i88gerbils

phong originally posted this thread.

Even though it's hard to trust American & British intelligence sources we really have nothing else to go on, and so I must disagree with Montezuma and others. We do know that despite an increase American military presence in the Middle East Bin Laden & Al Qaida have failed to produce a real "jihad". However we still have fear. Americans will always fear another terrorist attack either on foreign soil or on our territory. Personally, I think Hamas is more of a threat right now then Al Qaida. Within a year they could forums.minegoboom.com/viewtopic.php?t=5854be in control of Palestinian politics & throw away the negotiations that were sought after by the West. If a Hamas Palestine renews a war with Israel will Syria be far behind? Israel-Palestine is probably more a threat to regional chaos then Iraq is. But what better way to improve the life in Iraq if all the "insurgent" fighters moved back to Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, and Palestine to wage war against Israel?

Awesome. Though not quite sure why the partisan politics was in the post. At the end of the day I get the job done at my workplace so I hope that no matter who's in the oval office the hiring policies for the CIA, DIA, NSA, which I know are strict, hire the employees that matter.

Okay. We have one more conclusion to this topic that Aileron himself admits. That is Aileron refuses to accept logical statements. But next time don't be upset when I flame him for being an ignorant !@#$%^&*!@#$%^&* (unless he changes). Let's review. Aileron needs to learn not to rely on Science as religion. The scientific method allows us to criticize "the way things work" and accept changes to previous agreements. Aileron specifically tries to use Science as "golden rules", but this is not true. No intelligent & critical thinker is going to believe that. Furthermore it's not acceptable because it goes against what Science actually is. Until Aileron learns to accept the definition of Science and the scientific method I am pretty sure he will continue to mislead others with fallatic arguments based off these wierd definitions. Science does not rely upon a generic conclusion because it cannot come to a conclusion! Intelligent Design does just that. We don't ask why, why, and why again only to say that we give up and make a conclusion that we can't explain. If I ask why, why, and why again about "intelligent designers" I will receive no answer as to its certainty. Sigh. That was very simple. Once again Intelligent Design does not belong in a Science class. If you want to believe in intelligent designers, then discuss this under Philosophy along with Neitzsche & Chuang Tzu who have already come up with the same ideas as Intelligent Design centuries before some ignorant American moron came up with it. It's not a new concept. We have already recognized this and do not teach it in Science classes. N.B.: And the Law of Entropy does not apply. Especially when Aileron changes the definitions around to fit his argument. He needs to explain his scultpor analogy so that we know what is "work" and what is the "environment". I'd say that even if he does explain it will just prove my point even more that Intelligent Design is a philosophy and not a science.

Aileron can state whats all he wants but until Intelligent Design explains how it still needs to answer this question: Why should philosophy or religion be taught in a Science class? Oh wait, they aren't. Duh. Philosophy & Religion are perfectly acceptable methods of their own in discussing topics therein like Intelligent Design, the 7-fold path, Taoism, Nietzche (sp), etc ... Science is based on its own methods and it should stay that way. and then we all need to answer this question: Why is this one school board in Texas only concerned with Science and not Humanities? Intelligent Design is a philosophy, not a science. You cannot explain God under the scientific method. Doesn't work. Thus you cannot explain "*poof* it happened". Or "it could have happend this way". I'm starting to get pissed off and am about to go into flame mode. This thread should have ended on page 1. And as I stated before logic does not necessarily equal scientific method. This post is not a science even though it is logical. I wouldn't teach FORUM POSTING in a science class would I? Okay, let's talk Entropy. Entropy does not mean that a helix is not stable. Maybe a helix is a stable form. But how could it have formed in the first place? We do not know yet. However, let's look at minerals. There is no one configuration of molecules to form a stable mineral. Silicates form all sorts of minerals included diamonds. In a particular environment the molecules re-arrange and form how they should. This is peculiar because when we find diamonds we have no idea how they could have ended up that way. However we do not necessarily say that "some higher being must have created diamonds". No, that's PHILOSOPHY. Science would say "we do not know how diamonds are created here, but let's try our best to find out". Big difference. Pretty easy to understand really.

