Freedom of Speech

[Tie Guy]

Originally posted by C'jais

It is based on actual occurence

 

Actual occurances? What's the last animal you saw evolve?

 

And even your "source" you posted in the other thread doesn't say that it is likely that matter can spring from nothing, in fact, it says that it is very unlikely, but "possible." Even you must admit that if it is possible and did happen it was extremely unlikely.

 

 

Interesting. Have there been any discoveries predicted by your theory? No?

 

Read the old testimant, read the prophets. They all predict the soming of Christ and they said it just how it happened. And they did itas far back as 2000 years before it occured. The answer is yes.

 

We've been through this before, haven't we? Energy=matter. There is energy stored in the universe's curvature.

 

E=MC2 does not mean energy is the speed of light squared and mass put together. It's just that the speed of light and mass go into the calculations. Just as in P=nRT/V, pressure doesn't equal moles and temperature and volume, it's just that those are used to calculate pressure.

 

And don't try to justify theories with other theories.

 

They don't show these fossils at your school?

 

No, because there aren't any, and if you have any feel free to show me.

 

I'm not proficient enough to explain how, but it should be needless to state that they can. Call it God's work, but the adding of genes is really just a normal effect of mutations.

 

Ok, i believe you, it is possible. It's not possible, and you obviously don't know otherwise. Believe me, a christian scientist explained this to me, it's not possible in any situation on this earth at this time. Maybe it stopped working after evolution was complete, eh?

 

*Cough* I don't think it'd be wise of you to insult Skin, who probably knows more about evolution than you ever will, if you continue having this attitude.

 

Obviously not, if he can believe in it.

 

Sure, if we exclude the entire old testament, all the miracles in the new one, and all the contradictions in them both, then yeah.

 

Well, the miracles aren't proven (i'll give you that), but all the movements of the Israelites are, all the kings, all the cities, all the wars, all of them are, right up to the Roman Empire and beyond. I suggest you brush up on your ancient history.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Tie Guy

Read the old testimant, read the prophets. They all predict the soming of Christ and they said it just how it happened. And they did itas far back as 2000 years before it occured. The answer is yes.

 

So the Old testament prophesized the coming of the son of God, which JC conveniently uses to justify his mandate from heaven. No biggie.

 

Actual occurances? What's the last animal you saw evolve?

 

The local bacteria strain that went and "got itself" immune to anti-biotics?

 

Curiously, the genes that code for the enzymes needed to break down antibiotics get broken down themselves once there's no need for them anymore. Strangely enough, they "pop" up again once the antibiotic threatens it. Could it be that genes can evolve out of need?

 

And even your "source" you posted in the other thread doesn't say that it is likely that matter can spring from nothing, in fact, it says that it is very unlikely, but "possible." Even you must admit that if it is possible and did happen it was extremely unlikely.

 

It does not say that it's unlikely. It says that its very likely. Read it again.

 

No, because there aren't any, and if you have any feel free to show me.

 

Did the news of "Toumaï" just pass over your head? Or did they not inform you of this discovery at your school?

 

Archeopteryx. the many various stages of the human species, the various stages of horses and whales. Just to name a few.

 

 

Ok, i believe you, it is possible. It's not possible, and you obviously don't know otherwise.

 

Read a decent biology book. I'm not going to discuss this any further. Instead, I'd like to you pity the poor children with Down's syndrome. They're possessing more genes than is "possible". Sad but true.

 

Obviously not, if he can believe in it.

 

Again, you don't believe in proven theories.

 

Well, the miracles aren't proven (i'll give you that), but all the movements of the Israelites are, all the kings, all the cities, all the wars, all of them are, right up to the Roman Empire and beyond. I suggest you brush up on your ancient history.

 

Thank you for proving my point.

 

Now, about that old testament and all the contradictions, shall we?

[Zygomaticus]

It's also evolution/natural selection that has bought about the existance of pesticide-resistant insects, and viri like HIV (?).

 

Believe me, a christian scientist explained this to me, it's [mutation related base pair adding/removing] not possible in any situation on this earth at this time.

 

Is it possible that he might be wrong, or is he all-knowing?

 

Like genetic fragments can be added scientifically (plasmids in bacteriae) there may have been a way for it to happen naturally...

[C'jais]

Very true, Krk.

 

This is the explanation in a nutshell.

 

A gene codes for a specific protein/enzyme. Enzymes takes care of breaking down hostile antibiotics or other unwanted elements in the cell/body.

