Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:36d6c06f-a244-440e-a900-5522bfc6189bn@googlegroups.com:

> On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 8:07:25 PM UTC-6, Hal Heydt
> wrote:
>> In article <XnsAF0DB43D8BA49...@85.12.62.245>,
>> Ninapenda Jibini <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >One cannot "teach the controversy" if there is no controversy,
>> >and there _is_ _no_ _controversy_, because creationism and
>> >intelligent design are *not* science, and don't even pretend
>> >to be.
>
>> (Hal Heydt)
>> Correct on both points.
>
> The thing is, though, in the post he replied to, I *agreed* with
> that.

While saying that schools should teach religion in science class in
some deliberately provoking manner.

> Which is why I noted that the accomodation they ask for cannot
> be granted. And instead I noted how we would have to proceed
> instead in order to respect the First Amendment rights of
> Creationist parents.

There is no first amendment right to teach religion in science
class. The courts are just too cowardly to say so out loud.
>
> Science classes can't indoctrinate people with the truth of
> evolution, because that is a violation of religious freedom.

Only you - insane retard that you are - would equate science and
indoctrination.

That's why people know you're full of shit, all the time, on every
subject.

> And so I resolved the paradox.
>
The only paradox is who someone could be as stupid as you and still
be able to walk and breathe at the same time.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote in
news:a89aed29-0e13-4f84-9a1a-1024f546d8e6n@googlegroups.com:

> On Saturday, 10 September 2022 at 03:07:25 UTC+1, Dorothy J
> Heydt wrote:
>> >One cannot "teach the controversy" if there is no controversy,
>> >and there _is_ _no_ _controversy_, because creationism and
>> >intelligent design are *not* science, and don't even pretend
>> >to be.
>>
>> (Hal Heydt)
>> Correct on both points.
>
> ...except for being called "Creation Science" and
> "Scientific Creationism" until that was thrown out
> of the public schools by law, in the 1980s.
> Admittedly - for not having any actual science.
>
Which is what I said in the parts that were snipped out.

Science has a specific, objective definition, and neither creationism
nor intelligence design, by any name, fit within it.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Saturday, 10 September 2022 at 19:51:09 UTC+1, Jonathan Harston wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 5:01:21 PM UTC+1, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> > Alternatively.... Eliminate sex-based pay disparity by bringing
> > the pay of women up to that of men. That will increase the
> > chances that a woman can afford to be the sole support of a
> > family, and two-income families will do quite well.
>
> To do that you'd have to somehow make it illegal for women
> to make life choices that result in them being in low-paid jobs.

The words "minimum wage" will help. Though it
probably won't keep women out of part time jobs.

And some female work can be quite well paid if
done well. A moral initiative ascribed to "Brussels"
(unconfirmed) was explained: "... the money will not be
going directly into the prostitutes' pocket, but will be
used to encourage them to lead a better life. We will be
training them for new positions in hotels."

In article <7effe4d8-0b1a-40c2-a53d-f60af0050c9an@googlegroups.com>,
Jonathan Harston <jgh@mdfs.net> wrote:
>On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 5:01:21 PM UTC+1, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> Alternatively.... Eliminate sex-based pay disparity by bringing
>> the pay of women up to that of men. That will increase the
>> chances that a woman can afford to be the sole support of a
>> family, and two-income families will do quite well.
>
>To do that you'd have to somehow make it illegal for women
>to make life choices that result in them being in low-paid jobs.

(Hal Heydt)
Or, as a society, reassess the value (and pay) of what are now
low paying jobs. And, perhaps, some high paying jobs, as well.
Are CEOs really worth what they're paid?

