Work is lying to you. ObamaCare does nothing more than allow you to buy insurance from a private company. Any price increase after a year or so ago is just plain profiteering. This is why we need healthcare reform in this country not the weak watered down insurance reform bill.
gp needs to quit listening to Beck, Palin and other nut jobs and learn how to read.
Really. That's it? So if "ObamaCare does nothing more than allow you to buy insurance from a private company", why does it cost over a trillion dollars? And if "ObamaCare does nothing more than allow you to buy insurance from a private company.", why is it over 2000 pages long? You just wrote the whole thing in one sentence.
So, either you are incredibly gullible, woefully ignorant, or the government is much more inefficient that I could possibly imagine. Actually, I think someone is lying their ass off to this guy, but it's not his work.
Maybe you should listen to Beck and Palin more because whoever you are listening to has steered you horribly wrong. You actually believe that it costs a trillion dollars and over 2000 pages to pass a law that "does nothing more than allow you to buy insurance from a private company" and then you call Beck and Palin "nutjobs"? That's the funniest thing I've heard all day!
There seem to be people that think the government is taking over everything and there are those that think the corporations are taking over. Sorry, but people that see the government "taking over" are delusional. There is plenty of evidence, on the other hand, that the corporations are at best APPROVING everything that is the government is doing (especially in congress) and at worst DICTATING everything that is happening. I find the threat of a country run solely at the whims of what the corporate elite want MUCH more frighting than some non-existent fear the the government is going to take over everything. (Oddly, the same people complaining about government getting involved in everything are for restricting access to abortions. Try to figure that one out...)
Sorry, but I don't believe that the majority of corporations like many things this government is doing. For example: Higher healthcare premiums. Higher minimum wage. Higher corporate taxes. Skewering companies that send employees and management to "seminars" at hot vacations spots (Vegas hates him) Backing unions over corporations 100% of the time. Backing laws like "employees must pay union dues, even if they don't belong to the union." Backing laws like "union votes will be open so that those hairy guys from Jersey with gold chains and jogging clothes pushing for the union who know where you live will know exactly how you voted (gotta keep it fair, you know). Taking over various corporations and firing management. Bailing out the competition. Setting strict guidelines for accepting bailout money (like you must higher more minorities or use "green" tech) Forcing companies that don't want bailout money to take bail out money...
Congress can stop military actions by eliminating funding, but as long as they leave funding in place, they really can't do anything.
Congress will never shut down any military action by eliminating funding. There's too much profit to be made by the people who pay their bills.
No. It's because any congressman that voted to leave our military men and women overseas in a hostile zone without beans, bandaids or bullets would be skewered in the next election.
Well, first of all, I did specify the reason for why I was calling you a dumbass, and it's still valid. Actual research into Einstein's theology does in fact show that he was very much not a creationist as defined by the "intelligent design" group, which is the central point of the article
Who is this "intelligent design" group and how are they able to define terms such as this? The definition I find is as follows:
A conjecture claiming that biological life on Earth, or more broadly, the universe as a whole, was created by an unspecified intelligent agent rather than being the result of undirected natural processes
I'm using the broad definition of course. Creationism is defined:
Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in some form by a supernatural being or beings....
Strange. These definitions seem eerily similar. Of course, it's hard to believe in a god if you don't believe He created the universe.
Now I don't want to argue about Einstein's theological beliefs. That's not really important.
But you're the one who brought it up! It was kinda central to your poorly thought out and unresearched point - claiming it's not relevant after you've been shown to be wrong is just silly.
I don't know how good your reading skills are, but I said that if Einstein were applying for a job, and you read his quote that I presented, or another that your brought up, "My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws", would that prevent you from hiring him? Well, you did say, "If they're completely incapable of doing the job (ie: creationists applying for biology, astronomy, geology, ancient history, anthropology, chemistry, or physics related positions) you have to find some other reason for not hiring them." So, I guess the answer would be no.
Tell you what. I'll even grant you Einstein. What about the others I brought up? What about Allan Sandage? He did say, "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." Is he not a creationist? Is he not the very definition of one who believes in ID? What about Louis Pasteur? He said, "The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator." Wouldn't that make Pasteur a creationist? Or do you think the founder of microbiology is " incapable of doing the job"?
Again, this is where the dumbass factor is coming out - hiring policies are not based on singular out of context quotes, they're based on reviews of actual work
Strange. That's not what you said in the post I originally replied to. You said that a creationist is "incapable of doing the job." Or are you changing your story now?
Oh, and by saying that you won't read the rest of my quotes is another way of saying, "I can't argue those, so I'll concentrate on the one I think I know something about."