 

Therefore, for a bacteria strain to become immune to such an antibiotica, it must "grow" these genes. And before you ask, no, it has nothing to do with those genes being inactive before the antibiotic enters. They're not there.

[Tie Guy]

Who cares if bacteria becomes immune, that doesnt't prove anything. I've already said that there are positive mutations. But that bacteria is still the same bacteria, it is just immune now.

 

Oh, and thank you for proving my point with down's syndrome. That's what happens when an extra chromosome get's stuck alonside the regular ones (which is not, BTW, a genetic mutation, but simply an additional chromosome "stuck" to the others). Not something that natural selection is likely to choose, is it?

 

Is it possible that he might be wrong, or is he all-knowing?

 

He's not all knowing, but apparently you and C'jais are. I certainly lend more credibility to his explanations and claims than ya'll.

 

Did the news of "Toumaï" just pass over your head? Or did they not inform you of this discovery at your school?

 

Archeopteryx. the many various stages of the human species, the various stages of horses and whales. Just to name a few.

 

So the Old testament prophesized the coming of the son of God, which JC conveniently uses to justify his mandate from heaven. No biggie.

 

First of all, did you know scientists rarely find many bones, and that they literally guess at what the entire thing may have looked like judging from small pieces they found? Do you know they make mistakes, such as the brontosaurus (i think that was the one), a very commonplace dinosaur that never actually existed?

 

Oh, and you know, even if they are accurate (i have never heard of them, BTW), they could just be regular animals that scientists conviently used to justify their crazy theory. No biggie.

 

And don't you think with all the mutations and evolutions and changes in species there would be more than a few? Especially considering all the dinosaur bones we found? Why would so many dinosaur bones survive while all the "missing link" bones mystically disappear?

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Tie Guy

Who cares if bacteria becomes immune, that doesnt't prove anything. I've already said that there are positive mutations. But that bacteria is still the same bacteria, it is just immune now.

 

Don't dodge the answer. Me and Krk were not explaining why species evolve into others, but how genes get added.

 

Which you seem to be a bit skeptic of.

 

Oh, and thank you for proving my point with down's syndrome. That's what happens when an extra chromosome get's stuck alonside the regular ones (which is not, BTW, a genetic mutation, but simply an additional chromosome "stuck" to the others).

 

...which means it's a genetic disease. Or mutation, if we look past its negative side effects.

 

Not something that natural selection is likely to choose, is it?

 

Nope. Do you see many people with down's syndrome running around in your neighborhood?

 

He's not all knowing, but apparently you and C'jais are. I certainly lend more credibility to his explanations and claims than ya'll.

 

Sure, your call.

 

All I'm saying is that you should get a real biology teacher instead of some priest reciting hymns from creationism.org. And move away from the Bible belt. It's obviously bad for your educational environment.

 

I'm going to be frank now. If you have a "biology teacher" that teaches you that genes cannot be added b/c of mutations and selective pressure, then get him fired as soon as possible.

 

First of all, did you know scientists rarely find many bones, and that they literally guess at what the entire thing may have looked like judging from small pieces they found?

 

You can base a lot on a few bones. Toumaï skull, for example, reveals that he was walking upright based on the angle of the neck and spine.

 

Do you know they make mistakes, such as the brontosaurus (i think that was the one), a very commonplace dinosaur that never actually existed?

 

The brontosaurs existed. You must mean something else.

 

Yes, I know that. I also know that the scientific world is peer-reviewed like hell. Basically, if you publish some sh*t, then you can be sure it'll be torn to pices by your collegues. Not so with creationists. Several times it has been pointed out that their calculations, assertions and outright inventions are crap, but this doesn't stop them. They keep spinning the same old hype about the second law of thermodynamics being scientifically false etc, when one should expect that it's been slammed into their skulls a good many times.

 

Another good one is the one about dinosaur trails being found next to human footprints in geological strata. No such thing has been found.

 

they could just be regular animals that scientists conviently used to justify their crazy theory.

 

There's no justification going on in science. All they do is find evidence of a theory, and if the evidence doesn't match up, they either modify the theory, or scrap it altogether.

 

And please, hoaxes such this happened over 70 years ago, with the piltdown man and whatnot. To think it is something rampant in the world of science could be considered outright flaming at worst.

 

And don't you think with all the mutations and evolutions and changes in species there would be more than a few? Especially considering all the dinosaur bones we found? Why would so many dinosaur bones survive while all the "missing link" bones mystically disappear?

