHR and its science-savvy journalists. (The latter is meant as sarcasm by the way).
Isn't this the tactic the Behe tried in the Dover-Kitzmiller trial? At which it was pointed out that his definition of science was so broad that it would have included astrology as a science. Perhaps this is what needs to happen here, someone needs to show what the consequences of the legislation will be, besides yet another court case and people pointing and laughing.
Perhaps "all sides" means diligently pointing out flaws in the theory where behavior is observed but not adequately understood. Punctuated equilibrium, missing link, I'm looking at the two of you in particular.
Evolution is the only theory for how species came to be as they are which is both credible *and* scientific. But it isn't a very good theory. If it was a good theory then it would be *testable*. One could use it to make reliable predictions about generational change in short lived animals based on whatever the factors are that induce change.
Certainly Karl Popper didn't initially think that the theory of evolution was testable, but he later changed his mind:
I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation...
The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological. In this case it is not only testable, but it turns out to be not strictly universally true. There seem to be exceptions, as with so many biological theories; and considering the random character of the variations on which natural selection operates, the occurrence of exceptions is not surprising...
1976. Unended Quest. An Intellectual Autobiography.
If you want more concrete examples of how the theory is both testable and falsifiable you could try these pages.
So I know this is Fox News we're talking about here, but where exactly does one draw the line between a failure to check your sources, and becoming a tabloid?
Considering how easy it would be to set off some of those cheap Blue-Rhino propane tanks and get a similar death-toll, I hop that NYC is going to have gas control next on the agenda.
Absolutely, it would avoid the huge amount of straw in your post igniting.
Automatic weapons are already rare and tightly controlled in the United States, and their "effectiveness" is questionable in these types of situations. No, you don't need anything fancy like that to create such a tragedy. A simple hunting rifle or handgun are all that one needs.
One of my friends is a teacher in a school about 15 miles away from this incident. He tells me that the gunman carried one of these besides the hand guns.
I agree, lets go the Switzerland route and actually require able bodied individuals to own and be trained in firearms. That way, the US too can have one of the lowest firearm crime rates in the world.
You do realise that:
The Swiss have a conscript army, which is why people have guns (but not ammunition) at home.
That the members of the militia do not own their guns
That otherwise gun control in Switzerland is very much like other European countries and
That Switzerland has one of the highest gun death rates in Europe, twice as high as that in its neighbours Austria and France, and 5 times higher than in its other two neighbours, Germany and Italy
Isn't this all rather a hasty generalisation. You may be able to point out a small number of people who have dropped out of college and been successful, but what about those who drop out and end up picking goods for the owners of Microsoft and similar?
I am sure that there must be people who have bodies like Charles Atlas without doing any workouts, but I suspect they are few and far between.
Wouldnt you be better off buying from Amazon and writing a check to the tax man. If you buy from the local store, they get about 5-10% in tax. If you buy from Amazon and send a check, they could get 44% of the price. I am sure the tax man will agree with me.
You assume that I am in America and hence paying sales tax. I am not.
There is currently a significant amount of bad feeling in the UK about companies like Amazon, Google, Starbucks and Asda (Walmart). Their turnover is in the billions of pounds but by means of some fancy accounting they pay little or no tax. In the end this is a cost to society, the independents go under, people lose their jobs, where these companies do employ people locally it is mainly unskilled work at the minimum wage. It affects our town centres, which lose all sense of vitality.
In essence the "fuck you" attitude of these companies cost society and the people in it, even if it saves individuals a few pennies.
Fuck that. I'll buy from the vendors offering the products I want at prices I agree to. This "buy local" horseshit is nothing but guilt-tripping. Customers aren't property, and if local retailers can't compete, then they shouldn't be in business.
-jcr
Whereas I prefer to shop from companies who actually contribute back to the local economy by paying their taxes and not stashing them away in tax havens. If companies have sociopathic policies I try to avoid them.
Read some old testament "stone naughty children" verses then when they pull out the line about how Jesus makes the old testament obsolete show them Matthew 5:17-20
Don't forget the holy attack bears
23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
In Britain this would be called a "gin palace", designed to be shown off in the harbours of Monaco and the south of France but rarely taken to sea except by ship delivery companies.
