|
Grex > Agora56 > #84: Newspaper in Denmark prints cartoon pics of Mohammed | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 432 responses total. |
kingjon
|
|
response 52 of 432:
| 
Feb 6 11:58 UTC 2006 |
Sounds more like they'd be more at home in the Democratic Party (or the ACLU)
where they have exactly the same reaction every time someone suggests that the
theory of evolution might not be either accurate or properly taught in school.
:)
|
nharmon
|
|
response 53 of 432:
|
Feb 6 14:59 UTC 2006 |
Good call Jon!
|
keesan
|
|
response 54 of 432:
|
Feb 6 15:09 UTC 2006 |
You are all acting like 5 year olds.
Theories are by definition not 'accurate', they are best guesses based on the
evidence. And not all members of any party, even the Ku Klux Klan, are the
sort who go around starting fires if they don't like what other people do.
|
richard
|
|
response 55 of 432:
|
Feb 6 15:43 UTC 2006 |
it is in fact the gop that is the home of the fundamentalist right wing
religious powers that be, and it is in fact the gop that sees the media as
evil (well liberal, but to them its the same thing) They have a lot in common
with their brethren fundamentalists over in the muslim world.
|
keesan
|
|
response 56 of 432:
|
Feb 6 16:50 UTC 2006 |
I have some very nice friends who happen to be Republicans and don't go around
setting fires. I don't always understand how people choose their party
affiliations. The Republicans seem to draw from several diverse groups, not
all of whom support all the party lines.
|
jep
|
|
response 57 of 432:
|
Feb 6 16:54 UTC 2006 |
Gee, I didn't know all Republicans started fires. I didn't know all of
us were fanatic religious fundamentalists, either. Can you please tell
me about some more of my beliefs, Richard? (I hate being so much in
the dark about my beliefs.)
|
jep
|
|
response 58 of 432:
|
Feb 6 16:57 UTC 2006 |
I guess Richard is demonstrating that all Democrats believe Republicans
are like that. Richard must have been sent to us by God as an
illustration of why Republicans have such an easy time winning most of
the presidential elections, and why Republican presidents get to
appoint most of the Supreme Court justices. God makes all Democrats
idiots.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 59 of 432:
|
Feb 6 17:09 UTC 2006 |
I wouldn't go that far. There are a lot of intelligent democrats.
|
klg
|
|
response 60 of 432:
|
Feb 6 17:11 UTC 2006 |
(RW - Who said you could divulge such secrets?? You better not give
out the secret password and handshake!!)
JPJR- Democrats are not necessarily idiots. A lot are well meaning,
but misguided in terms of their thinking as to how people can best
reach their potential and the proper role of government. But they
spend so much energy in defending their ingrained beliefs that that
don't examine them critically.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 61 of 432:
|
Feb 6 17:14 UTC 2006 |
Now, you must admit that even though bashing Richard is fun- he has a
point. The GOP IS home to the far right-wing religious nut jobs. That
does NOT mean that all republicans far right-wing religious nut jobs.
Kind of that 'all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are
squares' idea.
|
klg
|
|
response 62 of 432:
|
Feb 6 17:19 UTC 2006 |
(And the Democratic Party is home to far left-wing religiou nut jobs.)
|
mcnally
|
|
response 63 of 432:
|
Feb 6 17:27 UTC 2006 |
re #54:
> Theories are by definition not 'accurate', they are best guesses based
> on the evidence.
I disagree with you here. Accepted scientific theories are not, perhaps,
foolproof, but they *are* accurate -- as accurate as we can possibly make
them. To the extent that they prove inaccurate they are usually rejected
or revised in favor of more accurate theories whose predictions better
match the observable data.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 64 of 432:
|
Feb 6 17:38 UTC 2006 |
Unfortunately for them, the Democratic party hasn't been able to capture
very much of the left-wing religious nut job vote. Most of them voted
for Nader in 2000, for example. However it's not a big factor because
most left-wing nut jobs are not especially religious, while most
right-wing nut jobs are.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 65 of 432:
|
Feb 6 17:44 UTC 2006 |
What is the difference between a law (ie. The Law of Gravity) versus a
theory (ie. The Theory of Evolution)?
