View Full Version : Intelligent Beatings
Freedom of Speech is erroding (http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/dec/07/mirecki_step_down_ku_post/?breaking)
No matter what your opinion is on a particular subject, you will have people disagree with you. This Mirecki guy voiced his opinion in good-ole-Kansas that he compares "Intelligent Design" to "religious mythology". I mean, it's like his opinion. When I missed that one question on the extra exam in 1979, I did not have the grader of the exam fired because I disagreed with their answer. I went on.
This guy even apologized for his statements. In the book of Matthew (If you believe it) states that you must forgive others or you will not enter the kingdom of extreme DX. And your CQ's to GØD will go unanswered. Well so much for the religious right. They don't subscribe to Jesus's teachings.
So, if you are in Kansas, and happen to question whether dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark, watch out for the left hook.
Merry Creationism,
N9XR
kf6rdn
12-08-2005, 04:31 AM
In these parts ("these" being QRZ) when we disagree with someone, we use a shovel.
k6pme
12-08-2005, 05:03 AM
Freedom of speech isn't the only thing eroding. Good old fashioned common sense has been taking a beating lately too.
w4rot
12-08-2005, 05:07 AM
I use those little dolls you stick pins in.
Works for me.
VooDoo,NC
w4rot
Think what got folks upset with him were the remarks made about those he disagrees with.
He can teach a class all he wants, I would actually be interested in such a class. Would be willing to bet that some of the 25 people who signed up for that class are Christians who are interested in hearing what he had to say.
But when he goes and states that such a class would be a "slap in their big fat faces" I think that is where he stepped on some toes. Had those comments been made about gays or black folks, he would have been fired in a New York minute.
You can disagree with folks all you want. It is when you start to get rude or violent about it that the line has been crossed. Those guys who beat him are just as wrong as he is.
Freedom of speech gives you the right to speak your mind.
Common sense is needed in the tone you use when speaking your mind.
KA4DPO
12-08-2005, 01:43 PM
Every time I hear about the proponents of intelligent design I'm reminded of PETA. They seem to have approximately the same mentality.
It is just another form of political correctness, fear of insulting some minority group that got the guy in trouble.
Seems to me that if you really examine Darwins theory the intelligent design thing is sort of intuitive anyway. Regardless, it's absolutely sick for some group to claim religious right over science. Remeber the dark ages?
Quote[/b] (al2n @ Dec. 08 2005,05:22)]Think what got folks upset with him were the remarks made about those he disagrees with.
He can teach a class all he wants, I would actually be interested in such a class. #Would be willing to bet that some of the 25 people who signed up for that class are Christians who are interested in hearing what he had to say.
But when he goes and states that such a class would be a "slap in their big fat faces" I think that is where he stepped on some toes. #Had those comments been made about gays or black folks, he would have been fired in a New York minute.
You can disagree with folks all you want. #It is when you start to get rude or violent about it that the line has been crossed. #Those guys who beat him are just as wrong as he is.
Freedom of speech gives you the right to speak your mind. #
Common sense is needed in the tone you use when speaking your mind.
Sounds like selective censorship to me, AL2N.
You get all bent out of shape when someone criticizes "Christians" but you're strangely silent when people you don't agree with get zapped.
"Common Sense"? You yourself use divisive rhetoric on political issues. Explain to me how this is any different. I find a lot of what you say offensive. Do I support your right to speak your mind? Yes. You should respect the right of others to do the same.
How you can even remotely justify someone getting beat up over a religious issue is reprehensible. "Christians" don't have any special rights or protections because they believe in a certain deity.
Dave WX7B
k6pme
12-08-2005, 02:00 PM
Creationism and evolution (OMG, did I say something bad?) combine quite harmoneously if it were to be looked at with an open mind.
G8ADD
12-08-2005, 02:23 PM
Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ Dec. 08 2005,06:43)]...... it's absolutely sick for some group to claim religious right over science. #Remeber the dark ages?
Sure do - we're living in them!
