Kudos to Sean Hannity

[The Blowhard]

Whether you like him or hate him, Sean Hannity just came out swinging in defense of free speech. He also defended O&A regarding their so-called "scandal". Good job Sean, it's great to have someone with a huge audience fighting the good fight.

[Don Stugots]

i just heard the segment on his XM show, you could not have asked for a better POV. I am no conservative but it does seem that some of them of willing to go to bat for free speech against the special interests groups.

[Mike Teacher]

I gotta start listening to WABC again.

Blowhard, Stugots; you guy know a thing or two.

Q: People were upset w/ Mancow last night. I watched, and instead of getting upset; I actually felt a little better because he made so little sense. Insane. Caine Mutiny Crazy. He didnt even address the Qs; he just sputtered out radio-war cliches and stream-of-consciousness utter bullshit that didn't even address the issue.

Seemed a joke to me. Not the situation; but Anyone taking this Mouth seriously.

[Furtherman]

What was Hannity's stance when Imus was being wrongly accused?

[CofyCrakCocaine]

You gotta hand it to him, he's taking a stand that most of us generally agree with in this particular case, and it's not the popular scared stance that most other networks and ball-less hosts (Oberman, Russert) are adopting in light of the morality witch-hunts that have plagued the media these past 5 or 6 years.

[CofyCrakCocaine]

What was Hannity's stance when Imus was being wrongly accused?

Hannity had Geraldo, Patrice O'Neill, and some black chick on the phone and some other dude... and they did a 'point/counterpoint' discussion. Colmes really came out in style arguing for Imus, and so did Hannity. Hannity was pro-Imus the whole way.

[King Hippos Bandaid]

http://www.rockofagescandy.com/STDCandyBars/Products/Kudos.gif

Id choose the Snickers Sean

:king:

[The Blowhard]

Hannity said that Imus's comment were in bad taste, but he defended Imus, and said he should not have been fired.

[Don Stugots]

I gotta start listening to WABC again.

Blowhard, Stugots; you guy know a thing or two.

Q: People were upset w/ Mancow last night. I watched, and instead of getting upset; I actually felt a little better because he made so little sense. Insane. Caine Mutiny Crazy. He didnt even address the Qs; he just sputtered out radio-war cliches and stream-of-consciousness utter bullshit that didn't even address the issue.

Seemed a joke to me. Not the situation; but Anyone taking this Mouth seriously.

it doesnt look like anyone is taking Mancow seriously. He came off looking like a mad man to me. he had the crazy eyes and didnt stay on topic. I think he said "and the played parts of my show on thier show," more than once.

What was Hannity's stance when Imus was being wrongly accused?

Same as it is now. You have the right to say these things, if someone doesnt like it, please change the channel.


Mike the teacher, thank you for saying that i know a thing or two. i am blushing.

[J.Clints]

http://www.rockofagescandy.com/STDCandyBars/Products/Kudos.gif

Id choose the Snickers Sean

:king:

Good job Sean........But in the long line of things it really doesnt matter what he says or thinks.

[johnniewalker]

Hannity came off very well. It's obvious doing his show he can't say he's not offended by the bit. It is his right to be offended. What was good was he stuck to his guns and didn't just make an emotional argument. 1 raidio "friend" sticking with O and A is more than any "friend" that stuck with Imus.

[ShowerBench]

Whether you like him or hate him, Sean Hannity just came out swinging in defense of free speech. He also defended O&A regarding their so-called "scandal". Good job Sean, it's great to have someone with a huge audience fighting the good fight.

Are you kidding? Here's Hannity when he thinks HIS right-wing ox is getting gored. Not by "abusive radio hosts" but "abusive college professors" (i.e., college professors who don't agree with Hannity):

"This is now the new paradigm that I want to see college kids around the country pick up on. That is whenever you have the left-wing professors that are abusive to conservatives, that degrade you, that call you names, that use ad-hominem attacks, that are punishing you for your political point of view, that are purposely trying to indoctrinate you with extremist left-wing views – if it is legal, tape them. If it is not legal, take verbatim notes, get witnesses, bring these articles to the school newspapers, bring it to the local media. Expose these people for the abusive professors that they are, and I guarantee you when there's a series of these instances where we expose these people, I guarantee you this indoctrination process is going to stop dead in its tracks. ...

"Fear is a great motivator, and the fear that these left-wingers are going to get fired or be held accountable for their mean-spirited comments against people or their indoctrination is going to be the single-biggest motivation we ever see to get them to stop doing what they're doing to college kids around the country."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47601

[docgoblin]

Hannity and Colmes just allowed Bernard McGurk to debate that hypocrite Al Sharpton for an hour. It was terrific. Sharpton was exposed for being a two-faced liar. Please support free speech, whether you agree with Imus, JV and Elvis, Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage... Whoever... They should have the right to say what they want within the bounds of the regulations of their given format. Imus didn't cross the line, JV and Elvis didn't cross the line, and O&A certainly didn't cross the line since it was on a satellite pay service.... Burning books is not far off... We must stop this madness right now. Support the rally in NYC on Saturday at 12:00 Noon at Union Square!

[Midkiff]

I've always hated Hannity, but kudos to him for supporting the boys.

[lleeder]

I thought it was great. I wonder if they spoke during the breaks.

[docgoblin]

I thought it was great. I wonder if they spoke during the breaks.

I would loved to have been a fly on the wall for that exchange... Sharpton is an ass!

[johnniewalker]

I thought it was great. I wonder if they spoke during the breaks.

Sharpton was pissed, he really was in a no win situation b/c i don't think Hannity really cares for him nor Colmes and certainly not imus' producer. Finally he was in a place he couldn't just shout over someone and people didn't have to bend to him.

[TheMojoPin]

Did you guys hear that burning books is next?

[Don Stugots]

Did you guys hear that burning books is next?

yes, i am the one that said it.

[TheMojoPin]

I'll bet they put anyone that offends them into camps, too. It's all so obvious now.

[PapaBear]

My father is about as conservative as anyone. The only good that has come out of this radio crap is, he and I can actually agree on something over dinner.

[Don Stugots]

I'll bet they put anyone that offends them into camps, too. It's all so obvious now.

then Mojo, at what point should we be concerned that the freedom of speech is being taken away by special interests groups?

[TheMojoPin]

then Mojo, at what point should we be concerned that the freedom of speech is being taken away by special interests groups?

Well, that freedom isn't, but I know what you're trying to say. If people want to stand up for their shows, awesome...but giving in to hysterical hyperbole sets a tone that ultimately leads to not much getting accomplished. Nobody is going to make any progress not focusing on reality. Pay attention to what they're actually doing and figure out how to make yourself heard as opposed to tossing out ridiculous comparisons to the Nazis.

That said, I hope people see the unavoidable hypocrisy in the "we must stop them" sentiment when it comes to the offended groups...it basically amounts to "we think they're taking our 'freedom of speech,' so how can we stop them?" Isn't what they're doing effectively the same freedom everyone on this side is so worried about losing?

Bottom line, we're never going to have it totally one way or the other. We're never going to have a society where public personalities can say whatever they want without sometimes segments of the population getting pissed off or fed up and maybe do something about it. At the same time, we're not going to see all aspects of our media dominated by those groups. It's a give and take tug of war that's going to keep going on and on because this country has so many different people with so many different opinions and standards and tastes. The thinking that "oh, we need to stop this once and for all" is simply unrealistic from anyone on either side. People should stand up for what they believe in, but they need to realize that these kinds of "battles" are always going to be with us as long as we have the type of country we do. Stand up for your shows, but please don't act like the people on the other side will or even should totally go away.

[waltermitty]

I don't agree with Hannity on much at all... He is very far away from me on the "liberal/conservative" spectrum....

But I have always found him to be a fair and honest guy... He may spout some republican garbage, but he has always allowed room for a differing opinion.... The fact that he agrees with all of us on this free speech issue speaks volumes... it would be very easy for him to attack O&A, but he respects the 1st amendment.. Even when it offends.. (or especially when it offends, because thats when it matters most)

Hannity is a good ally for O&A and for the PAC... He is one of the few national personalities to have the balls to stand up for what is right......

[TheMojoPin]

I don't agree with Hannity on much at all... He is very far away from me on the "liberal/conservative" spectrum....

But I have always found him to be a fair and honest guy....

I really have to take issue with this. The guy lies his ass off or gets facts wrong and rarely corrects himself. I was working at a bookstore when the anti-Kerry "swfitboat veterans'" book came out. Hannity flat said that my chain was refusing to carry the book. Nevermind that he said this after we had already sold out of the initial shipment we had gotten. He made similar statements about other books that tended to drift pretty far to the Right...all of them blatantly false.

