On 4/13/2011 9:02 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 01:55:41 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> True enough. But, the question is where is the tipping point. Where do
>> people stop accepting, as a general whole, obvious lies, simply because
>> a lot of people say they believe them?
>
> There's a bit of herd mentality that takes place when it comes to
> believing crazy stuff.  I do wonder (as Bill Maher once postulated) if
> people were raised believing in magic beans and beanstalks if they'd
> defend it to the death when they grew up.
>
> Jim
Been having a discussion over on a Youtube thread which answers that 
question. I doubt you would deny that a) the Greeks/Romans actually 
believed their gods where real, b) there isn't a whole lot, if anything, 
from the time, questioning their existence, c) there is a lot of "holy 
books", legends and stories, about them, d) all of this from the 
*actual* time they where supposed to be performing their miracles. Yet, 
the Christian on the thread insists that the Bible itself, a few known 
forgeries (some of which, like the one in Josephus' history is no longer 
even supported by all Biblical scholars as legit), and some vague 
references to people with similar names, nearly all of it written half a 
century later, constitutes "equal" evidence to that of any real 
historical figure, and is in fact "superior" to that of all the other 
prior mythologies, *and* most of those same historical figures. I mean, 
this guy wants to argue that we have more sound evidence for a real 
Jesus than we do for Julius Caesar.

I have no problem agreeing with Mill Maher on the subject.

The fact that, as I also just pointed out, this "messiah" couldn't come 
up with anything to do that wasn't a direct replication of what ever 
false god and con artist has "supposedly" performed over the last 10,000 
years of recorded history, instead of like, regrowing a missing limb, or 
something, but only makes a unique case in as much as cramming as many 
of those prior miracles into one career as possible, probably isn't 
going to faze him a bit either. :(

Post a reply to this message

On 4/13/2011 10:47 AM, Alain wrote:
> Le 2011/04/12 19:10, Jim Henderson a écrit :
>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 15:31:59 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>> When exactly are we going to stop accepting the endless and constant
>>> bullshit,
>>
>> Never, because there will always be people who will take 'belief' over
>> 'knowledge' because they've been conditioned to do so.
>>
>> Jim
>
> They take beleif over knowlege because they thing that the beleif IS
> proven knowlege, and actual knowlege is suputations and dreamings or
> even some kind of fraud.
>
>
> Alain
Shorter version, they take belief over knowledge because they have been 
lied to about which is which.

Post a reply to this message

On 4/13/2011 7:24 AM, Warp wrote:
> (For example, what possible reason
> can a creationist have to believe that genetic mutations are rare and
> always destructive and cannot possibly explain the diversity of life?
> There is no reason other than that they are just expanding their aversion
> to the entirety of the theory and perceive it to be *entirely* wrong in all
> possible aspects, even in aspects that don't really matter from a religious
> point of view.)
>
Standard trope for them is that there are only a small number of 
"Kinds", of which humans are the unique one, without any kin, and that 
all the diversity came about shortly after the flood, when god simply 
"poofed" all the variations into existence. They need this to be true, 
otherwise the Ark and Noah's flood are not possible.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 14:04:24 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 4/13/2011 12:35, nemesis wrote:
>> what to expect from a state founded by mormons? :p
> 
> I'm pretty sure the mormons don't take Genesis as literal.

It's not part of the mainstream belief, no, but there are some who do, 
just as there are some Catholics who do (in spite of the Vatican 
astronomer - now there's a job title - saying pretty bluntly that it 
can't possibly be a literal timeline).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 4/13/2011 7:26 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> I literally can't decide whether this is serious or not.
>>
>> I'm just gobsmacked.
>
> Ditto.
>
>> Be afraid be very, very afraid that there are people in the educated
>> world that can ask those types of questions and those that will answer
>> them.
>
> I honestly can't decide whether this is deadpan spoof or perfectly serious.
>
> (Isn't there a law of the Internet about this effect?)
Its called a Poe: "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of 
humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that 
SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing."

A corollary to this is one, I am not sure its been named, which states 
that no such parody you can make will ever be unique, since there is 
bound to already be some Fundamentalist, some place, making the same 
exact same argument/statement on an existing website.

Ironically there is also a theological poe's law, which states, 
basically, that different bits of stupidity in the Bible will resonate 
with different people, at different times. My wording, not their's. lol

Post a reply to this message

On 4/13/2011 11:01 AM, Alain wrote:
> Le 2011/04/13 12:03, Jim Henderson a écrit :
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 14:27:59 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/08/31/feedback-t-rex-and-
>> humans
>>>
>>> I literally can't decide whether this is serious or not.
>>
>> They are serious - it does look a lot like someone's having a joke, but
>> young-Earth creationists really do believe in the literal truth of the
>> bible as a historic record of how the Earth and humanity came into
>> existence, and anything to the contrary is rejected because it isn't
>> consistent with the bible.
>>
>> Jim
>
> Even if there is something that can be called "God", and that thing is
> unfailible.
> It's "teatchings" where reported by some men, who are failible.
> The bible was recorded by failible men.
> It's content was passed by oral tradition for over a millenia, with all
> the changes and morfing that this imply.
> Peoples with somewhat similar names are often merged into one.
> Peoples with somewhat similar stories can also get merged into one,
> keeping the most memorable name.
> The languages used did change a LOT in that time.
> The writen form was translated countless times.
>
> Each step does bring some alterations.
>
> Now, how can you view that kind of text?
>
>
> Alain
If you are a faith head, as a work that changes over time to become 
"more true to the original intent". Yeah, I know.. Its like having a two 
year old tell you that they are *sure* the last message in a game of 
"telephone" is 100% correct...

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 14:08:48 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 4/13/2011 14:02, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Yep.  I personally think it comes down to the use of "theory" to
>> describe evolution.
> 
> Nah. That's just an easy target. If it was the "facts" of evolution or
> the "law" of evolution, people still wouldn't believe it.

