Re:How do you offend an atheist?
on
TigerCloning
·
· Score: 1
I know I'm posting late and you'll probably never read this, but what the hell...
Look, I'm not saying that Atheists are super-humans that are completely devoid of any imperfections. Of course, like anybody else, these people get angry. I just see a difference between getting offended and getting angry. I could see an atheist getting angry or frustrated at someone's apperent 'ignorance' or 'stupidity', but I can't see an atheist getting offended because someone has insulted their belief system.
No one ever prefaces a scientific discussion with a disclaimer like "I don't know what theories you subscribe to, but I am sure there is no ether." If you're talking about religion, though, you are expected to be more careful.
You guys are probably right, I'm sure there are Atheists out there that get offended when someone insults their beliefs.... That is ridiculous, though.
-
Re:How do you offend an atheist?
on
TigerCloning
·
· Score: 1
I disagree. You never have to worry about offending anybody talking about scientific theories. Why is it that you have to watch what you say when you talk about relgion? Because when your beliefs are founded on empirical evidence, you tend not to get upset when someone says they disagree.
-
Re:How do you offend an atheist?
on
TigerCloning
·
· Score: 1
I rest my case.
-
Where did your argument go?
on
TigerCloning
·
· Score: 1
Your argument was much more persuasive before you started preaching:
Times have changed, and there isn't a place for the tiger in modern Australia - shown by the fact that it was a dangerous menace which was hunted in the first place. Even if these scientists manage to recreate a viable population of them, where are they going to go? Back into the wild where circumstances will echo what happened in 1888?
That was your original argument...what happened to it?
-
How do you offend an atheist?
on
TigerCloning
·
· Score: 1
Atheists are pretty much impossible to offend because they don't put faith in myths and fairy tales. Religious people get offended almost as a type of instinctive response to having this fact pointed out to them.
Call a theist's beliefs silly and he will get offended. Call an atheist's beliefs silly and he will laugh.
Correction: we upset their environments with great care.
I'm sorry, but if building a Best Buy causes the spotted owl to go extinct, then see-ya-later spotty! It isn't our job to make sure that the spotted owl, or any other animal for that matter, lives forever.
I can think of a couple of good reasons to lock your door despite the fact that a burglar could easily break into your house through a window:
1) Noise. Breaking a window makes noise that could wake up the resident or neighbors that will immediately call the police. Opening a door is silent.
2) Danger. There is increased risk in breaking a window to commit a crime. Glass shards could easily puncture the perpetrator's skin, leaving key DNA evidence of his crime behind.
I think both of these reasons justify the relatively easy chore of locking your doors.
I know I'm replying late and you probably won't ever read this, but I will do so anyway.
I don't think that having censored internet connections in a library is any more of a violation of the first amendment than not having those internet connections in the first place. The first amendment 'guarantees' our right to say whatever we want; it does not guarantee that we will be heard.
Censored internet connections in libraries is much more of a violation of the spirit of the Library than it is a violation of the constitution.
I just moved out of Texas, and while I was there I used a cable modem. But I had plenty of friends trying to get DSL from Southwestern Bell. They would be promised service on this day or that day. Then delay after delay would ensue.
Treating the internet like a library of books is like making airplanes obey the speed limits of public streets. The beauty of the internet is that it is a near instantaneous connection to virtually every piece of information in existence. Crippling a connection to the internet in the manner you suggest would be worse than just letting them look at the porn in the first place (of course, I don't see anything wrong with letting people look at porn if they want - people are too prude).
I must agree with ebbv on this one. To illustrate why, I will use an analogy of my own. If I understand ebbv's argument correctly, he is saying that putting censorware on an internet connection for the purpose of preventing people from being able to access porn or other 'offensive' material is like building prison cells with giant gaps between the bars.
Censorware is useless if people can still access porn because that is it's only purpose: preventing people from accessing porn!
Of course its uselessness does depend on the ease with which one can access the porn. If it would take a human five years to find a porn site that wasn't blocked, then it's pretty good, but then you also have to take into account the number of 'non-offensive' sites that are blocked.