There are websites out there that detail how much this guy gets wrong or distorts or makes up or lies about or however you want to put it...I just wanted to toss in my personal examples as to not only how he lies, but how he fucked up the workdays of a bunch of the "common people" he claims to speak for by getting his audience memebers riled up so they come into my store and treat me and my employees like absolute shit.

It's cool he stands up for radio shows getting a bum rap, but he's not very honest. And if he's not actually lying, then he's just clueless and sloppy.

[scottinnj]

Did you guys hear that burning books is next?


When I was about 16 or 17, a local church (not mine) empowered by the Senate hearings on heavy metal lyrics led by Tipper Gore (Al Gore's wife) had a public record burning on the front of their property. The local paper showed up, as did the local television station. A little 5 year old girl was quoted in the paper after she threw her Sesame Street album into the fire. She was asked why she did that, because Sesame Street had no curse words or sexual lyrics. Her reply was "that the album didn't praise God, so since it didn't praise God it was from Satan."
Frightening.
My father (and I) are evangelical Christians-Bible thumpers. My parents while I was growing up constantly searched my room and took records and tapes of rock bands I had. My father hated the rock and roll I listened to.
However, after seeing this, he was horrified. After that, no more searches, no more confiscation of albums. I always assumed that he came to the realization that trying to keep me from "bad" influences just drove me faster to them, and that censorship is evil no matter where it comes from.

[badmonkey]

Are you kidding? Here's Hannity when he thinks HIS right-wing ox is getting gored. Not by "abusive radio hosts" but "abusive college professors" (i.e., college professors who don't agree with Hannity):

"This is now the new paradigm that I want to see college kids around the country pick up on. That is whenever you have the left-wing professors that are abusive to conservatives, that degrade you, that call you names, that use ad-hominem attacks, that are punishing you for your political point of view, that are purposely trying to indoctrinate you with extremist left-wing views – if it is legal, tape them. If it is not legal, take verbatim notes, get witnesses, bring these articles to the school newspapers, bring it to the local media. Expose these people for the abusive professors that they are, and I guarantee you when there's a series of these instances where we expose these people, I guarantee you this indoctrination process is going to stop dead in its tracks. ...

"Fear is a great motivator, and the fear that these left-wingers are going to get fired or be held accountable for their mean-spirited comments against people or their indoctrination is going to be the single-biggest motivation we ever see to get them to stop doing what they're doing to college kids around the country."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47601

You bolded all the wrong parts. "whenever you have the left-wing professors that are abusive to conservatives, that degrade you, that call you names, that use ad-hominem attacks, that are punishing you for your political point of view, that are purposely trying to indoctrinate you with extremist left-wing views – if it is legal, tape them." That should have been bold too.

Why should anybody have to put up with getting called names, degraded, or punished for their political point of view just because they disagree with the professor at the school they are paying for an education? If they are treating their students this way, it doesn't matter if the professor is conservative or liberal. They absolutely should be taping them, bringing witnesses with them when they complain, and writing articles etc to make it stop. I listen to Hannity on occasion and he comes off to me as a bully often on his shows and I change the station when he does it. On the issue of bully professors with a political agenda he is 100% right. You should not be punished with lower grades because you disagree politically with your teacher.

Mancow has a lot to gain if O&A lost their morning slot as he is rebuilding his syndication and that's how he came off to me tonite on O'Reilly when discussing the O&A "scandal". I was only momentarily surprised that he didn't defend them. Although I think O&A, as seasoned broadcasters, could have handled the situation in a different way when the comments were made on their show. A simple "oh man, that's fucked up" or "dude! that's not cool" might have gone a long way. I don't think they should be fired for what somebody else says on their show and definately not by CBS radio for something that didn't even air on CBS radio. That's completely rediculous. I haven't heard the full thing or read any "transcripts" so I don't really know 100% what happened. I do wonder where this is all going to stop and how long before it starts to affect every type of radio including internet radio. This is insane how people are after blood with talk radio. How long before it moves into tv, movies, music, comedy? Mike Gallagher, a conservative talk show host, was on O'Reilly tonite with Mancow and he was also defending O&A. You should give conservatives a bit more credit rather than labeling them all as evil liars. I think most people in this country are sick of this politcal correctness witch hunt crap, conservatives included. So far, none of these DJ's deserved to be fired.

MediaMatters.org is the exact same thing as the people that listen to O&A, Stern, etc just so they can fire off letters to the FCC to complain about the stuff they "heard". They just attack conservative shows instead. There is no difference whatsoever between them. These assholes, and the assholes like them, will destroy all speech in this country if we continue to support them.

Badmonkey

[badmonkey]

Ok... found it and heard it. Homeless guy says he'd like to fuck Rice and it sounds like the guys implied that the only way it would happen is if he raped her. He started talkin about the rape scenario in more detail and moved quickly on to how he'd like to fuck Laura Bush. I didn't think it was all that funny, but I honestly don't see the big deal either. From the articles I read, it sounds like O&A were encouraging him and it went on for minutes. What a bunch of panty wearing sissybitches.

Badmonkey

[TheMojoPin]

When I was about 16 or 17, a local church (not mine) empowered by the Senate hearings on heavy metal lyrics led by Tipper Gore (Al Gore's wife) had a public record burning on the front of their property. The local paper showed up, as did the local television station. A little 5 year old girl was quoted in the paper after she threw her Sesame Street album into the fire. She was asked why she did that, because Sesame Street had no curse words or sexual lyrics. Her reply was "that the album didn't praise God, so since it didn't praise God it was from Satan."
Frightening.
My father (and I) are evangelical Christians-Bible thumpers. My parents while I was growing up constantly searched my room and took records and tapes of rock bands I had. My father hated the rock and roll I listened to.
However, after seeing this, he was horrified. After that, no more searches, no more confiscation of albums. I always assumed that he came to the realization that trying to keep me from "bad" influences just drove me faster to them, and that censorship is evil no matter where it comes from.

Right, and that goes back to the days when rock 'n' roll first showed up...and rockabilly before it, and jazz and the blues and so on and so on and so on...

I'm not saying it's "right" or something we should like, but there are always going to be different social takes on what entertains us, and that tug of war is going to be constantly swinging back and forth. No one side is ever going to "win" totally over the other.

[Yerdaddy]

You bolded all the wrong parts. "whenever you have the left-wing professors that are abusive to conservatives, that degrade you, that call you names, that use ad-hominem attacks, that are punishing you for your political point of view, that are purposely trying to indoctrinate you with extremist left-wing views – if it is legal, tape them." That should have been bold too.

Why should anybody have to put up with getting called names, degraded, or punished for their political point of view just because they disagree with the professor at the school they are paying for an education? If they are treating their students this way, it doesn't matter if the professor is conservative or liberal. They absolutely should be taping them, bringing witnesses with them when they complain, and writing articles etc to make it stop. I listen to Hannity on occasion and he comes off to me as a bully often on his shows and I change the station when he does it. On the issue of bully professors with a political agenda he is 100% right. You should not be punished with lower grades because you disagree politically with your teacher.

Mancow has a lot to gain if O&A lost their morning slot as he is rebuilding his syndication and that's how he came off to me tonite on O'Reilly when discussing the O&A "scandal". I was only momentarily surprised that he didn't defend them. Although I think O&A, as seasoned broadcasters, could have handled the situation in a different way when the comments were made on their show. A simple "oh man, that's fucked up" or "dude! that's not cool" might have gone a long way. I don't think they should be fired for what somebody else says on their show and definately not by CBS radio for something that didn't even air on CBS radio. That's completely rediculous. I haven't heard the full thing or read any "transcripts" so I don't really know 100% what happened. I do wonder where this is all going to stop and how long before it starts to affect every type of radio including internet radio. This is insane how people are after blood with talk radio. How long before it moves into tv, movies, music, comedy? Mike Gallagher, a conservative talk show host, was on O'Reilly tonite with Mancow and he was also defending O&A. You should give conservatives a bit more credit rather than labeling them all as evil liars. I think most people in this country are sick of this politcal correctness witch hunt crap, conservatives included. So far, none of these DJ's deserved to be fired.

MediaMatters.org is the exact same thing as the people that listen to O&A, Stern, etc just so they can fire off letters to the FCC to complain about the stuff they "heard". They just attack conservative shows instead. There is no difference whatsoever between them. These assholes, and the assholes like them, will destroy all speech in this country if we continue to support them.

