packsaddle

John-in-KC, I'm from that time as well, back to 1963. You're dreaming of past glory. It's over and it's never coming back. People have different lives now and there's nothing about life today that would encourage or allow it to return to like it was. We ought to salute over that grave and move on.

Well, I have to rise that trolled bait. I actually use one or two Stewart clips in my courses from time to time. The one I'm thinking of right now is factually correct, humorous, and cuts to the bone. I think the survey mostly shows that you don't learn much from watching television, at least not the two media sources you noted. Stewart's better performance could also mean that critical satire can stimulate thought better than bile. I'd like to read the actual report though. As far as FOX and MSNBC go, it could mean that people who want to have their pre-existing thoughts reinforced will trend towards media sources that reinforce them.

Time to end it and devote our time on the scouts and the troops.

Moosetracker, I would argue that 'the people' are expressing a decision which is conservative in the true sense in that it basically tells the government basically to get its nose out of the private lives of the people. I simply don't understand how the same people who lament 'big government' on one hand can support 'big government' intrusion into individuals' private lives. Seems inconsistent.

Yep. So the stupid students decide to raft the Chattooga. They have a cheap vinyl pool float with two couples. Hot August day. Start late in the afternoon, late, for a trip that will likely take 8 hours. They're in the middle of no place when the sun finally dips low enough for them to realize they're going to spend the night. No matches, no food, some beer, wearing nothing but shorts and bathing suits and soaking wet. It's dark enough they can't see the river to continue safely but up on the hill there's a light. It's a campfire. They two guys tell the two women to stay with the raft while they hike up there to see if there's a road out of there. They stumble on a bunch of GA good-ol-boys sitting around the fire sipping 'shine. Or....there's the time that the stupid college students decide to take a canoe trip on Lake Jocassee. Never camped out of canoe before. Never been on that lake before. No idea of how far things are. Two couples go out, camp, lose the canoes as they drift away in the middle of the night, sure enough the one who's allergic gets stung, they're in trouble...and while hiking their way up the hill to find a road out...you guessed it. This time it's NC good-ol-boys out huntin' 'coons. Or... Or... It just never stops. That movie is way too close for comfort. Thankfully, at least all my students lived to tell the tale, otherwise I'd never have heard.

Bart, I agree with Merlyn's assessment of your faux-experiment. But accepting your approach for the sake of argument...for your hypothesis, what results would it take for you to reject God as not real? Keep in mind that others should be able to reproduce the results using the same methodology and arrive at the same conclusion. So...How about that 14th Amendment!?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Bart, that is only a little exaggerated from a few things I've observed in real life around this region. Very little.

There is no scientific test that can say ANYTHING about a matter of faith. Period. Matters of faith are simply not accessible to science. Moreover, the concept of 'proof' is mostly the realm of mathematics, not science. As I noted when I restarted this thread, Beavah and I don't agree on science vs theology. Beavah 'gets' science about as well as I 'get' theology. So how about the original topic and how the new interpretation of the 14th Amendment affects things with BSA? That's a topic for which I think Beavah has a better background from which to pontificate.

Once upon a time, while on a visit in NY over this holiday time, I actually overheard someone on the phone calling another family member to find out "What time is midnight mass?" I nearly fell out of my chair laughing. Every year I make sure that at some time that same date, I ask that person (even better if I have to call them on the phone) "Hi, could you tell me...what time is midnight mass?" And for decades now, the reply has been, "Very Funny!" It's the simple pleasures that are the best, the gifts that keep on giving....

And if Galileo is a model for the comparison, science continued forward in spite of his conviction as a heretic in 1633. The Church managed to see the error of its ways, what, over 300 years later, in an official apology from the Pope only about 20 years ago. I noticed William of Ockham also in the list. You do know that he was also excommunicated, right? For basically agreeing with Augustine, who understood the difference between theology and science and warned against trying to mimic science with theology. A lesson, sadly, that seems not to have been understood.

Beavah, Show me the theology (aside from Unitarian Universalism ) in which the ultimate goal of the believers is to increase knowledge and understanding of their own faith by attempting to disprove the ideas of their own same faith.