I think it's a rather silly argument because who really cares what they do with their internet connection. If this were inside a library, that would be different because that would be our tax dollars in action, so we should have some say in whether or not we want censorship. This is a private business...let them do as they please. It is not unethical for them to censor their own private connection if they want, nor is it unethical for someone to help them do it. Keep in mind, this is not a library, they are being generous for providing the connection in the first place, crippled though it may be.
Alright, I'm just going to assume that you're for real and this isn't just some big joke to see if anyone will buy your bullshit...
Allow me to try to structure what little reason you have offered into an actual argument:
1)God exists. 2)God has decreed that women can not be anything but housewives. 3)Whatever God says is right. ------------------------------------------------ ----------------- Conclusion: Women can not be anything but housewives.
Any religious argument undoubtably starts off with premise #1, which is unprovable. This fact dooms every religious argument to failure, but let's continue...
I don't know where you got premise #2 from-I'm assuming the Bible. If so, where does it specifically state that God made that statement? I have not read the Bible, so I honestly have no idea whether or not this is true.
I'm assuming your support for premise #3 is that God is perfect, and therefore infallible.
My only question is this: if your argument were correct, that women are "incapable of anything other than homemaking", then EVERY WOMAN WOULD BE A HOMEMAKER!!! Only a fool makes such an absolute statement for which there is such an abundance of evidence in contradiction. Then again, you have already demonstrated that you clearly are a fool. You might as well make the statment that "every human is five feet tall" or "every tree is pink".
Neither the Bible nor God ever said that women are incapable of anything other than housekeeping. If you meant that God said women should be housewives, then that is slightly different. But, allow me to ask you this: Even if God exists and he did say that women should be housewives, why should we follow along? In other words, why should we do whatever God says without question? (Please, make a better argument than "because he created us", that is not good enough. Your parents "created" you, but if they told you to kill someone, you shouldn't do it regardless)
I agree with you that all too often, an EXCESSIVE amount of alarm is generated about stories like this (particularly on/.). However, the reason *I* oppose AOL getting big is twofold:
1) AOL's product is crap. It dumbs down the internet for people too stupid to subscribe to a local ISP and install Netscape (or IE) and SAVE MONEY AS WELL AS TIME.
2) I subscribe to RoadRunner for cable modem service which is owned by Time Warner. I am afraid of being forced to subscribe to AOL as a result of this merger if I want to continue to use my cable modem.
I am perfectly happy with my current Time Warner RoadRunner service, and I will be very upset if this changes. It may even be enough to force me back to dialup access, as that's the only thing in this price range. And I hate dialup.
I, too, subscribe to RoadRunner, and I love it. Thoughts of having to hear "You've got mail" every time I logged on to the internet made me cringe as well. But even if they never force RR subscribers to log on with their bloated software (unlikely), the simple fact that by subscribing to RR I am, in a way, supporting AOL is enough to make me cancel (Not until the merger is complete, of course. I believe that is sometime next year).
Don't ignore the possibility of DSL! In Texas, I believe DSL only costs five bucks a month more than cable modem.
I've held it in this long, but I'm getting sick of every other post being "Piracy is wrong, he got what he deserved." For all of you "honest" folk, I offer the following question:
Why are all of you so bitter just because you guys are dumb enough to pay for the same shitty software everyone else gets for free?
90% of everything is crap, and whoever said that overestimated the quality of software. You could walk into a software store and spend a thousand dollars and not end up with a single game worth playing after a week. On the rare occasion that I find a game I really like, I, and most of the people I know, generally go out and buy it. I'll be damned if I'm going to buy any software before I at least have the opportunity to find out it sucks. As far as applications and utilities go, they profit from the training "pirates" get from using their software at home via their employers purchasing it (You want to talk about piracy, how about the ungodly prices they charge). And finally, I don't understand why the movie companies are in such a huff about the online pirated copies. I've seen these things, they are terrible. I'd rather watch the movie taped off of T.V. (which the movie companies don't seem too bothered by).
Before you say that none of this matters, it's still wrong, I'll simply say this: no one cares but you.
