|
Christmas Jones posted:I think the anti-environmentalism is that part that confuses me the most. I mean, okay, you don't believe in global warming because Jesus has the thermostat. Fine. And God will be right back with some more oil, he just had to step out to the Infinite Oil Store. Okay. But... isn't it still nice to have clean water, and fresh air, and decent food? I mean, how can you think being anti-smog is anti-human aaaaaaaghgh The sooner the planet goes to hell, the sooner the Rapture comes. 
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 07:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 00:03 |
|
|
It's almost refreshing that Freepers are back to being paranoid about the Russians. That Putin worship was getting loving annoying.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 07:46
|
|
|
I expect a wave of zots as they scramble to figure out if Russia is the bad guy or if them taking over would be preferable to Barack HUSSEIN Obama.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 08:40
|
|
|
Morkyz posted:It's almost refreshing that Freepers are back to being paranoid about the Russians. That Putin worship was getting loving annoying. I'm still trying to figure out how we got into a position where a non-trivial portion of the American population, including the mayor of New York City, were/are openly praising a ex-KGB agent for invading a sovereign nation is something I'm still struggling with. I know 2008 really broke some people's brains, but I thought that growing up during the Cold War would make Freepy folk stop for a moment before applauding Putin. Is the Putin-worship just intended as a snub to Obama? Do Freepers really want a person like Putin in charge of the US? Are Freepers really so dense they don't see a problem with praising someone who was a spy for a hostile foreign power - the hostile foreign power at the time - for over a decade? The answer is "all of the above", isn't it?  RagnarokAngel posted:I expect a wave of zots as they scramble to figure out if Russia is the bad guy or if them taking over would be preferable to Barack HUSSEIN Obama. I'm guessing that the Freep party line will shift swiftly and suddenly, and any bans that get handed out will be to people who didn't get the memo that they've always been at war with Eastasia soon enough.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 08:50
|
|
|
Honestly, the whole reaction to Ukraine had been pretty stupid on both sides of the aisle. Crimea is like 2/3rds ethnic Russians. Basically no one harmed by the intervention, and 0 people were killed. There absolutely are anti - Russian nationalists in the Euromaidan coalition, and sovereignty is a gigantic joke when it comes to superpowers, as the US has demonstrated over and over for decades. It really shouldn't be shocking to anyone that a superpower has intervened to shift events in its favor, especially since the US and the EU have been doing everything they can to isolate Russia from its former Warsaw Pact allies for 20 years now. The way people read events is largely a function of their personal politics. The commentary on Russia's actions, especially in US media, actually pisses me off with its blind hypocrisy and appeals to freedom, self-determination, and a bunch over other things the powerful never give two shits about when their interests are on the line. Hilariously though, their hatred for Obama has Freepers moving against the ego mass in this case. Most of the US (and the West) seems to be treating the situation as a self - actualization exercise, where we get to pat ourselves on the back for how much more freedom loving and good we are than those dastardly Russians. But, faced with supporting the president in order to be a part of it, Freepers are forced instead to side with the hated "other" against their own country. Given how much nationalism and jingoism are core to conservative politics, it's really entertaining to watch the right have an identity crisis over this. Political Whores fucked around with this message at 11:52 on Mar 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 11:46
|
|
|
Little Blackfly posted:Honestly, the whole reaction to Ukraine had been pretty stupid on both sides of the aisle. Crimea is like 2/3rds ethnic Russians. Basically no one harmed by the intervention, and 0 people were killed. There absolutely are anti - Russian nationalists in the Euromaidan coalition, and sovereignty is a gigantic joke when it comes to superpowers, as the US has demonstrated over and over for decades. It really shouldn't be shocking to anyone that a superpower has intervened to shift events in its favor, especially since the US and the EU have been doing everything they can to isolate Russia from its former Warsaw Pact allies for 20 years now. The way people read events is largely a function of their personal politics. The commentary on Russia's actions, especially in US media, actually pisses me off with its blind hypocrisy and appeals to freedom, self-determination, and a bunch over other things the powerful never give two shits about when their interests are on the line. Zero people killed is a pretty low estimate. There have been some reasonably reliable reports saying some protesters haven't made it home after attending meetings and such. There may be no open fighting in the streets but zero certainly isn't correct, which is one of the reasons the whole situation is so worrisome.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 13:01
