I can hardly wait!
In the "I can hardly wait for it to come out" category, a BBC documentary is coming soon. Read about it here:
Time-warp Family
Scientists are going to study why this mentally retarded family crawls on all fours, all the time. This will be done within the scope of evolution, which always thrills this logician beyond words. I'm sure it's more of an example of devolution. If man can go backwards in development, then it must mean he can go forward also.
Well...that's a no brainer. Look what the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences chose for best "Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures (original song): "It's Hard Out Here For a Pimp." Now THAT'S devolution. Why don't scientists study that?
I don't think I'm alone in my disdain in this. The Washington Post has an article below with some of the outrage in the black community because of this Oscar choice. Al Sharpton ROCKS on this point as well!
Oscar Winner Hits Angry Chord
Well, maybe for entertainment (laughing at the scientists), I'll watch the quadriped family to see what kind of brainless science is involved. I feel sorry for the family; this is an example of exploitation of innocent people for a "time-warped" ideology.
posted by Underground Logician @ 9:36 AM
13 comments
13 Comments:
I saw an article about this family on Drudge Report. Kinda weird looking--I didn't spend much time reading the article because the picture creeped me out.
I thought that song winning the Oscar was just horrible. The "In the Deep" song from Crash was the obvious choice.
I suppose the academy is trying to show that they can be ecclectic and diverse but it really just made them look foolish.
Glorified pimping and hookers is still trash--any way you sell it.
There will always be mutations. But mutation doesn't = evolution.
sadie lou: I'm not surprised that Hollowwood did this. Can we expect any better? No. Can we demand better? Sure!
Saur: You and I know this. I'm interested to see how they spin this. I don't expect true science to take place here. Maybe I'll be surprised.
You know, it's funny, because as any true evolutionist knows, the system only works if it shows to be a true evolutionary improvement and not a mutation born out of (inbreeding?). I don't think you can make a case for it being a "throwback" or evidence of evolution any more than the Hapsburg Jaw or hemophilia is evidence.
So many people don't understand that most mutations actually are detrimental to the subject(s). That's one of the reasons that it's difficult to build a case of evolution based on repeated mutations.
Saur:
I have yet to see any evidence that shows a shift from a lower form to a higher form of existence. Of course, the issue is that change occurs over hundreds of thousands of years. We are unable to "detect" these changes. What they really want us to do is accept their "long time" argument a priori, based on pre-existing knowledge, not on proof. This is not self-evident and they have refused the burden of proof.
It takes too much faith to believe this junk. That's why I'm a a "Design" man!
Exactly!
Why do you spend so much time worrying about the Oscars? I'm the Liberal and I couldn't tell you who was even nominated.
Here's a thought, what if you had a culture war and nobody came?
You guys have you Fox News, 700 Clubs, PAX ABC Family, Mel Gibson and Country Music. Why do you care what the secular side does for entertainment? If it bothers you so much change the channel or better yet pick up a good book.
I'll answer your rant with a reasoned response. What happens in entertainment shows what our culture values; it is a mirror. "Cult"ure is what is valued or 'worshipped.'
So, if a person cares where his or her culture is heading, one watches what is of value to it. If a person could care less about the culture, then fine, go about your business. However, don't be surprised when someday, God forbid, beastiality laws are dropped and you see men dating goats! Or, if sex education in high schools offer practicums in order for kids to apply what they learn. If you have kids, or intend to, or have nieces or nephews, this should be a concern. Look, in New York, they're already allowing "cuddle puddles." Do you know what those are? Check out February's "New York" magazine:
http://newyorkmetro.com/news/features/15589/
You'll find a very favorable "balanced" article on this student "activity." Then see if watching culture becomes more of an interest to you. I'd like to know your reaction.
I don't think you read the article.. I see nothing wrong with the behavior itself. It's not my cup of tea, but it all sounds concentual. Also, you imply that this is pervasive and sanctioned by the school. It is neither, according to the article. They talk about one small clique.
My only concern is that these kids are engaging in sexually unsafe activities recklessly the way kids do. Some or all may not be well informed on the dangers of unprotected sex.
The school cited is the cream of the crop academically. These kids are all Ivy League bound, successful students. You'll be working for one of them someday. My gut tells me that the main kids in the article are doing more bragging for shock value than anything else. This is an extraordinary situation and is far from the norm, even for that school.
Fwiw - I have kids, boys and girls. My kids will be well versed in the dangers of unprotected sexual activity. They will also know how to use condoms and I'll supply them if they are sexually active. We are striving to ensure that they will wait until they are mature enough to engage in sexual activity. My wife and I are trying to take the taboo out of sex so that our kids will talk to us. We teach responsibility with maturity and knowledge. They need to know that sex is a physical activity that can carry significant consequences.
This may shock you, but we also plan on letting our kids drink at home with us when they are ready.
Beastiality...? Explain that leap.
Cranky:
My use of beastiality is rhetorical, but it's not a slippery slope fallacy. It's more an enthymeme in the form of a string of complex hypothetical syllogisms. If morals are a creation of our own minds, then then morals aren't real. And if morals aren't real, then anything is permissible. If anything is permissible, then sex with anyone or anything is permissible. If sex with anyone or anything is permissible, then sex with goats is permissible. Therefore, if morals are a creation of our own minds, then sex with goats is permissible.
Yes, I can see why you say that that was quite a leap, but now you see the string that give you the steps.
Just because the above argument is valid, doesn't mean that that is what people will automatically do. However, there are people in this world that commit such a horrid act. Which is why we have beastiality laws on the books.
However, the above argument places a question on us all...if people make see morals simply as a human invention, then aren't all things permissible?
I think my beastiality statement applies pretty well.
Pretty weak argument. Anything is permissible until it harms. In other words, the only morality is "do no harm."
Cranky:
No, that is not my argument. I don't know where you get that. ????? My argument is that if morality is a human invention, then there is no REAL morality. Then ANYTHING is permissable since there is NO GOD who will punish immoral behavior. This is NOT a "does no harm to others" argument.
However, there is hope. You have just admited to the weakness of the "do no harm" argument. This is precisely the liberal argument for gay marriage rights? I mean what happens in the privacy of the bedroom doesn't do harm to marriages in America! So Christians shouldn't bother those who feel it's their right to whatever they want in private, away from anyone else. See?
Post a Comment
<< Home