You're first mistake was to trust a Phychology definition of a scientific term over a Chemistry definition. I first learned about the difference between theory and law in high school chemistry, but sinse this discussion I have verified my above definitions in three different sources. In addition to the web page I cited in my original article, you can go here, or to Webster's Dictionary:
Main Entry: theory Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -ries Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein Date: 1592 1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another 2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION 3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art (music theory) 4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action (her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn) b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory (in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all) 5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena (wave theory of light) 6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject (theory of equations)
Main Entry: law Pronunciation: 'lo Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lagu, of Scandinavian origin; akin to Old Norse log law; akin to Old English licgan to lie -- more at LIE Date: before 12th century 1 a (1) : a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority (2) : the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules (3) : COMMON LAW b (1) : the control brought about by the existence or enforcement of such law (2) : the action of laws considered as a means of redressing wrongs; also : LITIGATION (3) : the agency of or an agent of established law c : a rule or order that it is advisable or obligatory to observe d : something compatible with or enforceable by established law e : CONTROL, AUTHORITY 2 a often capitalized : the revelation of the will of God set forth in the Old Testament b capitalized : the first part of the Jewish scriptures : PENTATEUCH, TORAH -- see BIBLE table 3 : a rule of construction or procedure (the laws of poetry) 4 : the whole body of laws relating to one subject 5 a : the legal profession b : law as a department of knowledge : JURISPRUDENCE c : legal knowledge 6 a : a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions b : a general relation proved or assumed to hold between mathematical or logical expressions
I wrote another comment a little further down entitled "Theory vs. Law" that defines the difference between theory and law better than I'm going to do here. Basically, a law is NOT a theory that has more evidence. A theory is a series of ideas that attempt to explain why certain phenomena occur. A law is a statement about certain relationships that exist in nature.
In essence something can BOTH be a theory AND a fact since a fact is just something that is considered to be undenyable truth. So if a theory has so much support that it is undenyable it is NOT considered a law, it is considered a fact AND a theory.
They are not banning the teaching of evolution, only the teaching of evolution as proven scientific fact.
They are banning the teaching of evolution as an origin of a species, scientific fact or not, read the article. They are still going to allow teaching evolution within a species. For example if humans evolved to where they didn't have an appendix anymore, they could teach that as evolution, but they can't teach that humans evolved from apes or that amphibians evolved from fish.
It's a theory, and that is what it has been mandated to be taught as.
There is an all too common misconception about what it means to be a theory and what it means to be a law. People think that something that isn't proven is a theory and when it is proven it is a law. THIS IS FALSE.
A theory is a system of ideas or a sphere of abstract knowledge which attempts to explain why certain phenomena occur.
Examples: Theory of Evolution, Theory of Relativity, etc. These are not theories because they are "unproven". They are theories because they explain why things are the way they are.
A law is a statement of specific conditions or relationships that exist in nature.
Examples: Law of Gravity, Laws of Motion, etc. These are not laws because they have been "proven". It is arguable that NOTHING can ever be "proven". They are laws because they describe the Universe and the relationships therein.
If I say "Force equals mass times acceleration." This is a law because it is a statement of a relationship regardless of whether or not it is accurate. If I say "Kansas banned evolution because people in Kansas are ignorant." This is a theory because it tries to explain why something occured or why something occurs, regardless of whether or not it is accurate.
I got my definitions here. It's a page about heat and temperature, but it still gives the definitions. You just have to scroll down about a screen.
it should be seen as a continuing search for evidence.
Science is always a continuing search for evidence. Not teaching well-founded, though controvertial, scientific theories isn't. If they really wanted a "search for evidence" in Kansas, they would increase their evolution curriculum and go into more detail about exactly what the evidence is for and against evolution, rather than erase it entirely. This is nothing but an exercise in ignorance.
We haven't (and will not be able to) prove evolution, but at least we can still continue to try.
Nothing can be proven. Scientific principles can only be disproven. A scientific principle is accepted when there is sufficient evidence for it and there is nothing to contradict it. Evolution is accepted: there is evidence, and nothing contradicts it. Why should it be treated differently than any other scientific principle because there are people too ignorant to accept it. The funny thing is that if they weren't so closeminded, they would understand that evolution doesn't even disprove God, it simply changes one's understanding.
