Well, you could get another student to stand for you (who was, of course, untrained), or you could have a Student Union representative (who was, of course, either barely- or un-trained).
You couldn't involve anyone from outside the university, and professors/staff members either couldn't or wouldn't help because of the politics that could ensue.
Actually, Intelligent Design is the speculation that an intelligence "designed" life.
Evolution is the idea that life adapts and eventually gives rise to entirely new species.
They are not the same at all.
"Pure" ID (literally, "a designer was behind it somehow") allows for evolution as the method he used. Unfortunately, 99.9% of people who self-identify as IDists or Creationists believe this means "built fully-formed humans out of clay", or similar.
"Genetic drift (aka microevolution) isn't contested even by fundamentalist Christians."
Actually, it's still contested by a huge number of fundamentalist christians - I've spoken to examples of them myself. True, the slightly cleverer ones admit microevolution by deny macroevolution, but by doing so you're right on their bleeding edge of intellectual advancement.
"I'm talking about the creation of a new species."
Please point to the precise dividing line between micro- and macroevolution.
Eh? There isn't one? Well, if you're prepared to accept the evolution of small changes... and repeated small changes can lead to large changes... and all that's needed anyway for speciation is a few genes changed here and there to prevent interbreeding... oh, I guess macroevolution is basically an inevitable consequence of microevolution.
All evolution is micro, FFS. "Macroevolution" is just microevolution that's gone on for a long time.
"If one can observe it in the wild, then ID is proven false. It's not a complicated concept."
We've spotted the footprints of evolution many, many, many times, and each time the ID/creationist crowd hand-wave, bullshit or just ignore the evidence.
Exactly what evidence do you require, at this point? A continuous twenty-year film of two particular families of fruit flies in the wild who diverge and then unsuccessfully attempt to interbreed?
This is clearly impossible, but even if we managed it but for a single jump-cut in the film, you can be sure the ID/creationist crowd would be jumping all over it as "reasonable doubt" the scientists hadn't swapped one set of flies for another similar-looking on at the last minute.
Those who skeptically follow science try to see what's there. Those who follow dogma try very hard to ignore anything that doesn't fit with their preconceived (and utterly baseless) prejudices.
"Did your bio teacher never explain the difference between micro and macro evolution?"
Please do so. Remember to point to the exact point where micro becomes macro. And please explain why the micro-jump from the preceeding state is not possible, whereas all the preceeding micro-jumps up to this point clearly are.
"No. Put up video cameras over a large area. Observe a new species evolve. ID is proven false, there you go. For those sticklers that would claim the hand of God was behind it, demonstrate it mathematically. There you go, it's falsifiable."
Haaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaa!
ROTFL!
No, seriously, that's a good one.
Given speciation can take hundreds or thousands of years (at least), and typically occurrs randomly and unpredictably, how exactly is this practically falsifiable?
The unspoken assumption is that scientific theories are falsifiable by us. If you specify "falsifiable irrespective of the resources or abilities required" then everything's falsifiable - you just have to be God, and go and look yourself. Sure, it's a stupid example, but so was yours.
"It's not even unfeasible. Given the rate of speciation is currently about one per 100,000 years, and given that we have more than 100,000 species on the planet, by simple probability a new species should be arising each year. Most are probably uninteresting or unnoticed, but with enough survelliance it shouldn't be hard to capture on tape. Show the random mutation that caused it, and
"Observable phenomena? You mean vestigal limbs, etc.? Sure. But you forget that ID claims that evolution exists (which is something that people keep forgetting about -- it's not fundamentalist creationism)."
Exactly. ID doesn't have to be an alternative to evolution, since it could merely be a philosophical (or religious - not scientific) position that the/a Creator uses evolution to accomplish "creation".
Welcome to the rest of the world's position. Could you please go and tell the fuckwit Creationists infesting your mid-west?
And tell them this version of "Intelligent Design" isn't new, isn't science, and doesn't require capitalisation while you're at it.
"The point where ID better koshers with observations... is how bloody well designed something the human body is. There's an unaccountably low amount of vestigal processes, especially in processes that would have no competitive advantage."
Male nipples.
The appendix (which, bonus points, occasionally becomes infected and kills us, for no gain).
Our terribly designed crossover between our oesphagus and trachea, that means we can't breathe while swallowing, and that food can block our airways and choke us.
The human body is riddled with bad design decisions and vestigal remains, that confer no benefits whatsoever.
"In the transport of certain chemicals across the intestinal membrane, the body goes through a multiple step process in packaging a protein, then undoes it all, then does it exactly again. When I saw this pathway I was like, "Ah -- a vestigal chemical pathway. Neat."... As it turns out, the girl asked, and as it turns out that that intermediate step was critical for transport."
So.... what? Because you can't spot a good vestigal holdover, that makes the whole of evolution wrong? Dude, your argument indicates a gross (and I mean gross) lack of understanding of science and logic.
Unfortunately, it's suspiciously close to the ID/Creationist "I don't know how it happened, so it must be miraculous" argument from ignorance.
Either way, if you're happy to relegate ID to an unproveable philosophical possibility, or a baseless-faith religious position, that's fine (and, in fact, I'd agree with you - we can't ever prove 100% that we weren't created by soemone or something). However, ID is presented by its adherents as a scientific theory, and in direct conflict with evolution. This is just plain wrong.
"When Newton posited gravity, some people claimed that he wasn't doing science because he invoked medieval-sounding "occult powers", and hence wasn't giving properly naturalistic explanations."
And we know the scientists who derided him for it were correct.
So what you're saying is... religious elements in science are unnecessary, non-operative and get in the way of the right answers?
(And incidentally, can you provide a source for Newton's "occult powers" element of his theory of gravity? I know he was into alchemy, but is this just unsubstantiated hearsay?)
When did you last sign a contract to go to college?
They notified you your application was successful, you gave them the tuition fees and they allowed you to attend. No "contract" was signed, and you certainly weren't guaranteed X years of education irrespective of how many of their rules you broke.
Nope. My parents didn't give me any indoctrination at all, and in fact were religious (both Church of England, father even Church Warden for a time).
I grew up exposed to both evolution and genesis, and even as a very, very young child could see that details of the Genesis story were contradicted even in the Bible in different places... and was entirely unsupported by evidence... and people even used to get tetchy when I asked perfectly innocent questions about details of their faith ("If Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel, who did Cain and Abel marry to have kids?"). I concluded (as the majority of intelligent people the world over have also done) that Genesis was intended as a metaphor - a helpful story to teach you important lessons, not the literal truth.[1]
In contrast, evolution (while, obviously "only" a theory) was supported by the overwhelming preponderance of evidence. It was also the simplest answer to the problem (don't tell me that "successive gradual beneficial developments being passed to offspring" is a more convoluted proposition than "positing the existence of an omnipotent, self-created being who can violate known laws of physics at will, create an entire universe and yet who still has a parochial interest in one tiny, unremarkable corner of it... and often displays suspiciously human motives and emotions").
