The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Profile: will
About
User Name: will
Forum Rank: Advanced Member
Occupation:
Interests:
Gender: None Specified
Home Page
Statistics
Joined: Monday, June 29, 2009
Last Visit: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 8:56:41 AM
Number of Posts: 952
[0.12% of all post / 0.34 posts per day]
Avatar
  Last 10 Posts
Topic: Scientific Answers From A Creationist Perspective
Posted: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 8:45:56 AM
tunaafi wrote:
Unfortunately, no matter how many times evolutionists...


Speak to the hand You gotta watch that term ‘evolutionists’ around creationist proselytising, it’s right up there with ‘secular scientists’.

Creationist love to try and paint the fact and theory of evolution as a narrow dogma adhered to by a particular sect, collectively know as evolutionist. As I know you know, the fact and theory of evolution crosses all scientific fields to some degree, from cosmology to physic... or geo-centrists and gravitionalists as I call them. Whistle


.
Topic: Why and When Did Politically Correct Become Incorrect?
Posted: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 8:31:25 AM
Listening. Your post, describing appropriate language to use when dealing with Spazzies, seemed perfectly reasonable… then I realised you were quoting an example of what you thought was wrong! d'oh!

Without picking each point apart, I’ll focus on just the first point and your preceding comment:
Quote:
1. Never say “a disabled person” or “the disabled.” Say a person or people “with disabilities.”
Put the person first. A disability is what someone has, not what someone is.

Listening... wrote:
If I were crippled in some way, tip toeing around me by softening the reality would just make me angry and feel worse about the situation!

The important point here is the phrase “If I were…”; that would be your choice, your distinction, for yourself. There are undoubtedly some (if not all) people with disabilities that would find the term crippled, or the assumption that their disability defines them (and that they must feel ‘bad’ about it) offensive.

How can anyone possibly think it is wrong to aim for a general default position of treating individuals positively as people first and foremost, regardless of particular distinguishing traits?

There are plenty of examples of individual people who use particular distinguishing traits to define themselves – I think we all do it to some extent – but we should surely aim to view people as people first and let individuals make their own personal distinction.

Edited cos’ DragOnspeaker and Romany snuck in while I was posting:

If PC is used restrictively as people say then I am, like Romany, apparently completely oblivious to the fact.

I can think of countless examples from mainstream media that make physical attributes of individuals the main focus, indeed for many actually being offensive is the whole point. I can’t think of a situation where someone has taken real offence at a thoughtless comment, let alone being described by gender or even colour. Most people I experience would treat inappropriate descriptions or comments as a shortcoming of the person making them and just move on. I’ve never personally been pulled up for using sensible appropriate descriptions of people. True, I’d avoid directing someone to ask the ‘fat guy’, but I’ve never actually needed to either.

I am not at all the type to pull my punches, but I can honestly say I have never been accused of being politically incorrect. I’ll happily make sexist comments in front of certain female friends; I can do this because I can judge the situation and take responsibility for what I say, and the comic effect of the ‘outrage’ caused is directed at me and my (pretend) ignorant attitude. My workplace is clearly a completely different situation, with different considerations, where I’m still responsible for my actions and so act accordingly, but no one is tiptoeing around by any means.


Edited again to add that I'm aware 'Spazzies' is an inappropriate term. I used it for ironic effect... no sign of the thought police knocking on my door yet Shhh


.
Topic: Why and When Did Politically Correct Become Incorrect?
Posted: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 8:29:34 AM
Wilmar (USA) wrote:
Political correctness has been driven to the point of "outlawing" the mention of certain viewpoints, with the excuse that it "offends" someone. (ALERT! It's not my job to make you comfortable. Someone should explain that to the current generation.)

Others have touched on this point, but I think it’s worth stressing again:

There are restrictions on speech, such as incitement to racial hatred, libel, slander etc. and restrictions on certain actions, such as assault. These are defined, judged and enforced by the legal systems of given societies.

But so called political correctness has no power or ability to force people to think or behave in any particular way; as progpen so eloquently put it, you are completely at liberty to act like a totally insensitive asshat if you so wish. Political correctness is a constantly evolving, situation specific description of attitudes that are considered generally acceptable (or not) in certain circumstances. You are quite welcome to push the envelope to what ever extent you choose; political correctness just aims to define the ‘envelope’ for those who don’t have the social aptitude to work it out for themselves.

What is considered acceptable, especially in different circumstances and to different people, is sometimes hard to judge. In my experience most people are treading the same lines and are very forgiving of innocent social faux pas.

