Jump to content


Photo

Bill Nye falls further down the credibility sinkhole


  • Please log in to reply
131 replies to this topic

#81 fast eddie

fast eddie

    Advanced Member

  • Hat Award Winner
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,310 posts

Posted 07 May 2017 - 04:31 AM

Seriously, you are just being boring now and engaging in the same behavior Slim was.

And your anti-Islam crap is tedious as well...I'll stop when you stop. I will agree that terrorism sucks, whether Islamic or otherwise...
< He's flippin' off The Man, see...

#82 Three Eyes

Three Eyes

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,085 posts

Posted 07 May 2017 - 04:53 AM

And your anti-Islam crap is tedious as well...I'll stop when you stop. I will agree that terrorism sucks, whether Islamic or otherwise...

 

Classic. Shut up and I'll stop calling you an Islamophobe. Textbook. Truths we don't want to hear must be quieted.


Hey there goes Alex. He's loaded with money. Wow he's really set himself up great.


#83 Three Eyes

Three Eyes

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,085 posts

Posted 07 May 2017 - 05:11 AM

Eddie, I'm actually really tired of arguing about Islam. I might just hang it up, actually...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

until the next attack which should be in a week or two.


Hey there goes Alex. He's loaded with money. Wow he's really set himself up great.


#84 fast eddie

fast eddie

    Advanced Member

  • Hat Award Winner
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,310 posts

Posted 07 May 2017 - 05:39 AM

I'm not telling you to shut up or trying to quiet you, I'm putting up opposition to your opinion. Refuting isn't the same as quieting opposition. Your "truth" is many folks Islamophobia... perhaps if you used the qualifier "extremist" when launching into anti-Islam comments, your argument would be more widely accepted...
< He's flippin' off The Man, see...

#85 Moving Target

Moving Target

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,397 posts
  • LocationThe Duchy of Cornwall

Posted 07 May 2017 - 07:29 AM

Slim never formulated an even remotely cogent argument in defense of Islam. In fact, most of the time, he wouldn't even join such debates, but rather dismiss them as racist, xenophobic, whatever lazy demonization that occurred to him at the time. Hmm. Wonder why?

 

I don't recall Roger's anti-Christian spamming but it's quite charming how you're taking him to task over such behavior while giving the dark prince of Christianity bashing a pass, a favorite pastime which should have made him besties with Roger, btw.

 

Oh boy, Slim is a senior systems analyst. Let us all bow down to his superior intellect. Another misapplied appeal to authority, MT? Really?

 

He didn't attempt to offer an argument in favour of Islam.  He thought it as redundant and puerile as Christianity.  However, he would expose xenophobic, emotion-driven arguments behind some people on this board who sought to attack it.



#86 Moving Target

Moving Target

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,397 posts
  • LocationThe Duchy of Cornwall

Posted 07 May 2017 - 07:31 AM

I think MT was just pointing out that Slim was a very smart dude with an analytic mind.  Not that he was always correct because occupation.

 

However, on Islam, I have to agree with your analysis.  It always seemed to me that this topic was a peculiar blindspot for Slim, and I could never figure out why.  It was one issue he made proclamations about, not arguments.  Maybe he thought the debate was pointless, I don't know. 

 

Correct.



#87 SJS

SJS

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,250 posts
  • LocationJust east of Lyra

Posted 07 May 2017 - 04:16 PM

He didn't attempt to offer an argument in favour of Islam.  He thought it as redundant and puerile as Christianity.  However, he would expose xenophobic, emotion-driven arguments behind some people on this board who sought to attack it.

 

It would have been decent of him to say so.  In keeping with the thread title, Slim lost credibility on the issue for declining to acknowledge valid points against Islam.  It's mystifying to see him in one post excoriate Christianity for backward behaviors and an emotional belief system, and then in the next refuse to admit those problems with Islam as well.  It's also frankly unfair to take the position that just because some people who are critical of Islam do so out of prejudice and ignorance, he can treat all negative comments about Islam on this board as having come from a prejudiced or ignorant position.

