South Dakota Ignorance
Chris L Peterson
resolution regarding teaching climate science in schools. The resolution
(http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2010/Bill.aspx?File=HCR1009P.htm),
which looks very much like your typical creationism resolution often
proposed by southern states, is full of bad language and a lack of
understanding of science. Worst of all is this:
"That there are a variety of climatological, meteorological,
astrological, thermological, cosmological, and ecological dynamics that
can effect world weather phenomena and that the significance and
interrelativity of these factors is largely speculative;"
The legislator who wrote this bill, and those who vetted and edited it,
are all too uneducated to even know the difference between astrology and
astronomy, yet they think they can produce a rational bill dictating how
a complex scientific subject is taught in schools? Pathetic. All of
these legislators should resign; they lack the skills required for their
jobs.
(And I'd love to know about the "thermological" and "cosmological"
contributions!)
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
Bert Hyman
<c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> The state of South Dakota has deeply embarrassed itself with a
> resolution regarding teaching climate science in schools. The
> resolution
> (http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2010/Bill.aspx?File=HCR1009P.htm),
> which looks very much like your typical creationism resolution often
> proposed by southern states, is full of bad language and a lack of
> understanding of science.
When you ask politicians to run your school system, why be surprised to
find that politicians are running your school system?
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
Chris L Peterson
>When you ask politicians to run your school system, why be surprised to
>find that politicians are running your school system?
Who asked? <g>
Dennis Woos
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/science/earth/04climate.html?hpw
Dennis
David Staup
"Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:1apvo5pf5mbc91q2v...@4ax.com...
The fact that you have a problem with critical thinking, utilizing all sides
of an argument, being taught in schools does not suprise me, nor does your
attack on the legislator(s) intelligence.
your type just cannot believe anyone is capable of making informed
decisions, except you of course....
are you afraid the arguments for your side will fall short? or are you just
too closed minded to accept debate....
you better get used to the end of propagandizing in schools.. it is surely
comming
L.A.T.
>
> "That there are (is) a variety of climatological, meteorological,
> astrological, thermological, cosmological, and ecological dynamics that
> interrelativity of these factors is largely speculative;"
>
Yes I know it is a joke, but perhaps it was deliberate. A bit like that
attempt to legislate that pi be equal 3. Indiana, wasn't it?
Quadibloc
> are you afraid the arguments for your side will fall short? or are you just
> too closed minded to accept debate....
Debate is for adults. What we teach children should be what is the
closest to the truth that we can find, because we need to inform them,
not confuse them.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> yet they think they can produce a rational bill dictating how
> a complex scientific subject is taught in schools?
Unfortunately, many _teachers_ in the schools aren't qualified to
handle any "complex scientific subject" either, because if they were,
they'd be teaching college students, not schoolchildren. Politicians
represent the people, whose taxes support the schools, so the problem
isn't that they are exercising oversight, _only_ that they are in some
cases such as this, doing it so badly.
John Savard
Bert Hyman
<tt...@ispdr.net.au> wrote:
> Yes I know it is a joke, but perhaps it was deliberate. A bit like
> that attempt to legislate that pi be equal 3. Indiana, wasn't it?
http://www.agecon.purdue.edu/crd/localgov/second%20level%20pages/indiana_pi_bill.htm
No different from what goes on today.
Our legislators know nothing, but are certain that they're qulified to
legislate on anything and regulate everything.
Chris L Peterson
wrote:
>The fact that you have a problem with critical thinking, utilizing all sides
>of an argument, being taught in schools does not suprise me, nor does your
>attack on the legislator(s) intelligence.
I didn't attack any legislator's intelligence. I attacked their
ignorance, which is patently clear in the wording of the resolution. The
idea that somebody (a lot of them, actually, given all the attached
names) can in good faith present such a factually faulty resolution and
believe they are qualified to address an actual issue of science at all
is absurd.
David Staup
"Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:ebe3e52b-5652-474b...@t41g2000yqt.googlegroups.com...
John Savard
at the level of education we're talking about teaching how to think is much
more important that what to think (that's called indoctrination). when the
subjet is debatable the debate itself becomes the lesson!
Bert Hyman
<dst...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> What we teach children should be what is the closest to the truth that
> we can find, because we need to inform them, not confuse them.
>
What could be closer to the truth than Revealed Truth?
That's what you're dealing with here, and the only route away from it
takes you into private schools.
It's either that, or you and your like-minded friends take over the
local school system, forever.
Chris L Peterson
wrote:
>at the level of education we're talking about teaching how to think is much
>more important that what to think (that's called indoctrination). when the
>subjet is debatable the debate itself becomes the lesson!
Both are important. Teaching science is particularly difficult in
elementary and middle school, and somewhat so in high school, because of
the balance that has to be struck between teaching the method, and
teaching a large body of information that needs to be understood.
In practice, the sort of science taught before college doesn't really
offer much opportunity for debate, because it's all basic stuff
(including climate science) that is widely backed by consensus. For most
students, "debating" something that is accepted knowledge is confusing
and isn't likely to lead to improved thinking skills.
When I teach about global warming to middle school students, there is no
debate. I teach it by explaining and rating the evidence- for instance,
the existence of warming is established beyond reasonable dispute, the
evidence that the warming is caused primarily by CO2 is accepted by
about 95% of researchers because of various measurements, the evidence
that the increased CO2 is produced by humans is supported by multiple
avenues of research and so forth. We also talk about elements of climate
science that are good theories (such as warming either increases or
decreases hurricane frequency or strength) but lack the necessary
evidence for any consensus at this point. In this way, they learn how
science really works- that there are good and bad theories, and that
good theories can be wrong. Hopefully this approach provides both
factual background for their own thinking, as well as the skills to use
that information.
