I can't believe this forum changed so much in six months. Some people complain about certain things, here are some:

1. Iraq threads
2. Masta's avatar
3. Artoo's signature
4. Some forrumers comments.


I'd like a mod to come in here and please define for us what the forum's policy is on some of these kinds of things, such as making fun of french and stuff.

Personally, a person should be able to say whatever they want, like don't call a people a bunch of morons or such. I don't see a real problem if it is as a joke, like artoo's signature. Masta's avatar, it's borderline. My threads, no real violation, unless you want to get in to double posting.

Try to keep this one on topic, no flaming, can we try at least?

Originally posted by Heavyarms
3. Artoo's signature

As Tie Guy said, complaining about the bashing of certain countries and the strong anti-American feelings in here appears self-defeating when an American guy comes along and hopes to b*itch about the French while retaining the moral high ground when speaking of his own country.

Make your mind up - either you want no one bashing any countries at all, or you think everything goes (which, to a limit, is fine with me).

Masta's avatar, while tasteless and despicable in my eyes, is okay, by forums standards.

I can't see the problem in Iraq threads, but I can see the problem in spamming Iraq threads, most of which deal with the exact same topic anyway.

Some forummers comments? Could you be a bit more specific here?

sorry, I was making a general statement about forrumers and comments.

and all those are just funny jokes making fun of the french. I think those are kinda amusing, personally. We get made fun of so much, I'm sure there's enough making fun of in europe at the US.

Originally posted by Heavyarms
and all those are just funny jokes making fun of the french. I think those are kinda amusing, personally. We get made fun of so much, I'm sure there's enough making fun of in europe at the US.

The Bush vs Tic-tac was mighty fun as well, no?

Some people didn't think so. Make your mind up.

that's flaming the president, and I do believe flaming is against the forum policy, no?

Originally posted by Heavyarms
that's flaming the president, and I do believe flaming is against the forum policy, no?

Trying to find a loophole in the rules to justify your side's flaming, are we?

Here's the deal:

You Americans complain about the American jokes, the anti-American sentiments and the hatred for the American government. You do not want that.

We complain about your French jokes, the anti-French/Russian sentiments and the hatred for the French, German and Russian government. We do not want that.

You can't have the cake and eat it too. Stop the flaming. We will stop ours.

The alternative is to let your French bashing go on, but this sends a clear message to all the anti-American people - they can continue flaming USA.

Now, either Artoo changes his Sig to match his argument that goes "No flaming against my government (and others)", or he'll stop complaining about it. If Artoo feels this rule should only apply to his country then he's just being a twit. But I don't think that.

there's a difference here you still don't get.

The french jokes are just a couple of small jokes, but posting a link that makes a lot of fun at the US president is different. I wouldn't want anyone coming on here and showing something like that of Jaques Chirac, would you? Or in your case, Vladamir Putin?

I wouldn't like that. I'm sure you wouldn't. A couple of jokes, sure, why not? But when you start showing other forms of propaganda and do things to try to invoke someone, then you are violating some rules, am I correct? I think you can agree with that.

Although, I didn't find it funny, nor do I support it, by your standards the Bush v Tic Tacs thread was also meant to be a "small joke."

But then a personal attack is different from a "national" attack. :rolleyes:

yes, I see your point, but maybe we should just be a bit more careful on what we say, hmm?

@ C'jais

I do not try and keep any moral high ground when arguing for that goal is too lofty. I just try to abide by the rules while exercising my rights. Just to let you know where I stand on that.

Everything goes to a certain limit for me, you must back up any extraordinary claims with sources, and no personal attacks for beliefs, which is another lesson in the art of debating. Never attack an opponent, attack his ideas.

Let me state it again, I make no argument against flaming against governments, I just ask that you try and go about it in either a comedic way, or use sources to do your dirty work. The Tic-Tacs thing is okay by my standards, and I'll hold that up by my standards.

Repeat, I am not saying the rules only apply to certain people, this is being a bigot.

@ HA

Be careful you don't shoot yourself in the foot with your own arguments, I'd suggest you check the logic in everything you post carefully. This is not a threat, just a little word of advice I hope you listen to.

Wow, this is historic. I actually agree with C'jais. ;)

I really don't condone Artoo's signature at all. It doens't offend me like an attack on America does for obvious reasons, but i do not think it is appropriate.

Why do we need to attack the French, or America? Is it because our own logic fails and we must resort to immature attacks and insults?

I know that i, for one, will not engage in any attacks such as that. I do, however, see a difference between a sig and a thread. A thread is meant for discussion, and therefore an insult posted as the topic of one can only be meant to inflame and incense. A sig is a personal issue, a declaration of a stance, and for the public of the forum to read or ignore. I don't know about you, but most of the time i don't even look at the sigs of people.

That being said, i still don't support any kind of bashing towards anyone. I can state my stance through logic and facts, an insult only detracts from my case.

Originally posted by Artoo
Everything goes to a certain limit for me, you must back up any extraordinary claims with sources, and no personal attacks for beliefs, which is another lesson in the art of debating. Never attack an opponent, attack his ideas.

Because it bears repeating in bold. Well said.

The Tic-Tacs thing is okay by my standards, and I'll hold that up by my standards.

In hindsight, the Tic-tac one was probably a bit silly and unneeded, but if you're fine with it, then cool.

Originally posted by Tie Guy
Wow, this is historic. I actually agree with C'jais. ;)

*Marks date in calendar*

That being said, i still don't support any kind of bashing towards anyone. I can state my stance through logic and facts, an insult only detracts from my case.

Agreed. Everyone, let's just drop the flaming for now, ok?

As Havoc put it, the war has started whether or not you were for it.

Originally posted by Heavyarms
that's flaming the president, and I do believe flaming is against the forum policy, no?

That would only apply if the President were a member of the forum. Since he isn't, and since he is a public figure, he should be as open to lampoon as any other world leader, including Saddam Hussein.

I have to concur with Heavy Arms. I believe that free speech is important and that people should have the right to post what they want, excluding direct attacks at individuals.

Not only do the direct attacks look ugly and incite anger, they discredit one's position in debate. I can think of a couple of "forummers" in particular, one of whom is banned at the moment, for making comments regarded as flames. Or comments designed to "piss off" rather than inform or persuade.

I've reported several of these, even in instances where I agree with the poster's ideas, just not the delivery. I'd like the mods to be more active in warning, editing, etc. if they can help eliminate the flames but leave the ideas intact.

I've even PM'd a couple of posters with my own opinions about their posts in hopes that it might help them get their opinions across without making personal attacks.

I'm glad there is a thread that addresses this... I hope to see other constructive viewpoints here and I hope this thread might endup being a place we can refer an unrulely "forummer/poster" to before things get out of hand.

I have to concur with Heavy Arms. I believe that free speech is important and that people should have the right to post what they want, excluding direct attacks at individuals.

Attacks on whole ethnic groups and minorities are just as hurtful as attacks on individual, SkinWalker.

I have no faith in letting religious fundamentals and racists communicate their views. How are we supposed to fight racism when we can only stand there and watch it happen?