And please don't trot out the old saw about "giving the students more choice" - many of the students are already indoctrinated from birth with ID/Creationist/fundamentalist propaganda, and have Comparative Religion classes, so they have plenty of exposure to both sides of the "debate".
ID is not science. By any meaningful definition of the term, it does not belong in Science classes. This is not about giving students a choice between two scientific theories, but about weakening the whole of science in favour of faith.
Frankly, and finally, my feelings on Creationists' beliefs in a literal interpretation of Genesis were pretty much summed up when I first read the Illuminatus trilogy, by Robert Anton Wilson and Robert Shea:
"They didn't know what the symbols and paradoxes meant. Instead of following the finger that points to the moon, they sat down and worshipped the finger itself."
'Nuff said.
[1] Important point, related to this. This whole furore about evolution isn't an example of "Science" crushing "Faith". It's about science disproving one narrow, frankly daft interpretation of one religion, that (primarily because of said daftness) is hugely in the minority in the world.
Many people with more enlightened faiths happily balance science and faith together, and see no conflict there. Most of the rest of the religious world (even the Pope!) watches the actions of a few US fundamentalists with amused bemusement.
The creationists and ID proponents in Kansas are no different to those who screamed and ranted at Copernicus, for exiling us from a special place in the universe. Or Aristotle, for proving the earth was round. Science moves inexorably onward. Sometimes it disproves or counter-indicates even ideas we hold very dear to our hearts. These ideas are wrong. Get over it.
Funnily enough, I was almost expelled for my university for "insulting a university member" (actually, documenting the mistakes of a lecturer who was fundamentally unqualified to teach the subject, that we'd already complained about and had it swept under the carpet, for other students who didn't know any better).
The head of department went massively overboard on the disciplinary proceeding and tried to have me expelled on a personal grude (after I complained she covered up our initial complaint about the lecturer concerned). Eventually it was tacitly admitted she was pursuing a vendetta, and I was let go with a severe punishment (to set a precedent), but a suspended one (so as long as I did nothing else wrong in my time left there - about 6 months, by that point - I basically just got away with a token slap on the wrist).
I learned some hard lessons as a result of the experience, and the crux of the matter is this:
1) Universities/colleges are private clubs.
2) Private organisations make their own rules, and can freely disregard rules we otherwise take for granted in everyday life, such as "freedom of speech".
3) Most universities don't make a complete copy of their disciplinary rules and regulations easily available before you enroll there... and even if they do, they're pretty much all the same so there's not much to choose between them.
4) If they perceive you're fucking with one member of their club (a "important" one anyway, like a member of the teaching staff, tenured professor, administrative employee, whatever), they will close ranks and will all fuck you. You have attacked their "club", so the whole club comes gunning for you.
5) Because they're a private club, this is all entirely legal, and above-board.
Sample interesting details of a typical UK university disciplinary process:
i) While you're accused of (or being investigated for) an academic or disciplinary offence, you have no right to a lawyer. Contacting any form of legal representation is itself a further disciplinary offence.
ii) You do have the right to be represented by a member of the Students' Union. These people are generally untrained volunteers, and may not even know the disciplinary process prior to taking on your case. You may also not be informed of your right to representation at any stage.
iii) Merely being accused (not even necessarily found guilty) of an academic or disciplinary offence and having to take time to defend yourself, even under threat of expulsion, is not considered grounds for an extention on a single coursework deadline.
iv) Offences such as "abusing, harassing, threatening or insulting a member of the university" mean exactly that. If you state "X is bald" and he doesn't like the fact he's bald, you can be hauled up in front of the university authorities, regardless of the fact he is bald. Unlike libel/slander, truth is no defence.
v) If you publically assert a lecturer is fundamentally unqualified to do his job, you commit an academic offence. Providing documentary evidence that you're right makes it a worse offence - it doesn't mitigate it.
iv) By submitting coursework to the university you permanently sign over all IP rights to the university. Some universities claim rights to all IP you produce while a member, even in your spare time and on your own equipment.
So yeah. Schools, universities and colleges aren't fair, aren't democratic, and aren't even (arguably) ethical. That said, if you shut up and keep your head down you're fine, and it's a great opportunity to spend 3-5 years getting wasted and having fun.
Just don't insult a faculty member while you do it, and never, ever stand up for a point of principle.
I thought every Slashdotter would know this wasn't the correct etymology of the word "bug" - that's why it was "the first occurrance of an actual bug" being found. IIRC the word "bug" (in the sense of a problem or glitch) has been in use since Newton's time...
Jeuss Christ. I'd somehow never heard of this bug, and I've been developing for Windows machines for years.
How on earth was such a basic and low-level bug ignored for so long? It doesn't seem like rocket-science to fix it with a small bounds-checking if statement!
From this and your follow-up posts, you appear to have a problem with evolution because it doesn't make nice, mathematically precise predictions - because there's no precise anal-retentive algebra of evolution.
Your criticism is therefore not with "evolution", but "biology".
But you're right - let's ignore everything that doesn't fit into a nice mathematical derivation, completely ignore the difference between "science" and "maths" and just argue that anything that can't be reduced to maths is worthless and stupid, right?
Uh oh! I've got news for you - nothing in science is like this. Sure, physics kind of looks math-y from a way away, but you can only test those hypotheses and theories as far as the precision of your sensing apparatus. Only no sensing apparatus is infinitely accurate, so you don't ever know any mathematical equation maps perfectly onto real life.
And while we might love to lie naked in bed and rub our bodies all over with maths equations, they aren't any use at all unless they map somehow to the real world. Sure, 1 + 1 = 2, but unless someone had somehow applied that to the nasty, dirty, imprecise real world you'd still be living on the savannahs of africa, eating your meat raw and occasionally getting eaten by lions.
Chemistry? Sure, you can construct elegant chemical reaction equations, but messing about with all those test-tubes and chemicals is so... well... messy. And when you get right down to it, "chemistry" is just a convenient molecule-level oversimplification of physics, with all the drawbacks we already know physics has.
And biology! Evil, I tell you! Messy, oozy, damp, slithery life-forms! The most complex collections of organised matter in the known universe, where macroscopic results depend entirely on molecular-level (hell, some theories say quantum-level) results. But, but, but, y'know, just because we don't have a supercomputer powerful enough to perfectly simulate an entire ecosystem of individuals, and all the billions upon billions of variables that entails... that clearly means biology's bunk too, right?
Maths is simple and abstract, deals with perfect inputs and gives perfect, absolute answers and predictions.
Physics deals with the most simple and "perfect" inputs in the real world, so (big surprise) it can in many cases make pretty damned accurate predictions.
Chemistry deals with much more complex states, and the sensory apparatus isn't nearly as precise (you can count asteroids and measure their path - ever tried doing that with a single water molecule?). Thus, chemistry of necessity makes vaguer predictions and is prone to more experimental error. Same process, just less-precise observations are available.
Biology is the study of the most complex collections of matter in the known universe, subject to the state of billions of variables at any given instant. As such it has to make use of a great deal of simplifications and generalities. This doesn't invalidate the work any more than asserting Newtonian Physics wasn't "science" because Relativity made better predictions.
