"Why then did you use the term 'mental illness' instead of 'crazy' or 'lunatic' or 'whacko'?"
"Because you are trying to be politically correct"
No, because I consider being mentally ill equivalent with being physically ill. I would not call a paraplegic a "gimp" because there is no need to be unnecessarily perjorative.
Besides which, being mentally ill may not rise to the severity of "crazy" "lunatic" or "whacko". Depression is an example, in which the individual is certainly ill, but not "crazy" "whacko" or "lunatic".
"Another example of leftist hypocrisy."
BWAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHA. You haven't read my posting history have you. Leftist, that's awesome.
Watch as the hordes of American slashbots, who continually complain about Americans interfering in European politics, now rush to interfere with European politics.
"to tell an evolutionist that they are wrong on this one"
you would need to have evidence. Without evidence, you're just one more loudmouthed blowhard that denies the evidence we DO have, but makes no alternate hypotheses for it.
That's where you're wrong, where you misunderstand science, and why so many people are so stupid about this subject. STOP ACTING LIKE YOU'RE KNOWLEDGEABLE ON THIS SUBJECT.
You just demonstrated that you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.
"There's a demeaning aurra taken up anytime someone mentioned that ID isn't science. "Go play your little ID game somewhere else... we're doing the REAL stuff here"."
That's because people who are doing science ARE doing the real thing, namely, SCIENCE. I would get snippy too if some psychotic god-worshipper tried to equate their mental illness with science. What the IDiots would have you believe is science is nothing of the sort, and their intellectual dishonesty on the subject is deserving of being demeaned.
People like YOU are the reason ID is even near being considered a science. And by people like you I mean ignorant, uneducated individuals who have no idea what science is.
Because accepting evolution allows for the possibiltiy that gawd was unnecessary. Hence, the reasons why whackos can't allow evolution any leeway at all.
"Same can be said about Evolution, it depends on which side of the fence you sit on."
NO, it can't. Evolution has PREDICTIVE ability, and is FALSIFIABLE. If you understand what that means, then you know I'm right, and why evolution is a theory while ID is not.
If you don't know what I mean, look it up, and keep your mouth shut until you bother to learn what makes a theory a theory.
Just because there are people claiming something, that does not make it so. You would claim you're intellignet, but your post is significant evidence to the contrary. In the face of evidence, claims without evidence are known as "zealotry" or, altenatively, nonsense.
"A true scientist would explore all theories only only discredit those that can be completley proven wrong."
Ok, give me an example of an experiment I could use to falsify ID. Waiting.
Right, there is none, which is exactly the reason you should refrain from discussing this subject. You're too ignorant to understand what you don't know, yet are making declarations as though you have some real insight.
or maybe we could (gasp!) be courteous and try "Intelligent Design proponents or Evolutionists"?
With all due respect, no, that's a terrible idea.
The reason these IDiots got their IDiotic IDeas in the school is precisely the so called "courtesy". It's not courtesy to call a ridiculous idea ridiculous, and it's not courtesy to ignore mental illness, just because you think you're being sensitive.
Religion is a psychosis, with the only difference from other psychoses being that we have accepted religion for so long, no one will stand up against it. But that doesn't change what religion is fundamentally.
As long as people continue to assign legitimacy to religion, and refuse to discuss the POSSIBILITY that religion is just an accepted form of psychosis, then this will continue.
If someone walked down the street praising Zeus, and sacrificing bulls, they would get committed.
Find someone with the same devotion to a Christian church. Why aren't they viewed with the same skepticism as a "Zeus worshipper"?
It's fake. All of it. And the desire to be inclusive, even in the face of obvious logical inconsistency, has allowed this.
This is one of those times when the appropriate response should have been "Shut up you wacko". Tolerance failed us this time.
"That smacks of so much arrogance it's incredible. If we don't get our way, we're going to fuck your kids forever, is that it?"
You're a moron.
