Actually, you're the one who fails basic science as well as critical thinking. Humans are mammals.
You also take what YOU think "ought to be human morality" and you try to impose that value judgment contrary to what actually is. Science doesn't make moral judgments - it makes observations. Fundies seeking to impose their morality on others are the judgmental ones, and as such, deserve condemnation for their "magnificent hypocrisy".
If you want to make a moral judgment, try this one on for size - the reason we're at the top of the food chain is because as a species we're the meanest, cruelest, least civilized, most amoral and dangerous animal in the world today. I can't think of one animal that comes anywhere near as close to the panalopy of cruelty and sheer inhumanity of humans - and a LOT of that was done "in the name of god." Just read the accounts of genocide that "god commanded" in the bible.
Fred phelps doesn't believe that 9/11 is a reaction to US foreign policy. He believes it is god's judgment on the US for tolerating gays and lesbians, tight jeans, porn, divorce, and all those other "non-christian" values.
My question to him would be: "Since your god's judgment isn't on the non-christian / post-christian nations, maybe god likes their religion more?"
The mounds of ghostly pale cubicle flesh, bruised by flying chairs, monitor-burned faces with sunken eyes dead to anything that isn't composed of pixels, fingers continually spasming in the 3-fingered salute, skin courtesy of a diet of twinkies and cola... ugh!
The 1917 articles that made up "The Fundamentals" was never all that widely distributed.
As the saying goes - do the math. 12 volumes. ~ 2 million books total. That means less than 170,000 sets total distribution over the course of 80 years, or 2,083 sets per annum. Not very influential in the great scheme of things...
The term "fundamentalists" as currently used refers to the descendents of the evangelical fundamentalist "revival" / "Moral Majority" radicalization/polticization in North America in the '70s and the '80s'. to paraphrase the Buick commercial, its not your grandfather's fundamentalism.
The basics never changed - sola scriptura, sola fida, sola gracia. The way they are applied in the social and political context is what changed, and why fundies are derided - both because the bible is internally inconsistent (so much for "sola scriptura"), and because fundies continually "put their foot in it" by their conduct, both in public and in private, demonstrating that the "christian virtues" are more "honoured in the breech" than anything else. Also, it doesn't help that science is able to show that some of the claims of the bible (for example, that homosexuality is a "sin") are just plain stupid talk by ignorant fools, and that same-sex activity is normal for many mammals, contrary to the ignorant ramblings preached from pulpits every weekend. I'm sure if you've been to any fundie church, you've heard sermons claiming that "no other animal engages in such behaviour". Its like none of these preachers has ever seen a dog try to hump their leg - same sex AND bestiality rolled into one...
But that's what you get when "faith" and "you gotta believe" is more important than the evidence of your own eyes, and why its so EASY to make fun of fundies.
As I have already pointed out, the US was not founded on the concept of "absolute rights", but on opposition to absolute rights - in this case, the "absolute rights" of the English monarchy vs. the "no taxatio without representation" crowd.
This myth that the US has ever been about "absolute rights" is not only a lie (as per the above example), but it leads down a path of rigid dogma that ends up espousing foolishness - like the idea that all speech is equally worth protecting, or that "all men are created equal" (which was used by social darwinists to say "if you fail, it's your own fault, since you're equal to everyone else").
Those who seek to do harm by inciting others through words deserve no more protection than those who do harm by other forms of action.
The majority of lies are not covered by slander and defamation.
Lets tackle it from another angle - the separation of church and state. Since the airwaves are state-regulated, they shouldn't be able to issue licenses to any form of religious broadcasting, including pro-fundie right-wing talk radio.
They'd still be free to tell their lies - just not on state-regulated airwaves. Or in state-funded schools.
t's one thing to call for censoring blatant lies and misinformation. You shouldn't have any trouble finding examples of that on radio talk-shows. Unfortunately, you every single example you provide is of an asshole expressing an asinine *opinion*--not misrepresenting fact.
For a long time, slavery was a fact of life in the US, and so was lynching blacks for no better reason than the colour of their skin. A century ago, "coon hunts" were also another ugly reality.
Even today, a lot of people believe that AIDS is a punishment from god. They also believe that the jews control the banks, etc.,
The one thing most of these people have in common? They're white trash who believe god is on their side.
Ironically you're trying to show the illogical nature of one who professes to dislike Fundamentalists (presumably because of their illogical nature).
Of course, the person in question probably has no idea where the term Fundamentalist comes from in modern Christian terms, so their Worldview on the issue is most likely to be entirely based in the media. Yes, the very media from which science should not be learned either.
Or, "Fundamentalism... I don't think that word means what you think it means."
