keep slapping the big dogs, idiots. see what happens.
Big dogs? LOL. More like an annoying chihuahua.
And your use of the word "slapping" is entirely inappropriate. The conflict here is between violence and non-violent speech. The "slapping" involved here is non-violent speech.
And as for what happens, well there's two options. Either the dog will learn to respond to peaceful speech in a civilized non-violent manner, or the dog persists in feral violent behavior and has to be put down. That would suck. I would much prefer live and let live. I much prefer to be friends with a non-violent dog.
And as a note, you are the one who came up with that "dog" thing. I would point out that there are millions of Muslims in the United States and there are Mosques in every state in the country. We get along quite well over here. That's the magic of Civilized Behavior. Free Speech means people respond to speech with speech.
Civilized Behavior. Violence is only appropriate as an unfortunately necessary response to violence.
Brilliant! You will now be tried and convicted by the courts of MY country for breaking some idiot law you've never heard of.
I wonder how many Iranian laws you've broken, or how many US laws you've broken, or how many Chinese laws you've broken, or how many Cambodian laws you've broken, or, well, there are nearly 200 countries so I'm sure you have checked and comply with every law from every country, no matter how idiotic they may be. As you argue, you are subject to the laws of every country on earth.
the original law was intended not to stop people from making the drawings, but to stop people from seeing them... and people saw them in pakistan... so their law was broken.
If I'm in the U.S. the law says I have to drive on the right hand side of the road. If I'm in the U.K the law says I have to drive on the left hand side of the road. I am not breaking U.K. law when I drive on the right hand side of the road in the U.S., I am not breaking U.S. law when I drive on the left hand side of the road in the U.K., and this idiotic Pakistani law was not broken by Zukerberg or anyone working at Facebook. As far as I'm aware this idiotic Pakistani law was not broken by any of the artists who actually drew the images.
You would sort of have a point if this were about them arresting Pakistanis for their Pakistan crime of viewing the images in Pakistan. But you don't have a point. This is about innocent peaceful people outside Pakistan doing things that are perfectly legal outside Pakistan.
where the ignorant hypocrites come in is in response to pakistans response
You are confused and/or ignorant if you think there is hypocrisy.
Free speech means the appropriate response to speech is more speech, NOT violence. Insults and criticism and even telling someone to 'shut the fuck up' are all speech. They are all legitimate free speech responses, and they all respect the other person's right to free speech.
People who engage in violence or make threats of violence or who incite violence are criminals, they either need to be locked in prison or, if necessary, a bullet to the brain.
you incited them to do what they claimed they would do
You misunderstand/misuse the word "incite". Incite means to command or advocate an action.
If someone threatens violence against anyone draws a picture of Muhammad, and someone else defiantly draws a picture of Muhammad, that is not incitement. The person who advocates violence against the artist is the one guilty of inciting violence. They artist was not inciting (advocating) that someone should commit violence him. He's saying violence shouldn't be committed, he's saying crimes should not be committed against him. He is defying the criminals making the threats, he is saying they are wrong, he is saying they should not commit violence, he is saying that if they do commit violence that they are wrong. That is exactly the OPPOSITE of incitement.
If I tell you I will kill you unless you convert to my religion, and you utter the speech 'no', it would be false and insane to label your speech as incitement. It would be false and insane to suggest you were in any way responsible for my subsequent violence against you.
what their laws dictate them to do, and then when they do it, you cry foul
If this was about charging people in Pakistan for committing a crime in Pakistan people wouldn't be crying foul. People would still be criticizing the idiotic law, but without the foul play of an idiot country trying to impose an idiot law against people doing perfectly legal things outside Pakistan.
you can't hide behind free speech forever.
What hiding? I, and I assume most other posters here, support free speech and oppose violence except as a necessary resort against those who are violent.
People are free to draw Muhammad. People are free to criticize or insult those who draw Muhammad, or eve
You are misunderstand or misusing the word 'incite'. To 'incite' is to advocate a certain action.
If someone says I must convert to Islam (or any other religion) or they will kill me, I am not inciting anything when I utter the speech 'no'. That is not only false, but insane, for anyone to claim I am somehow responsible for their subsequent violence, that I somehow 'incited' them to violence, by saying 'no'.
If someone makes a threat, and someone else defies that threat, that is not incitement. The people drawing pictures of Muhammad are not inciting violence. The people saying these artists should be killed or harmed are the ones inciting violence.
and then attacking them when they respond with their own free speech
First lets split that response into two categories.
Responses that merely say they dislike the images, or responses peacefully criticizing the artists, or responses peacefully insulting the artists, that is "their own free speech" and that is entirely legitimate.
On the other hand, verbally offering money to someone to murder your father for you happens to use speech, but the fact that speech was used is completely irrelevant. The intent was to achieve an actual criminal act murder of your farther. And obviously the same is true even if an offer of money is not involved. Whether it is conspiracy towards physical criminal act, or aiding and abetting some physical criminal act, or incident (advocacy!) for some criminal act, the intent to cause an actual physical crime to occur is itself participation in an actual physical crime. The fact that someone happened to use speech while attempting to achieve an actual commission of an actual physical criminal act is implicitly does not fall under the phrase "free speech". To the extent people were threatening or advocating murder, violence, or any other criminal act against Facebook or the artists, that is not "respond with their own free speech". That is responding with violence or threats of violence or incident of violence.
And of particular significance is you usage of the word "attacking". I think it is central to the issue of which is right and which side is wrong in this conflict. I think it is central to you understanding why people have been rejecting your position and why all of your posts have been getting modded into oblivion.
The key point of the entire conflict is the line between speech and violence. You said "attacking them when they respond with their own free speech", but the key point is that these so-called "attacks" are criticisms and insults. The very point of free speech is that people have the right to speech that is offensive or insulting or wrong or stupid, and that the appropriate response to that speech is additional speech. Calling someone an 'idiot' or telling them to 'shut the hell up' is itself free speech. When someone gets insulted or told to shut up, they are wrong when they often try to call it hypocritical or an attack on their freedom of speech. Criticism and insults 'shut up' and Slashdot moderation are themselves speech, and the whole point of free speech is that speech (not violence) is the proper response to speech.
you are all ignorant hypocrites.