 

More fossils? Sure, if the process and the environment was kind enough to lend more chances of it happening.

 

What part of erosion do you not get?

[ShadowTemplar]

[smackdown]

 

Ok Tie Guy, you need to do two things: 1) Learn how to use the 'quote' funktion. 2) Spend less time poring over a stupid, old book, and more time rereading your High School curriculum in Biology, Chemestry, Physics, Geology, Paleontology, and every other dicipline of real science. Or better yet, a real High School curriculum from any of these fields.

 

Actual occurances? What's the last animal you saw evolve?

 

"12. Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve.

Speciation is probably fairly rare and in many cases might take centuries. Furthermore, recognizing a new species during a formative stage can be difficult, because biologists sometimes disagree about how best to define a species. The most widely used definition, Mayr's Biological Species Concept, recognizes a species as a distinct community of reproductively isolated populations--sets of organisms that normally do not or cannot breed outside their community. In practice, this standard can be difficult to apply to organisms isolated by distance or terrain or to plants (and, of course, fossils do not breed). Biologists therefore usually use organisms' physical and behavioral traits as clues to their species membership.

 

Nevertheless, the scientific literature does contain reports of apparent speciation events in plants, insects and worms. In most of these experiments, researchers subjected organisms to various types of selection--for anatomical differences, mating behaviors, habitat preferences and other traits--and found that they had created populations of organisms that did not breed with outsiders. For example, William R. Rice of the University of New Mexico and George W. Salt of the University of California at Davis demonstrated that if they sorted a group of fruit flies by their preference for certain environments and bred those flies separately over 35 generations, the resulting flies would refuse to breed with those from a very different environment."

 

-15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense, Scientific American, July 2002 issue

 

I believe that the word here is: 'Touché'.

 

And even your "source" you posted in the other thread doesn't say that it is likely that matter can spring from nothing, in fact, it says that it is very unlikely, but "possible." Even you must admit that if it is possible and did happen it was extremely unlikely.

 

You are forgetting that nature has all the time in the Universe... Reread basic binomial calculations before you venture into the fields of probability. And this holds water... Unlike your ridiculous Flood BS.

 

quote:Interesting. Have there been any discoveries predicted by your theory? No?/quote

 

Read the old testimant, read the prophets. They all predict the soming of Christ and they said it just how it happened. And they did itas far back as 2000 years before it occured. The answer is yes.

 

Predicting a childbirth somewhere in Judea isn't exactly difficult... Children are born every day...

 

And anyway, all of NT has been through such extensive editing at the hands of Paul (adding all the fulfilled prophesies, miracles, ect), that it's completely useless as source material.

 

And Jesus didn't even originate from Nazerath, but from Quomran.

 

You should read "The Dead Sea Scroll Deciet".

 

quote:We've been through this before, haven't we? Energy=matter. There is energy stored in the universe's curvature./quote

 

E=MC2 does not mean energy is the speed of light squared and mass put together. It's just that the speed of light and mass go into the calculations. Just as in P=nRT/V, pressure doesn't equal moles and temperature and volume, it's just that those are used to calculate pressure.

 

Fistly, get your notation right, because it's a nightmare: It's E=mc^2, not E=MC2, it's p=nRT/V, not P=nRT/V, and it's quantity, not moles.

 

Now we can get to the serious issue of mending your faulty High School indoctrinations: E=mc^2 states that energy can interfere with its surroundings either as mass or as the more traditionally defined concept. On the other hand p=nRT/V states that pressure is composed of/generated by the interaction between quantity, temperture, volume, and the Ideal Gas Constant.

 

So, in short, C'Jais was right in saying that matter can (and does) pop out of thin air whenever there the correct energy configuration is present. Curiously enough, these experiments even produce more matter than they produce antimatter... You do the math.

 

quote:They don't show these fossils at your school?/quote

 

No, because there aren't any, and if you have any feel free to show me.

 

Meet the Oldest Member of the Human Family, straight off http://www.sciam.com

 

quote:I'm not proficient enough to explain how, but it should be needless to state that they can. Call it God's work, but the adding of genes is really just a normal effect of mutations./quote

 

Ok, i believe you, it is possible. It's not possible, and you obviously don't know otherwise. Believe me, a christian scientist explained this to me, it's not possible in any situation on this earth at this time. Maybe it stopped working after evolution was complete, eh?