I'm a buddhist and an ex-homosexual. Call me overreacting, but when a fundamental christian says I'll go to Hell for that, it offends me. When he's ignorant and imposes his religion on me, that's even worse (such as saying that males cannot marry each others in the USA because then they'll go to Hell? Separation between church and state makes that argument invalid. If a church thinks it's okay to let people marry, why should the govt. prevent them?).

The same goes for individuals with a different skin colour, different clothing, or different culture.

If a statement is hurtful, and does no good to society, it should not be allowed. Statements like "liberals suck" might be hurtful, but if they're reasoned, they're your right, and a vital piece of democracy. Racism/facism/nazism are all different, as they serves absolutely no good to society.

About the argument "well, I can make jokes on (blank) because no one here's (whatever you put in the last blank) anyway". Not so. Even in public where you see a person can you tell what that person's like. I'm blonde, but still a buddhist, for example. And the Internet is even more anonomous. And even if you think no one's, say, Chinese, well, I've got a cute little two-year old Chinese cousin, so I take offense when I hear statements on Chinese people, adopted people, foreigners, and people with East Asian physical traits such as cute little black eyes (but then again, if you don't like black eyes, you're screwed here anyway. All the smileys here have black eyes, don't they :D!!)

That's it for me. About Artoo's statement, it's stupid (you've gotta love a person who says the French suck at fighting but still want them to fight with his armed forces :rolleyes:) but I don't know if it should be thrown out. It says quite a lot about him, but I don't think it says something about the French. If someone gets more offended by it than me, however, I won't argue.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Attacks on whole ethnic groups and minorities are just as hurtful as attacks on individual, SkinWalker.

I cannot disagree with that. Not a bit.

I abhor the onesided opinions of many religious fundamentalists. I get so tired of hearing and reading about how they cannot accept scientifically established concepts such as evolution, genetics, etc. because of ancient and irrelevant religious documents. Documents that have no basis in fact.

However, those same fundamentalists, who will tell you that you cannot explain said concepts, specifically concerning dating methods, as they think the concepts are too complex for humans. Yet they will accept the concept of micro-circuits and cathode ray theory, which are used in computers.

But it looks like I disagreed with you after all. I just basically attacked a religious group (probably one or more christian cults) and their beliefs. So perhaps free-speech may be important in balancing the propaganda of an opposition.

Of course, the method by which one chooses to attack a group is significant. The use of slander, profanity and name-calling would be inappropriate. Direct rebuke of their idea(s) would be within reason. In my opinion.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
I'm a buddhist and an ex-homosexual.
Dare I ask?

Not having been much to this forum, I'll just leave my two cents (where did that expression come from anyway?)... without knowing the exact details on everything commented on here (I know, me bad).

I've seen some of the stuff, though.

While attacks on nationstates (or infact any kind of states), instead of their policies, is kinda silly, and puts you in a bad light, I personally find that these usually have an entertainment factor that keeps them head and shoulders above personal attacks. Besides attacking a country says far more about you than about the country. And lastly an attack on a country can't hurt anyone (other than die-hard nationalists, whom I for a lot of reasons find it hard to pity). I think that the site making fun of Bush was just a 'wauw, look what I found on the www' event, so skirt over it will ye (if I found a genuinely funny link (or at least one that I found genuinely funny) about Clinton or Putin or Chirac (the last one shouldn't be too diffecult), then I'd post it too, assuming that it wasn't in violation of the rules).

I think that having a Swaztika/Cross/Inverted Cross/Half-Moon/Star of David/Hammer & Sickle/Fashes/ect in your avatar is incredibly bad taste, but, like C'Jais, I can't see why it should be against the rules.

Heavyarms: I believe that you have posted the notion that C'Jais lives in Russia. I can assure you from very reliable observations that he infact lives in Denmark...

Dare I ask?
Is that an expression or something or do you actually have a question you want to ask me?[/innocent ignorance;)]

But it looks like I disagreed with you after all. I just basically attacked a religious group (probably one or more christian cults) and their beliefs. So perhaps free-speech may be important in balancing the propaganda of an opposition.
This is hard to explain, but let's look solely at the views, not the reasoning for their views.

Yes, we've got freedom of religion. That doesn't mean we should be allowed to express any view depending on religion, though. For example, it's ridiculous to think that you shouldn't call Christians bad, but it's okay to call them bad if you're a Muslim, becuase then it's possible to translate some line into Christians=Devils (personally, I'm studying the Q'uran and found no evidence of this, but I only read a small bit of it). Ban the views, not the cause.

What I'm trying to say is, let's not ban fundamentalism in itself, let's ban the views communicated by them. For example: Let's outlaw saying mean things about christians as a group instead of outlawing "Muslim fundamentalism". Basically, they're the same thing.

That way, we clash only indirectly with freedom of religion. What we're basically doing is saying that freedom of religion doesn't work as an "umbrella" to let you go wherever you want. If a view is inappropriate, it's inappropriate, period.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
I'm a buddhist and an ex-homosexual. Call me overreacting, but when a fundamental christian says I'll go to Hell for that, it offends me. When he's ignorant and imposes his religion on me, that's even worse (such as saying that males cannot marry each others in the USA because then they'll go to Hell? Separation between church and state makes that argument invalid. If a church thinks it's okay to let people marry, why should the govt. prevent them?).

Well, perhaps i can spread some light on the situation from a Christian perspective.

Personally, i believe you are going to Hell if you don't repent and follow Christ, just like everyone else who's not a Christian, but don't overreact (actually, if you do it's ok, because that's the main reason i said it.) Note, i don't think homosexuality has anything to do with it, and i'd say anyone that says it does is not a true Christian (i do, however, believe it is wrong and a perversion, but that's your decision).

Now, it's not personal, not really. Quite frankly i believe that my religion is right, and yours is wrong. I believe that my religion is the only way to heaven. I mean, you believe that eightfold path and what not are the only ways to attain nirvana, no? Likewise i believe that being born again through the grace of Jesus Christ is the only way to attain eternal life. It's only logical that i believe your way is wrong, for that is the nature of opinions. You believe you are right, i believe i am right, both us can't be correct, and one of us is going to hell/equivalent. And if i thought i was wrong, i wouldn't be believing in it, would I? That leaves, IMO, you being the one who is wrong.

Now, if you thought i sounded like a pompous fundamentalist christian back there, then read it again.


I abhor the onesided opinions of many religious fundamentalists. I get so tired of hearing and reading about how they cannot accept scientifically established concepts such as evolution, genetics, etc. because of ancient and irrelevant religious documents. Documents that have no basis in fact.

I, quite frankly, abhor your adherence to that theory of evolution that is NOT, in fact, been scientifically established, and, i mihgt add, has an infinitesimal chance of actual occurance, which any scientist will admit. Now, if you want to submit any proven scientific evidence then do so now. A book from before all known civilization, perhaps? Or maybe prophicies that have come true pertaining to evolution?

Wait, or maybe you want to explain concretely how matter can be created from vacuum? Maybe you want to show some species' fossils from sometime in between the dawn of time and right now that justify one species changing into another? Maybe you want to explain how through mutations chromosomes and base pairs can be added? I'll tell you right now you can't, so don't even try. And there is another thread on this, ya know, if you wish to further display your apparent ignorance.

