When people are allowed to say idiotic things unchallenged

Scientific belief in an idea can be just as powerful if the idiolog refuses to look at, or ignores all of the facts presented. I use AGW as an example because there are some scary fanatics running around advocating deindustrialization, because we, as in people, are destrying the earth.

In the 70's, we were on the verge of an ice age, because of ozone depletion. Today, or yesterday after the last decade, has been Global Warming. Tomorrow it will be Climate Change (something the informed call seasons) and there will be a call to arms, because we are affecting earths weather patterns. No more than a live volcano under a glacier or solar patterns affecting the global bodies of the solar system or even the magnetic poles of the earth shifting.

To the OP, there will be idiotic things said no matter what belief we have. Should we stop them, absolutely not. If I said 1+1=1 and that is a fact others may believe the same way and not see it as idiotic. However, there will always be people in the 1+1=2 corner. However, I do believe 1+1=1 in a different context, so if you are not looking at the whole you are uninformed and you are the idiot for calling out someone when it is true in a binary state. Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

Hi There,
I agree with your points as scientific biases. But that is the same i said. Science co-exists with many theoretical streams that can collide, contradict or are even opposite to each other. Science never makes all inclusive statements and only refers to a part of the stream which the research is based on. Every research is also to be critizised. that is a bias or a scientific reference. That has nothing to do with dogma. A dogma is all inclusive and can`t be critizised and is legititmat at all times for universal reference. The reference are science fiction not visible facts that can be reproduced or seen by others too. If i am on mushrooms and say i see the heaven is green then i can say that a s a believe but i will never be able to replicate it unless you slip in my body and see thru my eyes on mushrooms :-). The science as a base for ideologic beliefs (no meat vs. vegan vs. vegetarian vs. alll food worship) . that is still not a foundation for making science a dogma. Although i agree with the points you stated. I think its good to have many views and many scientific methods and facts and facetts because i also think its good to be critical against industrialism and whatnot (Friends of mine work for Greenpeace and for Doctors without limits and there are some ideologies i support. a dogma just does not entitle that to questioning and criticism)

Psychology is alos monogamy-biased when it comes to relationships. I pointed that out as well.,There are some areas where research is done and progressed and some where its not done and progress. But that does not make the science per se a dogma. reserches can be criticised.

I disagree with not stopping idiotic statements (no judgement here) and people who refuse to learn or believe in dogmas (not the OP meant with that) because of the simple fact that we live in a democracy.
That can be quite unfortunate if the mass is stupid :-) hehe. therefor its my right to stop idiocy even on a fun board like that :-) ...

(bad tongues say that living in a democracy means being ruled by a mass of idiots :-)) hehehehe (n o offense just a joke...)

I can only speak for myself, but if I did offend someone by something that I wrote I would hope that they would just contact me in private so that we can if nothing else attempt to sort it out.The problem with doing it in public as you can probably already tell is people start to choose sides, and very rarely does anything get resolved. I have no idea if you have already attempted this, but that would be the one thing I would suggest to you if nothing else just so you can hopefully clear the air with her.

I hope this helps. Originally Posted by Becky

i made my part of the apology by suggesting that rudeness is not nice and i could have statements made in different view. She did not even acknowledge anything , neither admit she was wrong, and to be blunt and honest, i don`t really like such character traits in a person. If i have caused fuzz publicly i solve it publicly. I was offended too by something of her that i would label ignorance (not acknowleding points in discussions) and she was offended by rudeness. So be it. We cannot all love each other. People are too different. I did my share and if she does not want to oblige its not my bisiness anymore. I have sufficiently explained myself and where i come from and i have also admitted my flaws. More i can`t do. Diplomacy is a two way street :-)

other than that you do make good points and i agree with you except for the PM stuff. I dont think that makes anything better. Public things should stay public. I personally don`t appreciate half-baken PMs at all, since they exclude many people who adressed by this too.

