Sure, but I think all you're saying is that people who doubt what they're doing are less dangerous then those who don't question what they do.
That said... I'm not sure that your statement is really true, I think it really comes down to what they believe in. If someone is kinda-sure they want to shoot me and take my money, I think they're dangerous. If they're convinced that they don't want to do any violence (say like Gandhi) I'm not too concerned, he doesn't seem like a real dangerous fellow.
I actually wish doctors were a little rougher with their patients. At least when the patient is in a position to take a bit of abuse for their own good.
I went into a doctor for a annual physical. I'm overweight, not obese, still active and healthy, but my nutrition isn't what it should be. The doctor shrugged it off... I asked about my weight and the doctor just said you're fine... not anything about losing a few pounds or eating more fruits and vegetables... nothing. I will never go back to that doctor.
I'd like a doctor like a marine drill instructor. Someone who is kicking my butt because I'm not eating right and taking care of myself. Maybe that's just me.
If your religion can't adapt to the truth, then your religion is doomed, as it should be.
Maybe we can come to an agreement... and since we don't have a personal relationship this may sound like a bullshit subversion to get my way... but in reality I think it's a good compromise.
In schools in the United States science should be taught in the science classroom. More emphasis should be placed understanding the scientific method, understand terms like hypothesis and theory, and using critical thinking to assess the reliability of a theory. Also, more stress should be placed on practical science application (Newtonian physics... it's no "true" per-se but it's useful in certain situations). So teach kids how to think and what the limits and strengths of science are... and then present a full complete theory of evolution with the details of its strengths, findings, and what it can predict... and where there are open questions, countradicting scientific evidence, also review and assess that information at least to some extent (including to cite if it's weak contradicting evidence or not). Science makes mistakes... we're constantly learning and adding new information... to be dogmatic about a scientific theory seems countradictory to the scientific method... which doesn't demean the value and usefullness of science.
I lose patience when debating arrogant people who can't put a logical thought together yet insist on the inherent brilliance and moral certitude of their position.
you used as an example people's actions when the consequences are at some indeterminate date far in the future, as opposed to my immediate consequences scenario,
Yes, consequencs at some indeterminate actions would certainly apply directly to religious people. I'm not sure I know of ANY religon that gaurantees immediate consequences of any action. I know Christianity doesn't.
Your original analogy was that of a gun to the head and a threat of death if the individual continues to eat twinkies... you then assumed that a person would really believed in these consequences would not eat the twinkies... the analogy being that if a Christian really believes they will go to hell or be punished for their sins then they'll not choose to commit acts that would be considered sins. I pointed out the flaw in your argument by pointing out that many people know there are consquences of their actions and yet choose to participate in those activities anyway... there are drivers for activity beyond simple belief. Of course you didn't like that your analogy was shit and someone pointed that out... and so instead of accepting that or trying to make some other logical point you slide into this bullshit about religion and addiction and whatever else.
Now they have a right to be that way... I never said they didn't... but they don't have a right to use the school system to linfect the next generation with their wacko beliefs.
Many people might say the same thing about you and some of the positions you hold.
I'm done... feel free to insult me or spew any other illogical bullshit you wish... I think we're at a impasse on this topic.
To each their own, as long as they mind their own damn business.
Why are you trying to push your viewpoint on me and anyone else who reads this? In Georgia a school board elected, with the support of the local community, to put a sticker that said that evolution was a theory in their science textbook. Due to a complaint of one student and action by the ACLU the school was forced to defy the community and remove the sticker... do you support this? It seems this a viewpoint being forced upon a group of people by an indiviudal who holds a different view?
Religious fervor, and self-righteousness has never led to a single good thing, only mass suffering, genocide, and other atrocities.
What an ignorant load of bullshit. Do you relize how much money and time Christians in the United States alone give to help the poor and infirmed? How much money the spend to provide food and clothing and education for children around the world. Billions of dollars! Do you realize that Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Pacal, and many many many other great scientists where Christians? Do you not acknowledge the great architectural works created in Europe, Egypt, and Asia all serving religious purposes? Open your eyes and quit being blind.
While this line of thought does border on eugenics, it makes some sense, at least this couple will raise good humans, and not a bunch of uneducated, ignorant, fundies. Or so I hope.
Yeah, I mean shit... why not just lock them up in camps and gas the "fundie" bastards... eh?