 

Then I guess that you don't mind me shipping you a sample of a Salmonella strain that has evolved a resistance to almost all known antibiotics, by exactly the same methods that you don't believe in. You do? Too bad, I guess... Then the world will never know how right you are...

 

Obviously not, if he can believe in it.

 

He can't. But fortunately he doesn't need to either. Because empirical data has made belief obsolete and useless irritants that do nothing but disturb the cogs of the great machine that is Humanity.

 

Well, the miracles aren't proven (i'll give you that), but all the movements of the Israelites are, all the kings, all the cities, all the wars, all of them are, right up to the Roman Empire and beyond. I suggest you brush up on your ancient history.

 

Soo... You basically exclude any and all things that don't fit with historical records, use this to validate your hypothesis, and then expands your model unto where there is no possible reason to believe that it holds water... Some engineers tried that in Denmark, building a stadium... That stadium came crashing down.

 

[/smackdown]

[Zygomaticus]

I certainly lend more credibility to his explanations and claims than ya'll.

 

And I certainly lend more credibility to other scientists' explanations and claims than ya.

[Tie Guy]

Templar, i just wanted you to know i really didn't read past your first paragraph. I did, however, skim over it, and i noticed you nitpicking you did with notation, and that's insane and pointless. I do want ya'll to know that i'm in an AP Chemistry class right now at a secular public school, and making an A with a 5 out of 5 on the practice AP exam. I've also taken physics and biology in HS. I know about science, thank you very much, and i've read school books and other books on evolution.

 

I'm really just not going to argue this anymore right now, not with you here, anyway, head back to the swamp.

 

C'jais, KrKode, it's been fun, and we can talk about this again at a later date. I'm just tired of wasting time on this and taking all this abuse about my religion etc, and no one here seems to listen to anyone (myself included). I really just don't know why i waste my time anymore. Maybe we can talk about this on a later date.

 

*sigh*

 

 

Oh, and I do want to say, however, that how can something be an interaction with a gas constant? It's just a number that justifies a calculation, a lot like pi. Temperature, for instance, affects pressure, but it isn't physcially a part of part of it, like if you break up pressure than you get heat and a few moles of something. Oh, and "n" does stand for number of moles, i use that equation almost every day, look it up.

 

Seeya, don't bother replying. If there something you reallt need to say to me, send me a PM.

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by Tie Guy

Who cares if bacteria becomes immune, that doesnt't prove anything. I've already said that there are positive mutations. But that bacteria is still the same bacteria, it is just immune now.

 

Which makes it a different strain of bacteria.

 

Originally posted by Tie Guy

Oh, and thank you for proving my point with down's syndrome. That's what happens when an extra chromosome get's stuck alonside the regular ones (which is not, BTW, a genetic mutation, but simply an additional chromosome "stuck" to the others). Not something that natural selection is likely to choose, is it?

 

That was an incredibly narrow-minded comment. It is perfectly possible for chromosomes to get stuck in a place where they cause no harm at all. Infact large chuncks of our DNA is made up of gene fragments, and a functioning chromosome here and there in this mess won't damage the rest of the functional DNA. Then you have a 'free' chromosome to mutate on, which means that you can evolve a new trait, without damaging the original functions of the cell.

 

Originally posted by Tie Guy

He's not all knowing, but apparently you and C'jais are. I certainly lend more credibility to his explanations and claims than ya'll.

 

One question: Why? Is it the same kind of blind, fundamentalistic faith that fuelled 9/11 that I'm smelling?

 

Originally posted by Tie Guy

First of all, did you know scientists rarely find many bones, and that they literally guess at what the entire thing may have looked like judging from small pieces they found? Do you know they make mistakes, such as the brontosaurus (i think that was the one), a very commonplace dinosaur that never actually existed?

 

I'm fairly sure that the Brontosaurus existed alright. So that must be another Creationist hoax.

 

And besides you don't need a complete skeleton to place something in the proper place in the family: Even if you have only a row of skulls, or maws for that matter, you can still see a visible progression, thus proving Evolution.

 

Originally posted by Tie Guy

Oh, and you know, even if they are accurate (i have never heard of them, BTW), they could just be regular animals that scientists conviently used to justify their crazy theory. No biggie.

 

You realize of course that that is an utterly preposterous claim you are making. You appearently don't understand the scale of the conspiracy plot that you propose. We're talking a worldwide conspiracy of scores of independent institutions from as many different fields of science co-operating to suppress this information. We're talking hundreds of thousands of articles that had to be faked. Besides there is no motivation.

 

So should I discount this claim as a momentary error, or do you wish it picked apart in even greater detail?

 

Originally posted by Tie Guy

And don't you think with all the mutations and evolutions and changes in species there would be more than a few? Especially considering all the dinosaur bones we found? Why would so many dinosaur bones survive while all the "missing link" bones mystically disappear?

 

The dinos lived over a period of several tens of millions of years. Our ape ancestors branched off between four and eight million years before present. The dinos lived all over the planet. Our ape ancestors lived in Africa, an area that isn't exacly hospitable, conductive to fossilisation, or, for that matter, particularily well-explored. Missing links are being uncovered as I write this. Witht each passing moment the family tree is nearing its eventual completion.

 

Prosecution rests.

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by Tie Guy

I did, however, skim over it, and i noticed you nitpicking you did with notation, and that's insane and pointless.

 

No it's not. Incorrect and ununiform notation is an anathema to productive results. Which is why the SI units should be standardized.

 

Originally posted by Tie Guy

I do want ya'll to know that i'm in an AP Chemistry class right now at a secular public school, and making an A with a 5 out of 5 on the practice AP exam. I've also taken physics and biology in HS. I know about science, thank you very much, and i've read school books and other books on evolution.

 

Somehow that doesn't impress me. You wouldn't happen to be living in one of these states (the red ones)?

 

Originally posted by Tie Guy

Oh, and I do want to say, however, that how can something be an interaction with a gas constant? It's just a number that justifies a calculation, a lot like pi. Temperature, for instance, affects pressure, but it isn't physcially a part of part of it, like if you break up pressure than you get heat and a few moles of something.

 

That's dodging the answer. Besides, your wrong. g is also a constant, but has a very fair degree of effect on its surroundings.

 

Originally posted by Tie Guy

Oh, and "n" does stand for number of moles, i use that equation almost every day, look it up.

 

"Number of moles", or quantity of molecules, or, in short, quantity. Evidently we read differing Chem books. But the fact remains that "moles" is a unit, not a physical phenomenon: You can talk about mmol, but not about milli-quantity-of-molecules.

[Zygomaticus]

Somehow that doesn't impress me. You wouldn't happen to be living in one of these states (the red ones)?

 

Go California!

[SkinWalker]

I made the thoughtless comment that included "christian cult" and mentioned it's attack on established scientific theories as an example relating to FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

 

That this thread went the way of "creation -vs- evolution" is sad, since freedom of speech is a much more interesting topic. Religious types will not change their views on creation out of fear and I accept that. Cjais was right in saying that I could post PLENTY of supporting comments and links to sources and references... but the bandwidth would be wasted. It won't change their minds.

 

The interesting thing is, I believe that they are entitled to voice that opinion. Freedom of Speech. In fact, it is my opinion that continued talk about all that creation hocus pocus will give credibility to science. More and more people come to understand that the same scientific theories used in discovering our past are employed in creating our future (modern technology owes much to chemistry, genetics, biology, physics, etc.). The evidence is in the PC you're reading this with.

 

Doubt will increase with the general public as ideals such as creation attempt to discount that which is tangible. Couple that with the failure of religion to solve the world's political problems.....

 

So please... keep telling the world how it is only 6,000 years old. Please keep telling society that the luxuries it enjoys aren't real since the theories that they are based on are baseless.

 

Let's get this thread back to freedom of speech.

 

I'm curious what people feel about Michael Moore's comments at the Oscars.

 

I'm curious how people feel about flag burning? Is that a valid expression of free speech? Should it be permitted? What do those who live in other countries think about flag-burning? If a group was protesting the decisions of the Dannish, English, or German governments, would it be accepted as free speech?

 

If anyone wants to continue the evolution -vs- creation debate go to this thread or this thread in Yoda's Swamp and this one here in the local Senate of Galactic Battlegrounds.

 

I'm subscribed to the first two, so if anyone posts there, I'll notice and go see. Read the threads first, though....

[C'jais]

Originally posted by SkinWalker

I'm curious what people feel about Michael Moore's comments at the Oscars.

 

Sorry, I didn't catch the Oscars this year - what did he say?

 

I'm curious how people feel about flag burning? Is that a valid expression of free speech? Should it be permitted?

