The Debate Hall Social Thread

[Dre89]

Well I'd blame the creationists there, because he's actually stated in the text he doesn't consider to be irreducibly complex.

 

[AltF4]

No, but it's pretty common for creationists to (very dishonestly) just take the first sentence out of context, as:

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.

And then claim that "Even Darwin himself called the eye irreducibly complex". Ignoring the very next sentence, where he overrides the first.

Just do a Google search, it's all over the Internet:

Creation.com
AllAboutTheJourney
AnswersInGenesis (Only passingly mentions that Darwin later says something to the contrary. But still purposefully takes the quote out of context)
HolyBibleProphecy

 

[Dre89]

But no one is taking Dawkins out of context.

It's not as if I'm quoting him saying "this book will demonstrate the problems with belief in God" and then ignoring the next sentence which says "But this only applies to religious creationists, not the sophisticated theist".

 

[AltF4]

I didn't mean to suggest you did. Just wanted to point out one of the major ways that some of the common creationist sources lie. They're not just wrong, they're dishonest about it, too.

 

[Dre89]

I'm aware of the dishonesty, I understand religious psychology and know alot of the pyschological tricks preachers and priests/ministers pull.

 

[Nicholas1024]

I really don't see the difficulty even when he is taken out of context, the key word there is "seems". Darwin's simply stating that it seems difficult to believe that something as complicated as an eye formed by random chance. For people to claim that he said the eye is irreducibly complex is pretty much failure of reading comprehension.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I really don't see the difficulty even when he is taken out of context, the key word there is "seems". Darwin's simply stating that it seems difficult to believe that something as complicated as an eye formed by random chance. For people to claim that he said the eye is irreducibly complex is pretty much failure of reading comprehension.

"seems" without an extra caveat of some kind gives you the impression that it is. I think that is the problem here, the creationists have removed the caveat to change the meaning of his writing.

 

[rvkevin]

Is this a legal paradox: Since money is considered speech, does that mean that we don't have the right to remain silent when it comes to tax time?

 

[AltF4]

Or does that mean it is your 1st amendment right to give money to terrorists? It's an absurd ruling.

 

[Sucumbio]

My wife is writing a strongly worded letter to President Obama concerning this defense funding bill. I guess it takes some longer than others for the reality of it to hit home, but this really is the absolute worst piece of legislation I've ever seen in my lifetime, and the president -I- supported and voted for, is on board. W.T.F. Is he just stupid? I can't accept that he is... he HAS to know the implications of what this bill will mean if passed.

Supposedly he's signing it with a "signing statement."

Obama Will Issue Signing Statement With NDAA Detention Rules

But will it be enough? Can we trust even this? I'm not as queasy as I was when I first learned we were invading Iraq after 9/11 ... that day I threw up from the stress of grief. But this is darn close.

I mean, how CAN he append his approval? What can he sign saying that'll make it okay for us to sleep at night? He's backed himself into a corner, and he knows it, this is just buying him time for him to figure out a way to break it to everyone "yeah, ok, this will make it okay to disappear people, and I realize I'll be a 1-term president now, but just shut your mouth about it or you may be branded a terrorist and vanish."

****in' hell.

 

[Dre89]

What exactly is he passing?

 

[rvkevin]

I'm more puzzled than anything. What's in this for Obama? I would probably be more upset if this was something new, but its almost gone to the point where it is predictable, which makes it more sad than anything. Alt, is there any mention of probable cause in the bill? (Not like it would make a difference anyway since there would be zero accountability...)

Dre., it allows the military to detain enemy combatants indefinitely without trial. The definition of enemy combatant is a little up in the air, but it would probably apply to citizens as well. This basically removes the right to a trial, overturns habeus corpus. However, when it takes a year and a half to bring Bradley Manning to trial, I'm not entirely sure what the right to a speedy trial means anymore. The reason we need judges to interpret the law is that the words on paper don't mean anything by themselves.

I recently read a piece that concerned legislation regarding animal activists. It was worded as a law against terrorism and the penalties were stiff as well. When they wrote the bill, they said that it would only apply to people who destroy property (e.g. arson, destroying lab equipment). However, the first case that was brought under the law concerned simple trespass, documenting conditions, and the release of some animals. This concern (that it would be applied in situations like this) was brought up when it was drafted and quickly dismissed as being unrealistic.

