The terrorists have never paid any attention to the Geneva conventions. What convention is it that was guiding the terrorists as they beheaded captives in Iraq?
The Geneva Conventions apply to armies fielded by nation states, not to rogue religious extremists who are committed to slaughtering innocent people, including the occasional photo-op beheading on TV. Is that humane treatment? What portion of the conventions allows beheading? If you believe the terrorists subscribe to any form of positive reciprocity (or justice based on any logic), you are truly foolish. I challenge you to produce some evidence that the terrorists are influenced by the Geneva conventions.
If you can't see the difference between the US and that, you are either hopelessly dim, or (more likely) an unthinking product of an absurdly radical school system, replaying your indoctrination like good little robots.
It is difficult to overlook the similarity between your constant, shrill, unthinking opposition to everything Bush's administration tries to accomplish and the shrill cries of religious fanatics as they oppose anything contrary to their own indoctrination.
You've become religious nuts, it's just a different religion.
If you can't see the difference between the US and that...
Why yes, I can see the difference between the US and that. I can also see that the difference has been greatly diminished in the last 5 years, and I hope that the difference will not be diminished more.
you are either hopelessly dim, or (more likely) an unthinking product of an absurdly radical school system, replaying your indoctrination like good little robots.
That's comedy gold right there.
I think you are much more convinced of your intelligence than I am, John. What I see in you is an unreasoning reactionary who is desperately seeking validation and adoration.
You make posts bashing Bush, or religion, or conservatives and then wait for your following to tell you how cool your post was. It reminds me of a holy roller church, where the faithful scream, chant, and sing their praise and support for the "witness" on the stage who is "testifying" to his faith. You're the preacher, they are the flock, the stuff you spout is to be taken on faith. After all, it's self-evident, right? Just like holy rollers.
Virtually all of your posts are disrespectful and insensitive. I thought liberals were oppossed to offending anyone? I guess you don't notice that Bush Bashing is insensitive, that referring to people of faith derogatorily is insensitive, or that your condescending attitude is itself insensitive and intemperate. So conservatives can't be insensitive, but you can, right?
BTW, I don't support most of the political policies that pass for conservative these days, nor am I religious. But neither do I feel the need to disrespect those who are. I'm a scientist of far greater accomplishment than you (but, to be fair, I'm older too), but I don't feel the need to run a juvenile and condescending blog to bash people while pretending it has anything at all to do wtih science. You're an embarrassment to the rest of us.
Is this your idea of the societal role of science?
It's probably not a good idea, but ... let's look at who is stooping to name-calling & disrespect:
"you are truly foolish"
"you are either hopelessly dim, or (more likely) an unthinking product of an absurdly radical school system, replaying your indoctrination like good little robots."
"You've become religious nuts"
"I think you are much more convinced of your intelligence than I am"
"You're the preacher, they are the flock, the stuff you spout is to be taken on faith. "
"a juvenile and condescending blog "
"You're an embarrassment to the rest of us."
And all of this in one thread. Wow. But then again, I'm "desperately seeking validation and adoration" so I'm just miffed that you are not giving it to me.
And what has it to do with anything that you are a "scientist of far greater accomplishment" than me? Could you be "desperately seeking validation"?
Here's a hint Michael ... there's no law in Kansas that says you have to read my blog, so why don't you just wander off somewhere else. OK?
But I thought your liberal ethic encouraged dissent. What gives? And what does Kansas have to do with anything? I've passed through there, but didn't see any material difference between it and Arizona, whose taxpayers pay your salary. (I realize you may have lost touch with where the money comes from, but it comes from people who are actually productive and pay taxes in Arizona. You might want to consider not insulting them.) Except, of course, that Arizona tends to be more reactionary than Kansas. How did Kansas get into this anyway? You were attempting to insult me by insinuating that I'm a rube from Kansas? Is Kansas your proxy for bumpkins? Is that what you think of (or allege about) everyone who disagrees with you? That they are naves from Kansas? You're ok with insulting the entire state of Kansas? That sure seems insensitive.
