Here. You mean, like, when people learned to take off their boots after exiting the barn?
Comments
For Big Bird's sake, this is a research community not a butthurt community. See in real research you won't have this much time on your time talking about dirt. Instead of selecting bad reporting and laughing about it you could do some research as needed by the ID community. But you waste time in a mire of Darwin-dumb ergo ID attitudes. If you spent at least collectively in a lab as much time as you spent here talking bull you could actually achive something. Darwin passes while IDers bark. And I am sympathetic to Design theory.Loghin
October 4, 2013
October
10
Oct
4
04
2013
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT
And who posted photos of Nazi death camps? It wasn’t any other than GEM on this very website. For shame, GEM the hypocrite! For shame, Barry, the enabler!
Yeah but that was for the greater good! Jeeze Dr Fox, you gotta look at the bigger picture! We're talking about protecting our precious morals and civilisation from the slanderers and hate enablers. Haven't you understood KF's posts about how clearly homosexuality puts all that we know and love at risk? How allowing the materialistic, gay-loving, design denying cabal to continue in its reckless and state-sanctioned way could mean the end for all of us?
What is wrong with you!! Wake up and smell the burning flesh of the martyrs to the cause!! You're either with us or against us. Time to throw out the infidels and win this cultural war.
And if you continue in your truth defying ways you too just might find yourself banned from commenting on this forum. You have been warned!! UD is ripe for a purge and you're on the wrong side of the line!!Jerad
October 4, 2013
October
10
Oct
4
04
2013
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT
In that context the circle of AF, OM and others I don’t recall now injected an extraneous debate about objections to homosexualisation of our civilisation, by invidiously comparing my views to those of Nazis. This is equivalent to pretending that only Nazis would have such objections.
"homosexualisation of our civilisation" is overblown scaremongering. It is the oppression and criminalization of homosexuals, forcing them underground and unable to form stable and legally-protected relationships that was a major contribution to the Aids epidemic. Your (and Barry's) views on homosexuals are repugnant and fully deserving of the strongest condemnation.
And who posted photos of Nazi death camps? It wasn't any other than GEM on this very website. For shame, GEM the hypocrite! For shame, Barry, the enabler!Alan Fox
October 4, 2013
October
10
Oct
4
04
2013
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT
KN:
Evolutionary materialism is inherently and inescapably amoral [that is -- notoriously, cf Provine, Dawkins and others we need not cite objectors -- there is no worldview foundational IS that can bear the weight of OUGHT in such systems of thought, which opens the door to nihilism. Historically, that opening the door to nihilism has been a major concern. Plato in The Laws Bk X is a good case in point form 2350 years ago.
My specific concerns then and now have to do with the pattern of defamatory behaviour and enabling thereof by more genteel supporters of the darwin defenders. In that context I have pointed out that enablers will face a tour of shame similar to that faced by the "good Germans" of late 1945, who had to face consequences of their enabling behaviour.
In that context the circle of AF, OM and others I don't recall now injected an extraneous debate about objections to homosexualisation of our civilisation, by invidiously comparing my views to those of Nazis. This is equivalent to pretending that only Nazis would have such objections.
That is an outrage and an insult to the millions who do have serious principled concerns and objections, starting with the gay gene type claim, and going on to the notion that marriage can actually be turned into a homosexual institution; cf. here and here as a 101 level sampler. That may indeed be a part of some forms of a so-called "Enlightenment" project, but I would suggest that this may have something to do with radical relativisation of values and morality.
To which, a robust classical challenge is, "if the light in you is darkness . . . "
The pattern of Darwinist tactics has reached the clear point now, where those who question or object to the radical secularist evolutionary materialist agenda are being scapegoated and targetted through grotesque conspiracy narratives and are being declared "enemies of humanity."
As I pointed out here. Remember, insistently hosted by EL in her blog.
Any decent person would take a sharp pause at this watershed point, once such a declaration with such a horrifically bloody history is put out on such a grotesquely false and slanderous narrative and goes over without a peep of protest.
Great big set of red warning flags, that.
We have seen this before, including too many times across the century just past.
But the slanders of 64 AD by Nero, are particularly grim cases.
However, it is plain that many are already too far gone in an obvious agit-prop hysteria to heed such.
We are in bigger trouble in deeper waters with nastier sharks lurking than many of us realise or are willing to admit.