Is English your third language, or is basic comprehension just difficult?
You stated that a persons contradictory actions was proof that they didn't believe in God... and then came up with this shitty analogy about guns and twinkies. I merely pointed out that people's actions and beliefs are frequently at odds. They believe one thing and for various reasons do the other. Don't be a dipshit and try and distort my words.
The Enterprise will crash land on an island on a strange planet and only a few of the crew members will survive. The island will have polar bears, and some crazy black smoke and this series of underground hatches with some ancient writing from a long past culture called The Dharma Initiative...
Can he care for his family, or are they on welfare or something? Yup... owns a nice place in the mountains.
Were each of his children planned, or did his partner get pregnant accidentally? They chose not to use any sort of "planning" if they had kids then good, if not then ok. I'm not sure what they're doing these days.
Does he really "love his kids and love having a family," or does he regret it? Absolutely. And surprisingly enough it's one of those situations where the kids are raised well, get along well, and work together as a family.
Yeah... I do get your point. Shit, many people can't handle a single child let alone eight.
You said: the invalid argument that gives rise to the ad hominem
I am saying that to say that ad hominem attacks are brought about by differences of viewpoint and instead of addressing the differences directly name calling is employed... it's lazy.
Why do we need to dismantle his argument in a logical way? That's already been done millions of times by science. Why waste our time repeating all that, when we can just laugh at him?
If it's so obvious that he's wrong then why address it? I'll try and answer... to either make yourself feel good by being right or to point out an error. Now if you just call someone an idiot... the only good you're doing is letting others know what view may be unpopular... if you take a minute and address the argument itself you demonstrate what the errors are and give others something to learn from or think about.
I'm sure arguing with some of these people would be as bad as trying to have a rational and polite conversation with Bill O'Reilly or Pat Robertson.
No, his argument is actually rather easy to dismantle. You can state that presenting every possible opposing viewpoint from every possible is impractical. Only the best evidence should be but forward, and if possible evidence within the field of study of the original material... namely scientific evidence. In this case there is plenty of that... so it's an easy win. If there wasn't, then you put the onus back on those who are complaining to demonstrate that their viewpoint is either credible or accepted by a significant number of people to warrant some possible mention.
I think the whole religion take was a ad hominem attack on the part of the author of the article. He attempted to paint the entire set of complaints as a fringe group out of sync with the majority... and by implication not showing Al Gore's movie is out of sync with the majority.
Of course, he's not the one who has to endure being pregnant and going through labor.
He's got her bare foot and pregnant... yeehaw... yeah, um so there are women out there who actually like having children and love raising them. I don't know the guy so I couldn't tell you what the situation is... but making assumptions and insulting him seems based on the # of children he has seems to be pretty weak.
As for kids and intelligence, it's pretty well proven that more educated people generally have fewer kids. Yes, in general that's right. But your using a stereotype, however well supported by statistics, to attack a person whose situation you really know nothing about is wrong.
The Washington Times and the National Science Teachers Association certainly don't constitute a large enough population to constitute "most people".
You're probably right about "most people", but in this case "most people" really doesn't matter. I would think that we would defer heavily to a decision made by an organization made up entirely of science teachers. If they didn't choose to distribute the movie for free, a school in Washington choosing to limit its viewing isn't really that surprising is it?
I'll bet for every one organization or source that you can provide that describes it as other than a documentary, I can provide two organizations or sources that classify as a documentary.
Classification as a documentary doesn't mean the data is credible or suitable for the classrooms. There are documentaries on alien abductions, crop circles, ghosts, etc. This creationist video is classified as documentary by IMDB (and an adventure... sounds fun... or not).
Yeah, because a universe that just popped into being and has some semblance of order and just happened to produce the perfect conditions for life to be created from non-life, and then those conditions enabled that tiny super simple life form that just happened to stay alive long enough to continue to evolve into ridiculously complex sentient beings who can figure all of this shit out is a hell of a lot easier to buy.:)
Before I get flamed (which is going to happen) I'm not saying my statement proves Christianity, the Bible, etc. etc. I'm simply saying Anonymous Jackass here is a little too arrogant for his own good.
I agree... and the first step would be to fire Zonk for posting troll/flamebait posts. The guy is an incompetent turd. Even if this story is relevant to debate he picks the most trollish biased article possible to bring the story to the/. community.