|
|
|
Anubis posted:Zero people killed is a pretty low estimate. There have been some reasonably reliable reports saying some protesters haven't made it home after attending meetings and such. There may be no open fighting in the streets but zero certainly isn't correct, which is one of the reasons the whole situation is so worrisome. I'm not going to claim Russia is morally right or on the up and up in this, and yeah, it's pretty clear Tatar activists at the very least are being targeted, since they represent the minority opposed to secession, but Russian troops at least don't seem to have violently suppressed or massacred anyone. I'm just saying that people are reading a moral narrative into what is really a much more deeply complex situation, narratives that fit their worldview. Given the way people talk about Ukraine you'd think that violating national sovereignty was a sign of the end times, and that had Russia not intervened, Ukraine would just have blossomed into a western democracy and allied itself 100% with the EU with nor more internal strife. All the while blithely the army of killer robots the US uses to violate sovereignty and murder a poo poo ton of people every week, and totally discounting all the of the legitimate problems people had with Euromaidan. People seem surprised and genuinely upset that Putin would have the audacity to act in a way the US has continuously since it became a world power, which I just find baffling. What the hell to you expect superpowers to do? The situation is far from ideal, but I do think that the way different groups are reacting in the US is interesting though. It speaks to the degree to which people form opinions first and then rationalize them afterwards. Freepers begin from a position of hating the black guy in power, and then adopt positions that would seem totally at odds with each other (The US is the greatest country on earth, democracy freedom rah rah rah, and Obama is ruining it by being a dictator. vs. Putin the former KGB operative is the greatest leader on the planet, Russia is always morally right nowadays, and he;s personally a hero for setting up a dictatorship). E: Basically my problem comes down to this, essentially The actual problems facing real people are totally glossed over in favour of fitting the situation into some preexisting agenda. For example, other than human rights watch I haven't really heard anyone talk about the dangers facing the Tatars right now. It's all talked about in abstract terms like sovereignty, freedom, democracy, rule-of-law, etc. It rings pretty hollow to me when US diplomats and politicians will decry a largely non-violent intervention in another country as immoral, when US drones are at this moment murdering people on the other side of the planet. Political Whores fucked around with this message at 14:00 on Mar 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 13:52
|
|
|
Thinking back, the sovereignty issue of Crimea has been around since at least the 50s, what with the hand-off. And since the majority of the population happens to be Russian-speaking and affiliated denizens, trading Ukrainian autocracy off for a chunk of what would probably end up Russian with a proper vote seems a fair deal. Gotta wonder why Putin had to rush those polls, what he intended to head off. All he needed to do was wait a year and hold a UN-certified referendum in Crimea in order to accept its succession. This bullshit vote that just went through was loving embarrassing in its blatant tampering. As for Freep - They always need an enemy. Someone both weak and strong, and a leader who is strong and
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 13:58
|
|
|
WarpedNaba posted:Thinking back, the sovereignty issue of Crimea has been around since at least the 50s, what with the hand-off. And since the majority of the population happens to be Russian-speaking and affiliated denizens, trading Ukrainian autocracy off for a chunk of what would probably end up Russian with a proper vote seems a fair deal. I thought there was some thing where a country can't join NATO if it has disputed borders, so this would do it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 14:07
|
|
|
Not freep but someone on another forum posted this cover of Der Spiegel: ...and someone thinks Angela Merkel is French: quote:LOL, they look like lambs trying to lecture a wolf in that picture.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:I'd almost like to be on a flight piloted by someone with a vaguely Arabic-sounding name with this guy just to see his reaction during the preflight announcements. ... and then it turns out that the pilot with an Arabic name is a Lebanese Christian .