KFkairosfocus
October 4, 2013
October
10
Oct
4
04
2013
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT
You, GEM, you started the slander by equating disagreeing with ID nonsense as equivalent to enabling Nazi death camps. Oh, you hypocrite!
If memory serves, GEM said that the passive enablers of today's amoral, civilization-destroying nihilism were like the passive enablers of the Holocaust.
It's a further claim of his that rejecting or accepting design theory has anything to do with one's attitude towards amoral, civilization-destroying nihilism.
And it's yet a further claim that the movement for gay marriage is a symptom of such nihilism, rather than (as I and many other see it) a significant advance in the realization of Enlightenment ideals. (I mention this because I believe we were talking about gay marriage at the time.)
And of course one can think that there is a real threat posed by amoral, civilization-destroying nihilism, while disagreeing entirely with "the Christian Right" about its overt symptoms and underlying causesKantian Naturalist
October 4, 2013
October
10
Oct
4
04
2013
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT
AF, onlookers should know that you are closely associated with one of the false accusations by invidious association that I have had to address.
You, GEM, you started the slander by equating disagreeing with ID nonsense as equivalent to enabling Nazi death camps. Oh, you hypocrite!Alan Fox
October 4, 2013
October
10
Oct
4
04
2013
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
AF, onlookers should know that you are closely associated with one of the false accusations by invidious association that I have had to address. KFkairosfocus
October 4, 2013
October
10
Oct
4
04
2013
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT
Hypocrisy thy name is GEM!Alan Fox
October 4, 2013
October
10
Oct
4
04
2013
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT
Jerad: if you do not know the context of defamation -- which was linked -- then you are in no position to address the matter. Your comments then become little more than irresponsible, willfully ill-informed accusation and raillery. That speaks volumes, and none of it to your advantage. KFkairosfocus
October 4, 2013
October
10
Oct
4
04
2013
03:28 AM
3
03
28
AM
PDT
Sorry, but this news is simply filler.Loghin
October 4, 2013
October
10
Oct
4
04
2013
03:11 AM
3
03
11
AM
PDT
Jerad,
A simple analogy regarding the closed thread:
Look up the definitions of "Dissent" and "Slander". It appears on the below thread, you were conflating the two.
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/infographic-the-science-of-id/#comment-475238equate65
October 4, 2013
October
10
Oct
4
04
2013
01:25 AM
1
01
25
AM
PDT
Posted here 'cause KF has closed down comments on his Infographics thread while I was answering a post directed at me.
Did or did not Dr Liddle host first a blog thread that associated me invidiously with Nazism (for no good cause) and did or did she not subsequently try to justify same?
No idea. I didn't read that thread.
Did or did she not similarly host a blog thread that propagated a conspiracy narrative about design theory and theorists that ended up declaring us to be in effect right wing totalitarian theocratic [i.e., decoding = "nazi" (a misnomer based on a common misunderstanding of fascist ideology as right wing, and a common smear that Hitler was a Christian]) “enemies of humanity”?
No idea. I didn't read that thread. You seem to care waaaaaay too much about what some people post at TSZ. Maybe you should stop reading it?
Did or did she not refuse to address uncivility and defamation in same, pleading the false claim that such is free expression.
I thought her responses at UD were measured, sensible and complete.
I am, repeat, not blocking her from making expressions of her opinions or hosting same.
Except in this thread where you have censored 3 of her posts.
I am simply saying that after weeks and months of trying to get her to set this right, I am not going to entertain her in the equivalent of my living room as though nothing has happened, with a track record like that.
I guess the people who run UD have given you the right on the threads you 'own'. But you're still exhibiting a double standard unless you hold EVERYONE accountable for things that are posted on other sites that they frequent.
This, as a final wake up call after repeated pleas and correction have been ignored.
She has addressed your concerns, many times. You just don't like the answers so you are being petulant.
Your insistence on equating this to “censorship” — prior restraint on publication by official or institutional source capable of silencing opinion leading to suppression of freedom of thought and expression — is an outrageous exaggeration and stretching intended to further polarise and alienate as well as besmirch.
Well, I didn't get to read her posts so I can't even see what you're claiming is non-responsive. YOU'VE decided what I am and am not allowed to read on this thread.
This now common talking point used against defence of civility in discussion — remember, I am acting in response to insistent defamatory incivility! — is itself an irresponsible and unwarranted false accusation.