The parents are to blame so your snide little sentence should read "If we, as science teachers, are forced to teach something that is NOT science, nor in anyway scientific, and are expected to to call this non-science science, and give it equvalent consideration in our classes, then we refuse"
Stop blaming the wrong people, you sound like a jackass.
"We actually don't have substantial evidence (fossil or otherwise) that mutation ever caused inter-species changes"
Until you provide a specific definition of what "substantial evdience" is, you're just another fundie troll looking to confuse people with slick logical fallacies.
Stick to obedience, thinking isn;t your strong suit.
Well, the author talks about the Flynn effect, which he then dismisses as cultural. I think it is in fact a combination of things, one of which is a general increase of knowledge over time.
Think about this. I was teaching a science class recently when I remarked how strange it is to be learning about something with my students, which a only two generations ago was the province of Nobel Prize winners. There is certainly an increase in general knowledge.
Does that mean the kids are smarter? Hmm. I'm going to hedge on that. The research seems to say yes, but I notice disturbing trends.
What I can say, about your language example, is that you may have failed to consider something. You seem to believe that speaking properly is some measure of intelligence. Consider that grammar is not always how communication flows naturally. It is artificial in many cases, and may not be the most efficient way to interact. Some patterns are built in, apparently, but most of what you were taught in school was not consistent with how you would speak if you were concerned with only communicating what was necessary.
Now consider that you're a kid these days, with 8 different things going on, and buttons popping up, tones going off, etc. Even if you could adhere to proper language skills, why would you want to, when the point can be made in 1/4th the time?
Language is a measure of your ability to adhere to a set of rules. To commit them to memeory, and recognize when one of the rules is broken. It is not intelligence.
"What's the point of putting your ideas out if noone can tell you when you've missed something?"
Who says you can't tell him? You just can't tell him on the blog. Learn the difference.
More importantly, you have access to the THOUGHTS OF THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE. You have access to information about him that didn't exist before. THAT ALONE is a good thing.
"A little pompous don't you think?"
You're being too hard on yourself, you just a blowhard know-itall with a mad-on for Republicans. I wouldn't call you pompous though.
"you know that its happening and are trying to mitigate some of the dangers it causes."
Then, instead of wasting their time with these types of things, perhaps they should try preventing the people from leaving, maybe by improving their country?
The truth is far more sinister than you'll ever admit, but if nothing else own up to the fact that the Mexican government encourages it's citizens to go to the US.
That is, people who run their idiot mouths and have no f-ing idea what they're talking about.
It is ILLEGAL. So this
"Clearly if he can get on TV and respond to comments from audience members and callers he can dialog with anyone he pleases."
is wrong. It doesn't matter though, because even though you don't know the law, and even though you didn't know it was illegal, you rushed to come up with a stupid, incoherent, and irrelevant example.
Why can't people like you just say
"Hmm, I didn't know it might be illegal, instead of insisting I'm right on Slashdot, maybe I'll do some research and find out for myself."
Oh, right, because you think you're always right, and that you know everything. When are you running for office?
"It is telling of the age in which we live that the speaker of the house of Representatives, chief of those who vote the will of the people, does not allow comments on his blog."
Yes, it tells us that he understands his audience.
I don't care what benefits having comments might create, but I do know I'd rather not have to wade through miles of left-wing crybabies who have nothing better to do than screech out their disagreement to the other side's policy at every turn.
I mean, if the discourse could be kept civil, then that's one thing. But this is the INTERNET man, you and I both know civility, the internet, and political commentary are not going to come together any time soon.
Slashdot Mirror
"Why then did you use the term 'mental illness' instead of 'crazy' or 'lunatic' or 'whacko'?"
"Because you are trying to be politically correct"
No, because I consider being mentally ill equivalent with being physically ill. I would not call a paraplegic a "gimp" because there is no need to be unnecessarily perjorative.
Besides which, being mentally ill may not rise to the severity of "crazy" "lunatic" or "whacko". Depression is an example, in which the individual is certainly ill, but not "crazy" "whacko" or "lunatic".