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
Little Blackfly posted:I'm not going to claim Russia is morally right or on the up and up in this, and yeah, it's pretty clear Tatar activists at the very least are being targeted, since they represent the minority opposed to secession, but Russian troops at least don't seem to have violently suppressed or massacred anyone. I'm just saying that people are reading a moral narrative into what is really a much more deeply complex situation, narratives that fit their worldview. Given the way people talk about Ukraine you'd think that violating national sovereignty was a sign of the end times, and that had Russia not intervened, Ukraine would just have blossomed into a western democracy and allied itself 100% with the EU with nor more internal strife. All the while blithely the army of killer robots the US uses to violate sovereignty and murder a poo poo ton of people every week, and totally discounting all the of the legitimate problems people had with Euromaidan. People seem surprised and genuinely upset that Putin would have the audacity to act in a way the US has continuously since it became a world power, which I just find baffling. What the hell to you expect superpowers to do? The situation is far from ideal, but This is how I've been feeling about this, too. Everyone keeps bringing up "right" and "wrong" to the conversation, when nations aren't judged on "right" or "wrong". Nations are judged on "prudent" or "reckless", and then rightness or wrongness seems to be applied later to actions that were actually prudent or reckless. Russia has interests, the EU has interests, the US has interests (barely, actually, in this situation), and Ukraine and Crimea are so culturally different that it's clear they have separate interests, too. If the Russian government were to do anything but do exactly what is in their interest, they'd be criminally incompetent. Putin's presidency may seem like a farce to us, but it's clear that he's still subject to the politics of his nation. No matter how tenuous we may think their Democracy is, democratically elected leaders don't have the leisure to act against their country's interests, even if it's for a morally right reason. Only dictators have that power.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 16:23
|
|
|
Little Blackfly posted:I'm not going to claim Russia is morally right or on the up and up in this, and yeah, it's pretty clear Tatar activists at the very least are being targeted, since they represent the minority opposed to secession, but Russian troops at least don't seem to have violently suppressed or massacred anyone. I'm just saying that people are reading a moral narrative into what is really a much more deeply complex situation, narratives that fit their worldview. Given the way people talk about Ukraine you'd think that violating national sovereignty was a sign of the end times, and that had Russia not intervened, Ukraine would just have blossomed into a western democracy and allied itself 100% with the EU with nor more internal strife. All the while blithely the army of killer robots the US uses to violate sovereignty and murder a poo poo ton of people every week, and totally discounting all the of the legitimate problems people had with Euromaidan. I think you're trying to go for a Truth in the Middle approach that doesn't really apply. Even though it's hypocritical to point out Putin doing bad things while ignoring our own bad things, it's not like they just even out. But to respond specifically to the idea that this was a peaceful vote for a transfer of power, that's absurd. Even putting aside the many indications of thousands of plainclothes Russian soldiers (in the guise of a Crimean "militia") visibly holding key points all over the region, Russian Nationalist biker gangs staked out polling booths and made it very clear that people should probably vote to join Russia. They said they were there to prevent violence against ethnic Russians, but they didn't even bother keeping up the facade if you asked how they felt about people who wanted to remain a part of Ukraine. The vote itself didn't even have an option to remain in the Status Quo; the only two options were to petition to join Russia or to go back to a 1992 constitution that was quickly abandoned at the time because it was a clear path back to Russian control. Both options were essentially the same and anybody who disagreed with either option just stayed home. There is of course a huge population of ethnic Russians in Crimea and some portion of them legitimately wish for a return to Russian control. But to pretend that this was some kind of referendum that accurately represents the wants of the Crimean population is ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3134498/postsquote:FOX 'COSMOS' RATINGS DISASTER... (Drudge Headline) quote:To: C19fan   quote:To: pabianice These motherfuckers. Yeah, sure, assholes, technical fields were just welcoming black people with open arms in the 70's. Tyson walked dogs for his first telescope and did extra tutoring in college to pay his way. quote:To: All The best summary of the whole thread. Like a hateful hiku. quote:To: NELSON111 quote:To: C19fan quote:To: C19fan That ill feeling you have is called "crimestop." Also, every fourth post or so is glowing over Carl Sagan, and saying how disappointed he would be that Neil deGrasse Tyson is hosting the show. They're doing the timeless thing these guys do: conditionally adopt a venerated figure as being obviously on their side, despite the fact that the venerated figure spent their entire life battling these same loving people. Just like they do with Martin Luther King, Jr, and JFK, and many others. It's disgusting. Carl Sagan fought these guys until the day he died. It is a little funny watching them praise an outspoken agnostic atheist that made an entire Cosmos episode to argue against the existence of god and the negative effect religion played on science. ColdSnickersBar fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Mar 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
Freepers are disgusting human beings. I especially like the schmuck who thinks he somehow "debunked" the parts of the episode that were "smarmy".