Oh, and if you don't think the Bible is based in fact, then you need to brush up on your history, becuase it is.


Now, concerning freedom of speech, i think all attacks on anyone are inappropriate. There's a big difference between aguing a point and attacking a person. Personal attacks are base, immature, and often founded in ignorance or frustration at being wrong. Attacks on anyone, be it members, or groups, or nations, or races, are completely uneccessary and have no place here. Freedom of Speech doesn't cover, for instance, libel or slander, so i'm not quite sure what the big argument here is.

Now, it's not personal, not really. Quite frankly i believe that my religion is right, and yours is wrong. I believe that my religion is the only way to heaven. I mean, you believe that eightfold path and what not are the only ways to attain nirvana, no? Likewise i believe that being born again through the grace of Jesus Christ is the only way to attain eternal life. It's only logical that i believe your way is wrong, for that is the nature of opinions. You believe you are right, i believe i am right, both us can't be correct, and one of us is going to hell/equivalent. And if i thought i was wrong, i wouldn't be believing in it, would I? That leaves, IMO, you being the one who is wrong.

It is quite possible for both to be right. But that's my opinion. I look at God and I see Vishnu. You look at god, and you see Christ, Eagle looks at "god" and he sees Buddha (Buddha didn't like to call himself God), and a muslim sees God and he sees Allah. and so on...It's all a matter of interpretation, is how I see it. All the above mentioned and many more religions basically teach the same thing, non-violence, kindness, and all the good stuff...it's only peoples' interpretations of them that causes discrepancies.

Now, I don't think you're going to hell because you're not Hindu, but I do see your interpretation as wrong (just like you explained it), but in essence, they're all the same thing.

Originally posted by SkinWalker
But it looks like I disagreed with you after all. I just basically attacked a religious group (probably one or more christian cults) and their beliefs.

Not really. While you generalized and called Christianity a cult might be offensive, you basically described their modus operandi which cannot be argued against.

As you said, it's all about the delivery method of the "attack", so to speak. Saying that France has generally been losing battles since the time of Napoleon wouldn't be unfair. Likewise, saying that GW Bush has caused most the world's opinions to turn against him wouldn't be distorting the truth either.

When is it allowed to call a poster's ideas idiotic or foolish? Or is it only allowed to call a cow a bovine animal, so to speak? Sometimes a frank statement is preferrable to a long, drawn-out discussion with a person who cannot see his views are false. I usually don't react if someone calls another persons arguments in a manner as this - it does, however, show that they now have taken a very firm stance and must follow it up accordingly.

Remember, always attack the person's ideas and arguments, never the person itself. Act is if the person sitting behind the screen is not even participating in the discussion, but as if it's only a battle between the arguments you present.

IMO, a Moderator should really only intervene if a user's posts are disrupting the thread with meaningless garbage only consisting of off topic slandering of various personas or groups (interpretation given broad space here), or if a poster reports a user's posts as hurting him personally. Just because someone voices a dissenting opinion doesn't mean he's a troll ripe for banning.

No, I don't find Artoo's signature flaming or needlessly insulting the French. I do, however, find it to be more than a little hypocritical if it accompanied an opinion that went: "We should not insult governments". Like it or not, calling Russians dirty, filthy, rotten bastards and saying that the anti-Americanism in here is disgusting can only be interpreted as "Asking for it".

When you're finished writing a reply you should ask yourself: "Does this post contribute to the ongoing topic?". If it doesn't, is it a post that people are going to enjoy reading? If not, can you justify the post's place in this thread?

To be frank, I don't have a problem with threads going off topic. If it degenerates into small talk or turns into a completely new topic, it must be what the crowd wants. Of course, if the thread starter has a problem with it, I'd recommend the mods to split the thread in two. But if this thread's new "topic" only consists of insulting and mud-throwing, one can only ask why it needs to keep going.

Direct rebuke of their idea(s) would be within reason. In my opinion.

Isn't this what it's all about, really?

Originally posted by Tie Guy
It's only logical that i believe your way is wrong, for that is the nature of opinions. You believe you are right, i believe i am right, both us can't be correct, and one of us is going to hell/equivalent. And if i thought i was wrong, i wouldn't be believing in it, would I? That leaves, IMO, you being the one who is wrong.

Thank you, Captain Obvious! :p

No really, I agree.

I, quite frankly, abhor your adherence to that theory of evolution that is NOT, in fact, been scientifically established,

Wrong.

and, i mihgt add, has an infinitesimal chance of actual occurance

It is based on actual occurence

which any scientist will admit.

A sweeping, false generalization.

Or maybe prophicies that have come true pertaining to evolution?

Interesting. Have there been any discoveries predicted by your theory? No?

As for evolution, many discoveries have been predicted by it. In fact, the evolving feather has predicted several fossils of feather-clad dinosaurs that could not fly yet, which is what was to be expected.

Wait, or maybe you want to explain concretely how matter can be created from vacuum?

We've been through this before, haven't we? Energy=matter. There is energy stored in the universe's curvature.

Maybe you want to show some species' fossils from sometime in between the dawn of time and right now that justify one species changing into another?

They don't show these fossils at your school?

Maybe you want to explain how through mutations chromosomes and base pairs can be added?

I'm not proficient enough to explain how, but it should be needless to state that they can. Call it God's work, but the adding of genes is really just a normal effect of mutations.

I'll tell you right now you can't, so don't even try.

*Cough* I don't think it'd be wise of you to insult Skin, who probably knows more about evolution than you ever will, if you continue having this attitude.

And there is another thread on this, ya know, if you wish to further display your apparent ignorance.

The ignorance of evolution?

Oh, and if you don't think the Bible is based in fact, then you need to brush up on your history, becuase it is.

Sure, if we exclude the entire old testament, all the miracles in the new one, and all the contradictions in them both, then yeah.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Ban the views, not the cause.

Ie: Burn the books, not the authors?!?

I am mildly surprised that you could hold such a tyrannical point of view... Mildly.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
What I'm trying to say is, let's not ban fundamentalism in itself, let's ban the views communicated by them. For example: Let's outlaw saying mean things about christians as a group instead of outlawing "Muslim fundamentalism". Basically, they're the same thing.

That made a lot more sense... But you aren't banning the views here, just the expression of said views.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
That way, we clash only indirectly with freedom of religion. What we're basically doing is saying that freedom of religion doesn't work as an "umbrella" to let you go wherever you want. If a view is inappropriate, it's inappropriate, period.

If an expression is inappropriate, it's inappropriate, period. Otherwise I agree with you here. But I would like to see it expanded to cover all kinds of dogmatism: Christian, Muslim, Communist, Facist, Nazist, Jewish, or any other kind of religious dogmatism.

I mean, you believe that eightfold path and what not are the only ways to attain nirvana, no?

Read up on Bhuddist mythos. The easies, yes, but by no means the only.

Now, if you thought i sounded like a pompous fundamentalist christian back there, then read it again.

I did. But it didn't help. I understand the logic that you employ, but you fail to see the huge, glaring hole that is that you employ belief.

*Initializing preliminary bombardment*
*Preparing drop pods*

I, quite frankly, abhor your adherence to that theory of evolution that is NOT, in fact, been scientifically established

There is a thread for this. Stop spamming this one.