Maybe your Irish background has blurred your vision: Kansas is just like Arizona: neither of them are New York, or San Francisco, or any other cool, hip, urban scene. You are the country bumpkin here.
Actually, your blog wouldn't bother me much if you weren't seeking legitimacy under the umbrella of science. Why don't you call this what it is: an alternative religious view. I'll say this for the real religous nuts, they don't try to hide the fact that they are preaching religion. You, on the other hand, want to claim this has something to do with science when, in fact, it is just your religious rantings. You make it just that much harder for us real scientific types. We have to fight the backlash you idiots create. Anytime I see "role of science in society", I know I'm dealing with a religious nut that worships Darwin, and himself.
If the purpose of your blog is not to provoke spirited discussion, which implies that someone speaks the contrary view, what is it? If all you want is the chant of "right on, brother" to everything you say, then isn't it just about your ego?
My point is that you are unfit to teach. And this blog is inappropriate for anyone who we allow to teach. You are not attempting to teach with this blog, you are attempting to indoctrinate, and - oh by the way - pump up your ego. It does ASU a real disservice.
Trust me, John. There are those of us here who do not find any comedic value in a suggestion that you're not as bright as you think you are. I recommend that you go back to science and try to do some useful work. Show us something. Leave the pulpit to the inspired. Whether or not they are inspired by anything provable, at least they are inspired by something other than raw ego.
Best. Ad. Hominem. Evar.
Maybe start your own blog, Michael? You obviously have some passionate beliefs that the world would surely be better off for being able to read. And just think! You could counter all the ego-stroking Bush Bashing with your own erudite and well-written invective. I admire your ability to shy away from such self-aggrandisement, however. What the world really needs are more people with deep-seated beliefs, who only bring them out when someone with an audience fields beliefs contrary to them. Your resistance to stepping up onto a pedestal of idolatry does your argument a great service.
Kansas ... your IP (75.192.65.77) maps to Kansas. As for the people of Kansas ... I'm sure there are good, smart, people there, but they have a recent history of being somewhat backward when it comes to science standards. Oh, and some of them voted for Connie Morris. Nuff said.
If you are not in Kansas, then the above should have read "there's no law that says you have to read my blog, so why don't you just wander off somewhere else. OK?" Doesn't really alter much of what I said.
As for the rest ... You are a little like Bill Frist who was able to diagnose by looking at a video. You diagnose me and imagine what I am like and what motivates me. You are indeed a "scientist of far greater accomplishment" if you can do this - unfortunately for you, you're wrong. I don't do this to get my ego stroked.
"Us real science types" ... well, since we only have your word on that you are a "real science type", we can just ignore that.
"You are not attempting to teach with this blog" - that is correct. I never claim to teach here and this has nothing to do with what (or how) I have been teaching over the past years at ASU. I separate my blogging stance(s) from my teaching stance and my students find me fair in my dealings with all sides of the issues that I teach. Then again, you wouldn't know that because you already *think* you know me.
You also seem to have a poor view of my regular readers, positing them as some sort of religious syncophants. I'll let them deal with that if they wish.
By the way, *you* don't allow me to teach. The people of Arizona do, and have been doing so for nine years now. I have won awards for my teaching, have worked with the public, and provided plenty to the State in return for the trust they show in allowing me the privilege to teach. I work hard at my teaching and my public service and don't frankly care what *you* think.
As I said, you don't need to read this blog. Yes, I don't like the Bush administration and I do find them incompetent. In that, I'm with a sizeable number of Americans. To get respect, they need to earn it - something they have not done. If it annoys you so much, why don't you get your own soap box ... I'm sure you can find an audience.
Thanks, I do some blogging myself. But I came here to influence you, not to develop any following of my own. Are you listening? Are you capable of change? Or are you as set as those you castigate?
What is your goal with this blog? And what do you hope to accomplish with the Center for Biology & Society?
I don't believe that you separate this blog, and your biases, from your teaching. I don't think your students find you fair, I think they are just too meek to say anything contrary, but they will later.