Oh, I know what fundamentalists are like... used to be one myself, when I mistakenly strayed from atheism. Of course, the logical contradictions, both in the bible, and in christian faith, belief, and action, killed that.
All religion is a crock, not just the fundies, so its not like I treat them as a "special case".
I'll say that Fred has the right to say what he wants to say, just that people also have the right to not to listen to him. I swore an oath not to protect Fred but freedom of speech and our nation in general. I'll admit to having an occasional fantasy involving him and a high powered rifle. Then I think, he's not worth it.
Then again, what jury of your peers would convict? You could always plead "temporary sanity" (no, that's not a typo:-)
People like Phelps game the system for their own personal agrandisement. What he did at that soldier's funeral merited him getting a term in Iraq as an IED "sniffer". Put a dog collar on him and have him sniff for roadside bombs. He likes shooting off his mouth so much, why not give him the opportunity to really have a blast?
You can't defend people telling lies, or the practice of people telling lies, without eventually destroying the very system you're trying to defend. Look at people's confidence in government. Bush lies, Clinton lied. Nixon lied, LBJ lied. JFK lied.
So its "okay" for governments to lie to the people in the name of "protected speech"? Even when one of the consequences is that ultimately means that people no longer see the government as being legitimate? The truth should be protected. Lies, liars, and crooks shouldn't.
People in the past have said (and continue to say) stupid things - would you really "defend to my death their right to say it"?
Yes. The point of a right is it is absolute. Allow too many exceptions and they'll come for you. The country was founded on those principles, and we should understand how vital they are.
Nonsense, and easily disproven - rights are never absolutes. Your right to swing your fist stops at my nose. The right of England to tax stopped when there was no corresponding representation - "no taxation without representation"... so the US was NOT founded on the idea of "absolute rights" - otherwise the King would have the absolute right to tax the colonies.
No rights are absolute - not even the "right to life". Ask anyone on death row. Ask anyone who can't afford life-saving medical treatment. Ask anyone who's homeless and easily preyed upon.
The country was founded on lies, same as pretty much every other country. That's what the art of politics is. "All men are created equal" is one such lie. No two men - not even twins - were considered equal at that time. The first-born of two twin brothers would be the legal heritor, etc. And what about women? And blacks? Were they equal? Nope...
Even today, it's still a lie. Driving While Black isn't just an urban myth. Neither is the glass ceiling. Neither is equal access to fundamental necessities such as medical care.
Thanks for the link to Baen. I had read about that in an editorial in one of the SF mags I buy every month, but hadn't gotten around to looking up the url.
This isn't a free speech issue. This is a confronting liars and calling them on their bullshit that they spout while hiding behind the concept of free speech issue.
If fundies don't like that we call them liars, deceivers, crooks, frauds, and con artists, they can either stop lying, deceiving, defrauding, and conning people, or shut the fuck up. Their choice.
The fundies don't like it? Tough shit. Free speech applies to me as well, buddy, so don't try to silence my view that fundies should be called on their lies on some sort of "free speech" allowance. Their behaviour has always been criminal - but until recently they were the ones who were able to set the rules as to what was right and what was wrong. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, let them reap the consequences of their intolerance. That is justice.
So it wasn't a supernova, just some much closer asteroid with a birthday cake with 4,550,123,724 candles on it...
Recalibrating with this new constant, the universe is actually 1.4 light-years across, and only 341 years old. So much for "God created the universe 6,000 years ago." No cake for you!
The idea that we'll still believe in ANY religion in 5,700,000 years is stupid. We won't even be around then. Of course, fundies believe that evolution doesn't happen, and we'll remain as we are "foreveh and evah, world without end, amen pass the plate brothah".
Fundies - the ultimate proof that intelligent design doesn't exist.
I don't agree with pretty much anything fundie talk shows have to say, but I will defend to my death their right to say it.
I used to buy into that as well, but its wrong. Should people be given carte blanche to lie, just because it's about their favourite superstitious belief?
People in the past have said (and continue to say) stupid things - would you really "defend to my death their right to say it"?:
The jews deserved the holocaust
A well-hung nigger is the one hanging from the nearest tree
AIDS is god's punishment for gay people
How about people like Fred Phelps? He said that 9/11 was god punishing America. Ditto with the people killed in the Missouri bridge collapse. Or his tactics at military funerals, which deliberately go way beyond any limits of decency.
Lets look again at what you wrote:
I don't agree with pretty much anything fundie talk shows have to say, but I will defend to my death their right to say it.