A book from before all known civilization, perhaps? Or maybe prophicies that have come true pertaining to evolution?

Bah. If it had been written in Sanskrit, then I might have taken that comment seriously. And you want predictions based on the fact of evolution or the theory of evolution? Look what I've digged up on www.sciam.com) (and before you throw mud at Scientific American, remember that it's a leading, peer-reviewed magazine):

This is a prediction made based on the theory of evolution, that's been fulfilled. (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000B16B6-AA5E-1D2C-97CA809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=1)

Wait, or maybe you want to explain concretely how matter can be created from vacuum? Maybe you want to show some species' fossils from sometime in between the dawn of time and right now that justify one species changing into another? Maybe you want to explain how through mutations chromosomes and base pairs can be added? I'll tell you right now you can't, so don't even try. And there is another thread on this, ya know, if you wish to further display your apparent ignorance.

Yeah, there's another thread on this... And I suggest that you go there for the answer to all of the above...

Oh, and if you don't think the Bible is based in fact, then you need to brush up on your history, becuase it is.

Examples, bitte. With sources that are not based on circular, biblical reasoning (yeah, I know I made a redundancy here).

And there is another thread on this, ya know, if you wish to further display your apparent ignorance.

[...]

Now, concerning freedom of speech, i think all attacks on anyone are inappropriate. There's a big difference between aguing a point and attacking a person. Personal attacks are base, immature, and often founded in ignorance or frustration at being wrong. Attacks on anyone, be it members, or groups, or nations, or races, are completely uneccessary and have no place here. Freedom of Speech doesn't cover, for instance, libel or slander, so i'm not quite sure what the big argument here is.

Hmm... I'll leave that hanging in the air, while I report your previous insult to Skinwalker to the MODs.

The big arguement here is that insults like "And there is another thread on this, ya know, if you wish to further display your apparent ignorance." keep popping up.

*Preliminary bombardment completed*
*Surveys indicate extensive barrage pinning*
*Drop pods launched*

Originally posted by C'jais
It is based on actual occurence[quote]

Actual occurances? What's the last animal you saw evolve?

And even your "source" you posted in the other thread doesn't say that it is likely that matter can spring from nothing, in fact, it says that it is very unlikely, but "possible." Even you must admit that if it is possible and did happen it was extremely unlikely.


[quote]
Interesting. Have there been any discoveries predicted by your theory? No?


Read the old testimant, read the prophets. They all predict the soming of Christ and they said it just how it happened. And they did itas far back as 2000 years before it occured. The answer is yes.


We've been through this before, haven't we? Energy=matter. There is energy stored in the universe's curvature.
[quote]

E=MC2 does not mean energy is the speed of light squared and mass put together. It's just that the speed of light and mass go into the calculations. Just as in P=nRT/V, pressure doesn't equal moles and temperature and volume, it's just that those are used to calculate pressure.

And don't try to justify theories with other theories.

[quote]
They don't show these fossils at your school?
[quote]

No, because there aren't any, and if you have any feel free to show me.

[quote]
I'm not proficient enough to explain how, but it should be needless to state that they can. Call it God's work, but the adding of genes is really just a normal effect of mutations.


Ok, i believe you, it is possible. :rolleyes: It's not possible, and you obviously don't know otherwise. Believe me, a christian scientist explained this to me, it's not possible in any situation on this earth at this time. Maybe it stopped working after evolution was complete, eh?


*Cough* I don't think it'd be wise of you to insult Skin, who probably knows more about evolution than you ever will, if you continue having this attitude.


Obviously not, if he can believe in it.


Sure, if we exclude the entire old testament, all the miracles in the new one, and all the contradictions in them both, then yeah.

Well, the miracles aren't proven (i'll give you that), but all the movements of the Israelites are, all the kings, all the cities, all the wars, all of them are, right up to the Roman Empire and beyond. I suggest you brush up on your ancient history.

Originally posted by Tie Guy
Read the old testimant, read the prophets. They all predict the soming of Christ and they said it just how it happened. And they did itas far back as 2000 years before it occured. The answer is yes.

So the Old testament prophesized the coming of the son of God, which JC conveniently uses to justify his mandate from heaven. No biggie.

Actual occurances? What's the last animal you saw evolve?

The local bacteria strain that went and "got itself" immune to anti-biotics?

Curiously, the genes that code for the enzymes needed to break down antibiotics get broken down themselves once there's no need for them anymore. Strangely enough, they "pop" up again once the antibiotic threatens it. Could it be that genes can evolve out of need?

And even your "source" you posted in the other thread doesn't say that it is likely that matter can spring from nothing, in fact, it says that it is very unlikely, but "possible." Even you must admit that if it is possible and did happen it was extremely unlikely.

It does not say that it's unlikely. It says that its very likely. Read it again.

No, because there aren't any, and if you have any feel free to show me.

Did the news of "Toumaп" just pass over your head? Or did they not inform you of this discovery at your school?

Archeopteryx. the many various stages of the human species, the various stages of horses and whales. Just to name a few.


Ok, i believe you, it is possible. :rolleyes: It's not possible, and you obviously don't know otherwise.

Read a decent biology book. I'm not going to discuss this any further. Instead, I'd like to you pity the poor children with Down's syndrome. They're possessing more genes than is "possible". Sad but true.

Obviously not, if he can believe in it.

Again, you don't believe in proven theories.

Well, the miracles aren't proven (i'll give you that), but all the movements of the Israelites are, all the kings, all the cities, all the wars, all of them are, right up to the Roman Empire and beyond. I suggest you brush up on your ancient history.

Thank you for proving my point.

Now, about that old testament and all the contradictions, shall we?

It's also evolution/natural selection that has bought about the existance of pesticide-resistant insects, and viri like HIV (?).

Believe me, a christian scientist explained this to me, it's [mutation related base pair adding/removing] not possible in any situation on this earth at this time.

Is it possible that he might be wrong, or is he all-knowing?

Like genetic fragments can be added scientifically (plasmids in bacteriae) there may have been a way for it to happen naturally...

Very true, Krk.

This is the explanation in a nutshell.

A gene codes for a specific protein/enzyme. Enzymes takes care of breaking down hostile antibiotics or other unwanted elements in the cell/body.

Therefore, for a bacteria strain to become immune to such an antibiotica, it must "grow" these genes. And before you ask, no, it has nothing to do with those genes being inactive before the antibiotic enters. They're not there.

Who cares if bacteria becomes immune, that doesnt't prove anything. I've already said that there are positive mutations. But that bacteria is still the same bacteria, it is just immune now.

Oh, and thank you for proving my point with down's syndrome. That's what happens when an extra chromosome get's stuck alonside the regular ones (which is not, BTW, a genetic mutation, but simply an additional chromosome "stuck" to the others). Not something that natural selection is likely to choose, is it?


Is it possible that he might be wrong, or is he all-knowing?


He's not all knowing, but apparently you and C'jais are. :rolleyes: I certainly lend more credibility to his explanations and claims than ya'll.


Did the news of "Toumaп" just pass over your head? Or did they not inform you of this discovery at your school?

Archeopteryx. the many various stages of the human species, the various stages of horses and whales. Just to name a few.