Badmonkey

Honestly! Conservatives are being called names in school for being conservative?! What do these big ol mean professors call you? "Righty-tighty"? "Conservative! Conservative! Yo food full of preservative!" You fucking people kill me!

[sailor]

Honestly! Conservatives are being called names in school for being conservative?! What do these big ol mean professors call you? "Righty-tighty"? "Conservative! Conservative! Yo food full of preservative!" You fucking people kill me!

maybe "you fucking people"?

[Yerdaddy]

maybe "you fucking people"?

What's wrong with that? What you all virgins now?

[sailor]

What's wrong with that? What you all virgins now?

yes, and i find that insulting! fire yerdaddy!!

[ShowerBench]

You bolded all the wrong parts. "whenever you have the left-wing professors that are abusive to conservatives, that degrade you, that call you names, that use ad-hominem attacks, that are punishing you for your political point of view, that are purposely trying to indoctrinate you with extremist left-wing views – if it is legal, tape them." That should have been bold too.

Why should anybody have to put up with getting called names, degraded, or punished for their political point of view just because they disagree with the professor at the school they are paying for an education?
Badmonkey

The reason tenure was invented was to ensure that fascists like Hannity cannot try to stifle academic freedom. If you think a college has too many liberal professors, go to another college or create your own.

You're essentially saying no subscriber to XM or listener to CBS should stand for being "degraded" or "called names" because they are paying for entertainment.

Same censorship, different venue. Hannity is a fascist.

[badmonkey]

Oh... ok... I think I understand now. Censorship is ok as long as it's against conservatives. It's perfectly acceptable to berate students in your classroom as long as they are conservatives. You can give them lower grades in political courses if they are conservatives and challenge your liberal views. Debate on college campuses is not ok. Freedom of speech and academic freedom is for liberals and liberal ideas only. Conservatives are fascists who should be silenced and demeaned. Liberals are bastions of unquestionable knowledge and principle and should be echoed and revered.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Badmonkey

[Don Stugots]

Oh... ok... I think I understand now. Censorship is ok as long as it's against conservatives. It's perfectly acceptable to berate students in your classroom as long as they are conservatives. You can give them lower grades in political courses if they are conservatives and challenge your liberal views. Debate on college campuses is not ok. Freedom of speech and academic freedom is for liberals and liberal ideas only. Conservatives are fascists who should be silenced and demeaned. Liberals are bastions of unquestionable knowledge and principle and should be echoed and revered.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Badmonkey

only those that agree with you should be allowed to speak.

[ShowerBench]

Freedom of speech and academic freedom is for liberals and liberal ideas only. Conservatives are fascists who should be silenced and demeaned. Liberals are bastions of unquestionable knowledge and principle and should be echoed and revered.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Badmonkey

You think there are liberal professors at Regent University?

If you don't like a professor's politics, you can always join Sean Hannity in his crusade to get them fired. Or if you don't like a radio personality's politics or comments you can do the same to them:

"Fear is a great motivator, and the fear that these left-wingers are going to get fired or be held accountable for their mean-spirited comments against people or their indoctrination is going to be the single-biggest motivation we ever see to get them to stop doing what they're doing to college kids around the country." - Sean Hannity

[badmonkey]

You think there are liberal professors at Regent University?

If you don't like a professor's politics, you can always join Sean Hannity in his crusade to get them fired. Or if you don't like a radio personality's politics or comments you can do the same to them:

"Fear is a great motivator, and the fear that these left-wingers are going to get fired or be held accountable for their mean-spirited comments against people or their indoctrination is going to be the single-biggest motivation we ever see to get them to stop doing what they're doing to college kids around the country." - Sean Hannity

Sorry, it's not about the professor's politics be it liberal or conservative. It's about them squashing debate in their classrooms. It's about giving lower grades to students that disagree with you politically. It doesn't matter if the professor is a conservative or a liberal as long as they allow the students to present opposing views without insulting, threatening, or punishing them with lower grades for disagreeing politically with the professors. Any teacher does this should be fired regardless of party affiliation. Surely you can agree with that. If you can't, then you might as well join the guys calling for O&A's firing or join MediaMatters (http://www.mediamatters.org), who for some reason seem to be staying out of this one.


Badmonkey

[ShowerBench]

Sorry, it's not about the professor's politics be it liberal or conservative. It's about them squashing debate in their classrooms. It's about giving lower grades to students that disagree with you politically. It doesn't matter if the professor is a conservative or a liberal as long as they allow the students to present opposing views without insulting, threatening, or punishing them with lower grades for disagreeing politically with the professors.

Badmonkey

It's about Hannity trying to get professors fired for their liberal - or even non-conservative - positions. If a science professor doesn't allow conservative student time to "present the opposing view" stating evolution doesn't exist or the earth is flat, or derides that point of view (which deserves derision in an academic setting), Hannity wants him surreptitiously taped, "exposed," and fired. Hannity is no less an anti-speech fascist than Neil Boortz or anyone in the American Family Association.

You can argue there should be some form of "tenure" for radio talk show hosts but you can't argue that what Hannity is trying to do to college professors is any different than what those trying to silence talk show hosts are doing. He just happens to be a talk show host and thus is being a hypocrite, as usual.

[badmonkey]

It's about Hannity trying to get professors fired for their liberal - or even non-conservative - positions. If a science professor doesn't allow conservative student time to "present the opposing view" stating evolution doesn't exist or the earth is flat, or derides that point of view (which deserves derision in an academic setting), Hannity wants him surreptitiously taped, "exposed," and fired. Hannity is no less an anti-speech fascist than Neil Boortz or anyone in the American Family Association.

You can argue there should be some form of "tenure" for radio talk show hosts but you can't argue that what Hannity is trying to do to college professors is any different than what those trying to silence talk show hosts are doing. He just happens to be a talk show host and thus is being a hypocrite, as usual.

Evolution is a Theory, which is why they call it the Theory of Evolution for starters. The issue Hannity is talking about is predominantly in history, government, political science, etc classes. This is not arguing religion vs science or explaining why you beleive 1+1=3. You are pretty insistant on trashing Hannity because you disagree with him, so it is not surprising to me that you are all for trashing the conservative voices of students in college classrooms. You totally disregard any of my statements saying that on college campuses, there should be open debate regardless of politics. Like I said earlier, "Censorship is ok as long as it's against conservatives." You obviously have no issue with censorship so stop crying about it.

Badmonkey

[JimBeam]

To simlify Monkey's point against Showerbench, as I see it, is that you have a choice to change the channel if you dont agree or dont like what is being said by Hannity and for the same matter Al Franken.

While you do have choice in what classes you take in college if you're going for a Poli Sci degree depending on the size of the school you're pretty limited in what course you can take to complete your major.

So in that sense you cant just avoid the issue.

If you go into a class name Reagan Was The Anit-Christ you pretty much know what you're in for and take the course at your own " risk " but if you take a Contemporary Politics course and all it's about is anti-one party or the other than that's completely misleading.

A professor's opinion one way or the other shouldnt effect your grade regardless of your beliefs.

[TheMojoPin]

To simlify Monkey's point against Showerbench, as I see it, is that you have a choice to change the channel if you dont agree or dont like what is being said by Hannity and for the same matter Al Franken.

While you do have choice in what classes you take in college if you're going for a Poli Sci degree depending on the size of the school you're pretty limited in what course you can take to complete your major.

So in that sense you cant just avoid the issue.

If you go into a class name Reagan Was The Anit-Christ you pretty much know what you're in for and take the course at your own " risk " but if you take a Contemporary Politics course and all it's about is anti-one party or the other than that's completely misleading.

A professor's opinion one way or the other shouldnt effect your grade regardless of your beliefs.

Most classes I've had that are beyond being able to be graded on basic universal facts are pretty much subjective based on what the professor thinks is "correct." Trying to paint it as only existing to the detriment to conservatives is patently false. It's a cheap argument since there's no way around it...nobody can possibly get a bad or lower grade if they're conservative...it MUST be because of their politics. That's such a cop-out, and it's a total cheat of an argument because 99.9% of the time it can't be anything even close to proven. Shit, if politics influenced grades that much, all of my hippie professors should be giving me straight A's.

[Yerdaddy]

Let me just generalize with the knowledge that the exceptions to these statements know who they are and won't be offended.

When did you conservatives become a bunch of crybabies demanding entitlements that you don't deserve? You're just like Sharpton and Jessie Jackson and the "NO BLOOD FOR OIL" protest crowd that you think you're crusading against. It's fucking pathetic.

The idea that you're being called names and given bad grades in college simply because you're conservative is retarded. It probably happens in isolated cases. There are probably isolated cases where liberals are discriminated against because they are liberal. But the idea that you aren't given your fair shake in classes is retarded. It isn't fucking happening.