Up until the latter part of the 20th Century, the rule has been: "Whoever controls the land, owns the land." This meant that if Country B was on land that Country A wanted, all Country A had to do was forcibly remove Country B from that land and presto, that land belongs to Country A. Unfortunately, today we seem to have some ludicrous notion of "fairness," and now the rule is: "Whoever is on the land, owns the land." You can't forcibly remove someone from land in order to take it, because using force is "wrong." : )
If we're going to go by the old rule, nobody owns the moon. Although the US has the best claim since its the only one to ever go there. But sinse we don't actually maintain control of any territory there backed by military force, we can't really say any of it is "ours". I guess we could just say "The moon is ours and we will consider any voyage to the moon by another country an invasion of American territory." This would be acceptable under the old rule sinse we have planted our flag there, and no one else has.
If we're going to go by the new rule, nobody owns the moon. Probably what would happen would be the moon would be considered international and corporations would just be responsible for maintaining their own land there.
I am going to preface this by saying I am not a Lawyer, so, if I am incorrect, anyone who knows what they are talking about can feel free to correct me. However, it is my understanding of the law that it is based to a large extent on the concept of a "reasonable" person.
For example, if I called you up and said, "I am going to give you $10,000,000." You could not successfully sue me if I then refused to pay you based on the fact that I made an oral contract with you because the contract was unreasonable: I didn't even ask for anything in return.
On the other hand, if I called you up and said, "I will give you $10,000,000 if you come over." You would have a case (you wouldn't necessarily win, though) because that is a more reasonable contract.
I'm not sure if that was the best example, but the fact of the matter is that when it comes to law suits, you have to have a reasonable case. The funny thing is that the first time I saw that commercial like 5 years ago I said to myself, "Someone is going to get that many points and demand the Harrier Jet." Sure enough...
Don't get me wrong. *I* don't hate America. I wasn't even talking about people in America. I meant people in other countries (or corporations) hated America like people in other companies hate Microsoft.
The problem with this theory and the reason why we will always have governments based on physical location (unless we get a unified government for all humans, but then we still wouldn't get the element of competition you're looking for) is that power comes from one place: the barrel of a gun. No Cyber-Policeman can help you if I shoot you dead in real life. Internet governments can only deal with internet problems, but it is physical problems that are the most fundamental to our existence. With all of our technological advancement, we are still physical creatures that need physical government for physical protection.
Slashdot Mirror
I think I'm going to patent existence.
-
I know I'm posting late and you'll probably never read this, but what the hell...
Look, I'm not saying that Atheists are super-humans that are completely devoid of any imperfections. Of course, like anybody else, these people get angry. I just see a difference between getting offended and getting angry. I could see an atheist getting angry or frustrated at someone's apperent 'ignorance' or 'stupidity', but I can't see an atheist getting offended because someone has insulted their belief system.
No one ever prefaces a scientific discussion with a disclaimer like "I don't know what theories you subscribe to, but I am sure there is no ether." If you're talking about religion, though, you are expected to be more careful.
You guys are probably right, I'm sure there are Atheists out there that get offended when someone insults their beliefs.... That is ridiculous, though.
-
I disagree. You never have to worry about offending anybody talking about scientific theories. Why is it that you have to watch what you say when you talk about relgion? Because when your beliefs are founded on empirical evidence, you tend not to get upset when someone says they disagree.
-
I rest my case.
-
Your argument was much more persuasive before you started preaching:
Times have changed, and there isn't a place for the tiger in modern Australia - shown by the fact that it was a dangerous menace which was hunted in the first place. Even if these scientists manage to recreate a viable population of them, where are they going to go? Back into the wild where circumstances will echo what happened in 1888?
That was your original argument...what happened to it?
-
Atheists are pretty much impossible to offend because they don't put faith in myths and fairy tales. Religious people get offended almost as a type of instinctive response to having this fact pointed out to them.
Call a theist's beliefs silly and he will get offended. Call an atheist's beliefs silly and he will laugh.
-
Correction: we upset their environments with great care.
I'm sorry, but if building a Best Buy causes the spotted owl to go extinct, then see-ya-later spotty! It isn't our job to make sure that the spotted owl, or any other animal for that matter, lives forever.
-
I can think of a couple of good reasons to lock your door despite the fact that a burglar could easily break into your house through a window:
1) Noise. Breaking a window makes noise that could wake up the resident or neighbors that will immediately call the police. Opening a door is silent.
2) Danger. There is increased risk in breaking a window to commit a crime. Glass shards could easily puncture the perpetrator's skin, leaving key DNA evidence of his crime behind.
I think both of these reasons justify the relatively easy chore of locking your doors.
-
I know I'm replying late and you probably won't ever read this, but I will do so anyway.
I don't think that having censored internet connections in a library is any more of a violation of the first amendment than not having those internet connections in the first place. The first amendment 'guarantees' our right to say whatever we want; it does not guarantee that we will be heard.
Censored internet connections in libraries is much more of a violation of the spirit of the Library than it is a violation of the constitution.
-
I just moved out of Texas, and while I was there I used a cable modem. But I had plenty of friends trying to get DSL from Southwestern Bell. They would be promised service on this day or that day. Then delay after delay would ensue.
Not a single one of them ever got it.
Could just be Texas...or Austin for that matter.
-
Treating the internet like a library of books is like making airplanes obey the speed limits of public streets. The beauty of the internet is that it is a near instantaneous connection to virtually every piece of information in existence. Crippling a connection to the internet in the manner you suggest would be worse than just letting them look at the porn in the first place (of course, I don't see anything wrong with letting people look at porn if they want - people are too prude).
-
I must agree with ebbv on this one. To illustrate why, I will use an analogy of my own. If I understand ebbv's argument correctly, he is saying that putting censorware on an internet connection for the purpose of preventing people from being able to access porn or other 'offensive' material is like building prison cells with giant gaps between the bars.
Censorware is useless if people can still access porn because that is it's only purpose: preventing people from accessing porn!
Of course its uselessness does depend on the ease with which one can access the porn. If it would take a human five years to find a porn site that wasn't blocked, then it's pretty good, but then you also have to take into account the number of 'non-offensive' sites that are blocked.
I think it's a rather silly argument because who really cares what they do with their internet connection. If this were inside a library, that would be different because that would be our tax dollars in action, so we should have some say in whether or not we want censorship. This is a private business...let them do as they please. It is not unethical for them to censor their own private connection if they want, nor is it unethical for someone to help them do it. Keep in mind, this is not a library, they are being generous for providing the connection in the first place, crippled though it may be.
-
Alright, I'm just going to assume that you're for real and this isn't just some big joke to see if anyone will buy your bullshit...
- -----------------
Allow me to try to structure what little reason you have offered into an actual argument:
1)God exists.
2)God has decreed that women can not be anything but housewives.
3)Whatever God says is right.
-----------------------------------------------
Conclusion: Women can not be anything but housewives.
Any religious argument undoubtably starts off with premise #1, which is unprovable. This fact dooms every religious argument to failure, but let's continue...
I don't know where you got premise #2 from-I'm assuming the Bible. If so, where does it specifically state that God made that statement? I have not read the Bible, so I honestly have no idea whether or not this is true.
I'm assuming your support for premise #3 is that God is perfect, and therefore infallible.
My only question is this: if your argument were correct, that women are "incapable of anything other than homemaking", then EVERY WOMAN WOULD BE A HOMEMAKER!!! Only a fool makes such an absolute statement for which there is such an abundance of evidence in contradiction. Then again, you have already demonstrated that you clearly are a fool. You might as well make the statment that "every human is five feet tall" or "every tree is pink".
Neither the Bible nor God ever said that women are incapable of anything other than housekeeping. If you meant that God said women should be housewives, then that is slightly different. But, allow me to ask you this: Even if God exists and he did say that women should be housewives, why should we follow along? In other words, why should we do whatever God says without question? (Please, make a better argument than "because he created us", that is not good enough. Your parents "created" you, but if they told you to kill someone, you shouldn't do it regardless)
-
I agree with you that all too often, an EXCESSIVE amount of alarm is generated about stories like this (particularly on /.). However, the reason *I* oppose AOL getting big is twofold:
1) AOL's product is crap. It dumbs down the internet for people too stupid to subscribe to a local ISP and install Netscape (or IE) and SAVE MONEY AS WELL AS TIME.
2) I subscribe to RoadRunner for cable modem service which is owned by Time Warner. I am afraid of being forced to subscribe to AOL as a result of this merger if I want to continue to use my cable modem.
-
I am perfectly happy with my current Time Warner RoadRunner service, and I will be very upset if this changes. It may even be enough to force me back to dialup access, as that's the only thing in this price range. And I hate dialup.
