Due to the current troll infestation we will be requiring you to sign in to leave a comment. Also, please note that we will be very nice in the regular posts, but we will not be gentle in the Sunday Blaspheme posts. You will be expected to back up any ideas with facts.

I am always happy to answer any questions I can:)

New Rule! Staff reserves the right to cuss you out and post your correspondence if you send us annoying emails.



Sunday, July 1, 2012

This Sunday, some pholosophizing! Not really.

Maybe blaspheme to some, I never really got these type of questions because they are easily answered and really just show how arrogant people can be. Only humans can hear sounds, look at me I'm deep! Not really, just stupid but that might be from listening to all those 'Great' Theologians.

I read something in a comment the other day that got me thinking. Bible study doesn't really study the Bible. They have worksheets and what are basically Cliff's notes to it, that's what they study. And you don't actually study it, you're told what it means. Seems like they are taking their cue from grade school cause you know, that's the ONLY way you 'learn'. Explains all those useless TAKS tests and No Child Left Behind crap from Bush.

Anywho, no really good stuff this week. At least nothing I noticed:/




pmckinney said...

Did you get a chance to read about the New Family Structure Study (NFSS) debacle?

It was a study that was published in late June that supposedly demonstrated that children with a gay parent were much worse off than children with non-gay parents.

A companion piece to the published study written by known anti-gay bigot Loren Mark accuses the APA's 2005 study on the same topic to be inadequate and flawed. That APA study of course showed children fair the same or better.

Skip to the fun facts: The study was funded by Robert George, a conservative known for extreme anti-gay bigotry, currently chairman of National Organization of Marriage (NOM).

NOM is the non-profit that outlined a strategy for protecting marriage by creating divisions amongst minorities, specifically pitting blacks against gays.

The study itself was executed by Mark Regnerus, a researcher who freely states that his research is guided and informed by conservative faith (from his bio page).

The research has come under intense scrutiny for its testing methods and conclusions by scores of sociologists. Many outright reject the interpretation of the findings in the study. Even the study itself was fast-tracked into publication, and was not submitted to the National Institute of Health for peer review. His reasoning? It would have to be revised too many times due to rigorous academic review.

And this study shows up in an election year when gay marriage is a hot issue.

Who knows if it was just intended to make some noise and cover something up, or if it was a underhanded and deceitful attempt to spread lies that had the cover blown off?

Don't worry. Mark is still at it, trying to prove 'scientifically' that gay people are dangerous to children.

His supporter is the American College of Pediatricians.

Sounds fancy? Well, here's the Southern Poverty Law Center's description of them: “A tiny, explicitly religious-right breakaway group from the American Academy of Pediatrics, the 60,000 member association of the profession.”

Here's an article that sums up a lot of the whole thing:

M.O.R said...

I don''t get it. Is that strip meant to be funny?
It just felt rambling, it never got to the end.

But yeah, sod it.

There was an interesting article here, where one scientist talks about the language that scientists use, regarding evolution, and how it sometimes convolutes the subject.

I think that is the problem with certain scientists and certain journalists, and the reason why so many find it difficult to understand the science behind evolution. The words become overly convoluted that it makes folks find it difficult to understand the subject matter.
Hence why so many plead dumb on evolution. And yet, guys like Sagan and Hawking get such praise, because they don't overcomplicate the subject. They explain it without sensationalism and intentionally complicated language.

Its probably why so many people would rather get cliff notes than actually try and learn the whole system by doing their own reading.

Brett said...


I haven't read it, but I know of it. I can't read that stuff anymore, it just pisses me off more and more. I've come to the conclusion, the the right simply are not to be trusted. I'm not a huge fan of the left, but they are at least trying to help people were the right it trying to hoard their money. I wounder... which one is more like the teachings of Christ?


It's more a joke on the uselessness of most philosophy. It's them just trying to justify their pursuits. Easily answered questions that they seem to think are profound.

I think you run into 2 problems. On eis the scientists themselves, they really know A LOT more than the regual person about their field adn they are used to talking to other scientists so they have to try and dumb it down for the rest of us. Then you have the science writers who know a bit but maybe not enough about the subject and simply get things wrong so everything gets sort of shifter and reworded and the actual meaning gets lost or is simply lost because the idea is so complex. I'm still trying to wrap my head around string theory.

Knowing Americans I know we are lazy as fuck now. So anything that would take time to learn is simply discarded and whatever new and easy thing they can grab is accepted. It's also why we're so fat;)



M.O.R said...

Believe it or not, may countries are catching up on America in terms of fatness.

I am fat, but I'm fat fat, like regular fat.
I see folks now who are morbidly obese to the point where dying seems to be days away, rather than the years most tubby folks get.