I hope the above cleared up your understanding of the conflict, and that free speech advocates are not being hypocritical.
-
The people drawing pictures of Muhammad are engaging in free speech. We support freedom of speech, regardless of whether we agree or disagree with that speech.
Anyone responding with non-violent criticism or non-violent insults against those artists is responding with free speech. We support freedom of speech, regardless of whether we agree or disagree with that speech.
Anyone responding with violence against the artists, or making threats of violence against the artists, or inciting others to commit violence against the artists, they are criminals. They either need
If the abortion entry has a section regarding pro-abortion, and another section regarding anti-abortion, each written by people that hold those views, that would be neutral.
encyclopedia [en-sahy-kluh-pee-dee-uh] - noun 1. a book or set of books containing articles on various topics, usually in alphabetical arrangement, covering all branches of knowledge or, less commonly, all aspects of one subject, composed of a pair of propaganda pieces for each topic.
There's a general mention to the blessings of liberty - referring to God - in the preamble as well; does that not establish God as a fundamental component of our Government?
The Constitution is not some cheezy novel with secret codes.
There were plenty of proposals to put God or Christianity into the Constitution. The fact is that God and Christianity are conspicuously absent from the Constitution. The Framers of the Constitution made a very conscious and conspicuous choice to completely exclude any appeal to religion from the Constitution.
The Founders were dedicated to the idea of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. The ideology that The People have the inherent authority to overturn a government. Government was created by men and run by men. Any appeal to the authority of God or authority of religion completely contradicts the idea that the people have the inherent authority to overthrow that government.
"The blessings of liberty" simply means "the good things that liberty provides".
James Madison, Father of the Constitution, primary author of the Bill of Rights, acknowledged leader among the Founders in formulating the ideology of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights had much to say on the subject:
Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects. -- James Madison 1785 Memorial and Remonstrance
It is impossible to have any sort of "Christian government" or "Christian nation" without the government in some sense defining what "Christian" means. The government then inherently gets dragged into conflicts between different denominations. Most of the state governments had established themselves as "Christian", and the people of the day were quite aware of the problems that arose. They did not want the Federal Government getting involved in religious matters.
I find it particular strange the way Separation of Church and State denialists completely write James Madison out of their account of history, trying to cast Separation as some figment of just Jefferson's imagination:
total separation of the church from the state -- James Madison 1819 letter to Robert Walsh
perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters -- James Madison 1822 letter to Edward Livingston
line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority... entire abstinence of the government -- James Madison 1832 letter Rev. Jasper Adams Spring
practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States -- James Madison 1811 letter to Baptist Churches
And in particular, nailing the coffin on false claims of some "One Way Wall":
Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history. -- James Madison Detached Memoranda circa 1817
And it wasn't just Jefferson and Madison who saw the Constitution and the government being completely secular. Just five years into the new nation the Senate ratified the statement "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion".
It was passed UNANIMOUSLY, it was published in major newspapers of the day, and there is no mention of anyone complaining or objecting. Not a single objection from the Senate, not a single whisper of public objection in the papers. The general public understood that the federal government was deliberately divorced from the issue of religion, and the general public accepted that a protection on their own religious liberty. The general public did NOT want to see the Federal government getting anywhere
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
And I'll take this opportunity to really piss some people off by mentioning the fact that the Electoral College was part of the same slavery compromise. Between the 3/5ths counting of slaves in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College there was a carefully counted balance reached for pro-slavery power and for pro-slavery votes.
We'll assume vehicle speed is twice the wind speed. We'll imagine a 1 second period where the wind moves forwards 100 feet and the vehicle moves forwards 200 feet. Work is a force through a distance. The wheels are seeing 100 pounds of force through 200 feet of ground travel. The propeller is experiencing 100 pounds of force, but the propeller only moves 100 feet relative to the air. The wheels are doing twice as much work (and producing double the power) than the propeller is consuming. Again the energy is coming from the difference between wind and ground speeds. The energy of the wind relative to the ground is being extracted.
I think I can give a pretty good explanation how this works.
Let's start at the point where the vehicle is going at exact the same speed as the wind. The propeller is seeing exactly zero wind speed. Now look to the wheels and their link to the ground. Lets put a 100 pound load on the wheels, a force acting to slow the vehicle down. This supplies us power to drive the propeller. So now we have a 100 pound rotary force to spin the propeller. The propeller has a lift-to-drag-ratio greater than 1. 100 pounds of rotary force spins the propeller up until the drag equals 100 pounds. The propeller spinning at this rate generates more than 100 pounds of thrust. The first 100 pounds of thrust balances out against the 100 pound load on the wheels, and the remaining thrust accelerates the vehicle.
There is no energy violation going on because we are extracting energy from the difference between wind speed and ground speed. When the vehicle is moving faster than the wind the wind is still pushing forwards on the backwash air from the propeller, that backwash air from the propeller is pushing forwards on the propeller, and the propeller is pushing the vehicle forwards against the ground. We have a chain of forces where the wind is in effect pushing forwards against the ground, and we extract that wind-to-ground force to accelerate the vehicle. That wind-vs-ground energy source exists no matter what speed the vehicle is traveling. We can use that energy to accelerate the vehicle up to ANY speed, either upwind or downwind, and we are limited only by energy losses to friction and drag.
When the wind stops the energy supply stops. The vehicle will then slow due to friction and drag.
First, I don't think the parent post deserved to be modded troll. He asked questions, and not particularly unreasonable questions if they never learned about evolution in school.
What are the odds of life evolving on its own from within an environment devoid of life?
I'll come back to this at the end.
What are the odds of such evolved life would mutate?
If we flip the question backwards, if you have reproducing life they would multiply to over a thousand in ten generations, over a million in twenty generations, over a billion in thirty generations. You're basically asking what is the probability that none of them would ever be imperfect, none of them would ever get hit my a stray chemical reaction, none of them would ever get hit by radioactivity or a cosmic ray or anything else. They probability that there would never be a mutation is obviously zero. That means the probability some copies will eventually mutate would be 100%.
What are the odds of such mutated life to mutate into a form that would allow it to continue to live?