It's popular to conflate Stalin's insane need to kill people who were "out to get him" with atheism in general. Apparently he killed no atheists, had a sober mind, and his people weren't terrified of whether they would be the next ones to be dragged off to gulags.
Ah, so no members of the NKVD, the army or the politburo were purged by Stalin, only the religious.
If you wish to point claims of revisionism, you first have to stop revising history yourself by using logical fallacies.
Assuming you're aware of the behavior, what are your thoughts regarding the fundamentalist-like fervor exhibited by many of your followers, as well as the irony of their penchant for elevating you to a god-like status?
Why don't you ask him whether he is still beating his wife while you are at it? Rarely have I seen such clear examples of the fallacy of the complex question.
It's a great wiggle-room definition. Thus, you can be a geek who admires the "glory of God" without having to subscribe to a particular religion or "shape" or sentient-level of creator.
All definitions of god have a huge amount of wiggle room, AKA incoherence. I always thought of Einstein as a pantheist due to his claim of following the god of Spinoza, perhaps though he would be better characterised as an igtheist.
Or we could, you know, present both possibilities and let people decide from themselves instead of trying to force one theory or the other down someone's throat. I'd imagine, when presented with the facts, most people would look to science for the answer in this debate, but I don't see the need to force one argument or the other.
There is only one theory, i.e something that makes testable predictions, has undergone testing and not been falsified. Creationism whether of the original kind or in its clown-shoe variant "ingenuous design" are not theories in the scientific sense.
Slashdot Mirror
So another geriatric ultra-conservative in exactly the same mould as Benedict and John-Paul II. Cynics might say he has been elected in an attempt to halt the decline in Catholicism in Latin America, one of the sects most important regions. Otherwise the only place in the world it would seem to be growing is Africa. How relevant is it in the developed world? What percentage of Catholics actually attend mass each week? How many Catholics solely practice "natural" birth control methods or have issues with gay marriage? Oh, and interesting to see that this supposed bastion of morality has no problem, again, with someone who has cosied up to a fascist regime.
The only newspaper in the UK with a right wing bridge column. Noted for its trenchant attitude to the EU, the ECHR and its science-savvy journalists. (The latter is meant as sarcasm by the way).
Isn't this the tactic the Behe tried in the Dover-Kitzmiller trial? At which it was pointed out that his definition of science was so broad that it would have included astrology as a science. Perhaps this is what needs to happen here, someone needs to show what the consequences of the legislation will be, besides yet another court case and people pointing and laughing.
Perhaps "all sides" means diligently pointing out flaws in the theory where behavior is observed but not adequately understood. Punctuated equilibrium, missing link, I'm looking at the two of you in particular.
Evolution is the only theory for how species came to be as they are which is both credible *and* scientific. But it isn't a very good theory. If it was a good theory then it would be *testable*. One could use it to make reliable predictions about generational change in short lived animals based on whatever the factors are that induce change.
Certainly Karl Popper didn't initially think that the theory of evolution was testable, but he later changed his mind:
I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation...
The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological. In this case it is not only testable, but it turns out to be not strictly universally true. There seem to be exceptions, as with so many biological theories; and considering the random character of the variations on which natural selection operates, the occurrence of exceptions is not surprising...
1976. Unended Quest. An Intellectual Autobiography.
If you want more concrete examples of how the theory is both testable and falsifiable you could try these pages.
So I know this is Fox News we're talking about here, but where exactly does one draw the line between a failure to check your sources, and becoming a tabloid?
You become a tabloid when you couple your failure to check sources with boobs, as is done in this British Murdoch publication.
And stop creating government regulations that give them lots of loopholes to exploit.
You would prefer there was no regulation at all?
You think the deregulation that took place under both Bush administrations was a good thing?
Considering how easy it would be to set off some of those cheap Blue-Rhino propane tanks and get a similar death-toll, I hop that NYC is going to have gas control next on the agenda.
Absolutely, it would avoid the huge amount of straw in your post igniting.
Why the author hasn't had a fatwah issued against him yet I don't know - http://www.jesusandmo.net/
When cunts post ghoulish crap like this.
Automatic weapons are already rare and tightly controlled in the United States, and their "effectiveness" is questionable in these types of situations. No, you don't need anything fancy like that to create such a tragedy. A simple hunting rifle or handgun are all that one needs.