"Now packsaddle about this rock I would love to know where you heard this from.. Who argued and won on his theroy of a rock being his God?" Merlyn beat me to it, heh, heh. Ask and ye shall receive. I'm not sure how BSA extended their idiotic policy to that extreme but I recently attended a Catholic church in New Mexico in which there is a special alcove with a hole in the floor from which pilgrims dig, I kid you not, Holy Dirt. Why not? Everyone already knows about Holy Water, right? I have no idea how it is consecrated or how it's supposed to be used but there are literally hundreds of claims of miraculous effects from this dirt. Unless I've misinterpreted something, the very existence of the dirt itself is somehow supposed to be miraculous, perhaps because the supply never runs out...I'm a little sketchy on this point. Anyway, the persons I observed partaking of this...would this be called a sacrament? Anyway these persons were engaging what I would call worship as they knelt and scooped dirt out of that hole in a very reverent manner and it would be easy for me to believe that they make whatever application they make in a reverent manner as well. I'd say that it would be easy to extend that to rocks...nevermind the 'natural theologies' of numerous indigenous peoples around the earth. Moosetracker, it's not about winning or losing. It's about what's right and this policy isn't. BSA, for whatever reasons, has rejected some people who claim to be atheists while accepting others (Buddhists, for example). At the same time, they claim not to judge what qualifies as a higher power or a god, hence the acceptance of a rock (or by extension, dirt). What I see is that your attempt to examine Merlyn's belief in the higher power or authority (whatever) of humanity could be viewed as judgmental if similar examination is not applied to all other claims of faith. A simple solution to all of this would be for individuals to mind their own business and, by extension, for business (BSA, for example) not to have idiotic exclusionary policies that no one outside of the individual applicant himself could possibly judge fairly. This exclusionary policy (and the DRP) is a mistake that could be corrected with the stroke of a pen. Why not just do the right thing?

Is there a report to go with the results?

That memory is burned into me as strongly as any other, the day my father said it is time I helped with something. He told me to stand on the turkey's head. I could hardly believe the words I was hearing. But there we were: my father, me, the turkey. And sure enough he put the turkey's head on the wood block and I dutifully stood on it. I knew what was going to happen and I knew I needed to keep the bird anchored there to make sure it was a clean strike. And I did. But the blade practically whistled past my foot as it separated dinner from its thoughts. And as Bart noted, dinner then took off on its ghoulish race to death. I fulfilled this task numerous times until one day it was my turn at the blade. I think different people react differently. Some may enjoy the rush of taking a life, I never did. At the same time, looking back, I also know that like many other things in life, as time passed I found new ways of thinking about life, hopefully with greater depth and insight. I never took pleasure, I actually kind of dreaded the task of slaughter, while at the same time understanding that it was a necessary responsibility. I went to school with a boy who later became a serial killer. At one time I had called him 'friend'. I can't put my 'finger' on the point at which he changed but by high school, he was already available to really bad actions. Where I was raised, there were some folks who we knew would "as soon kill you as look at you". There were others in my school cohort who openly expressed a casual disregard for human life and practiced their thoughts on neighborhood pets and nearby wildlife. They knew that laws protected the livestock so those animals were off limits. But mostly they talked about the power of what they could and would do if given a chance. And what I learned by listening and watching all this, especially as that evil was applied to black people, what I learned was valuable later in my life. It helped me make some hard decisions although I have never really understood what it is that generates that kind of intensely focused hatred in someone - for no apparent reason. Only a few of them were hunters. But when they 'hunted' they did it with as little thought and regard for animals or anything else, really, as they had for people. A few of these boys were scouts in my troop. I can't dismiss Johnponz's thoughts as simply 'city talk' or some such. If there is even a sliver of a chance of some deep connection from which we might be able, some day, to understand where hate comes from and why some people are so ready to apply it, I think it is good to continue to pose the question. I will continue to disagree with Johnponz on this subject. But I will admit the possibility that there is substance to the questions he poses. And for that, I hope he will continue to try to convince me with even better reasoning in the future.