73
Brian G8ADD
k4kyv
12-08-2005, 03:19 PM
Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ Dec. 08 2005,07:23)]Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ Dec. 08 2005,06:43)]...... it's absolutely sick for some group to claim religious right over science. Remeber the dark ages?
Sure do - we're living in them!
73
Brian G8ADD
I recall reading sometime in the 1960's in a Futurist publication, a prediction that the early 21st century would usher in a new era of dark ages. Although VietNam and the cold war were going full blast then, this was well before the great energy shocks of the 70's, and at the time the Middle East was generally friendly to the West.
Quote[/b] (WX7B @ Dec. 08 2005,06:50)]Quote[/b] (al2n @ Dec. 08 2005,05:22)]Think what got folks upset with him were the remarks made about those he disagrees with.
He can teach a class all he wants, I would actually be interested in such a class. #Would be willing to bet that some of the 25 people who signed up for that class are Christians who are interested in hearing what he had to say.
But when he goes and states that such a class would be a "slap in their big fat faces" I think that is where he stepped on some toes. #Had those comments been made about gays or black folks, he would have been fired in a New York minute.
You can disagree with folks all you want. #It is when you start to get rude or violent about it that the line has been crossed. #Those guys who beat him are just as wrong as he is.
Freedom of speech gives you the right to speak your mind. #
Common sense is needed in the tone you use when speaking your mind.
Sounds like selective censorship to me, AL2N.
You get all bent out of shape when someone criticizes "Christians" but you're strangely silent when people you don't agree with get zapped.
"Common Sense"? You yourself use divisive rhetoric on political issues. Explain to me how this is any different. I find a lot of what you say offensive. Do I support your right to speak your mind? Yes. You should respect the right of others to do the same. #
How you can even remotely justify someone getting beat up over a religious issue is reprehensible. "Christians" don't have any special rights or protections because they believe in a certain deity. #
Dave WX7B
XB,
Read my post again and you will see that I do not condone the guys who beat the professor. I said they are just as wrong as he is in their approach to a debate.
You also accuse me of being offensive. I have challenged you a couple times to find where myself and other conservative types are rude and vulgar in reference to others on this forum. You will find that such comments are few whereas the name calling and such from yourself and your fellow non-conservatives are rather easy to find in abundance.
If what I believe offends you, dont read my posts. If how I say it offends you, show me where I cross the line from disagreement to rudness and I will gladly say I am sorry. That is much more than you ever see from others in this forum.
Quote[/b] (al2n @ Dec. 08 2005,07:54)]Quote[/b] (WX7B @ Dec. 08 2005,06:50)]Quote[/b] (al2n @ Dec. 08 2005,05:22)]Think what got folks upset with him were the remarks made about those he disagrees with.
He can teach a class all he wants, I would actually be interested in such a class. #Would be willing to bet that some of the 25 people who signed up for that class are Christians who are interested in hearing what he had to say.
But when he goes and states that such a class would be a "slap in their big fat faces" I think that is where he stepped on some toes. #Had those comments been made about gays or black folks, he would have been fired in a New York minute.
You can disagree with folks all you want. #It is when you start to get rude or violent about it that the line has been crossed. #Those guys who beat him are just as wrong as he is.
Freedom of speech gives you the right to speak your mind. #
Common sense is needed in the tone you use when speaking your mind.
Sounds like selective censorship to me, AL2N.
You get all bent out of shape when someone criticizes "Christians" but you're strangely silent when people you don't agree with get zapped.
"Common Sense"? You yourself use divisive rhetoric on political issues. Explain to me how this is any different. I find a lot of what you say offensive. Do I support your right to speak your mind? Yes. You should respect the right of others to do the same. #
How you can even remotely justify someone getting beat up over a religious issue is reprehensible. "Christians" don't have any special rights or protections because they believe in a certain deity. #
Dave WX7B
XB,
Read my post again and you will see that I do not condone the guys who beat the professor. #I said they are just as wrong as he is in their approach to a debate.