Too bad you feel the need to respond by blocking/censoring posts.
False and irresponsible accusations of nazism, treasonous conspiracies to impose totalitarianism and declarations that classes of targetted people are “enemies of humanity” have no proper part in a civil discussion of serious issues. Mutual basic respect being a condition of civil discussion. Let me put it this way, if you are irritated by silly insults, how would you respond to being falsely deemed an enemy of humanity and a member of a fraudulent conspiracy to subvert science in a context in which these were taken as a matter of course?
Go to TSZ and make your case. Confront the people you are having problems with. You're dragging UD and it's readers into your private problem.
Those who make and those who enable irresponsible and damaging false accusations show themselves to be rude, bigoted, disrespectful and inciting of hate. Uncivil, in short.
Happens to me all the time on UD. Did you see that Axel supposed that Dr Liddle had spent too much time looking at Scotmens' kilts? (Something like that.) If you're going to have a standard then clean up your own 'living room' first.
And if left to itself such incivility will dominate discussion, undermining the fabric of civility that is a requisite of civilisation itself. Where, our civilisation is already in enough trouble, and civility is indeed being undermined on all hands. So much so that I am more and more inclined to the view that in publication on the web, a reversion to the old fashioned “letters to the editor” approach, where responses from the public under rights of reply and fair comment are subject to editing and legal vetting as regards potential defamation, before publication, is justified.
So, the things that ID proponents complain about (not getting their views heard because of unfriendly editors) has rubbed off on you?
Would you consider that “censorship”?
I think your are deciding for the rest of the UD readers what they can and cannot read. Yup, censorshlp based on your own personal issues.
If you do so, you would be wrong, utterly and ridiculously wrong. Especially when we are in an era where you can easily go elsewhere and express your opinions to those willing to listen.
I thought UD was a place where all views were welcome. I guess not.
(And BTW, in an earlier thread where I suggested that if Popular Science had done this reversion to the traditional letters to the editor approach, it would have been justified, I was attacked from your side. That is revealing.)
I don't have a side. Please try and get that through your head.
Such is the context in which I have acted at length after weeks and months, and will now further act as this thread no longer serves any useful purpose other than to be a vehicle of irresponsible, and outrageously false accusations based on a well known toxic pattern of talking points. Coming from your side.
Nothing to do with me. But when you decide what I can and cannot read then you are imposing your views on me.
Your side has had ample opportunity here, and continues to have opportunity elsewhere. That opportunity has been abused and this is now insistent.
You didn't get your way. So?
I am doing in effect the equivalent of saying that one insisting on trollish behaviour is not welcome. That the trollish behaviour is in the main done elsewhere and is done by hosting and enabling, is immaterial to its defamatory substance.
You obviously read TSZ at great length. You even obsessively copy and edit posts and then publish the results. One step away from trolling . . .
This, in a context where I have heard nothing from you and your side in the circle around UD that seeks to at minimum protest an ACTUAL live case of censorship at Ball State University.
Nothing to do with me. Not my side. Not my call. None of us are fully aware of the facts and so I've decided to stay out of the fight.
In short, your agenda here is clearly to accuse and demean by improperly extending a loaded and irresponsible accusation. Which is defamatory.
I call 'em the way I see 'em.
In future kindly do better than this.
Do you want me to copy and edit this thread?
Good day madam
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
You don't even know who you're talking to!! Priceless.Jerad
October 4, 2013
October
10
Oct
4
04
2013
01:18 AM
1
01
18
AM
PDT
Has the “News” section decided to perform some sort of self-parody. It has cast it’s net a mile wide, while developing and understanding about an inch deep. But recently any connection at all between science and the articles posted seems to have been severed?
O'Leary once referred to herself as a 'hack.' At the time I assumed she was just being self-deprecating. But now, I just don't know.Kantian Naturalist
October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PDT
This is somewhat off topic but relative to this blog and website I believe: Red Rain In Sri Lanka:
http://science.discovery.com/t.....-lanka.htmsmiddyone
October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT
Has the "News" section decided to perform some sort of self-parody. It has cast it's net a mile wide, while developing and understanding about an inch deep. But recently any connection at all between science and the articles posted seems to have been severed?wd400
October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT
Based on the brief snippet available via the link provided . . .
What is the objection? What exactly are you casting aspersions on?Jerad