If you mean the probability that any given mutation would live, that is irrelevant. Any fatal mutations simply die and it has no effect. We have a multiplying population that keeps going. We can completely ignore fatal mutations.
So what we're really looking at is whether any mutation would ever live. Well, in experiments we've proven and studied single molecule that replicate and evolve. There were a huge number of places the molecule could (and did) mutate and continue to replicate. So it is experimentally proven that a single molecule replicator can mutate and continue to reproducing. We simply throw away fatal mutations and simply wait for any non-fatal mutations, this is again 100%. Some mutations are non fatal and that's all that matters.
What are the odds of such survivable life to further mutate into a higher order of life?
To really understand evolution you need to abandon the concept of "higher". That's not how evolution works. There is a population of individuals, individuals have children, and those children are sometimes are sometimes slightly imperfect copies of the parents. Obviously over time additional new variations appear, and over time some of those variations will themselves be imperfectly copied into a variation of a variation. Viewed strictly within evolution process there is no concept of "higher" here. The closest thing to "higher" is that later generations are more evolved. The bacteria in your ear and the squirrel in your back yard are equally evolved, they are both the product of the same 4 billion years of evolution. The bacteria in your ear is highly evolved and highly successful at living and reproducing in your ear, and the squirrel is highly evolved and highly successful at living and reproducing in the tree in your backyard. Heck, many plants have vastly more DNA than you do and could by some definitions be considered more complex. Animals aren't "higher" than plants, plants and animals are more like brother and sister. Plants came up with photosynthesis and animals came up with muscles. Modern plants and animals are both the same "age", equally evolved, just evolved in different directions.
The anthrax bacteria is able to defeat your immune system and kill you because it is just as evolved as you are.
Anyway, you have an unlimited replicating population. Some of them mutate and die, we can completely ignore them. And sooner or later some offspring have helpful mutations, something different that makes them better able to survive and reproduce. The best stuff sticks around and the worst stuff dies. And over time new beneficial variations pile up on top of old beneficial variations on top of older beneficial variations.
Consider lottery tickets. There are millions of individuals each with a lottery ticket. And as you know, virtually every week someone wins the lottery. If you are a secretary in the lottery office, every week you see someone walk throu
People, particularly on this forum, put Christians down as ignorant.
Lets see if I can help correct that.
You are ignorant. The majority of Christians however, do accept evolution.
And just in case you were unaware of the fact that the majority of Christians accept evolution you can take a look at this article and the image in it. The United States is almost completely Christian and is evenly split on accepting evolution. Then you merely note the fact that other overwhelmingly Christian countries accept evolution by large margins. Even if try you stack the figures as far as possible by assuming every non-Christian in each country accepts evolution in order to maximize the percentage of Christians rejecting evolution, it still works out impossible for there to be less than 50% of Christians on the evolution side.
Turkey is the only developed nation that has a lower acceptance of evolution than the US.
* ID was religious in nature. * ID was the progeny of creationism and was creationism merely re-labeled. * ID was not science and failed to meet basic criteria of scientific principles. * ID was introduced for secular purposes not academic ones.
You made a mental typo on the last one. The judge ruled ruled ID was introduced for religious purposes, and that the claim of secular(academic) purposes was a sham.
Odd that the bible, including creation, was taught in public education until approx 1948.
No odder than the fact that there were laws prohibiting blacks and whites from marrying until 1967.
Hell, congress has been hiring priests to preform offical prayer sessions from the very first session of congress right up to today despite the fact that in approximately 1817 James Madison, primary author of the Bill of Rights, stated that was an unconstitutional violation of the Establishment Clause. Madison didn't pursue it because he had bigger issues to deal with.
The government, and Congress in particular, do unconstitutional stuff all the time. Just because the Supreme Court hasn't yet smacked down some of those things does not alter the fact that they are unconstitutional.
Why the change of usage and why the deprecation of the word "law"?
Once upon a time we had the Law Of Conservation Of Mass, and the Law Of Conservation Of Energy. And then Relativity came along and subatomic physics, and we found that both are false. Mass can become energy, and energy can become mass. Calling them "laws" in the first place was wrong, or at best misleading.
We inherited the usage of "law" from hundreds of years ago when the methods and philosophy of modern science were first being born. Whenever some apparent rule of nature was discovered they slapped the name "law" on it. They were discovering the Laws Of Nature. Newton discovered an equation describing gravity, so they slapped the name Law Of Gravity on it.
As modern science progressed it became clear that that understanding progresses in layers. Things that were "true" and "facts" yesterday can always be superseded by new and better understanding tomorrow, and things that were "true" and "facts" yesterday can always be refuted by new experiments and new evidence tomorrow.
In the modern philosophy of science everything is open to question. Everything is open to new and better understanding, new and better evidence. The highest status anything can have in modern science is theory, a theory supported beyond any reasonable doubt by all available evidence. The existence of atoms? That is atom theory, supported beyond any reasonable doubt by all available evidence. The existence of atoms is inherently open to question, but anyone would be an idiot to waste their time on it unless you can present some damn good new evidence and a new theory that explains known chemistry better than the current atom theory.
Between Evolution, Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics, Evolution almost indisputably holds the strongest scientific status of the three. All three are supported beyond any reasonable doubt by all available evidence. Allow me to split Evolution into two parts. One, evolution as a process, and two, evolution as an explanation of history.
Evolution-as-a-process is a mathematically proven fact. Given a few minimal conditions, given essentially any system involving selective replication of information with mutation, it is mathematically proven that the process of evolution will occur and that it can and will create new "useful" information. (Where "useful" means useful for being selected and reproducing.)
Evolution-as-an-explanation-of-history is supported beyond any reasonable doubt by all available evidence. New evidence will help fill in new details, but barring a massive fraud of false evidence planted by God or intelligent aliens there is no reason to expect some new level of understanding and some new underlying truth fundamentally overturning the evolution-as-history. It's like we're a jury in a murder case and we have fingerprints and DNA evidence and we have lousy quality video of the suspect committing the murder. The video is very noisy and it is mostly gaps. But barring a massive deliberate fabrication of evidence to frame the suspect, there is no reason to imagine that new evidence is going to fundamentally alter the prosecution's theory of historical events. New evidence from cleaning up the video and filling in the gaps is not going to fundamentally change the story.
