rem

Joined

• started 24 topics
• posted 2,514 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by rem

• 
  92

  One Soldier's Viewpoint of Iraq

  by ThiChi in

  1. social
  2. current

  one soldier?s viewpoint of iraq.

  greetings (names withheld).

  as i head off to baghdad for the final weeks of my stay in iraq, i wanted to say thanks to all of you who did not believe the media.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rem

  Yeah, correlation does not equal causation! :)
  
  rem, NPR, CNN, FOX, JWD news junkie
• 
  87

  What is the difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design?

  by somebodylovesme in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  drawing once again from the infinite wisdom of this board.... i'm having a hard time figuring out the distinction between creationism and intelligent design... is id just creationism with a pronounced christian tie?

  thanks in advance.

  slm

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rem

  Thi Chi,
  
  What is the relevant difference? ID states that complexity requires an intelligent designer. An intelligent designer would at least have to be complex and probably would have to be more complex than what it designs - therefore a intelligent designer would also require another intelligent designer ad infinitum. To suggest otherwise is special pleading.
  
  If a complex thing such as an intelligent designer does not have to be intelligently designed, then it is logically possible that the equivelently or less complex "designed" thing does not have to be intelligently designed.
  
  Evolution makes no claims about complexity and intelligent design, thus avoiding an infinite regress and special pleading.
  
  rem
• 
  87

  What is the difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design?

  by somebodylovesme in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  drawing once again from the infinite wisdom of this board.... i'm having a hard time figuring out the distinction between creationism and intelligent design... is id just creationism with a pronounced christian tie?

  thanks in advance.

  slm

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rem

  That's called special pleading and is a logical fallacy.
  
  rem
• 
  48

  Why Sex??

  by PopeOfEruke in

  1. social
  2. relationships

  since being de-borged, i have come to appreciate that the answer to the old blue book "did man get here by evolution or by creation" is probably "evolution".. one thing about evolution which is still hard to explain is why or how did sexual reproduction evolve?

  of course now that we have it, i guess most of us would not like to go back to the "old" way, of either dividing ourselves into 2, or else self-fertilizing ourselves from our own 2 sets of sex-organs (ewwww!!!).

  i know a lot of men try this anyway but to no avail.......... but what motive force could have existed to actually evolve sexual reproduction in the first place?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rem

  Carmel,
  
  There is no random evolution theory. Natural Selection is a powerful directive force.
  
  rem
• 
  87

  What is the difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design?

  by somebodylovesme in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  drawing once again from the infinite wisdom of this board.... i'm having a hard time figuring out the distinction between creationism and intelligent design... is id just creationism with a pronounced christian tie?

  thanks in advance.

  slm

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rem

  Somebody,
  
  This Wikipedia article on Intelligent Design might help you out:
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
  
  Hope that helps!
  
  rem
• 
  87

  What is the difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design?

  by somebodylovesme in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  drawing once again from the infinite wisdom of this board.... i'm having a hard time figuring out the distinction between creationism and intelligent design... is id just creationism with a pronounced christian tie?

  thanks in advance.

  slm

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rem

  I would say that many forms of creationism are falsifiable just-so stories of how the universe and life began.
  
  Intelligent design assumes evolution - but with a twist - god-assisted evolution. This is a god-of-the gaps theory that is not falsifiable, and hence is not science.
  
  rem
• 
  103

  And the winner of the best film award at the Cannes festival is ...

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. entertainment

  farenheit 9/11 ... sorry neo cons .

  any film that gets a 15 min standing ovation must be worth watching.

  i wonder if bush will go see it?!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rem

  Six,
  
  We're cool! And I'm still gonna watch Moore's new film because I'm sure I'll be entertained - and maybe it will be better than his last attempt. Either way I'm probably just a glutton for punishment. :)
  
  rem
• 
  103

  And the winner of the best film award at the Cannes festival is ...

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. entertainment

  farenheit 9/11 ... sorry neo cons .

  any film that gets a 15 min standing ovation must be worth watching.

  i wonder if bush will go see it?!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rem

  Six,
  
  They are not allowed to cancel or move the site without 10 days notice - these are legally required corporate meetings. Unfortunately there was not enough time to do this. Also, the NRA cancelled many events out of respect for the Columbine residents. Are you specifically ignoring this for some reason?
  
  Then again, what does this have to do with gun violence other than to just make the NRA look bad?
  
  BTW, I find the following comment at the end of Heston's speech in Denver that day very precient:
  
  One more thing. Our words and our behavior will be scrutinized more than ever this morning. Those who are hostile toward us will lie in wait to seize on a soundbite out of context, ever searching for an embarrassing moment to ridicule us. So let us be mindful ... the eyes of the nation are upon us today.
  
  rem
• 
  103

  And the winner of the best film award at the Cannes festival is ...