True, but it's misusing the word "theory" to intentionally (or 
ignorantly, take your pick) mislead people.  Sure if it were 'facts' or 
'law' they'd find some other way to twist it.  There are some 
creationists who already are bringing into question some of the science, 
for example, regardless of the term used.

Just like there was a push a few years ago (maybe still going on) by some 
to demonstrate that carbon dating is wildly inaccurate and cannot be 
relied upon.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 4/13/2011 7:58 AM, Invisible wrote:
> On 12/04/2011 10:06 PM, Warp wrote:
>> Following this from abroad, I don't know if this should be amusing or
>> frightening...
>
> And apparently the results are conclusive:
>
> http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2005-11.pdf
>
> America is the most religious first-world country, and it also has the
> highest rates of crime, poor health, etc.
As someone stated, we are rapidly doing the following:

1. Replacing one citizen = one vote with, most money = all the votes.
2. Pushing ideology as a sound way to run things.
3. Removing even the semblance of health care and welfare for the least 
in society.
4. Evangelizing soldiers.
5. Abandoning infrastructure.
...etc...

All of them **hallmarks** of the way Third World nations function. In 
short, we are dismantling everything that other countries have looked up 
to us for, in favor of the things they both hate us for, and hate about 
their own countries.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 14:57:14 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> On 4/13/2011 9:02 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 01:55:41 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>> True enough. But, the question is where is the tipping point. Where do
>>> people stop accepting, as a general whole, obvious lies, simply
>>> because a lot of people say they believe them?
>>
>> There's a bit of herd mentality that takes place when it comes to
>> believing crazy stuff.  I do wonder (as Bill Maher once postulated) if
>> people were raised believing in magic beans and beanstalks if they'd
>> defend it to the death when they grew up.
>>
>> Jim
> Been having a discussion over on a Youtube thread which answers that
> question. I doubt you would deny that a) the Greeks/Romans actually
> believed their gods where real, b) there isn't a whole lot, if anything,
> from the time, questioning their existence, c) there is a lot of "holy
> books", legends and stories, about them, d) all of this from the
> *actual* time they where supposed to be performing their miracles. Yet,
> the Christian on the thread insists that the Bible itself, a few known
> forgeries (some of which, like the one in Josephus' history is no longer
> even supported by all Biblical scholars as legit), and some vague
> references to people with similar names, nearly all of it written half a
> century later, constitutes "equal" evidence to that of any real
> historical figure, and is in fact "superior" to that of all the other
> prior mythologies, *and* most of those same historical figures. I mean,
> this guy wants to argue that we have more sound evidence for a real
> Jesus than we do for Julius Caesar.

That's where I have a big problem as well.  The Romans, Egyptians, Jews, 
etc were fairly well known for keeping very detailed records; while some 
records get destroyed over time, it's really odd that the only 
'historical' reference with some of these events in it is the Bible.

Also like Maher talked about in his film _Religulous_ (which I watched 
last night) with regards to the records kept about the 'virgin birth' - 
odd that none (IIRC) of the gospels talked about that; seems like 
something that would be very significant and would find its way into so-
called 'historical' accounts of the event.  But apparently not one of 
them mention it.

> I have no problem agreeing with Mill Maher on the subject.

> The fact that, as I also just pointed out, this "messiah" couldn't come
> up with anything to do that wasn't a direct replication of what ever
> false god and con artist has "supposedly" performed over the last 10,000
> years of recorded history, instead of like, regrowing a missing limb, or
> something, but only makes a unique case in as much as cramming as many
> of those prior miracles into one career as possible, probably isn't
> going to faze him a bit either. :(

Yep, that whole "this messiah story has been told over and over the same 
way over many millenia" was something I found quite interesting.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 12-4-2011 23:06, Warp wrote:
>    Following this from abroad, I don't know if this should be amusing or
> frightening...
>
> http://ncse.com/news/2011/03/antievolution-bill-tennessee-progresses-006545

shouldn't be that difficult to implement
- there is no scientific controversy over 'biological evolution'
- nobody (at least no scientist) knows 'the chemical origins of life'
- 'human cloning' is a technique and not a theory
- 'global warming' is perhaps the only thing mentioned that comes close 
to being a controversy in the scientific field.
If it would really lead to a debate in class on what is and what is not 
good research I would welcome it. But I guess somebody is going to point 
out that that is not the intention.


> http://ncse.com/news/2011/03/intelligent-design-legislation-texas-006531
> http://ncse.com/news/2011/03/antievolution-legislation-florida-006524
> http://ncse.com/news/2011/02/antievolution-legislation-new-mexico-006469
> http://ncse.com/news/2011/01/second-antievolution-bill-oklahoma-006439
> http://ncse.com/news/2011/01/antievolution-legislation-missouri-006421
> http://ncse.com/news/2011/01/antievolution-legislation-kentucky-006389

As far as I understand there are people trying to pass anti-science 
legislation and failing to get it to pass through the committees.



-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

On 4/13/2011 3:18 PM, andrel wrote:
> - 'global warming' is perhaps the only thing mentioned that comes close
> to being a controversy in the scientific field.
Of course, it tends to be damn suspicious that all the "experts" denying 
the last one on that list work for places that are either created by, 
funded by, or headed by, people with ties to precisely those industries 
that would be most effected by any of it being true. Probably 'pure' 
coincidence though...

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 15:15:45 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> 1. Replacing one citizen = one vote with, most money = all the votes.

Especially with the Citizens United ruling.  Thanks, SCOTUS, for screwing 
the voting system with corporate (and even foreign corporate) funds.

You also forgot 'trying to grow an empire'.  We really don't need troops 
in Korea, Vietnam, Germany, etc - those wars are all long since over.