I have little doubt that these charges will be dropped as were the illegal wiretap charges against those who filmed police officers who were on duty, but its just more of the same. Oh, and don't forget the families of the victims who were tortured to death that was covered up as suicides who can't sue for compensation because it would involve matters concerning 'national security'. If I had my way, terms like 'national security' and 'public safety' would not be adequate reason for anything as they are not narrowly tailored.

Forgive the rant, not much to do at the airport. A 16 hour flight awaits.

 

[Aesir]

It's not that it allows the president to detain civilians without trial. But it sets a legal precedent which might lead to that type of ruling.

This close to election year he can't exactly veto this as it'll make him look weak. (then again when you kill BinLadin can you really be called weak?)

 

[Sucumbio]

It's not that it allows the president to detain civilians without trial. But it sets a legal precedent which might lead to that type of ruling.

It does though, that's the whole point. If you're arrested for suspected terrorism, the president can rule that you be detained without trial, -even- if you are a citizen. I wouldn't care if this wasn't the case... but it is. This bill will really make it okay for the government to nab people in the middle of the night with no explanation and no expectation of release. Ever. Did he close Guantanamo? Nope. Still open, despite his promise to close it during his first year. And why is it still open? To house all these peoples that can now be kidnapped. So they can be tortured. Despite they having done nothing wrong, presumably.

(And I realize that in many instances they'll have deserved it, and did do something worth being confiscated, but I don't want there to be any chance that it could happen to me "by mistake" because someone mistook Sucumbio for Al Suqueada. ><)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...act-ndaa-obama-detainee-policy_n_1147878.html

Specifically, the bill would require that the military take custody of a suspect deemed to be a member of al-Qaida or its affiliates and who is involved in plotting or committing attacks on the United States. There is an exemption for U.S. citizens.

...

The bill also says the president can waive the provision based on national security.

This close to election year he can't exactly veto this as it'll make him look weak. (then again when you kill BinLadin can you really be called weak?)

Make him look weak? A large portion of the people against this part of the bill were bipartisan! Republicans and democrats side by side voicing the same concerns. He's gotta think before doing this. He's gotta sign it, obviously, the Defense needs a Budget, but c'mon, at least ensure the American People that his signing statement will nullify this ridiculous portion that basically turns the US into China.

 

[Dre89]

Why is your wife writing a letter to him though? I doubt that will achieve anything.

 

[Aesir]

Yeah I was probably wrong, I haven't even read it. I was going off of what Greenwald's analysis which might be wrong lol.

 

[blazedaces]

Why is your wife writing a letter to him though? I doubt that will achieve anything.

If enough people write letters to him, it might.

-blazed

 

[Aesir]

Question for some of you.

Does Atheism (militant) Prevent the progress of religion? I don't mean people being converted, I mean religion progressing. IE look at the Catholic Church today and 100 years ago, they're not the same organization.

I ask this because a lot of Christians I grew up with at least have a very "liberal" view of their faith; IE God Accepts good people, not just their followers. You can be an atheist and be the most selfless person and god will not care about your lack of faith. (this seems to be very common in liberal leaning states anyway.)

The core of my question, this view of Christianity (and I'm sure Islam and Judaism have similar phenomenon) seems to be scuffed at, by the more militant atheists. IE it's not really what Christianity is about Que scripture quote which shows god is a murderous hound. It seems this line of thought, seems to harm religions progress, because lets face it even though their holy books are set in stone the older a religion gets the more likely it's going to redefine itself.

Just a few thoughts I had, I could be wrong and looking to deeply into this. But as a staunch atheist I can't help but wonder wouldn't this type of thought make natural Allies? Maybe my apathy toward belief doesn't care if people believe in invisible men in the sky as long as it doesn't warp their view of science and morality.

 

[Dre89]

I hate when people say invisible man in the sky, it's like saying evolution says we evolved from chimps.

I'm not sure what you mean by religious progress though.

Most atheists don't have a problem with theists such as myself, who aren't extremists and aren't trying to halt the development of science.

My supervisor's father was a militant atheist. He banned talk of religion and didn't allow him to associate with theists until he was 18, yet he believed in God the entire time, so in that sense it may not halt progress.