"he all but admits there is no god." Actually, this is technically correct because I have made no such admission. I have been fairly consistent in refraining from discussion of personal beliefs, mine at least. The closest I've come was in response to Brent Allen quite a while back, when I responded that I thought God was not "just a myth". I also noted that while Brent might have thought he understood something in my response, he actually would have no idea of what I meant. That is still the case. "Not a lick of difference between that and theology." Assuming that "that" is 'science', this is one idea where Beavah and I disagree. I do see a difference between theology and science. The methods of inquiry are very different (here I note the prominence of experimental tests of hypotheses in science, not in theology) Perhaps Beavah was writing about religion, not theology. Copernicus was indeed a religious person as well reputed to be the father of scientific method. Galileo was also deeply religious. His contributions to science were also obviously large (as well as rejected by the church). All this shows is that it is possible for a single person to simultaneously hold deep religious beliefs while still being able to conduct good scientific inquiry. It doesn't make them the same thing. It also demonstrates that science and religion need not be viewed as incompatible. Now I admit that I am probably as ignorant of the subtle intricacies of theology as Beavah is of science. So this is one disagreement that I can live with and while continuing to respect the other view. I read a while back, one respondent's faith in "the power of reason". I thought that was a great way to put it. But BSA has indicated a willingness to accept almost anything as the object of religious faith. It seems that what is required is not necessarily the 'object' of the faith in something greater than ourselves but the belief that there IS something higher. If Merlyn's personal belief is that 'humanity' qualifies, who is to be the final judge of that? Evidently there are ample members of this forum ready to exact such judgement. Tsk, tsk. Don't you see you failed the test? You had the opportunity to allow 'humanity' to qualify as that 'higher' level, just like the 'rock' that BSA has already said is acceptable...and you rejected humanity. Did you not see the trap? Why? Why did you not allow a person's personal belief in the higher power of humanity when you are willing to allow a person's personal belief in the higher power of a rock? When I ask, who is to judge, why are so many so ready to stand in that judgement? Wow!

Wear orange and duck, in case there's a follow-up shot.

In this region I've actually observed heated arguments over who gets a fresh roadkill. But this thread has two elements to it. Johnponz has expressed, in non-rigorous terms, his system by which he makes ethical judgments regarding food. I think he is not alone although I don't share his thinking. I do want to try to understand it. I'm not sure I agree with setting us apart from 'nature', whatever 'nature' is. I get the 'nature' thing from students as well as colleagues who ought to know better. It's really difficult to avoid. We are ALL part of nature. I think a way to reconcile my view with Beavah's is to note that in many ways, man has altered the world in ways that, through our intimate dependence on technology, makes us part of a man-made machine. We have long passed the point of going back, we are so dependent on it. In this sense, domesticated animals are now strongly co-evolved with man, so much so that if man was removed, most of them would quickly perish leaving only those that manage to quickly adapt (evolve) to some 'wild type'. But no matter what WE do, there is no aspect of our actions or technologies that do not conform to 'natural' laws. Unless someone can point me to an exception...in which case I'd really like to know about it. I don't agree with Johnponz's arbitrary values placed on animals which 'seem' closer to man. I see elements of this irrational approach in the idiotic regulations which apply to aquarium fish in my lab but not to other organisms which also have highly-developed nervous systems and behaviors - but are not vertebrates. So I guess I'm inclined to be mean to everyone on this. We are a jumbled morass of ethical confusion, a mixture of sentiment and ignorance and lack of understanding. And I don't see resolution to this any time soon. I am reminded of V'ger's response when Captain Kirk was objecting to having Lieutenant Uhura's mind erased. Kirk noted that Uhura was not a defective unit, she was a woman. V'ger merely responded that she was a "mass of conflicting impulses". Couldn't have said it better myself (that's more sexist claptrap just for you, Vicki). No, I'll just sit back and and watch and enjoy my steak (as well as those poor, neglected carrots).(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I appreciate Beavah's thoughts because I actually state something along those lines for my classes. The ultimate test of an idea or concept and in most cases, the best (perhaps only) way to determine their value is through application. If they don't work they are quickly discarded or modified. Science doesn't 'prove' much of anything. Mostly what we try to do is take the overflowing abundance of really great ideas out there in the world and subject them to tests to determine as objectively as possible, which ones are INcorrect. It is the iterative process of rejecting ideas in this manner while tentatively retaining others that allows us to painstakingly arrive at improved ideas and concepts (in support of those wonderful technologies which thankfully work well enough for Beavah to trust them). Me, I just hope that Boeing is far enough removed from Microsoft so those planes don't crash as often as my computer. I would argue that because it is inherently skeptical of ideas, science is inherently conservative. It tends to retain ideas that work and remain skeptical of replacements until they have survived the scientific process. Not many do. We don't hear much about the failures (unless they've been hyped in advance like cold fusion was). I'm also sympathetic to Moosetracker's suspicion regarding medications, etc. In that sense, if there was lack of sufficient regulation to require rigorous testing, big pharma might, just might, sell a product for which the claims are false and the product could be downright dangerous. For a free-market person like me, this is an ethical conundrum. I would like not to regulate businesses. But if we allowed the market to work completely freely, then the 'feedback' would have to come at the expense of dead bodies. In this particular case I see the need to avoid that mechanism because I recognize that if the only motivation to produce a product is profit, there will be little or no incentive to apply the scientific process. So the conflict arises from the apparent need to force business to engage in a truly conservative process, science, to take a skeptical view of its own creations, in order to protect people. And therein lies the dynamic balance between the free market approach and the regulatory approach. And somehow, Beavah maintains indefatigable confidence...at least I think he does. Edit: and speaking of 'evolution', the above has almost nothing to do with gay marriage. Marvelous!(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

