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 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#330309 — Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere

ronb wrote:

>I know who he was talking about. Luther, a monk who broke his vows of 
>celibacy, poverty and obedience.

He was a far better man than either you or me.  

The world, as it was, needed a shaking-up.  *Someone* had to
break-ranks to do it.

The courage and conviction that it took, for a devout Christian to
stand-up to The Church, back than, are almost beyond comprehension.
They didn't just threaten you with death, they threatened you with
eternal damnation!

Any follow-up will not be read.

-- 
"Tell us again how you use Windows during the day to make an income
turd."  -  "Hadron", taking his best shot

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#330320

On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 07:56:43 -0600, chrisv wrote:

> ronb wrote:
> 
>>I know who he was talking about. Luther, a monk who broke his vows of
>>celibacy, poverty and obedience.
> 
> He was a far better man than either you or me.

No he wasn't. He was a basically self-centered "snit" who simply had to 
have his way and droned on forever about it.
 
> The world, as it was, needed a shaking-up.  *Someone* had to break-ranks
> to do it.

The Church needed to be *truly* reformed -- Europe (Christendom) didn't 
need to broken apart into warring clans. Check out the Peasant's Revolt. 
Luther supported it ... then when it faltered he changed sides and went 
with the nobility and attacked the peasants whom he had riled up in the 
first place. 
 
> The courage and conviction that it took, for a devout Christian to
> stand-up to The Church, back than, are almost beyond comprehension.
> They didn't just threaten you with death, they threatened you with
> eternal damnation!

It's a pretty long stretch to claim Luther was a "devout" Christian. He 
may have been sincere, but he was also puffed up with pride and driven by 
pure hatred for the Catholic Church ... and for the Jews and other 
Protestants.  

> Any follow-up will not be read.

Well, that's kind of cowardly -- but fine. This is supposed to be a Linux 
newsgroup anyhow. (At least it probably was at one time in the distant 
past.)

-- 
Zero tolerance for WinDrones and iCultists

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

#330360

On 11/2/15, 7:18 AM, in article n17rbt$jdm$4@dont-email.me, "ronb"
<ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 07:56:43 -0600, chrisv wrote:
> 
>> ronb wrote:
>> 
>>> I know who he was talking about. Luther, a monk who broke his vows of
>>> celibacy, poverty and obedience.
>> 
>> He was a far better man than either you or me.
> 
> No he wasn't. He was a basically self-centered "snit" who simply had to
> have his way and droned on forever about it.

My way: use what you want and let others do the same. Believe what you want
and let others do the same... but do not push your views on others.

Yeah, so amazingly self-centered!

...



-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

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

#330365

The lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser babbled:

> On 11/2/15, 7:18 AM, in article n17rbt$jdm$4@dont-email.me, "ronb"
> <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 07:56:43 -0600, chrisv wrote:
>> 
>>> ronb wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I know who he was talking about. Luther, a monk who broke his vows of
>>>> celibacy, poverty and obedience.
>>> 
>>> He was a far better man than either you or me.
>> 
>> No he wasn't. He was a basically self-centered "snit" who simply had to
>> have his way and droned on forever about it.
> 
> My way: use what you want and let others do the same. Believe what you
> want and let others do the same... but do not push your views on others.

Something you keep on doing all the time
It is *only* your way. No other possible

> Yeah, so amazingly self-centered!

You describe yourself to a tee

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

#330379

On 11/2/15, 9:52 AM, in article n1847m$d7q$1@dont-email.me, "Peter Köhlmann"
<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

> The lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser babbled:
> 
>> On 11/2/15, 7:18 AM, in article n17rbt$jdm$4@dont-email.me, "ronb"
>> <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 07:56:43 -0600, chrisv wrote:
>>> 
>>>> ronb wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> I know who he was talking about. Luther, a monk who broke his vows of
>>>>> celibacy, poverty and obedience.
>>>> 
>>>> He was a far better man than either you or me.
>>> 
>>> No he wasn't. He was a basically self-centered "snit" who simply had to
>>> have his way and droned on forever about it.
>> 
>> My way: use what you want and let others do the same. Believe what you
>> want and let others do the same... but do not push your views on others.
> 
> Something you keep on doing all the time
> It is *only* your way. No other possible

Oh! Oh! Show the examples of me doing so! That would be great!

Oh.

No examples.