This is not, however, an excuse to be a dick; if you chose to make another person uncomfortable, or use derogatory language, or act inappropriately, then it is on you alone to take responsibility for that choice. The complaint that political correctness has gone too far is generally shorthand for people who refuse to take responsibility for certain personal attitudes that are out of step with the wider social group.

It’s interesting that you highlight the ‘current generation’ as apparently being at fault for finding ‘certain viewpoints’ offensive. In my experience the younger generation are far more tolerant of offence to perceived standards of ‘normal decency’ – hence the popularity of TV programmes like South Park, the casual use of profane language, and attitudes to sexuality. I think the difference is that the younger generation are more advanced in attitudes towards equality; it’s ‘acceptable’ to be offensive to people, it’s not acceptable to be offensive to particular groups of people.

Wilmar (USA) wrote:
That's what people have come to disdain. The drilling on not mentioning anything the vocal minority has decided is not PC is simply additional steps in stripping you of your power. One topic at a time. We're forced to accept behavior we know is wrong because we are no longer allowed to say that we disagree.
You are giving up your right to your opinions and your right to express them. Very dangerous.

Do you have anything to back up this claim that political correctness is being enforced by a ‘vocal minority’ ? Are you seriously claiming that treating certain groups in a derogatory manner on the grounds of race, gender, age or ability is the general attitude of the silent majority? Think


Topic: Do You Know About Human Eye?(26)
Posted: Monday, March 20, 2017 1:24:17 PM
In this thread Dreamy wrote:
Without the eye would there be telescopes, microscopes, cameras, or any other inventions which enhance the capacity to see?

That was not the point you originally made. The quote you originally provided said:

Quote:
Until Dawkins or someone else can actually make something as good or better than the human eye, I would invite them to consider the silliness of their efforts in trying to make value judgments [sic] on such things such things [sic] that are obviously among most beautiful and beyond the most astounding works of human genius and art in existence.

Telescopes, microscopes, cameras, or any other inventions which enhance the capacity to see – to use your own words – are definitively ‘as good or better than the human eye'.

So, are you abandoning this argument that the human eye is intelligently designed?


.
Topic: Scientific Answers From A Creationist Perspective
Posted: Monday, March 20, 2017 1:22:10 PM
Dreamy. What is the purpose of this abstract nonsense about ‘Information Science’?

Evolutionary theory is a relatively simple concept, the basics are easily within the grasp of the average secondary school pupil (at least in the UK and most developed nations (I’m not so sure about the USA)), there is absolutely no reason to tie yourself in knots with tangential pseudo-science – although I suspect this is actually a cynical diversion to avoid addressing the challenges made against your misrepresentation of the basics.

You’ve simply ignored, again, Romany’s clear explanation of why your understanding how a scientific theory differs from ‘anyone’s best guess until proven as fact’. You’ve even repeated yourself, with an additional bullshit distinction of ‘Observational Science'... the fact that creationist have to redefine so many standard accepted definitions speaks volumes. Shame on you

You need to address this issue first, before anyone is obliged to take you seriously.


.
Topic: "After You"...Facing Choices
Posted: Sunday, March 19, 2017 2:09:40 PM
tunaafi wrote:
TheParser wrote:
Men should always open doors for women.
Men should always offer their seats to women on a bus.


Why?

If one gets to a door before another person who appears to want to pass through, then it's considerate to hold the door open for that person regardless of their age or gender. If a female gets to a door before I do, is there something different about her that requires me to think she is incapable of opening a door for herself?

In my home city of Prague, young/healthy men and women regularly offer their seats on public transport to men and women who seem likely to benefit from this because of age, visible disability, or encumberment with children, etc. That shows consideration.

Does half of humanity need special consideration merely because it's female?


The problem with using absolutes as examples to general rules is that you inevitably paint your argument into a corner. d'oh!


.
Topic: Do You Know About Parthenogenesis?(28)
Posted: Sunday, March 19, 2017 2:08:16 PM
Parthenogenesis and Metamorphosis first sparked my interest in biology and both continue to blow my mind to this day. Truly fascinating stuff. Applause


.
Topic: Scientific Answers From A Creationist Perspective
Posted: Sunday, March 19, 2017 2:00:14 PM
Dreamy. In another thread you cited the human eye as evidence of an intelligent designer, and summarised your position with this quote:

Dreamy initially wrote:
Until Dawkins or someone else can actually make something as good or better than the human eye, I would invite them to consider the silliness of their efforts in trying to make value judgments [sic] on such things such things [sic] that are obviously among most beautiful and beyond the most astounding works of human genius and art in existence.

