I'm an atheist and I think the 2nd amendment of the constitution is pretty explicit in "shall not infringe"-ing. A typical gun owner could go through hundreds of rounds of ammunition during a day at the range. Aren't all you anti-gun nutters always complaining that any Joe-Blow can own a gun without the need for training and that more guns in the hands of the populace would be dangerous due to collateral damage of attempting to shoot (as a crazy made up example) a hostile shooter in a movie theater? Yet you want to put limits on how much ammo someone is allowed to have, which would severely curtail the ability to acquire that training in the first place? I suppose next you'll want to outlaw the sword I also keep next to my bed for protection the first time someone kills a few people in public with a bladed weapon, and then you'll want to outlaw my martial arts training if some MMA guy snaps and starts attacking a mall full of people. The world is not a safe place. The police are not going to be around to protect you when you need it the most. Hell, just yesterday here in LaPlace, LA, armed cops were ambushed and gunned down by some low-life thugs. Shit happens. It's always going to happen. If you want to live in a country of freedom, then you need to accept the responsibility that comes along with that. The only person you can rely on is yourself. You're welcome to make yourself a sitting duck for the people who ignore the law and acquire guns no matter what laws are out there. Don't try to force the same to the rest of the population, like the Cinemark Theater that didn't allow firearms.
I swear, who the fuck is letting all these half-wit people decide how to teach kids when they don't seem to have the first goddamn clue about what they're talking about? It's a wonder that any of us or our kids are able to graduate at all and survive in the real world in the first place.
No one would have a problem with that. The problem is that creationists think that somehow their worldview is legitimate science, and they are trying to push this into science classes. Not humanities classes. Not comparative religion classes. They don't want people to look at their creationism as religion. They want people to see that their religious beliefs are backed by science.
This all ties into the religious meme of "get them hooked while they're young and too dumb to understand". If these creationists were really concerned with science rather than child indoctrination, they would be trying to push their agenda upon science organizations and research groups. Obviously, they would be laughed out of the building if they tried that, so they take their batshit public and try to create a non-existent controversy. They cry "teach the controversy!" and appeal to "academic freedom", which appeals to the sense of freedom of Americans in general.
You don't have to respect someone for standing by their beliefs when their beliefs are fucking stupid. Do you respect the KKK for standing by their beliefs?
Maybe it's my extreme interest in the evolution vs. creation debate, but when they use terms like "challenge 'student's fixed beliefs' and undermine 'parental authority'", it smells to me exactly like this is all done up by creationists that are desperately trying to find yet an even more backdoor way to undermine biology teaching of evolution and doing everything they can not to expose their kids to ideas that don't support their home-taught Christian beliefs.
The exact language of the article in encouraging "critical thinking" (read: allowing questioning of evolutionary theory on religious grounds) and "students' fixed beliefs" (the same) leads me to believe that this entire discussion, in Rick Perry's state no less, is entirely religiously/Creationist motivated.
Ahhh but you forgot the creationist shifting goalpost strategy: by "different species", the Fucking Coward really meant "flies turning into dogs" or some other crap that evolutionary theory doesn't actually say will happen.
Somehow I'm pretty sure that those "most evolutionists" (which we normally call "biologists") have taken one or two classes in basic science somewhere in there...
Man, you're absolutely right: radiocarbon dating is severely flawed for dating objects older than 62,000 years. It's a good thing we have other radiometric dating methods such as
But you're probably right: it's all a conspiracy between these evil agenda-having scientists. I guess you would really know better than all those experts in their particular fields and their peer-reviewed papers, wouldn't you?
The only difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is that creationists can no longer deny that mutations occur ("micro-evolution") but they can still deny the crocoduck (their idea of what "macro-evolution" means).
Bravo. It boils down to whether you are in favor of personal responsibility or seeing who you can find to place blame. According to the Anon GP, he would rather us compassionately starve people to prevent the suffering of future hypothetical unborns and blame those who won't sit around and let that happen. How anyone can see that as the correct moral position is not something I can comprehend.
Right, because people that are creating these products are psychopaths who just get a kick out of killing us all, and these companies just love opening themselves up to class action lawsuits. Sure, if someone had the knowledge and tools to maliciously create some dangerous, poisonous plant, they could do it. Good luck getting it through product testing and onto the shelves though. Class action lawsuits usually look really bad to shareholders.
