Phi for All

Especially if the crops are hops.

I think ridicule works but not against creationism and many religious arguments. Creationists have become adept at side-stepping concrete reality and ridicule is a tool of rational thinking. It may be possible to use it on specific points with a creationist, such as the maths vs magic arguments, but you MUST make sure you're not perceived as attacking their faith as a whole. Ridicule should be a scalpel, not a club. And it doesn't have to be malicious; good friends can ridicule lightheartedly with impressive results.

You're my hero. If you're successful in this, you should try nailing jello to the wall.

I know it seems simple and therefore more appealing to someone who obviously studied more religion than science, but you can't seriously be suggesting that God has been creating new creatures after the original creation?! Where does it say THAT in the Bible?! To go from the couple of thousand species recorded in the Bible to the 8.7 million species we have now, He'd have to create half a dozen new creatures a day, every day for the last 6000 years!!! Don't you see how silly that sounds?!

Here are a few threads to get you started: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/35342-how-to-build-a-space-elevator/?hl=%2Bspace+%2Belevator http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/28588-space-elevator/?hl=%2Bspace+%2Belevator http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/1605-space-elevator-high-hopes-lofty-goals/?hl=%2Bspace+%2Belevator I think the last one is over 10 years old, it will be interesting to discuss what's new.

I find myself wanting to point out how ridiculous this statement really is, but I know you arrived at this conclusion emotionally, and ridicule will only make you believe it more. I really wish you'd reached this stance intellectually, since there is at least then a possibility of appealing to your rational side. * sigh *

I'd be happy with a system that would require those who get suspended to put a check mark next to each rule to state they've read it. It doesn't force them to actually read, but I don't know how much clearer we can make it that you need to follow rules in a community with tens of thousands of members.

I qualified my statement pretty well, I think. Ridicule works well in many situations to move people from an untenable position they've arrived at intellectually. If they gained that perspective emotionally, ridicule works poorly. If a creationist tells you that all life today stemmed from the 1000-2000 "kinds" of animals mentioned in the Bible, in just 6000 years, pointing out how ridiculous that statement is through simple math is very effective. It's ridiculous to think five or six new species a day have been appearing for the last few millennia to bring us to our current biodiversity. If someone tells you Jesus is their savior, ridicule is completely inappropriate. Decisions arrived at emotionally become further entrenched when ridiculed. IOW, ridicule is a tool, good for certain jobs but certainly not all. I think people revile it because it seems cruel. And to be honest, too many people use it to gain control over others. But the same can be said of knives, you can hurt or you can help by using it, but don't blame the tool.

Ridicule is a perfectly valid means of getting people to take a new look at their stances. The problem here is that unless the ridicule is aimed at a specific ridiculous aspect, the person being ridiculed can easily assume their entire belief system is being ridiculed, and this is where ridicule is harmful, imo. There are aspects of faith (NOT in creationism, however) that science isn't a good tool for. Tell me it's ridiculous to think science hasn't found a "missing link" between humans and proto-humans because of evidence A, B and C. But don't tell me it's ridiculous to believe in God. Science can't back you up on that.

Your idea is intriguing. This would have to be an Admin task, since I know of no way to give more than one rep point to anyone for a single post. But I agree that some of the folks who make a bad first impression are capable of changing, and as long as they want to stay and be productive, we should encourage that. I've also long felt that we should amend the Etiquette Guide to request that OPs can't be voted down (or somehow force the software to do this). I hate penalizing people for asking questions. After the thread starter, all posts are fair game, but I don't think people should get negative rep for starting a discussion, even if the topic is not high quality.

Remember that you're working on more empathy with others? How would this sound to your manager if she read this? "I respect company policy but I might get a call about a better job!" If you were the manager, responsible for the workers under you, would you want someone who suddenly gets phone calls from politicians and has to immediately stop working to take the call, even though you're paying him to work? Before you answer with more special pleading, what if ALL your employees did this? "Hey Cap'n, I know someone who wants to work with you. Well, not WORK work, sort of like SOME work in between phone calls to politicians and better job offers..."

Welcome to the USA. I think we have fast food places now where you can watch televangelists and FOX News as you eat your Illogic Hypocrisy Wrap. Or we will soon.

You look like you haven't aged a day, Ed! Thanks for a great idea!

! Moderator Note Quoted for Truth. Please be careful with electricity. We get too many people who join to ask questions like this and then never post again. We can only hope they're still alive.

I would venture to say that few creationists have actually talked to scientists. They hear what scientists have to say through the mockery of their church leaders. They know what mockery sounds like. Most think science is all about disproving their god. Ridicule makes them believe more strongly, and arguing against an inerrant Bible makes them play the omnipotence card. Countering the sound-bytes with patient, rational explanations seems like the best way to show how science approaches a problem.

But this isn't a result of Obamacare. In fact, the ACA makes this less of a burden. CVS isn't in the business of determining if you can control your impulses. The best they can do in a market economy is give choices so we can decide for ourselves. This is important. Sometimes we need to step in and say, "Sorry, it's not working to leave this up to the individual, we have to cover this as a group if it's going to work at all, so here's the decree." Social Security was like that. Too many people ending up old and penniless, so we fixed it. But this isn't the best way to do everything. We do quite a bit of mandatory selection in healthcare as it is, and I'm not sure legislating against junk foods is smart. Prohibition has a horrible track record.