 

When I can agree with my antagonists on CP, I do so.  When I disagree, if I can find a reading of the comments of an antagonist as being sincere and motivated by reasoning, I try to do so (give your antagonists the benefit of the doubt as it elevates the discussion).  I'm sure I don't always succeed in this.  But one of the frustrating things about Slim - and it was most noticeable on this issue - is that he was unwilling to show any glimmer of understanding or respect for his antagonists.  Perhaps some of his foes "deserved" this, but surely not all.  It's not like this is a simple issue that if one just looks at it the right way it's oh so obvious.


LYqbjSn.jpg


#88 Three Eyes

Three Eyes

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,085 posts

Posted 07 May 2017 - 05:10 PM

He didn't attempt to offer an argument in favour of Islam.  He thought it as redundant and puerile as Christianity.  However, he would expose xenophobic, emotion-driven arguments behind some people on this board who sought to attack it.

 

He exposed nothing but his own transparent and emotional double-standard on religion. Roger was right on Islam. If he did get emotional it was from being castigated by Slim and others. During that time, all I did was post the odd video critical of the religion and seldomly so. I felt there wasn't enough information available back then for me to give him proper backup. I regret that.

 

Slim was a debate ninja on certain topics but definitely not on Islam. When it came to that topic, he was this Spock...

 

giphy.gif

 

Not this one...

 

e4b824768aaa3427dbd62c99c34a6921_logic-m

 

 

Eddie is always this Spock...

 

Spock-4.jpg


Hey there goes Alex. He's loaded with money. Wow he's really set himself up great.


#89 Three Eyes

Three Eyes

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,085 posts

Posted 07 May 2017 - 06:00 PM

I'm not telling you to shut up or trying to quiet you, I'm putting up opposition to your opinion. Refuting isn't the same as quieting opposition. Your "truth" is many folks Islamophobia... perhaps if you used the qualifier "extremist" when launching into anti-Islam comments, your argument would be more widely accepted...

 

Calling someone an Islamophobe refutes nothing. It just exposes the name-caller as an argument-free, intolerant automaton of political correctness. And it unfairly defames and stigmatizes anyone who's making an honest argument about the religion, not simply slamming Muslims out of hatred for them. That's where you and Slim fall off the boat. Clearly you haven't been paying attention. I have never criticized Muslims as persons. I only criticize the doctrine that's had a profoundly negative influence on the attitudes, behaviors and practices of a very significant portion of Muslims. I criticize bad ideas, not people. Who will a reformed Islam benefit the most? Muslims!!! This leads me to think Islam apologists don't actually give two shits about Muslims. 

 

Consider this, Eddie. ISIS doesn't do a thing differently than Muhammad did. The whole point of my argument is to show that ISIS and other terrorist groups are practicing the religion just as Muhammad himself did. So it would make little sense for me to call them extremist. I've made these arguments in past threads, such as the Orlando thread. I don't have the heart or willpower (or time) to go through all that again. You can only argue a point for so long before you just have to accept that some people are unreachable. And for all your effort, you're still considered an Islamophobe.


Hey there goes Alex. He's loaded with money. Wow he's really set himself up great.


#90 fast eddie

fast eddie

    Advanced Member

  • Hat Award Winner
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,310 posts

Posted 07 May 2017 - 07:14 PM

Boil down your argument, and you suggest that ISIS is mainstream Islam, that Islam be judged by the Koran and not by how it's practiced by the majority in the here and now. I recognize the extremist elements and they are certainly deplorable, but you never seem to be able to bring yourself to distinguish between mainstream and extemist. Why in God's name would you have trouble calling ISIS extemist?!? That pretty much blows up your argument right there...


< He's flippin' off The Man, see...

#91 Three Eyes

Three Eyes

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,085 posts

Posted 08 May 2017 - 01:14 AM

Boil down your argument, and you suggest that ISIS is mainstream Islam, that Islam be judged by the Koran and not by how it's practiced by the majority in the here and now. I recognize the extremist elements and they are certainly deplorable, but you never seem to be able to bring yourself to distinguish between mainstream and extemist. Why in God's name would you have trouble calling ISIS extemist?!? That pretty much blows up your argument right there...

 

No it doesn't. You're just not understanding the argument. Islamic doctrine promotes violence. ISIS practices the religion as it's taught in the Koran. ISIS doesn't practice an extreme version of the doctrine. It just practices the doctrine. If you're so hot to get me to use the word extremist, Islam itself can rightly be categorized as such in comparison to most other religions in the world today. That doesn't mean all Muslims are violent. Most are not. Whether they realize it or not, they are practicing a reformed version of the religion.