Never mind Iraq and Afghanistan.  I'd add Libya to that list as well, 
except it *seems* for the moment we're out of there in any major sort of 
way.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 00:18:41 +0200, andrel wrote:

> - nobody (at least no scientist) knows 'the chemical origins of life'

Now I didn't actually take high school biology, but I thought there had 
been some progress made in this area - autotrophs create organic 
compounds from inorganic compounds through photosynthesis - and I thought 
I had read a couple of things recently about some advances that had been 
made in understanding photosynthesis and even (maybe) in creating 
something that is capable of photosynthesis.

>  - 'global warming' is perhaps the only thing mentioned that comes
> close to being a controversy in the scientific field.

And even then it's not that controversial.  It's a relatively small 
percentage of scientists who study climate change who think climate 
change isn't happening.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 4/13/2011 15:31, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 00:18:41 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>> - nobody (at least no scientist) knows 'the chemical origins of life'
>
> Now I didn't actually take high school biology, but I thought there had
> been some progress made in this area

Progress, but nothing definitive like *actually* making life.

>>   - 'global warming' is perhaps the only thing mentioned that comes
>> close to being a controversy in the scientific field.
>
> And even then it's not that controversial.  It's a relatively small
> percentage of scientists who study climate change who think climate
> change isn't happening.

I think it's more controversial what to do about it.  And at least there's 
something that remotely *sounds* controversial about it, if you actually 
read the original source stuff.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> writes:

> On 12/04/2011 10:06 PM, Warp wrote:
>>    Following this from abroad, I don't know if this should be amusing or
>> frightening...
>
> And apparently the results are conclusive:
>
> http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2005-11.pdf
>
> America is the most religious first-world country, and it also has the
> highest rates of crime, poor health, etc.

Highest rates of crime? Doubt it. The paper just speaks of homicide. IF
you look at violent crime where no one dies, other industrialized
countries are worse off, based on the statistics. I suspect some
fiddling around with the definition of "violent" is at play, but
still...

Homicides have more to do with a certain amendment than with religious
beliefs.

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> Standard trope for them is that there are only a small number of 
> "Kinds", of which humans are the unique one, without any kin, and that 
> all the diversity came about shortly after the flood, when god simply 
> "poofed" all the variations into existence. They need this to be true, 
> otherwise the Ark and Noah's flood are not possible.

  The "kind" thing seems to be some kind of dogma invented by a few
creationists, an idea that for some reason has got very popular among
ID proponent. I don't really even understand why they are so fixated
about that "kind hypothesis" anyways, as if it was somehow crucial.
It's based on the interpretation of exactly one vague sentence in the
scriptures.

  Well, as said, it's just a generalization of aversion: They strongly
dislike *one* consequence of evolutionary theory (iow. the concept that
humans evolved from previous species, rather than being created), and thus
they extend their distaste to *all* of the theory, including the very
concept of speciation. (Personally I don't see anything in the Bible that
would make the concept of speciation such a horrendous abomination as ID
proponents seem to think.)

  Also, a significant portion of Christians don't believe in the literal
interpretation of the Noah's Ark story because of all the problems it would
present (such as how and why would all members of sibling species travel
from the Ark's landing point to the other side of the world, crossing vast
oceans, and without leaving any representatives of their species along the
way, either by living descendants or fossils).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan <fee### [at] festercom> wrote:
> Homicides have more to do with a certain amendment than with religious
> beliefs. 

  The US is not the only western country where gun ownership is legal and
popular. It is not the explanation.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Now either those creationists are uneducated as to the multiple 
> definitions of the word 'theory' and which one actually applies when one 
> talks about the 'theory of evolution' (hint, it's not the 'hypothesis of 
> evolution' definition, which is what they push), or they are deliberately 
> misusing the word so as to push their dogmatic approach to trying to make 
> creationism seem like science.

  One big problem is that most creationists (and in fact most laymen,
regardless of orientation) don't even understand what the theory of
evolution is about. They attribute all kinds of misconceptions to it
(and also deny many undeniable natural phenomena as being evolution).

  Moreover, many ID proponents muddle the waters even more by mixing all
kinds of natural sciences as being part of "evolution". You'll see them
claiming that different fields of astronomy, astrophysics, chemistry,
quantum mechanics, geology, paleontology and other fields of natural
sciences are part of "theory of evolution", even though those have nothing
to do with the theory, nor even with biology.

  Ironically, they not only vastly expand what their mythical concept of
"evolution" covers, to include fields of science that have nothing to do
with it, they on the other end deny natural phenomena which are part of
evolutionary theory as being "evolution".

  I suppose this is a very typical case of building a straw man.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >>   - 'global warming' is perhaps the only thing mentioned that comes
> >> close to being a controversy in the scientific field.
> >
> > And even then it's not that controversial.  It's a relatively small
> > percentage of scientists who study climate change who think climate
> > change isn't happening.

> I think it's more controversial what to do about it.  And at least there's 
> something that remotely *sounds* controversial about it, if you actually 
> read the original source stuff.

  I would even go so far as to say that the controversial thing is not
what to do about it, but that many people actually oppose the rational
thing to do. "We should stop polluting our environment and depleting
natural resources." I don't even understand what rational reason there
is to oppose that idea. Is reducing pollution somehow a bad thing? Even
if there was no climate change and everything was just and absolutely
fine, we should *still* reduce pollution.

  Pollution causes harm to humans. That's a fact. The only controversial
thing in this whole thing is the people who want to continue polluting
the environment.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 13/04/2011 9:56 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Yeah, faith and belief are close in meaning, but not exactly synonyms.
> Belief is closer to knowledge than faith, I think that would be fair to
> say - for example, one can believe that (for example) the theory of
> evolution is the way life developed on Earth, but that belief could be
> based on knowledge that the people who have studied it and reached that
> conclusion followed good scientific principles.
>
> It's a fairly fine distinction, I think.
>

Not that fine IMO

>> >  BTW Mid June is the date ATM.
> Good to know, keep me posted.:-)

Will do.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 4/13/2011 11:11 PM, Warp wrote:
>    Also, a significant portion of Christians don't believe in the literal
> interpretation of the Noah's Ark story because of all the problems it would
> present (such as how and why would all members of sibling species travel
> from the Ark's landing point to the other side of the world, crossing vast
> oceans, and without leaving any representatives of their species along the
> way, either by living descendants or fossils).
>
A lot of Christians are not Christians, save that they use the same 
name. Fundies are right about one thing, *most* Christians believe 
almost nothing "in" the Bible, even, in some cases, being willing to 
state that Jesus may not have been divine, but his ideas where sound, so 
they still call themselves Christians.

