If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegraph)   Drudge readers bring insightful comments to a science article   (telegraph.co.uk) divider line 65
    More: Unlikely  
•       •       •

12003 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Jan 2013 at 10:07 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



65 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-21 05:24:55 PM
I suck at grammar today.

That should read and are never universally true and it's best
 
2013-01-21 06:23:54 PM

foxy_canuck: Here's the thing, when you make broad generalizations about a group of people, occasionally someone from that group will use logic, reason and evidence to make you look like an idiot,


Is that what you are doing? Focusing on a snarky comment and holding it up to intense scrutiny is logical and reasonable? I'm glad I didn't go for the classic "you're a poopy-face" ... I would hate to have to submit samples of poop to the lab to prove it to your satisfaction.

Your completely ignoring my actual arguments that were made once we opened a dialog ... is that logical and reasonable? You know, these are the ones were I was actually discussing something with you as opposed to a random comment on the internet.

Well judging by your butthurt over my initial comment, your refusal to actually address any of the actual arguments that I put forward, your concepts of "logic" and "reason", I can only come to one conclusion: you must be religious. [the underlined should be read in Jeff Foxworthy's voice]

/ The catholic church is still a wretched hive of scum and villainy
/ I add this because you seem particularly defensive of these scum bags
/ and I don't get to use "a wretched hive of scum and villainy" often enough in conversation
 
2013-01-21 07:07:16 PM
Ultimately, none of this matters. If people want to wallow in their ignorance, then let them. If people want to believe that microscopic life on Mars means diddly-squat to us here on Earth, let them. Ultimately, neither of these two groups means anything to me. It wouldn't matter to me if there were two very intelligent super-cows on Mars who play 3-D Chess and speak twelve different languages, just as it wouldn't matter to me if there really was a God sitting on a cloud, being revered by cherubim, seraphim and all His other creations while he plays mumblety-peg against Lucifer using lightning bolts of Divine Power instead of a knife.

What matters to me is treating my girl right, earning enough to pay rent and the bills, and keeping bad people from coming within five meters of me or those I love.

Perspective, folks. Let the ignorant be ignorant. Let the dreamers dream. Just don't be a dick to me (or other people) when we meet in person, and all will be right in the world.
 
2013-01-21 09:21:24 PM
(insert comment about how one side is bad and the other side is good because I heard it from others on the Internet and didn't verify the information)

On a serious note, the further left and the further right you get, the less science is respected and more the core ideologies are admired. People who say this is a left or right only issue are ignorant to the big picture.

Tunnel vision and selective hearing are very dangerous to the close minded.
 
2013-01-21 10:26:24 PM

GlobalStrategic MapleSyrup Reserve: Farking Canuck: "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
― Isaac Asimov

Sadly Isaac cast his net too narrow. He should have said: "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States wherever religion thrives, and there has always been."

The idiot's answer to everything: "God did it ... now stop looking for answers!!!"

Don't be too quick to judge. There's only slightly fewer idiots out there whose knee-jerk reaction to any reference to God is "Well you're a farking idiot and your opinions are invalid. Science explains everything!" yet can't comprehend basic science like how pure oxygen is lethal or how human reproduction works beyond "Rod D into slot V". I'm not saying there aren't plenty of religious r-tards out there too but derp flows both ways.



Well, nothing you say is really true, but if it makes your dumb ass feel all superior, then that's the important thing, right?.
 
2013-01-21 10:28:41 PM

GlobalStrategic MapleSyrup Reserve: The My Little Pony Killer: GlobalStrategic MapleSyrup Reserve: Don't be too quick to judge. There's only slightly fewer idiots out there whose knee-jerk reaction to any reference to God is "Well you're a farking idiot and your opinions are invalid. Science explains everything!" yet can't comprehend basic science like how pure oxygen is lethal or how human reproduction works beyond "Rod D into slot V". I'm not saying there aren't plenty of religious r-tards out there too but derp flows both ways.

Being unable to comprehend things still sounds a whole lot better than flat-out refusing to even acknowledge that there might be science behind things.

The issue I take is that "I'm right because I agree with God/scientists." philosophy. Contrary to popular (see: most vocal) opinion there are a good deal of mostly sane and rational religious types (of many different creeds) who DON'T oppose science. The flat-out refusal is just as bad either way as well, the outspoken and foolish religious side has it's "Because it is HIS word" stance when the him they refer to isn't God but someone who sent them an e-mail/link to some nutbar claiming "God said this/interpret the Bible this way/America is the great evil" etc. Meanwhile the "science believer" stance reads something like "It's been proven in our studies, the studies you read are tainted" or " clearly established it and if you don't believe it you're an idiot".

