pirana

On your first paragraph, others have responded already so I'll just say YIKES! On peer review; I think it is exactly what it needs to be and was always intended to be. It slashes psuedo-science to ribbons, and pushes back anything else that is weakly researched and not up to the standards of evidence. It has proven to work quite well. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Agreed. A scientist who would come to that conclusion, supposedly based on evidence, has turned it into a religion (and needs to be kicked out of the club). " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

It's something we don't know yet....but eventually we will, just like lightning, the northern lights, gravity, etc. Simply because we don't understand something yet, doesn't mean it's supernatural. Are you that confident of being able to overcome a barrier such as seeing beyond the singularity that was the beginning of our own Universe? I think we will (already have?) some good guesses, but since they will never be testable, I don't think they even can qualify as a theory. IMO, this is the boundary between the realm of science and religion. Religion has no business imposing dogma on the known (and knowable) natural world, and science has no means of gathering evidence for any hypothesis related to what existed prior to our Universe attaining an age of about 1 X 10 to -43rd seconds. Now that may appear to be a very tiny box in which to corner religion; but it is really quite huge since iot encompasses things like: Why are we here? What is the purpose of life? Why something instead of nothing? etc. The only reason we have any conflict between the 2 approaches is because religion got politicized and refused to give up authority on certain topics as science became such a successful method for understanding the natural world. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I do not believe you'll find many reputable scientists, or even just casual adherents to evolution or natural selection claiming that either negates the existence of God, or of any God. If a teacher professes that to students, they should be axed as surely as the science teacher injecting ID. They are guilty of false logic. BUUUUUUURRRRN THEM! Scientific religion? Must be the Day of the Oxymoron. (and it is the anniversary of the 1st publishing of Origins of Species). How do you define scientific religion? I've honestly never heard that before. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

No. I believe the penalty has something to do with His Noodly Appendage. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

IIRC, didn't the court get their hands on a working draft that actually had creationism crossed out and intelligent design substituted in the margin? That moment had to be similar to when Toto drew back the curtain to reveal the true Wizard of Oz. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Yes, that was it. Thank you. I missed that it was a Nova installment. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

It's the humor and wit on this forum that is priceless. That is very good. Deserves to be mocked up as a home video. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Would those be the same persecutors who use whatever means they can to get convictions and send people to death row based on questionable evidence.??? I think they reserve that standard mostly for black people. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I never said anything was stolen or harmed. My comparison was not to show a crime was committed. My questioning is their motive. If they doctor a photo, and do not disclose doing so, what else are they willing to doctor without disclosure. If something so harmless as a less than ideal backdrop causes them to manipulate a photo (and the key here is that they did not disclose it) what are they willing to manipulate when something really big is on the line. There; now I've removed the crime element; and my assertion remains the same. It reveals their zeal for propoganda. (Though we hardly needed this trivial doctored photo to know that). Maybe it is just fun to poke at it because our government has demonstrated such a well established penchant for lieing that to catch them in little deceptions is just part of the game. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

That is more bunk in one post than I have seen in quite some time. Even a quick skim thru it reveals several pieces of psuedo-science claptrap. I'd poke away at it, but it's all been done so many times already by so many people more qualified than me that I'll just leave it at this. Get current, and get real. Open a science text or research on the topic instead of the reactionary moronic ramblings of dogma-driven whackos. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

That is so prefectly oxymoronic; I'd say sig line worthy. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

