In article <47e8d2d6$1@news.povray.org>, 
gal### [at] libertyALLsurfSPAMfr says...

> > In article <web.47e7b90abd0847b45a8888d90@news.povray.org>, 
> > nomail@nomail says...
> >> Evidence is not made more compelling by shouting it louder, repeating 
it more
> >> often or intermixing it with vulgar diatribe.
> >>
> > Then why are these the only tactics the other side uses every place. 
> 
> I don't know, because the people on the other side are not so bright 
> after all, perhaps :-) ?
> 
> As others said there is no need to stoop to their level...
> 
> Or at least make it fun, if you really have to :-D
> 
Hmm. Well, one kind of wonders, if they have the mental capacity of a 4 
year old throwing water balloons, does standing there looking adult and 
grumpy, and telling him, "The statistical probability of you 
accomplishing anything useful with this tactic is quite low, especially 
when you can't even throw it far enough, or at the right target.", going 
to get you any place?

Sometimes ridicule is the only weapon you can use against the 
ridiculous, especially if the person in question so badly misunderstands 
the argument and the validity of their own position, that you 
practically have to spell it out like, "You are wrong." = You - 
referring to self, the one I am talking to. Are - what your present 
state is, etc., wrong- not right, incorrect, mistaken, and so on.

When they can funnel 900 idiocies in 30 minutes, and it would take you 2 
hours just to cover how dumb the first one is, by itself... Well, you 
have two choices. 1) call them hosers, or 2) quit your job and spend the 
next 40 years of your life *trying* to tell people at your own 
conventions how wrong they are, knowing that they have a 30+ year head 
start, more money, more people, and more time than you do to spread the 
gibberish.

Frankly, the only real consolation is that, once they are sitting in a 
puddle of mud, complaining they can't stay dry or warm, while an entire 
warehouse of parts you could build a heater from sits 5 feet away from 
them, they will have to come to you to build one. But its small 
consolation, given that you would be, at that point, sitting in the same 
mud puddle, wondering why you let the idiot convince everyone that 
houses where ungodly sins and needed to be torn down.

-- 
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 <47e99908@news.povray.org>, war### [at] tagpovrayorg says...
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
> > Kind of like Protestants.. Start with the premise that you don't need
 
> > the trappings of the church, just a personal relationship with god, the
n 
> > proceed to build lots of churches, rewrite bits of the Bible to sound
 
> > better, then become some of the most obnoxious people on the planet 
> > about being sheppards, by "telling people about Jesus", even when they
 
> > don't want to know. lol
> 
>   It's good to see that this thread about bashing ID proponents has not
> converted into an attack towards christian movements.
> 
Umm. I am not attacking the moment at all. If they stuck to the original 
premise, scientists, and even most atheists, including myself, wouldn't 
have a single problem with them. We might even acknowledge *some* of the 
ideas they have, where they to be reasonable ones (mind you, I don't 
find a lot of *reasonable* in Christianity that isn't better stated in a 
lot of other religions, and without the much of the hypocrisy and 
situational ethics). The problem here is hubris, the hypocrisy of 
claiming a principle, then ignoring it by trying to make everyone else 
*agree* with their interpretation of what "personal relationship" means, 
and just the general execution of the whole idea. I would judge just as 
harshly someone that came up with a grand idea of making sure everyone 
had medical care, then deciding later on that *medical care* meant 
forcing everyone to get plastic surgery to correct what *they* thought 
where "defects".

I am also sure there are some of them that adhere to their principles 
and don't push it. But, such people probably don't attend much church, 
since churches would be pushing them to spread the word, nor going 
around telling everyone in sight what their religion is. I.e., they 
wouldn't be noticeable until you asked. So, I am to judge the movement 
on the basis of a silent and unknown number, or the thousands of 
lunatics that show up every year in a mega prayer session some place, 
for the protestant Woodstock to pray for me to be, "Shown the light, or 
at least prevented from making the country worse by not being like 
them!"?

Since the first group is rather invisible, and doesn't seem all that 
inclined to do anything about the loud mouths, its damn hard to judge 
the movement based on the ones I **don't** see all the time. Just 
saying..