In comparison, we know for a fact that at least one of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics must be wrong. There are spots where they directly contradict each other. The available evidence supports each one to the best of our ability to test, but the available evidence also says that neither one is fundamentally sufficient. Physicists do expect a fundamentally new layer of understanding to explain (and potentially overturn) both Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
The science side in this conflict merely wants to treat all fields of science the same. Evolution and chemistry are both "theories". They are supported by all available evidence beyond any reasonable doubt. For all practical purposes they are "true" in the same sense t
I have a radical proposal. How about we teach an accurate overview of science, as actually understood and practiced by professional scientists in each field.
And what about "scientific controversies"? Well, if one PhD astronomer gets schizophrenia and claims the moon is made of cheese we're obviously not going to mention that in any class. So how about this, if actual physicists are equally split on something we spend equal time on both. That's perfectly logical, right? And if actual chemists are split 90% vs 10% about 10% on something, we teach the 90% view as mainstream accepted science, and lets be generous and say maybe it is worth while spending 10% of the time discussing "the controversy" and the contrary view. That's more than fair and reasonable, right? Spending 10% time on a 10% view? And if there is a 99% vs 1% split between actual astronomers on something, we absolutely teach the 99% version as accepted science and we spend, MAYBE, AT MOST, 1% time pointing out that sometimes a few scientists disagree with accepted science and briefly mentioning what the 1% view is. I think it is grossly generous to spend 1% time teaching a 1% "controversy". And how about we use that 1% level as a cutoff. How about we agree that anything below a 1% level pretty much represents the random crackpots that exist in every field. How about we agree that anything rejected by more than 99% of professionals in a field has no place in a science classroom.
Is that reasonable? Is that agreeable?
Oh, by the way, if we rounded off to the nearest full percentage point, 100% of professional biologists accept evolution. If you want to start getting into decimals, more than 99.8% of professional biologists accept evolution. Seriously. Intelligent Design isn't science. It's a public relations campaign trying to pass itself off as science to claw it's way into science classes. The ID materials are plausible enough to confuse and mislead school children, but it's all flawed or misleading or just plain false. All of the supposed science in ID has been refuted by actual biologists.
Allow me to break things down into three categories.
(1) Valid scientific work on Intelligent Design that in theory could be done, but which hasn't been done. (2) Actual scientific work on Intelligent Design that has been done. (3) Nonscientific creationist stuff trying to use Intelligent Design like a Halloween mask, pretending to be scientific.
You are largely arguing from number 1. Just because I could in theory come up with a cure for cancer some day does not make it OK for me to run around injecting people with a mud solution today. If and when I do come up with a proposed cure for cancer, that proposed cure needs to be properly evaluated by standard medical protocols to verify that it actually works and doesn't contain any fatal components. If and when work from category 1 does get done, that should be scientific research and it needs to go through the standard scientific peer review process to ensure it does not contain any fatal flaws and that it actually does yields valid useful new results. Highschool science class needs to teach an accurate overview of each scientific field as it is understood and practiced by professionals in that field. Highschool science class is not a place to be pushing reviewed research which is potentially fatally flawed, and which is does not accurately reflect the current state of science as accepted and practiced by actual scientists in that field. As new results and knowledge become an established part of a field as practiced by professional scientists, only then is it appropriate for highschool science education to adjust to accurately reflect that. Highschool science education must follow science as understood and practiced by professionals. It is completely inappropriate when some people attempt to hijack highschool students to attempt to lead science where they would like it to go for nonscientific ideological reasons.
Then there's (2) actual scientific work on Intelligent Design that has been done. There is very little in this category. To the extent sincere science work has been done in Intelligent Design, all of that work has either turned up negative results, or yielded apparently positive results that on peer review were found to contain fatal flaws. We don't generally waste time teaching research that came up empty, and we generally don't teach work containing math errors or other fatal flaws.
And then there's the largest category, (3) nonscientific crap trying to pretend to be science. Which I hope we can all agree has no place in a science classroom:)
In theory could there be some sort of Intelligent Design stuff that could and should be taught? Sure. And in theory there could be a race of little green men living in caverns on Mars. If and when they turn up, if and when and are accepted by professional peer reviewed science, then and only then do science classes follow. Then and only then do science classes adapt to accurately reflect the new state of science as understood and practiced by professional scientists.
Oh, I'd like to add an important follow up on category (1), real science that could be done but which hasn't been done. There is a foundation, the John Templeton Foundation, which gives about $70 million per year in grants. The mission statement says in part "We encourage civil, informed dialogue among scientists, philosophers, and theologians", and it has a particular interest in funding research and conferences connecting science and theology. The Intelligent Design advocates came knocking at the Templeton Foundation doors talking all their usual talk, and many at the Templeton foundation started getting exited about it. Of all the work on science and religion the foundation had funded, obviously nothing could compare to the idea of science actually examining and proving the work of God in designing life. That is obviously huge, the idea of science proving God and God's work. So yeah, ma
There are two explanations. One is that Behe is just a bad researcher (and there seems to be little evidence that he's that incompetent), or that Behe is a liar, and the latter seems to be the better explanation.
You're overlooking a third option, one I consider vastly more probable.
The human mind is disturbingly capable of selectively filtering information and creatively interpreting things and redefining things and rationalizing things when one is sufficiently dedicated to a predetermined "known truth".
In short, self-deluded.
As best as I can tell Behe seems to be sincerely trying to do real science to prove his theory. He just seems to be particularly skilled at not-understanding things that he doesn't want to understand.
Slashdot Mirror
Crayons are magic.
All those fuckin' colors.
How do they work?
And don' be givin' me any
of that lyin' science shit.
-
No, whatd oes it do?
-
How we went from Black Sabbath to Christian clowns insulting scientists is beyond me.
And what's up with the weird makeup?
They didn't wear weird face crap into the Dover Courtroom and Texas School Board meetings, did they?
-
That's Ignorance of Biblical proportions.
What do you mean, "Biblical"?
-
I don't know, and I don't want to know.
-
hogs are known to be extremely depressed at hog farms.
That's why I feed them Prozac everyday.