Also, I think you people are mistaking religious fundamentalism for
religious extremism. Although I suppose there are some of you who
believe that the former constitutes the latter.
|
tod
|
|
response 66 of 432:
|
Feb 6 17:44 UTC 2006 |
Ever since Colson was separated from Nixon, we've seen the religious nuts
swarming to the right more.
|
tod
|
|
response 67 of 432:
|
Feb 6 17:45 UTC 2006 |
re #65
Anytime someone thinks the 10 Commandments has a place in a courthouse then
I equate them as equal.
|
jep
|
|
response 68 of 432:
|
Feb 6 17:46 UTC 2006 |
Oh, nuts. I don't think anyone here really believes I don't respect
Democrats. If they do, I am sorry I've incorrectly conveyed my views.
I vigorously disagree with a lot of people on certain subjects without
any feeling of disrespect for any of them. And even most people here
for whom I don't have much respect, have demonstrated they deserve
respect in some areas. Grex gives all of us a chance to show some of
our best and some of our worst.
|
twenex
|
|
response 69 of 432:
|
Feb 6 17:51 UTC 2006 |
Re: #65.
Also, I think you people are mistaking religious fundamentalism for
religious extremism. Although I suppose there are some of you who
believe that the former constitutes the latter.
It does.
|
gull
|
|
response 70 of 432:
|
Feb 6 18:20 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:65: I'd say that fundamentalism is not a sufficient condition
for extremism, but it is a required condition. You never hear about
extremist Unitarians. ;)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 71 of 432:
|
Feb 6 18:39 UTC 2006 |
Re #65: "Laws" in science are mathematical functions relating observations
with considerable accuracy, even if they are not exact. Newton's three
laws of motion, Ohms Law, Kirchoff's Law, Maxwell's Laws, Einstein's
Law(s), etc. These different laws may address the same phenomena, such as
some of Newton's and Einstein's Laws, and Kirchoff's and Maxwell's Laws.
The general study and accumulated knowledge of these phenomena constitute
theories, such as the various Theories of Gravitation, which are expressed
in the various applicable laws. Scientific studies evolve theories, which
produce intermediate approximations called laws.
Even the "Law of Gravity" is still being worked on - look up <gravity
theory> on Google and you find plenty of links. One of the "Laws" is the
approximation F = GM1M2/R^2. The "Theory" (or "Theories") are trying to
explain where that comes from, and its exceptions.
"Law" is not applied yet to the Theory of Evolution because we are still
learning things about it at an enormous rate that have not as yet been
consolidated by encomposing mathematical relations. In addition to that,
Evolutionary Theory is tangled up with legalities (such as related to
teaching it, or not teaching it), so that a Google search of <evolution
law> finds only these issues and not specific ideas derived from the
theory.
|
richard
|
|
response 72 of 432:
|
Feb 6 18:41 UTC 2006 |
the right wing in islamic countries either want or have a theocracy. The far
right wing in the u.s. wants a theocracy. Bush isn't interested in
Constitutional law, he is interested in God's law (just listen to many of his
speeches) Same holds true for Osama Bin Laden.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 73 of 432:
|
Feb 6 18:46 UTC 2006 |
Curl's last sentence was what I was talking about in #52. If you suggest that
gravity, or calculus, be taught as "a hypothesis which may or may not be true",
it's seen as generally harmless but you'll be laughed at. If you suggest the
same thing for Evolution (capital letter intended), and somebody notices,
you're guaranteed a lawsuit from the ACLU -- which is, I'm sure, what the
Islamic extremists we were talking about would be doing if a) they thought they
could win and b) their followers had an ounce more of respect for private
property.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 74 of 432:
|
Feb 6 18:50 UTC 2006 |
Re #73: huh? Are you saying the Islamic extremists favor ACLU lawsuits,
or are against evolution, or what?
I do draw a distinction between praying in the abstract for the murder of
others and actually recruiting and training somebody to go do it. Both
are stupid and irresponsible but there's still an important distinction.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 75 of 432:
|
Feb 6 18:55 UTC 2006 |
Re #74:
No. The Islamic extremist response (burnings, etc.) to "blasphemy"
(representations of Mohammed) that we were discussing before seemed to me
exactly the same as the ACLU response to suggestions that Evolution just
possibly ought not to be the only origins hypothesis taught in schools, with
the only difference being that the Islamic-extremist response had an iota less
respect for property rights. I think the ACLU might go that route if they
suddenly started losing every evolution-related lawsuit they filed :)
|
marcvh
|
|
response 76 of 432:
|
Feb 6 19:02 UTC 2006 |
Um, oh. I see a huge distinction between pursuing legal remedy and
having an angry mob torch a building, and I see a huge distinction
between expression by the private press and expression by agents of the
state. But I suppose that blurring those distinctions serves your
agenda.
|