No, the major fundies latch on to things like "kinds" as a way to avoid 
dealing with the fact that they don't have much of anything else. ID 
uses it, to an extent, but only as a sort of "starting point", from 
which some limited, God driven, evolution took place, which produced all 
the variation. After all, if you only had a few hundred years to turn 
one bird into hundreds of thousands of species, the "genetics" had to be 
guided somehow, or front loaded. I have seen both arguments.

The only thing I am certain of is that after 10 years, the best the 
moron that came up with "ontological depth" for genetics has been the 
excuse that, "its real, even if I can't tell you how the hell to even 
try to define/calculate it!" Right, so.. your entire ID concept is 
predicated on evolution being impossible, based on a non-existent 
equation, to measure something you can't properly define, which you 
can't even give evidence exists in the first place. And you thought Behe 
had problems applying math and logic to the subject...

Post a reply to this message

On 4/13/2011 7:55 PM, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  writes:
>
>> On 12/04/2011 10:06 PM, Warp wrote:
>>>     Following this from abroad, I don't know if this should be amusing or
>>> frightening...
>>
>> And apparently the results are conclusive:
>>
>> http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2005-11.pdf
>>
>> America is the most religious first-world country, and it also has the
>> highest rates of crime, poor health, etc.
>
> Highest rates of crime? Doubt it. The paper just speaks of homicide. IF
> you look at violent crime where no one dies, other industrialized
> countries are worse off, based on the statistics. I suspect some
> fiddling around with the definition of "violent" is at play, but
> still...
>
> Homicides have more to do with a certain amendment than with religious
> beliefs.
>
There is a lot of playing around with "violent" statistics. Some police 
departments have been caught, if I remember, but never properly 
sanctioned, for finding "inventive" ways of redefining things, so they 
don't seem as bad, or fall into certain negative statistics. Hell, just 
saw the blurb on the Los Vegas paper today, stating that the state might 
pass law that disposed of the requirement to do inquests, in cases of 
officer involved shootings. The cops don't seem to want it, from what 
little I glossed over, but some idiot, some place, is almost certainly 
trying to sweep something under the carpet by doing it. Why else remove 
a requirement that they investigate cause of death, and other matters, 
related to shootings involving an officer?

Mostly though, I seem to remember some irregularity between "self 
presented" testimony about certain sorts of crimes, as reported to the 
press, and those reported to state/national agencies responsible for 
tracking them, in which the self reporting was, inexplicably, more 
honest than the "official" reports. But, I suppose its possible I 
misremember (though, I doubt it).

Post a reply to this message

When I read stuff like this, I find myself wondering: Are all American 
people actually stupid? Or is it merely a very vocal minority?

Refusing to believe that evolution is happening is approximately like 
refusing to believe that the Earth is round. Yes, the Earth doesn't 
*look* very round, and it's intuitively baffling that the people at the 
bottom don't fall off, but the evidence is incontrovertible. Anyone who 
still insists that it's a global conspiracy is obviously a nutjob.

Of course, America has a reputation for being crazy. I even saw an 
advert for Californian peanuts which proclaimed "California has the best 
nuts". But is it actually true? Or is it just a few loonies who make it 
look like it's true?

(I don't know about crazy, but all the American people that I've 
personally met have been notably stupid. Given the tiny sample size, 
that's not terribly significant, however...)

Post a reply to this message

On 4/13/2011 3:31 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 00:18:41 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>> - nobody (at least no scientist) knows 'the chemical origins of life'
>
> Now I didn't actually take high school biology, but I thought there had
> been some progress made in this area - autotrophs create organic
> compounds from inorganic compounds through photosynthesis - and I thought
> I had read a couple of things recently about some advances that had been
> made in understanding photosynthesis and even (maybe) in creating
> something that is capable of photosynthesis.
>
One of the original early experiments was even uncovered, and its sealed 
contents retested, finding a larger number of the precursor organics 
than the original experiment was able to (do to a lack of ability to 
measure small amounts at the time). Never the less, the problem is, we 
don't have something showing a) all of them b) how they would have 
organized to produce necessary forms, or even c) what the most simple 
"functional" organic compound looked like, from which others eventually 
derived. There is this nasty thing called life on this planet, which 
tends to "eat", or degrade, anything that would come at all close to 
those originals. We are not even sure what the conditions really needed 
to be, for how long, what the odds where of the result happening, etc.

Never the less, given that we are even making limited progress in 
producing "synthetic" genetics, which use different chemicals than our 
own, there is no real reason to assume you can't get life from non-life. 
And, it wouldn't help their case anyway, since such life wouldn't have 
needed to "know" how to make every other species on the planet, nor been 
"guided" after it formed, or anything else. Their god would end up being 
the guy that turned on the switch to the bread maker, after loading the 
ingredients. Additional messing with the system being unneeded after 
that. But.. understanding that requires understanding why, and how 
evolution works, and is inevitable, once you have life, and they can't 
even get the "how does it work" bit right.

Post a reply to this message

On 4/13/2011 7:24 PM, Darren New wrote:
> I think it's more controversial what to do about it. And at least
> there's something that remotely *sounds* controversial about it, if you
> actually read the original source stuff.
>
Yeah. That about sums it up. The controversy is in "what to do", but 
like with every other science wackos don't like, or those seeking to 
simply profit without consequence, failing to absolutely sure about any 
part of it means they can claim you are uncertain about *all* of it, 
given the right spin, a lot of hand waving, plenty of misinformation, 
and a dose of total incomprehension (or refusal to comprehend/accept the 
conclusions). It definitely helps when you can buy think tanks to create 
your misinformation for you too, and those groups have done things in 
the past that "appear" to be positive, and on the up and up.

Post a reply to this message

On 4/13/2011 11:34 PM, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>>>>    - 'global warming' is perhaps the only thing mentioned that comes
>>>> close to being a controversy in the scientific field.
>>>
>>> And even then it's not that controversial.  It's a relatively small
>>> percentage of scientists who study climate change who think climate
>>> change isn't happening.
>
>> I think it's more controversial what to do about it.  And at least there's
>> something that remotely *sounds* controversial about it, if you actually
>> read the original source stuff.
>
>    I would even go so far as to say that the controversial thing is not
> what to do about it, but that many people actually oppose the rational
> thing to do. "We should stop polluting our environment and depleting
> natural resources." I don't even understand what rational reason there
> is to oppose that idea. Is reducing pollution somehow a bad thing? Even
> if there was no climate change and everything was just and absolutely
> fine, we should *still* reduce pollution.
>
>    Pollution causes harm to humans. That's a fact. The only controversial
> thing in this whole thing is the people who want to continue polluting
> the environment.
>
In the minds of morons like the Koch brothers, it only effects humans 
that can't a) buy cures, b) avoid the result, c) live in air/water/food 
purified housing, and/or d) buy somewhere new to live, when the prior 
place becomes too underwater, poisoned, unbreathable, radioactive, etc. 
In short, it only effects the people that are not wealthy, and powerful, 
and there are too many of them anyway, so a few less wouldn't be a problem.

If you believe that a) pollution will change things in a way that makes 
the world better for you (the Kochroach brothers are among the ones 
saying it will make more places habitable, increase farm production, 
etc., not generate deserts, massive storms, and make some places 
unlivable), or b) it isn't actually dangerous at all, its real easy to 
not want to reduce pollution. If you are among the people most prone to 
be fined *for* polluting it in the first place as well...

Post a reply to this message

On 4/14/2011 1:40 AM, Invisible wrote:
> When I read stuff like this, I find myself wondering: Are all American
> people actually stupid? Or is it merely a very vocal minority?
>
A very vocal and "powerful" minority, many from old money going clear 
back to the, "my right to take my slaves into a non-slave state and 
still treat them as slaves there is being infringed, so the federal 
government should stop those states from stopping me from doing that!", 
era, all the way up to the present day, "The federal government 
shouldn't prevent states from doing, passing, or making legal/illegal 
anything they want. Hands off my state!", rich, white, old money types 
are responsible for most of this. And, their choice of method to make it 
happen is the same as rich, over privileged, "My rights should be 
paramount above the state!", Romans used to handle the situations: Make 
sure your supporters are too ignorant to realize what is going on, then 
distract them, as much as possible, with non-existent threats, and 
pointless entertainments.

There is hardly any point in being smart, if you are ignorant, your 
history is handed to you by the very people that want to keep you that 
way, and they know your fears, since they created many of them, so well 
that they can simply trot out something for you to fear, every time 
something serious is going on. A good example being the whole Wisconsin 
mess. Do government workers make more than other people? Depends, do you 
mean can they pay their house off faster, buy a boat, buy a car, dress 
in better clothes, buy more expensive food, etc.? Hell no, in that 
respect they make **less** than non-state workers. But... Add in health 
care, fake BS about vacation time, and a few other things that you can't 
use to buy anything, clothe yourself with, or in any way, shape or form 
actually "save money", or be better off than other people, in general, 
and you can claim they make more money.

Distract them with all the "bonuses" they get, which in the end, they a) 
gave up before the new law had even been penned, never mind passed, and 
b) does jack shit to make them better "paid" than other people, and 
idiots like the lady in line at work will stand there and tell you to 
your face, "I think what they are doing to those people is right", 
because somehow its connected to a nonexistent VAT tax that no one will 
*ever* see added in Arizona, so long as its Republican run, or how much 
their milk was today, compared to 40 years ago.

These are not stupid people. They have simply been lied to, so often and 
so persistently, and pushed so often in just the right ways, to convince 
them, that they can't see past their fear of what someone else *says* is 
going on.

The last two times some idiot tried to do with the Teabagger Party is 
trying in Washington, in cutting spending, and rich people's taxes, 
without placing one dime into new jobs, once in the US, and once in 
England (if I remember right), the result was an "increase" in the 
depressions of the time. But, no.. these people are convinced the 
problem is government workers, unions, and someone, other than them, 
actually giving a shit if they get sick, or are starving to death, after 
they retire. Why? Because someone said so, and has told them of all the 
stuff that will be lost (or rather, which they plan to cut, defund 
and/or replace with something worthless), if they don't take a chainsaw 
to the rose bush, instead of pruning shears.

> (I don't know about crazy, but all the American people that I've
> personally met have been notably stupid. Given the tiny sample size,
> that's not terribly significant, however...)

Again. Don't confuse stupidity for ignorance and fear.

Post a reply to this message

On 13/04/2011 9:56 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 21:13:33 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 13/04/2011 8:51 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> In that case they can F' off;-P
>>> LOL
>>
>> That's what I meant in the first place. Go forth and multiply. :-D
>
> Nicely played. :P
>
> Jim

It wasn't game play just an old saying.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 14/04/2011 10:13, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 4/14/2011 1:40 AM, Invisible wrote:
>> When I read stuff like this, I find myself wondering: Are all American
>> people actually stupid? Or is it merely a very vocal minority?
>>
> A very vocal and "powerful" minority

I see.

> Romans used to handle the situations: Make
> sure your supporters are too ignorant to realize what is going on, then
> distract them, as much as possible, with non-existent threats, and
> pointless entertainments.
>
> There is hardly any point in being smart, if you are ignorant, your
> history is handed to you by the very people that want to keep you that
> way, and they know your fears, since they created many of them

Sounds like America is the least-free country in the free world. o_O

> These are not stupid people. They have simply been lied to, so often and
> so persistently, and pushed so often in just the right ways, to convince
> them, that they can't see past their fear of what someone else *says* is
> going on.

I see. I think...

>> (I don't know about crazy, but all the American people that I've
>> personally met have been notably stupid. Given the tiny sample size,
>> that's not terribly significant, however...)
>
> Again. Don't confuse stupidity for ignorance and fear.

Consider the following conversation:

"So what do all these scripts do then?"
"This script reads some data from the database and builds this script 
from it. It then runs this script, which does the real work of backing 
up the database."
"OK. So... this script creates that one?"
"Yes."
"Right. So you mean, like, if I were to just completely delete this 
script, that script would recreate it next time you run it?"
"Yes."
"Hmm, OK. So why do you need that script then if this one gets created 
automatically?"
"Because that script is the one that creates it."
"Right, I see. So I could literally delete this right now and that 
script would recreate it?"
"Yes."
"OK, got it. So why don't you just rerun this script each time? Why do 
you have to recreate it?"
"Because the structure of the database could change, but mainly because 
it copies the files into a folder with today's date on it."
"Right, cool. So, do you really need to have two scripts?"
[Repeat this exact conversation 6 or 7 times before the guy finally 
gives up trying to understand and asks me about something else.]

Now if this was some random dude on the street, that would be fine. But 
it wasn't. It was the Senier Director of IT for the entire corporation. 
In other words, the guy in charge of all our IT.

The fact that the Director of IT himself considers it necessary to 
personally understand how a minor piece of scripting works is either

- taking an interest in employee talents
- a reflection of the small size of our IT department
- micromanagement / empire-building

depending on your point of view. But the complete inability of the man 
to comprehend a VERY SIMPLE CONCEPT even after having me explain it six 
different ways cannot be regarded as a good thing from any perspective.

The other Americans I've worked with have all been similarly dense. 
Perhaps this is a reflection not of America, but of upper management. :-P

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Sounds like America is the least-free country in the free world. o_O

  OTOH in other aspects the USA has a stronger concept of freedom than many
other western countries.

  For example, you can burn a bible or a koran, make a video of it, and post
it on youtube, with complete impunity. You might get some people angry, but
you won't get prosecuted. It falls under freedom of expression.

  Do that here, and you *will* get jailtime (up to several years). That's
not even a hypothetical.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 14/04/2011 13:16, Warp wrote:

>    Do that here, and you *will* get jailtime (up to several years). That's
> not even a hypothetical.

OK, that's scary... I didn't realise there were any countries like that.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On 14/04/2011 13:16, Warp wrote:

> >    Do that here, and you *will* get jailtime (up to several years). That's
> > not even a hypothetical.

> OK, that's scary... I didn't realise there were any countries like that.

  In some aspects the judiciary system here is completely messed up.

  For example, an immigrant from Sudan, who is HIV-positive, raped a
16-year-old girl. He got a jail sentence of 2 years and 2 months.

  A finnish man posted a video on youtube where he blatantly and grossly
insulted islam, their prophet and the koran. He got a jail sentence of
2 years and 4 months (without possibility for parole).

  Good thing we have our priorities straight.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> writes:

> Neeum Zawan <fee### [at] festercom> wrote:
>> Homicides have more to do with a certain amendment than with religious
>> beliefs. 
>
>   The US is not the only western country where gun ownership is legal and
> popular. It is not the explanation.

Granted. Religion, however, is probably not even part of the explanation.

Post a reply to this message

On 4/13/2011 23:11, Warp wrote:
> I don't really even understand why they are so fixated
> about that "kind hypothesis" anyways, as if it was somehow crucial.

Because we have examples of observed evolution of new species during 
sufficiently recent history that it's scientific evidence. Hence, they can't 
say a kind is a species, because then they'd be admitting evolution actually 
happens.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 4/13/2011 23:16, Warp wrote:
> Neeum Zawan<fee### [at] festercom>  wrote:
>> Homicides have more to do with a certain amendment than with religious
>> beliefs.
>
>    The US is not the only western country where gun ownership is legal and
> popular. It is not the explanation.

I've heard it's much more likely the diversity of culture here than the 
presence of guns. Give the same number of guns to the Swiss or the Japanese, 
and you (do/would) get no problems at all.  But here we have neighbors each 
thinking the other shouldn't be allowed to be a citizen because of their 
skin color, their religious belief, etc.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 4/13/2011 23:34, Warp wrote:
>    I would even go so far as to say that the controversial thing is not
> what to do about it, but that many people actually oppose the rational
> thing to do. "We should stop polluting our environment and depleting
> natural resources." I don't even understand what rational reason there
> is to oppose that idea.

Not the idea. The implementation. It may be counter-intuitive to say "let 
some people keep polluting, because that will get them enough economic 
wealth in the short term that their population will demand cleaner air etc."

Sort of like saying "You should stop cutting down the rain forests" without 
recognizing that they're being cut down for farmland and people are starving 
who don't do this.

 > Is reducing pollution somehow a bad thing?

No. It's a question of how to reduce it. Let's say you even cut it down to 
where people are polluting only 30% as much as they are today. How many 
years until there's enough people in the world that we're making dangerous 
levels of pollution?

That's why people are arguing that each person should try to be "carbon 
neutral", when the obvious way to reduce pollution is to limit the number of 
children each person can have. You've seen how popular *that* idea is by how 
much they mock China for having done that successfully.

> if there was no climate change and everything was just and absolutely
> fine, we should *still* reduce pollution.

Well, sure, unless it means you, personally, starve, right?

>    Pollution causes harm to humans. That's a fact. The only controversial
> thing in this whole thing is the people who want to continue polluting
> the environment.

The controversy is what solution to pollution will cause less harm than the 
pollution itself. We could easily eliminate pollution by eliminating all 
vehicles and power plants, but the toll in human suffering of that approach 
outweighs the benefits.

I think there's little (honest) argument that the climate is changing, a 
little more argument over whether it's caused sufficiently by humans that 
reduction of human pollution will noticeably help (hard to measure 
definitively), and finally the most controversial is simply *what* needs to 
get done to actually fix the problem without causing undue suffering. Saying 
"put air scrubbers on your smokestacks and catalytic converters on your car 
exhaust" is one thing. Saying "shut down 80% of the power plants in your 
country and go back to 19th century technology" is something else.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 08:23:35 +0100, Stephen wrote:


>> It's a fairly fine distinction, I think.
>>
>>
> Not that fine IMO

How so?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 12:35:53 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 13/04/2011 9:56 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 21:13:33 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 13/04/2011 8:51 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>> In that case they can F' off;-P
>>>> LOL
>>>
>>> That's what I meant in the first place. Go forth and multiply. :-D
>>
>> Nicely played. :P
>>
>> Jim
> 
> It wasn't game play just an old saying.

Well, yeah, but the way the progression worked was good. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 02:28:42 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Now either those creationists are uneducated as to the multiple
>> definitions of the word 'theory' and which one actually applies when
>> one talks about the 'theory of evolution' (hint, it's not the
>> 'hypothesis of evolution' definition, which is what they push), or they
>> are deliberately misusing the word so as to push their dogmatic
>> approach to trying to make creationism seem like science.
> 
>   One big problem is that most creationists (and in fact most laymen,
> regardless of orientation) don't even understand what the theory of
> evolution is about. They attribute all kinds of misconceptions to it
> (and also deny many undeniable natural phenomena as being evolution).

That's certainly true - and a good demonstration as to why education is 
so very important.  (Of course, there are those who when it comes to 
evolution think of it not as 'education' but 'indoctrination' - oh the 
joys of having uneducated people make decisions).

>   Moreover, many ID proponents muddle the waters even more by mixing all
> kinds of natural sciences as being part of "evolution". You'll see them
> claiming that different fields of astronomy, astrophysics, chemistry,
> quantum mechanics, geology, paleontology and other fields of natural
> sciences are part of "theory of evolution", even though those have
> nothing to do with the theory, nor even with biology.

Yep.

>   Ironically, they not only vastly expand what their mythical concept of
> "evolution" covers, to include fields of science that have nothing to do
> with it, they on the other end deny natural phenomena which are part of
> evolutionary theory as being "evolution".
> 
>   I suppose this is a very typical case of building a straw man.

Many if not most of them probably haven't even read Darwin, but they 
argue against it based on what they imagine it says.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 19:24:20 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 4/13/2011 15:31, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 00:18:41 +0200, andrel wrote:
>>
>>> - nobody (at least no scientist) knows 'the chemical origins of life'
>>
>> Now I didn't actually take high school biology, but I thought there had
>> been some progress made in this area
> 
> Progress, but nothing definitive like *actually* making life.

Now that you say it, yes, I think that is what I found.  But getting 
closer, certainly.

>>>   - 'global warming' is perhaps the only thing mentioned that comes
>>> close to being a controversy in the scientific field.
>>
>> And even then it's not that controversial.  It's a relatively small
>> percentage of scientists who study climate change who think climate
>> change isn't happening.
> 
> I think it's more controversial what to do about it.  And at least
> there's something that remotely *sounds* controversial about it, if you
> actually read the original source stuff.

Certainly for those who believe science stands still - and that our 
understanding hasn't changed (or should I say 'evolved'? ;) ) since 
Darwin wrote about it.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> On 4/13/2011 23:11, Warp wrote:
> > I don't really even understand why they are so fixated
> > about that "kind hypothesis" anyways, as if it was somehow crucial.

> Because we have examples of observed evolution of new species during 
> sufficiently recent history that it's scientific evidence. Hence, they can't 
> say a kind is a species, because then they'd be admitting evolution actually 
> happens.

  So it's a kind of concession in the face of insurmountable evidence?

  What I find amusing is these intelligent designers who concede that
variation happens within species, and even go so far as to concede that
*speciation* happens (even if they only concede it so far as it happening
only within their mythical "kind"), yet they vehemently attest that these
are not evidence of evolution, and that the theory of evolution is totally
false and unscientific, requires more faith than religion, and whatnot.
Yet variation, speciation and natural selection is what the theory of
evolution is all about.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 02:34:46 -0400, Warp wrote:

> I don't even understand what rational reason there is to oppose that
> idea. Is reducing pollution somehow a bad thing?

Yes, because it costs money to come up with alternatives, and people are 
generally lazy and don't want to spend.  Especially here in the US with 
the 'consumer society' we live in, it's all about getting *stuff*.  We'd 
have to actually control our impulses in order to reduce consumption.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> On 4/13/2011 23:16, Warp wrote:
> > Neeum Zawan<fee### [at] festercom>  wrote:
> >> Homicides have more to do with a certain amendment than with religious
> >> beliefs.
> >
> >    The US is not the only western country where gun ownership is legal and
> > popular. It is not the explanation.

> I've heard it's much more likely the diversity of culture here than the 
> presence of guns. Give the same number of guns to the Swiss or the Japanese, 
> and you (do/would) get no problems at all.  But here we have neighbors each 
> thinking the other shouldn't be allowed to be a citizen because of their 
> skin color, their religious belief, etc.

  I think Canada proves that hypothesis wrong, as Canada isn't any less
multicultural as the US (and guns are quite popular there too).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 09:40:32 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> When I read stuff like this, I find myself wondering: Are all American
> people actually stupid? 