You are just making things up and putting others down to feel better about
yourself. Again!

Damn, Peter, work on feeling better about yourself in a healthier way
already!

>> Yeah, so amazingly self-centered!
> 
> You describe yourself to a tee



-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

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

#330369

ronb wrote:

> On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 07:56:43 -0600, chrisv wrote:
> 
>> ronb wrote:
>> 
>>>I know who he was talking about. Luther, a monk who broke his vows of
>>>celibacy, poverty and obedience.
>> 
>> He was a far better man than either you or me.
> 
> No he wasn't. He was a basically self-centered "snit" who simply had to
> have his way and droned on forever about it.
>  
>> The world, as it was, needed a shaking-up.  *Someone* had to break-ranks
>> to do it.
> 
> The Church needed to be *truly* reformed -- Europe (Christendom) didn't
> need to broken apart into warring clans. Check out the Peasant's Revolt.

Which one? There were several before Luther, and there were also some after 
him

> Luther supported it ... then when it faltered he changed sides and went
> with the nobility and attacked the peasants whom he had riled up in the
> first place.

Your history lessons seem to have been come from Snit Michael Glasser

He distanced himself from the Peasant's Revolt before he translated the 
bible.
Yet he also criticised the nobility. Even in 1525 he wrote "Ermahnung zum 
Frieden" (Calls fopr peace) and was quite harsch about the nobility


>> The courage and conviction that it took, for a devout Christian to
>> stand-up to The Church, back than, are almost beyond comprehension.
>> They didn't just threaten you with death, they threatened you with
>> eternal damnation!
> 
> It's a pretty long stretch to claim Luther was a "devout" Christian. He
> may have been sincere, but he was also puffed up with pride and driven by
> pure hatred for the Catholic Church ... and for the Jews and other
> Protestants.

He was disgusted by the doings of the church. And rightly so.

And I am disgusted by your snbittish attempts to rewrite history

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

#330473

On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 17:59:13 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> He was disgusted by the doings of the church. And rightly so.
> 
> And I am disgusted by your snbittish attempts to rewrite history

You'll have to overcome your ignorance about history if you want to 
lecture to me about "rewriting" it.

-- 
Zero tolerance for WinDrones and iCultists

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

#330386

On 2015-11-02, ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 07:56:43 -0600, chrisv wrote:
>
>> ronb wrote:
>> 
>>>I know who he was talking about. Luther, a monk who broke his vows of
>>>celibacy, poverty and obedience.
>> 
>> He was a far better man than either you or me.
>
> No he wasn't. He was a basically self-centered "snit" who simply had to 
> have his way and droned on forever about it.
>  
>> The world, as it was, needed a shaking-up.  *Someone* had to break-ranks
>> to do it.
>
> The Church needed to be *truly* reformed -- Europe (Christendom) didn't 
> need to broken apart into warring clans. Check out the Peasant's Revolt. 

   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. 

[deletia]

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

#330407

On 11/2/15, 10:09 AM, in article slrnn3f65h.848.jedi@nomad.mishnet,
"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> On 2015-11-02, ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 07:56:43 -0600, chrisv wrote:
>> 
>>> ronb wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I know who he was talking about. Luther, a monk who broke his vows of
>>>> celibacy, poverty and obedience.
>>> 
>>> He was a far better man than either you or me.
>> 
>> No he wasn't. He was a basically self-centered "snit" who simply had to
>> have his way and droned on forever about it.
>>  
>>> The world, as it was, needed a shaking-up.  *Someone* had to break-ranks
>>> to do it.
>> 
>> The Church needed to be *truly* reformed -- Europe (Christendom) didn't
>> need to broken apart into warring clans. Check out the Peasant's Revolt.
> 
>    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.

Pretty much. But with that said I back people's right to be religious - just
denounce Sharia and Biblical and Satanic law. None should be pushed onto
others.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

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

#330470

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.

-- 
Zero tolerance for WinDrones and iCultists

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

#330474

On 11/2/15, 2:44 PM, in article n18lfh$cl1$8@dont-email.me, "ronb"
<ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> 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

Do you mean scientists? What the heck are you talking about?

> wanting to make it "terrorism" to deny
> the idiocy of man-made global warming theory.

You made this up. Ok.

> 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.

If you are in a science class you have to teach science and not religion or
politics. I am OK with that. I teach tech classes, it is not the place for
politics or religion there, either.