It does not make anybody "nuts". The information was corrected, and you can change your position after the fact.
I'm anti-GM, and this is apparently just hybridization gone wrong. If anything, this shows how careful we have to be and not proceed with such a cavalier attitude towards research and implementation.
It still makes you anti-science. If anything, this event shows the advantages of genetic modification: we aren't relying on the random shuffling of genes that can produce unintended side effects such as here. We can, instead, craft the genes to our need with surgical precision, inserting exactly the genes we need and only those.
Keeping this in mind, the short term gains demanded by capitalism gone wrong make it seem pretty damn unreasonable and dangerous to not test the crap out of something like this for an extended period of time.
GM organisms are highly tested, moreso than any other foods and to date have been shown to be just as safe if not more than conventionally bred foods. Despite claims by the anti-GM crowd that little or no testing occurs on these foods, see this list of over 400 different safety assessment studies. Nothing can ever be proven to be 100% safe 100% of the time, even conventional foods as perfectly evidenced by this incident.
For the record, my biggest gripe with GM is what I see as dangerously performed research (practically no containment of any kind)
Can you give examples of this "dangerously performed research" or is that just the way you imagine it happens? I'm genuinely curious what you know about the process that I don't.
...dangerous precedents in patent law (owning genetic sequences)
This reservation I'm actually still on the fence about. There are logical reasons for and against, but I haven't yet spent the brainpower thinking both sides through so I'm currently undecided here.
...using it as an excuse to saturate farms with pesticides (bad for environment, bad for food, and allows for rapid evolution of countermeasures in affected species)
You think farmers want to saturate their farms with pesticide? GM crops require fewer pesticides due to their natural resistance. You could argue that this natural resistance itself could have bad side effects on us, but again that's exactly the kinds of things that are extensively tested for. No one is going to want to put out and be liable for a product that causes more harm than good (well, cigarette companies notwithstanding).
Not to mention the logistical nightmare of recouping research and working out ownership of something that, by its very nature, can move and "infect" other crops. Monsanto deserves to burn in hell for all the grief they have given farmers simply because of the fucking wind acting as a ninja-like salesman.
I agree with you here, but Monsanto isn't the only GM crop company, and you shouldn't be anti-science and anti-GM because of the questionable business practices of one company any more than you should reject computer technology because Windows gets viruses.
The robot won't make the same or as many mistakes as a human by simple virtue of being a robot: likely, they will be able to consider many, many more hypotheticals and "do the math" much quicker than we. We make mistakes because we lack the processing capacity to consider more than just a few hypotheticals with imperfect information within a short time frame.
Now, we have a name for species that refused to try exponential growth in the past. That name is "extinct". Things are certainly not as simple as you assume they are.
How many of those example species had evolved intelligence enough to take themselves outside the constraints of evolution? Answer: one, us. Your comparison is not indicative of anything.
The odds that it's dangerous counterfits rather than simply the exact same thing US consumers would buy at home, but at better prices, are slim.
Are you willing to bet your life on that? If so, I've got some really great, safe.... uh, penis enlargement pills to sell you! Honest! I got them from Canada!
The FDA isn't deciding that at all. If you want to eat arsenic, that's your personal choice. But what they can determine is whether or not someone is allowed to sell you that arsenic, or to determine that if someone is claiming to sell you medication X, that you're actually getting medication X and not horse hormone pills.
Give people the information they need and most people will make rational decisions.
That's exactly what the FDA is doing: they're telling you "if you buy this medication from this person, you can be assured that you're getting what they say it is." Buying medication from someone who HASN'T been vetted this way, you have no way to know for sure if you're getting what they claim you are. Unless you have your own chemical analysis lab. Because everyone has one of those, right?
Re: that quote, the reason us atheists are so angry at the theists isn't simply because they don't share our views, but that they constantly and inevitably attempt to hoist their views into public policy and in doing so affect us. You can have all the crazy views you want. On Sunday. In church. If you're running for elected office, then it matters to me if you think you have an invisible friend that tells you what's good and bad. If you want to take your batshit superstition and air it out in public, then you should be prepared to get called on it. If you believe that theists don't wish ill-will towards us atheists, don't mock or insult us or seek to persecute us, then you might want to brush up on your history a bit.