If anything, atheism advances progress. Civilisation is learning mire reasons to not be religious, so in turn religion has to become more philosophical and appealing to get followers.

 

[AltF4]

We say that, Dre, because lots of theists literally do mean that. If you were to take a poll of how many people thought that their loved ones are literally looking down upon them from heaven, you would get a very large number of positive results. That is why we refer to the sky as "the heavens". Because historically, god was thought to be literally up there. (Not merely metaphorically)

But it's still true today. Consider the ridiculous Mormon beliefs, namely the Planet Kolob. It is a physical location where god is supposed to be physically located. Sitting in a throne, like some galactic emperor.

You can't make this stuff up. (Or, well, actually you can!)

 

[Aesir]

I hate when people say invisible man in the sky, it's like saying evolution says we evolved from chimps.

I'm not sure what you mean by religious progress though.

Most atheists don't have a problem with theists such as myself, who aren't extremists and aren't trying to halt the development of science.

You don't belong to some organized religion though, I'm talking about people who identify with a religion but are very liberal with their belief. What I mean by progress again look at the catholic church 100 years ago it's a lot more rational today than it was then. That's what I mean by progress, rather than ignoring evidence they accept it. Granted they still are a bit stubborn in other aspects but again they have progressed a little.

My supervisor's father was a militant atheist. He banned talk of religion and didn't allow him to associate with theists until he was 18, yet he believed in God the entire time, so in that sense it may not halt progress.

If anything, atheism advances progress. Civilisation is learning mire reasons to not be religious, so in turn religion has to become more philosophical and appealing to get followers.

I don't mean societal progress I mean progress within that religion, ideas evolve and religion is no different, however I feel when militant Atheism simple shuns people whom have faith but that faith doesn't hinder their rational judgement I feel that shunning is very harmful.

What you're saying is exactly what I mean religion needs to be more philosophical, but when you have adherents to that religion for are philosophical with their faith it's scuffed at by New Atheism as being just irrational and bad as southern Protestantism.

 

[adumbrodeus]

My wife is writing a strongly worded letter to President Obama concerning this defense funding bill. I guess it takes some longer than others for the reality of it to hit home, but this really is the absolute worst piece of legislation I've ever seen in my lifetime, and the president -I- supported and voted for, is on board. W.T.F. Is he just stupid? I can't accept that he is... he HAS to know the implications of what this bill will mean if passed.

Supposedly he's signing it with a "signing statement."

Obama Will Issue Signing Statement With NDAA Detention Rules

But will it be enough? Can we trust even this? I'm not as queasy as I was when I first learned we were invading Iraq after 9/11 ... that day I threw up from the stress of grief. But this is darn close.

I mean, how CAN he append his approval? What can he sign saying that'll make it okay for us to sleep at night? He's backed himself into a corner, and he knows it, this is just buying him time for him to figure out a way to break it to everyone "yeah, ok, this will make it okay to disappear people, and I realize I'll be a 1-term president now, but just shut your mouth about it or you may be branded a terrorist and vanish."

****in' hell.

What does he plan on making his signing statements?

Signing statements have the effective force of law because of the exectutive branch's ability to execute laws, and as such can be unconstitutional similarly to laws themselves.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

What does he plan on making his signing statements?

Signing statements have the effective force of law because of the exectutive branch's ability to execute laws, and as such can be unconstitutional similarly to laws themselves.

That's quite interesting actually. If his signing statement is right than maybe it's not too bad. Somehow, I don't think it will be though.

 

[Theftz22]

First behaviorist to second behaviorist just after making love, "It was great for you, how was it for me?"

 

[blazedaces]

First behaviorist to second behaviorist just after making love, "It was great for you, how was it for me?"

"You've had better"

-blazed

 

[Aesir]

Is it just me, but it seems if you know your teachers personal politics it's pretty easy to bull**** a paper into an A.

 

[Nicholas1024]

I wouldn't be surprised if that is indeed the case. I'm sure most people would react to a paper supporting their side of a controversial topic a lot better than one opposing it.

 

[Aesir]

That might be why a lot of teachers keep their personal politics to themselves. (If they don't they're dumb)

 

[Sucumbio]

Ron Paul is dumb.

