|
Post by Undecided on Mar 17, 2009 21:49:38 GMT -5
Sometimes I wish that cryptobiology were true...*sighs and returns to the real world*
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Mar 17, 2009 19:49:05 GMT -5
Perhaps a century ago, a psychodynamic explanation for atheism would have been acceptable and worthy of academic criticism, but now we know better: cherry-picking twelve famous cases and then generalising to a group with millions of members is intenable under modern-day sociological standards.
I notice that all the people on the list have awful hair. Does that mean that there is a correlation between bad hair and an absent father?
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Mar 17, 2009 19:31:08 GMT -5
"And I am glad that we no longer have an administration that uses that kind of argument."...
That was subtle: he looked like he wanted to openly contradict him.
Also, what these types of people are doing is not historical revisionism, which is a legitimate review of history in light of uncovered or new evidence after a cooldown period. It is purely political, and, as history stands now, it eventually will become a form of historical negationism, akin to denying the Holocaust.
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Mar 17, 2009 19:19:13 GMT -5
and indirect contempt
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Mar 17, 2009 19:10:22 GMT -5
Atheism, by definition, is a NON belief. How does one, exactly, "not believe" in a radical fashion? Atheism, in it's broadest sense, is a lack of belief in deities. What's usually understood as strong atheism is the belief that deities don't or can't exist. I've yet to see any example of a radical atheist, but it is indeed a possibility. Surely there are some atheists who are insufficiently versed in apologetics to explain their beliefs. And surely some of them are needlessly invective. I think a visit to Encyclopedia Dramatica could give an example.
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Mar 15, 2009 1:14:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Mar 15, 2009 0:34:03 GMT -5
facetiously
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Mar 13, 2009 14:11:18 GMT -5
I don't know what my 3:00 AM self was talking about either. Forgive my convoluted arguments.
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Mar 13, 2009 2:25:19 GMT -5
It all depends on how much labour one is willing to undergo.
Firstly, the only issues that come from submitting a post taken directly from a standard forum or blog are those of access: the post might be deleted in the future or access might be restricted to members. Since those issues can only be rectified by copying the information to somplace else and are inherent to all data on the web, they don't really matter.
The real problems arise when the content isn't unambiguously due to one person: should a news article citation reference individuals or a generic group? Who is responsible for legislature? Also, the degree of separation between the actual content and the fundamentalism contained therein matters when considering how appropriate content is for the site.
In other words, I think that content found directly (forums and blogs) and content found indirectly (legislation and news reports) should be treated separately at the very least, the former requiring the usual board and fundie, the latter requiring the news source/appropriate act and the fundie group/legislature. This is exactly what the status quo is. All that is necessary is a radio button choice which would have the effect of changing around the wording of the posts and the submission form. There wouldn't be any more fields: all that would change is the naming.
As to images, the primary problem is context. In this case, I think that the "quote" field should be replaced by the URL of the image and the URL field should be the URL of the context, with the "Fundie" field being the purported artist.
I'm pretty sure that I am dead tired at the moment, so this post probably won't make any sense to anybody who reads it. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Mar 13, 2009 1:49:50 GMT -5
This is part of the reason Chuck Norris jokes annoy me so much.
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Mar 13, 2009 1:48:10 GMT -5
felt that this
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Mar 13, 2009 1:47:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Mar 13, 2009 0:11:31 GMT -5
Mr. Chick and
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Mar 12, 2009 23:03:50 GMT -5
waddle tale rattle ladle
... The computer that my brother inherited has a copy of mathematica 5.1 on it. There is an add-on package which has a dictionary database on which one can perform a wildcard search for a word.
The problem is that my brother is hypocritically protective of said computer, so I do not have access to that database.
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Mar 12, 2009 0:37:43 GMT -5
Since this thread is going to burst into flames anyways, I may as well post this: I saw it on the website that skyfire's article was on. It's called a pearl Fuji, apparently. The original: mdn.mainichi.jp/photojournal/graph/photojournal/1.htmlJust a reminder that good can come out of any thread. Really, however, I don't see the merit of the original article. It must be like that goat curse of the Chicago Cubs or any other sports team loss superstition thing. EDIT2: I have no civil response to this. Just...lol.
|
|