There are quite a few notable scientist who take issue with the way evolution is popularly understood.
First of all, there's your problem. The way evolution is "popularly understood" is usually wrong. It's easy to take issue with a strawman, isn't it?
Second of all, name these "quite a few notable scientists" and what their fields of research are. I'd like to see how many of them are related to biology. It's quite amazing that you think your examples are original and haven't been figured out before.
[whines]Science is hard! It's really, really hard![/whines]
Slashdot Mirror
I'm an atheist and I think the 2nd amendment of the constitution is pretty explicit in "shall not infringe"-ing. A typical gun owner could go through hundreds of rounds of ammunition during a day at the range. Aren't all you anti-gun nutters always complaining that any Joe-Blow can own a gun without the need for training and that more guns in the hands of the populace would be dangerous due to collateral damage of attempting to shoot (as a crazy made up example) a hostile shooter in a movie theater? Yet you want to put limits on how much ammo someone is allowed to have, which would severely curtail the ability to acquire that training in the first place?
I suppose next you'll want to outlaw the sword I also keep next to my bed for protection the first time someone kills a few people in public with a bladed weapon, and then you'll want to outlaw my martial arts training if some MMA guy snaps and starts attacking a mall full of people.
The world is not a safe place. The police are not going to be around to protect you when you need it the most. Hell, just yesterday here in LaPlace, LA, armed cops were ambushed and gunned down by some low-life thugs. Shit happens. It's always going to happen. If you want to live in a country of freedom, then you need to accept the responsibility that comes along with that. The only person you can rely on is yourself. You're welcome to make yourself a sitting duck for the people who ignore the law and acquire guns no matter what laws are out there. Don't try to force the same to the rest of the population, like the Cinemark Theater that didn't allow firearms.
I swear, who the fuck is letting all these half-wit people decide how to teach kids when they don't seem to have the first goddamn clue about what they're talking about? It's a wonder that any of us or our kids are able to graduate at all and survive in the real world in the first place.
This all ties into the religious meme of "get them hooked while they're young and too dumb to understand". If these creationists were really concerned with science rather than child indoctrination, they would be trying to push their agenda upon science organizations and research groups. Obviously, they would be laughed out of the building if they tried that, so they take their batshit public and try to create a non-existent controversy. They cry "teach the controversy!" and appeal to "academic freedom", which appeals to the sense of freedom of Americans in general.
Different situation when all of those acts had the potential to directly affect the way those businesses conducted their business.
Chick-Fil-A donates lots of money to anti-gay groups that do lobby for no-gay marriage. That's definitely supporting a anti-gay activity in my book.
You don't have to respect someone for standing by their beliefs when their beliefs are fucking stupid. Do you respect the KKK for standing by their beliefs?
run my son over to the football field...
Do be careful how you issue these orders to your car.
Car: Reporting in, sir. Son successfully run over, awaiting further instructions from football field...
The exact language of the article in encouraging "critical thinking" (read: allowing questioning of evolutionary theory on religious grounds) and "students' fixed beliefs" (the same) leads me to believe that this entire discussion, in Rick Perry's state no less, is entirely religiously/Creationist motivated.
Somehow I'm pretty sure that those "most evolutionists" (which we normally call "biologists") have taken one or two classes in basic science somewhere in there...
But you're probably right: it's all a conspiracy between these evil agenda-having scientists. I guess you would really know better than all those experts in their particular fields and their peer-reviewed papers, wouldn't you?
The only difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is that creationists can no longer deny that mutations occur ("micro-evolution") but they can still deny the crocoduck (their idea of what "macro-evolution" means).
Bravo. It boils down to whether you are in favor of personal responsibility or seeing who you can find to place blame. According to the Anon GP, he would rather us compassionately starve people to prevent the suffering of future hypothetical unborns and blame those who won't sit around and let that happen. How anyone can see that as the correct moral position is not something I can comprehend.
Right, because people that are creating these products are psychopaths who just get a kick out of killing us all, and these companies just love opening themselves up to class action lawsuits. Sure, if someone had the knowledge and tools to maliciously create some dangerous, poisonous plant, they could do it. Good luck getting it through product testing and onto the shelves though. Class action lawsuits usually look really bad to shareholders.