 

Of course. To ban it would take your country one step closer to that of Saddam's.

 

What do those who live in other countries think about flag-burning?

 

I'm not entirely sure, but I suspect the Danish flag (Dannebrog) may mean more to the Danes than stars 'n stripes means to 'merikans. Any chance we get, we parade it around. On birthdays, it's all over the house, and outside as well. On the birthday cake there's tons of little red and white flags. You can't live in a suburb without having a flag pole in your back yard. In the summertime, you can't walk two feet without seeing a flag raised on someone's lawn.

 

To see that flag get burned would probably hurt me someone inside. Denmark is symbolized in a large part through the flag, the gentle, rolling hills and the beer. I wouldn't like it, and I'd find it very "uhyggeligt" - scary.

 

If a group was protesting the decisions of the Dannish, English, or German governments, would it be accepted as free speech?

 

Yeah, that happens all the time. Just recently, a few demonstrants sneaked inside the parliament building and poured a bucket of red paint over our prime minister. The tabloids loved it, especially since they think he's a "damn coward" to jump the wagon on this war.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Tie Guy

Templar, i just wanted you to know i really didn't read past your first paragraph.

 

I've noticed you do this sometimes, yes. It's okay to ignore someone who's being an ass, but Templar is really just disagreeing with you.

 

If the opponent in a debate is making valid points, ignoring him only sends a clear message to the audience.

 

I've also taken physics and biology in HS.

 

I'm curious, who how old are you? Is it in that secular school you're mentioning that your biology teacher said that genes cannot be added? Was it in that school that the teachers loved nothing more than to pick evolution apart?

 

Or am I confusing you and Artoo here?

 

I know about science, thank you very much, and i've read school books and other books on evolution.

 

If you've read books upon books about evolution, how come you know so little about it, compared to me who have not even read about it in school?

 

anyway, head back to the swamp.

 

Head back to the swamp? Where we belong, is that it?

 

Pfeh.

 

I'm just tired of wasting time on this

 

Wasting time? We're educating each other here, dammit.

 

Seeya, don't bother replying. If there something you reallt need to say to me, send me a PM.

 

Oh God, please don't pull a HotRod on us now.

[Tie Guy]

Head back to the swamp? Where we belong, is that it?

 

I was talking to Templar, you're fine. And this isn't the first incident i've had to "debate" with him. I have no desire to do so again.

 

Wasting time? We're educating each other here, dammit.

 

No, we're not getting anywhere. You aren't listening to me, i am not listening to you, and neither of us think any differently than when we started. It's a waste of time, really, as far as i'm concerned, more trouble than it's worth.

 

So, like i said, i'm tired of this and I'm simply not going to do it anymore. Don't dare think i'm acquiesing, either, because i certainly am not.

 

But you, this could have been in a PM, as it had no bearing on any further discussion you might have had with others. I just wanted to leave without causing some huge scene and several posts. I now see that's not possible.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

TIE Guy and about everyone else:

This thread is hopelessy off-topic. It was supposed to be about freedom of speech, and it was thrown off-topic because I mentioned fundamentalism.

 

Look, there's already a thread on Creationism. If you want to discuss religion, do it there. TIE Guy, I'll PM you on religion (don't worry: I'm using PM because I don't want yet another thread on the same thing. Not because I'm going to flame or anything).

 

If you need to spend some posts on what your definition of fundamentalism is, fine. But starting to debate evolution is WAY off-topic. It's okay to be religious (as stated in the First Amendment ), but not in threads devoted to something else.

 

Back on topic.

To answer your question waaaay back there, TG, no, of course you're not a fundamentalist if you're monotheistic (as in believing in only one religion). 99% of all religious people recognize their own religion only. This is natural.

 

Fundamentalism, in my case, is when someone expresses views or take actions that society regard as wrong (such as beating up to girlfriends walking hand in hand) and use their religion as an umbrella to justify it. Beating up two girlfriends for loving each others is wrong, period. You can't use the cover of religion to do things that just are basically wrong. Or as someone else said: "If something's inappropriate, it's inappropriate".

 

On to the other views:

 

What about racism, nazism, and facism? Should they be allowed?

 

In my opinion, strictly no. Outlawing racism is the first step of fighting it. I've got a good theory on how to remove racism, but that's OT.

 

Political views: It depends on the kind of political view, and how you express it.

 

For example, if you say that the (blank) party sucks, you'll have to give reasons for it.