Conspiracy theorists might believe that flamefests like this one draw more readers and posters which in turn means more hits and more ad impressions and more $$$ for OSTG.
A theory is the best explanation for an observed phenomena.
No. A theory is A explanation for an observed phenomena.
If you would help you to remove your head from the sand and realize the question that is actually really being seriously contested is whether or not the cause of global warming is man.
However, this film seems to be classified as a documentary by most people who aren't rabid Republicans.
Yeah right... you're projecting your bias onto others. Read this article and you'd learn...
In December, the National Science Teachers Association declined Mrs. David's [co-producer of An Inconvenient Truth] offer to distribute the film for free to 50,000 classrooms;
Admit it... that was just a lazy unfounded insult.
There is nothing at all wrong with showing political films in school
If you'd have read the article carefully and maybe thought about researching the topic a bit more you'd learn that the school had a policy about controversial films. This film was identified as controversial and they applied their policy. Regardless of the claims made by the man cited in the article, the film is certainly controversial and so the policy was rightly applied.
So, why is it that a man who is obviously not very well versed in the realms of science trying to have so much say in what takes place in a science class?
You know... a more interesting question I think is why is it that everyone here has bought into this story as if this guy is the best case that was put before the school board?
Also... why was this particular article used when there are other articles available? I surveyed a couple other articles and the one cited in this/. thread seems to me to be one of the most biased and certainly uses subtle ad hominem to undermine the argument that An Inconvenient Truth is not the unbiased truth it claims to be... having a discussion about "end times" and Revelation isn't really the right solution either... but there are certainly better materials available that are not so polarizing and that present the facts and opposing facts (scientific facts).
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, but I think all you're saying is that people who doubt what they're doing are less dangerous then those who don't question what they do.
That said... I'm not sure that your statement is really true, I think it really comes down to what they believe in. If someone is kinda-sure they want to shoot me and take my money, I think they're dangerous. If they're convinced that they don't want to do any violence (say like Gandhi) I'm not too concerned, he doesn't seem like a real dangerous fellow.
It wouldn't impact you anyways because the flash player can't be integrated with lynx.
I actually wish doctors were a little rougher with their patients. At least when the patient is in a position to take a bit of abuse for their own good.
I went into a doctor for a annual physical. I'm overweight, not obese, still active and healthy, but my nutrition isn't what it should be. The doctor shrugged it off... I asked about my weight and the doctor just said you're fine... not anything about losing a few pounds or eating more fruits and vegetables... nothing. I will never go back to that doctor.
I'd like a doctor like a marine drill instructor. Someone who is kicking my butt because I'm not eating right and taking care of myself. Maybe that's just me.
If your religion can't adapt to the truth, then your religion is doomed, as it should be.
Maybe we can come to an agreement... and since we don't have a personal relationship this may sound like a bullshit subversion to get my way... but in reality I think it's a good compromise.
In schools in the United States science should be taught in the science classroom. More emphasis should be placed understanding the scientific method, understand terms like hypothesis and theory, and using critical thinking to assess the reliability of a theory. Also, more stress should be placed on practical science application (Newtonian physics... it's no "true" per-se but it's useful in certain situations). So teach kids how to think and what the limits and strengths of science are... and then present a full complete theory of evolution with the details of its strengths, findings, and what it can predict... and where there are open questions, countradicting scientific evidence, also review and assess that information at least to some extent (including to cite if it's weak contradicting evidence or not). Science makes mistakes... we're constantly learning and adding new information... to be dogmatic about a scientific theory seems countradictory to the scientific method... which doesn't demean the value and usefullness of science.
Ohh, hit a sore spot, didn't I?
... I never said they didn't ... but they don't have a right to use the school system to linfect the next generation with their wacko beliefs.
I lose patience when debating arrogant people who can't put a logical thought together yet insist on the inherent brilliance and moral certitude of their position.
you used as an example people's actions when the consequences are at some indeterminate date far in the future, as opposed to my immediate consequences scenario,
Yes, consequencs at some indeterminate actions would certainly apply directly to religious people. I'm not sure I know of ANY religon that gaurantees immediate consequences of any action. I know Christianity doesn't.