-- 
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 <c46ku3phn0r3hmhv6janlb85hgr4mpctsl@4ax.com>, 
mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom says...
> >Show me a time in history that this wasn't the case. lol Seriously, 
> >*everyone* is clueless about some things, a small number though rise 
> >above the majority, to varied amounts, due to upbringing, or natural 
> >talent, and often have, in some areas, a far clearer understanding of 
> >the world than the vast majority. The majority though, tend to look for
 
> >those that confirm their opinion, not those that challenge it (which is
 
> >one of the main traits that distinguish that other minority). 
> 
> But the knack is not to think or treat them like that or you end up
> "knowing what is best" for them. Then becoming one of the oppressors. 
> 
Very hard to manage, especially if you are pretty sure you are right. 
The one article I linked in one of the posts, "Lunch with a Liberal 
Christian", speaks to this. The hardest thing you can ever do is 
recognize that only the person you are talking to can find the right 
path, and that while you can guide, you can't force, and sometimes, they 
will insist on walking off the cliff anyway. Invariably, oppressors are 
people that see long term consequences that may be real or imaginary, 
conclude that they "can't wait" to fix things, and then try to "force" 
the change. This is why I talk a lot, but don't try to force things, and 
get irritated, most of the time, with those that do. Sometimes, you have 
to be an oppressor though, if only on a small scale. For example, turns 
out that Oregon has some wacky law on the books that says, "If a parent 
does something that result in harm to a child, but it was religious, its 
not as bad as if it wasn't, and Christians are **especially** 
protected." I mean, what the hell is that sort of law doing on the books 
at all, never mind in a state in the US? I would have no problem being 
an "oppressor" in this case, nor would most Christians.

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2008/03/in_bizarre_religions_ritual_cu
.php

But, at the same time, while I would love to see indoctrination into 
some of the more insane BS that goes along with religion, there isn't 
really anything I can or should be able to do about it (beyond providing 
what, right now, is imho too limited, which is a way out for kids that 
realize they don't agree with some or all of it).

> >When churches have, on rare occation, 
> >gotten uppity and told people they didn't want to hear, the result where
 
> >usually not too good for the church. Though, its a toss up whether this
 
> >has been worse than the cases where they told their followers what they
 
> >wanted to hear, only to have those people later discover it was a lie 
> >(like a number of fun scandals the US has seen recently, of which the 
> >Catholics are but one in a broad membership).
> 
> Well you are on a hiding to nothing if you try to say that you are
> infallible. 
> 
Yeah. But this goes **way** past claiming infallibility. If recent 
evidence suggests anything, its precisely what I have strongly 
suspected. The louder the fool protesting other people's sins gets, the 
more likely they are projecting their own sins on people they can't 
imagine not having the same. And the people that keep getting caught 
with their pants down, figuratively or literally, are the most obnoxious 
and fervent complainers against the same sins they get caught at. That 
isn't fallibility, its a desperate cry for help from people that are 
convinced that the only help they have coming is from their imaginary 
friend, who will, in most cases, only *cure* them after they spend their 
lives trying to *cure* everyone else of the same immorality. Its a very 
disturbing mind set, and its *protected*, legally, traditionally and 
culturally, as unquestionable, outside the people that won't question it 
properly in most cases, and untouchable, unless it reaches a point where 
it starts effecting people *outside* its own doors.

Its sometimes enough to make one weep for the supposed ethical capacity 
of humanity, or physically sick at the acts committed.

-- 
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 <web.47ea6b2bbd0847b45a8888d90@news.povray.org>, 
nomail@nomail says...
>  If, as you imply, their behavior is objectionable, why emulate it? ... t
o
> "win"? ... win WHAT?  It's the pervasive sense of this or that group of p
eople
> being "The Other Side" which is one of the major root causes of reason be
ing
> superseded by emotional compulsion in the human decision making process. 
 If one
> is going to promote reason, the first necessary step is to BE reasonable 
to the
> best of one's ability.  Ignorance, fear, bigotry and hatred are the only 
real
> "enemies".  One doesn't cure a disease by despising the sufferer.
> 
Its not about winning. The kinds of people likely to read most of the 
stuff are "not" going to show up at the site, nor understand most of the 
stuff there, nor learn anything from it. So, its not like we are going 
to look bad to anyone that doesn't already think we look bad, for the 
most part. Some might, if embarrassed enough, start to wonder why the 
world is laughing at them. And that "can" be helpful. But, just to be 
clear, one should compare the level of supposed diatribe being used. 
Half the stuff people say is diatribe from us is just describing what 
**they** are actually doing. As for vulgar... Description of what the 
other side "actually" says and does is not vulgar, nor is using their 
own words against them. And if you want to argue name calling. Ok, some 
of that happens, but its more often from those like myself that don't 
have as many facts, details or sources to be clear about what we say, 
and *we* are still usually far more moderate in our comments than they 
ever are.