So the Old testament prophesized the coming of the son of God, which JC conveniently uses to justify his mandate from heaven. No biggie.


First of all, did you know scientists rarely find many bones, and that they literally guess at what the entire thing may have looked like judging from small pieces they found? Do you know they make mistakes, such as the brontosaurus (i think that was the one), a very commonplace dinosaur that never actually existed?

Oh, and you know, even if they are accurate (i have never heard of them, BTW), they could just be regular animals that scientists conviently used to justify their crazy theory. No biggie.

And don't you think with all the mutations and evolutions and changes in species there would be more than a few? Especially considering all the dinosaur bones we found? Why would so many dinosaur bones survive while all the "missing link" bones mystically disappear?

Originally posted by Tie Guy
Who cares if bacteria becomes immune, that doesnt't prove anything. I've already said that there are positive mutations. But that bacteria is still the same bacteria, it is just immune now.

Don't dodge the answer. Me and Krk were not explaining why species evolve into others, but how genes get added.

Which you seem to be a bit skeptic of.

Oh, and thank you for proving my point with down's syndrome. That's what happens when an extra chromosome get's stuck alonside the regular ones (which is not, BTW, a genetic mutation, but simply an additional chromosome "stuck" to the others).

...which means it's a genetic disease. Or mutation, if we look past its negative side effects.

Not something that natural selection is likely to choose, is it?

Nope. Do you see many people with down's syndrome running around in your neighborhood?

He's not all knowing, but apparently you and C'jais are. :rolleyes: I certainly lend more credibility to his explanations and claims than ya'll.

Sure, your call.

All I'm saying is that you should get a real biology teacher instead of some priest reciting hymns from creationism.org. And move away from the Bible belt. It's obviously bad for your educational environment.

I'm going to be frank now. If you have a "biology teacher" that teaches you that genes cannot be added b/c of mutations and selective pressure, then get him fired as soon as possible.

First of all, did you know scientists rarely find many bones, and that they literally guess at what the entire thing may have looked like judging from small pieces they found?

You can base a lot on a few bones. Toumaп skull, for example, reveals that he was walking upright based on the angle of the neck and spine.

Do you know they make mistakes, such as the brontosaurus (i think that was the one), a very commonplace dinosaur that never actually existed?

The brontosaurs existed. You must mean something else.

Yes, I know that. I also know that the scientific world is peer-reviewed like hell. Basically, if you publish some sh*t, then you can be sure it'll be torn to pices by your collegues. Not so with creationists. Several times it has been pointed out that their calculations, assertions and outright inventions are crap, but this doesn't stop them. They keep spinning the same old hype about the second law of thermodynamics being scientifically false etc, when one should expect that it's been slammed into their skulls a good many times.

Another good one is the one about dinosaur trails being found next to human footprints in geological strata. No such thing has been found.

they could just be regular animals that scientists conviently used to justify their crazy theory.

There's no justification going on in science. All they do is find evidence of a theory, and if the evidence doesn't match up, they either modify the theory, or scrap it altogether.

And please, hoaxes such this happened over 70 years ago, with the piltdown man and whatnot. To think it is something rampant in the world of science could be considered outright flaming at worst.

And don't you think with all the mutations and evolutions and changes in species there would be more than a few? Especially considering all the dinosaur bones we found? Why would so many dinosaur bones survive while all the "missing link" bones mystically disappear?

More fossils? Sure, if the process and the environment was kind enough to lend more chances of it happening.

What part of erosion do you not get?

Ok Tie Guy, you need to do two things: 1) Learn how to use the 'quote' funktion. 2) Spend less time poring over a stupid, old book, and more time rereading your High School curriculum in Biology, Chemestry, Physics, Geology, Paleontology, and every other dicipline of real science. Or better yet, a real High School curriculum from any of these fields.

Actual occurances? What's the last animal you saw evolve?

"12. Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve.
Speciation is probably fairly rare and in many cases might take centuries. Furthermore, recognizing a new species during a formative stage can be difficult, because biologists sometimes disagree about how best to define a species. The most widely used definition, Mayr's Biological Species Concept, recognizes a species as a distinct community of reproductively isolated populations--sets of organisms that normally do not or cannot breed outside their community. In practice, this standard can be difficult to apply to organisms isolated by distance or terrain or to plants (and, of course, fossils do not breed). Biologists therefore usually use organisms' physical and behavioral traits as clues to their species membership.

Nevertheless, the scientific literature does contain reports of apparent speciation events in plants, insects and worms. In most of these experiments, researchers subjected organisms to various types of selection--for anatomical differences, mating behaviors, habitat preferences and other traits--and found that they had created populations of organisms that did not breed with outsiders. For example, William R. Rice of the University of New Mexico and George W. Salt of the University of California at Davis demonstrated that if they sorted a group of fruit flies by their preference for certain environments and bred those flies separately over 35 generations, the resulting flies would refuse to breed with those from a very different environment."

-15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2), Scientific American (www.sciam.com), July 2002 issue

I believe that the word here is: 'Touchй'.

And even your "source" you posted in the other thread doesn't say that it is likely that matter can spring from nothing, in fact, it says that it is very unlikely, but "possible." Even you must admit that if it is possible and did happen it was extremely unlikely.

You are forgetting that nature has all the time in the Universe... Reread basic binomial calculations before you venture into the fields of probability. And this holds water... Unlike your ridiculous Flood BS.

quote:Interesting. Have there been any discoveries predicted by your theory? No?/quote

Read the old testimant, read the prophets. They all predict the soming of Christ and they said it just how it happened. And they did itas far back as 2000 years before it occured. The answer is yes.

Predicting a childbirth somewhere in Judea isn't exactly difficult... Children are born every day...

And anyway, all of NT has been through such extensive editing at the hands of Paul (adding all the fulfilled prophesies, miracles, ect), that it's completely useless as source material.

And Jesus didn't even originate from Nazerath, but from Quomran.

You should read "The Dead Sea Scroll Deciet".

quote:We've been through this before, haven't we? Energy=matter. There is energy stored in the universe's curvature./quote

E=MC2 does not mean energy is the speed of light squared and mass put together. It's just that the speed of light and mass go into the calculations. Just as in P=nRT/V, pressure doesn't equal moles and temperature and volume, it's just that those are used to calculate pressure.

Fistly, get your notation right, because it's a nightmare: It's E=mc^2, not E=MC2, it's p=nRT/V, not P=nRT/V, and it's quantity, not moles.

Now we can get to the serious issue of mending your faulty High School indoctrinations: E=mc^2 states that energy can interfere with its surroundings either as mass or as the more traditionally defined concept. On the other hand p=nRT/V states that pressure is composed of/generated by the interaction between quantity, temperture, volume, and the Ideal Gas Constant.

So, in short, C'Jais was right in saying that matter can (and does) pop out of thin air whenever there the correct energy configuration is present. Curiously enough, these experiments even produce more matter than they produce antimatter... You do the math.

quote:They don't show these fossils at your school?/quote

No, because there aren't any, and if you have any feel free to show me.

