That is almost worse. For a long time I blamed Republicans(rightfully), but there isn't a good alternative anymore either.
I agree that both political parties are a disaster. I heard a Ralph Nader interview today, and he was basically calling out Hillary Clinton for being (I forget exactly) corporatist and militaristic, just like the other candidates.
I seems to me there must be some kind of structural problem in our political system, as just about everyone who becomes a Congressman or President ends up being just as lousy as his predecessors.
Unfortunately, that was the first exposure to porn some of my classmates had encountered. It was a sad day for them, realizing there is porn on the internet.
Sadder than seeing online porn, and then realizing that your home computer only does 28.8 kbps?
Creationists, by their own admission, will never change their hypothesis due to contradictory evidence. How can you have a debate?
Let's do a quick test, to see if you're being hypocritical: There's lots of evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was real, and rose from the dead three days after being crucified by the Roman empire. Now that I've asserted that, are you open to changing your hypotheses about how you should live your life?
It's just a waste of time. No one's "skills" are weak just because they don't want to waste time dealing with people who have been refuted a thousand times over and won't listen to reason.
That's generally how both sides of world-view debates feel about the other. So it seems like you're arguing against trying to have that kind of debate whenever two world-views are in opposition.
I agree that it's a waste of time, in the sense that the two debaters won't convince each other. But the real goal is to make the audience aware of the best arguments on both sides, and that may be helpful to them.
The problem with this statement is it presupposes the need to treat what are essentially ridiculous theories which fly in the face of science as if they were a legitimate opposing viewpoint which should be considered.
Calling a proposition "ridiculous" in no way refutes it. It sounds like you're emoting frustration at not knowing how to engage in a debate on the topic.
This is blatantly denying actual science to prop up your own religious beliefs.
Now I think you're starting to zero in on a proper focus of the debate. And if it's debatable, a university may be a reasonable place for the discussion.
If you want a venue to have your creationist aired, go to your church.
You're doing nothing to refute my conjecture that the university community is incapable of rationally debating the creationists' claims.
No, because the creationists are essentially irrational people who simply say "I reject your reality and science and substitute my own hocus pocus".
Simply calling the other party "irrational" in no way invalidates their claims. Remember, the main purpose of a public debate is to convince the audience, not the other debater, that your position is right. If you think the other party holds an irrational view, that should help you, not hurt you, in convincing the audience that you're position is the correct one.
You can't intellectually refute someone who doesn't actually rely on logic or facts. At all. And giving them the benefit of debating them is pointless.
You're going to have a hard time making a concrete case that the creationists are doing that. Every belief system has axioms, including yours. During a debate, you can try to show that a creationists' axioms are unreasonable, or his reasoning from them is flawed, but that kind of discussion is totally appropriate to a university setting.
Facts and logic are completely irrelevant to people who understand neither, and assume that the things they believe hold as much value as things which we can prove.
You're painting with a very broad brush. If I didn't know better, I might conclude that you're incapable of engaging in the debate properly, which absolutely reinforces my main point in my earlier post.
I don't see why that should be a problem for having the discussion. I think one trick to having a productive discussing is figuring out where your and the other party's beliefs diverge, and starting the discussion there.
If these creationists reject certain assumptions of working scientists, then maybe the best people to debate the creationists are philosophy-of-science professors, rather than more bread-and-butter science professors. But if a university can't handle that, it's really, really far from the ideals of Plato's academy, and I think that should be a wake-up call.
Why isn't there a designated place for bullshit like this?
You mean, a place for reasoned public debate about topics where science, religion, philosophy of science, geology, paleontology, genetics, and zoology all have something to bring to the discussion? If a university isn't the place for that, where do you have in mind?
University students, and especially professors, should be capable of understanding opposing viewpoints, and when they disagree, civilly making cogent counter-arguments.
I wonder if a large source of unease is that the students and professors know their logic and rhetoric skills fall far short of those ideals. They know deep down that the should be embarrassed in their inability to refute even such seemingly false claims by these creationists. Not because the creationists are right, but because their own skills are so weak.
I left the DoD as a software developer largely because they couldn't get their heads out of their asses. The paperwork, mandatory training, and total risk aversion meant I developed code at maybe 25% of the speed that I did before, and after, in the private sector. And the stock options in the DoD were nothing to write home about.
I really don't see how the DoD can win any cyber fight. It would take losing a ground war on U.S. soil for them to give up their worship of bureaucracy.
there is no obligation to accept legal tender, except for a debt. a store can choose not to sell to you if you choose to pay with a $100 bill.
My understanding was that a service provider (or retail establishment?) can only refuse legal tender if it's been stated ahead of time. I.e., you can't fill someone's car with gas, and then out of the blue refuse to take their $20 bill.
Slashdot Mirror
So you're a fan of child-rapers, CIA torturers, and Nancy Pelosi? Man, you are seriously passionate about recruiters.
Disagree. I've had decent luck with LinkedIn, and with Stack Overflow Careers.
Sounds like Kaze no Stigma (if you like anime).
BTW, if you do but haven't seen that series: if you don't like the first few episodes, you may want to keep on watching. It gets better.