If you're willing to throw your life away to defend Fred Phelp's "right to be an asshole", you value yourself less than any two-bit hooker or crackhead. People with principles will use their judgement rather than blindly follow their "freedom of speech" dogma to self-defeating extremes. Principles come with responsibilities, and one of those responsibilities is to make sure that liars don't stand unchallenged. The fundies are liars. So are the scientologists, etc. Heck, look at the crazies going on about holy jihad over "images of Mohammad." How would they know those are really "images of Mohammed" if they're forbidden to have images of Mohammad? Goofballs, just like any other religion. Dawkins is right. Such stupidity only continues to exist because we don't challenge it, using rationalization such as "I may ot agree, but I'll defend to the death..."
If she berated you, your equipment, and treated you like it was all your fault then she would be just like 39 of the 40 mac users I've run into.
No, Windows users just got all pissed off when I told them that there would be no more help for them, as I refused to do Windows any more, and that if they didn't want to switch to something better, they have only themselves to blame for f*cking themselves over.
Windows users have this attitude that it's their god-given right to expect that people support Microsoft's shit. To bad for them that the concept of "god-given right" is lost on atheists.
What is so bad about having, for example, a mention in the acknowledgments or preface "this book sponsored by so-and-so"?
I want to answer your question with one of my own. What is so bad about having legislators or judges in the government who are sponsored by so-and-so? I admit that the comparison between entertainment and politics is extreme, but hopefully you agree that ensuring a stream of money to finance future projects is as important for writers as it is for politicians. A writer who takes money from Exxon might be tempted or persuaded to change minor points in his or her plotline to be more oil-friendly.
The legislators and judges are ALREADY sponsored by the taxpayers.
"Free is good" - free as in cost, free as in the right to make copies and pass them along, free as in the author can choose who and how the sponsor is presented in his or her work.
I agree. In my original post I mentioned giving readers a "read now, pay later" option. This would benefit the economy by ensuring that only authors with good stories will develop readerships. And *those* readers with tell their friends. And a fraction of the satisfied readers will click on the appropriate "Donate now" links on the novel's website and the author will get a very clear idea whether people are "buying" his (or her) work or not. In theory, writers who sell well will get the coveted opportunity to quit their day jobs and write full-time.
I even encourage giving interested parties the freedom to develop derivative works, but only on stories which have produced a certain level of revenue to satisfy the needs of the author (i.e. to prevent Hollywood from producing a film and profit from it without paying a dime for the rights). You can read more about that theory here [2076book.com].
My model eliminates the whole concept of piracy by encouraging free sharing of the work right from the beginning, without any "if you liked this please donate some money" guilt-as-revenue-model.
Also, your $90k limit is VERY high, considering that most books don't earn back their pubishers' advance (average of $5k). BTW, if you can't churn out a couple thousand words a day on a regular basis, day in, day out, you probably don't want to quit your day job and become a full-time writer.
Option 3. Buy a Free standards based formatted ebook for way less than the paper version.
Option 4. Buy the paper version and get the Option 3 ebook version included automatically.
Option 3 - why would someone "buy" a "free" ebook? If you meant "Buy a standards-based eBook for way less than the paper version", I think a free version (as in price and as in beer) would beat the "paid" version in the marketplace;
Option 4: There's certainly nothing stopping people going the "No Starch Press" route... check out what they're doing with torrents.
Slashdot Mirror
In Corporate Welfare Amerika, Election manipulates YOU!
Actually, you're the one who fails basic science as well as critical thinking. Humans are mammals.
You also take what YOU think "ought to be human morality" and you try to impose that value judgment contrary to what actually is. Science doesn't make moral judgments - it makes observations. Fundies seeking to impose their morality on others are the judgmental ones, and as such, deserve condemnation for their "magnificent hypocrisy".
Besides, last I looked, humans have been more "creative" about cruelty than most other mammals.
If you want to make a moral judgment, try this one on for size - the reason we're at the top of the food chain is because as a species we're the meanest, cruelest, least civilized, most amoral and dangerous animal in the world today. I can't think of one animal that comes anywhere near as close to the panalopy of cruelty and sheer inhumanity of humans - and a LOT of that was done "in the name of god." Just read the accounts of genocide that "god commanded" in the bible.
I know it works in Canada.
Fred phelps doesn't believe that 9/11 is a reaction to US foreign policy. He believes it is god's judgment on the US for tolerating gays and lesbians, tight jeans, porn, divorce, and all those other "non-christian" values.
My question to him would be: "Since your god's judgment isn't on the non-christian / post-christian nations, maybe god likes their religion more?"
the guy is just one more pulpitt profiteer.
News flash, Skippy - neither one is running for the leadership of China.
