I saw a video of the mounted feds "charging" some protesters, though it was mainly a bunch of morons with incredibly thick accents (thick accents are found exclusively in criminals and retards; scientific fact) moaning about losing their hats and stuff, and genuinely lolled. Would have been awesome if they flattened them.

And despite thousands of people protesting controversial legislation, in the days after all we're talking about are the met being dicks, which is nothing new or exciting.

fair point.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZuowNcuGsc[/url]

Fucking LOL.

Honestly, everyone is always "dawkins is such a dick" but I actually think he's a really funny clever guy

I mean of all the celebrities who you totally know could wing it on QI, he'd be up there

In terms of what he says and how he says it I can understand how and why people dislike him, but personally i'm fine with him.

what i hate is when he gets members of the clergy to talk to him about how the metaphysical parts of the bible might relate to the physical world cause it's a fucking retarded thing to even attempt to do

like why even try to do that it won't get you into heaven

he sets them an impossible task and acts like because the burden of proof is on them according to rational discourse there is no possible reason he might want to explore the question himself

he's a pure sophist

but the rest of his popular writing and tv stuff is fine

Your destiny is fucked, you fucking athiest

[QUOTE]he sets them an impossible task and acts like because the burden of proof is on them according to rational discourse there is no possible reason he might want to explore the question himself[/QUOTE]

Uh that's usually because that's how getting someone to back up their claim works. The biggest problem people have with Dawkins is that he's highly intelligent and educated. It's difficult to refute someone's claims when they're grounded in moral philosophy and the natural sciences. If he was simply LOL GOD SUX SLIPKNOT6664EVER, people wouldn't have a problem with him because it's easy to defeat a simpleton, but the fact that he is smart and articulate turns him into this boogieman character for religious people.

Serious Lod up in here.

there are no more lulz in le lod anymore. Pretty much the only good part of this forum and everytime I come here its all, shit srs, shit srs, tldr

[QUOTE=Zed_Leppelin;18288969]there are no more lulz in le lod anymore. Pretty much the only good part of this forum and everytime I come here its all, shit srs, shit srs, tldr[/QUOTE]

Incoming lulz:

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XsSoMBVF3w[/url]

edit: what's with all the spam threads in the forum now? I'm not sure how Puma relates to guitars...

[QUOTE=JoshIsNumber3;18288735]Uh that's usually because that's how getting someone to back up their claim works. The biggest problem people have with Dawkins is that he's highly intelligent and educated. It's difficult to refute someone's claims when they're grounded in moral philosophy and the natural sciences. If he was simply LOL GOD SUX SLIPKNOT6664EVER, people wouldn't have a problem with him because it's easy to defeat a simpleton, but the fact that he is smart and articulate turns him into this boogieman character for religious people.[/QUOTE]

uh didn't really address my point there did you

the programs are meant to explore these things and he puts belief in a creator which, while completely unfalsifiable, is also morally axiomatic for billions of people in the same category as homeopathy, just another harmful superstition.

except religion does not directly conflict with science and members of the clergy are trying, albeit currently failing, to demonstrate that. Showing that they're failing doesn't really address the point, which is: can one conscientiously base one's life upon rational discourse and observation while simultaneously believing that there is a moral obligation owed to something which doesn't exist in a scientific sense?

They obviously can. The whole monastic tradition is based upon that.

I just thought it was a funny video.

[QUOTE=Blue_Moon;18288616]Your destiny is fucked, you fucking athiest[/QUOTE]

That made me lol :lol:

oh yeah what i'm talking about has nothing to do with that video

[QUOTE=fingers mccoy;18289039]
except religion does not directly conflict with science[/QUOTE]

Except when it does; at that point religion says it was metaphorical all along.

Religion as a concept is fundamentally incompatible with scientific principles, and the only way they comfortably coexist is by people putting one to the backs of their minds as they do the other.

Put it in the same terms as similar acts of faith which are not afforded the same special treatment of religion; "homeopathy does not directly conflict with science", "psychic mediums do not directly conflict with science", etc...

While it's true that the ethics within religions are a matter for philosophers, not scientists, the basis that religions use for asserting their morals; ie, that those morals were set out by a creator of the universe, who makes himself known through miracles; and one finds that science becomes very relevant once more.

When someone says "you cannot apply science to religion", they merely ommit the addendum "...and reach a favourable conclusion".