It's also why I came up with the saying "A BLT a day keeps the psychiatrist away".
-
keep slapping the big dogs, idiots. see what happens.
Big dogs? LOL. More like an annoying chihuahua.
And your use of the word "slapping" is entirely inappropriate. The conflict here is between violence and non-violent speech. The "slapping" involved here is non-violent speech.
And as for what happens, well there's two options. Either the dog will learn to respond to peaceful speech in a civilized non-violent manner, or the dog persists in feral violent behavior and has to be put down. That would suck. I would much prefer live and let live. I much prefer to be friends with a non-violent dog.
And as a note, you are the one who came up with that "dog" thing. I would point out that there are millions of Muslims in the United States and there are Mosques in every state in the country. We get along quite well over here. That's the magic of Civilized Behavior. Free Speech means people respond to speech with speech.
Civilized Behavior. Violence is only appropriate as an unfortunately necessary response to violence.
-
it happened on the internet that is in pakistan
Brilliant! You will now be tried and convicted by the courts of MY country for breaking some idiot law you've never heard of.
I wonder how many Iranian laws you've broken, or how many US laws you've broken, or how many Chinese laws you've broken, or how many Cambodian laws you've broken, or, well, there are nearly 200 countries so I'm sure you have checked and comply with every law from every country, no matter how idiotic they may be. As you argue, you are subject to the laws of every country on earth.
the original law was intended not to stop people from making the drawings, but to stop people from seeing them... and people saw them in pakistan... so their law was broken.
If I'm in the U.S. the law says I have to drive on the right hand side of the road. If I'm in the U.K the law says I have to drive on the left hand side of the road. I am not breaking U.K. law when I drive on the right hand side of the road in the U.S., I am not breaking U.S. law when I drive on the left hand side of the road in the U.K., and this idiotic Pakistani law was not broken by Zukerberg or anyone working at Facebook. As far as I'm aware this idiotic Pakistani law was not broken by any of the artists who actually drew the images.
You would sort of have a point if this were about them arresting Pakistanis for their Pakistan crime of viewing the images in Pakistan. But you don't have a point. This is about innocent peaceful people outside Pakistan doing things that are perfectly legal outside Pakistan.
where the ignorant hypocrites come in is in response to pakistans response
You are confused and/or ignorant if you think there is hypocrisy.
Free speech means the appropriate response to speech is more speech, NOT violence. Insults and criticism and even telling someone to 'shut the fuck up' are all speech. They are all legitimate free speech responses, and they all respect the other person's right to free speech.
People who engage in violence or make threats of violence or who incite violence are criminals, they either need to be locked in prison or, if necessary, a bullet to the brain.
you incited them to do what they claimed they would do
You misunderstand/misuse the word "incite". Incite means to command or advocate an action.
If someone threatens violence against anyone draws a picture of Muhammad, and someone else defiantly draws a picture of Muhammad, that is not incitement. The person who advocates violence against the artist is the one guilty of inciting violence. They artist was not inciting (advocating) that someone should commit violence him. He's saying violence shouldn't be committed, he's saying crimes should not be committed against him. He is defying the criminals making the threats, he is saying they are wrong, he is saying they should not commit violence, he is saying that if they do commit violence that they are wrong. That is exactly the OPPOSITE of incitement.
If I tell you I will kill you unless you convert to my religion, and you utter the speech 'no', it would be false and insane to label your speech as incitement. It would be false and insane to suggest you were in any way responsible for my subsequent violence against you.
what their laws dictate them to do, and then when they do it, you cry foul
If this was about charging people in Pakistan for committing a crime in Pakistan people wouldn't be crying foul. People would still be criticizing the idiotic law, but without the foul play of an idiot country trying to impose an idiot law against people doing perfectly legal things outside Pakistan.
you can't hide behind free speech forever.
What hiding? I, and I assume most other posters here, support free speech and oppose violence except as a necessary resort against those who are violent.
People are free to draw Muhammad. People are free to criticize or insult those who draw Muhammad, or eve
you are inciting people
You are misunderstand or misusing the word 'incite'.
To 'incite' is to advocate a certain action.
If someone says I must convert to Islam (or any other religion) or they will kill me, I am not inciting anything when I utter the speech 'no'. That is not only false, but insane, for anyone to claim I am somehow responsible for their subsequent violence, that I somehow 'incited' them to violence, by saying 'no'.
If someone makes a threat, and someone else defies that threat, that is not incitement. The people drawing pictures of Muhammad are not inciting violence. The people saying these artists should be killed or harmed are the ones inciting violence.
and then attacking them when they respond with their own free speech
First lets split that response into two categories.
Responses that merely say they dislike the images, or responses peacefully criticizing the artists, or responses peacefully insulting the artists, that is "their own free speech" and that is entirely legitimate.
On the other hand, verbally offering money to someone to murder your father for you happens to use speech, but the fact that speech was used is completely irrelevant. The intent was to achieve an actual criminal act murder of your farther. And obviously the same is true even if an offer of money is not involved. Whether it is conspiracy towards physical criminal act, or aiding and abetting some physical criminal act, or incident (advocacy!) for some criminal act, the intent to cause an actual physical crime to occur is itself participation in an actual physical crime. The fact that someone happened to use speech while attempting to achieve an actual commission of an actual physical criminal act is implicitly does not fall under the phrase "free speech". To the extent people were threatening or advocating murder, violence, or any other criminal act against Facebook or the artists, that is not "respond with their own free speech". That is responding with violence or threats of violence or incident of violence.
And of particular significance is you usage of the word "attacking". I think it is central to the issue of which is right and which side is wrong in this conflict. I think it is central to you understanding why people have been rejecting your position and why all of your posts have been getting modded into oblivion.
The key point of the entire conflict is the line between speech and violence. You said "attacking them when they respond with their own free speech", but the key point is that these so-called "attacks" are criticisms and insults. The very point of free speech is that people have the right to speech that is offensive or insulting or wrong or stupid, and that the appropriate response to that speech is additional speech. Calling someone an 'idiot' or telling them to 'shut the hell up' is itself free speech. When someone gets insulted or told to shut up, they are wrong when they often try to call it hypocritical or an attack on their freedom of speech. Criticism and insults 'shut up' and Slashdot moderation are themselves speech, and the whole point of free speech is that speech (not violence) is the proper response to speech.
you are all ignorant hypocrites.
