>> ^qfan:

Side note: Being well respected doesn't mean his views are truth.

Agreed. On the other hand, the unassailable mountains of evidence for evolution means his views (at least on evolution) are truth. Or at least as much as it's possible to have any scientific "truth".


>> ^qfan:

Though yes, perfectly fine to have an opinion. I'm not disputing that.
What's in dispute is that he's telling parents not to share their beliefs with their own children. So we're not only telling creationists they can't share their views publicly in school, we also tell them that they can't share their views in private with their own children. It's extraordinarily dangerous thinking in the free world. These are private people who wish to raise their children with their own values. Bill is publicly preaching to parents (unlike those parents who are privately teaching their children) not to share what they believe in, all the while saying "When you're in love you want to tell the world about it." The man is amazingly hypocritical and sadly without an ounce of realisation about it.

He's not saying parents can't tell their children about creationism, he's saying they shouldn't. You can dance around the issue all you want, and believe in creationism, the tooth fairy or santa claus, but there comes a time when you have to grow up and accept reality. Right now, there's no debate about evolution, simply because there is no valid competing scientific theory that even comes close to matching the evidence. That I have to even spell this out is pretty sad.

>> ^qfan:

He says "We need scientifically literate people...". The thousands of scientists that believe in creation are also literate in science, even in the evolutionary aspects, except they choose not to believe in evolutionary theory. Science is a method. Nothing more, nothing less. Creationists aren't ignoring science at all, they are ignoring evolutionary theory.

There might be "thousands of scientists that believe in creation", but they represent a tiny percentage of the overall scientific community and almost none of them work in relevant fields. You wouldn't ask a plumber about aeronautical engineering, so don't ask a physicist about biology.

And if you ignore evolutionary theory, you are ignoring the science of biology. You are cherry-picking which evidence you accept because it doesn't fit your world view.

>> ^qfan:

Bill says "We need engineers, people that build stuff, solve problems...". The example of Wernher Von Braun puts this point to rest.

I have already conceded that you do not need to understand evolutionary biology to build rockets.

>> ^qfan:

You're confusing a lot of things here. First you say he ignored an area (evolution) that conflicted with his belief "because it didn't affect his work", then go on to say "You can be damn sure he benefited from the study of evolution".

If you're going to quote me, at least do me the courtesy of doing it fully and in context. What I said was:
>> ^ChaosEngine:

You can be damn sure he benefited from the study of evolution though, given it's the backbone of a lot of medical research.


I meant that Von Braun benefited from the study of evolution in the same way that every other human in the developed world did, through better medicines. It didn't really affect his work, but it did affect his life.


>> ^qfan:

Von Braun, "For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design,” “It is in scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the science classroom. It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather than happening by chance." http://www.thespacereview.com/article/656/1

So what? He was wrong about evolution. Big deal. Newton was one of the greatest minds of all time and he got time wrong. Science marches on, and I'm confident that Von Braun if he had the time and inclination to really study it, would eventually have accepted the facts of evolution. And if he still chose to ignore the evidence because it didn't fit his world-view, well, that's sad, but it changes nothing about the truth of evolution.

>> ^qfan:

Bill says that denial of evolution is unique to the US (which is already a very questionable statement in itself), then goes on to say that the US is the most technologically advanced nation (with a grudging acceptance that Japan might be slightly ahead). Again, another questionable statement and slightly elitist I might add So if denial of evolution is holding the US back, why is it the most technologically advanced? You could word it another way... denial of evolution and technological advancement do not correlate with one another.


It's not unique to the U.S., but it's more prevalent than any other developed nation. What he's saying is that the U.S. should know better.

Denial of evolution in and of itself is bad, but it's symptomatic of the larger issues of anti-intellectualism and non-rational thought. The people who made the U.S. the most technologically advanced nation are not the same people that believe in a talking snake.

Besides, he's talking about potential. Maybe somewhere in the bible belt the next Alexander Fleming is having their future taken away from them because they are being lied to (intentionally or not) by their parents and/or preachers.

@ChaosEngine "Well, aside from being a well-respected science educator, he's also a private person and thus entitled to an opinion. The same way that religious people seem to think they should be able to tell other people not only how to raise their children, but what their children should be taught in science class."

Side note: Being well respected doesn't mean his views are truth. Though yes, perfectly fine to have an opinion. I'm not disputing that.

What's in dispute is that he's telling parents not to share their beliefs with their own children. So we're not only telling creationists they can't share their views publicly in school, we also tell them that they can't share their views in private with their own children. It's extraordinarily dangerous thinking in the free world. These are private people who wish to raise their children with their own values. Bill is publicly preaching to parents (unlike those parents who are privately teaching their children) not to share what they believe in, all the while saying "When you're in love you want to tell the world about it." The man is amazingly hypocritical and sadly without an ounce of realisation about it.