Your original analogy was that of a gun to the head and a threat of death if the individual continues to eat twinkies... you then assumed that a person would really believed in these consequences would not eat the twinkies... the analogy being that if a Christian really believes they will go to hell or be punished for their sins then they'll not choose to commit acts that would be considered sins. I pointed out the flaw in your argument by pointing out that many people know there are consquences of their actions and yet choose to participate in those activities anyway... there are drivers for activity beyond simple belief. Of course you didn't like that your analogy was shit and someone pointed that out... and so instead of accepting that or trying to make some other logical point you slide into this bullshit about religion and addiction and whatever else.
Now they have a right to be that way
Many people might say the same thing about you and some of the positions you hold.
I'm done... feel free to insult me or spew any other illogical bullshit you wish... I think we're at a impasse on this topic.
To each their own, as long as they mind their own damn business.
Why are you trying to push your viewpoint on me and anyone else who reads this? In Georgia a school board elected, with the support of the local community, to put a sticker that said that evolution was a theory in their science textbook. Due to a complaint of one student and action by the ACLU the school was forced to defy the community and remove the sticker... do you support this? It seems this a viewpoint being forced upon a group of people by an indiviudal who holds a different view?
Religious fervor, and self-righteousness has never led to a single good thing, only mass suffering, genocide, and other atrocities.
What an ignorant load of bullshit. Do you relize how much money and time Christians in the United States alone give to help the poor and infirmed? How much money the spend to provide food and clothing and education for children around the world. Billions of dollars! Do you realize that Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Pacal, and many many many other great scientists where Christians? Do you not acknowledge the great architectural works created in Europe, Egypt, and Asia all serving religious purposes? Open your eyes and quit being blind.
While this line of thought does border on eugenics, it makes some sense, at least this couple will raise good humans, and not a bunch of uneducated, ignorant, fundies. Or so I hope.
Yeah, I mean shit... why not just lock them up in camps and gas the "fundie" bastards... eh?
Is English your third language, or is basic comprehension just difficult?
You stated that a persons contradictory actions was proof that they didn't believe in God... and then came up with this shitty analogy about guns and twinkies. I merely pointed out that people's actions and beliefs are frequently at odds. They believe one thing and for various reasons do the other. Don't be a dipshit and try and distort my words.
Yes I agree, y-m-d is better. It's a natural progression from the larger to the smaller units and it easily sortable.
Yes, but only because the government is controlling your mind!!!
Thus spoke The Shat, "If Harrison Ford can do it, so can I dammit!"
The Enterprise will crash land on an island on a strange planet and only a few of the crew members will survive. The island will have polar bears, and some crazy black smoke and this series of underground hatches with some ancient writing from a long past culture called The Dharma Initiative...
Oh looks like the Shat is leaking.
I hope Star Trek XI is full of Shat.
Anyone else?
Can he care for his family, or are they on welfare or something? Yup... owns a nice place in the mountains.
Were each of his children planned, or did his partner get pregnant accidentally? They chose not to use any sort of "planning" if they had kids then good, if not then ok. I'm not sure what they're doing these days.
Does he really "love his kids and love having a family," or does he regret it? Absolutely. And surprisingly enough it's one of those situations where the kids are raised well, get along well, and work together as a family.
Yeah... I do get your point. Shit, many people can't handle a single child let alone eight.
Ad Hominem
:)
:)
You said: the invalid argument that gives rise to the ad hominem
I am saying that to say that ad hominem attacks are brought about by differences of viewpoint and instead of addressing the differences directly name calling is employed... it's lazy.
Why do we need to dismantle his argument in a logical way? That's already been done millions of times by science. Why waste our time repeating all that, when we can just laugh at him?
If it's so obvious that he's wrong then why address it? I'll try and answer... to either make yourself feel good by being right or to point out an error. Now if you just call someone an idiot... the only good you're doing is letting others know what view may be unpopular... if you take a minute and address the argument itself you demonstrate what the errors are and give others something to learn from or think about.
I'm sure arguing with some of these people would be as bad as trying to have a rational and polite conversation with Bill O'Reilly or Pat Robertson.
Oh my... that's a vision of a hell.
I mostly come to slashdot for the entertainment.