You also accuse me of being offensive. #I have challenged you a couple times to find where myself and other conservative types are rude and vulgar in reference to others on this forum. You will find that such comments are few whereas the name calling and such from yourself and your fellow non-conservatives are rather easy to find in abundance.
If what I believe offends you, dont read my posts. #If how I say it offends you, show me where I cross the line from disagreement to rudness and I will gladly say I am sorry. #That is much more than you ever see from others in this forum.
Trying to grab the "high moral ground" on this one isn't going to fly, AL2N. You're mixing apples and oranges.
Criticism of a group or political party is different from name-calling and personal attacks on a non-public individual. You seem to have real trouble differentiating between the two.
It doesn't take a linguist to determine that more of the cheap shots on public figures come from the right side of the aisle on this forum. Just mention "Hillary Clinton" and the insults come out in force, so don't lecture me about name-calling. AS to attacks on individuals, the mods do a pretty good job of weeding out personal attacks. Maybe this has escaped your notice.
As far as "offensive" goes, I find your self-pitying diatribes about "attacks against Christians" tiresome, and yes, offensive, because the concept is so off base it borders on the ridiculous. You may find that "rude", but that's too bad. As you stated, don't read my posts if you find me "rude".
Guys like you play the "rude" card only when it's convenient and suits your ideological goals. If you were consistent on this issue, you *might* have some credibility. In reality, it's just more white noise from the north.
Dave WX7B
Mention Hillary Clinton or George W Bush and the attacks on public figures fly. Both sides are guilty.
Ignoring the challenge again I see.
Typical.
Quote[/b] (al2n @ Dec. 08 2005,08:35)]Ignoring the challenge again I see.
Typical.
You are still afflicted with selective reading syndrome. THAT'S typical.
Attacks on public figures are not the same as personal attacks on individuals in the forum. You obviously have them confused.
I state (again) the mods do a pretty good job of weeding out personal attacks on individuals. You seem to think an "attack" on a public figure you agree with is an "attack" on you. It's not the same ballgame, it's not even the same sport.
Dave WX7B
KB9YCO
12-08-2005, 04:53 PM
Compassionate conservatism at its finest? (That's a joke folks.)
The problem is extremism, an extremist reaction in this case. I obviously don't know this professor or his views anymore than what I've read in the news, but he is entitled to his opinion. It seems to me that it is an extremist reaction to an extremist comment, though I don't know that I personally disagree that religion is basically a form of moral fable. That doesn't mean I begrudge someone else their right to believe what they believe, or say what they want to say as long as they don't force it on me. The same goes for non-religious people trying to force their non-religion on others, it goes both ways and both sides are equally guilty of the attack and label philosophy. This man's personal beliefs don't necessarily disqualify him from teaching a class, nor are they worthy of a beating, as long as he can stick to the curriculum at hand without forcing his view into it.
To me personally I think there have been ten million religions since the beginning of time all claiming to be the one "true" religion. Life and the universe is far more infinitely complex to be explained by one guidebook claiming to be all knowing. Yet people feel they need to make themselves and others accountable to something more than their consciences, and they also need to feel that there is an explanation to life, death, and the universe. It seems some people just can't face it that perhaps not everything currently has an explanation, be it by science or religion. I personally don't think you need religion to be a good person, anyone with even an ounce of common sense knows that pain is bad and hurting some is negative, stealing and cheating are hurtful and have consequences, etc., etc. To me that is just common sense that doesn't require an 'after-life' retribution.
Regardless, my issue is not to debate my personal philosophy, or anyone else's, the point is that extremism and polarization are killing our freedom to speak with these types of reactions, and is drowning any real debate in a sea of labels and easily definable attacks, not to mention actual physical attacks. In other words, lighten up folks. If you want to put the X in Xmas or the Christ in Christmas than go nuts, but let's have a little more love thy neighbor and turn the other cheek tolerance instead of name-calling and extreme reactions.
Quote[/b] ]Those guys who beat him are just as wrong as he is.
Quote[/b] ]
How you can even remotely justify someone getting beat up over a religious issue is reprehensible.
Kind diametrically opposed huh?