I hope the above cleared up your understanding of the conflict, and that free speech advocates are not being hypocritical.
-
The people drawing pictures of Muhammad are engaging in free speech. We support freedom of speech, regardless of whether we agree or disagree with that speech.
Anyone responding with non-violent criticism or non-violent insults against those artists is responding with free speech. We support freedom of speech, regardless of whether we agree or disagree with that speech.
Anyone responding with violence against the artists, or making threats of violence against the artists, or inciting others to commit violence against the artists, they are criminals. They either need
If the abortion entry has a section regarding pro-abortion, and another section regarding anti-abortion, each written by people that hold those views, that would be neutral.
encyclopedia [en-sahy-kluh-pee-dee-uh] - noun
1. a book or set of books containing articles on various topics, usually in alphabetical arrangement, covering all branches of knowledge or, less commonly, all aspects of one subject, composed of a pair of propaganda pieces for each topic.
-
Good thing he's not a United States citizen then, or else he might be violating his social contract.
Clause 5(c), going to the bathroom during a TV commercial is theft.
-
There's a general mention to the blessings of liberty - referring to God - in the preamble as well; does that not establish God as a fundamental component of our Government?
The Constitution is not some cheezy novel with secret codes.
There were plenty of proposals to put God or Christianity into the Constitution. The fact is that God and Christianity are conspicuously absent from the Constitution. The Framers of the Constitution made a very conscious and conspicuous choice to completely exclude any appeal to religion from the Constitution.
The Founders were dedicated to the idea of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. The ideology that The People have the inherent authority to overturn a government. Government was created by men and run by men. Any appeal to the authority of God or authority of religion completely contradicts the idea that the people have the inherent authority to overthrow that government.
"The blessings of liberty" simply means "the good things that liberty provides".
James Madison, Father of the Constitution, primary author of the Bill of Rights, acknowledged leader among the Founders in formulating the ideology of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights had much to say on the subject:
Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects. -- James Madison 1785 Memorial and Remonstrance
It is impossible to have any sort of "Christian government" or "Christian nation" without the government in some sense defining what "Christian" means. The government then inherently gets dragged into conflicts between different denominations. Most of the state governments had established themselves as "Christian", and the people of the day were quite aware of the problems that arose. They did not want the Federal Government getting involved in religious matters.
I find it particular strange the way Separation of Church and State denialists completely write James Madison out of their account of history, trying to cast Separation as some figment of just Jefferson's imagination:
total separation of the church from the state -- James Madison 1819 letter to Robert Walsh
perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters -- James Madison 1822 letter to Edward Livingston
line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority... entire abstinence of the government -- James Madison 1832 letter Rev. Jasper Adams Spring
practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States -- James Madison 1811 letter to Baptist Churches
And in particular, nailing the coffin on false claims of some "One Way Wall":
Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history. -- James Madison Detached Memoranda circa 1817
And it wasn't just Jefferson and Madison who saw the Constitution and the government being completely secular. Just five years into the new nation the Senate ratified the statement "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion".
It was passed UNANIMOUSLY, it was published in major newspapers of the day, and there is no mention of anyone complaining or objecting. Not a single objection from the Senate, not a single whisper of public objection in the papers. The general public understood that the federal government was deliberately divorced from the issue of religion, and the general public accepted that a protection on their own religious liberty. The general public did NOT want to see the Federal government getting anywhere
The warning label seems oddly appropriate to me.
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
And I'll take this opportunity to really piss some people off by mentioning the fact that the Electoral College was part of the same slavery compromise. Between the 3/5ths counting of slaves in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College there was a carefully counted balance reached for pro-slavery power and for pro-slavery votes.
-
I don't use twitter.
I don't want to catch chirpies.
It's a canarial disease.
It's untweetable.
-
I think I explained part of that badly.
We'll assume vehicle speed is twice the wind speed. We'll imagine a 1 second period where the wind moves forwards 100 feet and the vehicle moves forwards 200 feet. Work is a force through a distance. The wheels are seeing 100 pounds of force through 200 feet of ground travel. The propeller is experiencing 100 pounds of force, but the propeller only moves 100 feet relative to the air. The wheels are doing twice as much work (and producing double the power) than the propeller is consuming. Again the energy is coming from the difference between wind and ground speeds. The energy of the wind relative to the ground is being extracted.
-
I think I can give a pretty good explanation how this works.
Let's start at the point where the vehicle is going at exact the same speed as the wind. The propeller is seeing exactly zero wind speed. Now look to the wheels and their link to the ground. Lets put a 100 pound load on the wheels, a force acting to slow the vehicle down. This supplies us power to drive the propeller. So now we have a 100 pound rotary force to spin the propeller. The propeller has a lift-to-drag-ratio greater than 1. 100 pounds of rotary force spins the propeller up until the drag equals 100 pounds. The propeller spinning at this rate generates more than 100 pounds of thrust. The first 100 pounds of thrust balances out against the 100 pound load on the wheels, and the remaining thrust accelerates the vehicle.
There is no energy violation going on because we are extracting energy from the difference between wind speed and ground speed. When the vehicle is moving faster than the wind the wind is still pushing forwards on the backwash air from the propeller, that backwash air from the propeller is pushing forwards on the propeller, and the propeller is pushing the vehicle forwards against the ground. We have a chain of forces where the wind is in effect pushing forwards against the ground, and we extract that wind-to-ground force to accelerate the vehicle. That wind-vs-ground energy source exists no matter what speed the vehicle is traveling. We can use that energy to accelerate the vehicle up to ANY speed, either upwind or downwind, and we are limited only by energy losses to friction and drag.
When the wind stops the energy supply stops. The vehicle will then slow due to friction and drag.
-
First, I don't think the parent post deserved to be modded troll. He asked questions, and not particularly unreasonable questions if they never learned about evolution in school.
What are the odds of life evolving on its own from within an environment devoid of life?
I'll come back to this at the end.
What are the odds of such evolved life would mutate?