Interesting that you realize the people of Arizona allow you to teach, but you believe the dominant beliefs of Arizonans are worthy of ridicule. Why don't you care what I think, since I am a member of the public that pays you? You should definately care about those who fund you. Isn't your cavalier attitude toward us taxpayers massively insensitive? You could care and try to show me where I'm wrong, no? Do you think the people of Arizona don't read your self-serving and insulting blog?
We only have your empty assertion that this blog is not about your ego. But if the goal of your blog isn't discussion, and it doesn't have to do with teaching, what is its goal, if not ego gratification?
A lot of "I don't believe" and "I don't think" and a truckload of opinion as to what my motives are and how I conduct myself in class. In other words, nothing new.
Michael seems to hint that he's in Arizona, and that I "believe the dominant beliefs of Arizonans are worthy of ridicule" - what beliefs would these be? That intelligent design is science? That creationism is correct? That Bush is a good president? That torture is OK? That American foreign policy has worked? That the Pope has the right to adjudicate scientific claims? IF these are indeed the "dominant beliefs" then they do deserve ridicule.
Interesting that you dodn't provide a link to your own blog. If we assume your own writing has nothing to do with "ego gratification" and is there as a beacon of light to us "liberals" why not let us learn at the feet of a master, a "scientist of far greater accomplishment".
We only have your empty assertion that this blog is not about your ego. But if the goal of your blog isn't discussion, and it doesn't have to do with teaching, what is its goal, if not ego gratification?
If the goals of your comments are not discussion (and they don't appear to be), and they are not teaching either, what are their goals if not ego gratification?
Y'know, just wondering. For the sake of my ego, like.
You say: That intelligent design is science? That creationism is correct? . We have not proven the absence of God. We have not proven that the forcing function behind genetic change, which we call mutation, is random. Therefore, it would seem advocates of those theories still deserve respect.
That Bush is a good president? Certainly a matter of opinion. Only history will tell. But why are you talking about it on a science blog under the auspices of ASU? Get your own blog, don't put this stuff on a science blog.
That torture is OK? At last we agree! And Bush too! And Cheney too! Good news! None of us are in favor of torture!
According to the Washington Times: "President Bush decided shortly after the September 11 attacks that terrorism detainees would be treated in accord with the Geneva Conventions, despite legal advice that this was not required, to adhere to "our values as a nation," according to a memo he wrote himself.
The White House yesterday released a 2-inch-high stack of memos that outline the administration's thoughts on dealing with an enemy that declares no country its home, wears no uniforms, and concentrates its attacks on civilians.
After months of deliberations, the administration decided to adhere strictly to the Geneva Conventions, despite their being optional in this case.
In a memo titled "Humane Treatment of al-Qaida and Taliban Detainees," Mr. Bush says he accepts "the legal conclusion of the attorney general and the Department of Justice that I have the authority under the Constitution to suspend Geneva as between the United States and Afghanistan, but I decline to exercise that authority at this time."
"Of course our values as a nation ... call for us to treat detainees humanely, including those who are not legally entitled to such treatment," he concluded in the Feb. 7, 2002, memo.
The administration, however, permitted interrogation techniques for detainees at Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, that go beyond what is outlined as permissible in the Army Field Manual, but do not cross the line into torture.
"Let me make very clear the position of my government and our country. We do not condone torture," Mr. Bush said yesterday before the memos were released. "I have never ordered torture. I will never order torture. The values of this country are such that torture is not a part of our soul and our being."
Or can't you read, John?
That American foreign policy has worked? We have had no more major terrorist attacks on the US and this breaks an important 15 year trend line. So, yes, it has worked. The goal is no more attacks, and we've had no more attacks. If you inhabited the real world, rather than some arbitrary pseudo-intellectual landscape, you would see this as success.
That the Pope has the right to adjudicate scientific claims? He doesn't, of course. Are you under some illusion that the people of Arizona look to the Pope to adjudicate scientific claims? I must admit, you've got me here. What scientific claims is the Pope adjudicating for the people of Arizona? I might join you in your opposition to such a thing.