Quadibloc
time.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/science/earth/05methane.html
John Savard
jwarner1
Chris L Peterson wrote:
Wells Fargo bank is running everything! Talk to Wells Fargo.
They even have Politicians on the run, example AG Tom Miller of Iowa
who this week alone went to Washington to ask Congress to "legislate
controls on mortage lending"?. Where has AG Miller been while just down
thestreet to Tom in Des Moines Iowa, Wells Fargo has run up 8,000,000 +
defaults and well over 1.5 TRILLION in mortage defaults all from little ole
DesMoines Ioway!
The same lunacy is in clubs. We now have literal morons and children
running clubs... piling up debt, destroying clubs, and these folks literally
know nothing about astronomy and dont know a telescope from a
vacuum cleaner.
Any way you cut this the breakdown in society is real -
and the consequences just as real and enduring.
Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names
Wait until you read this -- 15 -- count 'em -- FIFTEEN STATES have
resolutions in their legislatures attempting in various ways to limit
teaching of climate change, evolution, and other communist theories.
Yesterday, the South Dakota legislature passed a resolution telling
public schools to teach �balance� about the �prejudiced� science of
climate change by a vote of 37-33. Earlier language that ascribed
�astrological� influences to global warming was stripped from the
final version.
This act of conspiracy-driven ideology is hardly alone�a Wonk Room
investigation has found at least 15 state legislatures attempting to
prevent limits on greenhouse gas pollution. The states of Alabama and
Utah have already adopted resolutions calling for the overturn of the
Environmental Protection Agency�s global warming endangerment finding,
with legislators in 13 more states in tow. Several of these �Dirty Air
Act� resolutions argue that the overwhelming scientific consensus on
the threat of man-made global warming is actually a conspiracy:
KENTUCKY: �WHEREAS, a recent disclosure of communications among
scientists associated with the Climate Research Unit of the University
of East Anglia has cast serious doubt upon the scientific data that
have purportedly supported the finding that man-made carbon dioxide
has been a material cause of global warming or global climate change
... �
MARYLAND: �WHEREAS, Email and other communications between climate
researchers around the globe discovered as part of the recent
�climate-gate� controversy indicate that there is a well-organized and
ongoing effort to manipulate global temperature data and incorporate
tricks to substantiate the theory of climate change ... �
OKLAHOMA: �WHEREAS, intense public scrutiny has revealed how unsettled
the science is on climate change and the unwillingness of many of the
world�s climatologists to share data or even entertain opposing
viewpoints on the subject ... �
UTAH: �WHEREAS, emails and other communications between climate
researchers around the globe, referred to as �Climategate,� indicate a
well organized and ongoing effort to manipulate global temperature
data in order to produce a global warming outcome ... �
Every resolution makes the false claim that protecting citizens from
hazardous climate pollution would hurt the economy, instead of
recognizing the potential of a green recovery. Missouri, Illinois,
Oklahoma, and Alaska lawmakers talk about being �dependent� on the
coal and oil industries whose lobbyists are fighting climate action.
Several of the resolutions, drafted early last year, call on Congress
to reject the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act,
which passed the House of Representatives in June but has languished
in the Senate. The Alaska and West Virginia resolutions support Sen.
Lisa Murkowski�s (R-Alaska) effort to rewrite the Clean Air Act
(S.J.Res. 26), and Alabama�s resolution calls for the passage of Rep.
Earl Pomeroy�s (D-N.D.) similar effort (H.R. 4396).
The most legally bizarre resolution is Arizona state senator Sylvia
Allen�s (R-Ariz.) �tenther� argument that the U.S. Congress does not
have the Constitutional authority to regulate greenhouse gas
pollution. Allen also believes the Earth is 6000 years old. The other
Arizona resolution, along with the Kentucky, Virginia, and Washington
resolutions, would attempt to block state enforcement of global
warming rules.
These efforts to overturn the Clean Air Act and replace science with
conspiracy theories are being supported by the American Legislative
Exchange Council (ALEC), a national organization that brings
conservative state lawmakers together with industry lobbyists. ALEC
promotes a resolution opposing the endangerment finding drafted by its
Natural Resources Task Force, which includes over 120 lawmakers from
around the nation and a similarly sized group of corporate
representatives. Although ALEC does not have an official position on
the validity of climate science, the organization is �actively
involved in helping people get together and share ideas,� a
representative told the Wonk Room. For example, the spring ALEC task
force meeting will feature Exxon Mobil-backed global warming denier
Paul Driessen, the author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black
Death.
yourmommycalledandsaidbehave
> "Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in messagenews:1apvo5pf5mbc91q2v...@4ax.com...
nonsense about statins without any critical thought
Mick Love
"Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names" <PopUl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:63m0p5d9r1eg0rkiq...@4ax.com...
oriel36
You do not so much teach as indoctrinate students insofar as you
yourself having received the same indoctrination continue the cycle
that winds its way to the unacceptable standards of today.
Demonstrating how an enormous modification is required to bring
meteorological and climate explanations up to speed with modern
imaging is an unenviable task especially in the hostile and
unintelligent atmosphere of today yet there is nothing that modern
imaging cannot bring to light and particularly the fact that the
Earth's planetary description as having a largely equatorial climate
relegates the current setup as antiquated,almost 600 years old to be
precise and needing a complete overhaul.