It does not make anybody "nuts". The information was corrected, and you can change your position after the fact.
I'm anti-GM, and this is apparently just hybridization gone wrong. If anything, this shows how careful we have to be and not proceed with such a cavalier attitude towards research and implementation.
It still makes you anti-science. If anything, this event shows the advantages of genetic modification: we aren't relying on the random shuffling of genes that can produce unintended side effects such as here. We can, instead, craft the genes to our need with surgical precision, inserting exactly the genes we need and only those.
Keeping this in mind, the short term gains demanded by capitalism gone wrong make it seem pretty damn unreasonable and dangerous to not test the crap out of something like this for an extended period of time.
GM organisms are highly tested, moreso than any other foods and to date have been shown to be just as safe if not more than conventionally bred foods. Despite claims by the anti-GM crowd that little or no testing occurs on these foods, see this list of over 400 different safety assessment studies. Nothing can ever be proven to be 100% safe 100% of the time, even conventional foods as perfectly evidenced by this incident.
For the record, my biggest gripe with GM is what I see as dangerously performed research (practically no containment of any kind)
Can you give examples of this "dangerously performed research" or is that just the way you imagine it happens? I'm genuinely curious what you know about the process that I don't.
...dangerous precedents in patent law (owning genetic sequences)
This reservation I'm actually still on the fence about. There are logical reasons for and against, but I haven't yet spent the brainpower thinking both sides through so I'm currently undecided here.
...using it as an excuse to saturate farms with pesticides (bad for environment, bad for food, and allows for rapid evolution of countermeasures in affected species)
You think farmers want to saturate their farms with pesticide? GM crops require fewer pesticides due to their natural resistance. You could argue that this natural resistance itself could have bad side effects on us, but again that's exactly the kinds of things that are extensively tested for. No one is going to want to put out and be liable for a product that causes more harm than good (well, cigarette companies notwithstanding).
Not to mention the logistical nightmare of recouping research and working out ownership of something that, by its very nature, can move and "infect" other crops. Monsanto deserves to burn in hell for all the grief they have given farmers simply because of the fucking wind acting as a ninja-like salesman.
I agree with you here, but Monsanto isn't the only GM crop company, and you shouldn't be anti-science and anti-GM because of the questionable business practices of one company any more than you should reject computer technology because Windows gets viruses.
The robot won't make the same or as many mistakes as a human by simple virtue of being a robot: likely, they will be able to consider many, many more hypotheticals and "do the math" much quicker than we. We make mistakes because we lack the processing capacity to consider more than just a few hypotheticals with imperfect information within a short time frame.
How many of those example species had evolved intelligence enough to take themselves outside the constraints of evolution? Answer: one, us. Your comparison is not indicative of anything.
Are you willing to bet your life on that? If so, I've got some really great, safe.... uh, penis enlargement pills to sell you! Honest! I got them from Canada!
That's exactly what the FDA is doing: they're telling you "if you buy this medication from this person, you can be assured that you're getting what they say it is." Buying medication from someone who HASN'T been vetted this way, you have no way to know for sure if you're getting what they claim you are. Unless you have your own chemical analysis lab. Because everyone has one of those, right?
Poetmatt forgets that we are not Youtube's customers, we are its product.
Re: that quote, the reason us atheists are so angry at the theists isn't simply because they don't share our views, but that they constantly and inevitably attempt to hoist their views into public policy and in doing so affect us. You can have all the crazy views you want. On Sunday. In church. If you're running for elected office, then it matters to me if you think you have an invisible friend that tells you what's good and bad. If you want to take your batshit superstition and air it out in public, then you should be prepared to get called on it. If you believe that theists don't wish ill-will towards us atheists, don't mock or insult us or seek to persecute us, then you might want to brush up on your history a bit.
Evolution is a fact and a theory. That evolution happens is a fact. The theory of evolution explains all the mechanisms of how that all comes about.
First of all, there's your problem. The way evolution is "popularly understood" is usually wrong. It's easy to take issue with a strawman, isn't it?
Second of all, name these "quite a few notable scientists" and what their fields of research are. I'd like to see how many of them are related to biology. It's quite amazing that you think your examples are original and haven't been figured out before.
[whines]Science is hard! It's really, really hard![/whines]
John Titor, is that you?