Um, NO!  Hello, there are many Americans here who are demonstrably not 
*that stupid*.

> Or is it merely a very vocal minority?

Yes, unfortunately, one that manages somehow to wield political power in 
order to advance their agenda.

> Refusing to believe that evolution is happening is approximately like
> refusing to believe that the Earth is round. Yes, the Earth doesn't
> *look* very round, and it's intuitively baffling that the people at the
> bottom don't fall off, but the evidence is incontrovertible. Anyone who
> still insists that it's a global conspiracy is obviously a nutjob.
> 
> Of course, America has a reputation for being crazy. I even saw an
> advert for Californian peanuts which proclaimed "California has the best
> nuts". But is it actually true? Or is it just a few loonies who make it
> look like it's true?

That's called 'advertising'.  That's different than being crazy - you 
promote a product as 'the best' in the hopes that people will believe it 
or build an association between 'the best' and their product.  Even 
though it's demonstrably unprovable or even not true, the psychology is 
there to build that association.

> (I don't know about crazy, but all the American people that I've
> personally met have been notably stupid. Given the tiny sample size,
> that's not terribly significant, however...)

You've met several up here (though not in person which is what I suspect 
you mean), but you should know better by now than to make generalisations 
about a society where you have a very small sample size.  If you don't, 
it's time that you learned that lesson.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Saying "shut down 80% of the power plants in your 
> country and go back to 19th century technology" is something else.

  How about "shut down 80% of the power plants in your country and move
to the 21st century already"? Producing energy by eg. burning coal is just
utterly stupid.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 4/14/2011 1:40, Invisible wrote:
> When I read stuff like this, I find myself wondering: Are all American
> people actually stupid? Or is it merely a very vocal minority?

First, I think this is a relatively recent phenomenon. I don't remember 
anything beyond arguing over abortion and making fun of TV megachurch 
preachers until maybe 20 years ago. Nobody argued over evolution or kicked 
people out of school for saying "One Nation Under God" or whatever. Religion 
was just a non-subject for the most part.

I think what happened is (a) the USSR collapsed so there was nobody outside 
to hate mindlessly other than the Chinese who refused to invade anyone but 
other orientals, (b) politicians realized they could polarize the voters on 
abortion issues with the help of the churches, (c) talk radio hosts realized 
they could raise a bunch of listeners by telling stupid gullible people what 
they wanted to hear, which eventually turned into politicians listening to 
the now-vocal stupid gullible people.

The TV church people are a good example. You often see tapes of them in 
private saying how easy it is to bilk the people stupid enough to believe 
they know what they're talking about, etc. So a lot of it is just loud rich 
people taking advantage of stupid gullibility, and that sadly includes the 
politicians, who will go along with the stupid gullible stuff to get into 
and stay in office while they also do the selfish evil crap everyone hates.

I mean, there were always stupid gullible people. But until you gave them 
something like the internet, where everyone in the country could hear them 
and find other stupid gullible people, the few rational people around them 
could keep them in check by saying "No, sorry, that's stupid and gullible, 
please keep that to yourself."

But now you can get on the internet and get all the reinforcement of stupid 
ideas you need and ignore all the objections thereto by simply not looking 
at them.

> Of course, America has a reputation for being crazy. I even saw an advert
> for Californian peanuts which proclaimed "California has the best nuts". But
> is it actually true? Or is it just a few loonies who make it look like it's
> true?

I personally think it was basically harmless until you gave the loonies a 
platform where they could reach other loonies without the rational people 
hearing them.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 4/14/2011 4:47, Invisible wrote:
> Sounds like America is the least-free country in the free world. o_O

In many ways, yes.  Some ways are really well defended. Others, not so much.

> [Repeat this exact conversation 6 or 7 times before the guy finally gives up
> trying to understand and asks me about something else.]

That's not stupid. That's just not thinking like a computer scientist.

> depending on your point of view. But the complete inability of the man to
> comprehend a VERY SIMPLE CONCEPT even after having me explain it six
> different ways cannot be regarded as a good thing from any perspective.

It's only simple if you think his job should be to understand the scripts. 
I'd say his failure was asking you for the details in the first place.

> The other Americans I've worked with have all been similarly dense. Perhaps
> this is a reflection not of America, but of upper management. :-P

Go read Dilbert. ;-)

Plus, you're interacting with them in a very restricted way about a very 
restricted topic. If you went out to the pub with them and asked them the 
meaning of life, they might be tremendously insightful. (Or not, mind.)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 02:34:46 -0400, Warp wrote:

> > I don't even understand what rational reason there is to oppose that
> > idea. Is reducing pollution somehow a bad thing?

> Yes, because it costs money to come up with alternatives, and people are 
> generally lazy and don't want to spend.  Especially here in the US with 
> the 'consumer society' we live in, it's all about getting *stuff*.  We'd 
> have to actually control our impulses in order to reduce consumption.

  One problem with that lazy ideology is that most people assume fossil
fuels will last forever. If we don't come up with alternative ways of
producing energy, we are going back to the 19th century whether we want
it or not, and that's going to happen relatively soon.

  Well, at least pollution will be reduced when we run out of fossil fuels.
Something positive at least.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 4/14/2011 5:21, Invisible wrote:
> On 14/04/2011 13:16, Warp wrote:
>
>> Do that here, and you *will* get jailtime (up to several years). That's
>> not even a hypothetical.
>
> OK, that's scary... I didn't realise there were any countries like that.

You're joking, right? Or did you mean "western, secular countries" when you 
said "any"?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> First, I think this is a relatively recent phenomenon. I don't remember 
> anything beyond arguing over abortion and making fun of TV megachurch 
> preachers until maybe 20 years ago. Nobody argued over evolution or kicked 
> people out of school for saying "One Nation Under God" or whatever. Religion 
> was just a non-subject for the most part.

  I don't think that's completely true. See for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message