"Another example of leftist hypocrisy."
BWAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHA. You haven't read my posting history have you. Leftist, that's awesome.
Watch as the hordes of American slashbots, who continually complain about Americans interfering in European politics, now rush to interfere with European politics.
"to tell an evolutionist that they are wrong on this one"
you would need to have evidence. Without evidence, you're just one more loudmouthed blowhard that denies the evidence we DO have, but makes no alternate hypotheses for it.
That's where you're wrong, where you misunderstand science, and why so many people are so stupid about this subject. STOP ACTING LIKE YOU'RE KNOWLEDGEABLE ON THIS SUBJECT.
You just demonstrated that you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.
"There's a demeaning aurra taken up anytime someone mentioned that ID isn't science. "Go play your little ID game somewhere else... we're doing the REAL stuff here"."
That's because people who are doing science ARE doing the real thing, namely, SCIENCE. I would get snippy too if some psychotic god-worshipper tried to equate their mental illness with science. What the IDiots would have you believe is science is nothing of the sort, and their intellectual dishonesty on the subject is deserving of being demeaned.
People like YOU are the reason ID is even near being considered a science. And by people like you I mean ignorant, uneducated individuals who have no idea what science is.
Because accepting evolution allows for the possibiltiy that gawd was unnecessary. Hence, the reasons why whackos can't allow evolution any leeway at all.
"Same can be said about Evolution, it depends on which side of the fence you sit on."
NO, it can't. Evolution has PREDICTIVE ability, and is FALSIFIABLE. If you understand what that means, then you know I'm right, and why evolution is a theory while ID is not.
If you don't know what I mean, look it up, and keep your mouth shut until you bother to learn what makes a theory a theory.
Just because there are people claiming something, that does not make it so. You would claim you're intellignet, but your post is significant evidence to the contrary. In the face of evidence, claims without evidence are known as "zealotry" or, altenatively, nonsense.
"A true scientist would explore all theories only only discredit those that can be completley proven wrong."
Ok, give me an example of an experiment I could use to falsify ID. Waiting.
Right, there is none, which is exactly the reason you should refrain from discussing this subject. You're too ignorant to understand what you don't know, yet are making declarations as though you have some real insight.
or maybe we could (gasp!) be courteous and try "Intelligent Design proponents or Evolutionists"?
With all due respect, no, that's a terrible idea.
The reason these IDiots got their IDiotic IDeas in the school is precisely the so called "courtesy". It's not courtesy to call a ridiculous idea ridiculous, and it's not courtesy to ignore mental illness, just because you think you're being sensitive.
Religion is a psychosis, with the only difference from other psychoses being that we have accepted religion for so long, no one will stand up against it. But that doesn't change what religion is fundamentally.
No one is this instance is being forced to remove their content. No one is being silenced.
A group who believes they are doing the right thing has VOLUNTARILY removed their curriculum, at no one's behest, under no threats of action.
Either learn what censorship is, or learn to deal with being called an ignoramus.
As long as people continue to assign legitimacy to religion, and refuse to discuss the POSSIBILITY that religion is just an accepted form of psychosis, then this will continue.
If someone walked down the street praising Zeus, and sacrificing bulls, they would get committed.
Find someone with the same devotion to a Christian church. Why aren't they viewed with the same skepticism as a "Zeus worshipper"?
It's fake. All of it. And the desire to be inclusive, even in the face of obvious logical inconsistency, has allowed this.
This is one of those times when the appropriate response should have been "Shut up you wacko". Tolerance failed us this time.
"That smacks of so much arrogance it's incredible. If we don't get our way, we're going to fuck your kids forever, is that it?"
You're a moron.
The parents are to blame so your snide little sentence should read "If we, as science teachers, are forced to teach something that is NOT science, nor in anyway scientific, and are expected to to call this non-science science, and give it equvalent consideration in our classes, then we refuse"
Stop blaming the wrong people, you sound like a jackass.