WX7B's reading impairment rears it's ugly head again. Is it a reading deficiency or just blind idiological hatred?
Get some counseling.
Quote[/b] (AC0H @ Dec. 08 2005,10:42)]Quote[/b] ]Those guys who beat him are just as wrong as he is.
Quote[/b] ]
How you can even remotely justify someone getting beat up over a religious issue is reprehensible.
Kind diametrically opposed huh?
WX7B's reading impairment rears it's ugly head again. Is it a reading deficiency or just blind idiological hatred?
Get some counseling.
I can always count on Zero Hotel to spice my day up with nonsense.
What is with you rabid right wing ideologues and the whole "hatred" angle? Since when does disagreement equal hatred?
Turn off your AM radio, Zero Hotel. Gain some new perspective man!
Dave WX7B
Quote[/b] ]Creationism and evolution (OMG, did I say something bad?) combine quite harmoneously if it were to be looked at with an open mind.
I do not understand this statement in the context of the "Intelligent Design" definition of creationism. As I understand the Creationists, God created all living critters 6000 years ago when he made Earth. "Intelligent Design" Creationists believe that no critter existed before 6000 years ago. Some believe that God created the dinosaur bones in the ground when he made Earth to give it "Pre history". This excludes evolution that is believed to take more than 6000 years to evolve. You can't believe in this "Creationism" and believe that the Darwin type Evolutionists are telling the truth when they spout that evolution takes hundreds of thousands of years IN MANY INSTANCES to get to where they are at today.
What about carbon dating? Radio carbon dating determines the age of ancient objects by means of measuring the amount of carbon-14 there is left in an object. A man called Willard F Libby pioneered it at the University of Chicago in the 50's. In 1960, he won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry. This is now the most widely used method of age estimation in the field of archaeology. Creationists say that the carbon half life sped up on dinosaurs. That is why they look like hundreds of thousands of years old when they are only a few thousand.
I do not see where evolution excludes the possibility of a creator. Maybe it does, but I do not see it. Some evolutionists believe life was started by accident. That is hard to believe. The Creationists exclude the possibility of evolution because they do not give the Earth enough time to develop the plan of evolution.
So I find it hard to see how anybody can truly believe both in their entirety. I think that many people believe that a creator started life and it evolved from there, but this is not believing in both in the strictest sense. An open mind is what many in this debate are fighting against.
N9XR
KI6ASV
12-08-2005, 08:24 PM
I'm offended!
Nobody mentioned the possibility that we were brought to this planet by these guys:
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/timages/page/reflected_fear2.jpg
Quote[/b] (KI6ASV @ Dec. 08 2005,12:24)]I'm offended!
Nobody mentioned the possibility that we were brought to this planet by these guys:
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/timages/page/reflected_fear2.jpg
BART!
Is that Hitler in the eyes of the aliens?
Dave WX7B
KI6ASV
12-08-2005, 08:44 PM
Quote[/b] (WX7B @ Dec. 08 2005,13:37)]Is that Hitler in the eyes of the aliens?
Oh my gosh! I believe that you are correct - those little rascals! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
Quote[/b] (KI6ASV @ Dec. 08 2005,12:44)]Quote[/b] (WX7B @ Dec. 08 2005,13:37)]Is that Hitler in the eyes of the aliens?
Oh my gosh! I believe that you are correct - those little rascals! # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
How San Diego County of you! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif (my wife is from Smell Cajon...)
Dave WX7B
K6BBC
12-08-2005, 09:28 PM
Quote[/b] (KG6QQL @ Dec. 08 2005,07:00)]Creationism and evolution (OMG, did I say something bad?) combine quite harmoneously if it were to be looked at with an open mind.
No. Come on. One is science, the other magic.
Science is not magic.
bbc
Quote[/b] (n9xr @ Dec. 08 2005,13:11)]An open mind is what many in this debate are fighting against.
I am fighting to close minds by plugging up the holes. Some folks have so many odd holes in their heads that it causes a weird distortion in 440mHz signals.