 

Flag-burning should not be allowed. Flags represent every good aspect of a nation: Culture, government, nature, everything you hold dear. Burning it is extremely offensive. Take the Israeli flag. I do not approve of the way Israel has been recreated. Still, if I burn their flag, I burn a symbol of the Israeli people, and also one of the biggest current symobls of the Jewish religion.

[pbguy1211]

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

Is that an expression or something or do you actually have a question you want to ask me?[/innocent ignorance;)]

Just curious as to how one becomes an EX-homosexual? I bet I could find a gay person or two who'd argue you can't go back

[Dagobahn Eagle]

You can change. Both ways. Thrust me, I did a Middle-School project on it.

And you can change from liking one gender to liking both genders. And vice versa (I think).

 

But no, it's not a decision, it just happens. Either you just are that way, or society causes it (ie. from never being with the opposite gender).

[ShadowTemplar]

Tie Guy: I wish to apologize. I did go too far at one point... But I hope that you will understand it when (if) you read some of the other threads I've been into about this topic (evolution)... When one has refuted the same point too many times one starts knowing every nook and cranny of it, and must watch oneself in order not to take people as imbiciles because they make mistakes that seem obvious because of ones practice. Add to that the fact that I thought that you played dirty on Skin.

 

This is not an excuse, of course. It's an apology and an explanation.

 

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

of course you're not a fundamentalist if you're monotheistic (as in believing in only one religion). 99% of all religious people recognize their own religion only.

 

Monotheistic: Recognizing only one god (mono: One, theos: God).

 

Fundamentalistic: Claiming that your religion is exact (fundamental) truth.

 

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

On to the other views:

 

What about racism, nazism, and facism? Should they be allowed?

 

Nazism, Communism, and Facism are just other kinds of religion. All religion should be outlawed, in an ideal world. However our world is not an ideal one, and so the best way of controling religion may be to allow it, and keep something that you can take away from it. Because you can only oppress a person or an institution by ensureing that you have not taken everything. As long as there is something left to take, you can excersise control over him/it, but once there is nothing that you can take, he/it is free to do as he pleases (you can't hurt him/it anymore and so has no control left - kinda like a hostage-taker: A dead hostage is no good). So in order to successfully oppress religion (including but not limited to Nazism, Fasicm, and Communism), you have to allow it, but restrict it heavily.

 

Racism is a different matter, and yet not. You cannot restrict your way out of racism, because it's an opinion. You can (and should), however, outlaw discrimination, which is often the direct consequense of racism. But then you run into another problem, namely how to define discrimination. We had a case in Denmark a couple of years back, where a warehouse chain was ordered to pay a fine for having refused a request by a female Muslim trainee to cover up her head in traditional gown. One could argue that the fact that it was because she was Muslim that the store couldn't prohibit it was discrimination against everyone else (a Christian or Bhuddist or Atheist or Skeptic couldn't wear such a dress, even if he/she had a reason for it (such as being prone to diseases in the ears or something).

 

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

Political views: It depends on the kind of political view, and how you express it.

 

I have a proverb: Thoughts are Tax-free (implicitly stating that actions are not).

 

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

For example, if you say that the (blank) party sucks, you'll have to give reasons for it.

 

You can never force someone to be reasonable. If he wants to make himself look like an arse, then by all means, let him entertain the rest of us...

 

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

Flag-burning should not be allowed. Flags represent every good aspect of a nation: Culture, government, nature, everything you hold dear. Burning it is extremely offensive. Take the Israeli flag. I do not approve of the way Israel has been recreated.

 

Like I said above: If they want to make themselves look stupid...

 

Seriously, though, you can't outlaw flag-burning. I mean, what would the next step be? Banning a picture because it shows a burning flag? What about people who think that it's more insulting to smash keyboards than to burn flags? Should they be cathered to too?

 

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

Still, if I burn their flag, I burn a symbol of the Israeli people, and also one of the biggest current symobls of the Jewish religion.

 

In my opinion the fact that Isreal has been unable to disassociate religion and decisions would be a reason for burning their flag. Besides, there's no such thing as 'the Jewish people'. That kind of grouping serves only one kind of people: The fundamentalists.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar

Add to that the fact that I thought that you played dirty on Skin.

 

Moi? *slight blushing noticeable behind ears...

 

Actually, I was always glad that we were generally on the same side of debates...... most folks don't argue as effectively as you.