One should be able to say what they want, and if you think differently, just say so. Opinions on their intellect or level of education should be kept to yourself.

. Originally Posted by Tiffani Jameson

Isn't that just your opinion?

If you can state an opinion as fact, why can't someone respond with rudeness towards amnother who is rude? Thats all nina did.

Furthermore, I agree with nina that when you ask a question, such as you did to me prior in the thread and I reply , it is rude not to acknowledge it. Especially when you were so off base in your assumption of why I started this thread.

So what I have concluded from this thread is not only do a vast majority lack understanding in basic science and math but EVERYONE thinks it is ok to be rude to those they disagree with! Now the people I do not care for are those that will not acknowledge that in fact they are rude too at times.

Add me to the "Ok to be rude to a jack azz" list. If someone asks for it, so be it. If they can't hang with the big dogs perhaps they should keep their puppy azz on the porch.

Isn't that just your opinion?

If you can state an opinion as fact, why can't someone respond with rudeness towards amnother who is rude? Thats all nina did.

Furthermore, I agree with nina that when you ask a question, such as you did to me prior in the thread and I reply , it is rude not to acknowledge it. Especially when you were so off base in your assumption of why I started this thread.

So what I have concluded from this thread is not only do a vast majority lack understanding in basic science and math but EVERYONE thinks it is ok to be rude to those they disagree with! Now the people I do not care for are those that will not acknowledge that in fact they are rude too at times. Originally Posted by WTF

Thanks WTF! It is good to know someone or somefew know where i come from and understand me as well :-). That said does not make rude behaviour ok but comprehensible.

That said, i hope we all got it now (i did at least ) and have learned something else than bashing people and taking sides out of all of this and CAN WE MOVE ON PLEASE!! Mercy Mercy Mr. Percy!

Add me to the "Ok to be rude to a jack azz" list. If someone asks for it, so be it. If they can't hang with the big dogs perhaps they should keep their puppy azz on the porch. Originally Posted by London Rayne

exactly my opinion :-) that said.....WOW ....nice new photo. .... If people want to play hardball then they have to handle the bruises :-) a loose mouth does not make an intellectual :-)

A-to-da-men! Speaking of mental masturbation...may I hear more of that "special" Christmas gift???

The stuff I chose to give this past holiday season certainly pales in comparison. Oh well...live & learn! Originally Posted by Sisyphus

Are you talking about a swing on another thread? Lol I'm thinking of putting it in my game room upstairs.

I consider the choice between truth & civility a false choice...it's not an either/or proposition. I do think it's possible to disagree without being disagreeable. I do think it's possible to tell someone they are flat-out wrong the same way. If they're not in a place to hear what you're saying, that's their problem...or yours if...God forbid...they are right. I fail to see how simply saying something more stridently or more rudely is going to change that.

I'm not a fan of arguing by analogy but...I do think it's rather like trying to speak to someone who simply doesn't speak your language. Is repeating the sentence more slowly...more loudly...more demeaningly...really going to improve the comprehension? Originally Posted by Sisyphus

Exactly. Just because someone is right doesn’t mean they have to be an ass about it. But, as you pointed out with your Pilate quote, who’s right are we defending? Because unless we are dealing with an absolute, very often there is a correct, corrector and correctest. I especially like it when correctest gets taken to the extreme. Have you ever had a debate with a know it all and they want to argue with you over a topic that you clearly agree on because they just want to be more right because they muck about in the fine print.

Because unless we are dealing with an absolute, very often there is a correct, corrector and correctest. I especially like it when correctest gets taken to the extreme. Have you ever had a debate with a know it all and they want to argue with you over a topic that you clearly agree on because they just want to be more right because they muck about in the fine print. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Isn't that just your opinion?

If you can state an opinion as fact, why can't someone respond with rudeness towards amnother who is rude? Thats all nina did.
Originally Posted by WTF

I wasn't talking to Nina. I was talking to you...Nina knows I don't have a problem with her. Nina and I have actually proven we can disagree, argue our points, and move on.