IF these are indeed the "dominant beliefs" then they do deserve ridicule. Even if people with these beliefs pay your way? Maybe they deserve thoughtful work and respectful dissemintation of that work? I don't think ridicule of good people who pay your way is ever justified. If you are so diametrically opposed to the values of the people who pay your way, then the only honorable thing to do is to resign. People of honor do this all the time. Have you no courage, sir?
Interesting that you don't provide a link to your own blog. If we assume your own writing has nothing to do with "ego gratification" and is there as a beacon of light to us "liberals" why not let us learn at the feet of a master, a "scientist of far greater accomplishment". In good time, perhaps. I provide information about myself only to save you the trouble of painting me with your "religious idiots" brush, and perhaps to give you a bit of a heads up.
But let's keep the focus on you. It's your blog.
I take your tracking my IP as an attempt at subtle intimidation. As in, "show him I know how the system works and I know where he lives. That should give him pause."
Let me save you the trouble. I'm currently on the coast in the northeast. But I spend time in different places. I have no control over, knowledge of, or interest in, my ISP and its servers. I will say I'm not in Kansas. I once went to a "dance" in the National Guard Armory in Hayes, the band was the Moody Blues, and it was surprisingly good, a shock really. It was an accident. A National Guard Armory? Go figure. But that's about the extent of my contact with Kansas.
But none of this is relevant. Let's keep this about you.
We have not proven the absence of God.
Find one place that I ever argued we have. Point is that we cannot use God (or any supernatural entity) as an explanation within science. As a "scientist of far greater accomplishment" you already know that though.
But why are you talking about it on a science blog under the auspices of ASU? Get your own blog, don't put this stuff on a science blog.
Ahem. This *is* my own blog and I was asked to blog here by ScienceBlogs based on the various material (scientific and non-scientific) I wrote in the past elsewhere. ScienceBlogs (a) has nothing to do with ASU as it is run by SEED magazine, and (b) allows us to write on anything we want to. Take a poke around, see what others are blogging. We're an eclectic bunch who write on science, politics, culture, whatever we please. And the management likes it that way.
I don't think ridicule of good people who pay your way is ever justified.
So where exactly did I ridicule the people of Arizona? And even if I did, that's an issue between me and the people of Arizona, not you in thee NorthEast.
I provide information about myself only to save you the trouble of painting me with your "religious idiots" brush, and perhaps to give you a bit of a heads up.
I'd never paint you as a religious idiot. As to a "heads up" ... for what? That you might *shudder* say something nasty about me on your blog?
I see that you have censored my last post, John. Not very liberal of you. And I see that you have removed your post, which I, luckily, preserved by replying item by item. Interesting.
The basis of my point that you have ridiculed the people of Arizona is your comment: IF these are indeed the "dominant beliefs" then they do deserve ridicule. Combined with the voting record of Arizona, I conclude your comments were aimed at Arizona. Do you mean something else?
Armchair: I certainly encourage discussion. I've observed little here, just a lot of "you said it brother, carry on!", directed at John. Have any of you ever challenged him? How about your views on this? Is John an educator or an indoctrinator? Does his political bias and his willingness to flaunt it disqualify him as an educator?
I'm familiar with ScienceBlogs and I know there is no direct link with ASU. However, you brag about your ASU position in your bio, and rely on it as the basis of your credibility. You link them.
You said" Find one place that I ever argued we have. Since you treat Creationists with total disrespect, and since you claim to be a scientist, I presume you are proceeding on the basis of something you consider proof. I take that as an argument that you know God doesn't exist.
I see that you have censored my last post, John. Not very liberal of you. And I see that you have removed your post, which I, luckily, preserved by replying item by item. Interesting.
Eh? No. It was held in the spam trap for some reason. And I went and edited my post.
you brag about your ASU position in your bio
No I dont. I state what I do for a living. Quit making stuff up.