No, that's just your dumbass factor emerging again. People generally put forth their best argument first, so when you start out with quote mining and false statements
I just put out the most well known one first. That's no need to ignore the rest.
... generally it means that the rest of what you wrote is just as worthless, and not worth reading. Actually looking at the rest of what you wrote, once again, you are once again taking out of context statements without actually examining the people in question, to make it look like they believe things that they don't. I don't need to debunk every word of the tripe you posted,
For the bill to become meaningful, the State of Texas will need to settle upon a legal definition of the term 'theory'. If it means 'reduction to established scientific knowledge by scientific methods and reasoning', intelligent design is not a theory. If it means 'belief', this is already covered by the First Amendment.
More importantly, if they admit it mean 'belief' (because the other option don't make any sence) they got no place in science class. This will clear up the confusion they cultivated around their cult. Eventually they will have no choice but to found a chunch and shut up about their 'alternative theory'. The problem will be solved and everyone will be happy...
Are you saying that if someone attends church, they should be forbidden from becoming teachers in publicly funded schools? That would kinda violate the whole First Amendment thing wouldn't it?
I've gone to church my entire life and I've never met a single person who believed that the earth was 6000 years old. And if you can find me a link of someone who truly believes this, I can promise you that they would be disqualified from teaching at a university level long before the question of geology ever comes up. .
Newton believed in alchemy. Should we be forced to search for the philosopher's stone or else reject his foundations of physics?
I had trouble writing that it was so staggeringly fallacious.
(It bears further noting that all of the proponents of spontaneous generation were creationists who argued that spontaneous generation was a phenomenon of creation itself. Pasteur was no more or less Christian or creationist than his opponents in that matter, he just followed where the evidence led him. You would do well to do the same. Pasteur didn't have Urey-Miller or its successor experiments. You do. Study some facts.)
Would you refuse to hire Newton because he believed in alchemy? I'm not saying we should teach creationism because Pasteur believed in it. I'm saying that you should not discriminate against someone because of their are different than your own. I'm saying that even though Pasteur, along with many other noted scientists believed in some sort of creationism. Yet, it didn't seem to hamper their ability to discover things, like microbiology in Pasteur's case.
If I were tasked with hiring someone for a post in higher education, belief in intelligent design would be a criterion for not getting the job.
Why would I reject logical thinking? The GP stated that he would not hire a creationist. A creationist, by definition is one who believes in a creator. Pasteur believed in a creator according to his own words. Would this person not hire Pasteur? That is the logical conclusion according to what he said.
(Of course, I am using my own definition of "Intelligent Design". To me, breeding tomatoes to get one that is resistant to early blight is an example of intelligent design. On a cosmic scale, it is nothing more than saying that the universe was created by a creator. Very few religions believe that the there god is a product of the universe. Most, including all three of the "big three" believe that God created the universe, making them creationists by definition. There is nothing against evolution in this loose definition of ID/Creationism. Unfortunately, many people just assume that if someone believes in intelligent design, they must also believe that the earth is 6000 years old and dinosaur bones were placed here to test our faith. This is not the case. There is no reason that a creator or intelligent designer couldn't guide evolution, set up a universe that favors evolution or even simply set up the universe and left. Each of these scenarios would be examples of intelligent design.)
My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws.
That sounds pretty much like he falls into the category of "not a creationist", no matter how much you quote-mine and misrepresent things. The same applies to the rest, so yes, you are a dumbass, but it's mostly because you use either poorly researched or deliberately misleading statements to attempt to prop up a failed point.
Actually, saying God, a god, or even my god created the laws of the universe is the very definition of a creationist.
You should learn the definitions of terms before you run around calling people "dumbass". I know I said it was OK and all, but I really didn't mean for someone to do so when they can't even get the terms right.
Strange you would accuse me of quote mining and then counter one of my several arguments based on a quote. Either way, Einstein did not believe in the God of Moses or any other "personal god". OK. Creationism is non-denominational. While many use the term "creationist" to mean "evolution denier", that's not really what the term means and certainly not how I was using it. So when Einstein speaks of a god that created the laws of the universe or a creator of the universe, he is speaking of a creator, meaning creationism.
Now I don't want to argue about Einstein's theological beliefs. That's not really important. My point was that if you were looking to hire Einstein, and during your research you saw the quote above, would that prevent you from hiring him? It doesn't matter what he said beyond that as the quote stands. If Behe said that he didn't believe in a "personal god", would that qualify him to teach biology?
Oh, and by saying that you won't read the rest of my quotes is another way of saying, "I can't argue those, so I'll concentrate on the one I think I know something about."
If they're completely incapable of doing the job (ie: creationists applying for biology, astronomy, geology, ancient history, anthropology, chemistry, or physics related positions) you have to find some other reason for not hiring them.
So would you not hire Einstein because he said, "God does not play dice with the universe"
Are you saying that Sir Fred Hoyle is not qualified to teach even basic astronomy?
Allan Sandage is best known for determining the first reasonably accurate value for the Hubble constant and the age of the universe. But do you think he is not qualified to teach at a university because he once said, "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."
How about when Stephen Hawking said, "One can imagine that God created the universe at literally any time in the past. On the other hand, if the universe is expanding, there may be physical reasons why there had to be a beginning. One could imagine that God created the universe at the instant of the big bang, or even afterwards in just such a way as to make it look as though there had been a big bang, but it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!"
Now, you can call me a dumbass because I believe that God created the heavens and the earth. I'm fine with that. But are you so smart you can call these noted scientists stupid? Are you even remotely qualified to argue their assumptions, much less deem them unqualified to teach in their respective fields?
"Enemies are necessary for the wheels of the U.S. military machine to turn." -- John Stockwell, former CIA official and author
Forgive me for being off topic here, but...
HOLY CRAP! I used to work with John Stockwell. I have a copy of his book "In Search of Enemies" that I was never able to give back to him. He was my supervisor at a job we had at a "tech support sweat shop". He was the manager in charge of call monitoring/quality control and I was the guy who listened to all the tapes and graded the techs.
No, you don't have the capacity to understand it. Or you have given up trying to understand things as instructed by some arbitrarily designated speaker for the aforementioned cruel, random, unprovable space tyrant. You have chosen ignorance. Forgive us for wanting to understand, because apparently your god won't.
OK. Well, if you don't believe in God, why are you trying so hard to understand Him? Why are you calling Him a "cruel, random, unprovable space tyrant" when you don't even think He exists? I don't see you railing on Zeus or the FSM over this. Why are you blaming my God?
So God decides to snuff out a bunch of people or trash their livelihoods it's just part of some "greater plan". A plan which involves carnage, untold suffering, human misery, terror and pain. God really is a complete shit isn't He? Let's all bow down and give worship to our cruel, random, unprovable space tyrant.
Actually, that's the same thought I had toward my parents when I would get a shot, be told I couldn't go out after midnight when I was 9, and not to take candy from strangers. There was literally no way I could possibly understand why my parents would be so mean to me. Didn't they love me?
The point is, if there is a God, and I believe there is, who lives outside our universe, and beyond our physical laws, with enough power to create everything and the rules that govern it by simply saying "let it be", then there is no possible way we can understand why things happen the way they do. But if you believe that there is an eternal life after death that goes beyond EVERYTHING we could possibly ever hope to know, then what happens here is insignificant. Just think of the dinosaurs being wiped out sixty million years ago. It was a tragedy far beyond our understanding, but frankly, no one gives a fuck.
I don't mean to belittle the tragedy that Japan is experiencing. I'm saying you should try to understand what God's plan is. We literally don't have the capacity to understand it. Do what you can to help these people out, live your own life well and protect your own.
Because we value privacy. Facebook and co. sell your information to the highest bidder.
Also, we still have things like email, telephones, IM clients, and actually walking to a friends house to keep in touch with friends, and not let a dumb timesink called Facebook do it all for us superficially.
And as for your sig... you think that those that hold a different view from you should be "BANNED"? Kinda goes against the whole "free exchange of ideas" thing doesn't it? How many tyrannical dictators gained power by people who felt the same way you do about people they disagreed with?
Ugh! Not that tired argument again. OK, here we go.
The case in reference was about 2 reporters refusing to do a story because they didn't like the edits. They were fired. They took the FOX AFFILIATE that fired them to court. (Note: Affiliate, not FoxNews. Fox shows the Simpsons and Family Guy. FoxNews shows Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly. They are two separate entities.)
Next, the the court never ruled that the news story was false. The closest they came was the original jury said “a false, distorted or slanted story” (from your second link). Notice the "OR" in the jury's statement. As for "distorted or slanted", shouldn't every media outlet be sued, including those links your provided? Strange. You don't seem to mind their slant. Here is a story about a recent CBS Poll about public opinion of public sector unions. The title is "Report: New York Times/CBS News Poll Slanted". Notice the last word... "Slanted"? Or are you going to tell me that Ed Shultz, Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann don't have a slant? As for "false", didn't Dan Rather run a story a while back using obviously fake documents to claim that GWB was negligent in his National Guard duties? Are saying that Rather and his producer Mapes should go to jail? Should CBS lose their broadcasting license? That is what these two reporters were suing for in their case; they wanted the local Fox affiliate to lose their license. Shouldn't CBS suffer the same fate?
As for the appeal where the jury's ruling was overturned, your second link has this:
“that the FCC’s policy against the intentional falsification of the news — which the FCC has called its “news distortion policy” — does not qualify as the required “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102.[...] Because the FCC’s news distortion policy is not a “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102, Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower’s statute.”
Again, it never says that the story was false. It claims that the reporters may not be afforded whistle-blower protection because the “news distortion policy” is not “law, rule, or regulation”. Basically, the reporters claimed that they should not have been fired because they were whistle-blowers. They claimed whistle-blower status saying that airing a false story is against the law, per the FCC regulations. The court said they were not whistle-blowers according to the law, because there is no LAW against airing a false story. The court never made a judgment on the story itself because there was no point since these two were not protected under whistle-blower laws in the first place, meaning they could be fired.
However, I can't hammer you on the misunderstanding. First, your whole point is moot because it was not FoxNews on trial here, but a local Fox affiliate (again, Simpsons vs O'Reilly). But in doing a little research on this, I found the first five or six pages Google returned were all from sites like, purefood.org, organicconsumers.org, HuffingtonPost and so on. Of course, all of these sights are slanted toward their cause, just as a story on Redstate.com would be slanted. It is difficult, if not impossible to find a non-slanted version of this story. The irony of it all is that they are all claiming FoxNews is bad f
"Really? You think that executing the absolute worst criminals in society means we can't "assert any moral highground" over people that behead reporters"
WE dont just execute evil, we execute innocents. there is an unacceptable number of innocent people on death row. and many innocent have been executed because they were railroaded by the prosecution or they had incompetent defense.
They are STILL INNOCENT... and yes, until that is fixed our hands are very bloody.
Agreed, but ACCIDENTALLY executing prisoners when we truly believe they are guilty of a heinous crime doesn't exactly put us on the same level as those who execute rape victims for the crime of adultery. Even if there are prosecutors that intentionally place innocent suspects on death row, as a society 100% minus those few prosecutors would call for charging those unethical prosecutors with murder. Not so in the Muslim world.
Their reason was that he looked like an arab aka terrorist and traveled frequently.
[CITATION NEEDED]
Aren't you assuming that the FBI is racist because they are the FBI? How is that any different than the FBI assuming this guy is a terrorist because he's Arab?
Actually, the difference is that we don't know why the FBI assumed this guy was guilty.
And everyone ever charged with a crime is guilty too, right?
I hope you never get a chance to serve on a jury. These are the folks whose no fly lists end up getting toddlers hassled and you think they had or needed an actual reason to hassle a genuine brown person?
Nice strawman. Here's an idea. Why don't you try to direct your comments to the post you are replying to. That post said that the FBI probably has a reason for tailing this guy. GPS devices are not free, nor is it free to plant them and track them. They just don't go around saying, "hey, that one is brown. Place a tracker on his car." If that were the case, there would be millions of trackers in Michigan alone. Of course, if there was not a good reason, then there should be hell to pay, but before we jump to that conclusion, let's at least get all the facts.
So, you might want to try to answer that argument instead of assuming that the GP thinks all suspects are guilty. After all, aren't you assuming that the FBI is automatically guilty because they are going to be the defendant of this trial? Isn't that EXACTLY what you are wrongly accusing the GP of doing. I don't know if I've ever seen an clearer example of psychological projection in my life.
And blowing up clinics and shooting doctors, Oh wait no that is Christians.
Really? How many abortion doctors killed in the last, say, 10 years? Go ahead, look it up. I'll give you a hint... It's ONE. That's right, ONE!
How many pro-life activists have been murdered in the past 10? ONE. That's right! One. Look it up for yourself. No, better yet, allow me. So, the FACTS show that in the past 10 years, there have been the exact same number of pro-life demonstrators murdered than abortion doctors.
But, hey! Don't let the facts get in the way of your opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
Work is lying to you. ObamaCare does nothing more than allow you to buy insurance from a private company. Any price increase after a year or so ago is just plain profiteering. This is why we need healthcare reform in this country not the weak watered down insurance reform bill.
gp needs to quit listening to Beck, Palin and other nut jobs and learn how to read.
Really. That's it? So if "ObamaCare does nothing more than allow you to buy insurance from a private company", why does it cost over a trillion dollars? And if "ObamaCare does nothing more than allow you to buy insurance from a private company.", why is it over 2000 pages long? You just wrote the whole thing in one sentence.
So, either you are incredibly gullible, woefully ignorant, or the government is much more inefficient that I could possibly imagine. Actually, I think someone is lying their ass off to this guy, but it's not his work.
Maybe you should listen to Beck and Palin more because whoever you are listening to has steered you horribly wrong. You actually believe that it costs a trillion dollars and over 2000 pages to pass a law that "does nothing more than allow you to buy insurance from a private company" and then you call Beck and Palin "nutjobs"? That's the funniest thing I've heard all day!
See above. Delusional.
Oh wow! You are so right.
The way you didn't challenge any of his arguments at all has completely convinced me.
Wow. You really need to find another employer with benefits that don't suck. My rates went down a little and were only 2/3rd yours to begin with.
You must live in Maine.
My health care costs nearly doubled from $160/mo to $300/mo with no change in benefits.
There seem to be people that think the government is taking over everything and there are those that think the corporations are taking over. Sorry, but people that see the government "taking over" are delusional. There is plenty of evidence, on the other hand, that the corporations are at best APPROVING everything that is the government is doing (especially in congress) and at worst DICTATING everything that is happening. I find the threat of a country run solely at the whims of what the corporate elite want MUCH more frighting than some non-existent fear the the government is going to take over everything. (Oddly, the same people complaining about government getting involved in everything are for restricting access to abortions. Try to figure that one out...)
Sorry, but I don't believe that the majority of corporations like many things this government is doing. For example: ...
Higher healthcare premiums.
Higher minimum wage.
Higher corporate taxes.
Skewering companies that send employees and management to "seminars" at hot vacations spots (Vegas hates him)
Backing unions over corporations 100% of the time.
Backing laws like "employees must pay union dues, even if they don't belong to the union."
Backing laws like "union votes will be open so that those hairy guys from Jersey with gold chains and jogging clothes pushing for the union who know where you live will know exactly how you voted (gotta keep it fair, you know).
Taking over various corporations and firing management.
Bailing out the competition.
Setting strict guidelines for accepting bailout money (like you must higher more minorities or use "green" tech)
Forcing companies that don't want bailout money to take bail out money
Need I go on?
Congress will never shut down any military action by eliminating funding. There's too much profit to be made by the people who pay their bills.
No. It's because any congressman that voted to leave our military men and women overseas in a hostile zone without beans, bandaids or bullets would be skewered in the next election.
Well, first of all, I did specify the reason for why I was calling you a dumbass, and it's still valid. Actual research into Einstein's theology does in fact show that he was very much not a creationist as defined by the "intelligent design" group, which is the central point of the article
Who is this "intelligent design" group and how are they able to define terms such as this? The definition I find is as follows:
A conjecture claiming that biological life on Earth, or more broadly, the universe as a whole, was created by an unspecified intelligent agent rather than being the result of undirected natural processes
I'm using the broad definition of course. Creationism is defined:
Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in some form by a supernatural being or beings. ...
Strange. These definitions seem eerily similar.
Of course, it's hard to believe in a god if you don't believe He created the universe.
Now I don't want to argue about Einstein's theological beliefs. That's not really important.
But you're the one who brought it up! It was kinda central to your poorly thought out and unresearched point - claiming it's not relevant after you've been shown to be wrong is just silly.
I don't know how good your reading skills are, but I said that if Einstein were applying for a job, and you read his quote that I presented, or another that your brought up, "My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws", would that prevent you from hiring him? Well, you did say, "If they're completely incapable of doing the job (ie: creationists applying for biology, astronomy, geology, ancient history, anthropology, chemistry, or physics related positions) you have to find some other reason for not hiring them." So, I guess the answer would be no.
Tell you what. I'll even grant you Einstein. What about the others I brought up? What about Allan Sandage? He did say, "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." Is he not a creationist? Is he not the very definition of one who believes in ID?
What about Louis Pasteur? He said, "The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator." Wouldn't that make Pasteur a creationist? Or do you think the founder of microbiology is " incapable of doing the job"?
Again, this is where the dumbass factor is coming out - hiring policies are not based on singular out of context quotes, they're based on reviews of actual work
Strange. That's not what you said in the post I originally replied to. You said that a creationist is "incapable of doing the job." Or are you changing your story now?
Oh, and by saying that you won't read the rest of my quotes is another way of saying, "I can't argue those, so I'll concentrate on the one I think I know something about."
No, that's just your dumbass factor emerging again. People generally put forth their best argument first, so when you start out with quote mining and false statements
I just put out the most well known one first. That's no need to ignore the rest.
... generally it means that the rest of what you wrote is just as worthless, and not worth reading. Actually looking at the rest of what you wrote, once again, you are once again taking out of context statements without actually examining the people in question, to make it look like they believe things that they don't. I don't need to debunk every word of the tripe you posted,
For the bill to become meaningful, the State of Texas will need to settle upon a legal definition of the term 'theory'. If it means 'reduction to established scientific knowledge by scientific methods and reasoning', intelligent design is not a theory. If it means 'belief', this is already covered by the First Amendment.
More importantly, if they admit it mean 'belief' (because the other option don't make any sence) they got no place in science class. This will clear up the confusion they cultivated around their cult. Eventually they will have no choice but to found a chunch and shut up about their 'alternative theory'. The problem will be solved and everyone will be happy...
Are you saying that if someone attends church, they should be forbidden from becoming teachers in publicly funded schools? That would kinda violate the whole First Amendment thing wouldn't it?
I've gone to church my entire life and I've never met a single person who believed that the earth was 6000 years old. And if you can find me a link of someone who truly believes this, I can promise you that they would be disqualified from teaching at a university level long before the question of geology ever comes up.
.
Nowhere does the Bible say that the earth is 6000 years old.
Newton believed in alchemy. Should we be forced to search for the philosopher's stone or else reject his foundations of physics?
I had trouble writing that it was so staggeringly fallacious.
(It bears further noting that all of the proponents of spontaneous generation were creationists who argued that spontaneous generation was a phenomenon of creation itself. Pasteur was no more or less Christian or creationist than his opponents in that matter, he just followed where the evidence led him. You would do well to do the same. Pasteur didn't have Urey-Miller or its successor experiments. You do. Study some facts.)
Would you refuse to hire Newton because he believed in alchemy? I'm not saying we should teach creationism because Pasteur believed in it. I'm saying that you should not discriminate against someone because of their are different than your own. I'm saying that even though Pasteur, along with many other noted scientists believed in some sort of creationism. Yet, it didn't seem to hamper their ability to discover things, like microbiology in Pasteur's case.
binary thinking falacy.
do you reject logical thinking?
Here is what the GP said:
If I were tasked with hiring someone for a post in higher education, belief in intelligent design would be a criterion for not getting the job.
Why would I reject logical thinking? The GP stated that he would not hire a creationist. A creationist, by definition is one who believes in a creator. Pasteur believed in a creator according to his own words. Would this person not hire Pasteur? That is the logical conclusion according to what he said.
(Of course, I am using my own definition of "Intelligent Design". To me, breeding tomatoes to get one that is resistant to early blight is an example of intelligent design. On a cosmic scale, it is nothing more than saying that the universe was created by a creator. Very few religions believe that the there god is a product of the universe. Most, including all three of the "big three" believe that God created the universe, making them creationists by definition. There is nothing against evolution in this loose definition of ID/Creationism. Unfortunately, many people just assume that if someone believes in intelligent design, they must also believe that the earth is 6000 years old and dinosaur bones were placed here to test our faith. This is not the case. There is no reason that a creator or intelligent designer couldn't guide evolution, set up a universe that favors evolution or even simply set up the universe and left. Each of these scenarios would be examples of intelligent design.)
No, you're a dumbass because you don't know that evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of the universe.
--Jeremy
Um... read that GP's post that I was responding to.
Also Jesus was a Jew who followed Mosaic law. Are you saying that Moses was a liberal?
My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws.
That sounds pretty much like he falls into the category of "not a creationist", no matter how much you quote-mine and misrepresent things. The same applies to the rest, so yes, you are a dumbass, but it's mostly because you use either poorly researched or deliberately misleading statements to attempt to prop up a failed point.
Actually, saying God, a god, or even my god created the laws of the universe is the very definition of a creationist.
You should learn the definitions of terms before you run around calling people "dumbass". I know I said it was OK and all, but I really didn't mean for someone to do so when they can't even get the terms right.
Strange you would accuse me of quote mining and then counter one of my several arguments based on a quote. Either way, Einstein did not believe in the God of Moses or any other "personal god". OK. Creationism is non-denominational. While many use the term "creationist" to mean "evolution denier", that's not really what the term means and certainly not how I was using it. So when Einstein speaks of a god that created the laws of the universe or a creator of the universe, he is speaking of a creator, meaning creationism.
Now I don't want to argue about Einstein's theological beliefs. That's not really important. My point was that if you were looking to hire Einstein, and during your research you saw the quote above, would that prevent you from hiring him? It doesn't matter what he said beyond that as the quote stands. If Behe said that he didn't believe in a "personal god", would that qualify him to teach biology?
Oh, and by saying that you won't read the rest of my quotes is another way of saying, "I can't argue those, so I'll concentrate on the one I think I know something about."
If I were tasked with hiring someone for a post in higher education, belief in intelligent design would be a criterion for not getting the job.
"The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator."
Louis Pasteur [1822-1895]
Do you also reject Pasteurization?
If they're completely incapable of doing the job (ie: creationists applying for biology, astronomy, geology, ancient history, anthropology, chemistry, or physics related positions) you have to find some other reason for not hiring them.
So would you not hire Einstein because he said, "God does not play dice with the universe"
Are you saying that Sir Fred Hoyle is not qualified to teach even basic astronomy?
Allan Sandage is best known for determining the first reasonably accurate value for the Hubble constant and the age of the universe. But do you think he is not qualified to teach at a university because he once said, "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."
How about when Stephen Hawking said, "One can imagine that God created the universe at literally any time in the past. On the other hand, if the universe is expanding, there may be physical reasons why there had to be a beginning. One could imagine that God created the universe at the instant of the big bang, or even afterwards in just such a way as to make it look as though there had been a big bang, but it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!"
Now, you can call me a dumbass because I believe that God created the heavens and the earth. I'm fine with that. But are you so smart you can call these noted scientists stupid? Are you even remotely qualified to argue their assumptions, much less deem them unqualified to teach in their respective fields?
"Enemies are necessary for the wheels of the U.S. military machine to turn."
-- John Stockwell, former CIA official and author
Forgive me for being off topic here, but...
HOLY CRAP! I used to work with John Stockwell. I have a copy of his book "In Search of Enemies" that I was never able to give back to him. He was my supervisor at a job we had at a "tech support sweat shop". He was the manager in charge of call monitoring/quality control and I was the guy who listened to all the tapes and graded the techs.
I could tell stories, but it's best if I don't.
As religions go, the Greenpeace crowd are almost as crazy/stupid/deluded as the Southern Baptist crowd.
You should probably get to know a few Southern Baptists before you say something so incredibly ignorant.
No, you don't have the capacity to understand it. Or you have given up trying to understand things as instructed by some arbitrarily designated speaker for the aforementioned cruel, random, unprovable space tyrant. You have chosen ignorance. Forgive us for wanting to understand, because apparently your god won't.
OK. Well, if you don't believe in God, why are you trying so hard to understand Him? Why are you calling Him a "cruel, random, unprovable space tyrant" when you don't even think He exists? I don't see you railing on Zeus or the FSM over this. Why are you blaming my God?
So God decides to snuff out a bunch of people or trash their livelihoods it's just part of some "greater plan". A plan which involves carnage, untold suffering, human misery, terror and pain. God really is a complete shit isn't He? Let's all bow down and give worship to our cruel, random, unprovable space tyrant.
Actually, that's the same thought I had toward my parents when I would get a shot, be told I couldn't go out after midnight when I was 9, and not to take candy from strangers. There was literally no way I could possibly understand why my parents would be so mean to me. Didn't they love me?
The point is, if there is a God, and I believe there is, who lives outside our universe, and beyond our physical laws, with enough power to create everything and the rules that govern it by simply saying "let it be", then there is no possible way we can understand why things happen the way they do. But if you believe that there is an eternal life after death that goes beyond EVERYTHING we could possibly ever hope to know, then what happens here is insignificant. Just think of the dinosaurs being wiped out sixty million years ago. It was a tragedy far beyond our understanding, but frankly, no one gives a fuck.
I don't mean to belittle the tragedy that Japan is experiencing. I'm saying you should try to understand what God's plan is. We literally don't have the capacity to understand it. Do what you can to help these people out, live your own life well and protect your own.
Because we value privacy. Facebook and co. sell your information to the highest bidder.
Also, we still have things like email, telephones, IM clients, and actually walking to a friends house to keep in touch with friends, and not let a dumb timesink called Facebook do it all for us superficially.
And get off my lawn!!!
(sorry, couldn't resist)
And as for your sig... you think that those that hold a different view from you should be "BANNED"? Kinda goes against the whole "free exchange of ideas" thing doesn't it? How many tyrannical dictators gained power by people who felt the same way you do about people they disagreed with?
I think it's related to this...
Ugh! Not that tired argument again. OK, here we go.
The case in reference was about 2 reporters refusing to do a story because they didn't like the edits. They were fired. They took the FOX AFFILIATE that fired them to court. (Note: Affiliate, not FoxNews. Fox shows the Simpsons and Family Guy. FoxNews shows Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly. They are two separate entities.)
Next, the the court never ruled that the news story was false. The closest they came was the original jury said “a false, distorted or slanted story” (from your second link). Notice the "OR" in the jury's statement. As for "distorted or slanted", shouldn't every media outlet be sued, including those links your provided? Strange. You don't seem to mind their slant. Here is a story about a recent CBS Poll about public opinion of public sector unions. The title is "Report: New York Times/CBS News Poll Slanted". Notice the last word... "Slanted"? Or are you going to tell me that Ed Shultz, Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann don't have a slant? As for "false", didn't Dan Rather run a story a while back using obviously fake documents to claim that GWB was negligent in his National Guard duties? Are saying that Rather and his producer Mapes should go to jail? Should CBS lose their broadcasting license? That is what these two reporters were suing for in their case; they wanted the local Fox affiliate to lose their license. Shouldn't CBS suffer the same fate?
As for the appeal where the jury's ruling was overturned, your second link has this:
“that the FCC’s policy against the intentional falsification of the news — which the FCC has called its “news distortion policy” — does not qualify as the required “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102.[...] Because the FCC’s news distortion policy is not a “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102, Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower’s statute.”
Again, it never says that the story was false. It claims that the reporters may not be afforded whistle-blower protection because the “news distortion policy” is not “law, rule, or regulation”. Basically, the reporters claimed that they should not have been fired because they were whistle-blowers. They claimed whistle-blower status saying that airing a false story is against the law, per the FCC regulations. The court said they were not whistle-blowers according to the law, because there is no LAW against airing a false story. The court never made a judgment on the story itself because there was no point since these two were not protected under whistle-blower laws in the first place, meaning they could be fired.
However, I can't hammer you on the misunderstanding. First, your whole point is moot because it was not FoxNews on trial here, but a local Fox affiliate (again, Simpsons vs O'Reilly). But in doing a little research on this, I found the first five or six pages Google returned were all from sites like, purefood.org, organicconsumers.org, HuffingtonPost and so on. Of course, all of these sights are slanted toward their cause, just as a story on Redstate.com would be slanted. It is difficult, if not impossible to find a non-slanted version of this story. The irony of it all is that they are all claiming FoxNews is bad f
"Really? You think that executing the absolute worst criminals in society means we can't "assert any moral highground" over people that behead reporters"
WE dont just execute evil, we execute innocents. there is an unacceptable number of innocent people on death row. and many innocent have been executed because they were railroaded by the prosecution or they had incompetent defense.
They are STILL INNOCENT... and yes, until that is fixed our hands are very bloody.
Agreed, but ACCIDENTALLY executing prisoners when we truly believe they are guilty of a heinous crime doesn't exactly put us on the same level as those who execute rape victims for the crime of adultery. Even if there are prosecutors that intentionally place innocent suspects on death row, as a society 100% minus those few prosecutors would call for charging those unethical prosecutors with murder. Not so in the Muslim world.
Hardly a valid comparison.
Their reason was that he looked like an arab aka terrorist and traveled frequently.
[CITATION NEEDED]
Aren't you assuming that the FBI is racist because they are the FBI? How is that any different than the FBI assuming this guy is a terrorist because he's Arab?
Actually, the difference is that we don't know why the FBI assumed this guy was guilty.
And everyone ever charged with a crime is guilty too, right?
I hope you never get a chance to serve on a jury. These are the folks whose no fly lists end up getting toddlers hassled and you think they had or needed an actual reason to hassle a genuine brown person?
Nice strawman. Here's an idea. Why don't you try to direct your comments to the post you are replying to. That post said that the FBI probably has a reason for tailing this guy. GPS devices are not free, nor is it free to plant them and track them. They just don't go around saying, "hey, that one is brown. Place a tracker on his car." If that were the case, there would be millions of trackers in Michigan alone. Of course, if there was not a good reason, then there should be hell to pay, but before we jump to that conclusion, let's at least get all the facts.
So, you might want to try to answer that argument instead of assuming that the GP thinks all suspects are guilty. After all, aren't you assuming that the FBI is automatically guilty because they are going to be the defendant of this trial? Isn't that EXACTLY what you are wrongly accusing the GP of doing. I don't know if I've ever seen an clearer example of psychological projection in my life.
And blowing up clinics and shooting doctors, Oh wait no that is Christians.
Really? How many abortion doctors killed in the last, say, 10 years? Go ahead, look it up. I'll give you a hint... It's ONE. That's right, ONE!
How many pro-life activists have been murdered in the past 10? ONE. That's right! One. Look it up for yourself. No, better yet, allow me. So, the FACTS show that in the past 10 years, there have been the exact same number of pro-life demonstrators murdered than abortion doctors.
But, hey! Don't let the facts get in the way of your opinion.