I, too, subscribe to RoadRunner, and I love it. Thoughts of having to hear "You've got mail" every time I logged on to the internet made me cringe as well. But even if they never force RR subscribers to log on with their bloated software (unlikely), the simple fact that by subscribing to RR I am, in a way, supporting AOL is enough to make me cancel (Not until the merger is complete, of course. I believe that is sometime next year).
Don't ignore the possibility of DSL! In Texas, I believe DSL only costs five bucks a month more than cable modem.
-
I've held it in this long, but I'm getting sick of every other post being "Piracy is wrong, he got what he deserved." For all of you "honest" folk, I offer the following question:
Why are all of you so bitter just because you guys are dumb enough to pay for the same shitty software everyone else gets for free?
90% of everything is crap, and whoever said that overestimated the quality of software. You could walk into a software store and spend a thousand dollars and not end up with a single game worth playing after a week. On the rare occasion that I find a game I really like, I, and most of the people I know, generally go out and buy it. I'll be damned if I'm going to buy any software before I at least have the opportunity to find out it sucks. As far as applications and utilities go, they profit from the training "pirates" get from using their software at home via their employers purchasing it (You want to talk about piracy, how about the ungodly prices they charge). And finally, I don't understand why the movie companies are in such a huff about the online pirated copies. I've seen these things, they are terrible. I'd rather watch the movie taped off of T.V. (which the movie companies don't seem too bothered by).
Before you say that none of this matters, it's still wrong, I'll simply say this: no one cares but you.
-
You're first mistake was to trust a Phychology definition of a scientific term over a Chemistry definition. I first learned about the difference between theory and law in high school chemistry, but sinse this discussion I have verified my above definitions in three different sources. In addition to the web page I cited in my original article, you can go here, or to Webster's Dictionary:
Main Entry: theory
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
Date: 1592
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art (music theory)
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action (her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn) b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory (in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all)
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena (wave theory of light)
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject (theory of equations)
Main Entry: law
Pronunciation: 'lo
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lagu, of Scandinavian origin; akin to Old Norse log law; akin to Old English licgan to lie -- more at LIE
Date: before 12th century
1 a (1) : a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority (2) : the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules (3) : COMMON LAW b (1) : the control brought about by the existence or enforcement of such law (2) : the action of laws considered as a means of redressing wrongs; also : LITIGATION (3) : the agency of or an agent of established law c : a rule or order that it is advisable or obligatory to observe d : something compatible with or enforceable by established law e : CONTROL, AUTHORITY
2 a often capitalized : the revelation of the will of God set forth in the Old Testament b capitalized : the first part of the Jewish scriptures : PENTATEUCH, TORAH
-- see BIBLE table
3 : a rule of construction or procedure (the laws of poetry)
4 : the whole body of laws relating to one subject
5 a : the legal profession b : law as a department of knowledge : JURISPRUDENCE c : legal knowledge
6 a : a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions b : a general relation proved or assumed to hold between mathematical or logical expressions
-
I wrote another comment a little further down entitled "Theory vs. Law" that defines the difference between theory and law better than I'm going to do here. Basically, a law is NOT a theory that has more evidence. A theory is a series of ideas that attempt to explain why certain phenomena occur. A law is a statement about certain relationships that exist in nature.
In essence something can BOTH be a theory AND a fact since a fact is just something that is considered to be undenyable truth. So if a theory has so much support that it is undenyable it is NOT considered a law, it is considered a fact AND a theory.
-
They are not banning the teaching of evolution, only the teaching of evolution as proven scientific fact.
They are banning the teaching of evolution as an origin of a species, scientific fact or not, read the article. They are still going to allow teaching evolution within a species. For example if humans evolved to where they didn't have an appendix anymore, they could teach that as evolution, but they can't teach that humans evolved from apes or that amphibians evolved from fish.
It's a theory, and that is what it has been mandated to be taught as.
There is an all too common misconception about what it means to be a theory and what it means to be a law. People think that something that isn't proven is a theory and when it is proven it is a law. THIS IS FALSE.
A theory is a system of ideas or a sphere of abstract knowledge which attempts to explain why certain phenomena occur.
Examples: Theory of Evolution, Theory of Relativity, etc. These are not theories because they are "unproven". They are theories because they explain why things are the way they are.