I respect anybody's right to a religious belief, but I won't have people trying to shit on scientific pursuit to justify it to themselves.

homeopathy and psychic mediums do directly conflict with science; they directly contradict scientific method that's why they're called supernatural

the only thing religion conflicts with science on is the fundamental unfalsifiability of god; the only disproof of god is based on an axiomatic principle of observation

why then cannot everything observed be testament to the continuity of god's creation

it can

what dawkins does when he challenges these buffoons is not 'scientific pursuit'

[QUOTE=fingers mccoy;18289082]
what dawkins does when he challenges these buffoons is not 'scientific pursuit'[/QUOTE]

On that I agree entirely

[QUOTE]homeopathy and psychic mediums do directly conflict with science; they directly contradict scientific method that's why they're called supernatural[/QUOTE]

Science is fundamentally inconsistent with the concept of a supernatural; "supernatural" is like "alternative medicine"... If it works they just call it natural. Anything with a physical effect on the world is theoretically measurable

[QUOTE]the only thing religion conflicts with science on is the fundamental unfalsifiability of god; the only disproof of god is based on an axiomatic principle of observation
[/QUOTE]

No, there's the whole bible too... Religion is more than just a belief in god

[QUOTE]why then cannot everything observed be testament to the continuity of god's creation

it can[/QUOTE]

Anything can be anything if that's your framework

I've established my framework as the scientific method, you've established yours as "everything they say except god did it"

to you I ask

why then cannot everything observed be testament to the divinity of david koresh

[QUOTE=Bruce E Kinesis;18289088] Science is fundamentally inconsistent with the concept of a supernatural; "supernatural" is like "alternative medicine"... If it works they just call it natural. Anything with a physical effect on the world is theoretically measurable[/QUOTE]

well this is my point

the principles behind homeopathy and psychic communication haven't been empirically accessed: in the former there exists theory without facts and in the latter there exists what is purported to be fact without a unifying theory

both claim to be valid and sincere methods, of healing and of exploring the afterlife respectively, and both directly contradict science: they say that drinking water with a poison diluted to an infinitesimal degree will correct the symptoms of that poison in the body; that those who are dead have an intact consciousness on another plane with the means and compulsion to observe and interact with ours

we are given the ability to seek out and practice miracles for ourselves according to metaphysical justification, which is definitively unreligious

i suppose religion might have something to do with the latter but it certainly does not predicate the former, and the latter is at least a bastardisation of the religious idea of the afterlife

in any case both directly conflict with science in a way that religion fundamentally does not: we are not asked to make room among our contradictory observations for god, or for right and wrong - we are simply asked to attribute our belief in everything we have observed to faith. Faith which also convinces us of right and wrong, of the value of sacrifice and of the idea of devotion.

the actions of david koresh aren't godlike in any way shape or form. you yourself have said that Christianity consists of what's in the bible... well the Davidian sect actively contradicts the bible in several places.

I mean i'm one of those people who believes that you can interpret different parts of the bible differently, which a lot of people seem to hate, but david koresh is a pretty obvious false prophet.

i mean if david koresh is omniscient, omnipresent and benevolent, then sure everything on earth can be viewed as testament to his divinity, because he's god.

I love this track! Also, awesome live performance

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4ouPGGLI6Q[/url]

holy f these guys seem way ahead of their time. It's like vintage TFOT

lol @ lod

Cow Tails are good candy; Discuss.

[QUOTE=AG;18288119]Yes, I think the Police did the right thing.

The student protests contained the same sorts of people who threw fire extinguishers from buildings, set fires in enclosed spaces and threw placards and wooden stakes.

If adults did it, they'd be kettled. If children do it, they should be kettled.

Anyway, I don't wanna argue about it, because it makes me mad, the whole situation makes me incredibly angry. Higher education isn't a right.[/QUOTE]


well said chap.

education up to secondary level definitely is but when you shell out for higher education you're investing in your future. It's certainly not a right.

I still don't believe it should be reserved just for those who can afford it and/or the debt it accrues. HE acceptance should be judged on the ability to complete the course efficiently (intelligence), not on the ability to afford it (wealth).

I.e., it [i]should[/i] be a right for those who have earned the right. Not for those who can just buy it.

edit: Analogously, I'd much rather see a team like Newcastle win the league than City; they'd have earned it, not bought it. Good result today btw.