Evolution studies when these blobs of impossibly complicated matter also interact with each other, and different types, living in an even more complex metaorganism known as an "ecosystem". Of necessity, even wider generalisations are used, and predictions are of necessity more qualitative and less quantitative. Don't be mislead - evolutions can be used to make quantitative predictions (another poster, above, volunteered a whole list), but it's hard to given the enormous number of variables to watch.
So, basically, if you want to dispute evolution for not being "mathematical" enough for you, you should also start disputing the rest of biology, chemistry and physics at least.
What was your point again?
Oh yes, and "people come so willingly to evolution's defense" because, despite it's limitations (limited solely
Actually, I believe you'll find it was part of the trade embargo. Part of the details of the embargo were that countries and companies were banned from exporting "high technology" to Iraq, partly because they could (theoretically) be used to construct weapons or (military) infrastructure.
Like, y'know, the UK "Iraqi Supergun" scandal in the 90's, when companies in the UK were prohibited from exporting metal pipes because it was suspected they were to be used in constructing a supergun-style cannon.
I like that - a clean, renewable energy-source that draws its motive power from the collective outrage of a generation of scientists.
And, as we know the collective stupidity of the Creationist/ID crowd is bottomless, presumably so is the amount of outrage they can generate in anyone who can string two thoughts together and understands concepts like "elementary logic".
I think we might have just solved the world's energy problems for all time.
Indeed. And those who carefully read the bible, and aren't afraid to take parts of its contents as allegorical or illustrative have my total respect (although I still don't understand the construction of the logical blind-spot necessary for unconditional faith).
However, there are also those who take a knee-jerk, unconsidered literal reading of the bible, and believe things like the story of Genesis was factually accurate, or that the Earth really is only 4004 years old, often even cherry-picking their "facts" and ignoring contradictory parts of the same source.
They also tend to attempt to force their flawed interpretations on others, and are noted for repeatedly resorting to litigation to push their agenda into the classroom. It's these kind of believers that I was attempting to parody with my "4-corners" comment, since an uneducated literal interpretation could lead one to the conclusion I presented.
Indeed. Part of my objection was that this is an overly simplistic, unrepresentative presentation of the theme, ignoring contrary evidence and using cherry-picked examples to support the author's point (basically, a lack of intellectual integrity that seems almost systematic in Deconstructionism).
FWIW, I think the "Light" technique is to guide the Force to get the results you want - using your calm, disciplined and ordered mind to "gently persuade" it, if you will. The "Dark" side seek to control and dominate it with the aim of increasing their power, and use strong emotion and anger to allow them to do so.
So, Light is about a calm and ordered mind using guidance to achieve its aims, and Dark is about an uncontrolled and volatile mind using raw power to dominate and control the Force.
Elements of both achieving and relinquishing control in both techniques, just applied in different ways.
The problem is, the writer (following the deconstructionist method) explicitely defines the text they're considering at the beginning of the essay, and it's the six films. They specifically aren't deconstructing the "Star Wars universe" or even the "Star Wars canon", but are taking the six Star Wars films as the "text" to be deconstructed, so any arguments outside of the six films are (to the deconstructionist mindset) irrelevent.
Now, I agree with a lot of what you're saying - what you write is very interesting, and certainly broadens the debate on the topic (albeit, as far as I can see, without deciding it one way or the other). However, according to the normal rules and guidelines of deconstructionism, it's irrelevent to the article since it's not part of the "text".
FWIW, I don't think it's right in situations like this to narrowly define what you're considering, and ignore any related material that often speaks volumes about the author's intent (supposedly what deconstructionism is all about determining). Nevertheless, these seem to be the rules of the game, and that's just one of the problems I have with deconstructionism...
The trouble is, I've met (and read) entirely too many lit-critters who are so enamoured with their favourite readings of their favourite texts, and too often present them as (capital-T) Truth. There also seems to be a lack of intellectual rigour - I've watched people myself uncritically presenting Freud as the current "best model" of psychology, or Marx as an unquestionable authority on politics.
I have no problem with viewing deconstructionism as a mind-expanding game (indeed, that's what we used to do), just don't take it so seriously. The problem I have is with presenting it as any kind of important, worthwhile "research", or allowing people to base entire academic careers on what (to an engineer such as myself) amounts to a game on par with a complicated crossword clue[1].
As the article I linked-to indicates, it should be the preserve of the odd (easy) degree thesis, a fun afternoon's debate or a quick mind-bender over your morning coffee. It shouldn't be seen as as important as physics, or maths, or even art or english literature.
At its worst, deconstructionism is nothing but an attempt to psychoanalyse the author by someone without any training in psychology or psychoanalysis, and without even the comparative rigour (yes, even that little) of either field.
That's my problem with it;-)
Footnotes:
[1] Even worse, one which there is no correct answer to, but rather you choose a clue, make up an answer to it and then defend your answer as best you can.
Indeed. It's also abundantly clear from a careful reading of your bible that it's impossible for the moon to orbit the earth in the way promoted by godless "scientists".
Several passages on the bible refer to Jesus standing at a point and being able to see all four corners of the earth. Since it's impossible to stand in any position that allows you to see the entire surface area of a sphere, the earth cannot be spherical, and the "moon" cannot orbit it in the way "science" claims.
Instead, the "moon" clearly moves over our (flat) earth in a complicated pattern dictated by God, which merely makes it look exactly as if it's a spherical body orbiting another spherical body on which we stand. Looks very like, in fact. Very very like.
Regardless, it's proven in the bible that a spherical earth is impossible, and the astonishing superabundance of "evidence" given to us by "science" is clearly only there to test our faith, as we all know the moon is merely shifted by the hand of God exactly to replicate the apparent relative movements of two spheres in orbit around each other.
We call this scientific theory "Intelligent Moving" to differentiate it from the mere theory of "Physics", and it will be taught in your secondary schools in the next academic year - watch your curriculum.
In the mean-time we'll be starting a court battle to ban globes from the classroom, and have "Warning: Only A Theory" stickers slapped on Stephen Hawking, as well as Einstein and Newton's tombs.
Funny thing, but part of the problem of deconstructionism is that it's almost impossible to distinguish between incidences of it that exhibit "extreme insight" and those that are merely "blithely reading what you want into it regardless of the author's intentions"... or just "furiously intellectually masturbating".
I can (hell, we used to do it for fun with our English Literature undergrad friends) construct deconstructionist arguments that shows that half the kids shows on TV as anarcho-capitalist propaganda pieces, or tracts of leftie-pinko-liberal-communist ideology... often in the same program, and often using the same quotes and events.
It's also very, very (really, I can't stress this enough) important to remember that
Postmodern != Good
Postmodern != Entertaining
Postmodern != Coherent
Just because something's "postmodern", it doesn't mean it's "worthy", interesting or any good at all. However, many lit-crit writers seem to make this mysterious assumption.
This essay also uses a common postmodern lit-crit trick of setting up flawed axioms[1], frantically hand-waving to make sure nobody notices the basic problem, then (gasp!) proceeding to show how your flawed, biased axioms inevitably lead to your conclusion.