So remember now,impressionable students should not have to surmount
your indoctrination which ultimately amounts to the belief that humans
can control global temperatures within a certain range,if you yourself
need an antidote,just go outside and look at climate change all around
you in terms of geological features and then decide if you really
wish to believe that humans have control over global climate,pollution
yes,but not global temperatures.
There is no need to hate astronomy as all of you seem to do in order
to support empirical fraud based on a predictive/modelling agenda when
interpretation is paramount along with a healthy slice of speculation
to build up a picture,if you want predictions then that State is
correct in deeming you astrologers without the same knowledge as the
geocentric astronomers.I truly believe that an intelligent person
cannot withstand falsehood for any length of time,humans are not
capable of maintaining something which works against its own
achievements and if took the 'carbon dioxide/global temperature' fraud
to expose the dangers of human predictions attached to empiricism then
a great deal of good can be done from now on,it only takes a new
direction to see how limited and dangerous that agenda had become.
Quadibloc
> There is no need to hate astronomy as all of you seem to do in order
> to support empirical fraud based on a predictive/modelling agenda when
> interpretation is paramount along with a healthy slice of speculation
> to build up a picture,if you want predictions then that State is
> correct in deeming you astrologers without the same knowledge as the
> geocentric astronomers.
Weather forecasts notwithstanding, the predictive power of modern
science is what enables the mechanisms we construct which incorporate
new scientific phenomena... like, for example, the laser diodes in a
CD-ROM drive... to work. From steam engines onwards, empiricism has
had a rather good track record, whereas philosophical speculation and
subjective interpretation has tended to run around in circles.
The mediaeval mindset has run its course; Newton consolidated the
gains of the Renaissance, ensuring that its light would never be
dimmed.
John Savard
Chris.B
should still be allowed anywhere near kids. Let alone put in charge of
their education. Teaching by example was discredited millennia ago by
these warmongering, lying, conniving, parasitic, acquisitive,
thieving, psychopathic, genocidal conmen. Religion is the oldest and
most debilitating opiate of the masses. Each new fix has always been
provided by the most corrupt pushers in society. It is the oldest form
of economic and psychological dependency throughout human history. If
only the addicts cold see the mutual dependence their fixers enjoy, at
their expense, the control system would collapse. Inwardly, they know
how harmful their habit is but few are able to break free of their
dependence on a money-grubbing scumbag who keeps raising the price of
a fix. Like a virus which kills its host, or the director of a tobacco
company, the evil dealer can always find new suckers in the next
generation. Knowing full well that the addicts themselves will often
administer the first fix on their own innocent children in a desperate
bid to "stay in" with their scumbag pusher. Their children will never
know what it was like to be free of this horrible, life-sapping
corruption and will continue to provide "the trade" with an endless
supply of willing victims. Their brains already addled
from birth by the mental sewage coursing through their systems. Some
would ask whether these religious addicts should be allowed to breed.
But, even if they should eventually die out, another conman will
always rise from the empty ashtray to provide a new, and more
intoxicating, fix. The human brain is genetically predisposed to
harmful substances and life-damaging habits. Where there is a need
someone will always provide the service. Even if it kills the victim
and as long as a profit can be made.
BHC_2
"Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:1apvo5pf5mbc91q2v...@4ax.com...
> The state of South Dakota has deeply embarrassed itself with a
> resolution regarding teaching climate science in schools. The resolution
> (http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2010/Bill.aspx?File=HCR1009P.htm),
> which looks very much like your typical creationism resolution often
> proposed by southern states, is full of bad language and a lack of
> understanding of science. Worst of all is this:
>
> "That there are a variety of climatological, meteorological,
> astrological, thermological, cosmological, and ecological dynamics that
> can effect world weather phenomena and that the significance and
> interrelativity of these factors is largely speculative;"
Why is this bad? All it's saying is that climate science is theoretical
rather than factual and one should take that approach. When I, as an adult,
look over the supposed data, a lot of which is being shown to be falsified
or at least questioned severely, it is impossible for me to say for sure
whether or not global warming, for example, is affected by such data.
>
> The legislator who wrote this bill, and those who vetted and edited it,
> are all too uneducated to even know the difference between astrology and
> astronomy, yet they think they can produce a rational bill dictating how
> a complex scientific subject is taught in schools?
Welcome to the world of politics. While I don't think this particular
example is a good one, there are plenty of cases where proposed legislation
is horrible, but the public continues to vote those into power who continue
to pass this material. If one doesn't like it, vote them out of office or
write a letter of complaint. However, on this particular issue you've
raised, I don't think you'll find much support as much of the public remains
unconvinced by climate data, as I do.
Sometimes we simply have to bite the bullet and agree to disagree publicly,
no matter our personal preference.
JJ Himes
blame the church rather than move on with your life. I take it therapy
hasn't worked either because you refused to go and you want to continue to
wallow in self pity. Or maybe a good church friend a couple years older
than you decided to do a wee wee comparison one day and you couldn't measure
up and your still trying to get help for it. Find a therapist. Find a
life. Get over it.
"Chris.B" <chr...@nypost.dk> wrote in message
news:7001bcaf-f268-405a...@z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
>
AM
> I am stunned that anybody who professes to a belief in a religion
> should still be allowed anywhere near kids.
Face it. Far more people believe in religion in the world than don't.
Get used to it.........
--
AM
Chris L Peterson
>Why is this bad? All it's saying is that climate science is theoretical
>rather than factual and one should take that approach.
If you think that's all it's saying, you need to tune up your own
critical thinking skills.
