WTF News stories

[Halinn]

There is an inherent belief in science, because you can never prove something to be false.

One can prove things to be false, it's the other side of it that can't be done.

[dman11235]

Yeah, sorry, that's what I meant.  Fixing now.

[RobbyPants]

While that chart and those definitions are interesting (and true; I've seen it before, but forgot about it, thanks for reminding me about those differences), my statement still holds true.  See, Atheists (as you clarified, gnostic atheists) are believers, was my point.  They believe that they are correct, and even though they think they are 100% factually correct, guess what?  So do the gnostic theists.

Well, you were right and you were wrong, which is why I added in that caveat about gnostic/agnostic.

You simply said "atheists", which would apply to the entire group. I pointed out that you were right about the sub-group of gnostic atheists, on which you have agreed with me, but it wasn't what you said at first. That's why I added that in.

[Jackinthegreen]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/23/taylor-santos-spanking-burned-blistered-male-vice-principal_n_1907325.html?utm_hp_ref=education

The fact that spanking is even an option disgusts me.  Such discipline is iffy at home for a child, but at school for a teenager?  What the fuck are the administrators on?

[dman11235]

"A man is too big and strong to spank a 95 lbs girl".  That video is ripe with WTF moments.  That's the reason she wants a woman to do the spanking.  Not a sex thing, but women are the only gender dainty enough to punish women.

Not only that, but the punishment for cheating (aka, the student not knowing how to do the material) is to keep them out of class where they won't be able to learn the material.  Way to go Texas!  You sure know how to keep people from doing things you don't want them to!

[phaedrusxy]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/23/taylor-santos-spanking-burned-blistered-male-vice-principal_n_1907325.html?utm_hp_ref=education

The fact that spanking is even an option disgusts me.  Such discipline is iffy at home for a child, but at school for a teenager?  What the fuck are the administrators on?

Viagra? 

[Risada]

http://www.dailychilli.com/news/19094-pet-cat-tells-doped-up-jealous-hubby-to-shoot-ex-cop-wife-

bhu, what did you do!?

[kurashu]

Late to the party. Whatever.

While I agree with your sentiment, I understand that not everyone in the world does, and what is most offensive to you may be easier to stomach than what is most offensive to others.  Here in America, we don't have many things that are on that level of offensiveness, at least as a country.  However, go to a church and start burning a Bible.  See what the reaction is.  Or create a piece of "art" that is a crucifix in a jar of urine.  Be white and call a black person the N word.  Go to the RNC and burn an American flag.  Go to the DNC and call someone a fag.  And yes, I'm intentionally using stereotypes, but hopefully it gets my point across.  We may not think it's a big deal to use media as an insult, but to them, it's as offensive or more so than burning a Bible in front of a devote Christian.

So yes, it is a legitimate argument.  It causes problems, so why not try to fix it?

If you keep this line of thinking up then I should be protected from having my feelings hurt by my ex breaking up with me. Honestly, that's fucking retarded. You know what makes this country great? I can burn a bible, I can call someone a fag, I can use the word nigger (be a man if you are going to bring up and type it out). I can even burn the fucking flag of the United States of America. I can do all of these things and have no fear of GOVERNMENT retribution (unless I violate some law about burning or something). NOW, if someone gets offended by my actions or if I, in turn, get offended by someone else's actions, deal with it. Honestly, I don't even think hate speech should be illegal because that's a slipperly slope to be on.

Because you know what offends me? Religious people pushing "Intelligent Design" as science and not religion but still saying "bible" and "supernatural" and "the Creator." If you don't want to take my science with its evidence seriously, fine. But you sure as shit ain't teaching your superstitious in my tax funded schools. Want your views taught? Home school your kids. I'm sure they'll turn out just like you.

A law is NOT another name for a theory.  A law is a set of rules that can predict what will happen.  Example: law of gravity.  A theory is an attempted explanation for why something happens.  Example: theory of gravity.  Both of these things do different things and have different rules.  The law of gravity says that things with mass will attract each other based on the gravity equation (F=mmg/d^2), and the theory of gravity doesn't even exist because we don't know why it does that (there is more than one theory of gravity right now, my favorite is one that involve semi dimensional particles).

Thank you, a thousand times thank you. It's frustrating seeing intelligent people I respect (on here and in life) constantly get this wrong. Especially when people say things life, "Well, it's just a theory." as if people who have studied something for most of their career could be disproved by something so simple and by someone so ill educated in the matter. Not to say that sometimes people over look simple things, but to my understanding that's what peer review and group experimentations are for.

[phaedrusxy]

Thank you, a thousand times thank you. It's frustrating seeing intelligent people I respect (on here and in life) constantly get this wrong. Especially when people say things life, "Well, it's just a theory." as if people who have studied something for most of their career could be disproved by something so simple and by someone so ill educated in the matter. Not to say that sometimes people over look simple things, but to my understanding that's what peer review and group experimentations are for.

