Play the Podcast
(https://bogosity.podbean.com/mf/web/m2cwxg/BogosityPodcast-6-13-2011.mp3)
News of the Bogus:
- Three arrested, accused of illegally feeding homeless http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/crime/os-homeless-feedings-arrests-20110601,0,7226362.story
- Orlando Food Not Bombs - June 1st 2011 Arrests http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZO0JdF48xsg
- Texas police find no bodies after psychic tip-off http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8562742/Texas-police-find-no-bodies-after-psychic-tip-off.html
- War on drugs has failed, report finds http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/06/02/drug.commission.report/index.html
- Kathryn Johnston shooting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Johnston
- Drug Raid At Stratford High School http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratford_High_School_%28Goose_Creek,_South_Carolina%29#Drug_Raid_At_Stratford_High_School
- Cicada ice cream gets axe; Ice cream shop sold out of buggy flavor but health officials said no http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/food/2011/06/09/2011-06-09_cicada_ice_cream_gets_axe_ice_cream_shop_sold_out_of_buggy_flavor_but_health_off.html
- MASTIO: Dead bodies demand organic food moratorium http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/8/dead-bodies-demand-organic-food-moratorium/?page=all#pagebreak
- State audit ends school fundraiser http://www.shelbystar.com/news/shelby-55848-state-audit.html
- Chicago school bans some lunches brought from home http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-04-11/news/ct-met-school-lunch-restrictions-041120110410_1_lunch-food-provider-public-school
Biggest Bogon Emitter: High school biology teachers http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-atlanta/biology-teachers-are-either-spineless-or-misled
Idiot Extraordinaire: David Barton http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/barton-founding-fathers-were-against-teaching-evolution-american-revolution-was-fought-slave
This Week's Quote: "It's time to admit that public education operates like a planned economy, a bureaucratic system in which everybody's role is spelled out in advance and there are few incentives for innovation and productivity. It's no surprise that our school system doesn't improve: it more resembles the communist economy than our own market economy." —Albert Shanker, former president of the American Federation of Teachers
Shane, seems the site is down.
It's either down or loading incredibly slowly. Sorry, it's beyond my control.
Feeding homeless people is an arrestable offense?
That is seriously one of the most disgusting things I've ever read.
Quote
That is seriously one of the most disgusting things I've ever read.
It's just a case of "threat to our monopoly! Kill it!"
The way they talk about caring about nutrition with the school lunches makes me ill. I've seen some school lunches and I wouldn't let my cat eat that slop. There was even one on Jay Leno's headlines that had spam every day for a whole month.
That story about kids not being allowed to bring certain foods to school reminds me of back when I was in high school. They put kids in In School Suspension for stopping at Dunkin Donuts before school to get coffee. They actually put kids in ISS for having coffee before school during the winter. They wouldn't even provide warm drinks for the kids, but they even went as far as to tell Dunkin Donuts to not serve coffee to students.
I remember we used to get harassed for bringing our own lunches to school. We solved that problem by eating in the band room.
When I hear these kinds of stories I really wonder just how out of the ordinary my HS experience was. If you we're AB honor roll or a senior you could go to the sandwich shop across the street, but they never bothered to even check that.
Only thing my school cracked down on was my sophomore year they banned water in class because some kids got trashed on vodka during school for whatever reason.
BTW, I sent a link out through the regional LP's meet up group. Hopefully you'll be getting more hits.
So I'm having a discussion on evolution with someone right now, and this is the response I've gotten.
QuoteContrary to popular belief, it is actually possible to be both a scientist and a Christian. I know a couple of those. For the most part, they avoid teaching evolutionary biology and archaeology, and deal more with actual scientific law. ...I think it's perfectly valid for a teacher to present it as an idea and not as fact, because evolution, in spite of this evidence you speak of, is still a theory, which means that the scientific community isn't unanimous enough about it to make it a law, like they did with things like gravity, matter, and energy.
/facepalm.
QuoteContrary to popular belief, it is actually possible to be both a scientist and a Christian. I know a couple of those. For the most part, they avoid teaching evolutionary biology and archaeology, and deal more with actual scientific law.
You mean, like Kenneth Miller and Robert T. Bakker?
Even without the (sadly common) misuse of of the words "theory" and "law," FACEPALM indeed!
Okay, so now he's trying to make his argument about kids in elementary schools....
QuoteYes, but you're still missing the point. The grade school teachers I've met that taught science weren't actual scientists for the most part, but people with teaching degrees that decided to take up science. It's not their job to superimpose beliefs on a group of kids, but to simply present the information, and in my opinion, the less partial to one belief system or another a teacher is, the better they are at their job. I don't see why anyone needs to get bent out of shape over stuff like this.
Talk about trying to dodge bullets.
QuoteYes, but you see, you're trying to appeal to and judge Christianity by the logic of science and atheism, which just doesn't work, much like trying to appeal to and judge atheism and science with Christianity won't work. They're two completely different mindsets that hold central truths the other group finds ridiculous and incomprehensible. Arguments about these things will never be totally correct to both ways of thinking, and they have a tendency to devolve into a bunch of ad hominem attacks on both sides.