No science is factual, and that's how it should be taught. So why
doesn't the bill suggest that? Why does it pick out one little bit of
science, which is barely touched in most education programs anyway, and
isolate it like this? You don't really think it has anything to do with
improving education, do you?
More to the point, the absurd wording, and use of wrong or inappropriate
words (astrology, thermology, cosmology) demonstrates that the authors
and hangers-on of this bill have no business dictating educational
requirements. They need to be educated themselves.
Chris.B
> So the Priest must have gropped you at an early age and you continue to
> blame the church rather than move on with your life. I take it therapy
> hasn't worked either because you refused to go and you want to continue to
> wallow in self pity. Or maybe a good church friend a couple years older
> than you decided to do a wee wee comparison one day and you couldn't measure
> up and your still trying to get help for it. Find a therapist. Find a
> life. Get over it.
Stop fantasising and get yourself a free spelling checker. Why should
I not have the freedom to speak out about international, criminal
wrongdoing in our world? Do the organised religions not have complete
freedom of speech including incitement to genocide? Why are the
organised religions the only untaxed, pyramid sales scams which aren't
subject to international judicial sanction? The ordinary members pay
their subscriptions for a lifetime for an afterlife insurance scam
which the religions have never had to pay out on. Not once! Isn't
this as immoral as lying through your teeth about AIDS? Or having vast
property empires, hoards of gold, jewellery and antiques and huge
investments in arms contractors all in the name of love, humility and
charity? If I become an ordinary member am I allowed to vote the
managing director off the board for covering up countless crimes
against children? Do you now any other crooked, property empire whose
staff have habitually raped, tortured and mistreated children over the
centuries as a god-given right?
JJ Himes
to small steps that may result in a massive step and may improve your daily
relations:
BTW, I think the third option down would be best for your situation. Just
use a bit of air each time to get the desired results! Nothing would be
easier!
Good luck!
"Chris.B" <chr...@nypost.dk> wrote in message
news:7b82712b-d7d4-4725...@q16g2000yqq.googlegroups.com...
Chris.B
Heal thyself?
JJ Himes
already have a small one (or even the missing link- castrated) and now you
must measure up. When you did the wee wee comparison with your friend, you
were laughed at due to its small size and that's when you became
introverted. Now that you are coming out of the closet about the lack of
size and your preferences, you are being ridiculed and criticized all
because you failed to obtain the much needed nurturing and therapy after the
wee wee/ groping incidents. Until you can get past your horrors/ self
mutilations/ erotic dreams, you are not cured.
You are in no position to heal others until you can heal yourself first and
prove it. Sorry son.
"Chris.B" <chr...@nypost.dk> wrote in message
news:72fc30c4-30a1-491c...@b7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Quadibloc
However, I have been ignoring the obvious.
The world will come to an end on March 19, 2010.
That's when _Duel Decks: Phyrexia vs. the Coalition_ will be
released.One of the foil cards in that set, the foil card for the
Phyrexian set, is _Phyrexian Negator_. Phyrexian Negator is on the
Reserved List.
Given this, why am I allowing myself to be distracted by petty
concerns like global warming?
John Savard
oriel36
The thing about posts like this is that the rest are no better or
worse than you are,the imaginative conceptions dumped into the
celestial arena by taking the name of astronomy are as fictional as
the characters from a cartoon you reference.The distinction between
observable causes and effects become blurred with imaginative ones
hence the disintegration of human reasoning and the complete
abandonment of those things which are important and easily
recognizable with modern imaging such as why we have seasons,what is
the mechanism behind Earthquakes,why twilight varies between
latitudes,where the calendar comes from and what purpose it serves.
A sadness wells up that comes from a love of astronomy and the human
achievements which once adorned the king of all science disciplines as
opposed to that empirical cartoon which now takes its name.To take
time to write a response to you would amount to an act of concession
insofar as the little acts of courage needed to restore a direction
and a purpose to astronomy is absent and the rest fade into the same
imaginative level which is actually a living nightmare existing only
in the minds of mathematicians.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/opinion/07bayley.html?pagewanted=1&ref=opinion
Quadibloc
> A sadness wells up that comes from a love of astronomy and the human
> achievements which once adorned the king of all science disciplines as
> opposed to that empirical cartoon which now takes its name.
I regret that you feel this sadness.
That "Alice in Wonderland" might have taken some inspiration from its
author's knowledge of mathematics doesn't mean that mathematics is
bizarre. Algebra and calculus just let us calculate measurements in
situations more complicated than those which use basic arithmetic,
letting people design turbines and engines and bridges.
I can't offer you hope that intuition and speculation will take over
from the reliance on verifiable facts and results that lets everyone
agree if a new theory is true or not, though. The empiricism you
denounce is the very reason why science keeps going forwards, instead
of simply going around in circles like ladies' fashions.
On what basis does one pick the "authority" that will keep
speculations within bounds? It is by accepting no authority but that
of Nature herself that the breakthrough of Copernicus became accepted
- self-appointed authorities threatened and silenced Galileo, as you
well know.
John Savard
oriel36
You are a nuisance,nothing more or less,the difference is that so many
join you at your cartoon level hence it was a concession,not a
submission.You go back to your cartoons as you wouldn't be capable of
telling the difference but then again I now recognize that nobold else
has.
wsne...@hotmail.com
> The state of South Dakota has deeply embarrassed itself with a
> resolution regarding teaching climate science in schools. The resolution
> (http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2010/Bill.aspx?File=HCR1009P.htm),
> which looks very much like your typical creationism resolution often
> proposed by southern states, is full of bad language and a lack of
> understanding of science. Worst of all is this:
>
> "That there are a variety of climatological, meteorological,
> astrological, thermological, cosmological, and ecological dynamics that
> can effect world weather phenomena and that the significance and
> interrelativity of these factors is largely speculative;"
>
> are all too uneducated to even know the difference between astrology and
> astronomy, yet they think they can produce a rational bill dictating how
> these legislators should resign; they lack the skills required for their
> jobs.