Finally, when assessing any kind of field as logically flimsy and frequently intellectually self-pollenating as lit-crit, it's important to remember the differences between fields like it and the hard sciences and engineering:
In science, you get points for being Right - producing theories that stand the test of time, and map 1:1 to reality. In Lit-Crit, you get points for being Clever - your position doesn't have to have any kind of basis in reality at all, as long as it's well-argued and persuasive. In fact, there's some evidence that interpretations that do actually map to reality are looked down on, since arguing in favour of those doesn't require much Cleverness.
Oh yes, and you should really read "How to Deconstruct Almost anything". I once gave it to a English Lit undergrad girlfriend, and while she didn't like the implications one bit, she really couldn't fault a single argument.
Footnotes:
[1] Examples of flawed (or at least questionable) axioms that underpin the entire article:
The force makes everything in the universe happen - Less some waffle about destiny or "prophesy", there's no evidence that I can remember that the Force makes everything happen according to some predefined plan. This would completely negate free will, which undermines Anakin's entire fall from grace.
The light side of the force is all about feeling and passivity, the dark side is all about conscious control and order - Right, which is why (for example) Obi-Wan is always telling Anakin to reign in his emotions and be more calm and ordered, and the emperor is trying to get him to lose control and give in to his anger. Both individuals argue for both things, just in different contexts.
"we are led to understand in Sith that it was Palpatine himself who set the entire plot in motion by manipulating the Force toward Anakin's virgin birth." - Now, maybe I haven't watched it enough, but I don't recall this implication anywhere, and it's a pretty important one, which changes the whole epic story. Did I miss something here?
I'm not coming down on either side of this argument (I dislike MS's attitude, but use their OS and apps), but:
"If they use an idea that is already present in a *nix distro you say they aren't innovative, if they don't have that feature in their product you complain about their product lacking that feature... How are they supposed to win with you people?"
By offering an operating system that includes all the useful features that many other operating systems have offered for 10-30 years, and shutting up about "innovation" until they actually do truly innovate the majority of things they spend millions trumpeting as "innovation"...
To be sure, MS is getting a hell of a bashing in this article's replies. However, when you look at the features MS has announced for Vista (virtual folders: Mac OSX, symbolic links: Unix since the year dot, Avalon/XAML: Mozilla/XUL, etc) an awful lot of them aren't... well... innovative[1] at all.
[1] From Google: "advanced: ahead of the times"... or "being or producing something like nothing done or experienced or created before".
That's a fair point, but I personally believe the majority of the fault lies with the person/people who pushed and manipulated to get the country into a war (a sin of commission), not so much the ones who should have formed a "check and balance" but who were lied to and so didn't (a mistake, or at worst a sin of omission).
Yeah, Congress needs to shoulder some of the blame, but only if it was well-known at the time that that the terrorism and WMD claims were completely fallacious. And if that was the case why wouldn't they have impeached Bush straight off for lying to them?
I think I understand you position a lot better now. Basically, the only thing we disagree on is how "safe" we'd have to feel before handing over your gun.
I'd (admittedly, coming from the polite-and-effete fisticuffs-on-the-front-lawn UK) hand it over straigt away, since I think someone has to make the first move and I don't regularly get threatened with firearms.
You (coming from the paranoid survivalist mexican-standoff USA) want a vivid assurance that everyone's going to be disarmed at the same time, or (as the old saw goes) they can pry it from your cold, dead fingers, right?;-)
"Let's go to Phil's house, he's the Unarmed Guy!" Heh heh... Man, that could be a Simpson's episode, now that I think about it. That'd be pretty funny."
Oh man, that's priceless. Maybe more "Family Guy" or "American Dad", but brilliant. He'd have to be the "wimpy" guy in the neighbourhood (like, uh, Mort(?) in FG) that everyone constantly reassures and/or picks on.
"The point I was trying to make was that given the situation, as it currently exists, it's better to have a gun than not to *in many situations commonly experienced in America*."
I understand that's the common perception (and your last post has gone a long way to weakening my support for my previous position), but I still find it hard to believe that it's really necessary to a long and happy life that every citizen has a gun, and is prepared to defend themselves with deadly force at any moment - it seems totally contrary to any concept of a "civilised society" I've ever heard. <:-)
"And I'm surprised you thought those two blurbs towards the end were potentially offensive. Do you think Canadians will be offended by the implication that they're "running around NOT shooting each other"? You didn't think that was at least cute, if not funny? Come ON, I worked hard on that one.;)"
Sorry - I phrased that exceptionally badly. I meant my "heroin addict" analogy of gun ownership might be offensive to you (and god knows why I typed "two scenarios" - brainfart I guess). And yes, it was funny;-)
I did find your assertion that most Americans don't live near potentially dangerous wildlife amusing. What on earth do you base this on? When you vacation here, you're in a major city. You're nowhere NEAR "most Americans". Please don't assume (remember what Benny Hill said).
Granted, I was basing this on a vaguely remembered statistic I read a long time ago. However, the stats for 2001 would seem to back me up - 77.4% of the population live in an urban area.
Now, I'm open to the idea that life-threatening wildlife (bears, wolves, pissed-off deer, whatever) might occasionally invade rural towns (does this count as "urban"?), but surely that's a good time to barricade yourself in your house and call the local authorities, not to get tooled up, emerge from your house and go take it on one-on-one?;-p
Again, I'm not disputing guns are "useful" in many situations, merely whether they're "necessary" or "essential". Or even "worth it, given the down-sides".
Fair play on the number of crimes prevented by return fire - I may well be underestimating the number, but from here it looks like you could be over-estimating it, too. Are there any statistics you can find that would settle it once and for all?
Also fair enough on the serial killer thing. From what I'd read, serial killers tended to shy away from firearms, due to a combination of greater traceability and their psychological type (killing with a gun is a lot more impersonal than other ways). However, I agree you're certainly right in that they don't never use guns.
"And although they might not qualify as "serial killers" there are a lot more murderers around than you would guess... "Culture of violence" and all that... in the U.K. you get into a lot more fights, but you don't actually KILL each other. Here in the U.S. there are lots and lots of murders, but relatively fewer fistfights. Odd as that may seem. And people kill each other here for remarkably stupid reasons. You hear stories about stuff like one redneck wasting another because he wouldn't give him an easement onto his property, things like that. STUPID things. Life is weird here."
TBH, that's kind of my argument in a nutshell. In the UK if you get into a fight the worst someone can do is pull a knife or twat you with a metal bar. Both are nasty, but neither are habitually left lying around the place, either - you have to make a specific and premeditated decision to hurt someone to do it. Most fights are settled as knock-down fistfights, with comparatively little damage to each person, and if someone does go away and come back with a metal bar or three big mates, you've at least got the option of running like hell.
In the US, the ready availability of guns means that when y
Slashdot Mirror
Well, you could get another student to stand for you (who was, of course, untrained), or you could have a Student Union representative (who was, of course, either barely- or un-trained).
You couldn't involve anyone from outside the university, and professors/staff members either couldn't or wouldn't help because of the politics that could ensue.