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:Freepers are disgusting human beings. I especially like the schmuck who thinks he somehow "debunked" the parts of the episode that were "smarmy". Noted researcher and science journalist 'silverleaf' publishes his expose on Cosmos: 'It ain't in the Bible.' In light of this devastating critique, scientific research stops worldwide.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
quote:I also asked him to think about where those NatGeo graphic artist-scientists think the moon Titan got all that oil and fossil fuel - from what fossils? That's adorable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
quote:To: C19fan This is a common sentiment in the thread. They keep saying that Giordano Bruno was "not a scientist". Firstly, the whole point was that the Church was suppressing thought. It wouldn't matter if he were a scientist. Scientists aren't a magical unicorns where it's somehow a special sin to kill one. The point of the lesson was that religion was getting people burned alive for daring to think differently. Secondly, no one was a scientist at that time, because the Scientific Method had not been discovered. Not even Bruno's contemporary, Galileo, was a scientist, except perhaps as some kind of proto-scientist ancestor scientist-in-spirit that helped discover the Scientific Method. Not even Darwin was a "scientist", but rather he was a "Natural Philosopher". quote:To: Vaquero Oh, he was burned alive mostly for not believing in Jesus, and only partly for his ideas on the cosmos? Oh, okay then. It's cool. No biggie. ColdSnickersBar fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Mar 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
ColdSnickersBar posted:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3134498/posts Colloquial names = scientific fact. Just like "Global Warming". If it's not warm out then it's false.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
ColdSnickersBar posted:They're doing the timeless thing these guys do: conditionally adopt a venerated figure as being obviously on their side, despite the fact that the venerated figure spent their entire life battling these same loving people. Just like they do with Martin Luther King, Jr, and JFK, and many others. It's disgusting. Carl Sagan fought these guys until the day he died. It is a little funny watching them praise an outspoken agnostic atheist that made an entire Cosmos episode to argue against the existence of god and the negative effect religion played on science.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
kik2dagroin posted:Yeah it is pretty enraging, but Sagan was white and Tyson is black so... But Sagan admitted to smoking the demon weed, so he's basically almost black.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
ColdSnickersBar posted:
I think this one bears repeating.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
Kilmers Elbow posted:That's adorable. He further doubles down on it. quote:the NatGeo Cosmos special last night took a trip to Titans seas of Methane and Ethane and made the statement that Titan has “more oil and gas” than all the known deposits on earth  ColdSnickersBar posted:Oh, he was burned alive mostly for not believing in Jesus, and only partly for his ideas on the cosmos? Oh, okay then. It's cool. No biggie. Claiming that Galileo and in particularly Bruno were martyrs for our cause is like Freepers claiming that JFK was murdered by a leftist because of his conservative views.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
MeLKoR posted:He further doubles down on it. I still don't even get how you can type something like that. The entire point was that he was killed for thinking differently. How can someone even be a "serious heretic"? Being a "heretic" is not serious, because it's not a crime by any reasonable metric. The authorities at the time were not reasonable and suppressed thought and education through terror. That was the point. His heliocentrism was part of his entire "heretical" worldview that got him killed. The show is about science, not theology, so it highlighted his differences with the Church in that regard and how that contributed to getting him killed. If the show took a massive digression into theological differences, it would have been stupid. The show wasn't dishonest in the least. Also, this whole argument smacks of "oh, okay, well they only killed him for his religious views. I guess that's more understandable." It's not more understandable. It's the same underlying culture that killed him for his heliocentric views as well. It's the same culture that killed Galileo for his heliocentric ideas. It's the same culture that causes Texas to fight teaching evolution in public schools. And that's why it's there. To help us understand why some people try to push back the hand of time. Even now. Even here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