>
> (And I'd love to know about the "thermological" and "cosmological"
> contributions!)
If this legislation can be used to keep "An Inconvenient Truth" from
being shown in classrooms, it will have been worth it.
Quadibloc
> If this legislation can be used to keep "An Inconvenient Truth" from
> being shown in classrooms, it will have been worth it.
I don't think much of Al Gore's politics in general, and his previous
environmental activism - "Our Stolen Future", for example, doesn't
greatly impress me with his credibility. However, the nature of the
opposition to global warming concern certainly confirms to my mind the
point Al Gore was making in the title to that film.
People are trying to discredit global warming not because of any
particular weaknesses in the science behind it, they're just hunting
for anything they can present as a weakness - even if it isn't valid -
because of the costs of doing something about global warming. They're
not looking for the truth, they just want to whip something up that
might convince people.
The arguments against global warming being a concern betray the same
kind of sloppy thinking as those advanced in favor of Creationism.
This isn't surprising, because a lot of them come from the same place
- extreme religious conservatives.
It is reasonable, though, when looking into an alleged problem the
solution of which would have a very high price tag, to hold the
evidence in favor of it to a high standard. What discredits the
denialist movement is holding the evidence against it to practically
no standards.
Part of holding the evidence for global warming to a high standard
does indeed make it not surprising that the leaked climate E-mails
would be disturbing. Putting the right spin on things, so that the
general public doesn't get confused, when one is out to save the
world... that could be interpreted as dishonesty. If it doesn't fool
other scientists, though, and the scientific community is still in
firm agreement on the reality of AGW, then it is not, in fact,
material to the reality of global warming.
On the one hand, a recent discovery about water vapor in the jet
stream has made it possible that global warming is indeed less serious
than thought - while, on the other, new findings about methane
releases may mean it is already too late. By the time we have
certainty, it almost certainly will be too late.
But drastically cutting down energy use WILL be a disaster. We know
that for sure, and many of the environmentally conscious crowd are
happy to ignore that.
Gee, aren't we lucky that the secret of the atom has been unlocked, to
provide us with plenty of energy without burning stuff? What, that
happened *65 years ago*? Then why the heck is everyone panicking and
either trying to deny the problem or propose impractical solutions? We
KNOW what we have to do, and, thanks to the breeder reactor, we ARE
able to do it. Why don't we just get busy?
John Savard
Quadibloc
> You go back to your cartoons as you wouldn't be capable of
> telling the difference but then again I now recognize that nobold else
> has.
I can indeed tell the difference between
http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/
and reality; it is merely entertainment.
I know that my view of what _is_ reality differs from yours. I
understand the mathematics on which today's science is based, I've
used it and worked with it, I know it corresponds to reality.
And I make no apologies for agreeing with the modern viewpoint that if
you want to know what happens in Nature, you have to ask Nature.
Relying on intuition, or privileged authorities, is to trust what
isn't reliable - the only way to reduce the level of ignorance is by
letting one's notions collide with *reality*. Yes, that's empiricism.
Experience has abundantly confirmed it's the only thing that works.
Our skyscrapers, our suspension bridges, our hydroelectric dams, our
lasers, our microchips, our rockets... they shout to the heavens about
just how effective empiricism is in comparison to the mediaeval
mindset which you appear to be advocating.
At least, it can be said in your favor, unlike that of other advocates
of "other ways of knowing", that you're not encouraging people to find
reality through peyote-addled visions. And there are areas, even if
astronomy isn't one of them, where science doesn't have much to say,
and the Western philosophical traditions which the Catholic church had
embraced and continued are more likely to be relevant. So when some
scientific type presents an argument that human consciousness is
merely an illusion, nonsense that we've been fooled into accepting by
religion... I am happy to agree that he has gone out of his depth.
If consciousness is an illusion, who is it that is experiencing the
illusion?
But when it comes to how the Earth orbits the Sun, and where the
seasons come from - that is all mechanical stuff that scientists are
fully competent to understand and explain in mathematical terms. So by
trying to combat the empirical mindset by attempting to drive it from
the areas _appropriate_ to it, you are fighting the wrong fight.
John Savard
alli...@ignmail.com
> Face it. Far more people believe in religion in the world than don't.
Is that supposed to be some sort of evidence that religious beliefs
are valid? Surely you're not suggesting that if lots of people believe
in something, they are probably correct?!?
L.A.T.
<alli...@IGNmail.com> wrote in message
news:5de517ae-609a-450f...@b30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
No. But it is a good enough reason not to disagree with them in public.
Steve Paul
> <alli...@IGNmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5de517ae-609a-450f...@b30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 6, 7:22 am, AM <sctu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Face it. Far more people believe in religion in the world than don't.
>
> Is that supposed to be some sort of evidence that religious beliefs
> are valid? Surely you're not suggesting that if lots of people believe
> in something, they are probably correct?!?
> No. But it is a good enough reason not to disagree with them in
> public.
I disagree.
Quadibloc
> No. But it is a good enough reason not to disagree with them in public.
Not to be rude about it is one thing.