You cannot investigate religion and Intelligent Design. As I wrote before intelligent design is not a science because it goes against the scientific method. It's a theory about creation, but does not belong in a science-based class. It taught at all it belongs in the realm of humanities as that is where we can state opinions that do not need to based on the scientific method. Chuang Tzu's butterfly "theory" isn't based on scientific method and thus we do not try to teach it in a science class. His thoughts seem to explain that ANYTHING is possible yet we cannot have anyway of knowing whether we are dreaming or awake. It is logical, but not necessarily scientific. That should clear up without a doubt in which class Intelligent Design should be taught.

I wish I could read more about Iraq's economic and industrial development, but there seems to be a lack of published material on subjects other than terror, natural disasters, white girls, and entertainment. I think the only industry I've heard doing well is the gl!@#$%^&* industry.

Hmm, that might be it. It didn't fill up that much. I'll try that thanks.

!@#$%^&*le of this post : error posting. I've been trying to post a quoted article I found interesting for the politics discussers since last night. Unfortunately whenever I post it, tag QUOTE tags around it, SSForum.net gives me dishes out a 403 Forbidden error AND a 404 error for index.php? I don't understand how Inivsion could be so !@#$%^&*ed up as to work once just by posting "Test" yet failing to post in some quoted text that I pasted in. Even a Quick Edit fails when I do this. Please try pasting the source from here.

For some reason SSF refuses to let me paste in something and post it. Just timesout on me. I found this article interesting. The judge in this case follows the arguments given in this discussion, and ends up following much of what I had been trying to propose.

Why do you assume that Science operates on the same method as Religion? It does not. Think about Santa Claus. I have faith that he will drop down any chimney or visit every house who celebrates Christmas to fill our stockings and dump presents. It comes true every Christmas (just follow me here). However, when I take a look at Santa's operation it is a logistical impossibility. Try making the points that Santa does not exist and could never do the job even if he did, and you would have just proved the whole point of separating the Scientific Method from Faith.

Right. Like any book that attempts to convince you to live a certain way of life the Bible is dated. There are plenty of lessons to learn that apply to our lives Today, but some of them are out of context. Pork is fine to eat since the Middle Ages because we know how to treat it to not get sick. We also now have techniques to help prevent the spread of STDs, which they did not have back in the Neolithic, Bronze, and Iron ages. this is slightly off-topic.

Sorry Thunderjam. I forgot to mention that I argee that evolution is a theory. It's a pretty sound theory based on the scientific method. Plate Tectonic THeory is another creation theory, which was not figurued out until the mid-20th century but it changed how we think about the creation of planets in a big way. The scientific method allows people to create experiments to test theories. If a theory has succeeded it could be that we haven't found a big enough test yet. Humanities work differently. If some schools are not teaching children about the scientific method and how to use it properly, then we need to rethink how those schools teach science. However, this is mainly secondary schooling. If someone starts talking about Science as if it is Faith, then they haven't really learned what science is all about.

Here's another thought: You wouldn't want to be trying to study how God created life would you? Instead Intelligent Design and other religious "theories" are simply trying to prove that God did create life. That itself is not a science. You wouldn't want to have someone coming up with the how in religion. Islam & Christianity would reject that right away. That's why teaching that God did or could have created life is only in the realm of Humanities.

Oh the Bible does have historic pieces to it. Not Genesis and only parts of Exodus, but after that the Bible clearly follows the history of Canaan and the various nations that ruled over it. Of course it is slightly biased into !@#$%^&*uming others do not have the "right" to posess those lands.

He ordered the oppression of both.

It's what happens "after" the war that counts.