We've been sound-byte conditioned in the US, by the media, our entertainment and our politics. It's easy to win people over with unthinking snappy phrases like, "If we evolved from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys?" Science isn't like that. Often, the shortest answers leave too much to interpretation, or create more questions. Science needs to patiently explain, where creationism is just easier and tells people what to believe in and how to believe it. Science lays out the evidence and lets everyone decide if the conclusions are valid. Of course, creationists are free to lie about science, where science has no such freedom. If someone has stunted their own critical thinking skills by ignoring reality in favor of a literal interpretation of their religious texts, I think the best way to approach it is to point out the lies. Start by showing that what is being taught about science isn't true. Knock down one lie, show that what's being taught isn't the truth, and hopefully you'll at least show that science has been misrepresented. Keep in mind that you're dealing with people who claim that God created Adam before the birds, animals and trees, AND God created Adam after the birds, animals and trees, simply because the Bible says it both ways. That's some very powerful, mind-dodging rationalization going on there.

After six pages, representing a lot of work on the part of almost everyone involved, I find this "rhetorical question" post extremely insulting. It is most definitely NOT a rhetorical question! Thanks for throwing everything we said out the window in favor of your preachy little viewpoint, which you stated on the first page and simply repeat here despite many attempts to wring from you some clarification.

This is always the big question. We know rule-breakers are usually loud and stomp around a lot. What about the otherwise good members who might have joined but quietly decided not to because of something they found objectionable? I could see a quiz giving potential members more of an "elite" feeling of being part of the community, but I'm not sure a quiz on the rules would give that feeling. It would be great to have more people understand the spirit of the rules rather than cherry-pick the ones that benefit their arguments.

I think we've definitely evolved to be more predisposed to accepting religious ideology, but I think the authority part came later. Our imaginations, a part of our growing intelligence, likes to predict future possibilities. This was a huge boon to early man, being able to think ahead and plan for eventualities. Imagine how much more successful hunter/gatherers would be if they can anticipate what prey might do or where the best plants might grow. Inevitably, our imaginations led us to "see" predators in the shadows. We were probably often wrong, but the times we were right saved us and our tribe. The ability to imagine things we can't observe must have been selected for, must have been seen as a huge advantage, and those with the greatest ability must have been revered. Following the leader who can anticipate danger would have been best for all. Those who chose differently and died showed how authority is best and shouldn't be questioned. Pass those kinds of tradition down for a few thousand generations and you have a religion, one based on things we've never actually seen, as told to us by leaders who've never seen them either. Point out all the bad things that happen to people who don't believe, and now you've got an unquestioning fellowship of people who will justify their actions based on things they can't possibly know for sure.

< cricket, cricket >

Ironically, this is just preaching to the choir. The only people still listening after the first 30 seconds already get the message. Reaching the right people won't be done through ridicule. And I think it's important to reach those people, since I also think many people who listen to creationist garbage are simply confirming their faith in God rather than confirming a belief that the world is really just 6000 years old. When they hear ridicule, they think it's about their whole belief system and not just because they're taking the Bible literally. The cloth creationism has woven is pretty tough. You won't tear it by attacking it as a whole. You need to break the individual threads, and science is very, very good at that.

So much of basic human interaction is having the confidence to be taken seriously as an equal, not demanding respect but assuming you're worthy of it. A natural, easy, non-forced assumption. When you don't show that basic confidence, it can throw people off and they can treat you strangely because of it. I've seen people who don't know cats very well try to pet them. They often lack the confidence to just reach out normally and let the cat sniff their hand a bit before they scratch behind the ears. Their moves are tentative because they aren't sure if the cat will bite or scratch, so guess what? The cat senses something's wrong, its ears go back flat and it starts to get uneasy about what this person is going to do with that hand and BAM! The cat lashes out because the human was acting funny. It's easy to stress other people out if you're extremely high-maintenance and constantly forcing them to re-evaluate you and your actions. Let me share this little phi-losophy with you. I interpreted this from a Jason Mraz song that spoke to me: Live High. Rise above the pettiness. Live Mighty. Be valuable to those in your life and draw strength from that. Live Righteously. Avoid doing things you feel the need to lie about.

You definitely don't want to hear it. Nobody does. But a responsible person listens to criticism and makes an honest attempt to acknowledge it for what it is. You asked for an example of your earlier deception, and iNow responded: Who do you think you're fooling with this shtick? "Oh, yeah, I lied about that, but lookey over here everybody, FACEBOOK!" You don't get to pretend you don't understand what Ophiolite meant about your honesty any more. Can you tell me about one of the last jobs you held? I've known lots of intelligent people who couldn't hold a job because they always knew better than their employer. Problem is, the employer owns the job, and they got where they are without you, so it's usually good to do the job you're asked to do and don't try to treat every systerm as something you have to make better. At least to begin with. You strike me as someone who enters a situation and immediately wants to change it to suit yourself. You don't always get to do that when you work for someone else.

Wow, that sounds good! I'm not familiar with India relish or Mei Yen powder, but I'll look for those in the store. This would probably go well with another Papa recipe: fill a tennis ball tube with water and freeze it, then put the tube of ice in a cocktail shaker, add 3 ounces of good gin, think very strongly about your favorite vermouth, then shake until the martini is so cold that when you pour it into a glass, it sticks to your fingers. Then add two frozen cocktail onions. Drink with your burger.