Hey there goes Alex. He's loaded with money. Wow he's really set himself up great.


#92 fast eddie

fast eddie

    Advanced Member

  • Hat Award Winner
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,310 posts

Posted 08 May 2017 - 02:00 AM

I see your point, but all religions, Islam included have evolved over time(reformed?) and aren't practiced as they once were, except by the extremists. I think most Muslims would be ok with the notion that they're practicing a reformed version that has forsaken the worst elements, they don't expect to have to engage in the archaic version of their religion.
Lastly, I think a lot of the terrorists aren't even devout Muslims, but are using the religion as a framework for their extremist agenda and to gain power. A "Caliphate" would be an awesome platform for dictatorship or authoritarian regime...kinda like Saudi Arabia, eh???
< He's flippin' off The Man, see...

#93 Three Eyes

Three Eyes

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,085 posts

Posted 08 May 2017 - 02:44 AM

I see your point, but all religions, Islam included have evolved over time(reformed?) and aren't practiced as they once were, except by the extremists. I think most Muslims would be ok with the notion that they're practicing a reformed version that has forsaken the worst elements, they don't expect to have to engage in the archaic version of their religion.
Lastly, I think a lot of the terrorists aren't even devout Muslims, but are using the religion as a framework for their extremist agenda and to gain power. A "Caliphate" would be an awesome platform for dictatorship or authoritarian regime...kinda like Saudi Arabia, eh???

 

There's no way to truly know whether the leaders of ISIS, Al-Qaeda, or Boko Haram are devout Muslims or not and it doesn't really matter. They are all militant groups that use the life and sayings of Muhammad as a justification for their actions. So it's their recruiting tool that actually matters. You could say the same about a bad political ideology that's used to recruit useful idiots. 


Hey there goes Alex. He's loaded with money. Wow he's really set himself up great.


#94 A Rebel and a Runner

A Rebel and a Runner

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,986 posts
  • LocationTexas

Posted 08 May 2017 - 02:58 AM

The thing is, the problem is always the individuals and their leaders.
Any ideology can be twisted or redeemed, no matter how loathsome.
Islam is a collection of bad ideas, but that doesn't make it inherently or irredeemably a source of violence and hatred.

Modern Islam has gone through an imperialist crucible that has made its leaders, and the families of many of its practitioners, willing to accept as a rallying cry the most violent possible interpretation of it.  But I guarantee you that under equivalent circumstances, any religion would look the same given a similarly ignorant and deprived population.

To quote my favorite Hadith

At the day of judgment, the ink of scholars shall be worth a thousand times more than the blood of martyrs.


labente deinde paulatim disciplina velut desidentes primo mores sequatur animo, deinde ut magis magisque lapsi sint, tum ire coeperint praecipites, donec ad haec tempora quibus nec vitia nostra nec remedia pati possumus perventum est.

 

First our declining morals slid, bit by bit, and then our very national spirit.  Then the collapse became greater and greater, and our principles began to go, until at last, it has come to this age, in which we can bear neither our crimes nor the cure for them.

 
 

#95 Three Eyes

Three Eyes

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,085 posts

Posted 08 May 2017 - 04:33 AM

At the day of judgment, the ink of scholars shall be worth a thousand times more than the blood of martyrs.

 

Awesome but that's considered a weak hadith which means its authenticity is sketchy. If it was strong or in the Quran itself it would serve to mitigate some of bad ideas found therein.

 

But anyone wanting to reform the religion could try to use that hadith in their efforts. Obviously, it's a good message.


Hey there goes Alex. He's loaded with money. Wow he's really set himself up great.


#96 GhostWriter

GhostWriter

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,091 posts

Posted 08 May 2017 - 01:44 PM

The highest calling of a Muslim is to emulate the life of Muhammed; to read the Koran and follow the Hadiths. The moderates are in error and there is no "reforming" of Islam to a kinder and gentler version. You've been duped.

Attached Files


It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion.