And therein lies the biggest challenge. We are all free to decide as individuals; and getting everybody to agree on any one thing; much less to always turn the other cheek, or never seek revenge, or only take what you need, or always be kind to strangers, or never covet they neighbor's wife, . . . well, good luck with that. It is hard to imagine what could possibly take place that would convince people to never be greedy, vengeful, etc. They are survival remnants. Yes, we have reigned them in to some degree enabling a far more stable society than at any time in the past. But why do people automatically think that an evolving culture will or should necessarily be more peaceful? The results say the opposite is true. As we have devised ever more powerful means of destruction, we have always been more than willing to put them to use. And I believe we just finished the bloodiest millenia in history. Nope, I'm not sure what cultural evolution exactly means, or what it means for the future; but I hardly think it means more peace. I see the turn-the-other-cheeek crowd as forgiving themselves right out of existence. They are too easy as prey. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Shows their zeal for propoganda. If they feel the need to manipulate something so trivial; imagine what they are willing to do when something big is on the line. If I'd steal from a person to buy a peanut butter and jelly sandwich; I'd most likely commit mass murder for a side of beef. Turn the question around. Would it have been no big deal to not doctor the photo? If no, then why did they bother. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Speaking of good stuff. There was an excellent show pulling together the latest research findings on who wrote the Old Testament and when. Most interesting (IMO) is the stuff that further establishes the Cult of Yaweh as the foundation of the 3 Abrahamic faiths (or maybe more correctly when the practice of worship started taking on the characteristics of those faiths). Can't remember the channel, but the show was called Buried Secrets or something like that. I believe because the Dead Sea Scrolls have shone so much light on the topic. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Calling it an accident insinuates it was an OOPS. Better descriptions are chance and circumstance. Creationism is an idea. It is not a theory. Any idea that can be thought is not automatically a theory. And concluding that no one knows which is more plausible is absurd. Maybe you are just speaking for yourself, but there are shitloads of very well done research that make one vastly, incredibly, unbelievably more plausible than the other. The thing wrong with presenting the 2 sides to students is that one is the most reasearched, most documented, and very well understood theories in all of science; and the other is a whacked reaction resting on dogma and the Propogation of Ignorance. High School kids (and a lot of adults) do not have the training or wisdom to be able to tell the difference. Especially when glitzed up with sensational lies and half-truths. For supposedly educated adults to foist dogmatic crap like this on students in a science class is gross negligence. Lightning strike? Been watching too many Frankenstein movies? " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Cool. Gosh, science is fun. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

It looks like he's a Cadet Second Lieutenant in ROTC. Are they considered deadly weapons at that point? I think the one dressed as the bride is pretty deadly. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Individuals do not change the world significantly. They can show us possibilities in the future paths a society might take. Which path we actually take is determined by long-term trends playing themselves out with relentless momentum as deep background bass tones while current events shreik for our attention in the foreground. I too have become very apathetic in terms of how much difference any of these goofs really makes; but really for society as a whole, even the worst of them are just a short term inconvenience. I rely on the overall good intentions of humanity to keep us moving forward despite the occasional pinhead leaders we get. Of course how this lands on each individual is a different story. For those that lost loved ones in Bush's totally pathetic war of convenience, short term results can be very tragic. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Just a good humorous column about unhappy people: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/11/19/notes111908.DTL " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

That's too bad. Despite my blunt and sometimes borderline caustic approach - it's about the topic, not the conversants. Good on you to turn the other cheek and treat the PM's as free entertainment. I take a similar approach when I have to deal with one too many idiots in the course of a day. I consider it as group therapy - - and I'm getting paid to go. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

If we formally (or even informally) did away with tipping; business owners would have to increase pay to make up the difference, and prices would go up accordingly. Bottom line, we are gonna pay it anyway, and as someone mentioned; it gives you the opportunity to indicate your level of satisfaction by influencing a significant amount of control on how much they make. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I'm going to bump this thread every 2 hours until I get an answer. Is it Pirates? " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

What truth are you talking about, specifically. Who's throwing garbage? Maybe that statement was not aimed at me, but I've tossed a lot of statements that are factual, and based on personal experience. What awful truth am I supposed to be hurting from again? " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I'd think that once the ransoms become intolerable (aren't we there already?) the shipping companies would simply hire some private security badasses (real life Steven Seagal types) and blow these idiots out of the water. A few million dollars should be able to buy a handful of mercenaries and some weaponry easily capable of doing the job. Especially since they would not have to wait around indefinitley for an "incident." Bait the motherfuckers like a rabid rodent. Provide them a nice juicy target, let them make their move, then kill them. Seems easy enough; especially since they are out in international waters. Not like the mercenaries would be invading a country or anything - just killing renegade scum on the high seas. Who would complain? " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley