Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #330309 > unrolled thread

Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-02 07:56 -0600
    Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 14:18 +0000
      Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 09:35 -0700
        Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-02 17:52 +0100
          Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 10:22 -0700
      Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-02 17:59 +0100
        Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 21:48 +0000
      Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-02 11:09 -0600
        Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 11:15 -0700
        Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 21:44 +0000
          Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 14:51 -0700
            Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-02 22:35 +0000
              Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-02 23:03 +0000
                Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-02 23:36 +0000
                  Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 00:14 +0000
                    Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 00:47 +0000
                      Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 01:00 +0000
                        Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 01:13 +0000
                          Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 01:39 +0000
                            Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 02:16 +0000
                              Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 02:50 +0000
                                Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 03:25 +0000
                                  Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 04:41 +0000
                                    Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 09:29 -0800
                                    Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 17:44 +0000
          Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 17:53 -0500

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#330583

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 11/2/15, 7:16 PM, in article fshsvb83.a0a@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/2/15, 6:39 PM, in article faheu03.a0@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>>> You are claiming this non-science is science.  So show how it follows the
>>>>>> Scientific Method.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The elephant in the room here: you have no idea what a scientific theory
>>>>> is,
>>>>> yet use the idea that evolution is a theory to suggest it is somehow bad!
>>>>> 
>>>>> But on your side issues: what the hell would make you think that
>>>>> evolutionary science is not predictive? I mean, really, where would you
>>>>> even
>>>>> come up with that idea?
>>>> 
>>>> I asked you if we are going to evolve into something else and if
>>>> Evolutionary
>>>> Theory could predict what that something else is.  You dodged that question.
>>>> Apparently Evolutionary Theory is not scientific.
>>> 
>>> So unless I follow you down every rabbit hole you beg me to go through you
>>> will not answer the question as to why you think evolutionary science does
>>> not offer predictions.
>>> 
>>> Sigh.
>>> 
>>> Comes down to you are completely ignorant of science.
>> 
>> Snit, you are not a scientist.
> 
> Then why are you begging me to answer off topic scientific questions as you
> make ignorant claims about science?
> 

Because you keep preaching about science.

> Again:
> 
> 1) You have demonstrated you have no clue what a scientific theory is.
> 2) You have made unsupported claims about evolutionary science not
>    providing predictions.
> 
> And you now seek to change the topic - and will soon whine I am copying and
> pasting the same comments about your ignorance that you are running from.
>

You just did that.
 

> And below you babble about your fantasizes about me. Not interested!
> 
> 
> 
>> You get your "science" knowledge from
>> watching Neil de Grass on History Channel or Discovery Channel.  It is
>> obvious that you are an uneducated buffoon when you are told to read
>> a book on a subject and you respond by asking if there isn't a link
>> to something on the web instead.
>> 
>> Science requires experimentation, repeatability, predictability.
>> Evolution Theory offers none of those.  It is dogma, not science.
> 
> What makes you think that about evolution?

Well, I've asked you for evidence that it satisfies these requirements.
You have produced no evidence thus far.

> Of course you will never answer.
> Comes down to you know NOTHING about science.
> 

If by that you mean that I don't watch "In Search of Black Holes" or
"Comets of Doom" or whatever, then... guilty.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330590

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 11/2/15, 7:50 PM, in article sfhey9a.a0@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
> ...
> ...
>>>> Science requires experimentation, repeatability, predictability.
>>>> Evolution Theory offers none of those.  It is dogma, not science.
>>> 
>>> What makes you think that about evolution?
>> 
>> Well, I've asked you for evidence that it satisfies these requirements.
>> You have produced no evidence thus far.
> 
> Nor have I tried. I merely asked you to back your claims. And you failed.
> And now you are trying to turn things around and blame ME for not educating
> you about BASICS of evolutionary science.
> 
> Not my fault you are ignorant and I have no obligation to help you support
> your reject your absurd claims.
> 

So you aren't even able to produce evidence that Evolution Theory adheres
to the basic rules of the scientific method, yet you claim that it is a
science.  Fine.  I accept that you are an idiot.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330593

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 11/2/15, 8:25 PM, in article fhsbnvc83.aial3@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/2/15, 7:50 PM, in article sfhey9a.a0@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>> ...
>>> ...
>>>>>> Science requires experimentation, repeatability, predictability.
>>>>>> Evolution Theory offers none of those.  It is dogma, not science.
>>>>> 
>>>>> What makes you think that about evolution?
>>>> 
>>>> Well, I've asked you for evidence that it satisfies these requirements.
>>>> You have produced no evidence thus far.
>>> 
>>> Nor have I tried. I merely asked you to back your claims. And you failed.
>>> And now you are trying to turn things around and blame ME for not educating
>>> you about BASICS of evolutionary science.
>>> 
>>> Not my fault you are ignorant and I have no obligation to help you support
>>> your reject your absurd claims.
>> 
>> So you aren't even able to produce evidence that Evolution Theory adheres
>> to the basic rules of the scientific method, yet you claim that it is a
>> science.  Fine.  I accept that you are an idiot.
> 
> What *I* can or cannot do is not even a part of this. What we KNOW is YOU
> made idiotic claims about evolution and are now insisting YOUR ignorance is
> MY fault. I have no obligation to teach you anything and no desire to assist
> you in turning this around.
> 
> YOU made the idiotic claim that evolution offers no predictions. YOU made
> the idiotic "put down" on evolution that it was a "theory", as if they
> somehow reduced it when it really shows how strongly supported it is.
> 
> YOU are the one who is making claim after claim demonstrating your utter
> ignorance.
> 
> Even if I did not know about predictions from evolutionary science, which I
> do,

So what are we evolving into?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330682

On Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 10:11:19 AM UTC-7, Snit wrote:
> On 11/2/15, 9:41 PM, in article saiafa3.93@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> On 11/2/15, 8:25 PM, in article fhsbnvc83.aial3@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> >> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 11/2/15, 7:50 PM, in article sfhey9a.a0@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> >>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>> ...
> >>>> ...
> >>>>>>> Science requires experimentation, repeatability, predictability.
> >>>>>>> Evolution Theory offers none of those.  It is dogma, not science.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> What makes you think that about evolution?
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Well, I've asked you for evidence that it satisfies these requirements.
> >>>>> You have produced no evidence thus far.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Nor have I tried. I merely asked you to back your claims. And you failed.
> >>>> And now you are trying to turn things around and blame ME for not educating
> >>>> you about BASICS of evolutionary science.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Not my fault you are ignorant and I have no obligation to help you support
> >>>> your reject your absurd claims.
> >>> 
> >>> So you aren't even able to produce evidence that Evolution Theory adheres
> >>> to the basic rules of the scientific method, yet you claim that it is a
> >>> science.  Fine.  I accept that you are an idiot.
> >> 
> >> What *I* can or cannot do is not even a part of this. What we KNOW is YOU
> >> made idiotic claims about evolution and are now insisting YOUR ignorance is
> >> MY fault. I have no obligation to teach you anything and no desire to assist
> >> you in turning this around.
> >> 
> >> YOU made the idiotic claim that evolution offers no predictions. YOU made
> >> the idiotic "put down" on evolution that it was a "theory", as if they
> >> somehow reduced it when it really shows how strongly supported it is.
> >> 
> >> YOU are the one who is making claim after claim demonstrating your utter
> >> ignorance.
> >> 
> >> Even if I did not know about predictions from evolutionary science, which I
> >> do,
> > 
> > So what are we evolving into?
> > 
> Serious question: are you just trolling or are you REALLY that ignorant of
> evolution and science? 

Which science? Can't be the one that doesn't recognize the validity of the concept of "race" ;)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330684

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 11/2/15, 9:41 PM, in article saiafa3.93@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/2/15, 8:25 PM, in article fhsbnvc83.aial3@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/2/15, 7:50 PM, in article sfhey9a.a0@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>>>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> ...
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> Science requires experimentation, repeatability, predictability.
>>>>>>>> Evolution Theory offers none of those.  It is dogma, not science.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> What makes you think that about evolution?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Well, I've asked you for evidence that it satisfies these requirements.
>>>>>> You have produced no evidence thus far.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Nor have I tried. I merely asked you to back your claims. And you failed.
>>>>> And now you are trying to turn things around and blame ME for not educating
>>>>> you about BASICS of evolutionary science.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Not my fault you are ignorant and I have no obligation to help you support
>>>>> your reject your absurd claims.
>>>> 
>>>> So you aren't even able to produce evidence that Evolution Theory adheres
>>>> to the basic rules of the scientific method, yet you claim that it is a
>>>> science.  Fine.  I accept that you are an idiot.
>>> 
>>> What *I* can or cannot do is not even a part of this. What we KNOW is YOU
>>> made idiotic claims about evolution and are now insisting YOUR ignorance is
>>> MY fault. I have no obligation to teach you anything and no desire to assist
>>> you in turning this around.
>>> 
>>> YOU made the idiotic claim that evolution offers no predictions. YOU made
>>> the idiotic "put down" on evolution that it was a "theory", as if they
>>> somehow reduced it when it really shows how strongly supported it is.
>>> 
>>> YOU are the one who is making claim after claim demonstrating your utter
>>> ignorance.
>>> 
>>> Even if I did not know about predictions from evolutionary science, which I
>>> do,
>> 
>> So what are we evolving into?
>> 
> Serious question: are you just trolling or are you REALLY that ignorant of
> evolution and science? If you are just trolling I do not get why you would
> go out of your way to try to make yourself seem ignorant and claim that no
> predictions are made from evolutionary science. And your question about what
> we will evolve into seems to assume that is the only prediction you think is
> even possible.
> 

I don't really care about what other predictions it makes, since that
is the fundamental question.  Can Evolution Theory answer that question
or not?  Hell, we know all the environmental conditions that might be
at work.  It's not like we have to look back in the past with ice core
samples and plate tectonics and try to see what kind of environmental
conditions *might* have led to some change.  We are in the here and
now and all questions are answerable with respect to conditions.  So
what can Evolution Theory tell us about where we are headed in our
evolutionary journey?  Surely the answer is not just a shrug. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330503

On 2015-11-02 4:44 PM, ronb wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 11:09:05 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> 
>> Yes it did.
>>
>>    Heresy is a necessary element of personal freedom vital to democracy.
>>
>>    If religion is strong enough to suppress dissent then it can stifle
>> all progress. This is the Fundie/Islam problem in a nutshell.
> 
> And now we have global warmists wanting to make it "terrorism" to deny 
> the idiocy of man-made global warming theory. And political correctness 
> is running amok in the universities (and in the general population) -- 
> it's become the modern "heresy." Step over the line and you'll lose your 
> job.

You have to follow the herd or you're essentially excommunicated. Your
job, your reputation and your life are essentially taken away from you
for disagreeing with whatever the mainstream media (the herd's leader)
has decided.

Snit, for example, is part of that herd. For someone who attacks the
herd mentality in Linux advocacy, he sure doesn't seem to mind it in
social affairs.


-- 
Charmed Tuna

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy

csiph-web