If we flip the question backwards, if you have reproducing life they would multiply to over a thousand in ten generations, over a million in twenty generations, over a billion in thirty generations. You're basically asking what is the probability that none of them would ever be imperfect, none of them would ever get hit my a stray chemical reaction, none of them would ever get hit by radioactivity or a cosmic ray or anything else. They probability that there would never be a mutation is obviously zero. That means the probability some copies will eventually mutate would be 100%.
What are the odds of such mutated life to mutate into a form that would allow it to continue to live?
If you mean the probability that any given mutation would live, that is irrelevant. Any fatal mutations simply die and it has no effect. We have a multiplying population that keeps going. We can completely ignore fatal mutations.
So what we're really looking at is whether any mutation would ever live. Well, in experiments we've proven and studied single molecule that replicate and evolve. There were a huge number of places the molecule could (and did) mutate and continue to replicate. So it is experimentally proven that a single molecule replicator can mutate and continue to reproducing. We simply throw away fatal mutations and simply wait for any non-fatal mutations, this is again 100%. Some mutations are non fatal and that's all that matters.
What are the odds of such survivable life to further mutate into a higher order of life?
To really understand evolution you need to abandon the concept of "higher". That's not how evolution works. There is a population of individuals, individuals have children, and those children are sometimes are sometimes slightly imperfect copies of the parents. Obviously over time additional new variations appear, and over time some of those variations will themselves be imperfectly copied into a variation of a variation. Viewed strictly within evolution process there is no concept of "higher" here. The closest thing to "higher" is that later generations are more evolved. The bacteria in your ear and the squirrel in your back yard are equally evolved, they are both the product of the same 4 billion years of evolution. The bacteria in your ear is highly evolved and highly successful at living and reproducing in your ear, and the squirrel is highly evolved and highly successful at living and reproducing in the tree in your backyard. Heck, many plants have vastly more DNA than you do and could by some definitions be considered more complex. Animals aren't "higher" than plants, plants and animals are more like brother and sister. Plants came up with photosynthesis and animals came up with muscles. Modern plants and animals are both the same "age", equally evolved, just evolved in different directions.
The anthrax bacteria is able to defeat your immune system and kill you because it is just as evolved as you are.
Anyway, you have an unlimited replicating population. Some of them mutate and die, we can completely ignore them. And sooner or later some offspring have helpful mutations, something different that makes them better able to survive and reproduce. The best stuff sticks around and the worst stuff dies. And over time new beneficial variations pile up on top of old beneficial variations on top of older beneficial variations.
Consider lottery tickets. There are millions of individuals each with a lottery ticket. And as you know, virtually every week someone wins the lottery. If you are a secretary in the lottery office, every week you see someone walk throu
People, particularly on this forum, put Christians down as ignorant.
Lets see if I can help correct that.
You are ignorant. The majority of Christians however, do accept evolution.
And just in case you were unaware of the fact that the majority of Christians accept evolution you can take a look at this article and the image in it. The United States is almost completely Christian and is evenly split on accepting evolution. Then you merely note the fact that other overwhelmingly Christian countries accept evolution by large margins. Even if try you stack the figures as far as possible by assuming every non-Christian in each country accepts evolution in order to maximize the percentage of Christians rejecting evolution, it still works out impossible for there to be less than 50% of Christians on the evolution side.
Turkey is the only developed nation that has a lower acceptance of evolution than the US.
-
* ID was religious in nature.
* ID was the progeny of creationism and was creationism merely re-labeled.
* ID was not science and failed to meet basic criteria of scientific principles.
* ID was introduced for secular purposes not academic ones.
You made a mental typo on the last one.
The judge ruled ruled ID was introduced for religious purposes, and that the claim of secular(academic) purposes was a sham.
-
Odd that the bible, including creation, was taught in public education until approx 1948.
No odder than the fact that there were laws prohibiting blacks and whites from marrying until 1967.
Hell, congress has been hiring priests to preform offical prayer sessions from the very first session of congress right up to today despite the fact that in approximately 1817 James Madison, primary author of the Bill of Rights, stated that was an unconstitutional violation of the Establishment Clause. Madison didn't pursue it because he had bigger issues to deal with.
The government, and Congress in particular, do unconstitutional stuff all the time. Just because the Supreme Court hasn't yet smacked down some of those things does not alter the fact that they are unconstitutional.
-
Why the change of usage and why the deprecation of the word "law"?
Once upon a time we had the Law Of Conservation Of Mass, and the Law Of Conservation Of Energy. And then Relativity came along and subatomic physics, and we found that both are false. Mass can become energy, and energy can become mass. Calling them "laws" in the first place was wrong, or at best misleading.
We inherited the usage of "law" from hundreds of years ago when the methods and philosophy of modern science were first being born. Whenever some apparent rule of nature was discovered they slapped the name "law" on it. They were discovering the Laws Of Nature. Newton discovered an equation describing gravity, so they slapped the name Law Of Gravity on it.
As modern science progressed it became clear that that understanding progresses in layers. Things that were "true" and "facts" yesterday can always be superseded by new and better understanding tomorrow, and things that were "true" and "facts" yesterday can always be refuted by new experiments and new evidence tomorrow.
In the modern philosophy of science everything is open to question. Everything is open to new and better understanding, new and better evidence. The highest status anything can have in modern science is theory, a theory supported beyond any reasonable doubt by all available evidence. The existence of atoms? That is atom theory, supported beyond any reasonable doubt by all available evidence. The existence of atoms is inherently open to question, but anyone would be an idiot to waste their time on it unless you can present some damn good new evidence and a new theory that explains known chemistry better than the current atom theory.
Between Evolution, Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics, Evolution almost indisputably holds the strongest scientific status of the three. All three are supported beyond any reasonable doubt by all available evidence. Allow me to split Evolution into two parts. One, evolution as a process, and two, evolution as an explanation of history.
Evolution-as-a-process is a mathematically proven fact. Given a few minimal conditions, given essentially any system involving selective replication of information with mutation, it is mathematically proven that the process of evolution will occur and that it can and will create new "useful" information. (Where "useful" means useful for being selected and reproducing.)