He says "We need scientifically literate people...". The thousands of scientists that believe in creation are also literate in science, even in the evolutionary aspects, except they choose not to believe in evolutionary theory. Science is a method. Nothing more, nothing less. Creationists aren't ignoring science at all, they are ignoring evolutionary theory. Bill says "We need engineers, people that build stuff, solve problems...". The example of Wernher Von Braun puts this point to rest.

@ChaosEngine "If Von Braun had believed in a biblical theory of "intelligent falling" instead of gravity, his rockets wouldn't have gotten far. If he had actually studied the science, his conclusion might have been very different, but there's not a lot of call for evolutionary science when designing rockets, so he basically ignored an area of science that conflicted with his belief system because it didn't affect his work. You can be damn sure he benefited from the study of evolution though, given it's the backbone of a lot of medical research."

You're confusing a lot of things here. First you say he ignored an area (evolution) that conflicted with his belief "because it didn't affect his work", then go on to say "You can be damn sure he benefited from the study of evolution". Von Braun, "For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design,” “It is in scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the science classroom. It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather than happening by chance." http://www.thespacereview.com/article/656/1

Bill says that denial of evolution is unique to the US (which is already a very questionable statement in itself), then goes on to say that the US is the most technologically advanced nation (with a grudging acceptance that Japan might be slightly ahead). Again, another questionable statement and slightly elitist I might add So if denial of evolution is holding the US back, why is it the most technologically advanced? You could word it another way... denial of evolution and technological advancement do not correlate with one another.

Used up all my own hissy-fit points on this site-I promise to continue to exercise at will, the voting up or down of offerings according to stated guidelines.

Like ant, sometimes the motivation for a downvote may or may not be apparent.(plan rto rock the down vote this go-round, please get ready. Not voting is the same as voting up or down, right?? Be happy the attention you desired was received, be it good, bad, etc.

Feel bad when you get a downvote?? Ask me and I'll tell you of the motivation.
OR, hold a grudge and form an opinion based on an emotional reaction....

The latter method works great if you want an insular hidey-hole of ostracization (like the one I dug for choggie!)

chingalera is simply a somewhat emasculate version of choggie....BUT, at least we got the package fondled, eh?

All I ever really wanted was to be able to fix all of choggie's old dead embeds! Oh, and to piss folks off with thin skin~
S'good for ya, toughens ya up-helps to prepare you for the coming Ignorapacalypse

Ok, in all likelihood the Congressman never actually checked. BUT, considering that she got multiple conflicting reports back closer to the time it actually happened, I'd say that it is certainly possible that he (or a staffer) looked into it and got a different answer from some different resource.

My mother is very big into Genealogy. Sometimes in her research she finds conflicting information -- just something one has to deal with. I am glad this widow has the satisfaction of closure and someplace specific to send her flowers, and I think she has the right attitude about not being upset or holding a grudge against the Congressman. If anyone failed her, it was the Army back when her husband actually died.

@Fletch

Congratulations, you successfully pulled me out of bed to come write this.

First off, I stated my opinion, simple as that. I didn't attack your choice for posting it, I didn't attack UP for doing it. I basically pointed out the fact that the only reason this is getting any votes whatsoever is because it has a sifter in it. If this was daisy-mae from dallas, would anybody have voted? Likely not.

Now, lets turn to your argument, shall we?

We have Zero Punctuation reviews. I typically don't vote for them, but they actually add something. Agree with it or not, they talk about a recent video game title and an Australian man gives his opinion on it.

The daily show topics are generally comedic, and involve some news coverage in at least one form of another (Same goes for Colbert.)

QI? if you're really comparing this to QI then that's probably one of the silliest things you could have done. If you're saying that QI has absolutely nothing of value to it then you're fairly dense. I can't find ONE QI video where I can watch it and not learn something.

TyT, Once again, news. Granted, in a fairly bias form, but it's still news.

Now, lets go ahead and talk about the 25 seconds of someone stepping on a toy, shall we? What does this bring to the table? Did we learn anything? Not really. Is this anything to do with current or past events? Nope. Is it artistic in any way? Nope. If I'm having a rough day, and need something to just make me smile, is this gonna do it? Definitely not.