-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

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

#330485

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 11/2/15, 2:44 PM, in article n18lfh$cl1$8@dont-email.me, "ronb"
> <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> 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
> 
> Do you mean scientists? What the heck are you talking about?
> 

Frauds of course.

>> wanting to make it "terrorism" to deny
>> the idiocy of man-made global warming theory.
> 
> You made this up. Ok.
> 

I heard that "terrorism" thing somewhere also.

>> 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.
> 
> If you are in a science class you have to teach science and not religion or
> politics. I am OK with that. I teach tech classes, it is not the place for
> politics or religion there, either.
> 

Funny, but I went to public schools in the sixties and seventies and never
once heard a word about religion in any science class.  Is that happening
somewhere today?

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

#330513

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 11/2/15, 3:35 PM, in article srhjfsa8.3a@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/2/15, 2:44 PM, in article n18lfh$cl1$8@dont-email.me, "ronb"
>>> <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> 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
>>> 
>>> Do you mean scientists? What the heck are you talking about?
>> 
>> Frauds of course.
> 
> Ah, science is all fraudulent. That is why religion has brought us so many
> cures for disease and helped us make bridges which last so long.
> 
> Oh. 
> 
> No.
> 
> Religion HAS tied to art and beauty and I think that is great, but it is
> science that brings us knowledge and evidence. And you shun it.
> 
> Fine. 
> 
> There is no middle ground here. And no reason for you to pick and choose one
> are of science to deny other than politics. Do you run around denying
> relativity? The idea that gravity is tied to the square of the distance from
> a mass? No. You just pick this one area because it does not fit your
> politics.
> 
> And what are those politics? To make sure the wealthy have their risks and
> costs spread out to the society - socialize the costs and risks of the
> wealthy.
> 
> I am against that. I am for personal responsibility instead.
> 

Nice list of lies.  Take a breath.

>>>> wanting to make it "terrorism" to deny
>>>> the idiocy of man-made global warming theory.
>>> 
>>> You made this up. Ok.
>> 
>> I heard that "terrorism" thing somewhere also.
> 
> You heard it somewhere. How powerful.
>

Yes, I heard it somewhere, which refutes your LIE that he "made it up."
If you're that curious, google it.
 
>>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> If you are in a science class you have to teach science and not religion or
>>> politics. I am OK with that. I teach tech classes, it is not the place for
>>> politics or religion there, either.
>>
>> Funny, but I went to public schools in the sixties and seventies and never
>> once heard a word about religion in any science class.  Is that happening
>> somewhere today?
> 
> Of course. They push the idea of intelligent design and creationism into
> American schools. And who does this? Muslims? No... Christians. They work
> against science.
>

Bullshit.  Is intelligent design being taught in public schools now?
 
> Tyson is exactly right here:
> 
> <http://goo.gl/6zc7cJ>
> 
 
He gives *no* examples of where this is happening.
Do you have any?
 

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

#330523

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 11/2/15, 4:03 PM, in article fshdnvu40.au@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/2/15, 3:35 PM, in article srhjfsa8.3a@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/2/15, 2:44 PM, in article n18lfh$cl1$8@dont-email.me, "ronb"
>>>>> <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> 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
>>>>> 
>>>>> Do you mean scientists? What the heck are you talking about?
>>>> 
>>>> Frauds of course.
>>> 
>>> Ah, science is all fraudulent. That is why religion has brought us so many
>>> cures for disease and helped us make bridges which last so long.
>>> 
>>> Oh. 
>>> 
>>> No.
>>> 
>>> Religion HAS tied to art and beauty and I think that is great, but it is
>>> science that brings us knowledge and evidence. And you shun it.
>>> 
>>> Fine. 
>>> 
>>> There is no middle ground here. And no reason for you to pick and choose one
>>> are of science to deny other than politics. Do you run around denying
>>> relativity? The idea that gravity is tied to the square of the distance from
>>> a mass? No. You just pick this one area because it does not fit your
>>> politics.
>>> 
>>> And what are those politics? To make sure the wealthy have their risks and
>>> costs spread out to the society - socialize the costs and risks of the
>>> wealthy.
>>> 
>>> I am against that. I am for personal responsibility instead.
>> 
>> Nice list of lies.  Take a breath.
> 
> If you REALLY thought I was lying you would show where... instead you went
> to meta-debate land. Not interested.
> 
> ... 
>>>> Funny, but I went to public schools in the sixties and seventies and never
>>>> once heard a word about religion in any science class.  Is that happening
>>>> somewhere today?
>>> 
>>> Of course. They push the idea of intelligent design and creationism into
>>> American schools. And who does this? Muslims? No... Christians. They work
>>> against science.
>> 
>> Bullshit.  Is intelligent design being taught in public schools now?
> 
> Here is a map for creationism:
> <http://io9.com/a-map-showing-which-u-s-public-schools-teach-creationi-15157
> 17148> OR <http://goo.gl/GbKFSh>
> 
> 