I do understand that as adults, and as this is a written forum, we have the ability to respond in any way we deem fit, seeing as we have the power to edit our statements unlike a face to face discussion. I don't have a problem with your thoughts, or any one else's. But the name of the thread is "When people are allowed to say idiotic things unchallenged" not "Why science is not dogmatic". If you were really looking to make a point about science not being dogmatic, you wouldn't worry about where the statement came from.

But I guess the purpose of the thread is to let us know for future reference people who think science is dogmatic are to be bashed by you, verbally spit at, or worse, or be so embarrassed as to keep them from posting. Just so we don't get our panties in a bunch again. And you're right. I could be rude RIGHT NOW, and under the guise of a mediator, not realize I am. Or I could NOT care about how you perceive my comments. You win WTF. You have just made your own point. Where is your prize, I wonder?

AGAIN, peace to you...

. Nina and I have actually proven we can disagree, argue our points, and move on.

... Originally Posted by Tiffani Jameson

is that science or opinion????:no pity:

But the name of the thread is "When people are allowed to say idiotic things unchallenged" not "Why science is not dogmatic". If you were really looking to make a point about science not being dogmatic, you wouldn't worry about where the statement came from.

... Originally Posted by Tiffani Jameson

Yes that was the name of the thread. Science is not dogmatic. I was not worried about where the statement came from, had I been I would titled it "Should such and such be allowed to say idiotic statements". I did not. I used science statements because they can cause much more harm if left unchallenged. If ypu think I should have titled it differently, fine, that is your right. My right is to disagree.

You are free to challenge my POV as I am yours. You can assume to know my intentions ....just as I can assume to know yours if that is how you want to frame it.

But I guess the purpose of the thread is to let us know for future reference people who think science is dogmatic are to be bashed by you, verbally spit at, or worse, or be so embarrassed as to keep them from posting. ... Originally Posted by Tiffani Jameson

I can not control how you precieve my intentions, just as you can not control my preception of yours. I can only hope that you understand that concept.

My peace to you is as heartfelt as yours is to me.

[FONT=Arial]Are you talking about a swing on another thread? Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Yes, m'am....I am!!! Now, there's a gift that one can really use!

Lol I'm thinking of putting it in my game room upstairs. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

GMAO...that certainly sounds like an appropriate spot! What a DEElightful mental image!

Use it in good health!!

Have you ever had a debate with a know it all and they want to argue with you over a topic that you clearly agree on because they just want to be more right because they muck about in the fine print. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

But, but, but....I said I was "sorry!"

Yeah...I think I've been down that road more than twice...

The catholicism especially was also a reason on the holocaust. They wanted to make an aryan race. and the aryan ideology is not genetically based but ideological new agey worship. The important "Zigeuner" (Gypsy-question) was based on that. Geneticall the gypsies were more aryan but somehow they had to find an excuse to kill them too. Besides a lot of nazis were gay too :-)
It was simple a cruel combination of new agey and catholic ideals with the worst things of science. Originally Posted by ninasastri

I'm curious as to where you got those facts on Catholicism? To say Pius XII did not do enough might hold water and to a due point some complicity (but then prior to the onset of WWII, there were a lot complicitous parties) but to say they were a reason for the holocaust. I'm intrigued. Please.

i will provide links later. Jesus was killed by Jews. that is one reason of why the catholic church was not really doing something against Hitler either. They were not exactly disagreeing. I am travelling right now. Links later.

Two things come to mind. One, sometimes it’s in the delivery. And two, just because it’s the truth, definitely doesn’t mean people want to hear it.


Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

If thread has done nothing else, it has opened my eyes to your second point.




Christian parents who refused 'sinful' medicine and prayed as their toddler son died are spared prison


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1353071/Christian-parents-shunned-medicine-prayer-son-died-spared-prison.html#ixzz1D6L9KROw