Since you treat Creationists with total disrespect, and since you claim to be a scientist, I presume you are proceeding on the basis of something you consider proof. I take that as an argument that you know God doesn't exist.
OK. I am a scientist, you claim to be one. People can check *my* credentials, yours are ethereal until you come out from behind "Michael" or "Mike" or whatever.
I don't know that God doesn't exist. I do know that Creationism as science is a failure. Creationism is not science., and if you think so or think that creationists who do think so ought to be given respect, then there is little anyone can do to persuade you.
I should have gone with my initial instinct. And for that reason alone, I'm closing comments here.
![i-fcfff7c4ad697ab910f5564d249f8e77-crmlu060916_Layer 1[4].jpg](http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/wp-content/blogs.dir/280/files/2012/04/i-fcfff7c4ad697ab910f5564d249f8e77-crmlu060916_Layer 1[4].jpg)
"If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it's flawed logic," Bush said. "I simply can't accept that."
The terrorists have never paid any attention to the Geneva conventions. What convention is it that was guiding the terrorists as they beheaded captives in Iraq?
The Geneva Conventions apply to armies fielded by nation states, not to rogue religious extremists who are committed to slaughtering innocent people, including the occasional photo-op beheading on TV. Is that humane treatment? What portion of the conventions allows beheading? If you believe the terrorists subscribe to any form of positive reciprocity (or justice based on any logic), you are truly foolish. I challenge you to produce some evidence that the terrorists are influenced by the Geneva conventions.
If you can't see the difference between the US and that, you are either hopelessly dim, or (more likely) an unthinking product of an absurdly radical school system, replaying your indoctrination like good little robots.
It is difficult to overlook the similarity between your constant, shrill, unthinking opposition to everything Bush's administration tries to accomplish and the shrill cries of religious fanatics as they oppose anything contrary to their own indoctrination.
You've become religious nuts, it's just a different religion.
Why yes, I can see the difference between the US and that. I can also see that the difference has been greatly diminished in the last 5 years, and I hope that the difference will not be diminished more.
That's comedy gold right there.
I think you are much more convinced of your intelligence than I am, John. What I see in you is an unreasoning reactionary who is desperately seeking validation and adoration.
You make posts bashing Bush, or religion, or conservatives and then wait for your following to tell you how cool your post was. It reminds me of a holy roller church, where the faithful scream, chant, and sing their praise and support for the "witness" on the stage who is "testifying" to his faith. You're the preacher, they are the flock, the stuff you spout is to be taken on faith. After all, it's self-evident, right? Just like holy rollers.
Virtually all of your posts are disrespectful and insensitive. I thought liberals were oppossed to offending anyone? I guess you don't notice that Bush Bashing is insensitive, that referring to people of faith derogatorily is insensitive, or that your condescending attitude is itself insensitive and intemperate. So conservatives can't be insensitive, but you can, right?
BTW, I don't support most of the political policies that pass for conservative these days, nor am I religious. But neither do I feel the need to disrespect those who are. I'm a scientist of far greater accomplishment than you (but, to be fair, I'm older too), but I don't feel the need to run a juvenile and condescending blog to bash people while pretending it has anything at all to do wtih science. You're an embarrassment to the rest of us.
Is this your idea of the societal role of science?
It's probably not a good idea, but ... let's look at who is stooping to name-calling & disrespect:
And all of this in one thread. Wow. But then again, I'm "desperately seeking validation and adoration" so I'm just miffed that you are not giving it to me.
And what has it to do with anything that you are a "scientist of far greater accomplishment" than me? Could you be "desperately seeking validation"?
Here's a hint Michael ... there's no law in Kansas that says you have to read my blog, so why don't you just wander off somewhere else. OK?
But I thought your liberal ethic encouraged dissent. What gives? And what does Kansas have to do with anything? I've passed through there, but didn't see any material difference between it and Arizona, whose taxpayers pay your salary. (I realize you may have lost touch with where the money comes from, but it comes from people who are actually productive and pay taxes in Arizona. You might want to consider not insulting them.) Except, of course, that Arizona tends to be more reactionary than Kansas. How did Kansas get into this anyway? You were attempting to insult me by insinuating that I'm a rube from Kansas? Is Kansas your proxy for bumpkins? Is that what you think of (or allege about) everyone who disagrees with you? That they are naves from Kansas? You're ok with insulting the entire state of Kansas? That sure seems insensitive.
