 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> 1) apparently it is possible in the land of the free to ban someone
>> from attending a movie including a banning order for the building
>> without the intervention of a judge.
>
> It was a free, invitation-only preview of the movie. You were invited as
> a guest if you signed up for it. They revoked the invitation.
And the theatre owner can ban anyone they want for any reason they want.
The theatre isn't public; it's private property, and you're there at
the owners' discretion.
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> And the theatre owner can ban anyone they want for any reason they want.
Not quite. There *are* a list of reasons why you can't ban someone. You
can't kick someone out for being Catholic or having dark skin. But other
reasons, sure.
Indeed, I bet you could make a case that you were kicked out for being
atheist, and therefore that's religious discrimination.
I saw a report of a community refusing to allow lawyers to buy homes
there because they file too many lawsuits. A lawyer was refused, and he
of course filed a lawsuit. He lost, because "lawyer" isn't a protected
category.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well, the point that people that understand the theory of evolution,
instead of getting everything, including the name sometimes, wrong, is
that nothing implies the "need" for a designer at this point. Sure, gaps
exists, but most of them are in the minutiae, or involve stuff that
evolution itself doesn't imply, state or talk about, like abiogenisis.
And, even that just begs the question of, "What kind of designer
couldn't just poof it all into existence, instead of setting up some
basic life form, over which all evidence clearly suggests they would
lose all ability to direct or control within the first hundred
generations?
Such a designer would either have to be limited, non-omniscient, non-
omnipotent, etc., or something like the fragment of god that got hit by
a satalite, in Futurama, and so good at it, that they set up every
single tiny detail, all the while making it **absolutely** impossible to
find any evidence that they where involved. And that just begs the
question, "Why do that, then insist on making the species that resulted
jump through stupid hoops of unfounded blind belief vs. testable
disbelief, to get at whether or not you exist?" Its either a damn bad
way to get followers and keep them, or something sadistic, like poking a
small furry animal in a box with a stick, where all the animal knows is
that something outside the box is stabbing them. Mind you, in this case,
the designer can't even get that right, since the only evidence of
outside interference is the human hubris that because "we" design
things, something else had to design everything else, including the
stuff that all evidence suggests designed "themselves", like rivers,
canyons, mountains, etc. Its a silly argument really. "Gosh! Its true
that the unbelievably complicated thing like the grand canyon kind of
formed on its own, based on physical laws, but the eye.. Now that just
***looks*** complex to me, never mind that, statistically, its fracking
simplistic by comparison to the complex structure of one side canyon in
the grand canyon!" Well, that would be the argument, if they where not
completely blind to the fact that a side canyon "is" more complex than
an eye, and doesn't just look like it too them because they don't
understand it.
So.. Is there or isn't there? Who the heck knows. Do you need one for
any of it to happen? Not as far as anyone can tell so far. Could that
prove different later? Sure, but trying to compare that to ***any*** of
the stupid definitions or descriptions these ID people, or creationists
in general, think did it... is just absurd.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <47e47a1d$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] san rrcom says...
> Chambers wrote:
> > And the theatre owner can ban anyone they want for any reason they want
.
>
> Not quite. There *are* a list of reasons why you can't ban someone. You
> can't kick someone out for being Catholic or having dark skin. But other
> reasons, sure.
>
> Indeed, I bet you could make a case that you were kicked out for being
> atheist, and therefore that's religious discrimination.
>
> I saw a report of a community refusing to allow lawyers to buy homes
> there because they file too many lawsuits. A lawyer was refused, and he
> of course filed a lawsuit. He lost, because "lawyer" isn't a protected
> category.
>
Yeah. They are busy spinning this, trying to claim that they knew, from
some comment made on the subject previously by PZ, that he would have
been disruptive. The fact that his behavior, unless you read one version
of events from the creationist attending, who has so far posted 2
conflicting claims of PZs behavior, one saying he was disruptive, the
other that, "well, no, actually he wasn't..", showed nothing of the
sort, is a bit odd. The fact that he hasn't shown a public tendency to
be disruptive doesn't lend itself to the claim either. The only apparent
reason why he might have been refused was because Mathis, who produced
this garbage, hates PZs guts for the few times PZ called in one some
radio interview by the fool and made him look like the idiot he was.