Now if you're sitting in a science class and on the day that evolution begins to be taught and you express the common conservative political/religious view that "Evolution is a Theory, which is why they call it the Theory of Evolution", then the professor, who has doubtless had that discussion in every class he's taught, will welcome the chance to explain the scientific position on this question and then move on. That position is roughly this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact):

Scientific terminology uses definitions of words that differ from the definitions of the same words in non-scientific contexts.

A fact[15] is an observation or a piece of data. It is a measurement or some evidence or the result of an experiment. For example, there are many observations of gravity and measurements of gravity. Every time an apple is dropped and it falls, an observation of gravity has been made. Gravity is measured every time something is weighed. So gravity can be described by scientists as a fact. This is because there is a collection of gravity observations that need to be explained. And observations are facts in scientific language.

Theories[16] in science are different from facts. Scientific theories describe the coherent framework into which observable data fit. There have been many theories that attempt to explain the fact of gravity. That is, scientists ask what is gravity, and what causes it. They develop a model to explain gravity, a theory of gravity. Predictions can be made based on this theory. Many explanations of gravity that qualify as a Theory of Gravity have been proposed over the centuries: Aristotle's, Galileo's, Newton's, and now Einstein's. So gravity is also a theory. In science, current theory is the theory that has yet to be falsified, that is there have been no observations made which contradict it to this point and, indeed, every observation ever made either supports current theory or at least does not falsify it (see Karl Popper). In no case did gravity disappear when a new theory was created; instead, the explanation for gravity was refined and improved.

Therefore gravity is called both a fact and a theory by scientists because the fact that it occurs is commonly accepted as fact. The mechanisms by which it occurs is a collection of sometimes contradictory theories.

Evolution, in the eyes of the scientific community is no different: it is both fact and theory.

Now if you accept that this is a science class and the scientific opinion is being expressed honestly and fairly by the science professor and you allow the class to move on then you will not be ridiculed or punished by any professor I've had in my ten years or so in college. But if you act like so many conservatives do in public debate; if you've been parroting your heroes like Hannity and Limbaugh, and you take yourself to be a persecuted social group at this point because your position hasn't prevailed, and you continue to argue and refuse to accept that this is not your forum to dominate the debate, you insist on quoting scriptures or fringe "scientists" that argue a biblical version of creationism then you SHOULD be punished for disrupting the class and interfering with the education of others. In my experience you WON'T be becase the professor doesn't need the headache. He will politely try to move on from the subject. And if, by the end of the course you're writing into your final exam essays that evolution is only a theory then you again should be graded lower. But you probably won't for the same reason.

This is an experience I saw in university: a student that insists he's right and is not open to the views of others - even college professors. Eventually it was up to the other students to shut the person up. No professor ever called a student names even in this situation. That idea is just stupid.

The same goes for history and political science and any other subject: there is an accepted body of research and knowledge on all subjects and the university is the place to debate them. But if you're a dick in class and cry like a little bitch because your viewpoint hasn't been adopted by everyone present then you deserve to be punished - but probably won't. That's the way it works. I had one liberal professor who spouted liberal dogma in lieu of the standard curriculum. I had one conservative who did the same. In both instances it was me who challenged them on a daily basis, (I've always been me, I guess), and even I wasn't graded lower than I deserved. Both of those professors hated me, but did not want our conflict to go beyond the classroom - tenureship or not - so they were careful to treat me fairly.

So what's this about? It's about Sean Hannity blabbering on about one of the core truisms of conservative dogma: that universities are bastions of liberal indoctrination; they are the enemy and must be attacked. (Oddly enough the hardcore left says the same thing, which to a rational person should count as an endorsement for higher education.) That's what he's doing and he's just making up ridiculous hypothetical professors seething with anti-conservative hatred looking to disembowel and devour the bloody entrails of any conservative who dares enter his classroom. Why does he do it? Because it makes him millions of dollars to say this shit every day. And because you conservatives actually listen to his insane ideas no matter how many times they lose you arguements, no matter how many times they're proved wrong. Hannity doesn't have to have a civil debate - he just yells whatever he wants and shuts up anyone who disagrees with him. You go around doing the same thing but you ignore whoever disagrees with you. And when you go into a university and do that shit you SHOULD be punished for it. Fifteen years ago I saw both liberals and conservatives doing this in classrooms and I wanted to kick the shit out of all of you. But I imagine it's worse now that conservatism is even more dogmatic and poweful than back then. Professors who do the same should be punished, but I know there's far far fewer of them than crazy conservatives.

Here's what I reccommend: stop listening to people who are consistently wrong and uncivil. Hannity is both. If you act like Hannity in the real world you deserve to get your ass kicked, not just called names. I'm sure a year ago universities were full of students arguing in their social science classes that things were going swimmingly in Iraq but the "liberal media" and you fucking leftist college professors were lying to the public because you hate Bush. They should have been sent back to kindergarten.

The fact is: your popular ideology, as espoused on the popular talking head TV and radio shows, teaches you that you are right becaue you are conservative and that anyone that disagrees with you is wrong and evil. Conservatism has become this mysterious magical force that is only powerful when it is felt - when you take off your sensory goggles and "feel the force". Only then can you drop your bombs on the professors and non-believers sent by the dark side to destroy all things good.

All ideologies practice this dogmatic approach but in conservatism it has become the dominant approach. And thus you get ridiculous discussions like evil liberal professors bullying conservatives. That's why you're still puting forth this "evolution is just a theory" claptrap decades after that myth should have been put to bed. That's why George W Bush had a free hand to fuck up Iraq for three years before you people finally acknowledged that things weren't going so well after all. And unless you stop listening to professional liars like Hannity you're going to continue to feel like perpetual victims just like Al Sharpton and you'll continue to fuck up America in the process. In the words of a great movie sage/cab driver: "I reccommend you stop acting like such a faggot!"

[HBox]

Why does Hannity have a hard on for college? It has to do with what launched his radio career. in 1988 he was attending UC Santa Barbara and had a radio show on the college station. He was kicked off after a week for discussing a book called "The AIDS Coverup" by Gene Antonio. The book claimed that AIDS could be spread by casual contact such as coughing or sneezing and there was a conspiracy hiding those "facts" to protect the homosexual community. Hannity had the guy on his show and let loose gems like "Anyone listening to this show that believes homosexuality is a normal lifestyle has been brainwashed. It's very dangerous if we start accepting lower and lower forms of behavior as the normal." Another radio host on the station, a lesbian, called in the show to confront Hannity. Then Hannity let loose that the host has a child through artificial insemination and said "I feel sorry for your child."

He was subsequently fired. But the ACLU came to his aid and got the station to offer him his job back. He refused, asking for more airtime. He used the incident to launch his radio career.

So let's not forget what a hateful bigot he is, no matter what he thinks on this issue.

[TheMojoPin]

He was subsequently fired. But the ACLU came to his aid and got the station to offer him his job back. He refused, asking for more airtime. He used the incident to launch his radio career.

"But-but-but-but the ACLU only likes to help people I don't like, because that's what I've been told over and over again! Stop lying!"

[sailor]

"But-but-but-but the ACLU only likes to help people I don't like, because that's what I've been told over and over again! Stop lying!"

odd use of quotes.

[thelyonhart]

odd use of quotes.

yeah, i'm not sure who you were quoting there, like is it something you would say, or something some other person would say, or some stereotype of person who derides the aclu commonly when they defend terrorists and murders?

Yeah, i also dislike when people do that because they dont see that the aclu will defend anyone who is considered defenseless, based on the concept of everyone deserving due process. Alot of the time that puts them on really unpopular cases, but sometimes they come to defend something you care about and you realize the good that the do.

[badmonkey]

Let me just generalize with the knowledge that the exceptions to these statements know who they are and won't be offended.

When did you conservatives become a bunch of crybabies demanding entitlements that you don't deserve? You're just like Sharpton and Jessie Jackson and the "NO BLOOD FOR OIL" protest crowd that you think you're crusading against. It's fucking pathetic.

The idea that you're being called names and given bad grades in college simply because you're conservative is retarded. It probably happens in isolated cases. There are probably isolated cases where liberals are discriminated against because they are liberal. But the idea that you aren't given your fair shake in classes is retarded. It isn't fucking happening.
Everytime I've heard this discussed on his show was due to a college student calling in asking for advice on how to deal with it. I'm well out of college and have been in the real world for over a decade. I'm not whining about it. I'm not on a mission to eradicate liberals from colleges. I was just pointing out what I have personally heard Hannity say and in what context I heard it rather than quoting a couple sentences as though he just decided one morning that the professors should be fired. The quote "Fear is a great motivator, and the fear that these left-wingers are going to get fired or be held accountable for their mean-spirited comments against people or their indoctrination is going to be the single-biggest motivation we ever see to get them to stop doing what they're doing to college kids around the country." is taken from his reaction to an actual event (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47601).


Now if you're sitting in a science class and on the day that evolution begins to be taught and you express the common conservative political/religious view that "Evolution is a Theory, which is why they call it the Theory of Evolution", then the professor, who has doubtless had that discussion in every class he's taught, will welcome the chance to explain the scientific position on this question and then move on. That position is roughly this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact):


The Theory of Evolution fits just fine within my political/religious views and is no threat to either. Unless things have changed since I was in school, evolution is still not proven as absolute and has further study to be done. You are correct in that it has not been disproven either. You automatically assume that I either don't understand or don't accept this theory because I am on the conservative side of several issues. This is an incorrect assumption on your part and has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. I pointed out, in the thread you quoted from, that we were not talking about science or math classes.


The same goes for history and political science and any other subject: there is an accepted body of research and knowledge on all subjects and the university is the place to debate them. But if you're a dick in class and cry like a little bitch because your viewpoint hasn't been adopted by everyone present then you deserve to be punished - but probably won't. That's the way it works. I had one liberal professor who spouted liberal dogma in lieu of the standard curriculum. I had one conservative who did the same. In both instances it was me who challenged them on a daily basis, (I've always been me, I guess), and even I wasn't graded lower than I deserved. Both of those professors hated me, but did not want our conflict to go beyond the classroom - tenureship or not - so they were careful to treat me fairly.

Again, this is in response to students that have called into his show complaining that they are not allowed to voice their opinions in the classroom debates without being attacked in class by their professors. Nobody says this is the standard treatment for college conservatives, just that it does happen. The students ask for advice and he tells them to record it.

Fifteen years ago I saw both liberals and conservatives doing this in classrooms and I wanted to kick the shit out of all of you. But I imagine it's worse now that conservatism is even more dogmatic and poweful than back then. Professors who do the same should be punished, but I know there's far far fewer of them than crazy conservatives.
So you do agree with me that the debate should not be stifled and that professors, be they conservative or liberal, should not be allowed to force their ideology on the students without allowing both sides of the debate. Excellent.

Here's what I reccommend: stop listening to people who are consistently wrong and uncivil. Hannity is both. If you act like Hannity in the real world you deserve to get your ass kicked, not just called names. I'm sure a year ago universities were full of students arguing in their social science classes that things were going swimmingly in Iraq but the "liberal media" and you fucking leftist college professors were lying to the public because you hate Bush. They should have been sent back to kindergarten.

I listen to Hannity maybe twice a month for less than an hour when I'm driving around town running errands and his show is on. There's just not many decent choices from 3-6 in DC. I don't listen to him as much now because I don't always enjoy his show. I listen to Rush maybe a couple times a week. I do not listen to them because I need spiritual guidance from my conservative imam. They do not dictate my thoughts or behavior. I listen because I find them entertaining and interesting, which is the same reason I listen to Ron and Fez and several other talk radio shows. BTW: ThereIsNoRadio has plenty of liberal talk shows and hosts and I'm the guy that put them on the schedule.

The fact is: your popular ideology, as espoused on the popular talking head TV and radio shows, teaches you that you are right becaue you are conservative and that anyone that disagrees with you is wrong and evil.
Pot-Kettle

All ideologies practice this dogmatic approach but in conservatism it has become the dominant approach. And thus you get ridiculous discussions like evil liberal professors bullying conservatives. That's why you're still puting forth this "evolution is just a theory" claptrap decades after that myth should have been put to bed. That's why George W Bush had a free hand to fuck up Iraq for three years before you people finally acknowledged that things weren't going so well after all. And unless you stop listening to professional liars like Hannity you're going to continue to feel like perpetual victims just like Al Sharpton and you'll continue to fuck up America in the process. In the words of a great movie sage/cab driver: "I reccommend you stop acting like such a faggot!"
Black


Badmonkey

[Yerdaddy]

You've missed most of my points while simultaneously exemplifying them.

[Midkiff]

Unless things have changed since I was in school, evolution is still not proven as absolute and has further study to be done.

Things HAVE changed. Science is decades beyond that hayseed argument. They gave up trying to convince people, and science marched on. Evolution is not a theory; it has been absolutely proven. They are making huge discoveries every day, while the bible-thumpers are stuck bickering in the 1800s still to this day.

I recommend you read the following:

http://images.barnesandnoble.com/images/12410000/12414968.jpg

[TheMojoPin]

Evolution is not a theory; it has been absolutely proven.

That's impossible. Nothing in science can be "absolutely proven." The best science can always be disproven. The thing with evolution is that to now it really hasn't be disproven by anything that stands up to the sceintific method. Evolution, so far, does.

[badmonkey]

You've missed most of my points while simultaneously exemplifying them.

Things HAVE changed. Science is decades beyond that hayseed argument. They gave up trying to convince people, and science marched on. Evolution is not a theory; it has been absolutely proven. They are making huge discoveries every day, while the bible-thumpers are stuck bickering in the 1800s still to this day.

Let me simplify this since multiple sentences, constructed into paragraphs in order to complete a thought, seem to confuse you.


I believe evolution should be taught in school as it is a theory that has been not been disproven by the scientific community.

I believe creationism should be taught in church and sunday school but not in public schools or science classes.

I do not necessarily believe creationism and evolution to be mutually exclusive of each other.

I believe that on a college campus, both sides of a debate should be allowed to argue their points without ridicule from the professors and grades should not suffer due to political differences with a professor.



Badmonkey

[Fat_Sunny]

I believe evolution should be taught in school as it is a theory that has been not been disproven by the scientific community.

I believe creationism should be taught in church and sunday school but not in public schools or science classes.

I do not necessarily believe creationism and evolution to be mutually exclusive of each other.

I believe that on a college campus, both sides of a debate should be allowed to argue their points without ridicule from the professors and grades should not suffer due to political differences with a professor.


Badmonkey

Very Sensible. Who Can Disagree With That? Good Monkey!

[TheMojoPin]

I believe that on a college campus, both sides of a debate should be allowed to argue their points without ridicule from the professors and grades should not suffer due to political differences with a professor.
[/LIST]

You're crossing the streams here. No, of course someone shouldn't be out and out "ridiculed" and grades shouldn't be hurt by an opinion alone, but are you saying that if someone is in a science class and they try to pass this stuff off in a paper or on a test, the professor isn't supposed to grade it based on the standards of the scientific method simply due to politics? That's absurd. Creationism is "bad science" right now. It doesn't hold up to the scientific method, period, and that is pretty much the basis of every field of science. Why should someone get a good grade in the contexts I just talked about based on those universal standards within the scientific community?

[badmonkey]

You're crossing the streams here. No, of course someone shouldn't be out and out "ridiculed" and grades shouldn't be hurt by an opinion alone, but are you saying that if someone is in a science class and they try to pass this stuff off in a paper or on a test, the professor isn't supposed to grade it based on the standards of the scientific method simply due to politics? That's absurd. Creationism is "bad science" right now. It doesn't hold up to the scientific method, period, and that is pretty much the basis of every field of science. Why should someone get a good grade in the contexts I just talked about based on those universal standards within the scientific community?

I seriously don't know how many times I have to say that I am not talking about science classes. I am talking about political science, government, civics, etc classes. I said that from the beginning before you guys turned this into a debate on evolution vs creationism. I had hoped that the simplicity of my last post would have cleared this up.

Badmonkey

[TheMojoPin]

I seriously don't know how many times I have to say that I am not talking about science classes. I am talking about political science, government, civics, etc classes. I said that from the beginning before you guys turned this into a debate on evolution vs creationism. I had hoped that the simplicity of my last post would have cleared this up.

Badmonkey

You'll notice that I part I responded to simply said "college campuses," so no, it wasn't anywhere near as specific as you just were. It was fuzzy as to whether or not the "science classes" statement also menat higher education.