"Sigh... Intelligent Design IS EVOLUTION."
Actually, Intelligent Design is the speculation that an intelligence "designed" life.
Evolution is the idea that life adapts and eventually gives rise to entirely new species.
They are not the same at all.
"Pure" ID (literally, "a designer was behind it somehow") allows for evolution as the method he used. Unfortunately, 99.9% of people who self-identify as IDists or Creationists believe this means "built fully-formed humans out of clay", or similar.
"Genetic drift (aka microevolution) isn't contested even by fundamentalist Christians."
Actually, it's still contested by a huge number of fundamentalist christians - I've spoken to examples of them myself. True, the slightly cleverer ones admit microevolution by deny macroevolution, but by doing so you're right on their bleeding edge of intellectual advancement.
"I'm talking about the creation of a new species."
Please point to the precise dividing line between micro- and macroevolution.
Eh? There isn't one? Well, if you're prepared to accept the evolution of small changes... and repeated small changes can lead to large changes... and all that's needed anyway for speciation is a few genes changed here and there to prevent interbreeding... oh, I guess macroevolution is basically an inevitable consequence of microevolution.
All evolution is micro, FFS. "Macroevolution" is just microevolution that's gone on for a long time.
"If one can observe it in the wild, then ID is proven false. It's not a complicated concept."
We've spotted the footprints of evolution many, many, many times, and each time the ID/creationist crowd hand-wave, bullshit or just ignore the evidence.
Exactly what evidence do you require, at this point? A continuous twenty-year film of two particular families of fruit flies in the wild who diverge and then unsuccessfully attempt to interbreed?
This is clearly impossible, but even if we managed it but for a single jump-cut in the film, you can be sure the ID/creationist crowd would be jumping all over it as "reasonable doubt" the scientists hadn't swapped one set of flies for another similar-looking on at the last minute.
Those who skeptically follow science try to see what's there. Those who follow dogma try very hard to ignore anything that doesn't fit with their preconceived (and utterly baseless) prejudices.
"Did your bio teacher never explain the difference between micro and macro evolution?"
Please do so. Remember to point to the exact point where micro becomes macro. And please explain why the micro-jump from the preceeding state is not possible, whereas all the preceeding micro-jumps up to this point clearly are.
"No. Put up video cameras over a large area. Observe a new species evolve. ID is proven false, there you go. For those sticklers that would claim the hand of God was behind it, demonstrate it mathematically. There you go, it's falsifiable."
Haaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaa!
ROTFL!
No, seriously, that's a good one.
Given speciation can take hundreds or thousands of years (at least), and typically occurrs randomly and unpredictably, how exactly is this practically falsifiable?
The unspoken assumption is that scientific theories are falsifiable by us. If you specify "falsifiable irrespective of the resources or abilities required" then everything's falsifiable - you just have to be God, and go and look yourself. Sure, it's a stupid example, but so was yours.
"It's not even unfeasible. Given the rate of speciation is currently about one per 100,000 years, and given that we have more than 100,000 species on the planet, by simple probability a new species should be arising each year. Most are probably uninteresting or unnoticed, but with enough survelliance it shouldn't be hard to capture on tape. Show the random mutation that caused it, and
You posit life is impossible without a creator.
You have a single occurrance of "life" as an example.
Ergo ID is baseless speculation, no more valid or scientific that the GPP you dismiss.
Your point?
"Observable phenomena? You mean vestigal limbs, etc.? Sure. But you forget that ID claims that evolution exists (which is something that people keep forgetting about -- it's not fundamentalist creationism)."
Exactly. ID doesn't have to be an alternative to evolution, since it could merely be a philosophical (or religious - not scientific) position that the/a Creator uses evolution to accomplish "creation".
Welcome to the rest of the world's position. Could you please go and tell the fuckwit Creationists infesting your mid-west?
And tell them this version of "Intelligent Design" isn't new, isn't science, and doesn't require capitalisation while you're at it.
"The point where ID better koshers with observations... is how bloody well designed something the human body is. There's an unaccountably low amount of vestigal processes, especially in processes that would have no competitive advantage."
Male nipples.
The appendix (which, bonus points, occasionally becomes infected and kills us, for no gain).
Our terribly designed crossover between our oesphagus and trachea, that means we can't breathe while swallowing, and that food can block our airways and choke us.
The human body is riddled with bad design decisions and vestigal remains, that confer no benefits whatsoever.
"In the transport of certain chemicals across the intestinal membrane, the body goes through a multiple step process in packaging a protein, then undoes it all, then does it exactly again. When I saw this pathway I was like, "Ah -- a vestigal chemical pathway. Neat."... As it turns out, the girl asked, and as it turns out that that intermediate step was critical for transport."
So.... what? Because you can't spot a good vestigal holdover, that makes the whole of evolution wrong? Dude, your argument indicates a gross (and I mean gross) lack of understanding of science and logic.
Unfortunately, it's suspiciously close to the ID/Creationist "I don't know how it happened, so it must be miraculous" argument from ignorance.
Either way, if you're happy to relegate ID to an unproveable philosophical possibility, or a baseless-faith religious position, that's fine (and, in fact, I'd agree with you - we can't ever prove 100% that we weren't created by soemone or something). However, ID is presented by its adherents as a scientific theory, and in direct conflict with evolution. This is just plain wrong.
"When Newton posited gravity, some people claimed that he wasn't doing science because he invoked medieval-sounding "occult powers", and hence wasn't giving properly naturalistic explanations."
And we know the scientists who derided him for it were correct.
So what you're saying is... religious elements in science are unnecessary, non-operative and get in the way of the right answers?
(And incidentally, can you provide a source for Newton's "occult powers" element of his theory of gravity? I know he was into alchemy, but is this just unsubstantiated hearsay?)
When did you last sign a contract to go to college?
They notified you your application was successful, you gave them the tuition fees and they allowed you to attend. No "contract" was signed, and you certainly weren't guaranteed X years of education irrespective of how many of their rules you broke.
IANAL either, but it's pretty simple.
I grew up exposed to both evolution and genesis, and even as a very, very young child could see that details of the Genesis story were contradicted even in the Bible in different places... and was entirely unsupported by evidence... and people even used to get tetchy when I asked perfectly innocent questions about details of their faith ("If Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel, who did Cain and Abel marry to have kids?"). I concluded (as the majority of intelligent people the world over have also done) that Genesis was intended as a metaphor - a helpful story to teach you important lessons, not the literal truth.[1]
In contrast, evolution (while, obviously "only" a theory) was supported by the overwhelming preponderance of evidence. It was also the simplest answer to the problem (don't tell me that "successive gradual beneficial developments being passed to offspring" is a more convoluted proposition than "positing the existence of an omnipotent, self-created being who can violate known laws of physics at will, create an entire universe and yet who still has a parochial interest in one tiny, unremarkable corner of it... and often displays suspiciously human motives and emotions").
And please don't trot out the old saw about "giving the students more choice" - many of the students are already indoctrinated from birth with ID/Creationist/fundamentalist propaganda, and have Comparative Religion classes, so they have plenty of exposure to both sides of the "debate".
