Phi for All

I'm fairly certain that Mr Skeptic was replying directly to your assertion that a liberal version of FOX News would create less controversy. I read his post as a simple disagreement along with an explanation; he hates liars on his side of the argument more than liars on the other side. I agree with him, too. A liar on my side taints the whole perspective and weakens my stance too. A liar on the other side of the argument can be revealed and denounced, and ultimately that's what we're doing here, pointing the finger and highlighting the deceptions. No personal attack, no libelous opinion, no problem.

I think you mean censured, which is a harsh rebuke rather than editing, banning or blocking what they say. Well, then I am guilty of attacking FOX News for their twisted, lying ways. Are you suggesting we stop attacking lies and deceit where we find them just because our accusations are true? I joined MoveOn.org when they first started, but stopped reading and responding to all they had to say to me because they were unwilling to acknowledge the good things that Bush was doing. It would still bother me if there was an alleged "news organization" that only pandered to the left. Like I do with FOX, I would watch occasionally to see what they were up to, but their lack of objectivity would quickly put them in the "take with a grain of salt" category. That should be a whole new thread. How can doctored videos and outright lies be beheld as accurate in any way? When FOX's Bill Hemmer claims that Department of Education official Kevin Jennings knew of a "statutory" rape case involving an underage student but didn't report it, when in fact the student was past the age of consent, why is my neighbor down the street justified in declaring that the student was underage? Because he heard it on FOX News, so it must be true?

A statement I never made. And how is it an attack when it's true? Are you denying the evidence put forth that FOX News organized anti-Dem rallies and then covered them as "news" on a "grass-roots movement"? Would you approve if they strapped a bomb on someone they suspected to be a terrorist and then dropped him off in a public square so their "reporters" could show everyone how dangerous this guy is? What does liking it have to do with it? I watch and read lots of opinions I don't agree with, if only to keep my perspective honest. But how does listening to half-truths, outright lies and deceptive "news stories" help keep me informed? And this is a danger, as I mentioned before. People who watch FOX News exclusively are being misinformed and lied to by what they are told is an objective "news organization". When so many get so much bad intel, how can they make informed decisions about anything? Remove the "state-run" part and you've got FOX News, imo. I agree totally. No argument. An equal *accurate* voice would be nice. The news shouldn't lie, and when it does it's not a voice, it's propaganda. Excellent. Then I'm not as worried about you as I am those who *only* watch FOX News. Just as I worry about those who only vote the way MoveOn.org or Rush Limbaugh tell them.

This reminds me of the intellectual dishonesty prevalent in Intelligent Design promotion. They themselves make the claim that science is wrong in certain aspects, then make it sound like it's a big controversy, so it's wrong not to "teach the controversy" in public schools. It's a bit like me purposely running a red light and causing an accident to prove how unsafe the intersection is. What FOX does is not news, it's carefully rigged deceit.

Because FOX is, imo, far more blatant about their slant than anyone else. They seem more like a television version of right-wing talk radio pretending to offer a fair and balanced view. They've become the masters of the far-right strategy I call "The Alzheimer's Gambit", where they accuse the left of doing (or not doing) something the right has been doing (or not doing) for years. Like former VP Cheney did recently, accusing the Obama administration of not honoring a military request for more troops in Afghanistan when the request sat unfulfilled for the last 8 months of the Bush administration. The Alzheimer's Gambit assumes the listener won't remember what happened all those months ago and will be too lazy to check it out. Including you. I'd be curious to hear what other "news organizations" you think put as much spin on the news as FOX does. I agree that they all have some spin, but FOX is head and shoulders above the crowd in that regard. And, as has been proven, they literally distort and lie about the news, which removes any journalistic credentials they may have had once. I think FOX is excessively biased because they are more of a political organization than a news organization. *I* am excessively biased about them because I think most (not all) people who watch FOX News exclusively want their opinions formed for them because it's too much work to look at different sources, and they really only want to hear views that coincide with theirs anyway. And I hate that kind of compound mentality and consider it to be detrimental to democracy in general.