If, however, they're violent, then they're a problem. Even if they're
not Muslims. Anyone who tries to bring back the Inquisition will meet
the same fate as the supporters of terrorism.
But the original point, though, that if the vast majority of the
world's people are religious, then it ought to be worth considering
that religion isn't utterly loony, _is_ a valid one.
Sure, there have been times before when the majority was wrong. People
assumed, from direct observation, that the world was flat, and the Sun
was just a light in the sky that moved around them. And the empirical
claims of the world's different religions contradict each other.
But the prevalence of religion points to some commonalities that non-
religious viewpoints miss.
Right and wrong are important - and have an existence beyond mere
social choice. Societies treated slavery as legitimate, but that
didn't make it right. Instead, right and wrong exist regardless of our
wishes, just like the truths of mathematics.
Human consciousness is a phenomenon belonging to a category science
can't even touch yet, despite our improving understanding of the
brain.
We can learn from religion, and what we learn would belong to
philosophy, but not yet to science.
John Savard
Davoud
> Is that supposed to be some sort of evidence that religious beliefs
> are valid? Surely you're not suggesting that if lots of people believe
> in something, they are probably correct?!?
That's an interesting question, not as simple as it sounds. When one
has power one does not need to be right. In a country where both
political parties _must_ pander to religion, and one party's idea of
inclusiveness means pandering to the most hateful and violence-prone
religious extremists, religion holds power.
Those whose ability to dictate government policy comes from direct
payments to the legislature and law enforcement are also happy to
pander to religion in part because people who are gullible in the area
of religious belief are easily led by other power holders--money
worshipers--that depend on public ignorance and indifference to empower
their god and in part because the wealthy can support extremism while
effectively insulating themselves from its consequences. You don't
think that the people who pay for the creationism lawsuits believe that
crap themselves, do you?
In such a society non-believers can exist openly only because of a
paradoxical tolerance on the part of believers; they have chosen for
now to limit their war on non-belief to attacks on educated people
("the elite," who are not "real people") and the public education
system. I would not be prepared to predict whether religious extremists
or rational thinkers will win this fight.
The correctness of your argument is an insignificant little footnote;
it has no meaning in the context of the postulate, which is that, as a
practical matter, power and truth are the same.
See "The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American
Power" by Jeff Sharlet
<http://www.amazon.com/Family-Secret-Fundamentalism-Heart-American/dp/00
60559799>.
Davoud
--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.
usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
Quadibloc
> See "The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American
> Power" by Jeff Sharlet
> <http://www.amazon.com/Family-Secret-Fundamentalism-Heart-American/dp/0060559799>.
The link still got wrapped.
Some checking, though, finds that the organization is better known as
"The Fellowship".
One might start here to learn a bit more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Coe
John Savard
Chris.B
>
> Heal thyself?
Pickings culled from the detritus of today's religiooze stories:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/world/europe/8558022.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/world/europe/8558311.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/world/africa/8558246.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8071865.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8556659.stm
Should be right up your alley?
JJ Himes
be a start in helping when you can't measure up:
http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/Swensson1.html
"Chris.B" <chr...@nypost.dk> wrote in message
news:b2a1c9db-724b-4812...@g10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Chris.B
> Still can't get over being laughed at in the school shower eh?
However tempting it might be to respond, in kind, to your childish
drivel, I would have to insist on your raising the subject matter
above waist level. In which case the conversation would go right over
your head. (along with everything else) So it's not all bad news
then. ;-) Are you really a modern version of Toulouse-Lautrech or just
given to spending your entire life on your knees?
JJ Himes
keyhole..... the ultimate humiliation after being laughed at in the
shower.... so sad
"Chris.B" <chr...@nypost.dk> wrote in message
Chris.B
It took millions of years to get man off all fours.
And five minutes of dumb superstition to force him back down.
How's the view from down there?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8564378.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8564074.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8565294.stm
Ring any bells with you?
Thought it might.
JJ Himes
http://www.aardvarc.org/rape/about/whowhy.shtml
Since you keep trying to justify your "cause"- whatever that is- you only
seem to be exposing more about yourself. Stop now. Get some help. Find a
therapist. Find a new beginning. Find a life.
After all, a miniscle member is not the end of the world as there's always
hope!
"Chris.B" <chr...@nypost.dk> wrote in message
news:8deff112-361a-4bbb...@c16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
wsne...@hotmail.com
> On Mar 8, 6:13 am, wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > If this legislation can be used to keep "An Inconvenient Truth" from
> > being shown in classrooms, it will have been worth it.
>
> I don't think much of Al Gore's politics in general, and his previous
> environmental activism - "Our Stolen Future", for example, doesn't
> greatly impress me with his credibility. However, the nature of the
> opposition to global warming concern certainly confirms to my mind the
> point Al Gore was making in the title to that film.
For people such as the eco-celebrities (Gore included) who use so much
fossil fuel, the title of the "movie" might be appropriate. For the
vast majority of the rest of the planet, including most Americans,
most Europeans and most living in developing countries, the title is a
joke.
> People are trying to discredit global warming not because of any
> particular weaknesses in the science behind it, they're just hunting
> for anything they can present as a weakness - even if it isn't valid -
> because of the costs of doing something about global warming.
Skeptics discredit AGW because there isn't enough science yet to back
it up, and the warmingistas are misrepresenting some of the results,
and making exaggerated claims.
> They're
> not looking for the truth, they just want to whip something up that
> might convince people.
When presenting a segment on AGW, the mainstream media likes to use
video of smokestacks, brush fires, hurricanes, floods, polar bears,
icebergs calving off into the ocean, in order to "whip up something
that might convince people."