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. entertainment

  farenheit 9/11 ... sorry neo cons .

  any film that gets a 15 min standing ovation must be worth watching.

  i wonder if bush will go see it?!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rem

  Six,
  
  I never implied that Moore should give a balanced viewpoint. If he views his work as Op-ed pieces, that's fine with me. What I don't appreciate is intellectual dishonesty. I believe you can have an opinion or make a point without stretching the truth.
  
  As for examples, it's been so long since I saw the movie that I hadn't been motivated to get off my ass and provide you examples, but since you seem so sure that criticism of the so-called facts in Moore's movie are overblown, I will go through the trouble. If you have done research that debunks the debunkers then I would like to see it:
  
  Most of the following information comes from http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
  
  Do you have any updated information that shows that Moore did not dishonestly edit exerpts from various Heston speeches to make the NRA look like they came to Denver to support gun rights as a reaction to the Columbine tragedy?
  
  Do you have any updated information that shows that Moore did not dishonestly edit exerpts from various Heston speeches and newspaper/web page clippings to make it look like Heston defiantly came to Flint, Michigan just 48 hours after a child was killed by a relative's handgun to support gun rights?
  
  Do you have any new information that shows that Moore's interview with Heston was not purposely edited to make Heston look like a liar? (See above question - the Flint election campaign stop Heston went to was more than 6 months after the girl was killed and Moore makes Heston look like a callous liar by implying he went there 48 hours after. The fact that Heston's memory of the event is foggy is capitalized by Moore which makes Heston look even more evil.)
  
  So is the point of Moore's movie that he doesn't like Heston?
  
  What is your interpretation of Moore's cartoon associating the NRA with the KKK? Do you have updated information that shows there really is a connection? Isn't this a logical fallacy?
  
  Do you have any recent information showing that the young killer of the girl was not a thug who had stabbed other kids with a pencil and later a knife and was brought up in a troubled home? You don't think leaving out those details painted a dishonest picture of what really happened? It seems a drug culture - not a gun culture - was a major contributor to this child's death.
  
  What was Moore's point in lying about "military" assistance to the Taliban? Do you have updated information that shows that this assistance was not UN humanitarian assistance?
  
  Why did Moore use raw and inflated gun homicide statistics to compare the US with other countries (using the lowest numbers) instead of gun homicide *rates*? This one I picked up on immediately while watching the movie - did you? Do you have updated information that shows that the US gun homicide rate is *significantly* higher than other developed nations? If not, then WHAT WAS THE POINT OF MOORE'S MOVIE???
  
  Do you have any information showing that Moore did not stage the gun purchase scene at the bank?
  
  Did you notice that Moore tried to compare US poverty rates to Canadian unemployment rates? (Canada's poverty rate is far lower than the US - unemployment does not correlate with poverty)
  
  Moore tried to show that the Militarism in the city of Columbine could be fuel for gun violence - accusing a local contractor of making weapons missiles. The contractor actually made satellite rockets. Do you have information to dispute this?
  
  Moore just might have stumbled upon some interesting ideas if only he would have stuck with the truth. For example - maybe there is some correlation between poverty and gun homicides... but in his US bashing glee he totally ignored something that could actually add to the dialog.
  
  The interesting thing is that even a couple years after the film, it has not really added anything to the discussion of gun homicides in America. If anything, it looks as if there may not really be as much of a problem as he suggests. What, then, is his documentary good for other than scare mongering and making his enemies out to look like callous villians?
  
  rem
  
  PS: I'm not exactly sure what you're on about with cross-dressing musicians. :)
• 
  103

  And the winner of the best film award at the Cannes festival is ...

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. entertainment

  farenheit 9/11 ... sorry neo cons .

  any film that gets a 15 min standing ovation must be worth watching.

  i wonder if bush will go see it?!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rem

  Six,

  I don't get it. You brush off Moore's many exagerations and blatant falsehoods just because they make us think? You agree he really makes no conclusions other than to bash certain people and groups. If he could do that without lying and creative editing, then I would agree with you - but the second you start lying the message is lost. It's a matter of intellectual honesty.

  Would you resort to lying in your documentary about the WT? I hope not, becuase then I would lose respect for you. The point is that if whatever you are trying to expose is really that bad, then you shouldn't have to exagerate your point.

  Now, it's been over a year since I saw the movie so I can't remember all of the specifics, but I remember reading about many egregious exagerations and dishonest editing in it after I saw it. If he didn't have an answer to the issue he was presenting, then what was the point of harping on the NRA and military contract companies other than just to make them look bad?

  Maybe Moore's documentaries should have a disclaimer in the beginning that says "For entertainment purposes only". :) He's crossed the line from serious documentary to propoganda. That being said, I did enjoy watching it - but then again, I'm kinda funny that way because I enjoy listening to right-wing nutjobs like Mike Savage too (for entertainment purposes only). LOL

  rem