Me too... there's plenty to be had
Cheers... you douchebag
No, his argument is actually rather easy to dismantle. You can state that presenting every possible opposing viewpoint from every possible is impractical. Only the best evidence should be but forward, and if possible evidence within the field of study of the original material... namely scientific evidence. In this case there is plenty of that... so it's an easy win. If there wasn't, then you put the onus back on those who are complaining to demonstrate that their viewpoint is either credible or accepted by a significant number of people to warrant some possible mention.
I think the whole religion take was a ad hominem attack on the part of the author of the article. He attempted to paint the entire set of complaints as a fringe group out of sync with the majority... and by implication not showing Al Gore's movie is out of sync with the majority.
Of course, he's not the one who has to endure being pregnant and going through labor.
He's got her bare foot and pregnant... yeehaw... yeah, um so there are women out there who actually like having children and love raising them. I don't know the guy so I couldn't tell you what the situation is... but making assumptions and insulting him seems based on the # of children he has seems to be pretty weak.
As for kids and intelligence, it's pretty well proven that more educated people generally have fewer kids.
Yes, in general that's right. But your using a stereotype, however well supported by statistics, to attack a person whose situation you really know nothing about is wrong.
The Washington Times and the National Science Teachers Association certainly don't constitute a large enough population to constitute "most people".
You're probably right about "most people", but in this case "most people" really doesn't matter. I would think that we would defer heavily to a decision made by an organization made up entirely of science teachers. If they didn't choose to distribute the movie for free, a school in Washington choosing to limit its viewing isn't really that surprising is it?
I'll bet for every one organization or source that you can provide that describes it as other than a documentary, I can provide two organizations or sources that classify as a documentary.
Classification as a documentary doesn't mean the data is credible or suitable for the classrooms. There are documentaries on alien abductions, crop circles, ghosts, etc. This creationist video is classified as documentary by IMDB (and an adventure... sounds fun... or not).
Yeah, because a universe that just popped into being and has some semblance of order and just happened to produce the perfect conditions for life to be created from non-life, and then those conditions enabled that tiny super simple life form that just happened to stay alive long enough to continue to evolve into ridiculously complex sentient beings who can figure all of this shit out is a hell of a lot easier to buy. :)
Before I get flamed (which is going to happen) I'm not saying my statement proves Christianity, the Bible, etc. etc. I'm simply saying Anonymous Jackass here is a little too arrogant for his own good.
I agree... and the first step would be to fire Zonk for posting troll/flamebait posts. The guy is an incompetent turd. Even if this story is relevant to debate he picks the most trollish biased article possible to bring the story to the /. community.
Conspiracy theorists might believe that flamefests like this one draw more readers and posters which in turn means more hits and more ad impressions and more $$$ for OSTG.
A theory is the best explanation for an observed phenomena.
No. A theory is A explanation for an observed phenomena.
If you would help you to remove your head from the sand and realize the question that is actually really being seriously contested is whether or not the cause of global warming is man.
However, this film seems to be classified as a documentary by most people who aren't rabid Republicans.
Yeah right... you're projecting your bias onto others. Read this article and you'd learn...
In December, the National Science Teachers Association declined Mrs. David's [co-producer of An Inconvenient Truth] offer to distribute the film for free to 50,000 classrooms;
Admit it... that was just a lazy unfounded insult.
There is nothing at all wrong with showing political films in school
If you'd have read the article carefully and maybe thought about researching the topic a bit more you'd learn that the school had a policy about controversial films. This film was identified as controversial and they applied their policy. Regardless of the claims made by the man cited in the article, the film is certainly controversial and so the policy was rightly applied.
So, why is it that a man who is obviously not very well versed in the realms of science trying to have so much say in what takes place in a science class?
/. thread seems to me to be one of the most biased and certainly uses subtle ad hominem to undermine the argument that An Inconvenient Truth is not the unbiased truth it claims to be... having a discussion about "end times" and Revelation isn't really the right solution either... but there are certainly better materials available that are not so polarizing and that present the facts and opposing facts (scientific facts).
You know... a more interesting question I think is why is it that everyone here has bought into this story as if this guy is the best case that was put before the school board?
Also... why was this particular article used when there are other articles available? I surveyed a couple other articles and the one cited in this
Alas... you're probably right. I guess us lay people will need to leave all of the divining up to the shamans after all :)
:)
Yes that's a troll/flamebait statement... which as a pretty asshole thing to do after you've been patient and convinced me that you're right.
Thanks!
- ingolfke