[QUOTE=guitarbaz;18290838]well said chap.

education up to secondary level definitely is but when you shell out for higher education you're investing in your future. It's certainly not a right.[/QUOTE]

But neither should it be priced out of the range of those who are able but cannot afford to go. The rise in the price of tertiary education is the continuation of a worrying trend back to the past, where University level education was the preserve of the privileged few who could afford it.

Oh, and kettling is an idiotic practise, and an apt term. What happens when you contain heat in an enclosed space? It boils.

i think that's why they called it kettling dude

they give them one exit so they're pressurised into leaving by that exit

[QUOTE=fingers mccoy;18290855]i think that's why they called it kettling dude

they give them one exit so they're pressurised into leaving by that exit[/QUOTE]

No, they leave NO exits so that the people in the group have to piss on the floor, can't get food or water, and get very cold.

Then, when they're so miserable that protesting stops being fun, the police let them out a few at a time. So that they'll think twice before they stand up to the government again.

I don't think they actually give them an exit, they just enclose them and deny them of their basic freedom so that the authority of the police is reinstated: "you can only leave when we say so".

Also, it makes them feel powerless, because they are without food, water, shelter, toilets etc.

edit: you got there before me chris

[QUOTE=fingers mccoy;18290855]i think that's why they called it kettling dude

they give them one exit so they're pressurised into leaving by that exit[/QUOTE]

It seems they don't get to leave until the police say so.

Also, in my interpretation the "heat" is the protesters anger, or perhaps ire. It seems to me that the quickest way to trouble is to bottle up already pissed off people.

Also, water becomes steam before it leaves the kettle i.e. water in an agitated state.

right, but that's still the original strategy... is the argument that this is inhumane or ineffective? is it either?

Personally, I think it's effective but ultimately inhumane. Add on top of that the fact they denied people of a civil liberty (the right to protest) and it's even more infuriating.

[QUOTE=fingers mccoy;18290872]right, but that's still the original strategy... is the argument that this is inhumane or ineffective? is it either?[/QUOTE]

I think the inhumanity speaks for itself; it's effective at a)turning crowds angry so the media can get some good photos of what a bunch of animals protestors are and b) discourage people from protesting so that the government can do whatever they want.

the inhumanity doesn't really speak for itself tbh

protests are always within a set physical confine - i might not understand kettling but isn't it just keeping the protesters from too much urban disruption until they tire themselves out?

i mean i really don't know anything about what's been going on in the last couple of weeks in london so if there has actually been brutality exhibited show me

also i don't think the purpose of kettling is in any way to give them negative media exposure - i appeal to the consequences here cause i don't think they've been portrayed as monsters. the soundbites and clips i saw on the news just made them seem ignorant and frustrated but everyone looks like that on the news

also

the police aren't the government, nor are the media

it's not like nick clegg is going 'fucking students, let's ram them together, can we do that? get pc plod on the phone'

it's paranoid to act like the police have a vested interest in discouraging protest; that's not what they're for

[QUOTE=EmbraceRandom;18290846]I still don't believe it should be reserved just for those who can afford it and/or the debt it accrues. HE acceptance should be judged on the ability to complete the course efficiently (intelligence), not on the ability to afford it (wealth).

I.e., it [i]should[/i] be a right for those who have earned the right. Not for those who can just buy it.

edit: Analogously, I'd much rather see a team like Newcastle win the league than City; they'd have earned it, not bought it. Good result today btw.[/QUOTE]


yeah i'd have taken the draw beforehand. watching the match tho, chelski have the players but i thought in the circumstances and conditions we might just have done them. fair result tho :)

and to use a sporting analogy further, it's never going to be a level playing field when it comes to wealth and who can/can't afford a university education. there's nowt we can do about that other than go back to the old student grant days and that's just never going to happen. the system as it stands (and yes, it may be flawed) at least filters out those who would see university as a way of delaying having to go out and work for a living. I'm actually seeing now a lot of apprentice applications from kids who would normally have gone to university, simply down to the ecomomics of it. Many arguments for and against that but we are lacking a lot of skilled people in industry so I'm quite happy to see it. Another plus point is that a lot of employers will actually help their employees get degrees if it's benefits the business, so get your foot in the door and you might get a degree paid for.

Leslie Nielsen has died :' (

[QUOTE=EmbraceRandom;18292149]Leslie Nielsen has died :' ([/QUOTE]


gutted :(