One of my friends is a teacher in a school about 15 miles away from this incident. He tells me that the gunman carried one of these besides the hand guns.
I agree, lets go the Switzerland route and actually require able bodied individuals to own and be trained in firearms. That way, the US too can have one of the lowest firearm crime rates in the world.
You do realise that:
Isn't this all rather a hasty generalisation. You may be able to point out a small number of people who have dropped out of college and been successful, but what about those who drop out and end up picking goods for the owners of Microsoft and similar? I am sure that there must be people who have bodies like Charles Atlas without doing any workouts, but I suspect they are few and far between.
Wouldnt you be better off buying from Amazon and writing a check to the tax man. If you buy from the local store, they get about 5-10% in tax. If you buy from Amazon and send a check, they could get 44% of the price. I am sure the tax man will agree with me.
You assume that I am in America and hence paying sales tax. I am not. There is currently a significant amount of bad feeling in the UK about companies like Amazon, Google, Starbucks and Asda (Walmart). Their turnover is in the billions of pounds but by means of some fancy accounting they pay little or no tax. In the end this is a cost to society, the independents go under, people lose their jobs, where these companies do employ people locally it is mainly unskilled work at the minimum wage. It affects our town centres, which lose all sense of vitality. In essence the "fuck you" attitude of these companies cost society and the people in it, even if it saves individuals a few pennies.
Fuck that. I'll buy from the vendors offering the products I want at prices I agree to. This "buy local" horseshit is nothing but guilt-tripping. Customers aren't property, and if local retailers can't compete, then they shouldn't be in business.
-jcr
Whereas I prefer to shop from companies who actually contribute back to the local economy by paying their taxes and not stashing them away in tax havens. If companies have sociopathic policies I try to avoid them.
Are we sure that mind and brain are synonymous? That type-type mind-brain identity theory is correct?
So,they've managed to patent using statistics? Is anyone actually doing their job in the patent office?
Nah, they have managed to patent a logical fallacy.
Read some old testament "stone naughty children" verses then when they pull out the line about how Jesus makes the old testament obsolete show them Matthew 5:17-20
Don't forget the holy attack bears
2 Kings 2:23-24
to some groups, disagreeing with their religion is, by definition, insulting it.
As a friend of mine (and Richard Dawkins) says "'Take offence at the drop of a hat' is the unwritten eleventh commandment".
In Britain this would be called a "gin palace", designed to be shown off in the harbours of Monaco and the south of France but rarely taken to sea except by ship delivery companies.
It's popular to conflate Stalin's insane need to kill people who were "out to get him" with atheism in general. Apparently he killed no atheists, had a sober mind, and his people weren't terrified of whether they would be the next ones to be dragged off to gulags.
Ah, so no members of the NKVD, the army or the politburo were purged by Stalin, only the religious.
If you wish to point claims of revisionism, you first have to stop revising history yourself by using logical fallacies.
So who taught you logic?
the fallacy of the complex question.
I don't think that means what you think it means, if you think my quandary qualifies.
I was actually taught logic, unlike many who make claims to logic. As to complex question, it is explained here.
Assuming you're aware of the behavior, what are your thoughts regarding the fundamentalist-like fervor exhibited by many of your followers, as well as the irony of their penchant for elevating you to a god-like status?
Why don't you ask him whether he is still beating his wife while you are at it? Rarely have I seen such clear examples of the fallacy of the complex question.
It's a great wiggle-room definition. Thus, you can be a geek who admires the "glory of God" without having to subscribe to a particular religion or "shape" or sentient-level of creator.
All definitions of god have a huge amount of wiggle room, AKA incoherence. I always thought of Einstein as a pantheist due to his claim of following the god of Spinoza, perhaps though he would be better characterised as an igtheist.
Creationists are not all stupid.
As the saying goes, you can be intelligent, honest and a creationist.
Just not all three at the same time.
Or we could, you know, present both possibilities and let people decide from themselves instead of trying to force one theory or the other down someone's throat. I'd imagine, when presented with the facts, most people would look to science for the answer in this debate, but I don't see the need to force one argument or the other.
There is only one theory, i.e something that makes testable predictions, has undergone testing and not been falsified. Creationism whether of the original kind or in its clown-shoe variant "ingenuous design" are not theories in the scientific sense.