Basically, the working theory is that Mathis saw PZ, recognized who he
was, ordered him removed, but in his panic didn't notice who was with
him. A fact pretty much confirmed by the later account of him turning
white as a sheet when he called on Dawkins, then the later spin they
have tried to put on it, claiming that they cowed Dawkins into
submission during the Q&A after. The only thing certain is that their
message is, "Our version of evolution is the right one, we think ID is
better, but don't plan to tell you what the hell that actually is, and
oh, BTW, evolution leads to atheism, which led to Hitler." If there is
one damn thing in those premises that isn't either delusional,
historically wrong, or showing a vast ignorance of everything about the
subjects they are trying to talk about, its probably that the movie is
"their view". The rest... couldn't be more wrong if they tried to claim
that evolution is wrong because it doesn't explain The Lord of the Rings
and that Gandalf was really the first Pope and that the Holocaust was
caused by the rediscovery of the One Ring.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
My problem with creationists and the ID people is that they should not ditch
science in favor of the Bible as it makes up for stupid arguments. Instead,
they should understand what the Bible says under the light of science. They
should embrace science and with such ammunition try to understand how God did
it, instead of simply saying: "The Lord said so and so it happened". That
leads nowhere, it does not take us closer to an understandment of God's and our
own nature.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
> Well, for people that shoot themselves in the foot, this one had to an
> RPG. PZ Myers, a fairly well known, but hardly world wide known, name in
> the so called debate between 1 AD theology and 2008 AD science, and who
> was interviewed, (or more like mugged), for the movie Expelled, has been
> expelled from the line for the movie in the Mall of America. He was
> there in the twin cities, with his family, and other atheists, to attend
> a convention *for* atheists. I will leave the punchline of who **did**
> get let in instead for those reading the post (Hint: This person **is**
> known world wide, and they also misused interview material from him in
> it).
For some reason I didn't understand that paragraph at all.
Anyways, this subject is boring. Could we please pass? I don't think
this server needs yet another "let's all bash ID wackos" megathread.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Well, for people that shoot themselves in the foot, this one had to an
> RPG. PZ Myers, a fairly well known, but hardly world wide known, name in
> the so called debate between 1 AD theology and 2008 AD science, and who
> was interviewed, (or more like mugged), for the movie Expelled...
From www.uncommondescent.com:
"So it really is pathetic of Dawkins, et al to complain that when they
were interviewed for Expelled they didn’t know that the film was
inherently unfriendly. These are interviewees who received pre-agreed
questions, signed release forms after the interviews were conducted, and
actually got paid for their time."
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <web.47e49ba9bd0847b4fe19a56b0@news.povray.org>,
nam### [at] gmailcom says...
> My problem with creationists and the ID people is that they should not di
tch
> science in favor of the Bible as it makes up for stupid arguments. Inste
ad,
> they should understand what the Bible says under the light of science. T
hey
> should embrace science and with such ammunition try to understand how God
did
> it, instead of simply saying: "The Lord said so and so it happened". Th
at
> leads nowhere, it does not take us closer to an understandment of God's a
nd our
> own nature.
>
Lots of past people, including St. Thomas Aquinas have said things
*similar* to that, only to ignore their own good sense the moment that
something sufficiently conflicted with their faith that they would have
had to question what they believed seriously, or reject the existence of
the thing that caused the conflict. "Liberal" Christians ranging from
those that practice, like Atheist Jews, the cultural details of the
religion while being all but certain the mythical bits are all
gibberish, to those that, in general, try really hard to shoehorn some
sort of god into a hole that one can't fit into, because they recognize
that religion really doesn't do too well at describing the physical
world (the two magisterium argument, which makes the convoluted claim
that there is some other world we can't see, describe, know or
understand entirely, so one can't expect proof of it, but which they all
have *clear* proof and evidence of...) The "conservatives" range from
those who where toe tip to drop with the truth, got scared out of their
wits, and decided to cling to the diving board, rather than *at least*
closing their eyes and pretending they didn't jump after they got out of
the water, to those on the other extreme, who know they don't have a leg
to stand on, fall prey to every sin and evil they claim their faith is
designed to prevent, the project that idiocy on everyone that doesn't
follow some self claimed "literal" reading. There are people in between
the extremes on both sides, but those in the middle are in crisis, and,
depending on who feeds them information, are going to fall off the
diving board, and either end up in the water, or land on the cement.
There doesn't seem to be any way to remain sane, even by the standards
of the extreme right, and stand in the middle, between the extremes.
Either you realize the Bible is full of holes, or you panic and hide
some place under the covers, where a lot of kind, but equally ignorant,
people pat you on the back and tell you, "Now, now. Don't cry. We'll
just put a parachute and some floaties on you, and you can pretend that
the kiddie slide is the high dive."