Ref...you might want to call for a disqualification, because I'm about to use an illegal foreign object upon this person's skull.
The way to counteract that is to explain how the scientific viewpoint is reliable, moves toward reality, and is demonstrable, and then ask how his methodology does the same.
Quote from: MrBogosity on June 13, 2011, 09:04:53 PM
The way to counteract that is to explain how the scientific viewpoint is reliable, moves toward reality, and is demonstrable, and then ask how his methodology does the same.
QuoteThat is purely perspective. You might not think we're reliable, that we don't move towards reality, and aren't demonstrable, but there are millions of people that do, including myself, and that think the opposite of evolutionary biology. Don't post if you're gonna resort to ad hominem.
Loooool.
By his utterly moronic logic, absolutely anything that you can think of can be good, since obviously SOMEONE thinks it's good. I guess if a gang of rapists think that abusing a 12 year old girl is the greatest thing ever, that's all just a matter of perspective, isn't it?
This guy is criminally full of shit. He freaking KNOWS how retarded that is, but will simply use every excuse in the book for his dogma.
Asking how his methodology works is an ad hominem???
Of course it is! /sarcasm.
Remember that challenging their dogma is the same thing as threatening them as far as they're concerned.
Quote from: MrBogosity on June 14, 2011, 08:20:07 AMAsking how his methodology works is an ad hominem???
Our old friend, the Ad hominem recursus.
Quote@Dave I'm going to say this again: You're still using the ad hominem fallacy and failing to prove anything with your attacks. Unless you can come up with an argument that doesn't involve bashing us, I'm done arguing with you about it.
Translation:
QuoteLA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA LA LA!
Oh, and another person jumped in on this conversation trying to be the "medium" position. Claiming we should teach both.....(/facepalm)
QuoteScience turns up contradictory reports about the same thing all the time, though. Nothing is ever fact in science; it's only fact until some other experiment comes along and disproves it. This is bad for you -- wait actually it's good for y...ou! This will give you cancer -- wait actually this CURES cancer! And so on, and so forth. The scientific "truths" about our world are constantly changing; one could argue that this makes THEM unreliable.
Anyway, reading over the article again, I don't see anywhere it says they're teaching creationism as fact - they're simply not teaching evolution as fact either.
I think presenting both ways of thought alongside one another is a good way to encourage kids to draw their own conclusions, as well as gain a better understanding of the perspectives of their peers. And when it comes down to it, those two lessons will be of much more practical use in their lives than a solid biological history lesson.
Translation:
QuoteDERP
A new reply has been given:
Quote@Dave: I'm saying ad hominem because you absolutely refuse to see outside of the bounds of modern science, and keep labeling Christianity as "hokey pseudoscience." As far as I'm concerned, evolution could be called the same thing. Were y...ou, or anyone running the tests there to see those animals alive? I trust a historic record way more than some ballpark estimate, even if there were parts that were supposedly abridged or omitted.
The point I'm trying to convey is that both evolutionary science and Christianity are two sides of the same coin. Both rely on core assumptions, both have tested their beliefs repeatedly against their own unique logic and found it to be true, and, for the most part, neither is willing to concede those beliefs, because doing so would go against their core ideology. As far as you're concerned, Christianity is pseudoscience and not able to be proved, and as far as a Christian is concerned, with the exception of population drift (which has been observed within a human lifetime to be true), evolution is pseudoscience and not able to be proved.
There you have it folks. Undeniable evidence that Christians feel legitimately threatened when science gives us information that challenges their bogosity.
Okay, so I just got home from my anger management group (what a crock of shit) and I log into facebook only to see these two idiotic responses to my earlier statements.
QuoteI'm not asking you to acknowledge any merits of Christianity, since it seems clear that you don't think there are many, if any at all. I'm simply asking you to look at the bigger picture, at the grand scope of things, not just things from ...the viewpoint of those who believe in evolution or those who believe in intelligent design. What I'm trying to get you to see is that, in these arguments, the only thing that's happening is the gridlock that's been going on for years. Creationists believe that the Bible is a book of promises and prophecies, most of which have either come true or are showing signs of coming true. Many of us believe in miracles, things that defy science and the logic of the scientist. It's because of these things that we're at an impasse. We believe that miracles can be proven based on what happens in our lives, you call it coincidence and lies. You believe evolution can be proven, we ask you if you saw it happen with your own physical eyes while it occurred. My point is, like I said before, it's based on whose rules we're judging them by. I'd also like you to refrain from comparing intelligent design to a criminal activity, seeing as I made no comparison of the sort about evolution. There is no "victim" of creationism, and I'm not going to say there's a "victim" of evolution. I didn't cry ad hominem because you didn't accept that creationist viewpoints are valid, I said it because you compared us to criminals, and that's an attack on the person, not the idea, thus constituting an ad hominem argument.
Quote"We believe that miracles can be proven based on what happens in our lives, you call it coincidence and lies. You believe evolution can be proven, we ask you if you saw it happen with your own physical eyes while it occurred. My point is, ...like I said before, it's based on whose rules we're judging them by."