ColdSnickersBar posted:Also, this whole argument smacks of "oh, okay, well they only killed him for his religious views. I guess that's more understandable." It's not more understandable. It's the same underlying culture that killed him for his heliocentric views as well. It's the same culture that killed Galileo for his heliocentric ideas. It's the same culture that causes Texas to fight teaching evolution in public schools. And that's why it's there. To help us understand why some people try to push back the hand of time. I think it's important to acknowledge what the actual stated reasons were for things such as Bruno's suppression, because then you actually understand (or come closer to understanding) both the historical event and perhaps the perspective of the modern day. For one thing, I doubt the Protestant-dominated reactionary efforts to suppress teaching evolution in public schools can really be said to be "the same" culture as the Catholic Church, which I gather accepts the theory of evolution in a sufficiently complete way that they don't speak against its teaching in public institutions, nor even demand a caveat be introduced.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I think it's important to acknowledge what the actual stated reasons were for things such as Bruno's suppression, because then you actually understand (or come closer to understanding) both the historical event and perhaps the perspective of the modern day. For one thing, I doubt the Protestant-dominated reactionary efforts to suppress teaching evolution in public schools can really be said to be "the same" culture as the Catholic Church, which I gather accepts the theory of evolution in a sufficiently complete way that they don't speak against its teaching in public institutions, nor even demand a caveat be introduced. Yeah, the Vatican has accepted Evolution as a scientific fact and filed it under, "Isn't God smart?" Catholicism has its share of shitheads, but they tend to shy away from know-nothing clap-trap.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
Here's an actual Freeper that seems to be disturbed by the sentiment that Bruno was only killed for heresy, and that's more okay. This is quickly followed up by a serious argument that is actually is more okay to kill him for his religious beliefs.quote:
It's just religion "policing" itself, buddy! Why, you don't want them to go around unpoliced do you? Besides, he put himself in their power. I don't know why he did that if he didn't believe like they do! Nessus posted:Actually Galileo died of illness age 77. He was certainly suppressed by the Church but this attempt to recreate a litany of martyrs but for the cause of Science instead of Christianity gets a bit creepy sometimes. I mean right here, you've gotten a very basic fact wrong, for whatever reason, and this is especially ironic if you're doing it to advance the supremacy of rational and fact-based thought. I am aware of how Galileo died, and I'll admit it was hyperbole to say he was "killed" by the Church. I do, though, think the culture of suppression has the same root. I think it's the same motivations that many religions, creeds, and other systems use. It's the same combination of a fear of change on behalf of the common people, and a threat to the power of the leaders, and a political pressure on religious authorities to do something about it. In the US, the "something" ends up being "pressure the elected government to make anti-intellectual laws." But that's simply because of a lack of political power. You bet your rear end that if Freepers had total political power, they'd be flaying people for disrespecting Reagan and his only begotten son, Jesus, and it would be for the exact same reasons. ColdSnickersBar fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Mar 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
ColdSnickersBar posted:I still don't even get how you can type something like that. The entire point was that he was killed for thinking differently. quote:How can someone even be a "serious heretic"? Being a "heretic" is not serious, because it's not a crime by any reasonable metric. quote:The authorities at the time were not reasonable and suppressed thought and education through terror. That was the point. When you are one social unrest away from having to feed your toddler to your other children to get them through winter your social_peace/freedom_of_thought goal ratio will be severely skewed in favor of conformism. Anyone teaching things that will get people to oppose one another will be severely suppressed, this is a common element in all agrarian societies, not exclusive of the christian church. Nowadays we can afford dissent and even discarding the moral element tolerance for dissent brings us a lot of benefits. At the time all dissent brought you was massacres and civil war. quote:His heliocentrism was part of his entire "heretical" worldview that got him killed. quote:The show is about science, not theology, so it highlighted his differences with the Church in that regard and how that contributed to getting him killed. If the show took a massive digression into theological differences, it would have been stupid. The show wasn't dishonest in the least. The way the show presented it just reinforced the popular narrative that Bruno was a martyr of science when it was no more the case than all the heretical preachers that got whacked over the centuries. There was a reason they picked Bruno instead of Jan Hus for example and it was to draw the connection between his fate and his belief in heliocentrism. quote:Also, this whole argument smacks of "oh, okay, well they only killed him for his religious views. I guess that's more understandable." It's not more understandable. It's the same underlying culture that killed him for his heliocentric views as well. It's the same culture that killed Galileo for his heliocentric ideas. It's the same culture that causes Texas to fight teaching evolution in public schools. And that's why it's there. To help us understand why some people try to push back the hand of time. Even now. Even here. Also, the church didn't kill Galileo  and he was arrested for being dumb and poking a bear in the face with a pointy stick until the bear was reluctantly forced to swat him down. Really, if you are going to undermine the power of the church look at Voltaire and the Encyclopedistes, Galileo is only an example of what not to do.