ID is not science. By any meaningful definition of the term, it does not belong in Science classes. This is not about giving students a choice between two scientific theories, but about weakening the whole of science in favour of faith.
Frankly, and finally, my feelings on Creationists' beliefs in a literal interpretation of Genesis were pretty much summed up when I first read the Illuminatus trilogy, by Robert Anton Wilson and Robert Shea:
'Nuff said.
[1] Important point, related to this. This whole furore about evolution isn't an example of "Science" crushing "Faith". It's about science disproving one narrow, frankly daft interpretation of one religion, that (primarily because of said daftness) is hugely in the minority in the world.
Many people with more enlightened faiths happily balance science and faith together, and see no conflict there. Most of the rest of the religious world (even the Pope!) watches the actions of a few US fundamentalists with amused bemusement.
The creationists and ID proponents in Kansas are no different to those who screamed and ranted at Copernicus, for exiling us from a special place in the universe. Or Aristotle, for proving the earth was round. Science moves inexorably onward. Sometimes it disproves or counter-indicates even ideas we hold very dear to our hearts. These ideas are wrong. Get over it.
Funnily enough, I was almost expelled for my university for "insulting a university member" (actually, documenting the mistakes of a lecturer who was fundamentally unqualified to teach the subject, that we'd already complained about and had it swept under the carpet, for other students who didn't know any better).
The head of department went massively overboard on the disciplinary proceeding and tried to have me expelled on a personal grude (after I complained she covered up our initial complaint about the lecturer concerned). Eventually it was tacitly admitted she was pursuing a vendetta, and I was let go with a severe punishment (to set a precedent), but a suspended one (so as long as I did nothing else wrong in my time left there - about 6 months, by that point - I basically just got away with a token slap on the wrist).
I learned some hard lessons as a result of the experience, and the crux of the matter is this:
1) Universities/colleges are private clubs.
2) Private organisations make their own rules, and can freely disregard rules we otherwise take for granted in everyday life, such as "freedom of speech".
3) Most universities don't make a complete copy of their disciplinary rules and regulations easily available before you enroll there... and even if they do, they're pretty much all the same so there's not much to choose between them.
4) If they perceive you're fucking with one member of their club (a "important" one anyway, like a member of the teaching staff, tenured professor, administrative employee, whatever), they will close ranks and will all fuck you. You have attacked their "club", so the whole club comes gunning for you.
5) Because they're a private club, this is all entirely legal, and above-board.
Sample interesting details of a typical UK university disciplinary process:
i) While you're accused of (or being investigated for) an academic or disciplinary offence, you have no right to a lawyer. Contacting any form of legal representation is itself a further disciplinary offence.
ii) You do have the right to be represented by a member of the Students' Union. These people are generally untrained volunteers, and may not even know the disciplinary process prior to taking on your case. You may also not be informed of your right to representation at any stage.
iii) Merely being accused (not even necessarily found guilty) of an academic or disciplinary offence and having to take time to defend yourself, even under threat of expulsion, is not considered grounds for an extention on a single coursework deadline.
iv) Offences such as "abusing, harassing, threatening or insulting a member of the university" mean exactly that. If you state "X is bald" and he doesn't like the fact he's bald, you can be hauled up in front of the university authorities, regardless of the fact he is bald. Unlike libel/slander, truth is no defence.
v) If you publically assert a lecturer is fundamentally unqualified to do his job, you commit an academic offence. Providing documentary evidence that you're right makes it a worse offence - it doesn't mitigate it.
iv) By submitting coursework to the university you permanently sign over all IP rights to the university. Some universities claim rights to all IP you produce while a member, even in your spare time and on your own equipment.
So yeah. Schools, universities and colleges aren't fair, aren't democratic, and aren't even (arguably) ethical. That said, if you shut up and keep your head down you're fine, and it's a great opportunity to spend 3-5 years getting wasted and having fun.
Just don't insult a faculty member while you do it, and never, ever stand up for a point of principle.
I thought every Slashdotter would know this wasn't the correct etymology of the word "bug" - that's why it was "the first occurrance of an actual bug" being found. IIRC the word "bug" (in the sense of a problem or glitch) has been in use since Newton's time...
Jeuss Christ. I'd somehow never heard of this bug, and I've been developing for Windows machines for years.
How on earth was such a basic and low-level bug ignored for so long? It doesn't seem like rocket-science to fix it with a small bounds-checking if statement!
From this and your follow-up posts, you appear to have a problem with evolution because it doesn't make nice, mathematically precise predictions - because there's no precise anal-retentive algebra of evolution.
Your criticism is therefore not with "evolution", but "biology".
But you're right - let's ignore everything that doesn't fit into a nice mathematical derivation, completely ignore the difference between "science" and "maths" and just argue that anything that can't be reduced to maths is worthless and stupid, right?
Uh oh! I've got news for you - nothing in science is like this. Sure, physics kind of looks math-y from a way away, but you can only test those hypotheses and theories as far as the precision of your sensing apparatus. Only no sensing apparatus is infinitely accurate, so you don't ever know any mathematical equation maps perfectly onto real life.
And while we might love to lie naked in bed and rub our bodies all over with maths equations, they aren't any use at all unless they map somehow to the real world. Sure, 1 + 1 = 2, but unless someone had somehow applied that to the nasty, dirty, imprecise real world you'd still be living on the savannahs of africa, eating your meat raw and occasionally getting eaten by lions.
Chemistry? Sure, you can construct elegant chemical reaction equations, but messing about with all those test-tubes and chemicals is so... well... messy. And when you get right down to it, "chemistry" is just a convenient molecule-level oversimplification of physics, with all the drawbacks we already know physics has.
And biology! Evil, I tell you! Messy, oozy, damp, slithery life-forms! The most complex collections of organised matter in the known universe, where macroscopic results depend entirely on molecular-level (hell, some theories say quantum-level) results. But, but, but, y'know, just because we don't have a supercomputer powerful enough to perfectly simulate an entire ecosystem of individuals, and all the billions upon billions of variables that entails... that clearly means biology's bunk too, right?
Maths is simple and abstract, deals with perfect inputs and gives perfect, absolute answers and predictions.
Physics deals with the most simple and "perfect" inputs in the real world, so (big surprise) it can in many cases make pretty damned accurate predictions.
Chemistry deals with much more complex states, and the sensory apparatus isn't nearly as precise (you can count asteroids and measure their path - ever tried doing that with a single water molecule?). Thus, chemistry of necessity makes vaguer predictions and is prone to more experimental error. Same process, just less-precise observations are available.
Biology is the study of the most complex collections of matter in the known universe, subject to the state of billions of variables at any given instant. As such it has to make use of a great deal of simplifications and generalities. This doesn't invalidate the work any more than asserting Newtonian Physics wasn't "science" because Relativity made better predictions.
Evolution studies when these blobs of impossibly complicated matter also interact with each other, and different types, living in an even more complex metaorganism known as an "ecosystem". Of necessity, even wider generalisations are used, and predictions are of necessity more qualitative and less quantitative. Don't be mislead - evolutions can be used to make quantitative predictions (another poster, above, volunteered a whole list), but it's hard to given the enormous number of variables to watch.