^This. How is blindly believing what the science magazines tell you has been proven through experiments any different from blindly believing what the Bible tells you will be proven through faith? Both have their own methods of showing themselves to the person who wants to believe in them, so neither is any less valid than the other. You only see what you want to believe because that's all you're looking for, and that's why this argument can never truly be rectified in any one side's favor.
And so I'm going to reiterate: Why not teach them both? Why not teach the kids to be critical of information, no matter the source? Why not teach the kids to be open to and respectful of different viewpoints instead of feel threatened by them? Why not teach the kids to draw their own conclusions and think for themselves? Isn't that way of thinking the entire foundation of modern science?
The whole "I'm right, you're wrong, and that's the way it is" mentality is how the world ended up in the state it's in. There is no one answer that is right for everyone, so teaching one answer as the "right" one will only ensure that in ten years those kids will still be letting perfectly good debates like this one degrade into petty personal attacks because nobody will have learned to respect somebody else's viewpoint.
I might need to go back to anger management because I'm reaching a 10 on the anger meter.
"What I'm trying to get you to see is that, in these arguments, the only thing that's happening is the gridlock that's been going on for years."
Yes, one side insists on believing in fairy tales, and the other side wants to examine evidence objectively and reach logical conclusions.
"How is blindly believing what the science magazines tell you has been proven through experiments any different from blindly believing what the Bible tells you will be proven through faith?"
Because you can repeat the experiments. Can you repeat a miracle?
Quote from: MrBogosity on June 14, 2011, 08:20:54 PM
"What I'm trying to get you to see is that, in these arguments, the only thing that's happening is the gridlock that's been going on for years."
Yes, one side insists on believing in fairy tales, and the other side wants to examine evidence objectively and reach logical conclusions.
"How is blindly believing what the science magazines tell you has been proven through experiments any different from blindly believing what the Bible tells you will be proven through faith?"
Because you can repeat the experiments. Can you repeat a miracle?
QuoteWhat qualifies as proof changes with the context. Beliefs based on tangible reality need to be proven within the parameters of tangible reality, like science. Beliefs based outside of tangible reality, like religious beliefs and philosophie...s, can't be held to the same standard because they are not to be taken in the same context. That's why this debate has reached an impasse; you are insisting that things that admit to having elements that do not operate within tangible reality be put under the same magnifying glass as something that does, and that is why you come up with results that do not satisfy a mindset based strictly around the five senses.
And I don't believe that's wrong, I just wish you wouldn't try to make other people believe that they're wrong, or belittle them because they believe something different than you. There are two sides to every coin, and you can only really look at one at a time, but that doesn't make the other side not worth seeing.
That's why I'm glad that they're teaching the two theories together, and that no amount of griping on the Internet is going to change that. ♥
I DON'T NEED TO FOLLOW YOUR RULES DERPADERPADERPADERPA
I think it's time for the big question:
What kind of evidence would you require in order for you to change your beliefs?
Quote from: MrBogosity on June 14, 2011, 09:24:19 PM
I think it's time for the big question:
What kind of evidence would you require in order for you to change your beliefs?
It's funny that you mention that.
QuoteYou don't have to believe it. Nobody said you did. But that doesn't mean it's necessary to try to get them not to believe it if believing it makes them happy. The one point I have been trying to get across this whole time is that it IS all ...a matter of opinion, and that's okay; people are free to think what they want regardless of how irrational it may seem, and nobody is going to "concede" to anyone who asserts otherwise because freedom is what North America is allegedly all about.
Anyway, I consider debates over when one side tries to tell the other how to think, so I'm going to exit this conversation and wish you the best in...whatever you're trying to accomplish with this.
By the way, that was hippie chick who wants us all to get along. As for Mr. Creationist, here was his final remark:
QuoteThere is one thing I'd like to point out: faith is supposed to often fly in the face of conventional logic. You have to believe it before you can see the evidence of it. I've seen too much evidence to think otherwise, but it's impossible ...to reproduce the results of a person's faith because everyone's faith is different. Call me crazy, call me a kook, call me blind, call me naive, call me a hypocrite call me whatever you wish; it's not going to change my mind, and I didn't walk into this conversation expecting to change yours. I came in hoping to iterate something like Cabron said and hoped you would understand. I'm done here.
How arrogant are people like that? The inevitable consequence of that statement is that they know everything there is to know, and have nothing else to learn. The ultimate know-it-all!
Quote from: MrBogosity on June 15, 2011, 07:22:42 AM
How arrogant are people like that? The inevitable consequence of that statement is that they know everything there is to know, and have nothing else to learn. The ultimate know-it-all!
Of course, but these people are also continuing the old practice of covering their ears and screaming "I can't hear you."
I know this topic is really old, but this is quite related to a story that was posted in this thread.
Apparently the city of Philadelphia has followed suit in regards to feeding the homeless outdoors.
[yt]6X6HDnXufQk[/yt]
There's another atrocity regarding the homeless in the next podcast.