Maybe your Irish background has blurred your vision: Kansas is just like Arizona: neither of them are New York, or San Francisco, or any other cool, hip, urban scene. You are the country bumpkin here.
Actually, your blog wouldn't bother me much if you weren't seeking legitimacy under the umbrella of science. Why don't you call this what it is: an alternative religious view. I'll say this for the real religous nuts, they don't try to hide the fact that they are preaching religion. You, on the other hand, want to claim this has something to do with science when, in fact, it is just your religious rantings. You make it just that much harder for us real scientific types. We have to fight the backlash you idiots create. Anytime I see "role of science in society", I know I'm dealing with a religious nut that worships Darwin, and himself.
If the purpose of your blog is not to provoke spirited discussion, which implies that someone speaks the contrary view, what is it? If all you want is the chant of "right on, brother" to everything you say, then isn't it just about your ego?
My point is that you are unfit to teach. And this blog is inappropriate for anyone who we allow to teach. You are not attempting to teach with this blog, you are attempting to indoctrinate, and - oh by the way - pump up your ego. It does ASU a real disservice.
Trust me, John. There are those of us here who do not find any comedic value in a suggestion that you're not as bright as you think you are. I recommend that you go back to science and try to do some useful work. Show us something. Leave the pulpit to the inspired. Whether or not they are inspired by anything provable, at least they are inspired by something other than raw ego.
Best. Ad. Hominem. Evar.
Maybe start your own blog, Michael? You obviously have some passionate beliefs that the world would surely be better off for being able to read. And just think! You could counter all the ego-stroking Bush Bashing with your own erudite and well-written invective. I admire your ability to shy away from such self-aggrandisement, however. What the world really needs are more people with deep-seated beliefs, who only bring them out when someone with an audience fields beliefs contrary to them. Your resistance to stepping up onto a pedestal of idolatry does your argument a great service.
Kansas ... your IP (75.192.65.77) maps to Kansas. As for the people of Kansas ... I'm sure there are good, smart, people there, but they have a recent history of being somewhat backward when it comes to science standards. Oh, and some of them voted for Connie Morris. Nuff said.
If you are not in Kansas, then the above should have read "there's no law that says you have to read my blog, so why don't you just wander off somewhere else. OK?" Doesn't really alter much of what I said.
As for the rest ... You are a little like Bill Frist who was able to diagnose by looking at a video. You diagnose me and imagine what I am like and what motivates me. You are indeed a "scientist of far greater accomplishment" if you can do this - unfortunately for you, you're wrong. I don't do this to get my ego stroked.
"Us real science types" ... well, since we only have your word on that you are a "real science type", we can just ignore that.
"You are not attempting to teach with this blog" - that is correct. I never claim to teach here and this has nothing to do with what (or how) I have been teaching over the past years at ASU. I separate my blogging stance(s) from my teaching stance and my students find me fair in my dealings with all sides of the issues that I teach. Then again, you wouldn't know that because you already *think* you know me.
You also seem to have a poor view of my regular readers, positing them as some sort of religious syncophants. I'll let them deal with that if they wish.
By the way, *you* don't allow me to teach. The people of Arizona do, and have been doing so for nine years now. I have won awards for my teaching, have worked with the public, and provided plenty to the State in return for the trust they show in allowing me the privilege to teach. I work hard at my teaching and my public service and don't frankly care what *you* think.
As I said, you don't need to read this blog. Yes, I don't like the Bush administration and I do find them incompetent. In that, I'm with a sizeable number of Americans. To get respect, they need to earn it - something they have not done. If it annoys you so much, why don't you get your own soap box ... I'm sure you can find an audience.