Spoiler

Or insane. Or afflicted with Alzheimer's. Or did too many 'shrooms. Or is a woman trapped in a man's body. Or...

 

[Nicholas1024]

Right... are you trying to start a baseless argument? Because that's the only discussion such a statement is likely to cause.

 

[AltF4]

A cute little caricature of Ron Paul was on Reddit a while back, posted by someone named robertbieber:

"Half" is giving him way too much credit. My favorite analogy for Ron Paul is the broken clock. A broken clock, as we all know, is right twice a day. What most people don't consider is that a broken clock is not only right twice a day, it's precisely right twice a day. A perfectly functional clock, meanwhile, may be slightly off and therefore never tell the exactly correct time, but any fool could tell that it's far more useful.

Now imagine that you stumble upon the broken clock at the exact time that it's correct. Maybe you come across it a little before its correct time, and observe it until just a little afterward. From that perspective, the broken clock looks pretty doggone accurate. If you don't sit around the rest of the day watching it, you'll see a much lower cumulative error arising from the broken clock than the functional-but-slightly-off clock, and may very well find yourself inclined to judge it more useful than the working clock.

Of course, the reality of the situation is that you've now placed your faith in a broken clock, and this is exactly the mistake that "progressive" Ron Paul supporters make. Just like the broken clock, Ron Paul tells the same time whenever you ask him: "Government intervention bad, free market interactions good." And if you ask him at the right time, say, in a discussion of foreign interventionism or drug prohibition, you might say to yourself "Well I'll be darned, all those other clocks are a little off, but this clock is exactly right. It must be vastly superior!"

The problem, of course, comes when you decide to check the time at any other point in the day. When you want to know how we're going to provide for our poor and our elderly and our sick, or how we're going to keep massive corporations from exploiting a labor surplus to make wage slaves of us all, or how we're going to protect our environment from the negative externalities of the free market, or how we're going to assure equal rights for minorities, you get back the same answer, an age-old answer that has been tried and found sorely wanting.

This is the point where most progressively minded people realize that what they're looking at is a broken clock and adjust their positions accordingly. Unfortunately, a select few, upon observing that their preferred clock is not accurately reflecting the time of day, will reconcile the difference not by adjusting their belief about the clock's veracity to fit reality, but by adjusting their beliefs about the current time of day to fit the clock. And from this mistake comes Ron Paul's enthusiastic but sadly misguided "progressive" Internet following.

 

[rvkevin]

While the analogy is a good one to demonstrate how being correct one some things is not necessarily a redeeming character trait, it kind of falls apart when you compare the broken watch with a watch with no hands. While the broken watch is right twice a day, it is functionally equivalent or worse than the one with no hands since both don't convey an accurate time and the broken one will only mislead you. However, it would be hard to say that a candidate who is correct on two issues is functionally equivalent or worse than one who is incorrect (to the same degree) on all. Sadly, when looking at the Republican field, this scenario plays out far too often. While it would be fortunate if we could compare a broken watch to a functional one, the problem is that we don't have the corresponding functional candidate to compare to.

 

[Aesir]

I find myself agree with Ron Paul like 4/10 times. lol

which is about 100 times more than usual republicans.

 

[Sucumbio]

I'm just floored at his current popularity.

Iowa caucus for example, wow... essentially a 3-way race now with Mittens, Santorum (the recent Google Bomb is hilarious!) and Paul.

If half these people really knew what Ron Paul stood for, they'd have written him off as a lunatic eons ago.

Stuff like this, I mean. (there, Nic, not so baseless now, is it!)

 

[AltF4]

Republicans tend to not like Ron Paul because he is what happens when you take the principles of absolute small government and personal liberty to their logical conclusion. You get absurd things like wanting to vote against the Civil Rights Act. You get ridiculous things like wanting to allow stores to ban racial minorities from their premises, simply because "The store is a private institution, and the government has no right to tell them what they can do."

Rather than a more nuanced position, which might say "When all else is equal, one should prefer the choice of non-government intervention". But nuance and intelligent critical thought might be asking too much.

 

[Nicholas1024]

And do you honestly think such a store would prosper compared to one that allowed all people to shop? They'd go out of business, but I do think people should have the right to behave like idiots, so long as they don't violate someone else's rights. You might disagree with that, but it's not complete insanity like you implied. Anyway, let me take the opposite train of thought to its logical conclusion. You say the government has a right to tell people what they should do if that's clearly better than the alternative? Tell me, what would you think if a Christian was to become president and act on that idea?