Speaking of China, Confucious say: "In America, dog eat dog. In China, MAN eat dog."
If you're looking for a reason to boycott the 2008 olymics, this is as good as any. If you don't boycott it, don't order a "hot dog."
"IT Workers Strip For McCain, Obama"
The mounds of ghostly pale cubicle flesh, bruised by flying chairs, monitor-burned faces with sunken eyes dead to anything that isn't composed of pixels, fingers continually spasming in the 3-fingered salute, skin courtesy of a diet of twinkies and cola ... ugh!
The 1917 articles that made up "The Fundamentals" was never all that widely distributed.
As the saying goes - do the math. 12 volumes. ~ 2 million books total. That means less than 170,000 sets total distribution over the course of 80 years, or 2,083 sets per annum. Not very influential in the great scheme of things ...
The term "fundamentalists" as currently used refers to the descendents of the evangelical fundamentalist "revival" / "Moral Majority" radicalization/polticization in North America in the '70s and the '80s'. to paraphrase the Buick commercial, its not your grandfather's fundamentalism.
The basics never changed - sola scriptura, sola fida, sola gracia. The way they are applied in the social and political context is what changed, and why fundies are derided - both because the bible is internally inconsistent (so much for "sola scriptura"), and because fundies continually "put their foot in it" by their conduct, both in public and in private, demonstrating that the "christian virtues" are more "honoured in the breech" than anything else. Also, it doesn't help that science is able to show that some of the claims of the bible (for example, that homosexuality is a "sin") are just plain stupid talk by ignorant fools, and that same-sex activity is normal for many mammals, contrary to the ignorant ramblings preached from pulpits every weekend. I'm sure if you've been to any fundie church, you've heard sermons claiming that "no other animal engages in such behaviour". Its like none of these preachers has ever seen a dog try to hump their leg - same sex AND bestiality rolled into one ...
But that's what you get when "faith" and "you gotta believe" is more important than the evidence of your own eyes, and why its so EASY to make fun of fundies.
Don't laugh - a couple of us looked into setting up a relatively low-powered AM station (10,000 watts) 5 years ago. Fat chance.
As I have already pointed out, the US was not founded on the concept of "absolute rights", but on opposition to absolute rights - in this case, the "absolute rights" of the English monarchy vs. the "no taxatio without representation" crowd.
This myth that the US has ever been about "absolute rights" is not only a lie (as per the above example), but it leads down a path of rigid dogma that ends up espousing foolishness - like the idea that all speech is equally worth protecting, or that "all men are created equal" (which was used by social darwinists to say "if you fail, it's your own fault, since you're equal to everyone else").
Those who seek to do harm by inciting others through words deserve no more protection than those who do harm by other forms of action.
The majority of lies are not covered by slander and defamation.
Lets tackle it from another angle - the separation of church and state. Since the airwaves are state-regulated, they shouldn't be able to issue licenses to any form of religious broadcasting, including pro-fundie right-wing talk radio.
They'd still be free to tell their lies - just not on state-regulated airwaves. Or in state-funded schools.
For a long time, slavery was a fact of life in the US, and so was lynching blacks for no better reason than the colour of their skin. A century ago, "coon hunts" were also another ugly reality.
Even today, a lot of people believe that AIDS is a punishment from god. They also believe that the jews control the banks, etc.,
The one thing most of these people have in common? They're white trash who believe god is on their side.
Oh, I know what fundamentalists are like ... used to be one myself, when I mistakenly strayed from atheism. Of course, the logical contradictions, both in the bible, and in christian faith, belief, and action, killed that.
All religion is a crock, not just the fundies, so its not like I treat them as a "special case".
Then again, what jury of your peers would convict? You could always plead "temporary sanity" (no, that's not a typo :-)
People like Phelps game the system for their own personal agrandisement. What he did at that soldier's funeral merited him getting a term in Iraq as an IED "sniffer". Put a dog collar on him and have him sniff for roadside bombs. He likes shooting off his mouth so much, why not give him the opportunity to really have a blast?
You can't defend people telling lies, or the practice of people telling lies, without eventually destroying the very system you're trying to defend. Look at people's confidence in government. Bush lies, Clinton lied. Nixon lied, LBJ lied. JFK lied.
So its "okay" for governments to lie to the people in the name of "protected speech"? Even when one of the consequences is that ultimately means that people no longer see the government as being legitimate? The truth should be protected. Lies, liars, and crooks shouldn't.
Nonsense, and easily disproven - rights are never absolutes. Your right to swing your fist stops at my nose. The right of England to tax stopped when there was no corresponding representation - "no taxation without representation" ... so the US was NOT founded on the idea of "absolute rights" - otherwise the King would have the absolute right to tax the colonies.