Thanks, I do some blogging myself. But I came here to influence you, not to develop any following of my own. Are you listening? Are you capable of change? Or are you as set as those you castigate?
What is your goal with this blog? And what do you hope to accomplish with the Center for Biology & Society?
I don't believe that you separate this blog, and your biases, from your teaching. I don't think your students find you fair, I think they are just too meek to say anything contrary, but they will later.
Interesting that you realize the people of Arizona allow you to teach, but you believe the dominant beliefs of Arizonans are worthy of ridicule. Why don't you care what I think, since I am a member of the public that pays you? You should definately care about those who fund you. Isn't your cavalier attitude toward us taxpayers massively insensitive? You could care and try to show me where I'm wrong, no? Do you think the people of Arizona don't read your self-serving and insulting blog?
We only have your empty assertion that this blog is not about your ego. But if the goal of your blog isn't discussion, and it doesn't have to do with teaching, what is its goal, if not ego gratification?
A lot of "I don't believe" and "I don't think" and a truckload of opinion as to what my motives are and how I conduct myself in class. In other words, nothing new.
Michael seems to hint that he's in Arizona, and that I "believe the dominant beliefs of Arizonans are worthy of ridicule" - what beliefs would these be? That intelligent design is science? That creationism is correct? That Bush is a good president? That torture is OK? That American foreign policy has worked? That the Pope has the right to adjudicate scientific claims? IF these are indeed the "dominant beliefs" then they do deserve ridicule.
Interesting that you dodn't provide a link to your own blog. If we assume your own writing has nothing to do with "ego gratification" and is there as a beacon of light to us "liberals" why not let us learn at the feet of a master, a "scientist of far greater accomplishment".
If the goals of your comments are not discussion (and they don't appear to be), and they are not teaching either, what are their goals if not ego gratification?
Y'know, just wondering. For the sake of my ego, like.
You say: That intelligent design is science? That creationism is correct? . We have not proven the absence of God. We have not proven that the forcing function behind genetic change, which we call mutation, is random. Therefore, it would seem advocates of those theories still deserve respect.
That Bush is a good president? Certainly a matter of opinion. Only history will tell. But why are you talking about it on a science blog under the auspices of ASU? Get your own blog, don't put this stuff on a science blog.
That torture is OK? At last we agree! And Bush too! And Cheney too! Good news! None of us are in favor of torture!
According to the Washington Times: "President Bush decided shortly after the September 11 attacks that terrorism detainees would be treated in accord with the Geneva Conventions, despite legal advice that this was not required, to adhere to "our values as a nation," according to a memo he wrote himself.
The White House yesterday released a 2-inch-high stack of memos that outline the administration's thoughts on dealing with an enemy that declares no country its home, wears no uniforms, and concentrates its attacks on civilians.
After months of deliberations, the administration decided to adhere strictly to the Geneva Conventions, despite their being optional in this case.
In a memo titled "Humane Treatment of al-Qaida and Taliban Detainees," Mr. Bush says he accepts "the legal conclusion of the attorney general and the Department of Justice that I have the authority under the Constitution to suspend Geneva as between the United States and Afghanistan, but I decline to exercise that authority at this time."
"Of course our values as a nation ... call for us to treat detainees humanely, including those who are not legally entitled to such treatment," he concluded in the Feb. 7, 2002, memo.
The administration, however, permitted interrogation techniques for detainees at Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, that go beyond what is outlined as permissible in the Army Field Manual, but do not cross the line into torture.
"Let me make very clear the position of my government and our country. We do not condone torture," Mr. Bush said yesterday before the memos were released. "I have never ordered torture. I will never order torture. The values of this country are such that torture is not a part of our soul and our being."
Or can't you read, John?
That American foreign policy has worked? We have had no more major terrorist attacks on the US and this breaks an important 15 year trend line. So, yes, it has worked. The goal is no more attacks, and we've had no more attacks. If you inhabited the real world, rather than some arbitrary pseudo-intellectual landscape, you would see this as success.