That page lies:
<quote>
A Map Showing Which U.S. Public Schools Teach Creationism to Kids
</quote>

That is a lie.  The data comes from slate.com and shows where the wording of
the law allows for *discussion* of questionable "science."

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/01/creationism_in_public_schools_mapped_where_tax_money_supports_alternatives.html

<quote>
Louisiana: The Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008 allows teachers to
use ???supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help
students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories
in an objective manner,??? specifically theories regarding ???evolution,
the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning???
</quote>

What's wrong with that?

<quote>
Tennessee: A 2012 state law, like Louisiana's, permits public school
teachers to teach the ???scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses???
of theories that can ???cause controversy,??? specifically citing
evolution, global warming, and cloning, thereby providing legal cover
for teachers who want to forward creationist pseudoscience.
</quote>

What's wrong with that?

Is it scientific not to allow discussion?  Evolution is a theory, not
a fact.  Discussing how well it works as a model vs alternative explanations
would seem to me to be the essence of education.  Are you afraid that the
theory will not hold up under scrutiny?  Is this what Neil de grass was
whining about?  If so, he needs to stick to his area of expertise which
I believe has something to do with astrophysics, not biology.
 

>>> Tyson is exactly right here:
>>> 
>>> <http://goo.gl/6zc7cJ>
>>  
>> He gives *no* examples of where this is happening.
>> Do you have any?
> 
> Less so now because the courts have struck it down, but I still see stories
> on it.
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design>
>     -----
>     Though the phrase "intelligent design" had featured previously in
>     theological discussions of the design argument,[13] the first
>     publication of the term intelligent design in its present use as
>     an alternative term for creationism was in Of Pandas and
>     People,[14][15] a 1989 textbook intended for high school biology
>     classes. The term was substituted into drafts of the book after
>     the 1987 United States Supreme Court's Edwards v. Aguillard
>     decision, which barred the teaching of creation science in public
>     schools on constitutional grounds.[16] From the mid-1990s, the
>     intelligent design movement (IDM), supported by the Discovery
>     Institute,[17] advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public
>     school biology curricula.[4] This led to the 2005 Kitzmiller v.
>     Dover Area School District trial in which U.S. District Judge John
>     E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it
>     "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious,
>     antecedents," and that the school district's promotion of it
>     therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment
>     to the United States Constitution,[18] often described as the
>     "wall of separation between church and state".
>     -----
> 
> I can do more research to find specifics for you later but really surprises
> me you seem to have no knowledge of this. The debates often make the news.
> 

The problem with disallowing certain discussions in schools is that
kids are going to ask questions that science cannot answer because
proper science does not address them.  Those among scientists who
declare that there is no god and that the laws of physics just sprang
into being are *not* making a scientific argument; if there's no
experiment to address a pariticular question, then there cannot be
a scientific answer.  Period.
 

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

#330534

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 11/2/15, 4:36 PM, in article seruf03ax.sa@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
...
> 
>> Is it scientific not to allow discussion?  Evolution is a theory, not
>> a fact. 
> 
> Curious: what do YOU mean by "evolution is a theory, not a fact"? Do you
> even know what a scientific theory is? I bet not.
> 

Let me know when scientists create a living organism in a laboratory
using just the chemical building blocks.