- Francis Bacon

 


#97 GhostWriter

GhostWriter

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,091 posts

Posted 08 May 2017 - 02:06 PM

Getting the thread back on track, here's an interesting article about new research that makes Bill Nye and all his sycophants look even more anti-scientific than even I imagined:

 

Scientists Say There Are More Than 6,500 Genes That Express Differently In Men And Women

 

A new study composed by Weizmann Institute of Science researchers just widened the hole in the transgender narrative pushed by progressives: it has been found that the two sexes express over 6,500 genes differently, adding to the already major biological differences between men and women.
 
"Weizmann Institute of Science researchers recently uncovered thousands of human genes that are expressed — copied out to make proteins — differently in the two sexes," notes the Weizmann Institute. The study focuses on how "harmful mutations in these particular genes tend to accumulate in the population in relatively high frequencies."
 
Professor Shmuel Pietrokovski and Dr. Moran Gershoni, both researches from the Weizmann Institute’s Molecular Genetics Department, "looked closely at around 20,000 protein-coding genes, sorting them by sex and searching for differences in expression in each tissue. They eventually identified around 6,500 genes with activity that was biased toward one sex or the other in at least one tissue. For example, they found genes that were highly expressed in the skin of men relative to that in women’s skin, and they realized that these were related to the growth of body hair. Gene expression for muscle building was higher in men; that for fat storage was higher in women," reports Weizmann Institute. 
 
Feel free to read the rest unless of course maintaining the narrative is more important than science.
 

Still, the many intricate biological differences between men and women, such as the ones expressed by Weizmann Institute researchers, will be said by progressives to be simply overridden by one's feelings.

 

Science be damned.


It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion.

- Francis Bacon

 


#98 Valium

Valium

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,250 posts

Posted 08 May 2017 - 03:11 PM

Has Bill Nye or anybodyelse claimed that Transpersons are genetically the same as normal persons of the sex they want to become ?



#99 GhostWriter

GhostWriter

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,091 posts

Posted 08 May 2017 - 03:40 PM

Has Bill Nye or anybodyelse claimed that Transpersons are genetically the same as normal persons of the sex they want to become ?

 

No, but they've claimed that gender is a social construct, that it's whatever one determines it to be in their heads. Quite clearly it is not.


It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion.

- Francis Bacon

 


#100 SJS

SJS

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,250 posts
  • LocationJust east of Lyra

Posted 08 May 2017 - 05:31 PM

No, but they've claimed that gender is a social construct, that it's whatever one determines it to be in their heads. Quite clearly it is not.

 

I'm not sure this helps your point of view.  If I understand your point of view - and correct me if I have you wrong - sex is a binary categorization - male or female.  A biological correlate might be the presence or absence of a Y chromosome.

 

However, this study indicates that the expression of some 6500 genes is sexually dimorphic.  This leads to the possibility of very subtle "shades" of sex identification.  Sex become quantitative rather than qualitative.  A "male" might express some subset of these 6500 genes in the more female pattern.  Obviously, there are males that are less hairy or less muscular; there are females who are hirsute and built.  Undoubtedly some of these 6500 genes contribute to sexual attraction and sexual behavior.  Now it becomes pretty difficult to draw a biologically-based dividing line between male and female, as the biological markers are many, and they need not all express in the same direction.

 

None of which surprises a biologically-minded scientist like myself; I take for granted that individual differences are in large part explained by gene expression levels.

 

I agree with you that sex is not something we decide.  If I decided tomorrow that I was female, my Y chromosome would not somehow become an X and the pattern of expression of those 6500 genes would likely not change much.  (They could change some though if I altered my diet, environment, and behavior; and especially if I began taking exogenous hormones, many of which regulate the expression of genes.)  But the reverse is quite plausible.  A person born XY whose autosomal genes express in a predominantly female pattern, may feel female despite any willing to the contrary.  Or might feel somewhere in between.

 

Like you, I believe that sex is a biological construction, not a societal one.  Like you, I find extreme views of sex as something we decide and can change our minds from day to day about quite implausible - even silly.  But unlike you, I believe science supports the notion that individual people (and animals) can show intermittent sex-linked phenotypes.  Unlike you, I think this can occur without the label "mental illness".

 

Edit to add: I still haven't watched the Bill Nye episode, so it may be Nye and I differ on this topic.


LYqbjSn.jpg





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users