That the Pope has the right to adjudicate scientific claims? He doesn't, of course. Are you under some illusion that the people of Arizona look to the Pope to adjudicate scientific claims? I must admit, you've got me here. What scientific claims is the Pope adjudicating for the people of Arizona? I might join you in your opposition to such a thing.
IF these are indeed the "dominant beliefs" then they do deserve ridicule. Even if people with these beliefs pay your way? Maybe they deserve thoughtful work and respectful dissemintation of that work? I don't think ridicule of good people who pay your way is ever justified. If you are so diametrically opposed to the values of the people who pay your way, then the only honorable thing to do is to resign. People of honor do this all the time. Have you no courage, sir?
Interesting that you don't provide a link to your own blog. If we assume your own writing has nothing to do with "ego gratification" and is there as a beacon of light to us "liberals" why not let us learn at the feet of a master, a "scientist of far greater accomplishment". In good time, perhaps. I provide information about myself only to save you the trouble of painting me with your "religious idiots" brush, and perhaps to give you a bit of a heads up.
But let's keep the focus on you. It's your blog.
I take your tracking my IP as an attempt at subtle intimidation. As in, "show him I know how the system works and I know where he lives. That should give him pause."
Let me save you the trouble. I'm currently on the coast in the northeast. But I spend time in different places. I have no control over, knowledge of, or interest in, my ISP and its servers. I will say I'm not in Kansas. I once went to a "dance" in the National Guard Armory in Hayes, the band was the Moody Blues, and it was surprisingly good, a shock really. It was an accident. A National Guard Armory? Go figure. But that's about the extent of my contact with Kansas.
But none of this is relevant. Let's keep this about you.
Find one place that I ever argued we have. Point is that we cannot use God (or any supernatural entity) as an explanation within science. As a "scientist of far greater accomplishment" you already know that though.
Ahem. This *is* my own blog and I was asked to blog here by ScienceBlogs based on the various material (scientific and non-scientific) I wrote in the past elsewhere. ScienceBlogs (a) has nothing to do with ASU as it is run by SEED magazine, and (b) allows us to write on anything we want to. Take a poke around, see what others are blogging. We're an eclectic bunch who write on science, politics, culture, whatever we please. And the management likes it that way.
So where exactly did I ridicule the people of Arizona? And even if I did, that's an issue between me and the people of Arizona, not you in thee NorthEast.
I'd never paint you as a religious idiot. As to a "heads up" ... for what? That you might *shudder* say something nasty about me on your blog?
I see that you have censored my last post, John. Not very liberal of you. And I see that you have removed your post, which I, luckily, preserved by replying item by item. Interesting.
The basis of my point that you have ridiculed the people of Arizona is your comment: IF these are indeed the "dominant beliefs" then they do deserve ridicule. Combined with the voting record of Arizona, I conclude your comments were aimed at Arizona. Do you mean something else?
Armchair: I certainly encourage discussion. I've observed little here, just a lot of "you said it brother, carry on!", directed at John. Have any of you ever challenged him? How about your views on this? Is John an educator or an indoctrinator? Does his political bias and his willingness to flaunt it disqualify him as an educator?
I'm familiar with ScienceBlogs and I know there is no direct link with ASU. However, you brag about your ASU position in your bio, and rely on it as the basis of your credibility. You link them.
You said" Find one place that I ever argued we have. Since you treat Creationists with total disrespect, and since you claim to be a scientist, I presume you are proceeding on the basis of something you consider proof. I take that as an argument that you know God doesn't exist.
Eh? No. It was held in the spam trap for some reason. And I went and edited my post.
No I dont. I state what I do for a living. Quit making stuff up.
OK. I am a scientist, you claim to be one. People can check *my* credentials, yours are ethereal until you come out from behind "Michael" or "Mike" or whatever.
I don't know that God doesn't exist. I do know that Creationism as science is a failure. Creationism is not science., and if you think so or think that creationists who do think so ought to be given respect, then there is little anyone can do to persuade you.
I should have gone with my initial instinct. And for that reason alone, I'm closing comments here.