A law is a statement of specific conditions or relationships that exist in nature.
Examples: Law of Gravity, Laws of Motion, etc. These are not laws because they have been "proven". It is arguable that NOTHING can ever be "proven". They are laws because they describe the Universe and the relationships therein.
If I say "Force equals mass times acceleration." This is a law because it is a statement of a relationship regardless of whether or not it is accurate. If I say "Kansas banned evolution because people in Kansas are ignorant." This is a theory because it tries to explain why something occured or why something occurs, regardless of whether or not it is accurate.
I got my definitions here. It's a page about heat and temperature, but it still gives the definitions. You just have to scroll down about a screen.
it should be seen as a continuing search for evidence.
Science is always a continuing search for evidence. Not teaching well-founded, though controvertial, scientific theories isn't. If they really wanted a "search for evidence" in Kansas, they would increase their evolution curriculum and go into more detail about exactly what the evidence is for and against evolution, rather than erase it entirely. This is nothing but an exercise in ignorance.
We haven't (and will not be able to) prove evolution, but at least we can still continue to try.
Nothing can be proven. Scientific principles can only be disproven. A scientific principle is accepted when there is sufficient evidence for it and there is nothing to contradict it. Evolution is accepted: there is evidence, and nothing contradicts it. Why should it be treated differently than any other scientific principle because there are people too ignorant to accept it. The funny thing is that if they weren't so closeminded, they would understand that evolution doesn't even disprove God, it simply changes one's understanding.
-
I, personally, subscribe to the view that there's some force that could just as well be called God as called anything else.
It is an irony that the religious fanatics, in their blind faith, are basically insulting their god in this rejection of evolution.
I particularly like the above comment because that is basically the same way I feel, only I call the "force" Physics.
-
Up until the latter part of the 20th Century, the rule has been: "Whoever controls the land, owns the land." This meant that if Country B was on land that Country A wanted, all Country A had to do was forcibly remove Country B from that land and presto, that land belongs to Country A. Unfortunately, today we seem to have some ludicrous notion of "fairness," and now the rule is: "Whoever is on the land, owns the land." You can't forcibly remove someone from land in order to take it, because using force is "wrong." : )
If we're going to go by the old rule, nobody owns the moon. Although the US has the best claim since its the only one to ever go there. But sinse we don't actually maintain control of any territory there backed by military force, we can't really say any of it is "ours". I guess we could just say "The moon is ours and we will consider any voyage to the moon by another country an invasion of American territory." This would be acceptable under the old rule sinse we have planted our flag there, and no one else has.
If we're going to go by the new rule, nobody owns the moon. Probably what would happen would be the moon would be considered international and corporations would just be responsible for maintaining their own land there.
-
I am going to preface this by saying I am not a Lawyer, so, if I am incorrect, anyone who knows what they are talking about can feel free to correct me. However, it is my understanding of the law that it is based to a large extent on the concept of a "reasonable" person.
For example, if I called you up and said, "I am going to give you $10,000,000." You could not successfully sue me if I then refused to pay you based on the fact that I made an oral contract with you because the contract was unreasonable: I didn't even ask for anything in return.
On the other hand, if I called you up and said, "I will give you $10,000,000 if you come over." You would have a case (you wouldn't necessarily win, though) because that is a more reasonable contract.
I'm not sure if that was the best example, but the fact of the matter is that when it comes to law suits, you have to have a reasonable case. The funny thing is that the first time I saw that commercial like 5 years ago I said to myself, "Someone is going to get that many points and demand the Harrier Jet." Sure enough...
-
Don't get me wrong. *I* don't hate America. I wasn't even talking about people in America. I meant people in other countries (or corporations) hated America like people in other companies hate Microsoft.
-
The problem with this theory and the reason why we will always have governments based on physical location (unless we get a unified government for all humans, but then we still wouldn't get the element of competition you're looking for) is that power comes from one place: the barrel of a gun. No Cyber-Policeman can help you if I shoot you dead in real life. Internet governments can only deal with internet problems, but it is physical problems that are the most fundamental to our existence. With all of our technological advancement, we are still physical creatures that need physical government for physical protection.
-
You could build a dome-city on the ocean floor and whalla!
-