The only real difference is PERSPECTIVE, some people just have a better one than others. Believe it or not, religion and science CAN coexist so long as the more aggressive advocates of each aren't struggling to beat each other senseless in "No, YOU'RE wrong!" debates.


basically, whenever religious people can learn to keep their emotional needs and idiotic ramblings to themselves, things go well.
 
2013-01-22 12:02:40 AM
Farking Canuck

Focusing on a snarky comment and holding it up to intense scrutiny is logical and reasonable?

You made the claim that Asimov should have said there is a cult of ignorance wherever religion thrives, I refuted it with reasonable evidence, that's the end of it. You haven't made any real arguments since then except to make self entitled claims that its unreasonable for another person to disagree with you and provide counter evidence when you make a prejudices claim. I don't really give a crap whether you meant it as a serious argument or just snark. If you feel the need to snark on other people to build yourself up I feel sorry for you. If you feel its unreasonable for someone else to zero in on that prejudice masked as a snarky comment then I feel even more sorry for you. It reminds me of when a teenager argues why the rule they broke shouldn't apply them and in an adult its just sad.

I didn't argue any points you've made about the anti-science movement in the US and your comments on Texas because in general I agree, and its not the point I was arguing to start with. As a Catholic (yes I'm a person who follows a religion, no I don't take your comment about that as an insult, whether it was meant as one or not) I do get pissed off when conservative fundamentalists make religious people look like anti-science idiots. Creationism is wrong, Intelligent Design is wrong, and being anti-science is wrong. Period. I agree.

Also, you harp a lot on the paedophilia thing, you brought it up and have mentioned it in every post since... I haven't shown any offence to it, just mentioned that its not germane to this topic... is that a false statement? If not move on... or keep mentioning it, it makes no difference to me if you want to make yourself look like a childish ass, I'm done with it because its going in circles.

Finally, since this is a thread about science and religion, maybe you should take the evidence that multiple people in this thread have questioned your comprehension of their argument into consideration instead of just having faith that you are right about everything and anyone who questions you is an idiot or being unfair.
 
2013-01-22 06:04:06 AM

GlobalStrategic MapleSyrup Reserve: The My Little Pony Killer: GlobalStrategic MapleSyrup Reserve: Don't be too quick to judge. There's only slightly fewer idiots out there whose knee-jerk reaction to any reference to God is "Well you're a farking idiot and your opinions are invalid. Science explains everything!" yet can't comprehend basic science like how pure oxygen is lethal or how human reproduction works beyond "Rod D into slot V". I'm not saying there aren't plenty of religious r-tards out there too but derp flows both ways.

Being unable to comprehend things still sounds a whole lot better than flat-out refusing to even acknowledge that there might be science behind things.

The issue I take is that "I'm right because I agree with God/scientists." philosophy. Contrary to popular (see: most vocal) opinion there are a good deal of mostly sane and rational religious types (of many different creeds) who DON'T oppose science. The flat-out refusal is just as bad either way as well, the outspoken and foolish religious side has it's "Because it is HIS word" stance when the him they refer to isn't God but someone who sent them an e-mail/link to some nutbar claiming "God said this/interpret the Bible this way/America is the great evil" etc. Meanwhile the "science believer" stance reads something like "It's been proven in our studies, the studies you read are tainted" or " clearly established it and if you don't believe it you're an idiot".
The only real difference is PERSPECTIVE, some people just have a better one than others. Believe it or not, religion and science CAN coexist so long as the more aggressive advocates of each aren't struggling to beat each other senseless in "No, YOU'RE wrong!" debates.


The difference is that one is taken on faith, the other is deference to expertise and lots of peer-reviewed evidence. Science isn't something you believe/don't believe in.
 
2013-01-22 06:09:06 AM

GlobalStrategic MapleSyrup Reserve: orbister: GlobalStrategic MapleSyrup Reserve: Don't be too quick to judge. There's only slightly fewer idiots out there whose knee-jerk reaction to any reference to God is "Well you're a farking idiot and your opinions are invalid. Science explains everything!" ...

I have never, ever, met anyone who claims that science explains everything. This particularly applies to professional scientists, perhaps not least because they would all be out of a job if science explained everything.
For that matter, I don't think think I have ever met, or heard of, anyone who believes that science can explain everything, and that goes for professional scientists as well.
It's a uniquely fundamentalist religious position - perhaps by definition so - to believe that a book of iron age myths / camel herder biography / low quality sci-fi can and does explain everything.
By the way, please note that I am not saying that all religious believers claim to know all the answers.

It's not particularly fair to judge a position based on the dimmest bulbs that shine through while citing your examples from the pool with reasoned positions. The position is not "professional scientists vs. religion's online white knights", it's the entire groups on both sides and for some reason the reasonable religious types don't often take the time to comment on news articles and threads. When I used "science explains everything" I'm citing those same people who don't even have a solid grasp on the basic principles they want to stand for. With the full sample pool, discounting troll-factor, on both sides you should have 1) Enlightened opinions 2) Poorly phrased yet reasonable opinions 3) Misunderstood facts/stats/texts/quotes 4) Blithering idiots who it's baffling to imagine are capable of surviving.