MeLKoR fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Mar 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
MeLKoR posted:No, that isn't the entire point. You could get killed for saying that Mary wasn't a virgin but that wouldn't make a science martyr out of you. Yes. I see your points. They're pretty sound, and I may have been a bit hyperbolic. As a fan of history, I probably should be aware of how often people got screwed over in civil unrest, and how sick of it they were. I suppose I had colored your argument with the previous Freeper's argument. It's strange how watching the Freeper's perspective, which is totally hateful and ridiculous, can color my perception of another person's argument right after that. Also, I have been totally aware of how Galileo died. I just, for some reason, felt that his imprisonment meant a death sentence in that moment. It was hyperbolic to say they killed him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
By the way I just clicked the linked "Cosmos rating" article they were commenting on and then clicked the link to the ratings inside that and guess what, Cosmos was the second most viewed show in that time slot and the forth most viewed the entire day. Pretty outstanding for a science show I'd say.
MeLKoR fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Mar 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
Freepers vs. Physics:Detection of Waves in Space Buttresses Landmark Theory of Big Bangquote:I thought the Big Bang was "Settled Science" so why are they looking for evidence to buttress it? /sarcasm off quote:Doesn’t prove the “big bang.” The “big bang” is not a sufficient explanation for the origin of the universe. quote:I know it’s a simplistic view, but it’s what I believe: quote:I've always thought that 'inflation' was a bunch of hand-waving. quote:God is atemporal. And the one you just knew you were waiting for: quote:Big bang is a bunch of bullshit just like evolution, I don’t care what these fools think they’ve found. Having all the mass of the universe collapsed to a point would be the mother of all black holes, and nothing would ever “Bang(TM)” its way out of that. These clowns are doubling-down on stupid, just like the libtards and demokkkrats are. Fruity Rudy fucked around with this message at 20:47 on Mar 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
Fruity Rudy posted:And the one you just knew you were waiting for:
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
Fruity Rudy posted:Freepers vs. Physics:Detection of Waves in Space Buttresses Landmark Theory of Big Bang  They're just so angry about the idea of science! "Won't these people just give up on trying to convince me of this stuff? I've already made up my mind!" It really just makes it obvious how powerfully they don't understand the scientific method.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
Fruity Rudy posted:Freepers vs. Physics:Detection of Waves in Space Buttresses Landmark Theory of Big Bang Huh and here I thought the big bang theory was way less controversial than things like evolution and such. I mean I've seen people try and bend it to fit with "God made the big bang since something can't come from nothing" spiel but even there it's an acceptance that the actual event occurred. I guess I'll never entirely understand how someone can just completely and absolutely hand waive away all scientific evidence like it doesn't exist or matter in the slightest. It makes me wonder what kind of mind does that. One, I would imagine, that's totally dominated by fear and just straight up can't handle any type of divergent thought from whatever dogma they believe. Good lord that must be an incredibly stressful way to live, since at that point almost any rational thought becomes a threat to your whole drat worldview. Maybe it gets easier to do over time and you develop almost a kind of dependance on it. I'd imagine that after 60 plus years of blindly closing yourself off to scientific thought that the merest shadow of a doubt could cause your whole worldview and self identity to come crashing to the floor. I actually pity people like that. Nothing but unending fear and loathing of the world around you. Shudder
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
It doesn't support young earth bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