Meet the Oldest Member of the Human Family (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000B16B6-AA5E-1D2C-97CA809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=1), straight off www.sciam.com)

quote:I'm not proficient enough to explain how, but it should be needless to state that they can. Call it God's work, but the adding of genes is really just a normal effect of mutations./quote

Ok, i believe you, it is possible. It's not possible, and you obviously don't know otherwise. Believe me, a christian scientist explained this to me, it's not possible in any situation on this earth at this time. Maybe it stopped working after evolution was complete, eh?

Then I guess that you don't mind me shipping you a sample of a Salmonella strain that has evolved a resistance to almost all known antibiotics, by exactly the same methods that you don't believe in. You do? Too bad, I guess... Then the world will never know how right you are...

Obviously not, if he can believe in it.

He can't. But fortunately he doesn't need to either. Because empirical data has made belief obsolete and useless irritants that do nothing but disturb the cogs of the great machine that is Humanity.

Well, the miracles aren't proven (i'll give you that), but all the movements of the Israelites are, all the kings, all the cities, all the wars, all of them are, right up to the Roman Empire and beyond. I suggest you brush up on your ancient history.

Soo... You basically exclude any and all things that don't fit with historical records, use this to validate your hypothesis, and then expands your model unto where there is no possible reason to believe that it holds water... Some engineers tried that in Denmark, building a stadium... That stadium came crashing down.

I certainly lend more credibility to his explanations and claims than ya'll.

And I certainly lend more credibility to other scientists' explanations and claims than ya.:rolleyes:

Templar, i just wanted you to know i really didn't read past your first paragraph. I did, however, skim over it, and i noticed you nitpicking you did with notation, and that's insane and pointless. I do want ya'll to know that i'm in an AP Chemistry class right now at a secular public school, and making an A with a 5 out of 5 on the practice AP exam. I've also taken physics and biology in HS. I know about science, thank you very much, and i've read school books and other books on evolution.

I'm really just not going to argue this anymore right now, not with you here, anyway, head back to the swamp.

C'jais, KrKode, it's been fun, and we can talk about this again at a later date. I'm just tired of wasting time on this and taking all this abuse about my religion etc, and no one here seems to listen to anyone (myself included). I really just don't know why i waste my time anymore. Maybe we can talk about this on a later date.

*sigh*


Oh, and I do want to say, however, that how can something be an interaction with a gas constant? It's just a number that justifies a calculation, a lot like pi. Temperature, for instance, affects pressure, but it isn't physcially a part of part of it, like if you break up pressure than you get heat and a few moles of something. Oh, and "n" does stand for number of moles, i use that equation almost every day, look it up.

Seeya, don't bother replying. If there something you reallt need to say to me, send me a PM.

Originally posted by Tie Guy
Who cares if bacteria becomes immune, that doesnt't prove anything. I've already said that there are positive mutations. But that bacteria is still the same bacteria, it is just immune now.

Which makes it a different strain of bacteria.

Originally posted by Tie Guy
Oh, and thank you for proving my point with down's syndrome. That's what happens when an extra chromosome get's stuck alonside the regular ones (which is not, BTW, a genetic mutation, but simply an additional chromosome "stuck" to the others). Not something that natural selection is likely to choose, is it?

That was an incredibly narrow-minded comment. It is perfectly possible for chromosomes to get stuck in a place where they cause no harm at all. Infact large chuncks of our DNA is made up of gene fragments, and a functioning chromosome here and there in this mess won't damage the rest of the functional DNA. Then you have a 'free' chromosome to mutate on, which means that you can evolve a new trait, without damaging the original functions of the cell.

Originally posted by Tie Guy
He's not all knowing, but apparently you and C'jais are. :rolleyes: I certainly lend more credibility to his explanations and claims than ya'll.

One question: Why? Is it the same kind of blind, fundamentalistic faith that fuelled 9/11 that I'm smelling?

Originally posted by Tie Guy
First of all, did you know scientists rarely find many bones, and that they literally guess at what the entire thing may have looked like judging from small pieces they found? Do you know they make mistakes, such as the brontosaurus (i think that was the one), a very commonplace dinosaur that never actually existed?

I'm fairly sure that the Brontosaurus existed alright. So that must be another Creationist hoax.

And besides you don't need a complete skeleton to place something in the proper place in the family: Even if you have only a row of skulls, or maws for that matter, you can still see a visible progression, thus proving Evolution.

Originally posted by Tie Guy
Oh, and you know, even if they are accurate (i have never heard of them, BTW), they could just be regular animals that scientists conviently used to justify their crazy theory. No biggie.

You realize of course that that is an utterly preposterous claim you are making. You appearently don't understand the scale of the conspiracy plot that you propose. We're talking a worldwide conspiracy of scores of independent institutions from as many different fields of science co-operating to suppress this information. We're talking hundreds of thousands of articles that had to be faked. Besides there is no motivation.

So should I discount this claim as a momentary error, or do you wish it picked apart in even greater detail?

Originally posted by Tie Guy
And don't you think with all the mutations and evolutions and changes in species there would be more than a few? Especially considering all the dinosaur bones we found? Why would so many dinosaur bones survive while all the "missing link" bones mystically disappear?

The dinos lived over a period of several tens of millions of years. Our ape ancestors branched off between four and eight million years before present. The dinos lived all over the planet. Our ape ancestors lived in Africa, an area that isn't exacly hospitable, conductive to fossilisation, or, for that matter, particularily well-explored. Missing links are being uncovered as I write this. Witht each passing moment the family tree is nearing its eventual completion.

Prosecution rests.

Originally posted by Tie Guy
I did, however, skim over it, and i noticed you nitpicking you did with notation, and that's insane and pointless.

No it's not. Incorrect and ununiform notation is an anathema to productive results. Which is why the SI units should be standardized.

Originally posted by Tie Guy
I do want ya'll to know that i'm in an AP Chemistry class right now at a secular public school, and making an A with a 5 out of 5 on the practice AP exam. I've also taken physics and biology in HS. I know about science, thank you very much, and i've read school books and other books on evolution.

Somehow that doesn't impress me. You wouldn't happen to be living in one of these states (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?colID=19&articleID=0006D234-4BE9-1CC6-B4A8809EC588EEDF) (the red ones)?

Originally posted by Tie Guy
Oh, and I do want to say, however, that how can something be an interaction with a gas constant? It's just a number that justifies a calculation, a lot like pi. Temperature, for instance, affects pressure, but it isn't physcially a part of part of it, like if you break up pressure than you get heat and a few moles of something.

That's dodging the answer. Besides, your wrong. g is also a constant, but has a very fair degree of effect on its surroundings.

Originally posted by Tie Guy
Oh, and "n" does stand for number of moles, i use that equation almost every day, look it up.

"Number of moles", or quantity of molecules, or, in short, quantity. Evidently we read differing Chem books. But the fact remains that "moles" is a unit, not a physical phenomenon: You can talk about mmol, but not about milli-quantity-of-molecules.

Somehow that doesn't impress me. You wouldn't happen to be living in one of these states (the red ones)?

Go California! :D

I made the thoughtless comment that included "christian cult" and mentioned it's attack on established scientific theories as an example relating to FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

That this thread went the way of "creation -vs- evolution" is sad, since freedom of speech is a much more interesting topic. Religious types will not change their views on creation out of fear and I accept that. Cjais was right in saying that I could post PLENTY of supporting comments and links to sources and references... but the bandwidth would be wasted. It won't change their minds.