I'm always rather annoyed at the "The government is needed to stop corrupt corporations" angle, because quite frankly, they do the opposite. Using the (large? Sometimes I wonder...) assumption that not quite everybody is an absolute moron, if a corporation is being dishonest, the people will instead do business with an honest competitor, thus leading to the dishonest one (same with incompetent ones) to go out of business. Now construct a sentence involving the words "government", "bailout", and "failing business".

And if you think I'm making up ridiculous scenarios with my theory crafting, I invite you to investigate the connection between the banks, the federal reserve, inflation, and the constantly failing economy.

 

[AltF4]

Woah, there. I was just criticizing the "Let's find the answer first, then try to apply it to every question second" philosophy of politics that seems to be so common. As if your entire political views have to fit on a bumper sticker. That's silly. Neither "Government is bad, keep it out" nor "Government is a useful tool to solve social problems" is an adequate answer to every problem. Why should expect it to be?

Ron Paul tends to be like a real live Stephen Colbert. He's a caricature of the premise of small government. He is what you get when you take it to an extreme, and by comparison makes the rest of them look bad. That's why the republican establishment (especially Fox News) has a concerted and deliberate campaign to marginalize him.

I think that it's an excellent guiding principle to, when all else is equal, not involve government. But don't put too much stock in guiding principles. Evaluate issues as they stand on their own merits.

 

[ciaza]

http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-01-pentagon-backed-cloak-clock.html

pretty good read, though i have admittedly a tough time following it.

 

[Sucumbio]

And do you honestly think such a store would prosper compared to one that allowed all people to shop?

Uh, YES? You obviously don't live in the deep south. No one will admit it right away, but if business owners really could run their businesses however they wanted, ha! No handicapped parking. No blacks. On and on and on.

I mean, how do you think the circumstances under which the Civil Rights Act was passed came to be in the first place? I realize you are too young to remember those days, but in point of fact I was born just over a decade after its passing. Racial hatred still existed not 12 years later, and very seriously. And thousands of miles away from its epicenter.

And now almost 50 years later, you honestly think the seeds of that hatred aren't still there? In a lot of places, sure a business would be shunned into closure. But in many places, it'd be hailed... a place to finally get away from XYZ (provided that protesters were also barred, what a mess that whole thing would be).

But I see you're not convinced, so here's another reason why Ron Paul is just plain crazy.

And that's that about that.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

And do you honestly think such a store would prosper compared to one that allowed all people to shop?

Maybe it would fail somewhere like New England or California, but in the deep south? Probably would keep itself above water.

But more importantly, this is ignoring the massive paradigm shift that's happened since the act was passed. Nowadays, a shop like that would be kind of a big deal. Back in the 50s or 60s? It wouldn't be a big deal, it would be the place the nice old white people went to shop to get away from the nasty black folk. In those days, not exactly a losing business model.

I do think people should have the right to behave like idiots, so long as they don't violate someone else's rights. You might disagree with that, but it's not complete insanity like you implied. Anyway, let me take the opposite train of thought to its logical conclusion. You say the government has a right to tell people what they should do if that's clearly better than the alternative? Tell me, what would you think if a Christian was to become president and act on that idea?

It's a matter of discrimination. Let's not blow this out of context.

I'm always rather annoyed at the "The government is needed to stop corrupt corporations" angle, because quite frankly, they do the opposite. Using the (large? Sometimes I wonder...) assumption that not quite everybody is an absolute moron, if a corporation is being dishonest, the people will instead do business with an honest competitor, thus leading to the dishonest one (same with incompetent ones) to go out of business.

Hey! Great news! People are smart! I never knew...

Oh wait, no they aren't. Case in point: Goldman Sachs and the other major banks essentially broke the world's economy in half... And are still getting business.

And if you think I'm making up ridiculous scenarios with my theory crafting, I invite you to investigate the connection between the banks, the federal reserve, inflation, and the constantly failing economy.

Funny... None of those four things should be the government's business, according to you. The Fed is not a government organization, in case you weren't paying attention. .