TampaTurtle, I suspect some of your bullets might land just a little south of me. I don't want to encourage anyone to engage in a 'pileon' for johnponz but I would like to hear his answer to my question. Why do you single out such a small number of animals for your concern. I am interested in understanding how one group of organisms can receive the fervent concern expressed in that link and other groups of organisms, far more numerous, receive no consideration whatsoever? What is the underlying philosophical theory that allows this type of distinction? While I tend to agree with your conclusion about the food aspect of sport hunting, I speak as a person who has killed primarily for food, and consumed, countless fish, invertebrates, and vegetables. I hope you don't think that violence was done as sport. It wasn't.

Wanna have an exercise in mocking religion? Put up a crucifix in the Cedarhurst area of Long Island with a sign, "King of the Jews" under it. You'll learn all about mockery in short order. Edit: Now....about those deer....(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

"And I have seen many Winter wonderland displays..." Speaking of which I'm going to dabble in a brief hijack here and ask if anyone has a set of online plans for those awful plywood white deer as lawn ornaments? My wife somehow loses all sense of style and taste this time of year (same as when she married me, what the 'mythical place' was she thinking?) and wants me to build a set for her. I am hoping there is a material-optimized design that will limit plywood waste. Thanks in advance.

I can't speak for Merlyn but as I gaze upon all this 'much ado about nothing' I tend to side with the 'Bah Humbug' approach of shutting it all down. Someone please remind me of how the decision was made to assign the 25th as the date anyway. Yes, I know it came from other beliefs (like the Saturnalia) but why that particular myth (and date)? Why not some other myth (and date) to co-opt? Not that I mind one way or the other, it would be interesting to see it celebrated the way it was originally with drunken orgies and singing naked in the street. Though I could do without the human sacrifice.

"A better way would be to give a spot to each Religion and one spot to the athiest (if they must).." Gad! I can barely fathom all the different flavors of Baptist, much less the rest of Protestantdom. Can you even imagine the potential jumbled assembly of displays....the debris....the cleanup bill? Might as well just call in the 'occupy' people let them have it! Of course, it could be that some fringe religions would not necessarily identify with pagan holidays...maybe they wouldn't show up for it. I say ban it all! Bah Humbug!

Yeah, I know this skips way back into the archives but what the (mythical place)! I just stumbled onto this article. It was interesting: 'conservatives' interpreting the original wording of The Constitution in support of gay marriage. Cool! http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2011/12/how_conservatives_learned_to_stop_fighting_the_14th_amendment_and_what_it_could_mean_for_gay_marriage.html

Noname, I sympathize. I own about 130 acres of forest way out in the country. It's also posted. ATV trails, deer stands, trees cut, every last one of my cherry trees were girdled for the bark a few years back, trash dumped, one barrel of waste sludge, old tires. Not all of that is hunters but someone routinely just leaves whole deer carcasses behind to rot. Does mostly. I report this stuff to the sheriff. They write the report and do nothing, they're spread too thin already trying to keep a lid on the wife beaters and meth labs. Needless to say, I have a dim view of so-called 'sportsmen'.