Basically, we call them Ignorant - they claim we meant stupid. We say 
they don't understand something, and shouldn't try to claim to, unless 
they learn about it first - they insist we just said that they should 
shut up and that we plan to make them. And so on. Even when we 
occasionally use words that *are* less than civil, they come back 
calling us Nazis, claims that we plan to send them to concentration 
camps, claims that *we* don't know anything, or said the exact opposite 
of what we actually did, etc. We state, one time, that its about time 
for scientists to stand up and start actively apposing them, and use 
some flowery language, and they start babbling about eugenics, stalin, 
pol pot, mao, etc.

But, as PZ himself has said. People that want to change things need both 
the mild and the aggressive. The mild to show people how things "could 
be", and the aggressive, to get people to question *why* there is a 
problem. Without Malcom X types, you don't get change, you get what 
science has dealt with the last 200 years, a constant threat by people 
who wanted to insert religion into things. We have been fighting the 
issue of evolution since the fracking Scopes trial, nearly 150 years 
ago, and the only progress we have made is *in* the scientific 
community. By pressing on, instead of both aggressively pointing out 
errors in the opponents views, but also making them look like the fools 
they are, we have instead allowed them to a) convince most people that 
they are not fools, b) undermine science education, quietly and not, in 
most places, easily noticed, by pushing for poorer standards *and* 
unqualified teachers, and c) actively working to blur the lines. And 
scientists, while this has been happening have been? Talking about 
overlapping magesteria, claiming that faith may be compatible with 
science, trying to find "allies" among people that would, barely more 
than 150 years ago, burned them at the stake, and basically bent over 
backwards to avoid actively calling shit shit, or the people that 
produce it so often liars, ignorant, or, often, even just "wrong".

So, PZ is the Malcom X of the scene. Dawkins.. Good lord, have you seen 
the guy speak? He's like Steven Seagal, just before he snaps your neck. 
"Now.. I am sure you really don't want me to do this...", spoken in a 
calm nice voice that is *just* loud enough to be heard. Anyone that can 
claim he is at all like the ID people claim, have never seen or heard 
him, and anyone claiming his books are as negative or bad as they 
supposedly are, have never read the damn things. And these people don't. 
They just buy the book, then skim the pages for things they can make 
"look" bad, "with ... a lot of ... elipses ..., which conceal ...", 
entire chapters in between them. BTW, the original quote of the above 
contained the first 3 chapters of Moby Dick. ;) lol Its hardly a 
diatribe, strawman, or anything else, to call them liars when they do 
that sort of thing. I am sure you can think of plenty of other entirely 
appropriate things to call them as well.

-- 
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

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 22:22:48 -0700, Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet>
wrote:

>
>Its sometimes enough to make one weep for the supposed ethical capacity 
>of humanity, or physically sick at the acts committed.

Well I think that we are of a mind on this only I am exposed to much
less of it on this side of the pond. Have you ever considered
emigrating? :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

> Well I think that we are of a mind on this only I am exposed to much
> less of it on this side of the pond. Have you ever considered
> emigrating? :)
> --
>
> Regards
>      Stephen

*I* have.  I'd hop across The Pond in an instant if I had a job and a reasonably
quick path to citizenship waiting for me when I got there.  I've also thought
about New Zealand. How do you not love a country with a National Shaman? :o)

G'day Mates,
Mike C.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:37:12 EST, "Mike the Elder" <nomail@nomail>
wrote:

>
>*I* have.  I'd hop across The Pond in an instant if I had a job and a reasonably
>quick path to citizenship waiting for me when I got there.  I've also thought
>about New Zealand. How do you not love a country with a National Shaman? :o)

Unfortunately you generally need to do it the other way around. Go
somewhere and then find a job.
A National Shaman I didn't know that. But then Kiwi's are even
stranger than Roo's :) They say "fish and chips" properly.  
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

In article <6vumu35ooi9ivj8fqubl7o9q8pulj0qmjp@4ax.com>, 
mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom says...
> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 22:22:48 -0700, Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet>
> wrote:
> 
> >
> >Its sometimes enough to make one weep for the supposed ethical capacity
 
> >of humanity, or physically sick at the acts committed.
> 
> Well I think that we are of a mind on this only I am exposed to much
> less of it on this side of the pond. Have you ever considered
> emigrating? :)
> 
Would put me too close the Muslims when they decide to reenact the pre-
crusades invasion that had them, temporary, in control over everything 
in Europe to, France I think it was? lol Seriously. As nuts as my nuts 
are, there are worse, and my nuts *won't* succeed in the long run. They 
have lost the one tactic that makes success a certainty, the willingness 
to kill, instead of just marginalize, everyone that disagrees with them.