Pokemaster #421 posted:Huh and here I thought the big bang theory was way less controversial than things like evolution and such. I mean I've seen people try and bend it to fit with "God made the big bang since something can't come from nothing" spiel but even there it's an acceptance that the actual event occurred. I guess I'll never entirely understand how someone can just completely and absolutely hand waive away all scientific evidence like it doesn't exist or matter in the slightest. It makes me wonder what kind of mind does that. One, I would imagine, that's totally dominated by fear and just straight up can't handle any type of divergent thought from whatever dogma they believe. Good lord that must be an incredibly stressful way to live, since at that point almost any rational thought becomes a threat to your whole drat worldview. Maybe it gets easier to do over time and you develop almost a kind of dependance on it. I'd imagine that after 60 plus years of blindly closing yourself off to scientific thought that the merest shadow of a doubt could cause your whole worldview and self identity to come crashing to the floor. I actually pity people like that. Nothing but unending fear and loathing of the world around you. Shudder That's pretty much FReep in a nutshell. It extends to making assumptions such as liberals putting conservatives in concentration camps, because they want so much to do it that they assume the 'enemy' side does too. It would be sad if they weren't spouting such horrible, attrocious poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
TravBot posted:
It's even better when you think about the fact that as far as science is concerned (at least with research on the level of the inflation discovery) they aren't trying to convince anyone, much less some frothing moron from freep. They're proving it to themselves because they are just curious about the universe. No one's trying to "convince" freep of anything. I imagine Freep thinks that scientists are just desperately pulling out different things and going "The big bang is real! Aren't you convinced by evidence of expanding galaxies!? What about the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation!? WELL WHY NOOOOOoooooOOOOT!? Well how about Gravity Waves!? Please!?". Crain fucked around with this message at 21:52 on Mar 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
More Freeper Science  Evidence of a Young Universe's Growth Spurt is Discoveredquote:Psalms 19.1 quote:http://bigbangneverhappened.org quote:Soooo, EVERYTHING in the visible and invisible universe came from one tiny dot of stuff that had somehow spontaneously generated and then for no explainable reason exploded into the building blocks of all that we know and then randomly assembled itself into everything from stars to planets to platypuses. And THAT’S supposed to be more believable than a Creator and intelligent design??? These people spend their entire lives trying to disprove God. quote:Big Bang is a bunch of BS just like evolution and should have been rejected on basic philosophical principles on day one, i.e. having all the mass of the universe collapsed to a point would be the mother of all black holes; nothing would ever "bang" its way out of that. http://bigbangneverhappened.org goes to the most Freeper Site that Ever Freeped.  SCIENTISTS HATE THIS ONE WEIRD TRICK Fruity Rudy fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Mar 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
Fruity Rudy posted:More Freeper Science I've been reading these threads for a year and a half now, and have survived pretty well at not getting too angry. I'll admit, I took a good 2 months off when the Trayvon Martin verdict hit, because I knew what it was going to be and was just not emotionally prepared to read so much of it. But aside from that, in all this time, nothing has made me want to scream at my monitor so much as the way they talk about science. Science is not TRYING to prove any specific thing. They're trying to figure out what happened, based on the evidence. If they dig and dig and dig, and behind the big bang they find God, I'll be right there, cheering them on. If someone finds evidence that evolution is wrong, I'll be excited to find out what that evidence says is more correct. Just the idea that science is "trying to disprove God" or has an agenda about anything beyond truth just infuriates me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 00:03 |
|
|
Fruity Rudy posted:More Freeper Science Freepers: a super-duper compressed drip out of the butt
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 21:59
|
|