Evolution is just the change in allele frequency in a population over time. It has nothing to do with the origin of life or the universe. What are you looking for? If I say that it's possible some higher power designed the current physical mechanisms of the universe, then bowed out of the way to let it all play out, will you then use that as a defense for ID? This would be a mistake. If you just want to know if it's possible, well yes, it's possible. It's just not scientifically very *probable*. Why does complexity require a design, and thus a designer? I once saw a license plate by the side of the road that had been run over many times and it looked like a piece of art. It wasn't just flat, it had obviously been hit by front tires, flipped up then nailed by back tires repeatedly. I could see the outline of a face in the wrinkles, and the whole thing looked like a bow-tie designed for the Tin Man from Oz. It was extremely complex, but no one designed it. It had just undergone multiple pressures from multiple tires and weather over time.

Let's be sure to make the distinction between Intelligent Design (in caps, to denote the whole concept as it's being promoted) and an intelligent designer (lower case, some power with greater knowledge/power but still bound by physical laws). That distinction made, an intelligent designer is a possibility. We have no way of knowing scientifically since, if It exists, It chooses to remain unobservable. Evolutionary mechanisms aren't concerned with origins, so it really doesn't matter. Intelligent Design, however, is not even remotely possible, since it contradicts known science in many instances. ID only works if you allow for omnipotence, a designer who can transcend Its own laws (which also seems contradictory, no?).

Ideology really doesn't come into it for me. I don't want a left-right, pro-con spin to my news, I want the facts. Sort of a Jack Webb approach, or the way witnesses are encouraged to testify in court. I don't want my judgments made for me, not even when I might agree with them. Especially when I agree with them, actually, because how can I trust the perspective when it was forced upon me?

I define news as an unbiased reporting of important or interesting events. By that definition, there probably hasn't been a true news program for decades, if ever. Bias in journalism is very hard to avoid. I appreciate it when a "news organization" feeds me the news, but allows me the freedom to chew on it myself, so I can decide whether to swallow it or spit it out as *I* see fit. FOX is like having a feeding tube forced down your throat. They are practicing gastrostomy, not journalism, as if they wanted to make sure to bypass the brain and go straight to digestion. Very unhealthy, very controlling and it very much upsets my tummy.

You're welcome, rockhead. The real reason, of course, is that there haven't been enough pure geology threads started in the General Sciences forum to warrant splitting Geology off into it's own sub-forum. Perhaps you can start enough interesting Geology threads to correct that?

You said, "There is evidence that members have been killed, but no evidence that they all died from being 'killed'". You seemed to require a single source. Honestly, I don't know why the several known answers for the Cro-magnon and Neanderthal demise, taken in toto, aren't good enough for you. You seem to have a reason you're not sharing why you think the evidence is wrong. Extinction doesn't have to be ultimate. There is a male Pinta Island tortoise in the Galapagos that is the last of his kind. When he dies, the species will be extinct. Do you understand the fact that if a species has fewer births than deaths, it will die off eventually even if it keeps reproducing? At some point, the last female gives birth and there is no opposite sex to reproduce with, sealing the fate of the species. Now how are we going to have concrete evidence of an event like that?

Why do they *all* have to die the same way? Isn't attrition from various sources, including predatory higher Homo Sapiens, sufficient for extinction? I'm not sure why you are being so picky here. Not all extinctions are as "single-source" as the Dodo.

You don't think a predator superior to Cro-magnon and Neanderthal could have wiped them out, leaving evidence of superior weaponry marks on their crushed bones and skulls? Do you have a better answer than, "Nope"? It was mentioned before and you ignored it. There *is* evidence that Cro-magnons and Neanderthals were often killed by superior weapons, so it's not unlikely they were killed by superior Homo Sapiens. Yes, it would. You said it yourself, it wasn't that they didn't reproduce, they just died at a faster rate than they reproduced. Their have been studies that show that more modern humans killed them.

Predators who are more successful in the same niche would. What kind of evidence are you looking for? If we didn't have historical documentation, what kind of evidence would be left behind to tell what killed the Dodo?

To me, this all hinges on what Gates did as the officer was exiting his home, presumably ready to let the matter drop. I'd like to know if Lucia Whalen and the University police corroborate that Gates continued to scream at Officer Crowley as Crowley was leaving the house, and if Gates really did ignore Crowley as he warned him he was becoming disorderly and took out his handcuffs. If Gates continued to yell at Crowley when Crowley was willing to drop the matter, then Gates is the one who "acted stupidly". As Pangloss said, law enforcement, at that level, requires complete cooperation so they can control potentially dangerous situations. De-escalation tactics are for inside the house, but when you're outside in public, even if it's on your property, raising your voice in anger is not something the police tolerate for very long. It's the kind of thing that can quickly stir up a mob of people (either for or against the one yelling), and the police are NOT fond of riots.