Now, if you had some place I could move to where a) no one was likely to 
invade/riot over the same sort of BS, and there was vastly fewer nuts... 
lol

-- 
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

Actually, someone on one of the threads at PZ described the problem 
pretty well:

"The intolerant, religious and otherwise, have, through their 
stranglehold on much of society, redefined "respectful" so that anything 
less conciliatory than "well, I don't agree with you on that *apologetic 
smile, shrug*" - including calmly giving reasons WHY one disagrees - is 
considered "disrespectful." And unfortunately they've done it so 
efficiently that many of us unconsciously use words the way they've 
redefined them."

The ones that opt not to unconsciously use those words, get called every 
sort of negative thing possible, even if the words where contained in 
one sentence, and there are 10 paragraphs of scientific facts and 
explanations for just *why* the crazy BS they claimed is in fact wrong. 
That is the usual content of stuff on PZ's site. The stuff that involves 
just pointing out stupidity, and calling it such, *still* tend to link 
to the story or event, and explain why PZ thought it was crazy and 
stupid.

Now, the other side.. They can't even link to, or accurately give 
citations, of stuff they insists "proves" their point. Worse, half the 
points they come up with have no basis in fact, but are reposts of 
someone else's blog, quoting someone's book, which quoted a page of 
professes quotes, of things copied from someone claiming to have quoted 
a paper, which was once written by some famous person, but for which 
**no** evidence exists to suggest that the quote is representative of 
anything they would have said or did, nor that the supposed letter, 
document or book had ever existed. And if that sounds confusing, imagine 
the frustration of the people trying to track down where the hell they 
get some of their supposed "quotes from the founding fathers"... Most of 
them can be traced back, via links, searches and chronology of when the 
pages first appeared (according to archiving sites), to one web site. 
And that one, doesn't even pretend to give any references, links and/or 
citations of the sources of them.

It is like someone quoting historical details from the TV show Sliders, 
as evidence. made even more absurd when some people dig up the "real" 
origins of some of the tales. One example. A hugely famous one of theres 
describes Jefferson going to a church and having a military band play 
for the congregation. The actual events involve 1) a pastor quoting 
something he claimed, back when he was ten, that his friend had heard 
Jefferson say about religion, while that friend supposedly saw Jefferson 
going to a church. There is no evidence the event wasn't just made up, 
and lots of evidence to suggest that Jefferson wasn't social enough to 
have been seen going around to churches, or that he would have said 
anything positive about them. 2) a news article posted by a women who 
visited the capitol for the paper she worked for. Her article made it 
clear that a) while some pastor occasionally spoke at the start of the 
meeting, no one paid much attention, b) it was more of a mens club, to 
talk about their day, issues, etc. and c) Jefferson did have the 
military band play there, not as something linked to the vague service 
that they allowed, but to impress the reporter.

I mean, how dumb do you have to be to make up an event based on third 
hand hearsay + events in a news article, which **anyone** can look up in 
the national archives? Apparently, not very, since its posted as fact, 
and repeated on almost every site that attempts to claim that the 
founders wanted Christians to run things. :p

-- 
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

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 18:44:24 -0700, Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet>
wrote:


>Would put me too close the Muslims when they decide to reenact the pre-
>crusades invasion that had them, temporary, in control over everything 
>in Europe to, France I think it was? lol Seriously. As nuts as my nuts 
>are, there are worse, and my nuts *won't* succeed in the long run. They 
>have lost the one tactic that makes success a certainty, the willingness 
>to kill, instead of just marginalize, everyone that disagrees with them.

You had better stay at home, then

>
>Now, if you had some place I could move to where a) no one was likely to 
>invade/riot over the same sort of BS, and there was vastly fewer nuts... 
>lol

What about that manned flight to Mars :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message