Three & four are where you find the "Science can explain it, I can't" and "God did it" positions, sometimes they slip into #2 as well. All I'm trying to say is that there are idiots on both sides. If you'd like I co ...


I suspect there may be more than you think, but that they don't feel the need to drag religion into everything.
 
2013-01-22 09:01:48 AM

Canned Tamales: GlobalStrategic MapleSyrup Reserve: Farking Canuck: "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
― Isaac Asimov

Sadly Isaac cast his net too narrow. He should have said: "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States wherever religion thrives, and there has always been."

The idiot's answer to everything: "God did it ... now stop looking for answers!!!"

Don't be too quick to judge. There's only slightly fewer idiots out there whose knee-jerk reaction to any reference to God is "Well you're a farking idiot and your opinions are invalid. Science explains everything!" yet can't comprehend basic science like how pure oxygen is lethal or how human reproduction works beyond "Rod D into slot V". I'm not saying there aren't plenty of religious r-tards out there too but derp flows both ways.

Well, nothing you say is really true, but if it makes your dumb ass feel all superior, then that's the important thing, right?.


It sure is. But boy would your face (and several others) be red if it were suddenly realized that I'm not actually religious (or even born into a Christian household) but that I'm just fed up with jerkasses on both sides of this unnecessary debate angrily poop slinging and throwing out unrelated points until they can say "I told you you were a farking idiot"

Abacus9:
The difference is that one is taken on faith, the other is deference to expertise and lots of peer-reviewed evidence. Science isn't something you believe/don't believe in.


You're correct. I think you misinterpreted my use of quotations. Science is not a belief system, yet so many are treating it as if it is. Maybe I've just met a lot more idiots than some people but there's a growing trend in the masses to say "I believe in science" or some semblance of which. This is what I'm referring to. I'm not trying to pin all atheists with such a stupid claim.
 
2013-01-22 09:26:18 AM

foxy_canuck: You made the claim that Asimov should have said there is a cult of ignorance wherever religion thrives


I made a riff on an Asimov quote that was US specific ... I expanded it to be more inclusive because the story was in a British newspaper. Nothing more, nothing less. I have tried to explain to you over and over that it was just a snarky comment. Not something worthy of arguing or defending. This apparently is not good enough for you ... the way you suck the fun out of the entire internet, you must be real fun at parties.

When you opened a dialog I presented my actual position, in my own words (not Azimov's) and, apparently, you agree with me.

foxy_canuck: Also, you harp a lot on the paedophilia thing


I don't like seeing children as victims ... I guess I am strange that way.

foxy_canuck: multiple people in this thread have questioned your comprehension


One other person made a snarky comment. I didn't ask him or her to provide evidence to back up the statement ... I took it for what it was and returned a quick jab. Was this wrong? Should I have accused him/her of making an argument based on a logical fallacy??


The way you have latched on one slightly modified Azimov quote is fascinating. Just to fuel your keyboard rage further, here are a couple from Ghandi ... I will leave them in their original form so you can address your lectures to him please:

"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ."
- Mahatma Ghandi

"If Christians would really live according to the teachings of Christ, as found in the Bible, all of India would be Christian today."
- Mahatma Ghandi
 
2013-01-22 11:07:22 AM
I'm so confused, why are these Canadians arguing with each other, I thought they were supposed to be so polite?!?
 
2013-01-22 01:05:34 PM
Farking Canuck
Actually, those Ghandi quotes are pretty accurate for a lot of Christians... especially if you look at them in the context of British Imperialism and the connection of the Church of England to the cultural identity they were trying to violently force on the Indian people. They don't fuel my rage at all... sorry to burst your bubble. If nothing else they are a good reminder for Christians to be mindful to act as Christ would.
 
2013-01-23 10:23:38 AM

Bungles: It always was, to be fair.

It is an actual real newspaper though, unlike the Daily Mail, which is essentially a tabloid with better magazine supplements.


I think it's become far more shrill of late. I've read it almost daily for the last 12 years and it's only in the last 18 months that it's really left the track. Before that it used to be relatively responsible, reporting the news in one place and leaving its opinion in another. Now the two are mixed together and are worryingly extreme.
 
2013-01-24 11:07:32 AM

AssAsInAssassin: Clemkadidlefark: Okay, I'll get flamed but here goes anyway?

What do you have against Drudge?

He unironically misrepresents the contents of the articles to add a right-wing spin, and under-represents news that discredits his right-wing spin.


Really?

How?

He just links to articles.

/doesn't get it
 
Displayed 15 of 65 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report