I pointed out that humans have, in fact, designed and made countless things – many far more complex than the eye – to experience reality far beyond the limited ‘design’ deficiencies of the eye. Humans have designed tools that enable us to see in any level of light, at extreme magnification, right across the electromagnetic spectrum and far beyond the narrow band of visible light; humans have designed tools to correct many defects and degeneration that are common due to the poor ‘design’ of the eye; humans have designed tools that enable us to see in virtually any environment, including under water and even through solid objects. Many of these ‘tools’ occur naturally in other species, enabling them to survive in other ecological niches… exactly as predicted by the theory of evolution by natural selection.

I predicted in that other thread that you would abandon your intelligently designed eye argument and move the goalposts to claim that intelligence and ingenuity indicate design.

I honestly hadn’t expected you to do it so abruptly, so conspicuously and exactly as I said you would Applause

Moving the goalpost, Dreamy wrote:
Presuppositions vastly affect our interpretation of evidence. The problem (for the secular scientist) is that science itself is based on Christian presuppositions. Science is possible because God upholds the universe in a logical, orderly way and because God made our minds able to think and reason logically.

Romany has eloquently explained your very, very, basic misunderstanding of what a scientific theory means. You’ll need to address this issue first, before anyone is obliged to give a detailed explanation of why 99.9% of scientists accept evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity, and why many international scientific societies have taken the unusual step of explicitly rejecting intelligent design as a valid alternative to evolutionary theory.

I can understand the appeal of wanting to attach the credibility of science to your religious beliefs, but science is a discipline that follows specific rules and procedures. If you want the credibility of the scientific method – you have posted in the science forum – you’ll be expected to follow those rules.

But, being the charitable chap that I am, even ignoring for now, once again, your fallacious conflation of objective and subjective claims and taking your erroneous definition of equally valid competing theories as a given, can you provide any scientific evidence that the biblical creation ‘theory’ carries more weight or is more valid than any of the other competing theistic creation ‘theories’?

You say that ‘science itself is based on Christian presuppositions’ because ‘God made our minds able to think and reason logically.’
We could equally presuppose that science is based on Mayan presuppositions and Quetzalcoatl made our minds able to think and reason logically; or that science is based on San presuppositions and Cagn made our minds able to think and reason logically; or that science is based on Mongolian religious presuppositions and Esege Malan made our minds able to think and reason logically; or that science is based on ancient Greek religious presuppositions and Chaos made our minds able to think and reason logically… you get my point.

In science we don’t include the conclusion to be proven within the premise of the argument or experiment – this is a form of circular reasoning known as ‘begging the question’.

I also predicted that you would, in line with standard Creationist modus operandi, ignore anything that challenges your religious beliefs, give it some time, maybe slightly adapt the wording, and return with exactly the same pseudo-science at some point in the future. Would you like to resurrect the 'variable speed of light' thread? Do you have some new supporting evidence... or are you just repeating the same pseudo-science, and remaining unmoved, as a way of reaffirming you Faith? Pray


.
Topic: "Mayday-Mayday-Mayday"
Posted: Friday, March 17, 2017 6:44:19 AM
From the excellent sci-fi comedy, Red Dwarf:

Quote:
Mayday, Mayday!
I wonder why they call it "Mayday"? It's only a bank holiday. Why not "Shrove Tuesday", or "Ascension Sunday"?
Ascension Sunday, Ascension Sunday! 2nd Wednesday after Pentecost, 2nd Wednesday after Pentecost!



.
Topic: A calm, intelligent definition of "DEEP STATE"
Posted: Friday, March 17, 2017 6:23:56 AM
To fair minded, right-handed readers, between 1.72m and 1.87m tall, born in a month containing an M, with a full head of hair in a natural shade – specifically excluding blue or green.

A friend of my neighbours oral hygienist is a guest on these forums, but is too terrified to post. They have asked me to calmly and intelligently point out that progpen is 127% correct when he says we need more much much more sarcasm.

I’m even...... sorry, my oral neighbour of my hygienist friend...... is tempted to express.... the genius of progpen’s wonderful comment in full caps, large coloured font, centred and surrounded by emojis.


Kunstniete wrote:
Lets talk a bit more about conspiracies? Some people still believe that the earth is flat, while others claim that HIV was intentionally invented as a weapon. I could continue with "Chemtrail"-follower or else, but I guess you got my point


You missed a trick here. You could have used a number of conspiracies that Trump is actually currently basing Government policy and appointments on, such as climate change denial or MMR / Autism anti-vaccine scaremongering… or any one of his paranoid delusions, or the vice president’s young Earth creationism. Actually, now I think about it, it wouldn’t surprise me if Trump has at some point stated a belief that the Earth is flat and I just missed it. Anxious


.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines. Copyright © 2008-2017 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.