 

Still.... there's got to be a point we disagree upon.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Nazism, Communism, and Facism are just other kinds of religion. All religion should be outlawed, in an ideal world. However our world is not an ideal one, and so the best way of controling religion may be to allow it, and keep something that you can take away from it. Because you can only oppress a person or an institution by ensureing that you have not taken everything. As long as there is something left to take, you can excersise control over him/it, but once there is nothing that you can take, he/it is free to do as he pleases (you can't hurt him/it anymore and so has no control left - kinda like a hostage-taker: A dead hostage is no good). So in order to successfully oppress religion (including but not limited to Nazism, Fasicm, and Communism), you have to allow it, but restrict it heavily.

First of all, I don't get you. First you define monotheism to me, because I took it and changed it a bit, and then you change a word yourself. Make up your mind. Do you want me to define religion to you:p?

 

Well, you can't regulate something that's banned, but then again, something that's banned is ALWAYS outlawed.

 

Facism, racism, and nazism might always exist, BUT that does not mean we shouldn't keep it to a minimum.

 

We had a case in Norway where a neo-nazi held a REALLY outrageous speech on Jews and immigrants. He was arrested although freedom of speech supposedly protected him. Personally, US freedom of speech will never go that far, but really, we shouldn't allow racist, nazi, and facist expressions.

 

Racism is a different matter, and yet not. You cannot restrict your way out of racism, because it's an opinion. You can (and should), however, outlaw discrimination, which is often the direct consequense of racism. But then you run into another problem, namely how to define discrimination. We had a case in Denmark a couple of years back, where a warehouse chain was ordered to pay a fine for having refused a request by a female Muslim trainee to cover up her head in traditional gown. One could argue that the fact that it was because she was Muslim that the store couldn't prohibit it was discrimination against everyone else (a Christian or Bhuddist or Atheist or Skeptic couldn't wear such a dress, even if he/she had a reason for it (such as being prone to diseases in the ears or something).

It depends. Racism is an opinion, yes.

Racist EXPRESSION, however, should not be tolerated.

 

There's a difference between thinking that all dark skinned people are stupid, and being able to say so in a paper.

 

I have a proverb: Thoughts are Tax-free (implicitly stating that actions are not).

There is a difference between thought and action.

 

Like I said above: If they want to make themselves look stupid...

 

Seriously, though, you can't outlaw flag-burning. I mean, what would the next step be? Banning a picture because it shows a burning flag? What about people who think that it's more insulting to smash keyboards than to burn flags? Should they be cathered to too?

With all due respect, there's a BIG difference between keyboards and flags. Keyboards are mere tools, flags represent whole countries. Bad analogy.

 

Banning pics showing burning flags: Well, if the people publishing the pics are merely reporting the event, like a TV station, no. If the nazis burn a flag and instead of using flag-burning as a symbol, put the pics of it in a nazi context, then yes.

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

Do you want me to define religion to you:p?

 

Lol. No. I did abide by the definition, you know?

 

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

Facism, racism, and nazism might always exist, BUT that does not mean we shouldn't keep it to a minimum.

 

[...]

 

really, we shouldn't allow racist, nazi, and facist expressions.

 

[...]

 

It depends. Racism is an opinion, yes.

Racist EXPRESSION, however, should not be tolerated.

 

There's a difference between thinking that all dark skinned people are stupid, and being able to say so in a paper.

 

[...]

 

There is a difference between thought and action.

 

Err... I don't really see where we disagree... Would you be good enough to point it out to me?

 

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

With all due respect, there's a BIG difference between keyboards and flags. Keyboards are mere tools, flags represent whole countries. Bad analogy.

 

Only in your mind. The flag is worth even less than a keyboard, because it has no function, other than as a terretorial claim, at which, I must admit, it excels though.

 

Symbolism is all in your mind. So while we can agree that it's bad to burn flags, we can't objectively state that it is. Just like you can't state that murder is evil, because you can't make an objective definition of "evil". Even if we all agree that it is, it still won't be, objectively speaking.

 

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

Banning pics showing burning flags: Well, if the people publishing the pics are merely reporting the event, like a TV station, no. If the nazis burn a flag and instead of using flag-burning as a symbol, put the pics of it in a nazi context, then yes.

 

But how would you judge a Nazi context? I mean, you and I can obviously agree fairly easily about what would constitute a Nazi context, you don't have to pin it out for me, but I don't think that you can define it objectively. A definition that isn't bulletproof is worse than no definition.