The interesting thing is, I believe that they are entitled to voice that opinion. Freedom of Speech. In fact, it is my opinion that continued talk about all that creation hocus pocus will give credibility to science. More and more people come to understand that the same scientific theories used in discovering our past are employed in creating our future (modern technology owes much to chemistry, genetics, biology, physics, etc.). The evidence is in the PC you're reading this with.

Doubt will increase with the general public as ideals such as creation attempt to discount that which is tangible. Couple that with the failure of religion to solve the world's political problems.....

So please... keep telling the world how it is only 6,000 years old. Please keep telling society that the luxuries it enjoys aren't real since the theories that they are based on are baseless. ;)

Let's get this thread back to freedom of speech.

I'm curious what people feel about Michael Moore's comments at the Oscars.

I'm curious how people feel about flag burning? Is that a valid expression of free speech? Should it be permitted? What do those who live in other countries think about flag-burning? If a group was protesting the decisions of the Dannish, English, or German governments, would it be accepted as free speech?

If anyone wants to continue the evolution -vs- creation debate go to this thread (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=89510) or this thread in Yoda's Swamp (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=83859&highlight=evolution) and this one here in the local Senate of Galactic Battlegrounds (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=95660).

I'm subscribed to the first two, so if anyone posts there, I'll notice and go see. Read the threads first, though....

Originally posted by SkinWalker
I'm curious what people feel about Michael Moore's comments at the Oscars.

Sorry, I didn't catch the Oscars this year - what did he say?

I'm curious how people feel about flag burning? Is that a valid expression of free speech? Should it be permitted?

Of course. To ban it would take your country one step closer to that of Saddam's.

What do those who live in other countries think about flag-burning?

I'm not entirely sure, but I suspect the Danish flag (Dannebrog) may mean more to the Danes than stars 'n stripes means to 'merikans. Any chance we get, we parade it around. On birthdays, it's all over the house, and outside as well. On the birthday cake there's tons of little red and white flags. You can't live in a suburb without having a flag pole in your back yard. In the summertime, you can't walk two feet without seeing a flag raised on someone's lawn.

To see that flag get burned would probably hurt me someone inside. Denmark is symbolized in a large part through the flag, the gentle, rolling hills and the beer. I wouldn't like it, and I'd find it very "uhyggeligt" - scary.

If a group was protesting the decisions of the Dannish, English, or German governments, would it be accepted as free speech?

Yeah, that happens all the time. Just recently, a few demonstrants sneaked inside the parliament building and poured a bucket of red paint over our prime minister. The tabloids loved it, especially since they think he's a "damn coward" to jump the wagon on this war.

Originally posted by Tie Guy
Templar, i just wanted you to know i really didn't read past your first paragraph.

I've noticed you do this sometimes, yes. It's okay to ignore someone who's being an ass, but Templar is really just disagreeing with you.

If the opponent in a debate is making valid points, ignoring him only sends a clear message to the audience.

I've also taken physics and biology in HS.

I'm curious, who how old are you? Is it in that secular school you're mentioning that your biology teacher said that genes cannot be added? Was it in that school that the teachers loved nothing more than to pick evolution apart?

Or am I confusing you and Artoo here?

I know about science, thank you very much, and i've read school books and other books on evolution.

If you've read books upon books about evolution, how come you know so little about it, compared to me who have not even read about it in school?

anyway, head back to the swamp.

Head back to the swamp? Where we belong, is that it?

Pfeh.

I'm just tired of wasting time on this

Wasting time? We're educating each other here, dammit.

Seeya, don't bother replying. If there something you reallt need to say to me, send me a PM.

Oh God, please don't pull a HotRod on us now.

Head back to the swamp? Where we belong, is that it?


I was talking to Templar, you're fine. And this isn't the first incident i've had to "debate" with him. I have no desire to do so again.

[quote]
Wasting time? We're educating each other here, dammit.
[QUOTE]

No, we're not getting anywhere. You aren't listening to me, i am not listening to you, and neither of us think any differently than when we started. It's a waste of time, really, as far as i'm concerned, more trouble than it's worth.

So, like i said, i'm tired of this and I'm simply not going to do it anymore. Don't dare think i'm acquiesing, either, because i certainly am not.

But you, this could have been in a PM, as it had no bearing on any further discussion you might have had with others. I just wanted to leave without causing some huge scene and several posts. I now see that's not possible.

TIE Guy and about everyone else:
This thread is hopelessy off-topic. It was supposed to be about freedom of speech, and it was thrown off-topic because I mentioned fundamentalism.

Look, there's already a thread on Creationism. If you want to discuss religion, do it there. TIE Guy, I'll PM you on religion (don't worry: I'm using PM because I don't want yet another thread on the same thing. Not because I'm going to flame or anything).

If you need to spend some posts on what your definition of fundamentalism is, fine. But starting to debate evolution is WAY off-topic. It's okay to be religious (as stated in the First Amendment ;)), but not in threads devoted to something else.

Back on topic.
To answer your question waaaay back there, TG, no, of course you're not a fundamentalist if you're monotheistic (as in believing in only one religion). 99% of all religious people recognize their own religion only. This is natural.

Fundamentalism, in my case, is when someone expresses views or take actions that society regard as wrong (such as beating up to girlfriends walking hand in hand) and use their religion as an umbrella to justify it. Beating up two girlfriends for loving each others is wrong, period. You can't use the cover of religion to do things that just are basically wrong. Or as someone else said: "If something's inappropriate, it's inappropriate".

On to the other views:

What about racism, nazism, and facism? Should they be allowed?

In my opinion, strictly no. Outlawing racism is the first step of fighting it. I've got a good theory on how to remove racism, but that's OT.

Political views: It depends on the kind of political view, and how you express it.

For example, if you say that the (blank) party sucks, you'll have to give reasons for it.

Flag-burning should not be allowed. Flags represent every good aspect of a nation: Culture, government, nature, everything you hold dear. Burning it is extremely offensive. Take the Israeli flag. I do not approve of the way Israel has been recreated. Still, if I burn their flag, I burn a symbol of the Israeli people, and also one of the biggest current symobls of the Jewish religion.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Is that an expression or something or do you actually have a question you want to ask me?[/innocent ignorance;)]
Just curious as to how one becomes an EX-homosexual? I bet I could find a gay person or two who'd argue you can't go back :D

You can change. Both ways. Thrust me, I did a Middle-School project on it.
And you can change from liking one gender to liking both genders. And vice versa (I think).

But no, it's not a decision, it just happens. Either you just are that way, or society causes it (ie. from never being with the opposite gender).

Tie Guy: I wish to apologize. I did go too far at one point... But I hope that you will understand it when (if) you read some of the other threads I've been into about this topic (evolution)... When one has refuted the same point too many times one starts knowing every nook and cranny of it, and must watch oneself in order not to take people as imbiciles because they make mistakes that seem obvious because of ones practice. Add to that the fact that I thought that you played dirty on Skin.