At every point though, a teacher is going to grade someone based on some degree of that student being right or wrong. Creationism, again, is bad science. I'm not trying to boil this down to creationism vs. evolution, we're just using this specific example. Why should someone get a good grade in, say, a "politics" class if they're basing their political argument on something that is refuted by the basic foundations of what makes up scientific thought? That's not an issue of Right or Left or anything along those lines...that ends up being somone making an intellectual argument based on something that that is intellectually unsound. It really is like declaring that I'm a Democrat and then backing up that choice by arguing that the theory of gravity is bullshit. That's simply a terrible argument, and my grades should reflect that if making that argument or point is a key part of a class. It's hypocritcal to bemoan students being "punished" for their viewpoints and then expect people to basically get special treatment because their terrible arguments happen to fall on a certain side of the political spectrum. Yes, college is supposed to be an open forum of discussion, but at the end of the day your grades are still essentially rooted in intellectual reality.

[shodan]

Politically, I have nothing in common with Hannity, but I have a great amount of respect for him for defending free speech. He did it with the Sex for Sam bullshit, he did it for Imus, and he is doing it again. Every time I hear him speak I wonder why he alligns himself, or at least fires up, the neocons. He seems far too intelligent. As for evolution, it has been proven, as much as human beings can prove anything. A theory can be tested, religion can not. Note: I am not accusing anyone here of disagreeing with this statement, just stating my opinion.

As for the Hannity is a fascist comment, take it easy. Statements like that cheapen the suffering of those who have been hurt by true fascists, such as the Nazis and Ultrafundamentalist Islam believers(who want a global caliphate). Hyperbole only breeds devisiveness.

[Fezticle98]

Fuck Sean Hannity! He tried to railroad Ron Paul tonight in the post-debate interview, regarding his Iraq stance. Clearly, he along with his colleagues were upset and incredulous that Dr. Paul won the debate according to FoxNews polling.

[Don Stugots]

Fuck Sean Hannity! He tried to railroad Ron Paul tonight in the post-debate interview, regarding his Iraq stance. Clearly, he along with his colleagues were upset and incredulous that Dr. Paul won the debate according to FoxNews polling.

bastard, no one speaks to Fez Paul that way. i stick up for my friends.

[HBox]

Look, this whole "free speech" debate is not one that can be drawn down any political lines. Unfortunately for anyone who aligns themselves with any ideology there will be people who believe the same things you believe who also look to stifel any speech they do not agree with. This story is a great example of that. The initial comment would have been offensive to Laura Bush and Condoleeza Rice, two Republican icons. Matt Drudge broke the story, a conservative whatever he is. Breitbart hosted the audio, a conservative leaning news site. That NOW chick who debated Patrice, a liberal, wants them fired. XM is scared of the incident creating issues with the FCC, full of conservatives. Al Sharpton has jumped into the case, a liberal.

And its not particularly surprising that Hannity would be in favor of O&A. I'd say its mostly for selfish reasons. With the way his radio career started out and his paranoid delusions about liberals controlling the media he probably always thinks he's next. He'd like to stem the tide before it gets to him, in his view. And if he came out against any of these guys he'd be looking like a hypocrit if he ever was fired for saying something. And frankly, some of the things he says borders on shock jock stuff except he's serious.

The main point of all that being that sometimes otherwise good people will be against you on this issue while otherwise awful people will be with you. Hannity is definitely otherwise awful, no matter what he says between claiming that Iraq is going great and railing against gays.

[SinA]

Hannity and Colmes both stood up for free speech and the boys tonight. If anyone's up at midnight (the segment will actually it air around 12:20 or so) it's worth checking out.

[DonInNC]

Hannity and Colmes both stood up for free speech and the boys tonight. If anyone's up at midnight (the segment will actually it air around 12:20 or so) it's worth checking out.

He talks?!?

[Midkiff]

Let me simplify this since multiple sentences, constructed into paragraphs in order to complete a thought, seem to confuse you.


I believe evolution should be taught in school as it is a theory that has been not been disproven by the scientific community.

I believe creationism should be taught in church and sunday school but not in public schools or science classes.

I do not necessarily believe creationism and evolution to be mutually exclusive of each other.

I believe that on a college campus, both sides of a debate should be allowed to argue their points without ridicule from the professors and grades should not suffer due to political differences with a professor.



Badmonkey

No, you are confused. I got you loud and clear. Actually, I agree with all of your post except for one vital fact, which I already stated in my post to which you replied.

Here's what I said: "Evolution is not a theory; it has been absolutely proven."

Do some reading of stuff published more recently than your childhood. That book I recommended is a great start.

If by "not proven" you mean there's no video of the fish crawling onto the beach, or apes discovering fire and turning into modern humans, sure. But now that the human genome has long been since mapped, and with our knowledge of the time it takes for DNA mutations to occur, and our knowledge of what specific genes do, our evolutionary history can indeed be fleshed out into a coherent timeline of specific evolutionary improvements. These are facts. Furthermore, Darwin was a lot more correct than he thought in a lot of ways. His were theories based on observation; the genome has proven him to be correct in so many ways. Please; read the book. It's a fun read!

[Gvac]

No, you are confused. I got you loud and clear. Actually, I agree with all of your post except for one vital fact, which I already stated in my post to which you replied.

Here's what I said: "Evolution is not a theory; it has been absolutely proven."

Do some reading of stuff published more recently than your childhood. That book I recommended is a great start.

If by "not proven" you mean there's no video of the fish crawling onto the beach, or apes discovering fire and turning into modern humans, sure. But now that the human genome has long been since mapped, and with our knowledge of the time it takes for DNA mutations to occur, and our knowledge of what specific genes do, our evolutionary history can indeed be fleshed out into a coherent timeline of specific evolutionary improvements. These are facts. Furthermore, Darwin was a lot more correct than he thought in a lot of ways. His were theories based on observation; the genome has proven him to be correct in so many ways. Please; read the book. It's a fun read!

Absolutely not, bro. Scientists have an idea of how long it takes for genetic mutations to occur, but not an absolutely exact timetable and they're not sure it's a constant. For this reason alone it's impossible to say we can "flesh out a coherent timetable" of our evolution.

Species evolving within themselves is about as close to fact as you can come in science, but there is absolutely no evidence of one species mutating into another, ie an ape to a human, an amoeba to a fish, a dinosaur to a bird, etc.

This is the "missing link" that science keeps searching for.

[scottinnj]

He talks?!?

Not only did he talk, he pointed his index finger at that Dago Bastard and condenmed him!

I was shocked, and aroused at the same time.

[Midkiff]

Absolutely not, bro. Scientists have an idea of how long it takes for genetic mutations to occur, but not an absolutely exact timetable and they're not sure it's a constant. For this reason alone it's impossible to say we can "flesh out a coherent timetable" of our evolution.

Species evolving within themselves is about as close to fact as you can come in science, but there is absolutely no evidence of one species mutating into another, ie an ape to a human, an amoeba to a fish, a dinosaur to a bird, etc.

This is the "missing link" that science keeps searching for.

I gotta disagree. I have read several recent scientific books that have indeed fleshed out a timetable. It's not pinned down precisely, but a tight enough date range that there is indeed a basic timetable. Again, let me recommend that one book to you, listed above.

[DonInNC]

Things HAVE changed. Science is decades beyond that hayseed argument. They gave up trying to convince people, and science marched on. Evolution is not a theory; it has been absolutely proven. They are making huge discoveries every day, while the bible-thumpers are stuck bickering in the 1800s still to this day.

I recommend you read the following:



Several of the reviews I read suggested that the author relies on speculation rather than hard science in parts of the book. With that said, I'm ordering it. It looks interesting. Thanks for the suggestion.

[DonInNC]

double post

[Midkiff]

Several of the reviews I read suggested that the author relies on speculation rather than hard science in parts of the book. With that said, I'm ordering it. It looks interesting. Thanks for the suggestion.

Thank you sir. I assure you, you will have an interesting read. Unfortunately, no matter how convincing anything is, some people will always call it speculation if it doesn't jive with their religious views. Now, that book does not assert that everything it says is certain fact; but it is a very well researched and well-documented premise based on real science. I can see the point; some areas require more theorizing than others, but that is not very prevalent.
Enjoy!

[TheMojoPin]

No, you are confused. I got you loud and clear. Actually, I agree with all of your post except for one vital fact, which I already stated in my post to which you replied.

Here's what I said: "Evolution is not a theory; it has been absolutely proven."

Do some reading of stuff published more recently than your childhood. That book I recommended is a great start.

If by "not proven" you mean there's no video of the fish crawling onto the beach, or apes discovering fire and turning into modern humans, sure. But now that the human genome has long been since mapped, and with our knowledge of the time it takes for DNA mutations to occur, and our knowledge of what specific genes do, our evolutionary history can indeed be fleshed out into a coherent timeline of specific evolutionary improvements. These are facts. Furthermore, Darwin was a lot more correct than he thought in a lot of ways. His were theories based on observation; the genome has proven him to be correct in so many ways. Please; read the book. It's a fun read!

Dude, you need to listen to me...a scientific theory cannot ever...EVER...everevereverever be "proven" 100%. It's impossible. That's why we still have the "theory of gravity" and the "theory of relativity" and the "theory of evolution." The scientific method is all about finding the best supported theories, which evolution is one of. You can see something happen right in front of your eyes, but it's not proven, not by scientific standards. You can be 99% sure, but there's always going to be that slight possibility of something being disproven. Good science ALWAYS leaves open the opportunity to be disproven.

[Midkiff]

Kinda like the theory of the Earth being round?

Because that was indeed a scientific theory... and it has been proven. I do not agree that a theory can never be proven.

[TheMojoPin]

Kinda like the theory of the Earth being round?

Because that was indeed a scientific theory... and it has been proven. I do not agree that a theory can never be proven.

You don't have to agree. It's how scientific theories work. Your comparison doesn't really work. The Earth being round is a basic observation, not an extended process or theory like relativity, gravity or evolution.

[Midkiff]

You don't have to agree. It's how scientific theories work.

No sir. Round Earth has now been proven by observation... but it was a theory since the Renaissance. Same deal here. A theory starts, and someday some of them are proven or disproven.

And by the way, this is exactly why the scientific community gave up arguing with the hayseeds and just moved on. Way on.

[TheMojoPin]

So then you must concede that the Earth may indeed be flat, because the round Earth is a theory born several hundred years ago.

It's not the same as the scientific theories we're talking about.

Look, ask any scientist worth his salt...ask one that lives and breathes the theory of evolution. Even they will tell you that they cannot prove that that or any other scientific theory.

The scientific method involves the following basic facets:

Observation. A constant feature of scientific inquiry.

Description. Information must be reliable, i.e., replicable (repeatable) as well as valid (relevant to the inquiry).

Prediction. Information must be valid for observations past, present, and future of given phenomena, i.e., purported "one shot" phenomena do not give rise to the capability to predict, nor to the ability to repeat an experiment.

Control. Actively and fairly sampling the range of possible occurrences, whenever possible and proper, as opposed to the passive acceptance of opportunistic data, is the best way to control or counterbalance the risk of empirical bias.

Falsifiability, or the elimination of plausible alternatives. This is a gradual process that requires repeated experiments by multiple researchers who must be able to replicate results in order to corroborate them. This requirement, one of the most frequently contended, leads to the following: All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof. Thus, there is a point at which there might be a consensus about a particular hypothesis or theory, yet it must in principle remain tentative. As a body of knowledge grows and a particular hypothesis or theory repeatedly brings predictable results, confidence in the hypothesis or theory increases. (See also Lakatos.)

Causal explanation. Many scientists and theorists on scientific method[attribution needed] argue that concepts of causality are not obligatory to science, but are in fact well-defined only under particular, admittedly widespread conditions. Under these conditions the following requirements are generally regarded as important to scientific understanding:

Identification of causes. Identification of the causes of a particular phenomenon to the best achievable extent.

Covariation of events. The hypothesized causes must correlate with observed effects.

Time-order relationship. The hypothesized causes must precede the observed effects in time.

[Midkiff]

I get all that. By the "scientific method," like a chemistry class experiment, a historical process could never be "proven." We weren't there, we can't observe it, so it can't be unequivocally proven by observation. So if enough scientists, taking available info as far as they can, concur that a theory is likely to be true, it is generally accepted by the scientific community to be probably true, until something new comes along. In the case of millions of years of evolution, it ain't gonna happen unless we invent a time machine.

All that said, the fossil evidence that we do have, proves that no magical Jew pointed his Harry Potter wand into space 6,000 years ago and spoke us into being in our present form. It is a proven fact that humanoids have been walking the Earth for millions of years, and modern man, homo sapiens, has been here for 150,000 to 200,000 years. Until the rubes can absorb that, they'll never be able to move on to such lofty ideas as evolution.

[TheMojoPin]

I get all that. By the "scientific method," like a chemistry class experiment, a historical process could never be "proven." We weren't there, we can't observe it, so it can't be unequivocally proven by observation. So if enough scientists, taking available info as far as they can, concur that a theory is likely to be true, it is generally accepted by the scientific community to be probably true, until something new comes along. In the case of millions of years of evolution, it ain't gonna happen unless we invent a time machine.

All that said, the fossil evidence that we do have, proves that no magical Jew pointed his Harry Potter wand into space 6,000 years ago and spoke us into being in our present form. It is a proven fact that humanoids have been walking the Earth for millions of years, and modern man, homo sapiens, has been here for 150,000 to 200,000 years. Until the rubes can absorb that, they'll never be able to move on to such lofty ideas as evolution.

You can't prove a scientific theory like evolution 100%. Just get over it. I agree with your support of it, but it's weakening your argument to continually spout something that's just flat out incorrect by saying it's "proven."

[Midkiff]

You can't prove a scientific theory like evolution 100%.

Yeah, that was exactly my point.

I think I get especially teed of about it because I was raised in such a hayseed badmonkey-ish family that I just can't stand to hear the rhetoric anymore.

[TheMojoPin]

hayseed badmonkey-ish family

Totally unecessary. It doesn't help your case to toss out things like "hayseeds" and "rubes" at every turn.

[SinA]

You can't prove a scientific theory like evolution 100%. Just get over it. I agree with your support of it, but it's weakening your argument to continually spout something that's just flat out incorrect by saying it's "proven."

So you're saying that in order to accept evolution, one must have faith?

[Midkiff]

Totally unecessary. It doesn't help your case to toss out things like "hayseeds" and "rubes" at every turn.

Neither do facts, apparently, so what can anybody do. Whatever. I don't care. I, like the scientific community, will just go on discovering more facts and let the general public argue even unto their deathbeds.

[Midkiff]

So you're saying that in order to accept evolution, one must have faith?

:lol: :lol:

[TheMojoPin]

So you're saying that in order to accept evolution, one must have faith?

To a degree.

All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof. Thus, there is a point at which there might be a consensus about a particular hypothesis or theory, yet it must in principle remain tentative. As a body of knowledge grows and a particular hypothesis or theory repeatedly brings predictable results, confidence in the hypothesis or theory increases.

Oh, the irony!

[Fat_Sunny]

Totally unecessary. It doesn't help your case to toss out things like "hayseeds" and "rubes" at every turn.

Yes, JD, Even Your Beloved Upper Peninsula Is Mostly "Red" Country. In Fact, If You Take Out Detroit, Michigan Is A Highly Red State.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/countymapredbluelarge.png

Lots Of Us With Big Brains Believe In God Or Cosmic Consciousness, Or Whatever You Want To Call It, And Yet Still Embrace Evolution. They Are In No Way Mutually Exclusive.

[Midkiff]

I mean this with no offense intended whatsoever, and not directing it at anyone in particular, just an observation about my own feelings.... I really feel like I am having a conversation with the "God Hates Fags" lady. That's what it feels like to me to still be going over this age-old argument in this day and age.

[TheMojoPin]

I mean this with no offense intended whatsoever, just an observation about my own feelings.... I really feel like I am having a conversation with the "God Hates Fags" lady. That's what it feels like to me to still be going over this age-old argument in this day and age.

You better not be talking about me.

[Midkiff]

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/countymapredbluelarge.png

That image makes me physically ill.

Lots Of Us With Big Brains Believe In God Or Cosmic Consciousness, Or Whatever You Want To Call It, And Yet Still Embrace Evolution. They Are In No Way Mutually Exclusive.

You don't think they are mutually exclusive. But as your buddy Mojo says, it can never be proven either way.

[Fat_Sunny]

You better not be talking about me.

Unless You're God.

[Fallon]

As soon as that ass came on and started off with "Opie and Dopie" I knew he was a biased prick and it was nice to see H&C smash him.

[Midkiff]

As soon as that ass came on and started off with "Opie and Dopie" I knew he was a biased prick and it was nice to see H&C smash him.

hahaha wrong thread dude.

[Fallon]

hahaha wrong thread dude.

D'oh!

[TheMojoPin]

You don't think they are mutually exclusive. But as your buddy Mojo says, it can never be proven either way.

Let's see if you can't grasp this...I'M not saying it...I'm repeating what any scientist anywhere in the world worth their salt would tell you. Stop patronizing me as if I'm making something up just to disagree with you.

[Midkiff]

Let's see if you can't grasp this...I'M not saying it...I'm repeating what any scientist anywhere in the world worth their salt would tell you. Stop patronizing me as if I'm making something up just to disagree with you.

To the contrary, I am agreeing with you. Unless we invent a time machine, it can't ever be truly proven. So, the "moderate Christian" viewpoint of "creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive" is just as much a theory as anything else.

[Fat_Sunny]

So, the "moderate Christian" viewpoint of "creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive" is just as much a theory as anything else.

Just So You Know, There Are Religions Other Than Christianity.

In Hinduism, Evolution Is Integral To The Entire Belief System. Not Just Physical/Material Evolution, But The Evolution Of Souls As Well.

[Midkiff]

Just So You Know, There Are Religions Other Than Christianity.

In Hinduism, Evolution Is Integral To The Entire Belief System. Not Just Physical/Material Evolution, But The Evolution Of Souls As Well.

True. But I was kinda betting you weren't likely to be Hindu.... :lol:

[Fat_Sunny]

True. But I was kinda betting you weren't likely to be Hindu.... :lol:

Fat's Alot More Hindu In His Beliefs Than Christian!!! Om!

[Midkiff]

Fat's Alot More Hindu In His Beliefs Than Christian!!! Om!

Yeah, if I were religious, which I no longer am (I was definitely raised a bible-thumper), my views would be somewhere in that neighborhood... probably closer to Buddhism.

As it is now, though, with endless research, historical readings, etc, I kinda waffle between agnostic and atheist, more toward the latter.

[Fat_Sunny]

Your Name Just Changed This Very Moment!!! Was It, Dare Fat Say, And Intervention From God?!?!?

Seriously, How Did You Do That?

[Midkiff]

Your Name Just Changed This Very Moment!!! Was It, Dare Fat Say, And Intervention From God?!?!?

Seriously, How Did You Do That?

Ha ha! No more being confused with the J-jumbles!!!

Hey an intervention, yes, but better than God - an intervention from Saint Mikeyboy!!!

[SinA]

hahaha wrong thread dude.

i though this was a hannity thread, before all you shape shifting pagans started this monkey business

[Gvac]

Seriously...this has to be one of the greatest derailments in the history of messageboarddom.

[Fat_Sunny]

i though this was a hannity thread, before all you shape shifting pagans started this monkey business

The Thread Just Evolved.

[Midkiff]

i though this was a hannity thread, before all you shape shifting pagans started this monkey business

:lol:

[Midkiff]

The Thread Just Evolved.

:lol:

[Midkiff]

Seriously...this has to be one of the greatest derailments in the history of messageboarddom.

:lol:

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2000/09/05/derail.jpg

so anyway... uh... kudos to Hannity?

[Gvac]

:lol:
so anyway... uh... kudos to Hannity?

Fuck him!

He's a neanderthal.




Uh oh.....

[Midkiff]

Fuck him!

He's a neanderthal.




Uh oh.....

hahahahaha that's funny shit :lol:

Actually, the Neanderthals...... :lol:

[TooCute]

I thought I opened a thread about Sean Hannity.

P.S. Gvac, species HAVE evolved into entirely new species in our lifetimes. Trust me, I'm a scientist.

http://www.atlasblogged.com/archives/pete.JPG

[Midkiff]

I thought I opened a thread about Sean Hannity.

P.S. Gvac, species HAVE evolved into entirely new species in our lifetimes. Trust me, I'm a scientist.

http://www.atlasblogged.com/archives/pete.JPG

THAAAAAAANK YOU!

[IMSlacker]

THAAAAAAANK YOU!

Who are you, and why did you steal JPMNICK's Butthead avatar?

(If somebody already beat me to this joke, I apologize.)

[Fat_Sunny]

Yes, Fat Is Uncomfortable With Your Name, Both Before And After The Change. Let's Look At Some Options To Get You A Better Name:

1. Drop The "K" And Put In An "R" = Midriff

2. Spell It Backward Option A = Ffikdim = Phonetic Equivalent = Victim

3. Spell It Backward Option B = Ffikdim = Phonetic Equivalent = Phuck D'Em

If You Choose The One You Prefer, Fat Will Arrange For The Necessary Documents To Be Prepared.

[ShowerBench]

[SIZE="2"]Yes, JD, Even Your Beloved Upper Peninsula Is Mostly "Red" Country. In Fact, If You Take Out Detroit, Michigan Is A Highly Red State.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/countymapredbluelarge.png

[SIZE]

OK, see, that's a land map, not a population map. If there is one person who lives in a county in Idaho and votes Republican, the entire county is colored red.

Likewise, if there are 5 million Democratic voters living in another, smaller county it is colored blue.

The map looked about the same in 2000 when Al Gore won 500,000 more votes nationwide than Little Lord Pissypants.

Grass and trees generally don't adopt a political philosophy so we can't paint them red and then claim they represent "the country."

[Fezticle98]

Grass and trees generally don't adopt a political philosophy so we can't paint them red and then claim they represent "the country."

If they did, I'm pretty sure they'd vote Green.

[badmonkey]

Yeah, that was exactly my point.

I think I get especially teed of about it because I was raised in such a hayseed badmonkey-ish family that I just can't stand to hear the rhetoric anymore.

This is what happens when people like you find themselves unable to participate in an intelligent discussion. They have to bring it down to street level with name calling. You are still screaming about evolution when nobody here is actually disagreeing with you, yet I'm the hayseed? Evolution is being taught in schools and I support that. There's really no need for you to continue to kick the horse. It has been dead for pages. In fact, evolution was never the point of my original post in the first place. The point was that a quote attributed to Hannity was taken out of context and used to illustrate an attack by him on college campuses that just doesn't exist. I didn't even bring up evolution, but since people seem to think that conservatives are all bible-thumping hayseeds that can't deal with evolution because it breaks their religion, it got drug into the conversation. You don't know anything about where I was raised, how I was raised, or who raised me.

You like street level? I'll step down to street level with you for just a second and speak to you in language that you can understand. You can french-kiss my ass straight up the middle you arrogant piece of shit. Fuck you.

There, now that we have that out of the way, maybe we can move back to a higher form of intelligent conversation.

Just tryin to be like all the cool kids...


Badmonkey

[Fat_Sunny]

You like street level? I'll step down to street level with you for just a second and speak to you in language that you can understand. You can french-kiss my ass straight up the middle you arrogant piece of shit. Fuck you.

There, now that we have that out of the way, maybe we can move back to a higher form of intelligent conversation.

Just tryin to be like all the cool kids...


Badmonkey

He Gets A Little Flip Sometimes; Maybe A Tad Overly "Frisky", But He Doesn't Strike F_S As A Real Hater. Once You Get Past The "Hayseed" Stuff, He's Not Really A Bad Fellow. Fat Disagrees With Him On Alot Of Topics, But Would Trust Him When The Chips Are Down.

[Midkiff]

He Gets A Little Flip Sometimes; Maybe A Tad Overly "Frisky", But He Doesn't Strike F_S As A Real Hater. Once You Get Past The "Hayseed" Stuff, He's Not Really A Bad Fellow. Fat Disagrees With Him On Alot Of Topics, But Would Trust Him When The Chips Are Down.

Thanks, Fat. You're the man.

Although the topic got heated, I would say that Mojo, Fat, GVAC, and myself had a pretty intelligent discussion.

I certainly meant no offense by the "badmonkey-ish family," what I meant was that I was raised with that conservative/republican dogma ground into my skull, and badmonkey's posts tend to remind me very much of all that stuff I grew up hearing. No offense, badmonkey. I apologize.

I love you all!

[badmonkey]

Thanks, Fat. You're the man.

Although the topic got heated, I would say that Mojo, Fat, GVAC, and myself had a pretty intelligent discussion.

I certainly meant no offense by the "badmonkey-ish family," what I meant was that I was raised with that conservative/republican dogma ground into my skull, and badmonkey's posts tend to remind me very much of all that stuff I grew up hearing. No offense, badmonkey. I apologize.

I love you all!

I did not grow up with any political dogma ground into my skull. My dad, who is very conservative, allowed me to come to my own conclusions. Until around 2000 I was extremely liberal and practically begged my parents not to vote for Bush. Now my views vary depend on the issue, not the conservative, liberal, democrat, or republican line. You can blame Al Gore's whining about the 2000 election for my conversion. I did, however, vote for Bush in 2004. NoHayseed.

Apology accepted.

Badmonkey

[Midkiff]

:smile: Cool.

I find myself mostly on the liberal side of things, but occasionally go the other way too. I don't like to tow a line either. Politics these days really just make me nauseous.

I used to listen religiously to Limbaugh, and sometimes to Hannity, but Hannity really turned me off pretty quickly.

But kudos to Hannity for sticking up for O&A.