I dislike how both the American Republicans and Democrats (also the Greens & Libertarians) want to pull out of Iraq & Afghanistan. The former !@#$%^&*ed up & are still !@#$%^&*ing up Iraq while the latter have no clue wtf to do. We wouldn't be in the same mess if we had a clear plan of action instead of the bumble!@#$%^&* that is Iraq. But hey, politics rules the nation & no one thought of Iraq. They just thought of the "election". Bunch of reASSS.

Right, a flood. There is evidence of flooding many times in prehistory. However, why should Intelligent Design be taught as a science? Religion belongs in the realm of Humanities, and not in Science. Man is not meant to prove factually that God(s) exists. To do so would place man on an altar at an equal level to God(s). Faith does not rely on the scientific method, and those who are mistaken about faith do not know what faith means. Of course we need to study religion, history, science, art, language(s), physical education, and more. Educators should make teaching the ability to learn & maintain discipline of study the main function of Primary & Secondary schooling. To do so children need to be taught about the difference processes of learning in the variety of areas. They need to learn how to read, write, the basic foundations of mathematics, history, various philosophical & religious methods of deduction, artistic recognition including music & the fine arts, the scientific method, and how-to maintain one's physical self. From this stepping stone a student should be able to find themselves using all the tools that they have learned to become a political citizen. That is a young adult needs to be able to find reason in all areas to better understand how to budget, analyze, construct, etc ... in the various areas of society: politics, the workplace, home, entertainment, etc ... Here's an example if you still fail to see my point. A student may use the scientific method as a tool to identify a particular species of bird. Additionally, the same student may utilize artistic skills to paint a beautiful rendition of the bird in flight. And the student may wonder about the nature of the bird & how God has developed such a wonderful bird with mysterious wings that make it capable of flight. Religion is important, but it should be set on an equal playing field as a different tool for students to learn.

I was thinking back on Solomon. He had an older brother (absolute blood-related). However because David & Bathsheba did not have proper sex the kid died young. It was thought it was God's punishment for their adultery. The fact that we are alive is something to be thankful about. One thrust of your father's penis too many and you may have turned out a girl or a miscarraige. One sin and an abortion may have taken a child's life away due to SIDs or an abortion (if one believes in God). If a child dies in the womb or outside of the womb we think it's God's will, but if a woman has an abortion it is suddenly only the woman that is evil. Cannot God give women the strength to give up a child for further calling? Cannot God take away a child if the meaning behind the sex or the process was not "correct" or timely? I say these things not to provoke a response from a specific Christian group. I do not know what God does & nobody truly knows what God(s) does. We are not Nietzche supermen and that is fallatic to think we are. Instead we must think of ourselves like in Chuan-Tzu's story: Are we men dreaming we are butterflies or butterflies dreaming we are men? An impossible question to be certain of. However, is it legal to get rid of a fetus? It wouldn't be Murder I think we can all agree on that based on discussion from previous pages. Then again we can approach from a different side and ask a question in different situations. A mother-to-be asks herself, "Is this right?" when she finds out of her pregnancy. A mother asks herself, "Is this right?" when she has had the baby in the world a few months. A mother asks herself, "Is this right?" when she had a child in the world several years. Since the last case contain children, teenagers, or adults that can establish themselves on their own we don't think much of the mother's opinion. The second case also shares this attribute to some extent because a baby can survive on its own for a short while, but to abandon it is seen as cruel though Murder is usually charged only for direct infanticide. A baby in this second case can also be left, in most U.S. states, 3 days after birth with a law enforcement, EMT, or Medical facility with no questions asked. The same process is impossible for a fetus and thus a mother must choose between destroying a fetus or carrying it 9 months only to abandon it later. I have another interesting abortion situation. Should pregnant teenagers still in high school (or even middle school) have the choice, with doctor's or parent's permission, to have an abortion? I have known some who can cope 9 months & a baby throughout their education, but others who have not. Once again it all depends.