> The arguments against global warming being a concern betray the same
> kind of sloppy thinking as those advanced in favor of Creationism.
> This isn't surprising, because a lot of them come from the same place
> - extreme religious conservatives.
Only some skeptics are fundies (unless your definition of a fundie is
someone who is a Christian.) But if you want to see some really
sloppy thinking look at some of the legislation that leftists want to
enact:
Banning salt in restaurants
Additional taxes on soft drinks and pizza
Charging shoppers five cents or more for each plastic grocery bag
Minimum BMIs for runway models
Cash for clunkers
Amazingly, people vote for these idiots. Most of those who do have
probably also been taken in by the AGW hype.
> It is reasonable, though, when looking into an alleged problem the
> solution of which would have a very high price tag, to hold the
> evidence in favor of it to a high standard. What discredits the
> denialist movement is holding the evidence against it to practically
> no standards.
Maybe the AGW crowd should hold their evidence to some standards.
> Part of holding the evidence for global warming to a high standard
> does indeed make it not surprising that the leaked climate E-mails
> would be disturbing. Putting the right spin on things, so that the
> general public doesn't get confused, when one is out to save the
> world... that could be interpreted as dishonesty. If it doesn't fool
> other scientists, though, and the scientific community is still in
> firm agreement on the reality of AGW,
Some of them anyway.
> then it is not, in fact,
> material to the reality of global warming.
>
> On the one hand, a recent discovery about water vapor in the jet
> stream has made it possible that global warming is indeed less serious
> than thought -
Imagine that.
>while, on the other, new findings about methane
> releases may mean it is already too late. By the time we have
> certainty, it almost certainly will be too late.
If the warmingistas believed that they would already be practicing
what they preach.
> But drastically cutting down energy use WILL be a disaster. We know
> that for sure, and many of the environmentally conscious crowd are
> happy to ignore that.
The warmingistas have no intention of changing their lifestyles. We
know that for sure.
> Gee, aren't we lucky that the secret of the atom has been unlocked, to
> provide us with plenty of energy without burning stuff? What, that
> happened *65 years ago*? Then why the heck is everyone panicking and
> either trying to deny the problem or propose impractical solutions? We
> KNOW what we have to do, and, thanks to the breeder reactor, we ARE
> able to do it. Why don't we just get busy?
Great, then go build us some breeder reactors.
Quadibloc
Political action is all that most ordinary people can do here.
John Savard
JJ Himes
always be bigger than yours by a magnitude of 10. So, if you only measure
up to 0.5", then even mine is still a measly 5" (which would be pretty
pathetic.... I hope you have at least an inch below the equator).
"Chris.B" <chr...@nypost.dk> wrote in message
news:8deff112-361a-4bbb...@c16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Chris.B
> One last thing to keep in mind before I "scat" for the day: <snip>
Your total obsession with small, male genitalia strongly suggests that
you are a homosexual paedophile.
Are you already on the sex offenders register?
Or a protected member of the Teflon-robed clergy?
(while abuse compensation funds last)
Or just a very sick individual?
JJ Himes
but then again if you think only in terms of member size you will continue
to be blind and fail to see the entire picture. How long will it be until
you truly understand?? Perhaps I will set up an equation for you to
solve.....
"Chris.B" <chr...@nypost.dk> wrote in message
news:3e00f71e-aa14-4b0d...@g4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
alli...@ignmail.com
<bullshit deleted>
Good god, you are one stupid fucking idiot.
wsne...@hotmail.com
Here, calculate your carbon footprint:
http://www.nature.org/initiatives/climatechange/calculator/
Then tell us how you compare with the world average!
Also, you might want one of these:
http://www.patriotdepot.com/obamabumperstickerremover.aspx
Chris.B
> If you look into the principle of karma, then perhaps you will understand
> but then again if you think only in terms of member size you will continue
> to be blind and fail to see the entire picture. How long will it be until
> you truly understand?? Perhaps I will set up an equation for you to
> solve.....
There is only one critical measurement in this context:
How long you have been completely insane?
JJ Himes
Scroll to the Conclusion section and read the last sentence.
Quadibloc
> Scroll to the Conclusion section and read the last sentence.
You're the one who is provoking anger by deliberately choosing to
insult people with evil insults. Therefore, criticizing people as
having a problem with anger, because they react to this behavior on
your part as is deserved does not make sense.
John Savard
JJ Himes
time and for any reason. It would be one thing if he stated he was atheist
and been done with it, but of course he never does, taking every religion
down the dirty drain with his evil bs.
Since he has no belief and insults all the time anyway, what difference does
it make what topic he decides to reply to as, after all, he'll have no one
to answer to in the end?
garbage in = garbage out
"Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:6026fffc-48e8-4ff1...@15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
Chris.B
> Sorry, don't think so. This nut insults any form of religion all of the
> time and for any reason. It would be one thing if he stated he was atheist
> and been done with it, but of course he never does, taking every religion
> down the dirty drain with his evil bs.
>
> Since he has no belief and insults all the time anyway, what difference does
> it make what topic he decides to reply to as, after all, he'll have no one
> to answer to in the end?
>
Who's the real nut, pervert?
We've had a barrage of posts where you made comparisons of penis size.
Are you one of this lot?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/8572081.stm
JJ Himes
still sore because of its tiny size aren't you? Otherwise what has been the
point in even responding to these posts going on now for many days. A
normal person would have stopped responding long ago, but then again you're
far from normal aren't you. Just what happened to you anyway..... what
grop, what comparison.... just what form of abuse made you what you are
today? Obviously someone did something to you and now you feel you have to
take it out on the world, don't ya? At least that's all I ever see you
contributing here.