No rights are absolute - not even the "right to life". Ask anyone on death row. Ask anyone who can't afford life-saving medical treatment. Ask anyone who's homeless and easily preyed upon.
The country was founded on lies, same as pretty much every other country. That's what the art of politics is. "All men are created equal" is one such lie. No two men - not even twins - were considered equal at that time. The first-born of two twin brothers would be the legal heritor, etc. And what about women? And blacks? Were they equal? Nope ...
Even today, it's still a lie. Driving While Black isn't just an urban myth. Neither is the glass ceiling. Neither is equal access to fundamental necessities such as medical care.
Nowadays, anyone can send money to your bank account with a simple email. No special "merchant account"account, no paypal, nothing.
Its verifiable at both ends, unlike paypal, where you send your money and you take your chances.
You might want to look into that - its part of most banks on-line banking stuff.
Thanks for the link to Baen. I had read about that in an editorial in one of the SF mags I buy every month, but hadn't gotten around to looking up the url.
This isn't a free speech issue. This is a confronting liars and calling them on their bullshit that they spout while hiding behind the concept of free speech issue.
If fundies don't like that we call them liars, deceivers, crooks, frauds, and con artists, they can either stop lying, deceiving, defrauding, and conning people, or shut the fuck up. Their choice.
The fundies don't like it? Tough shit. Free speech applies to me as well, buddy, so don't try to silence my view that fundies should be called on their lies on some sort of "free speech" allowance. Their behaviour has always been criminal - but until recently they were the ones who were able to set the rules as to what was right and what was wrong. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, let them reap the consequences of their intolerance. That is justice.
So it wasn't a supernova, just some much closer asteroid with a birthday cake with 4,550,123,724 candles on it ...
Recalibrating with this new constant, the universe is actually 1.4 light-years across, and only 341 years old. So much for "God created the universe 6,000 years ago." No cake for you!
The idea that we'll still believe in ANY religion in 5,700,000 years is stupid. We won't even be around then. Of course, fundies believe that evolution doesn't happen, and we'll remain as we are "foreveh and evah, world without end, amen pass the plate brothah".
Fundies - the ultimate proof that intelligent design doesn't exist.
I used to buy into that as well, but its wrong. Should people be given carte blanche to lie, just because it's about their favourite superstitious belief?
People in the past have said (and continue to say) stupid things - would you really "defend to my death their right to say it"?:
How about people like Fred Phelps? He said that 9/11 was god punishing America. Ditto with the people killed in the Missouri bridge collapse. Or his tactics at military funerals, which deliberately go way beyond any limits of decency.
Lets look again at what you wrote:
If you're willing to throw your life away to defend Fred Phelp's "right to be an asshole", you value yourself less than any two-bit hooker or crackhead. People with principles will use their judgement rather than blindly follow their "freedom of speech" dogma to self-defeating extremes. Principles come with responsibilities, and one of those responsibilities is to make sure that liars don't stand unchallenged. The fundies are liars. So are the scientologists, etc. Heck, look at the crazies going on about holy jihad over "images of Mohammad." How would they know those are really "images of Mohammed" if they're forbidden to have images of Mohammad? Goofballs, just like any other religion. Dawkins is right. Such stupidity only continues to exist because we don't challenge it, using rationalization such as "I may ot agree, but I'll defend to the death ..."
No, Windows users just got all pissed off when I told them that there would be no more help for them, as I refused to do Windows any more, and that if they didn't want to switch to something better, they have only themselves to blame for f*cking themselves over.
Windows users have this attitude that it's their god-given right to expect that people support Microsoft's shit. To bad for them that the concept of "god-given right" is lost on atheists.
The legislators and judges are ALREADY sponsored by the taxpayers.
My model eliminates the whole concept of piracy by encouraging free sharing of the work right from the beginning, without any "if you liked this please donate some money" guilt-as-revenue-model.
Also, your $90k limit is VERY high, considering that most books don't earn back their pubishers' advance (average of $5k). BTW, if you can't churn out a couple thousand words a day on a regular basis, day in, day out, you probably don't want to quit your day job and become a full-time writer.
Wrong - read what the GP poster typed - "Netx", not "next".
Here, I'll make it easy for you ...
WRT options 3 and 4:
Option 3 - why would someone "buy" a "free" ebook? If you meant "Buy a standards-based eBook for way less than the paper version", I think a free version (as in price and as in beer) would beat the "paid" version in the marketplace;
Option 4: There's certainly nothing stopping people going the "No Starch Press" route ... check out what they're doing with torrents.