So, basically, if you want to dispute evolution for not being "mathematical" enough for you, you should also start disputing the rest of biology, chemistry and physics at least.
What was your point again?
Oh yes, and "people come so willingly to evolution's defense" because, despite it's limitations (limited solely
Actually, I believe you'll find it was part of the trade embargo. Part of the details of the embargo were that countries and companies were banned from exporting "high technology" to Iraq, partly because they could (theoretically) be used to construct weapons or (military) infrastructure.
Like, y'know, the UK "Iraqi Supergun" scandal in the 90's, when companies in the UK were prohibited from exporting metal pipes because it was suspected they were to be used in constructing a supergun-style cannon.
What was your point again?
More likely legal requirements, or restrictions on shipping technology (the first prize) to other countries.
Remember the furore about banning the sale of PS2s to Iraq because the chips could be used in missile guidance systems?
I like that - a clean, renewable energy-source that draws its motive power from the collective outrage of a generation of scientists.
And, as we know the collective stupidity of the Creationist/ID crowd is bottomless, presumably so is the amount of outrage they can generate in anyone who can string two thoughts together and understands concepts like "elementary logic".
I think we might have just solved the world's energy problems for all time.
Indeed. And those who carefully read the bible, and aren't afraid to take parts of its contents as allegorical or illustrative have my total respect (although I still don't understand the construction of the logical blind-spot necessary for unconditional faith).
;-p
However, there are also those who take a knee-jerk, unconsidered literal reading of the bible, and believe things like the story of Genesis was factually accurate, or that the Earth really is only 4004 years old, often even cherry-picking their "facts" and ignoring contradictory parts of the same source.
They also tend to attempt to force their flawed interpretations on others, and are noted for repeatedly resorting to litigation to push their agenda into the classroom. It's these kind of believers that I was attempting to parody with my "4-corners" comment, since an uneducated literal interpretation could lead one to the conclusion I presented.
That, and it was just a silly joke
Indeed. Part of my objection was that this is an overly simplistic, unrepresentative presentation of the theme, ignoring contrary evidence and using cherry-picked examples to support the author's point (basically, a lack of intellectual integrity that seems almost systematic in Deconstructionism).
FWIW, I think the "Light" technique is to guide the Force to get the results you want - using your calm, disciplined and ordered mind to "gently persuade" it, if you will. The "Dark" side seek to control and dominate it with the aim of increasing their power, and use strong emotion and anger to allow them to do so.
So, Light is about a calm and ordered mind using guidance to achieve its aims, and Dark is about an uncontrolled and volatile mind using raw power to dominate and control the Force.
Elements of both achieving and relinquishing control in both techniques, just applied in different ways.
The problem is, the writer (following the deconstructionist method) explicitely defines the text they're considering at the beginning of the essay, and it's the six films. They specifically aren't deconstructing the "Star Wars universe" or even the "Star Wars canon", but are taking the six Star Wars films as the "text" to be deconstructed, so any arguments outside of the six films are (to the deconstructionist mindset) irrelevent.
Now, I agree with a lot of what you're saying - what you write is very interesting, and certainly broadens the debate on the topic (albeit, as far as I can see, without deciding it one way or the other). However, according to the normal rules and guidelines of deconstructionism, it's irrelevent to the article since it's not part of the "text".
FWIW, I don't think it's right in situations like this to narrowly define what you're considering, and ignore any related material that often speaks volumes about the author's intent (supposedly what deconstructionism is all about determining). Nevertheless, these seem to be the rules of the game, and that's just one of the problems I have with deconstructionism...
I agree with your assessment wholeheartedly.
;-)
The trouble is, I've met (and read) entirely too many lit-critters who are so enamoured with their favourite readings of their favourite texts, and too often present them as (capital-T) Truth. There also seems to be a lack of intellectual rigour - I've watched people myself uncritically presenting Freud as the current "best model" of psychology, or Marx as an unquestionable authority on politics.
I have no problem with viewing deconstructionism as a mind-expanding game (indeed, that's what we used to do), just don't take it so seriously. The problem I have is with presenting it as any kind of important, worthwhile "research", or allowing people to base entire academic careers on what (to an engineer such as myself) amounts to a game on par with a complicated crossword clue[1].
As the article I linked-to indicates, it should be the preserve of the odd (easy) degree thesis, a fun afternoon's debate or a quick mind-bender over your morning coffee. It shouldn't be seen as as important as physics, or maths, or even art or english literature.
At its worst, deconstructionism is nothing but an attempt to psychoanalyse the author by someone without any training in psychology or psychoanalysis, and without even the comparative rigour (yes, even that little) of either field.
That's my problem with it
Footnotes:
[1] Even worse, one which there is no correct answer to, but rather you choose a clue, make up an answer to it and then defend your answer as best you can.
Indeed. It's also abundantly clear from a careful reading of your bible that it's impossible for the moon to orbit the earth in the way promoted by godless "scientists".
Several passages on the bible refer to Jesus standing at a point and being able to see all four corners of the earth. Since it's impossible to stand in any position that allows you to see the entire surface area of a sphere, the earth cannot be spherical, and the "moon" cannot orbit it in the way "science" claims.
Instead, the "moon" clearly moves over our (flat) earth in a complicated pattern dictated by God, which merely makes it look exactly as if it's a spherical body orbiting another spherical body on which we stand. Looks very like, in fact. Very very like.
Regardless, it's proven in the bible that a spherical earth is impossible, and the astonishing superabundance of "evidence" given to us by "science" is clearly only there to test our faith, as we all know the moon is merely shifted by the hand of God exactly to replicate the apparent relative movements of two spheres in orbit around each other.
We call this scientific theory "Intelligent Moving" to differentiate it from the mere theory of "Physics", and it will be taught in your secondary schools in the next academic year - watch your curriculum.
In the mean-time we'll be starting a court battle to ban globes from the classroom, and have "Warning: Only A Theory" stickers slapped on Stephen Hawking, as well as Einstein and Newton's tombs.
That little "Phhhhhhhhhwfffft" sound you just heard? It was the joke flying about three miles over your head.
;-)
HTH.
Funny thing, but part of the problem of deconstructionism is that it's almost impossible to distinguish between incidences of it that exhibit "extreme insight" and those that are merely "blithely reading what you want into it regardless of the author's intentions"... or just "furiously intellectually masturbating".
I can (hell, we used to do it for fun with our English Literature undergrad friends) construct deconstructionist arguments that shows that half the kids shows on TV as anarcho-capitalist propaganda pieces, or tracts of leftie-pinko-liberal-communist ideology... often in the same program, and often using the same quotes and events.
It's also very, very (really, I can't stress this enough) important to remember that
Postmodern != Good
Postmodern != Entertaining
Postmodern != Coherent
Just because something's "postmodern", it doesn't mean it's "worthy", interesting or any good at all. However, many lit-crit writers seem to make this mysterious assumption.