"We actually don't have substantial evidence (fossil or otherwise) that mutation ever caused inter-species changes"
Until you provide a specific definition of what "substantial evdience" is, you're just another fundie troll looking to confuse people with slick logical fallacies.
Stick to obedience, thinking isn;t your strong suit.
it's funny because it's true
Cairo
Informative?! WTF!
That will be my new policy from now on. Good advice.
Well, the author talks about the Flynn effect, which he then dismisses as cultural. I think it is in fact a combination of things, one of which is a general increase of knowledge over time.
Think about this. I was teaching a science class recently when I remarked how strange it is to be learning about something with my students, which a only two generations ago was the province of Nobel Prize winners. There is certainly an increase in general knowledge.
Does that mean the kids are smarter? Hmm. I'm going to hedge on that. The research seems to say yes, but I notice disturbing trends.
What I can say, about your language example, is that you may have failed to consider something. You seem to believe that speaking properly is some measure of intelligence. Consider that grammar is not always how communication flows naturally. It is artificial in many cases, and may not be the most efficient way to interact. Some patterns are built in, apparently, but most of what you were taught in school was not consistent with how you would speak if you were concerned with only communicating what was necessary.
Now consider that you're a kid these days, with 8 different things going on, and buttons popping up, tones going off, etc. Even if you could adhere to proper language skills, why would you want to, when the point can be made in 1/4th the time?
Language is a measure of your ability to adhere to a set of rules. To commit them to memeory, and recognize when one of the rules is broken. It is not intelligence.
God damn it. Should be "can't separate..."
God damn it.
I think if you're so intellectually crippled that you can separate real women from from pixels, then misogyny is the least of your worries.
Also, do I really need to spank you for using such an ambiguous and easily manipulated concept as morality?
"What's the point of putting your ideas out if noone can tell you when you've missed something?"
Who says you can't tell him? You just can't tell him on the blog. Learn the difference.
More importantly, you have access to the THOUGHTS OF THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE. You have access to information about him that didn't exist before. THAT ALONE is a good thing.
"A little pompous don't you think?"
You're being too hard on yourself, you just a blowhard know-itall with a mad-on for Republicans. I wouldn't call you pompous though.
You should have posted a link to pedantry, so people would know what to call you.
You should be a politician.
"you know that its happening and are trying to mitigate some of the dangers it causes."
Then, instead of wasting their time with these types of things, perhaps they should try preventing the people from leaving, maybe by improving their country?
The truth is far more sinister than you'll ever admit, but if nothing else own up to the fact that the Mexican government encourages it's citizens to go to the US.
It was 40 bucks for me (no kidding) but I was on a road trip through a less populated region.
"The whole point of something like this is to have FEEDBACK"
That's funny, I thought the point was to share some of his personal thoughts and ideas.
What makes you right and me wrong?
People like you are why he doesn't have comments.
That is, people who run their idiot mouths and have no f-ing idea what they're talking about.
It is ILLEGAL. So this
"Clearly if he can get on TV and respond to comments from audience members and callers he can dialog with anyone he pleases."
is wrong. It doesn't matter though, because even though you don't know the law, and even though you didn't know it was illegal, you rushed to come up with a stupid, incoherent, and irrelevant example.
Why can't people like you just say
"Hmm, I didn't know it might be illegal, instead of insisting I'm right on Slashdot, maybe I'll do some research and find out for myself."
Oh, right, because you think you're always right, and that you know everything. When are you running for office?
"It is telling of the age in which we live that the speaker of the house of Representatives, chief of those who vote the will of the people, does not allow comments on his blog."
Yes, it tells us that he understands his audience.
I don't care what benefits having comments might create, but I do know I'd rather not have to wade through miles of left-wing crybabies who have nothing better to do than screech out their disagreement to the other side's policy at every turn.
I mean, if the discourse could be kept civil, then that's one thing. But this is the INTERNET man, you and I both know civility, the internet, and political commentary are not going to come together any time soon.
Doc Ruby relies on ad hominems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem