Again, I'm talking about the ones in the debate. Popularity is irrelevant, and there's not really anything to win. This reminds me of all those Internet posters who suddenly declare that the other person has "lost" the argument due to violating some arbitrary rule.
Unless one of them was convinced by the other one's arguments, there was no winner. Popularity does not make someone a winner. There's really not much to "win" in a debate aside from maybe your opponent's agreement.
Many scientists have not also studied philosophy, and as such aren't well-equipped for precisely this sort of debate.
Many scientists would also destroy these fools when it comes to philosophy, so don't give me that nonsense.
There was no "winner" unless one of them was convinced by the others' arguments. This notion that you can "win" a debate through completely arbitrary means needs to die.
Nevertheless, under such interpretation, it would be illegal for the state to deny money to a religious project that otherwise falls under such rules as "reasonable tourism attraction."
If you don't do something, and something bad happens, because you didn't bother, are you liable?
That's a problem with our system, not the person making the jokes. Most Americans are so retarded that the concept of probability seems to completely elude them. And the fact that our legal system is sometimes completely absurd and... the results aren't good.
Overreacting to jokes is the problem. Someone using the name of some bogeyman group does not increase the probability that they're part of it, and probability is what matters.
If you were scared of this, never get into a car again, coward.
Oh ho, hilarious, life is tenuous, bad things happen. Yep, that's a nice and carefree way to live, as long as your value on your own life extends exactly as far as "well, whatever, if someone wants to kill me I suppose I'm done."
Except that's not how it is, or what anyone thinks, you ignorant fool. People with brains just take into account probability and don't overreact to jokes. Just because you're mentally retarded and bought into all the nonsensical fearmongering doesn't mean it's a good thing.
But hey, if you're really so scared of this, you should also be scared of everyone on the planet. After all, even people not using the name of some bogeyman group could be terrorists! If you're not panicking, you obviously take a carefree approach to life and don't care if you get killed! Sound logic, dipshit.
If it was just someone having a laugh, it wasn't a very good joke.
Because you're a coward.
This may seem like an overreaction, but if I were on that flight I'd rather have been delayed for a few hours, than have one of these self-radicalized nut-jobs take over the aircraft and point it at some monument or other hard object that ends with me being part of a fireball.
Then you're a coward, too, and part of the problem. The reality is that, regardless of whether or not they use the name of some bogeyman group, everyone has a chance to be a terrorist. Using your logic, you should never be able to do anything ever merely because some people might be terrorists.
But that's not how 'the land of the free and the home of the brave' is supposed to operate. Quit being a little wimp.
The real douchebags are the cowards who freak out over things like this. Sometimes they even end up infringing upon people's fundamental liberties to make themselves feel better.
well, originally, penalties were not needed because the constitution was originally designed to grant specific privileges/abilities to a federal government and that was all. the rest was left up to the countries which became the states. The bill of rights, all 12 of them (10 passed and are considered the bill of rights today but originally there were 12 with one becoming an amendment in 1992 and the other still not) were suggested as being redundant as the federal government actually had no powers to do anything that could violate them.
Unless it just ignored the constitution (not just the bill of rights). Which they did pretty quickly, actually.
Things have changed quite a bit since then. Some might say for the better, some say for the worse, but it is definitely different.
Definitely for the worse. Everyone should want the government to operate within the law. If the government truly needs a new power, then there's always constitutional amendments, and those are hard to pass for a reason.
That's generally how both sides of world-view debates feel about the other.
And sometimes, one side is more right and the other isn't. This has been done a thousand times already, anyway. If people want to see such debates, go on Youtube.
But the real goal is to make the audience aware of the best arguments on both sides, and that may be helpful to them.
If the people in a university aren't aware that creationists are idiots, then that reflects poorly on the university's ability to reject trash.
It's just a waste of time. No one's "skills" are weak just because they don't want to waste time dealing with people who have been refuted a thousand times over and won't listen to reason.
Probably because these people really believe it, are somewhat numerous, and many wish to have their nonsense taught in schools. Why people want to ban it, I don't know. It's better to just ignore the mental midgets and oppose them when they suggest getting their nonsense put in laws.
I am personally opposed to organised religion in general, but a fantasy book can still contain lessons worth learning or thinking about.
As can any book. I'd rather get the lessons from simple logic than some ancient fantasy book. We don't need fairy tale books to teach us morality or attitudes.
Saying someone "isn't smart enough to just reject the fantasy book" is extremely ignorant.
No, it isn't. I'm talking about their belief in a magical sky daddy.
Religious 'moderates' might be a bit better than the 'extremists,' but their belief in magical sky daddies still makes them irrational, and there's no getting around that. Their "This part must be metaphorical because I don't like it!" tactics of covering up just how violent their fantasy book is are unwelcome.
Not all religious people are necessarily unintelligent (though most are), but the belief in a magical sky daddy is irrational no matter how 'moderate' you are. The 'moderates' usually just say "That's metaphorical!" to every part of their holy book that they don't like. Apparently, they're smart enough to reject the literal interpretation of their fantasy book, but too dumb to reject the fantasy book outright.
I suppose you think we should hold back technology so people can keep their jobs? I would think technological advancement would be far more important than our silly system of having to have jobs, but whatever.
Also, never heard of bias? If you were a Luddite back in the day, you would have wanted to keep your job! Except, even if it's true, it means nothing.
Our rights don't exist solely to make the jobs of law enforcement easier. Indeed, many just make them harder, and that's fine. It's my private property.
Well yes they do share info to make a buck but the have to make money someway to pay all the employees.
I don't expect anything less from these scumbags. All the more reason not to use it.
The rest are just childish words that have no place in any adult conversation
You do realize the same subjective nonsense could be turned again you, right? Sure, if you don't care about privacy in the least and/or are utterly ignorant of history, nothing I say will seem convincing. But that's not my problem.
Finally if you are are worried about handing data over to governments at all facebook is the really the least of your worries.
Facebook is one of many problems. As I said, it is perfectly rational to avoid it, as giving them information too only surrenders even more of your information.
You are not thinking rationally. You think that because Facebook is supposedly only a small part of the problem, that means you should add to the problem by using it; that just worsens the situation, even if only a little.
The number of crazies that post on Slashdot, including yourself make it a great honeypot for low hanging fruit crazies.
You must've missed the Snowden leaks. And pretty much every act of governmental corruption throughout history. I assure you that desiring privacy is not "crazy" at all, and that the government is more than willing to violate people's privacy. If you can't agree with me on that, you're truly a lost cause. If you do agree, then your reply is puzzling.
Slashdot Mirror
By this measure, I'm certain that Nye won.
Again, I'm talking about the ones in the debate. Popularity is irrelevant, and there's not really anything to win. This reminds me of all those Internet posters who suddenly declare that the other person has "lost" the argument due to violating some arbitrary rule.
You can't prove God doesn't exist, so arguing with people that there's "no evidence he does" is kind of pointless.
Not pointless. No evidence = no rational reason to believe. Ham was just spouting incorrect, irrational nonsense.
Unless one of them was convinced by the other one's arguments, there was no winner. Popularity does not make someone a winner. There's really not much to "win" in a debate aside from maybe your opponent's agreement.
Many scientists have not also studied philosophy, and as such aren't well-equipped for precisely this sort of debate.
Many scientists would also destroy these fools when it comes to philosophy, so don't give me that nonsense.
There was no "winner" unless one of them was convinced by the others' arguments. This notion that you can "win" a debate through completely arbitrary means needs to die.
Nevertheless, under such interpretation, it would be illegal for the state to deny money to a religious project that otherwise falls under such rules as "reasonable tourism attraction."
I don't see where that follows.
If you don't do something, and something bad happens, because you didn't bother, are you liable?
That's a problem with our system, not the person making the jokes. Most Americans are so retarded that the concept of probability seems to completely elude them. And the fact that our legal system is sometimes completely absurd and... the results aren't good.
Nope. The answer would still be "do nothing." Stop giving in to fearmongering.
Really dumb SSID name choice? Yes.
No more dumb than any other.
Far more important than safety (in this case, safety from a nonexistent threat) is freedom, but that seems to be lost on you fools.
Overreacting to jokes is the problem. Someone using the name of some bogeyman group does not increase the probability that they're part of it, and probability is what matters.
If you were scared of this, never get into a car again, coward.
Oh ho, hilarious, life is tenuous, bad things happen. Yep, that's a nice and carefree way to live, as long as your value on your own life extends exactly as far as "well, whatever, if someone wants to kill me I suppose I'm done."
Except that's not how it is, or what anyone thinks, you ignorant fool. People with brains just take into account probability and don't overreact to jokes. Just because you're mentally retarded and bought into all the nonsensical fearmongering doesn't mean it's a good thing.
But hey, if you're really so scared of this, you should also be scared of everyone on the planet. After all, even people not using the name of some bogeyman group could be terrorists! If you're not panicking, you obviously take a carefree approach to life and don't care if you get killed! Sound logic, dipshit.
If it was just someone having a laugh, it wasn't a very good joke.
Because you're a coward.
This may seem like an overreaction, but if I were on that flight I'd rather have been delayed for a few hours, than have one of these self-radicalized nut-jobs take over the aircraft and point it at some monument or other hard object that ends with me being part of a fireball.