This essay also uses a common postmodern lit-crit trick of setting up flawed axioms[1], frantically hand-waving to make sure nobody notices the basic problem, then (gasp!) proceeding to show how your flawed, biased axioms inevitably lead to your conclusion.
Finally, when assessing any kind of field as logically flimsy and frequently intellectually self-pollenating as lit-crit, it's important to remember the differences between fields like it and the hard sciences and engineering:
In science, you get points for being Right - producing theories that stand the test of time, and map 1:1 to reality. In Lit-Crit, you get points for being Clever - your position doesn't have to have any kind of basis in reality at all, as long as it's well-argued and persuasive. In fact, there's some evidence that interpretations that do actually map to reality are looked down on, since arguing in favour of those doesn't require much Cleverness.
Oh yes, and you should really read "How to Deconstruct Almost anything". I once gave it to a English Lit undergrad girlfriend, and while she didn't like the implications one bit, she really couldn't fault a single argument.
Footnotes:
[1] Examples of flawed (or at least questionable) axioms that underpin the entire article:
The force makes everything in the universe happen - Less some waffle about destiny or "prophesy", there's no evidence that I can remember that the Force makes everything happen according to some predefined plan. This would completely negate free will, which undermines Anakin's entire fall from grace.
The light side of the force is all about feeling and passivity, the dark side is all about conscious control and order - Right, which is why (for example) Obi-Wan is always telling Anakin to reign in his emotions and be more calm and ordered, and the
emperor is trying to get him to lose control and give in to his anger. Both individuals argue for both things, just in different contexts.
"we are led to understand in Sith that it was Palpatine himself who set the entire plot in motion by manipulating the Force toward Anakin's virgin birth." - Now, maybe I haven't watched it enough, but I don't recall this implication anywhere, and it's a pretty important one, which changes the whole epic story. Did I miss something here?
I'm not coming down on either side of this argument (I dislike MS's attitude, but use their OS and apps), but:
"If they use an idea that is already present in a *nix distro you say they aren't innovative, if they don't have that feature in their product you complain about their product lacking that feature... How are they supposed to win with you people?"
By offering an operating system that includes all the useful features that many other operating systems have offered for 10-30 years, and shutting up about "innovation" until they actually do truly innovate the majority of things they spend millions trumpeting as "innovation"...
To be sure, MS is getting a hell of a bashing in this article's replies. However, when you look at the features MS has announced for Vista (virtual folders: Mac OSX, symbolic links: Unix since the year dot, Avalon/XAML: Mozilla/XUL, etc) an awful lot of them aren't... well... innovative[1] at all.
[1] From Google: "advanced: ahead of the times"... or "being or producing something like nothing done or experienced or created before".
That's a fair point, but I personally believe the majority of the fault lies with the person/people who pushed and manipulated to get the country into a war (a sin of commission), not so much the ones who should have formed a "check and balance" but who were lied to and so didn't (a mistake, or at worst a sin of omission).
Yeah, Congress needs to shoulder some of the blame, but only if it was well-known at the time that that the terrorism and WMD claims were completely fallacious. And if that was the case why wouldn't they have impeached Bush straight off for lying to them?
I think I understand you position a lot better now. Basically, the only thing we disagree on is how "safe" we'd have to feel before handing over your gun.
;-)
;-)
I'd (admittedly, coming from the polite-and-effete fisticuffs-on-the-front-lawn UK) hand it over straigt away, since I think someone has to make the first move and I don't regularly get threatened with firearms.
You (coming from the paranoid survivalist mexican-standoff USA) want a vivid assurance that everyone's going to be disarmed at the same time, or (as the old saw goes) they can pry it from your cold, dead fingers, right?
"Let's go to Phil's house, he's the Unarmed Guy!" Heh heh... Man, that could be a Simpson's episode, now that I think about it. That'd be pretty funny."
Oh man, that's priceless. Maybe more "Family Guy" or "American Dad", but brilliant. He'd have to be the "wimpy" guy in the neighbourhood (like, uh, Mort(?) in FG) that everyone constantly reassures and/or picks on.
Either way, it's a brilliant mental image
"The point I was trying to make was that given the situation, as it currently exists, it's better to have a gun than not to *in many situations commonly experienced in America*."
;)"
;-)
;-p
I understand that's the common perception (and your last post has gone a long way to weakening my support for my previous position), but I still find it hard to believe that it's really necessary to a long and happy life that every citizen has a gun, and is prepared to defend themselves with deadly force at any moment - it seems totally contrary to any concept of a "civilised society" I've ever heard. <:-)
"And I'm surprised you thought those two blurbs towards the end were potentially offensive. Do you think Canadians will be offended by the implication that they're "running around NOT shooting each other"? You didn't think that was at least cute, if not funny? Come ON, I worked hard on that one.
Sorry - I phrased that exceptionally badly. I meant my "heroin addict" analogy of gun ownership might be offensive to you (and god knows why I typed "two scenarios" - brainfart I guess). And yes, it was funny
I did find your assertion that most Americans don't live near potentially dangerous wildlife amusing. What on earth do you base this on? When you vacation here, you're in a major city. You're nowhere NEAR "most Americans". Please don't assume (remember what Benny Hill said).
Granted, I was basing this on a vaguely remembered statistic I read a long time ago. However, the stats for 2001 would seem to back me up - 77.4% of the population live in an urban area.
Now, I'm open to the idea that life-threatening wildlife (bears, wolves, pissed-off deer, whatever) might occasionally invade rural towns (does this count as "urban"?), but surely that's a good time to barricade yourself in your house and call the local authorities, not to get tooled up, emerge from your house and go take it on one-on-one?
Again, I'm not disputing guns are "useful" in many situations, merely whether they're "necessary" or "essential". Or even "worth it, given the down-sides".
Fair play on the number of crimes prevented by return fire - I may well be underestimating the number, but from here it looks like you could be over-estimating it, too. Are there any statistics you can find that would settle it once and for all?
Also fair enough on the serial killer thing. From what I'd read, serial killers tended to shy away from firearms, due to a combination of greater traceability and their psychological type (killing with a gun is a lot more impersonal than other ways). However, I agree you're certainly right in that they don't never use guns.
"And although they might not qualify as "serial killers" there are a lot more murderers around than you would guess... "Culture of violence" and all that... in the U.K. you get into a lot more fights, but you don't actually KILL each other. Here in the U.S. there are lots and lots of murders, but relatively fewer fistfights. Odd as that may seem. And people kill each other here for remarkably stupid reasons. You hear stories about stuff like one redneck wasting another because he wouldn't give him an easement onto his property, things like that. STUPID things. Life is weird here."
TBH, that's kind of my argument in a nutshell. In the UK if you get into a fight the worst someone can do is pull a knife or twat you with a metal bar. Both are nasty, but neither are habitually left lying around the place, either - you have to make a specific and premeditated decision to hurt someone to do it. Most fights are settled as knock-down fistfights, with comparatively little damage to each person, and if someone does go away and come back with a metal bar or three big mates, you've at least got the option of running like hell.
In the US, the ready availability of guns means that when y