Find a therapist, find a woman (or man?), find a new beginning, get your
life back on track, make yourself whole again! You can do it!
"Chris.B" <chr...@nypost.dk> wrote in message
news:14bcfc69-a049-4121...@y17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Quadibloc
> No different than your comparative anti-religion exercises is it?
It is completely different. Insults are not the same as genuine debate
about serious matters.
While religion can be a positive influence, it is not the result of
empirical thought, so it at least gives the appearance of ultimately
resting upon credulity - at least in the typical form of revealed
religion which we encounter most often.
John Savard
JJ Himes
"Insults are not the same as genuine debate
about serious matters."
Honk, honk! Do you hear this Chris.B??
Chris.B
You want proof that your genocidal, imaginary gods do not exist?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8572760.stm
If there are intelligent creatures on this planet they will not have
heard of your multitude of evil and exploitative gods.
At least not until you invade and torture and murder them into
believing your irrational fairy stories.
Do you feel an evil crusade coming on? Better start building your
warped ships so you can "spread the (meaningless) word".
Do you defend all man-made religions? Or is yours so special it cannot
tolerate (any) criticism?
Roman, Greek, Aztec or Druid? Name your poison.
Why are most religions totally obsessed with sex?
Get your head around this equation:
Religion = 0
Yours sincerely
Fundamentalist non-believer in all your evil, religiooze, perverted
fantasies.
JJ Himes
away from the PC for a while. Find a life! I know you can do it!
Therapists *can* help with sexual issues, no matter how "small".
"Chris.B" <chr...@nypost.dk> wrote in message
news:5d92c276-ca1a-4d63...@q16g2000yqq.googlegroups.com...
Chris.B
and his hands out of his pants just long enough to scribble more
drivel on the noticeboard.
Dirty boy!
JJ Himes
groping, and self mutulations but now ED as well. Help is here:
Millions of people find the help they need everyday. Today's sex therapists
can work wonders. Hypnosis can actually make you think your wee wee is much
larger than it actually is, even if laughed at (which I suspect has been one
of your biggest problems).
Don't let Mr. Softee take charge now on top of all of your other problems.
Take charge now while you still can! There's always hope as long as there's
still enough blood flow there!
Find a therapist, find a treatment, get your life back! I know you can do
it!
"Chris.B" <chr...@nypost.dk> wrote in message
news:f98f34e9-e8ee-49ef...@d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
bill doors
Dirty boy!"
let me guess, both you guys have nothing else to do but hurl insults at each
other and youve been at it for 2 weeks
another guess, chris i'll bet your real first name is "peter" but you never
use it, right?
JJ Himes
"bill doors" <bdoor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> another guess, chris i'll bet your real first name is "peter" but you
> never use it, right?
LMAO!!! Thanks, wish I had thought of that one!
Chris.B
>
> Let me guess: Both you guys have nothing else to do but hurl insults at each
> other? You've been at it for 2 weeks
>
> Another guess: Chris, I'll bet your real first name is "Peter" but you never
> use it, right?
:)
My name is my own and my (very) gentle teasing of the forum's
reigning, pocket billiards champion amuses me for as long as he has
the strength of will to parry. Do you suppose I would stoop to
"hurling insults" at somebody so obviously "handicapped"? He insults
himself, far more than I, with every post he scribbles. The only thing
which puzzles me is how he still manages to type when both hands are
permanently ensconced within his underpants. While simultaneously
holding a vernier calliper in one hand and a loupe in the other. How,
on earth, does he hold his cross? In his teeth? Or worn as a chest
medallion? ;) My sincere apologies, in advance, to all those who have
neither the humour, the subtlety of language to enjoy the nuances, nor
the intelligence to read the jokes between the lines. (You'll know who
you are) :-)
JJ Himes
information about himself. And there is always one thing he mentions more
than anything else.... sort of a pattern, notice that? Not just in his
posts here, but in most of his SAA posts.
"Chris.B" <chr...@nypost.dk> wrote in message
news:203dfa06-15e5-4dee...@m37g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
bill doors
"JJ Himes" <sns...@net.net> wrote in message
news:ho51cr$d33$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Bill, this guy is like a pinada. Everytime I hit it out comes more
> information about himself. And there is always one thing he mentions more
> than anything else.... sort of a pattern, notice that? Not just in his
> posts here, but in most of his SAA posts.
>
you mean his resentment and attacks on religion? yeah, I noticed that some
time ago
my guess is that he was at one time hurt emotionally by a religion and now
channels his frustration and anger thru this group
dont know for sure just a guess
is there any point in continuing the verbal assaults?
it usually takes a lot more than vague usenet convos to change someones way
of thinking even if it can be changed at all
often times not feasible anyway
JJ Himes
Correct. He offers very little here on SAA other than this.
> my guess is that he was at one time hurt emotionally by a religion and now
> channels his frustration and anger thru this group
I agree.
> dont know for sure just a guess
> is there any point in continuing the verbal assaults?
> it usually takes a lot more than vague usenet convos to change someones
> way of thinking even if it can be changed at all
> often times not feasible anyway
It's one thing to simply say that you're an athiest/ agnostic or whatever,
but quite another to continually rant and rave about the horrors of
religious belief. It was because he refused to relent that the conversation
shifted below the equator, but hey if he decides to refrain from further
unorthodox religious dogma, conversation will once again remain appropriate.