Evolution-as-an-explanation-of-history is supported beyond any reasonable doubt by all available evidence. New evidence will help fill in new details, but barring a massive fraud of false evidence planted by God or intelligent aliens there is no reason to expect some new level of understanding and some new underlying truth fundamentally overturning the evolution-as-history. It's like we're a jury in a murder case and we have fingerprints and DNA evidence and we have lousy quality video of the suspect committing the murder. The video is very noisy and it is mostly gaps. But barring a massive deliberate fabrication of evidence to frame the suspect, there is no reason to imagine that new evidence is going to fundamentally alter the prosecution's theory of historical events. New evidence from cleaning up the video and filling in the gaps is not going to fundamentally change the story.
In comparison, we know for a fact that at least one of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics must be wrong. There are spots where they directly contradict each other. The available evidence supports each one to the best of our ability to test, but the available evidence also says that neither one is fundamentally sufficient. Physicists do expect a fundamentally new layer of understanding to explain (and potentially overturn) both Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
The science side in this conflict merely wants to treat all fields of science the same. Evolution and chemistry are both "theories". They are supported by all available evidence beyond any reasonable doubt. For all practical purposes they are "true" in the same sense t
I have a radical proposal. How about we teach an accurate overview of science, as actually understood and practiced by professional scientists in each field.
And what about "scientific controversies"? Well, if one PhD astronomer gets schizophrenia and claims the moon is made of cheese we're obviously not going to mention that in any class. So how about this, if actual physicists are equally split on something we spend equal time on both. That's perfectly logical, right? And if actual chemists are split 90% vs 10% about 10% on something, we teach the 90% view as mainstream accepted science, and lets be generous and say maybe it is worth while spending 10% of the time discussing "the controversy" and the contrary view. That's more than fair and reasonable, right? Spending 10% time on a 10% view? And if there is a 99% vs 1% split between actual astronomers on something, we absolutely teach the 99% version as accepted science and we spend, MAYBE, AT MOST, 1% time pointing out that sometimes a few scientists disagree with accepted science and briefly mentioning what the 1% view is. I think it is grossly generous to spend 1% time teaching a 1% "controversy". And how about we use that 1% level as a cutoff. How about we agree that anything below a 1% level pretty much represents the random crackpots that exist in every field. How about we agree that anything rejected by more than 99% of professionals in a field has no place in a science classroom.
Is that reasonable? Is that agreeable?
Oh, by the way, if we rounded off to the nearest full percentage point, 100% of professional biologists accept evolution. If you want to start getting into decimals, more than 99.8% of professional biologists accept evolution. Seriously. Intelligent Design isn't science. It's a public relations campaign trying to pass itself off as science to claw it's way into science classes. The ID materials are plausible enough to confuse and mislead school children, but it's all flawed or misleading or just plain false. All of the supposed science in ID has been refuted by actual biologists.
-
Allow me to break things down into three categories.
(1) Valid scientific work on Intelligent Design that in theory could be done, but which hasn't been done.
(2) Actual scientific work on Intelligent Design that has been done.
(3) Nonscientific creationist stuff trying to use Intelligent Design like a Halloween mask, pretending to be scientific.
You are largely arguing from number 1. Just because I could in theory come up with a cure for cancer some day does not make it OK for me to run around injecting people with a mud solution today. If and when I do come up with a proposed cure for cancer, that proposed cure needs to be properly evaluated by standard medical protocols to verify that it actually works and doesn't contain any fatal components. If and when work from category 1 does get done, that should be scientific research and it needs to go through the standard scientific peer review process to ensure it does not contain any fatal flaws and that it actually does yields valid useful new results. Highschool science class needs to teach an accurate overview of each scientific field as it is understood and practiced by professionals in that field. Highschool science class is not a place to be pushing reviewed research which is potentially fatally flawed, and which is does not accurately reflect the current state of science as accepted and practiced by actual scientists in that field. As new results and knowledge become an established part of a field as practiced by professional scientists, only then is it appropriate for highschool science education to adjust to accurately reflect that. Highschool science education must follow science as understood and practiced by professionals. It is completely inappropriate when some people attempt to hijack highschool students to attempt to lead science where they would like it to go for nonscientific ideological reasons.
Then there's (2) actual scientific work on Intelligent Design that has been done. There is very little in this category. To the extent sincere science work has been done in Intelligent Design, all of that work has either turned up negative results, or yielded apparently positive results that on peer review were found to contain fatal flaws. We don't generally waste time teaching research that came up empty, and we generally don't teach work containing math errors or other fatal flaws.
And then there's the largest category, (3) nonscientific crap trying to pretend to be science. Which I hope we can all agree has no place in a science classroom :)
In theory could there be some sort of Intelligent Design stuff that could and should be taught? Sure. And in theory there could be a race of little green men living in caverns on Mars. If and when they turn up, if and when and are accepted by professional peer reviewed science, then and only then do science classes follow. Then and only then do science classes adapt to accurately reflect the new state of science as understood and practiced by professional scientists.
Oh, I'd like to add an important follow up on category (1), real science that could be done but which hasn't been done. There is a foundation, the John Templeton Foundation, which gives about $70 million per year in grants. The mission statement says in part "We encourage civil, informed dialogue among scientists, philosophers, and theologians", and it has a particular interest in funding research and conferences connecting science and theology. The Intelligent Design advocates came knocking at the Templeton Foundation doors talking all their usual talk, and many at the Templeton foundation started getting exited about it. Of all the work on science and religion the foundation had funded, obviously nothing could compare to the idea of science actually examining and proving the work of God in designing life. That is obviously huge, the idea of science proving God and God's work. So yeah, ma
There are two explanations. One is that Behe is just a bad researcher (and there seems to be little evidence that he's that incompetent), or that Behe is a liar, and the latter seems to be the better explanation.
You're overlooking a third option, one I consider vastly more probable.
The human mind is disturbingly capable of selectively filtering information and creatively interpreting things and redefining things and rationalizing things when one is sufficiently dedicated to a predetermined "known truth".
In short, self-deluded.
As best as I can tell Behe seems to be sincerely trying to do real science to prove his theory. He just seems to be particularly skilled at not-understanding things that he doesn't want to understand.
-
Oops. I think I may have misread your post. If so please just enjoy my ripdown on the position I thought you had without taking it personally :D
-