Racist Police Response to Ferguson Protests

[Izzy.nyc]

So restrict a dissenting voice that says it may be inconclusive? I'm not talking about overt deniers


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

If a network presents creationism as a viable hypothesis on how the world was made, they should be stripped of their broadcasting privileges by the FCC.

Are you that insecure in your own belief system, that you feel the other side needs to be silenced? Thankfully that's not the way the system works.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by bono_212

Are you that insecure in your own belief system, that you feel the other side needs to be silenced? Thankfully that's not the way the system works.

We are talking about science, not a belief system.

Belief systems belong in philosophy and religious studies classes, not broadcast news which is in theory fact-based.

[Izzy.nyc]

In thelry


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by anitram

We are talking about science, not a belief system.

Belief systems belong in philosophy and religious studies classes, not broadcast news which is in theory fact-based.

You choose to believe the theory is right, right? Even though you have absolutely no way of knowing for 100% sure that it's fact. No one spites you this. But at the end of the day, it's still a belief system. You shouldn't be allowed to silence people who don't agree with you because you've labeled one philosophy and one science.

[nbelcik]

Originally Posted by Izzy.nyc

So restrict a dissenting voice that says it may be inconclusive? I'm not talking about overt deniers


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

It's not inconclusive. The science is rock-solid. Restrict their access to the media or let them on air, but point out the overwhelming evidence that climate change is caused by humans.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[nbelcik]

Originally Posted by bono_212

You choose to believe the theory is right, right? Even though you have absolutely no way of knowing for 100% sure that it's fact. No one spites you this. But at the end of the day, it's still a belief system. You shouldn't be allowed to silence people who don't agree with you because you've labeled one philosophy and one science.

Evolution is not a belief system. It's a scientific fact with overwhelming evidence supporting it. Creationism is not scientific fact, it is a belief system with no evidence. The news is supposed to be fact-based, creationism is not fact-based, therefore creationist viewpoints shouldn't be given equal airtime in the media. It'd be like having a debate between a flat-earther and a geologist.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[bono_212]

I just get very uncomfortable when I hear people talking about censoring the news.

[Izzy.nyc]

Originally Posted by nbelcik

It's not inconclusive. The science is rock-solid. Restrict their access to the media or let them on air, but point out the overwhelming evidence that climate change is caused by humans.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

I've read otherwise and was concerned when the scientific method was bypassed in order to get supporting evidence. But believe what you believe, it's your right. Not sure this is a great venue to persuade or dissuade others.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[cobl04]

Sort of along similar lines to this current discussion, I was really annoyed by the reporting of a man who survived ebola thanks to treatment. He thanked God, which is fine, but he seemed to completely ignore the science that did play a bit of a part in his surviving, which felt like a slap in the face, and then the media just kept reporting his quotes.

[Izzy.nyc]

Cobl what story sounds more exciting? The one that's seemingly all faith based, or the one where the guy thanks God and science. The sad thing is a lot of stuff is slanted to catch the eye and enrage so more people read it


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[cobl04]

I know. But it's still frustrating and intellectually dishonest. (No offence, 212, as I stated in the Afterlife thread I have absolutely no problem with someone's faith. But to completely ignore the scientific aspect is annoying)

[Vlad n U 2]

Clinton ignores questions on Ferguson – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Usually one of the first to condemn overseas, can't/won't say anything about this ... not surprised.

[bono_212]

Don't have to say no offense to me. I'm not a delicate flower that will crumble if someone doesn't share my beliefs, that's basically my point.

I do find that a weird thing to get irritated by, though. People don't always think of all of the various paths that are taken when their life is saved. It's not really at the forefront if their mind to thank everyone and their brother, I'd say, from experience. However, I didn't see the quotes, so maybe there's more to it than that.

My point wasn't to have another religious debate. Not in the thread, especially. It seems like an odd place for it.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by bono_212

You shouldn't be allowed to silence people who don't agree with you because you've labeled one philosophy and one science.

I find this statement to be really disturbing.

In what universe do you think "my" labeling of creationism as philosophy is wrong and it instead should be labeled as scientific theory?

I am actually disturbed that anybody would even consider this to be something that's up for debate. But I guess that's exactly the sort of point nbelcik was making upthread...

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by anitram

I find this statement to be really disturbing.

In what universe do you think "my" labeling of creationism as philosophy is wrong and it instead should be labeled as scientific theory?

I am actually disturbed that anybody would even consider this to be something that's up for debate. But I guess that's exactly the sort of point nbelcik was making upthread...

I didn't say it wasn't philosophy. Sorry if you misunderstood. I don't want it labeled scientific theory, any more than you do. It's not science.

My point was that you choose to believe the science, which is fine. There is lots and lots of evidence to back up that theory, and that's totally cool and fascinating and I can understand why you are 100% on board. But there is no way, no matter how much you believe in it, you can call it fact without witnessing it yourself. None of us can. And this isn't one of those cheeky arguments that people make, I'm being very sincere here. To believe anything other than one science points towards can be incredibly difficult.

I've said as much before: I'm not free of doubts about some things. The evidence is a compelling argument. What I was saying was that because someone chooses to believe differently from you shouldn't be the huge brick wall that it is. That always confounds me.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by bono_212

You choose to believe the theory is right, right? Even though you have absolutely no way of knowing for 100% sure that it's fact. No one spites you this. But at the end of the day, it's still a belief system. You shouldn't be allowed to silence people who don't agree with you because you've labeled one philosophy and one science.

different things are different things.

[bono_212]

I don't really want to derail this thread, so I'm fine just leaving it there
The world would be a lot better a place if people on all sides of most situations could just relax a bit and stop trying to convince each other that they're wrong.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by bono_212

I don't really want to derail this thread, so I'm fine just leaving it there
The world would be a lot better a place if people on all sides of most situations could just relax a bit and stop trying to convince each other that they're wrong.

but not all thoughts and opinions are of equal value or are equally informed. i'm not against diversity of opinion, or the right to hold any and all opinons, but i am against asserting that all opinions are the same value by virtue of the fact that they are opinions.

so to say, "yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man" when it comes to something like evolution or climate change is just silly.

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

but not all thoughts and opinions are of equal value or are equally informed. i'm not against diversity of opinion, or the right to hold any and all opinons, but i am against asserting that all opinions are the same value by virtue of the fact that they are opinions.

so to say, "yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man" when it comes to something like evolution or climate change is just silly.

And that's just fine. I agree. Wasn't saying I didn't agree. But silencing the other side, completely is wrong. But I don't think every crackpot theory should get equal airtime, either. I've never liked that system of news reporting, either.