This is not an excuse, of course. It's an apology and an explanation.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
of course you're not a fundamentalist if you're monotheistic (as in believing in only one religion). 99% of all religious people recognize their own religion only.

Monotheistic: Recognizing only one god (mono: One, theos: God).

Fundamentalistic: Claiming that your religion is exact (fundamental) truth.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
On to the other views:

What about racism, nazism, and facism? Should they be allowed?

Nazism, Communism, and Facism are just other kinds of religion. All religion should be outlawed, in an ideal world. However our world is not an ideal one, and so the best way of controling religion may be to allow it, and keep something that you can take away from it. Because you can only oppress a person or an institution by ensureing that you have not taken everything. As long as there is something left to take, you can excersise control over him/it, but once there is nothing that you can take, he/it is free to do as he pleases (you can't hurt him/it anymore and so has no control left - kinda like a hostage-taker: A dead hostage is no good). So in order to successfully oppress religion (including but not limited to Nazism, Fasicm, and Communism), you have to allow it, but restrict it heavily.

Racism is a different matter, and yet not. You cannot restrict your way out of racism, because it's an opinion. You can (and should), however, outlaw discrimination, which is often the direct consequense of racism. But then you run into another problem, namely how to define discrimination. We had a case in Denmark a couple of years back, where a warehouse chain was ordered to pay a fine for having refused a request by a female Muslim trainee to cover up her head in traditional gown. One could argue that the fact that it was because she was Muslim that the store couldn't prohibit it was discrimination against everyone else (a Christian or Bhuddist or Atheist or Skeptic couldn't wear such a dress, even if he/she had a reason for it (such as being prone to diseases in the ears or something).

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Political views: It depends on the kind of political view, and how you express it.

I have a proverb: Thoughts are Tax-free (implicitly stating that actions are not).

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
For example, if you say that the (blank) party sucks, you'll have to give reasons for it.

You can never force someone to be reasonable. If he wants to make himself look like an arse, then by all means, let him entertain the rest of us...

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Flag-burning should not be allowed. Flags represent every good aspect of a nation: Culture, government, nature, everything you hold dear. Burning it is extremely offensive. Take the Israeli flag. I do not approve of the way Israel has been recreated.

Like I said above: If they want to make themselves look stupid...

Seriously, though, you can't outlaw flag-burning. I mean, what would the next step be? Banning a picture because it shows a burning flag? What about people who think that it's more insulting to smash keyboards than to burn flags? Should they be cathered to too?

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Still, if I burn their flag, I burn a symbol of the Israeli people, and also one of the biggest current symobls of the Jewish religion.

In my opinion the fact that Isreal has been unable to disassociate religion and decisions would be a reason for burning their flag. Besides, there's no such thing as 'the Jewish people'. That kind of grouping serves only one kind of people: The fundamentalists.

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
Add to that the fact that I thought that you played dirty on Skin.

Moi? *slight blushing noticeable behind ears...

Actually, I was always glad that we were generally on the same side of debates...... most folks don't argue as effectively as you.

Still.... there's got to be a point we disagree upon. ;)

Nazism, Communism, and Facism are just other kinds of religion. All religion should be outlawed, in an ideal world. However our world is not an ideal one, and so the best way of controling religion may be to allow it, and keep something that you can take away from it. Because you can only oppress a person or an institution by ensureing that you have not taken everything. As long as there is something left to take, you can excersise control over him/it, but once there is nothing that you can take, he/it is free to do as he pleases (you can't hurt him/it anymore and so has no control left - kinda like a hostage-taker: A dead hostage is no good). So in order to successfully oppress religion (including but not limited to Nazism, Fasicm, and Communism), you have to allow it, but restrict it heavily.
First of all, I don't get you. First you define monotheism to me, because I took it and changed it a bit, and then you change a word yourself. Make up your mind. Do you want me to define religion to you:p?

Well, you can't regulate something that's banned, but then again, something that's banned is ALWAYS outlawed.

Facism, racism, and nazism might always exist, BUT that does not mean we shouldn't keep it to a minimum.

We had a case in Norway where a neo-nazi held a REALLY outrageous speech on Jews and immigrants. He was arrested although freedom of speech supposedly protected him. Personally, US freedom of speech will never go that far, but really, we shouldn't allow racist, nazi, and facist expressions.

Racism is a different matter, and yet not. You cannot restrict your way out of racism, because it's an opinion. You can (and should), however, outlaw discrimination, which is often the direct consequense of racism. But then you run into another problem, namely how to define discrimination. We had a case in Denmark a couple of years back, where a warehouse chain was ordered to pay a fine for having refused a request by a female Muslim trainee to cover up her head in traditional gown. One could argue that the fact that it was because she was Muslim that the store couldn't prohibit it was discrimination against everyone else (a Christian or Bhuddist or Atheist or Skeptic couldn't wear such a dress, even if he/she had a reason for it (such as being prone to diseases in the ears or something).
It depends. Racism is an opinion, yes.
Racist EXPRESSION, however, should not be tolerated.

There's a difference between thinking that all dark skinned people are stupid, and being able to say so in a paper.

I have a proverb: Thoughts are Tax-free (implicitly stating that actions are not).
There is a difference between thought and action.

Like I said above: If they want to make themselves look stupid...

Seriously, though, you can't outlaw flag-burning. I mean, what would the next step be? Banning a picture because it shows a burning flag? What about people who think that it's more insulting to smash keyboards than to burn flags? Should they be cathered to too?
With all due respect, there's a BIG difference between keyboards and flags. Keyboards are mere tools, flags represent whole countries. Bad analogy.

Banning pics showing burning flags: Well, if the people publishing the pics are merely reporting the event, like a TV station, no. If the nazis burn a flag and instead of using flag-burning as a symbol, put the pics of it in a nazi context, then yes.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Do you want me to define religion to you:p?

Lol. No. I did abide by the definition, you know?

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Facism, racism, and nazism might always exist, BUT that does not mean we shouldn't keep it to a minimum.

[...]

really, we shouldn't allow racist, nazi, and facist expressions.

[...]

It depends. Racism is an opinion, yes.
Racist EXPRESSION, however, should not be tolerated.

There's a difference between thinking that all dark skinned people are stupid, and being able to say so in a paper.

[...]

There is a difference between thought and action.

Err... I don't really see where we disagree... Would you be good enough to point it out to me?

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
With all due respect, there's a BIG difference between keyboards and flags. Keyboards are mere tools, flags represent whole countries. Bad analogy.

Only in your mind. The flag is worth even less than a keyboard, because it has no function, other than as a terretorial claim, at which, I must admit, it excels though.

Symbolism is all in your mind. So while we can agree that it's bad to burn flags, we can't objectively state that it is. Just like you can't state that murder is evil, because you can't make an objective definition of "evil". Even if we all agree that it is, it still won't be, objectively speaking.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Banning pics showing burning flags: Well, if the people publishing the pics are merely reporting the event, like a TV station, no. If the nazis burn a flag and instead of using flag-burning as a symbol, put the pics of it in a nazi context, then yes.

But how would you judge a Nazi context? I mean, you and I can obviously agree fairly easily about what would constitute a Nazi context, you don't have to pin it out for me, but I don't think that you can define it objectively. A definition that isn't bulletproof is worse than no definition.