Men forcing women to have abortions reminds me of special interest groups forcing Congress to p!@#$%^&* a bill. :/ Suggestions for women going through the inital stage of pregnancy: 1. I am pregnant. Am I ready to care for my own child, go through the process of having a baby, live for my children, etc ...? 2. Sex Partner, I am pregnant. Are you ready to care for your own child, go through the process of having a baby, live for your child, etc ... either together or separate? 3. Make a choice which has tradeoffs on all sides. If you were going through the process what other things would you add?

Does anybody want to answer my question? Or is the discussion over in favor of abortion?

If you don't realize it is necessary to sidetrack a discussion in order to get down to basic differences, then you don't know anything about discussions. We were at a standstill because one poster decided to ignore or not read posts and then make re!@#$%^&*ed comments. Censorship is removing someone else's words. I am merely a mirror. I do not remove others posts only comment based on experience. He deserved little respect without making sense and no respect for ignoring help. You cannot call it ad hominem if it's true. "Oh, and that pun of yours was intentional...there are plenty of synanyms to the word "worthless" (Aileron). What a pitiful opinion. If you intend to say that I am dishonest, then by all means make that accusation. It is false. See? Look at your aggressive behavior. You cannot see passed your mistake in your censorship, but instead lash out just like Dr. Worthless did merely by my making a suggestion. That's the kind of idiocy that ruins discussions. Your inevitable reply that I had lashed out myself is unacceptable for two reasons: 1) I base my insults off of the actual replies that people make and 2) it's not true. The moment Worthless decided to trash ideas without any logical discourse was the moment he deserved no respect. People have every right to live life in ignorant bliss of discussions, but that does not necessarily protect them from others trying to remove the veil from over their heads.

Ah finally someone who can at the very least participate in a discussion... I agree that a Murder charge is because someone has denied another's right of existence under the Law. Unfortunately we cannot just classify "denying someone's existence" only to Murder. Killing in people in War (although consentual), Manslaughter, a fetus conceived thru rape, moving someone off of life support, etc ... are all denying existence of some kind. What requirements are necessary to make a decision over someone's life? Several moralities insist that this decision rests in God's hands though they usually also act as if they had the hand of God. Moralities that give more freedom (and responsibilty) give the State that decision (e.g. War). This last one is also part of the same justification people take in [presumed] self-defense of their lives, which also applies to those agreed uses of abortion. Should a decision to take someone's life be made over something as trivial natural resources like oil? Rhetorical question. Or as trivial as not having unprotected sex? If a woman judges (hopefully with the advice of others) that neither she nor a father-to-be are in the condition to support a pregnancy or a child, should we respect that judgement? Are they murderers (or guilty of manslaughter) if they let go of a zygote or fetus from the woman's body? That is the most optimistic situation I can come up with. Now what about the woman and her partner(s) who do not think twice about protected sex, has had multiple abortions, etc ...? Would it be considered murder for this woman to not consider the consequences of their actions? When we end anything's life we are taking away its future (if it had a future). When is it Murder and when is it not?* --- *Note: I do not want to weed thru manslaugther vs murder case reports as they are both crimes. Let's settle for unlawful vs lawful. N.B.: Apologies to Montezuma for getting off-topic with his point about sentience, but I'm not sure that point will lead to anywhere productive. N.B.2: Compare this post to Dr. Worthless' and there's no comparison at all. Yet another example of trying to help him & this discussion out.

[Edit because Aileron is a book burner] Why does Aileron feel it necessary to hide truth? I have not made a post that was intended to harm or insult that was not based on factual information collected in this thread. Editing posts is rash behavior similar to other censors. What I mean when I said "edit" before was simply to correct & help someone who obviously does not know how to make a forum post. Your failure to see that he was contributing little to the discussion after being offended makes me believe you are unfit to be a moderator in these forums. Censorship is ugly. It is necessary to show Dr. Worthless what he needs to learn in order to participate in the discussion. Otherwise his worthless trite will continue (no pun intended). [/Edit]