Gah! Sorry, I'm juggling too many series lately. I meant Psych-Pass.
Give it to God?
So... you want to go back to Israel's period of being rule by judges?
Bold. I love it.
Sounds like Kaze no Stigma (if you like anime).
BTW, if you do but haven't seen that series: if you don't like the first few episodes, you may want to keep on watching. It gets better.
There is a public debate. Every citizen of the Campaign-funding Corporations of America has the ability to vote, through their elected Lobbyists.
Oh, wait... now I see. Whoever submitted the story was referring to the form of government that the U.S. had around 1800.
This, a million times over.
That is almost worse. For a long time I blamed Republicans(rightfully), but there isn't a good alternative anymore either.
I agree that both political parties are a disaster. I heard a Ralph Nader interview today, and he was basically calling out Hillary Clinton for being (I forget exactly) corporatist and militaristic, just like the other candidates.
I seems to me there must be some kind of structural problem in our political system, as just about everyone who becomes a Congressman or President ends up being just as lousy as his predecessors.
I think he meant pants-wearer, not portabella.
Hey, I resent that implicatio... oh, wait. Okay, fair point.
You're in good company. None of us here is portabella.
"...cordoned off like quantum crime scenes."
I like creative usage of metaphors in science.
Yeah, but it lacks a certain, shall we say, automotiveness to it?
Obama's campaign promised hope and change, regardless of what the other candidates said about themselves. The GP had a point.
Sadder than seeing online porn, and then realizing that your home computer only does 28.8 kbps?
Let's do a quick test, to see if you're being hypocritical: There's lots of evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was real, and rose from the dead three days after being crucified by the Roman empire. Now that I've asserted that, are you open to changing your hypotheses about how you should live your life?
It's just a waste of time. No one's "skills" are weak just because they don't want to waste time dealing with people who have been refuted a thousand times over and won't listen to reason.
That's generally how both sides of world-view debates feel about the other. So it seems like you're arguing against trying to have that kind of debate whenever two world-views are in opposition.
I agree that it's a waste of time, in the sense that the two debaters won't convince each other. But the real goal is to make the audience aware of the best arguments on both sides, and that may be helpful to them.
Calling a proposition "ridiculous" in no way refutes it. It sounds like you're emoting frustration at not knowing how to engage in a debate on the topic.
Now I think you're starting to zero in on a proper focus of the debate. And if it's debatable, a university may be a reasonable place for the discussion.
You're doing nothing to refute my conjecture that the university community is incapable of rationally debating the creationists' claims.
Simply calling the other party "irrational" in no way invalidates their claims. Remember, the main purpose of a public debate is to convince the audience, not the other debater, that your position is right. If you think the other party holds an irrational view, that should help you, not hurt you, in convincing the audience that you're position is the correct one.
You're going to have a hard time making a concrete case that the creationists are doing that. Every belief system has axioms, including yours. During a debate, you can try to show that a creationists' axioms are unreasonable, or his reasoning from them is flawed, but that kind of discussion is totally appropriate to a university setting.
You're painting with a very broad brush. If I didn't know better, I might conclude that you're incapable of engaging in the debate properly, which absolutely reinforces my main point in my earlier post.
I don't see why that should be a problem for having the discussion. I think one trick to having a productive discussing is figuring out where your and the other party's beliefs diverge, and starting the discussion there.
If these creationists reject certain assumptions of working scientists, then maybe the best people to debate the creationists are philosophy-of-science professors, rather than more bread-and-butter science professors. But if a university can't handle that, it's really, really far from the ideals of Plato's academy, and I think that should be a wake-up call.
Why isn't there a designated place for bullshit like this?
You mean, a place for reasoned public debate about topics where science, religion, philosophy of science, geology, paleontology, genetics, and zoology all have something to bring to the discussion? If a university isn't the place for that, where do you have in mind?
University students, and especially professors, should be capable of understanding opposing viewpoints, and when they disagree, civilly making cogent counter-arguments.
I wonder if a large source of unease is that the students and professors know their logic and rhetoric skills fall far short of those ideals. They know deep down that the should be embarrassed in their inability to refute even such seemingly false claims by these creationists. Not because the creationists are right, but because their own skills are so weak.
We he have had that money if he hadn't engaged in a lot of illegal activity while at Microsoft? Doubtful.
This
That.
So how well are the squeaky-clean hiring standards for the NSA, CIA, FBI, and IRS working for us?
I left the DoD as a software developer largely because they couldn't get their heads out of their asses. The paperwork, mandatory training, and total risk aversion meant I developed code at maybe 25% of the speed that I did before, and after, in the private sector. And the stock options in the DoD were nothing to write home about.
I really don't see how the DoD can win any cyber fight. It would take losing a ground war on U.S. soil for them to give up their worship of bureaucracy.
there is no obligation to accept legal tender, except for a debt. a store can choose not to sell to you if you choose to pay with a $100 bill.
My understanding was that a service provider (or retail establishment?) can only refuse legal tender if it's been stated ahead of time. I.e., you can't fill someone's car with gas, and then out of the blue refuse to take their $20 bill.
...how do we kill the stem cells?
Testify to Congress that they have chemical weapons.