Those people don't know what the word theory means. They think it means the same thing as opinion, which is the way it is typically used in the "common" language, but that's not really accurate when you're talking about scientific disciplines.

[dman11235]

I'm not saying that you should not be allowed to do those thing, I'm just saying that you shouldn't do those things and expect people to not get really mad.  And because these things happen, there is a legitimate argument to say "they should not be legal", regardless of what you feel about it.  And you know what?  I did not say that those things that offend you are immune to this.  Again, regardless of what you feel about the subject, there is a legitimate argument for making hate speech illegal.  See, physical is not the only type of harm that can befall someone.  And I believe that we should, as a species, attempt to eliminate all suffering.  I don't think it's a slippery slope, it's more of a shallow and short one.  The point is, your actions have consequences.  And while you might not be incredibly offended by something, some one else might be.  To you, it's freedom of speech.  To someone else, it's an attack on their person.  So be careful.

The second part: why do you think I call it the Law of Evolution and the Theory of Natural Selection?  Yes, I know it's not actually the law of evolution, it's more of the law of macro-genetics, but still.  It's my little defiance.

PREEDIT: Yes, "theory" has taken on a new meaning, and that is one of "guess".  It annoys me to no end, but the only thing I can do is correct people and use it the correct way.

[Jackinthegreen]

Agreed, it is a bit annoying to see theory used in place of estimate, hypothesis, guess, postulate, et cetera.  Thanks to mass media its definition is changing though.

As for the part about laws prohibiting religious defamation, one reason I can say I don't want it is I believe it would hinder the progress towards getting people to tolerate such actions or at least use nonviolent means of saying "I don't like what you said."  One of the religious things I can agree with is the thinking of "turn the other cheek," especially since there are far more creative and effective means of bringing a man down than by threatening his life.

[dman11235]

Oh!  And another reason you need to be careful about that belief is that some people see it as you trying to force them to think a certain way (not being offended).  So basically, either way you go about this, you are forcing someone to act a certain way.  So again: be careful.

[kurashu]

I'm not saying that you should not be allowed to do those thing, I'm just saying that you shouldn't do those things and expect people to not get really mad.  And because these things happen, there is a legitimate argument to say "they should not be legal", regardless of what you feel about it.  And you know what?  I did not say that those things that offend you are immune to this.  Again, regardless of what you feel about the subject, there is a legitimate argument for making hate speech illegal.  See, physical is not the only type of harm that can befall someone.  And I believe that we should, as a species, attempt to eliminate all suffering.  I don't think it's a slippery slope, it's more of a shallow and short one.  The point is, your actions have consequences.  And while you might not be incredibly offended by something, some one else might be.  To you, it's freedom of speech.  To someone else, it's an attack on their person.  So be careful.

I know physical isn't the only way to harm someone. That's what civil court is for. We should not have law restricting speech. Period. Honestly, I don't even know if I could say that seditious speech should be outlawed. Because we do we stop? Surely outlawing blasphemy and defamation is a noble act, but what religions do we protect? Do atheists still get a say? Where do we go from there?

Or do we treat limiting free speech like we (the USA) treated the Japanese during WWII? And measure every other restriction on free speech against that? "We'll let you have this huge violation of the Constitution BUT it's your last unless you can prove it measures up to this."

Seriously. My feelings get hurt a thousand times a day in varying terms of severity. I am not the most well adjusted person. But I'm not running to my manager or my senator and demanding reparations and "MAKE IT SO HE CAN'T SAY MY MOM IS FAT!" Moreover, said blasphemy laws are effectively punishing everyone for the actions of a few. It's like a teacher who makes the whole class miss recess because one kid called another kid dumb. Except the dumb kid gets coddled and told he's special so he can go play but the rest of us are bad. It's bullshit. Fuck that.

The second part: why do you think I call it the Law of Evolution and the Theory of Natural Selection?  Yes, I know it's not actually the law of evolution, it's more of the law of macro-genetics, but still.  It's my little defiance.

PREEDIT: Yes, "theory" has taken on a new meaning, and that is one of "guess".  It annoys me to no end, but the only thing I can do is correct people and use it the correct way.

Maybe I've misunderstood what you're trying to say here. I am having an experience right now.

Law -> The math on how something works. It is my understanding that laws don't change often. Example: Law of Gravity (HOW things are attracted to each other), Law of Evolution/Whatever (HOW things evolve), Law of Thermodynamics (HOW dynamics can be thermal or something, I'm kind of high right now).

Theory -> WHY something does what it does. Example: Theory of Gravity (Is it because it bends space time, gravitrons, et cetera), Theory of Evolution (Imperfect copies when cells duplicate, adaptation, et cetera), Theory of Thermodynamics (...I'm really high guys and I don't even know).