The people on that side of the fence are not interested in getting a
closer understanding of anything, unless its the apologistics of their
personal strait jacket. Its too scary to image a world without it, and
often psychologically impossible for them to comprehend that most people
are not as screwed up, paranoid, corruptible and afraid of the world as
they are. And this isn't just me projecting my own view into the
situation, this is what a number of ex-fundamentalists and ex-
literalists say about how they thought, and their own families often
still do think. It took something profound poking holes in their
floaties, or some aspect of the real world pointing out how dumb they
looked standing at the kiddy pool and pretending to do swan dives was to
shatter their positions. Some just find a bigger pillow to hide under.
Other... start to question everything and learn things. A few eventually
reach the point where they can say, "I can admit to how Christianity
shaped the world and that it had benefits, but also that it could have,
and maybe even might have been better, had something else shaped it, and
I am no more certain of god actually being out there than the atheists
are." And, BTW, most of them take a pragmatic approach to the subject.
No believable evidence and no reason for one? It probably doesn't exist,
nor is there any reason to think that believing in some random one
picked with a coin flip will benefit anyone, but if it does exist, it
doesn't pragmatically change a damn thing about what we **know**, nor
can we make *any* valid progress in trying to claim which one if the
right one, so Pascal's Wager is totally useless.
You can't, after all, win a wager if you don't know how many players you
are betting on, which picks will get you in serious trouble, if any, or
even if the guy running the game is seriously running some sort of game
to bet on, or just a crook pretending to take bets, while taking all
your money. Or, to put it in Homer Simpson's terms, "What if we are
going to the wrong church ever Sunday and the real god is just getting
madder and madder?" ;)
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <47e5baf2@news.povray.org>, evi### [at] hotmailcom
says...
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
> > Well, for people that shoot themselves in the foot, this one had to an
> > RPG. PZ Myers, a fairly well known, but hardly world wide known, name i
n
> > the so called debate between 1 AD theology and 2008 AD science, and who
> > was interviewed, (or more like mugged), for the movie Expelled...
>
> From www.uncommondescent.com:
>
> "So it really is pathetic of Dawkins, et al to complain that when they
> were interviewed for Expelled they didn?t know that the film was
> inherently unfriendly. These are interviewees who received pre-agreed
> questions, signed release forms after the interviews were conducted, and
> actually got paid for their time."
>
> Regards,
> John
>
All of which is a lie. They where told it was going to be for a
completely different movie, which was going to be even handed, despite
the fact that a) the movie site for the *real* title turns out to have
been purchased by the producers *before* the interviews ever took place
(a fact only uncovered much later), and b) trying to claim that
evolution leads to atheist, which leads to Hitler is not even handed at
all, even if you ignore the fact that 1) Hitler wasn't an atheist, so
its stupid to start with or 2) that they don't either describe what
Intelligent Design is in the movie, or get one single fracking thing
they say about what evolution says right.
In other words, they lied about what the movie was going to be about and
what the title was, then proceeded to make something that is nothing but
a mind boggling rehash of standard creationist BS, while still trying to
claim that its not about creationism, but some sort of science. Well.
Well the frell is the science already, instead of the endless lies,
historical revisionism, misquotes and absurd complaints about vast
conspiracies?
That you are using uncommon-density as source material tells me all I
need to know about how much you understand about the subject, or how
badly distorting the ID view of it is. They can't even describe how they
approached PZ and Dawkins without lying about what really happened,
despite the fact that the chronological evidence, and the simple facts
available, all say the opposite.
And, even if it was true, it still wouldn't change the fact that they
intentional chose to misuse the statements of two prominent biologists,
to make it sound like they meant things other than what they intended.
That is illegal. But, as DI well knows, its not something you can
successfully sue someone over unless you can prove actual damages. Since
the point hasn't, so far, been to get Dawkins or PZ fired, or anything
substantial, but rather to just misrepresent science, its just not worth
wasting money and court time on fighting people, where words and facts
are more useful, and where only Dawkins really has the money to sue, or
the time to bother, in the first place.
Oh, wait.. I forgot, the secret cabal is paying PZ like some sort of
high level Russian official, and got him a "trophy wife"... The people
that run uncommondescent have trouble opening their mouths without
lying. And I would be **quite** happy if one of them decided to sue me
for saying so. Its only slander if its not true, and such a case would
be fracking Dover all over again.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> All of which is a lie.
How do you know? Were you there? Or did you read it among all those
hate-mongering comments you pointed us to originally?
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