So, apart from the fact that it's got a sifter in it, what's its merit? Did others actually find it worthy enough to upvote it? Or are they only doing so out of obligation because voting it down would potentially hurt UsesProzacs feelings? I can honestly tell you right now the only reason I DIDN'T vote it down was for that very reason. I have no grudge towards her whatsoever, I do have a problem with a video being added to this site for the sole reason of "hey look, it's part of a videosift member".

The site has already been criticized as one giant "In community", do we really need to ostracize people who aren't familiar with the community by spamming them with videos of sifters feet?

(from YouTube)

Movies in order of appearance:

Halloween
Freddy VS. Jason
Resident Evil
The Amityville Horror
Night of the Demons
Christine
Shocker
From Dusk Till Dawn
Planet Terror
Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood
The Thing
Alice Sweet Alice
Don't Look Now
The Town That Dreaded Sundown
Madman
The Shining
The Exorcist
Poltergeist
Child's Play
28 Days Later
Psycho
Cemetery Man
Salem's Lot
Hellraiser II: Hellbound
Bram Stoker's Dracula
Jacob's Ladder
Suspiria
Slither
Trick R Treat
Re-Animator
Killer Klowns From Outer Space
Creepshow
American Psycho
Leprechaun
The Dark Half
The Hitcher
The Final Destination
Zombi 2
Audition
The Changeling
The Omen
Drag Me To Hell
The Crazies
The Ring
Jaws
The Descent
When a Stranger Calls
Dawn of the Dead
The Devil's Rejects
The Exorcist
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
Near Dark
Motel Hell
Carrie
Spontaneous Combustion
An American Werewolf in London
The Blair Witch Project
[REC]
Paranormal Activity
Day of the Dead
Cube Zero
Ichi the Killer
Dead Snow
The Machine Girl
Wrong Turn 2
Poultrygeist: Night of the Chicken Dead
Black Sheep
Saw III
Freddy VS. Jason
Hatchet II
The Descent
Braindead (Dead Alive)
Day of the Dead
Troll 2
Shaun of the Dead
Phantasm
Profondo Rosso (Deep Red)
Return of the Living Dead
Evil Dead II: Dead by Dawn
C.H.U.D.
Baby Blood
Slugs
Tales From the Crypt: Demon Knight
Bride of Chucky
976-EVIL
Tremors
The Devil's Backbone
Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare
A Tale of Two Sisters
Jeepers Creepers II
Basket Case
Alien
Cujo
Rosemary's Baby
Interview with the Vampire
Let the Right One In
Halloween III: Season of the Witch
Scream
Chakushin Ari (One Missed Call)
Ju-On (The Grudge)
House on Haunted Hill
Hostel
Candyman
Insidious
The Orphanage
Black Christmas
Pet Semetary
Fright Night
The Exorcist
Mother's Day
Scanners
The Shining
The Evil Dead
The Exorcism of Emily Rose
Chopping Mall
Braindead (Dead Alive)

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

The door is open for Blankfist - I made that clear on his profile. He was actually pretty gone from the site for the couple months prior.

It seemed like he came back to take a final dump on someone he had a grudge with. He has my contact details.

Requiring the application of historical standards to fascism is like claiming a country that allows women to vote isn't a real democracy. How the athenians did things, or how the italians did things shouldn't matter to us; we live in the real world, not the past.

I can't allow comparative politics. Whether other states are more or less militaristic, more or less authoritarian than the US doesn't concern us. Let's look at what it actually is.

The US is smotheringly authoritarian. Try walking down the street without modestly covering your genitalia, try openly using unapproved drugs. Obama believes the state owns your body chemistry, and has the sole authority to decide how you may or may not alter it. This is one of the most authoritarian principles imaginable.

The US overflows with militaristic sentiment - everywhere there is glorification of the armed forces. Politicians regularly campaign on US military strength. Military culture indoctrinates recruits to believe those who haven't served aren't real citizens, ask them, they'll tell you.

All language is metaphor (this is literally true). I don't have a particular grudge against fascists; it's any authoritarian or tribalist I hate. I'm going to continue to refer to modern political figures as fascists, because the term does fit and because the associations it produces are fitting.

>> ^ForgedReality:

>> ^NetRunner:
I hear that other people really love Skyrim, but given that I almost instantly lost interest in both Oblivion and Fallout 3 when I played them, I'm just gonna save my money and not bother.

Yawn... If you're not going to try it, then your opinion does not count. Portal 2 was boring once you played it through, and it seemed more gimmicky and felt shorter than the first.


I'm not saying Skyrim sucks, I'm just saying it's not my cup of tea. The odd thing is, it seems like it should be exactly my cup of tea, but there's just something about those games that I just find...boring.