Then you're a coward, too, and part of the problem. The reality is that, regardless of whether or not they use the name of some bogeyman group, everyone has a chance to be a terrorist. Using your logic, you should never be able to do anything ever merely because some people might be terrorists.
But that's not how 'the land of the free and the home of the brave' is supposed to operate. Quit being a little wimp.
Once again, the asshole isn't the one making the joke, but the cowards who take it seriously.
Here's a series of steps that they should have taken in response to this:
1) Don't do anything, and continue as usual.
so don't frighten the ones at the airport.
If they're frightened, they're cowards and deserve to be desensitized.
The real douchebags are the cowards who freak out over things like this. Sometimes they even end up infringing upon people's fundamental liberties to make themselves feel better.
well, originally, penalties were not needed because the constitution was originally designed to grant specific privileges/abilities to a federal government and that was all. the rest was left up to the countries which became the states. The bill of rights, all 12 of them (10 passed and are considered the bill of rights today but originally there were 12 with one becoming an amendment in 1992 and the other still not) were suggested as being redundant as the federal government actually had no powers to do anything that could violate them.
Unless it just ignored the constitution (not just the bill of rights). Which they did pretty quickly, actually.
Things have changed quite a bit since then. Some might say for the better, some say for the worse, but it is definitely different.
Definitely for the worse. Everyone should want the government to operate within the law. If the government truly needs a new power, then there's always constitutional amendments, and those are hard to pass for a reason.
Evolution doesn't have a goal at all, because it's not a sentient entity.
That's generally how both sides of world-view debates feel about the other.
And sometimes, one side is more right and the other isn't. This has been done a thousand times already, anyway. If people want to see such debates, go on Youtube.
But the real goal is to make the audience aware of the best arguments on both sides, and that may be helpful to them.
If the people in a university aren't aware that creationists are idiots, then that reflects poorly on the university's ability to reject trash.
It's just a waste of time. No one's "skills" are weak just because they don't want to waste time dealing with people who have been refuted a thousand times over and won't listen to reason.
Probably because these people really believe it, are somewhat numerous, and many wish to have their nonsense taught in schools. Why people want to ban it, I don't know. It's better to just ignore the mental midgets and oppose them when they suggest getting their nonsense put in laws.
I am personally opposed to organised religion in general, but a fantasy book can still contain lessons worth learning or thinking about.
As can any book. I'd rather get the lessons from simple logic than some ancient fantasy book. We don't need fairy tale books to teach us morality or attitudes.
Saying someone "isn't smart enough to just reject the fantasy book" is extremely ignorant.
No, it isn't. I'm talking about their belief in a magical sky daddy.
Religious 'moderates' might be a bit better than the 'extremists,' but their belief in magical sky daddies still makes them irrational, and there's no getting around that. Their "This part must be metaphorical because I don't like it!" tactics of covering up just how violent their fantasy book is are unwelcome.
Not all religious people are necessarily unintelligent (though most are), but the belief in a magical sky daddy is irrational no matter how 'moderate' you are. The 'moderates' usually just say "That's metaphorical!" to every part of their holy book that they don't like. Apparently, they're smart enough to reject the literal interpretation of their fantasy book, but too dumb to reject the fantasy book outright.
I suppose you think we should hold back technology so people can keep their jobs? I would think technological advancement would be far more important than our silly system of having to have jobs, but whatever.
Also, never heard of bias? If you were a Luddite back in the day, you would have wanted to keep your job! Except, even if it's true, it means nothing.
Our rights don't exist solely to make the jobs of law enforcement easier. Indeed, many just make them harder, and that's fine. It's my private property.
Well yes they do share info to make a buck but the have to make money someway to pay all the employees.
I don't expect anything less from these scumbags. All the more reason not to use it.
The rest are just childish words that have no place in any adult conversation
You do realize the same subjective nonsense could be turned again you, right? Sure, if you don't care about privacy in the least and/or are utterly ignorant of history, nothing I say will seem convincing. But that's not my problem.
Finally if you are are worried about handing data over to governments at all facebook is the really the least of your worries.
Facebook is one of many problems. As I said, it is perfectly rational to avoid it, as giving them information too only surrenders even more of your information.
You are not thinking rationally. You think that because Facebook is supposedly only a small part of the problem, that means you should add to the problem by using it; that just worsens the situation, even if only a little.
The number of crazies that post on Slashdot, including yourself make it a great honeypot for low hanging fruit crazies.
You must've missed the Snowden leaks. And pretty much every act of governmental corruption throughout history. I assure you that desiring privacy is not "crazy" at all, and that the government is more than willing to violate people's privacy. If you can't agree with me on that, you're truly a lost cause. If you do agree, then your reply is puzzling.
This is what I meant by "unclear goal"; large groups of people can't seem to agree on the goal. It's a stupid movement either way.