A theory doesn't get upgraded into a law. When a law or theory is shown to be false, it is replaced. And it isn't just anything that gets to replace it, scientists join together to form a massive hive mind to brain storm and calculate and philosphizzle on the best solutions. Then they play pin the theory on the law. Closest with out going over wins.

Or something like that.



Why the fuck am I still even typing. I am going to look at this later and instead of being coherent I'm going to see where I just slapped my keyboard like I was actually typing.

>be me
>be 16
>be nerd
>be on internet
>cat walks across keyboard
>"asugfhasjgfnasluihgfawngalwihyt87q354y98q3u45iqhtq34{}P}paoijgionsjfiajspufgahwfas;lfasokjg8aqyew4p89teg
>backspace
>sucked into internet
>gains super powers
>FREAKAZOID
>...and his friend Zoidberg.



... seriously, why are you still here.

[dman11235]

(click to show/hide)

I'm not saying that you should not be allowed to do those thing, I'm just saying that you shouldn't do those things and expect people to not get really mad.  And because these things happen, there is a legitimate argument to say "they should not be legal", regardless of what you feel about it.  And you know what?  I did not say that those things that offend you are immune to this.  Again, regardless of what you feel about the subject, there is a legitimate argument for making hate speech illegal.  See, physical is not the only type of harm that can befall someone.  And I believe that we should, as a species, attempt to eliminate all suffering.  I don't think it's a slippery slope, it's more of a shallow and short one.  The point is, your actions have consequences.  And while you might not be incredibly offended by something, some one else might be.  To you, it's freedom of speech.  To someone else, it's an attack on their person.  So be careful.

I know physical isn't the only way to harm someone. That's what civil court is for. We should not have law restricting speech. Period. Honestly, I don't even know if I could say that seditious speech should be outlawed. Because we do we stop? Surely outlawing blasphemy and defamation is a noble act, but what religions do we protect? Do atheists still get a say? Where do we go from there?

Or do we treat limiting free speech like we (the USA) treated the Japanese during WWII? And measure every other restriction on free speech against that? "We'll let you have this huge violation of the Constitution BUT it's your last unless you can prove it measures up to this."

Seriously. My feelings get hurt a thousand times a day in varying terms of severity. I am not the most well adjusted person. But I'm not running to my manager or my senator and demanding reparations and "MAKE IT SO HE CAN'T SAY MY MOM IS FAT!" Moreover, said blasphemy laws are effectively punishing everyone for the actions of a few. It's like a teacher who makes the whole class miss recess because one kid called another kid dumb. Except the dumb kid gets coddled and told he's special so he can go play but the rest of us are bad. It's bullshit. Fuck that.

The second part: why do you think I call it the Law of Evolution and the Theory of Natural Selection?  Yes, I know it's not actually the law of evolution, it's more of the law of macro-genetics, but still.  It's my little defiance.

PREEDIT: Yes, "theory" has taken on a new meaning, and that is one of "guess".  It annoys me to no end, but the only thing I can do is correct people and use it the correct way.

Maybe I've misunderstood what you're trying to say here. I am having an experience right now.

Law -> The math on how something works. It is my understanding that laws don't change often. Example: Law of Gravity (HOW things are attracted to each other), Law of Evolution/Whatever (HOW things evolve), Law of Thermodynamics (HOW dynamics can be thermal or something, I'm kind of high right now).

Theory -> WHY something does what it does. Example: Theory of Gravity (Is it because it bends space time, gravitrons, et cetera), Theory of Evolution (Imperfect copies when cells duplicate, adaptation, et cetera), Theory of Thermodynamics (...I'm really high guys and I don't even know).

A theory doesn't get upgraded into a law. When a law or theory is shown to be false, it is replaced. And it isn't just anything that gets to replace it, scientists join together to form a massive hive mind to brain storm and calculate and philosphizzle on the best solutions. Then they play pin the theory on the law. Closest with out going over wins.

Or something like that.



Why the fuck am I still even typing. I am going to look at this later and instead of being coherent I'm going to see where I just slapped my keyboard like I was actually typing.

>be me
>be 16
>be nerd
>be on internet
>cat walks across keyboard
>"asugfhasjgfnasluihgfawngalwihyt87q354y98q3u45iqhtq34{}P}paoijgionsjfiajspufgahwfas;lfasokjg8aqyew4p89teg
>backspace
>sucked into internet
>gains super powers
>FREAKAZOID
>...and his friend Zoidberg.



... seriously, why are you still here.