When I played through Portal 2, I felt very mixed emotions about it. It was good, but still a letdown somehow. Yahtzee's review of it totally nailed what was wrong (the story, mostly).

At the time I was like "so it wasn't the most awesome thing ever, there's still the whole rest of the year to go for something better to come along."

Now it's 2012, and I have to grudgingly agree with Yahtzee -- I think the best game of 2011 was Portal 2, and it just wasn't as good as Portal 1.

>> ^Fletch:

>> ^longde:
I remember saying the same thing about Gore 11 years ago; I sure wish I had my Nader vote back. Bush hurt this country alot more than Gore would have, status quo or no.
Just because I don't think the warden is strict enough doesn't mean I am going to hand over the keys to the inmates.>> ^Fletch:
@Auger8
I've recently said I would grudgingly vote for Obama, but I've changed my mind. "Best of a bad lot" just isn't good enough.


I hear ya. I don't disagree, but I just can't vote for "not Romney".


Why not? Life is full of "best of a bad lot" decisions, especially ones where inaction could result in the worst possible outcome. I think even the most strident Obama supporter would agree he has been a disappointment, if only because he raised our expectations so high and if the stakes weren't so high and the alternatives weren't so much worse, I would agree with you.

>> ^longde:

I remember saying the same thing about Gore 11 years ago; I sure wish I had my Nader vote back. Bush hurt this country alot more than Gore would have, status quo or no.
Just because I don't think the warden is strict enough doesn't mean I am going to hand over the keys to the inmates.>> ^Fletch:
@Auger8
I've recently said I would grudgingly vote for Obama, but I've changed my mind. "Best of a bad lot" just isn't good enough.


I hear ya. I don't disagree, but I just can't vote for "not Romney".

I remember saying the same thing about Gore 11 years ago; I sure wish I had my Nader vote back. Bush hurt this country alot more than Gore would have, status quo or no.

Just because I don't think the warden is strict enough doesn't mean I am going to hand over the keys to the inmates.>> ^Fletch:

@Auger8
I've recently said I would grudgingly vote for Obama, but I've changed my mind. "Best of a bad lot" just isn't good enough.

There's a reason Ron Paul is hated by both parties a simple one too. He doesn't play by their rules. This is exactly the kind of person we need in office someone who refuses to let partisan politics influence major decisions that effect the Nation as a whole. By keeping the people at the forefront of his mind and not his "Party".

I'm sick of all this Left/Right bullsh*t it's time to do what's right for this Nation regardless of petty political agendas.

[edit] And I know exactly how the system works thank you very much. It work through the bowels of corruption and greed.

I think it's high time we flushed the system as it is and started anew.

>> ^Fletch:

@Auger8
If you think for a second that a President as despised by his own party as the opposing party is just going to walk into the White House on Inauguration Day and "make decisions", you have no idea how the system works. He will have NO EFFECT on the status quo, and the country will go through yet another four years of political gridlock while both parties look ahead to 2016.
I absolutely share your frustrations with Obama, and he isn't getting my vote this time. I'll write in Kucinich or Warren, or somebody. What I won't do is jump onto the short bus with the rest of the Ron Paul nutcakes. Yeah, voting write-in will have the same effect as voting for Ron Paul... it throws a potential Obama vote away. I've recently said I would grudgingly vote for Obama, but I've changed my mind. "Best of a bad lot" just isn't good enough.

@Auger8

If you think for a second that a President as despised by his own party as the opposing party is just going to walk into the White House on Inauguration Day and "make decisions", you have no idea how the system works. He will have NO EFFECT on the status quo, and the country will go through yet another four years of political gridlock while both parties look ahead to 2016.

I absolutely share your frustrations with Obama, and he isn't getting my vote this time. I'll write in Kucinich or Warren, or somebody. What I won't do is jump onto the short bus with the rest of the Ron Paul nutcakes. Yeah, voting write-in will have the same effect as voting for Ron Paul... it throws a potential Obama vote away. I've recently said I would grudgingly vote for Obama, but I've changed my mind. "Best of a bad lot" just isn't good enough.

>> ^Diogenes:

i'll start doing a comparison of the various handsets, and they'll just stare blankly... go silent for a minute or so, and then blurt out, 'but this is an iphone!' hahaha


I've seen this attitude too. I dislike Apple's closed way of doing things but I have to have a grudging respect for how they've cultivated this aura. Quite a few people seem to think that iPhones are filled with some sort of magic pixie dust.

When it was launched, it was well ahead of the game but not now. Windows Phone 7.5 is apparently very usable and I like Android - although as per my previous post, I'm under no illusions about Google being some morally superior, caring big friend.