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

#330541

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 11/2/15, 5:14 PM, in article sfhj39a.ara3@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/2/15, 4:36 PM, in article seruf03ax.sa@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>> ...
>> 
>>> 
>>>> Is it scientific not to allow discussion?  Evolution is a theory, not
>>>> a fact. 
>>> 
>>> Curious: what do YOU mean by "evolution is a theory, not a fact"? Do you
>>> even know what a scientific theory is? I bet not.
>> 
>> Let me know when scientists create a living organism in a laboratory
>> using just the chemical building blocks.
> 
> If this is truly of interest to you then you can set up a Google news alert
> for it... I am not going to contact you with any such news! But back to the
> topic: I think it is clear you have no idea what a scientific theory even is
> - if you had you would have answered the question. But I shall give you
> another chance: what do YOU think a scientific theory is?
> 

Are we going to evolve into something else?  Can Evolutionary Theory
predict what that something else is?

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

#330550

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 11/2/15, 5:47 PM, in article asdf3.a93a@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/2/15, 5:14 PM, in article sfhj39a.ara3@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/2/15, 4:36 PM, in article seruf03ax.sa@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>>>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>> ...
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Is it scientific not to allow discussion?  Evolution is a theory, not
>>>>>> a fact. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Curious: what do YOU mean by "evolution is a theory, not a fact"? Do you
>>>>> even know what a scientific theory is? I bet not.
>>>> 
>>>> Let me know when scientists create a living organism in a laboratory
>>>> using just the chemical building blocks.
>>> 
>>> If this is truly of interest to you then you can set up a Google news alert
>>> for it... I am not going to contact you with any such news! But back to the
>>> topic: I think it is clear you have no idea what a scientific theory even is
>>> - if you had you would have answered the question. But I shall give you
>>> another chance: what do YOU think a scientific theory is?
> 
> And you have no answer: you have NO clue what a theory is. Fine. That was my
> point: you put evolution down for being a theory but you do not even know
> what a scientific theory is!
>  

If it's a scientific theory, then it should be able make predictions.
  
>> Are we going to evolve into something else?  Can Evolutionary Theory
>> predict what that something else is?
> 

No answer to this question.  Apparently Evolutionary Theory cannot make
any predictions with its own model.
 

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

#330554

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 11/2/15, 6:00 PM, in article srheua.93a@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/2/15, 5:47 PM, in article asdf3.a93a@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/2/15, 5:14 PM, in article sfhj39a.ara3@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>>>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/2/15, 4:36 PM, in article seruf03ax.sa@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>>>>>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Is it scientific not to allow discussion?  Evolution is a theory, not
>>>>>>>> a fact. 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Curious: what do YOU mean by "evolution is a theory, not a fact"? Do you
>>>>>>> even know what a scientific theory is? I bet not.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Let me know when scientists create a living organism in a laboratory
>>>>>> using just the chemical building blocks.
>>>>> 
>>>>> If this is truly of interest to you then you can set up a Google news alert
>>>>> for it... I am not going to contact you with any such news! But back to the
>>>>> topic: I think it is clear you have no idea what a scientific theory even
>>>>> is
>>>>> - if you had you would have answered the question. But I shall give you
>>>>> another chance: what do YOU think a scientific theory is?
>>> 
>>> And you have no answer: you have NO clue what a theory is. Fine. That was my
>>> point: you put evolution down for being a theory but you do not even know
>>> what a scientific theory is!
>> 
>> If it's a scientific theory, then it should be able make predictions.
>>  
>>>> Are we going to evolve into something else?  Can Evolutionary Theory
>>>> predict what that something else is?
>>> 
>> 
>> No answer to this question.  Apparently Evolutionary Theory cannot make
>> any predictions with its own model.
> 
> I have no obligation to follow your ever off topic question. Comes down to
> you have no idea what a scientific theory is yet use the idea that evolution
> is a theory as something bad.
> 

If it's not predictive, what good is it?

> Complete ignorance on your part.
> 

You are claiming this non-science is science.  So show how it follows the
Scientific Method.
 

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

#330559

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 11/2/15, 6:13 PM, in article sfhe48.0af@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>>> If it's a scientific theory, then it should be able make predictions.
>>>>  
>>>>>> Are we going to evolve into something else?  Can Evolutionary Theory
>>>>>> predict what that something else is?
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> No answer to this question.  Apparently Evolutionary Theory cannot make
>>>> any predictions with its own model.
>>> 
>>> I have no obligation to follow your ever off topic question. Comes down to
>>> you have no idea what a scientific theory is yet use the idea that evolution
>>> is a theory as something bad.
>>> 
>> 
>> If it's not predictive, what good is it?
>> 
>>> Complete ignorance on your part.
>>> 
>> 
>> 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.

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

#330576

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.  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. 

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web