So you can't delete it later

Anyways, I did say that all views would be covered by such acts, including atheists of all varieties.  However, I did not say that it was a definite thing that they should be enacted.  Again though, note that sometimes, when something is of bearable magnitude to you, it might not be bearable to someone else.  Otherwise, all of the protests about the video wouldn't even be happening.  Saying that they are weak for letting their emotions run their actions is likewise insensitive, because to them, that video is not unlike a physical assault on their person.  And no, this is not like punishing the many for the actions of a few.  The only people who would be affected are those who say things that aren't protected, AKA the people who are doing the wrong thing to begin with.

Oh, yeah, that's the thing.  It is wrong to do these things, the only question is, should it be legal to do them.  It is wrong because it is harmful to the people who hear them.  Not physically, but mentally and emotionally (and sometimes physically, see: suicide).

[kurashu]

So you can't delete it later

At least I was coherent. And potentially funny?

Anyways, I did say that all views would be covered by such acts, including atheists of all varieties.  However, I did not say that it was a definite thing that they should be enacted.  Again though, note that sometimes, when something is of bearable magnitude to you, it might not be bearable to someone else.  Otherwise, all of the protests about the video wouldn't even be happening.  Saying that they are weak for letting their emotions run their actions is likewise insensitive, because to them, that video is not unlike a physical assault on their person.  And no, this is not like punishing the many for the actions of a few.  The only people who would be affected are those who say things that aren't protected, AKA the people who are doing the wrong thing to begin with.

Oh, yeah, that's the thing.  It is wrong to do these things, the only question is, should it be legal to do them.  It is wrong because it is harmful to the people who hear them.  Not physically, but mentally and emotionally (and sometimes physically, see: suicide).

It should be entirely legal. If you take away my ability to safely (in a legal sense) express my opinion, that's wrong. If someone doesn't like, deal with it. I'm tired of creationists spreading their lies and lambasting science as "the devil's work" but I would never suggest that we should legally censor them. In fact, if Christianity was made illegal tomorrow, I would join protests against the ban despite being something I loathe. The government should have no power to regulate opinion. It's a social issue, entirely. If I have an unpopular opinion people give me dirty looks not a lawsuit because I hurt their feelings on any magnitude.

Edit: Before it's brought up, libel, slander and vocal sedition are sticky subjects. I'm mulling over my thoughts on them.

[dman11235]

You were not coherent in the last part of that post.  You were hilariously incoherent.

That's the thing.  To the Muslims, that video IS slander.  You don't seem to be getting that.  It is slander, and you just said that it's a tricky subject.  That's all I'm trying to get you to see.  To them, and to others, these things are attacks on their character, and if it were physical with the same magnitude, you would agree that they should be illegal.

[bhu]

You know we could solve all this by making it legal to turn the religious into soylent green wafers to feed the poor.  And maybe shelter animals. 

[zook1shoe]

@kurasku
You seem to not be for the 'anti-bullying' push, by what I've read from you. I'm curious. Why?

Why should people have to deal with name-calling or being made fun of, and a variety of other forms of bullying?

[radionausea]

Paraphrasing here but "if someone doesn't like what I say, they should just deal with it". Lovely attitude.

So hate speech isn't a thing?  You think someone should just 'deal with it' if, while walking down the street, someone, apropos of nothing starts hurling verbal abuse at them (be it sexist, racist, homophobic, ageist, disabist etc)? Or someone in a relationship who deals with verbal abuse day in day out should just 'deal with it'? Or, as above, people who are bullied should just 'deal with it'?   

The subtext appears to be that if something doesn't physically harm it doesn't harm at all. Which is patently nonsense

[kurashu]

It isn't so much that. Speech, to me, is something that should never be stifled. I'm not against being held for their actions. I'm against people being punished for voicing an opinion. It's not that hate speech isn't a thing, but how do we define hate speech? Is a christian saying atheists are devil worshipers because evolution is wrong? Is hate speech an atheist saying christians are wasting their time because there is (probably) no god? Moving away from the religion theme, is hate speech a person calling a gay man a faggot? Or when a gay man calls a straight couple breeders? When does an unpopular opinion become hate speech? Who gets to draw that line?

To me, hate speech and punishment for speech is a SOCIAL issue. Not a legal issue. The government shouldn't be able to censor me or toss me in the slammer for voicing an opinion/fact. Society, on the other hand, can choose to stifle my opinion by not acknowledging it.

Threats of violence should be investigated, yes. If something called me up and threatened to murder me and sodomize my dog, I'd like the police to do a bit of looking around and see what's up. As for the bullying -- as someone who was bullied, as someone who was in a verbally abusive relationship -- my opinion isn't just deal with it. It's not so much that I think no harm occurs. It's that I think stifling the aggressor's opinion/voice is the wrong punishment.


Ugh. I have the thought but I can't articulate it. I'm not nearly as insensitive as I seem.

>mfw I make no sense outside my head.