I'm pretty proud of the way we handle it most of the time. We try to be patient, we try to inform, we try to remain objective. If we can try to avoid labeling someone too quickly, and let the system handle persistently poor arguments (report these posts rather than bring up past threads in a current one), I think we can stay honest so "those darn deniers'" arguments will stand out as being poorly drawn.

Oh, I thought you meant since you posted last month.

I think GutZ is moving in the right direction with his idea in post #43. My only concern is that people get too easily marginalized with convenient labels here. I just think we need to be more careful how we apply them so we post intellectually honest discussions, even if they aren't always with intellectually honest people. Let's not resort to torture just because the enemy does it. For the most part, we do a pretty good job of laying out decent refutations of misunderstood science. We point out errors, we cite reputable sources and we don't stoop to the kinds of bad logic the opposition uses. But too often we throw out subtle well-poisonings ("anyone with a second-grade education would know X..."), or we reject evidence in a way we'd never be allowed to reject the person posting it ("That's a stupid article" rather than, "That article doesn't draw a proper conclusion because..."). Calling a spade a spade sounds like good old folk wisdom, but it's sort of an Appeal to Homily. It too often assumes that the person doing the calling is qualified to judge spades in every instance, and it poisons the well on any future evidence or discussions with that person. We can always get rid of someone who is persistent in their misinformation or in complete denial of facts garnered by using peer-reviewed scientific methodology, but while they are here, I would like to see them given a more than fair chance, even when they're being deceitful. Call it the scientific high ground. This is a lot like criminal justice. I'm not arguing that incorrigible criminals be set free, I just want each crime tried separately and fairly before we label them incorrigible and throw them in jail for life.

Remember when Desmond got Lyle to forge Jennifer's signature on the expense reports for the Nike account ("But she didn't authorize those hookers for the Nike execs, YOU did!" said Lyle; "Just do it!" said Lyle, with a swoosh), and Bradford fired Jennifer for embezzling? That's when Desmond got promoted.

We have no rep rules, other than the ones forced by the system (spreading it around before giving to the same person again). Since it's a positive-only system, I think giving rep never hurts. I give it to posts that teach me something new, make a great point, show great style or make me laugh.

Remind her that observation is the heart of science.

Wade and Nancy had their baby, but that hasn't stopped Wade from hitting on Nancy's sister Charlene, who lost her job at the ad agency after her boss Desmond found out she was sleeping with Desmond's assistant Helga, who, it turns out, is really Wade's evil twin brother who went to Brazil and had a sex change.

Because geologists write in goofy fonts and formats.

It's spelled "peeled", unless your news is really loud. I will keep my eye peeled. It's spelled "obscene", not "obscure". And I nominate you for this. Sure we do. We think you're great. Are you the one who lives in Finland, and tells the great jokes?

When someone has been shown bogus photos, or only given one explanation for a piece of evidence, they can be mislead into spreading that disinformation. If those people can be shown the errors in reasoning, or the evidence can be shown to be bogus, those folks might, just maybe, be more amenable to a reasoned explanation if they aren't labeled kooks or crackpots right off. For this particular guy to make the effort to seek out Buzz Aldrin with his crap conspiracy, I think he falls on the side of the fence with an agenda, and no, I don't think those people can be reasoned with. They have a reason for spreading their conspiracies that overrides the truth. You mentioned jryan before. I'm not sure which category he falls in, someone with an agenda or someone who was misinformed and is simply passing on a bad argument, but the second post in his "Is 'Consensus' shifting?" thread used terms like "stupid" and "non sequitur" and I think that made him unnecessarily antagonistic and determined in his future posts. It could well be that he has some kind of agenda that made him turn to fallacies in order to "win" his argument, but it may have just been that he was being stubborn due to being labeled, pigeonholed and marginalized. Buzz just asked the guy to get away from him while the guy was claiming he didn't walk on the moon. Buzz didn't hit him for his misinformation or his stance. Buzz hit him because the guy got in his face and called him a coward and a liar. If that was 100 years earlier, Buzz could have shot him dead. It's one thing to question evidence. It's a whole other thing to call an Apollo astronaut a coward to his face.