On 9/10/2022 6:41 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <7effe4d8-0b1a-40c2-a53d-f60af0050c9an@googlegroups.com>,
> Jonathan Harston <jgh@mdfs.net> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 5:01:21 PM UTC+1, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>> Alternatively.... Eliminate sex-based pay disparity by bringing
>>> the pay of women up to that of men. That will increase the
>>> chances that a woman can afford to be the sole support of a
>>> family, and two-income families will do quite well.
>>
>> To do that you'd have to somehow make it illegal for women
>> to make life choices that result in them being in low-paid jobs.
>
> (Hal Heydt)
> Or, as a society, reassess the value (and pay) of what are now
> low paying jobs. And, perhaps, some high paying jobs, as well.
> Are CEOs really worth what they're paid?

No.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 10/09/22 12:52, Tony Nance wrote:
> On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 12:54:31 AM UTC-4, Titus G wrote:

>> snip for brevity

>
>> Because my interest has been in the music, it has taken months
>> for the lyrics to penetrate my ear wax.
>
> For better or worse, the way my mind is geared, it's hard for
> me to actually notice the lyrics, and even harder for them to
> have any meaning to me. Doesn't make me enjoy music any
> less. I think my brain hears vocals as just another instrument.
> <shrug> It's just the way it is.
>

Unless the lyrics are really dominant, my experience is the same.

>> Big Red. Frank Black.
> A truly fine song, but the one that I go back to over
> and over again on that album is "Two Reelers".

My favourites are on a play list and that was not one of my original
selections. I have now played it and intensely dislike the first
frenetic 30 seconds. However the ensuing melodic parts are great as is
the orchestral crescendo. The thrash interlude, talking and shouting not
so great but OK. The lyrics were incomprehensible though clearly
elucidated. (I Duckduckgoed them. Stooges!)
Many of his items have disjointed contrasts beginning with 30 to 60
seconds of a completely different style. That grates for me but when he
has different instruments in different time beats or deliberately in
contrasting keys, it seems to fit in with the overall effect.

> I've been fortunate to see the Pixies live several times,
> but I feel especially fortunate that I saw Frank Black
> live in a small venue in 2001 in support of the album
> Dog in the Sand.

I was surprised at the quality performance in the live album, Hate Me.
I just love Blast Off from the Dog in Sand album and often play it twice
in a row carefully starting a minute in each time. A lot of noise for a
small venue?

On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 2:30:42 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
> news:36d6c06f-a244-440e...@googlegroups.com:

> > Which is why I noted that the accomodation they ask for cannot
> > be granted. And instead I noted how we would have to proceed
> > instead in order to respect the First Amendment rights of
> > Creationist parents.

> There is no first amendment right to teach religion in science
> class. The courts are just too cowardly to say so out loud.

I did not advocate teaching any religion in science class.

I advocated omitting one bit of the science of evolution in
science class, the fact that it really happened, instead of merely
being something claimed by one particular group of scientists,
that, for no particular reason, is the only version of life's origins
being presented in science class.

The reason is to avoid teaching students that the literal word of
the Bible is wrong. Because that would be indoctrinating students
in a position concerning a matter about which some denominations
are concerned.

John Savard

On 10/09/22 23:14, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 11:01:22 PM UTC-6, Hal Heydt wrote:
>
>> yes, there was damage. Whether or not it was "extensive" is a
>> judgement call. Some individual building certainly took what I
>> would consider to be extensive damage.
>>
>> As for out and out murders? Got numbers? Got numbers on *both*
>> sides?
>
> Of course, though, his real question is about the behavior of the media.
>
> When a riot damages the property of innocent people, of course the
> people living in the community will be angry at the rioters.
>
> I myself think that, in general, in principle, it is entirely right and proper
> for the police to use lethal force to prevent property damage. After all,
> someone proposing to break a window, let's say, had a _choice_. He could
> have chosen not to break any windows that day. The owner of the window
> didn't make any wrong choices.

I someone else think that, in particular, in practice that your weak
kneed response is exactly what causes most of societies' problems. Why
should such a potential criminal even consider breaking or not breaking
a window? An alert policeman with authority to inflict lethal force
would recognise the type of person most likely to disrespect private
property and act accordingly. It is softie Jewess Communists such as
yourself keeping lawyers in business and there is only one side to that
story. Or maybe the owner of the window chose breakable glass?

In article <tfjg2b$1q45t$3@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

> On 9/10/2022 6:41 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> > In article <7effe4d8-0b1a-40c2-a53d-f60af0050c9an@googlegroups.com>,
> > Jonathan Harston <jgh@mdfs.net> wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 5:01:21 PM UTC+1, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> >>> Alternatively.... Eliminate sex-based pay disparity by bringing
> >>> the pay of women up to that of men. That will increase the
> >>> chances that a woman can afford to be the sole support of a
> >>> family, and two-income families will do quite well.
> >>
> >> To do that you'd have to somehow make it illegal for women
> >> to make life choices that result in them being in low-paid jobs.
> >
> > (Hal Heydt)
> > Or, as a society, reassess the value (and pay) of what are now
> > low paying jobs. And, perhaps, some high paying jobs, as well.
> > Are CEOs really worth what they're paid?
>
> No.

It is something of a bureaucratic status game. If the board of company A
pays its CEO 70% of the pay of company B's CEO, they are admitting that
their CEO isn't as good as company B's (or at least giving that
appearance).

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
—-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com

On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 7:51:38 PM UTC-6, Hal Heydt wrote:
> In article <7effe4d8-0b1a-40c2...@googlegroups.com>,
> Jonathan Harston <j...@mdfs.net> wrote:

> >To do that you'd have to somehow make it illegal for women
> >to make life choices that result in them being in low-paid jobs.

> Or, as a society, reassess the value (and pay) of what are now
> low paying jobs. And, perhaps, some high paying jobs, as well.
> Are CEOs really worth what they're paid?

While this is a valid point, our society knows no way of
determining the true and just worth of a job - or a product -
except by the workings of the Holy Free Market.

Letting some politically-motivated government bureaucrat
decide such things... would, of course, lead us to all be
doomed to stand in long line-ups to buy toilet paper.

While legislation to prohibit paying women less for identical
work has been generally accepted as fair, this more radical
proposal from certain feminist circles has *understandably*
met with some resistance. The government can and should
put its thumb on the scales of the free market to deal with
the lack of market power on the part of the ordinary working
class; failing that, the electorate will try to hold it to account,
potentially leading to disastrous results, of which the election
of Trump as President is an example.

I know that many years ago, I occasionally saw in the letter
columns of newspapers letters asking why hockey players
ought to be paid more money than doctors.

While it's true that a doctor's work is more genuinely useful
than that of a hockey player, I would have two counter-arguments:

1) A hockey player entertains more than one person at a time,
and

2) A cap on the salaries of hockey players only benefits the
people who own hockey teams. How are _they_ so valuable
that they need to make even more money?

Women have recieved pay for their jobs in the past that was
less than fair. But the kind of proposal you are repeating is
one to give women wages that are _more_ than fair, so as to
accomplish a goal of social engineering: to put as much money
in the hands of the typical woman in paid employment as is
in the hands of the typical man in paid employment.

That would appear to satisfy another kind of fairness.

It would, though, be rather unfair to men doing dirty and dangerous
jobs, for one thing.

For another thing, the social impact of such measures would be
to exacerbate precisely those impacts of feminism that are already
problematic, and which have led to destructive responses like the
misogynistic "incel" movement. So I would be advising governments
to think fairly carefully before making any ambitious moves in that
direction.

Because the result could easily be that the result would be sufficient
increased discontent among young men as to lead to a collapse of
our orderly political system... which, of course, as one of its consequences,
would be to basically reset all the progress women have made back to
square one.

I mean, really, if you do sincerely want women to enjoy more freedom, and
more full equality, shouldn't you be concerned to ensure that the progress
being made in that direction is _sustainable_?

We know that some of the processes that led to the collapse of the ancient
Roman Empire are at work in our civilization. Shouldn't it be a priority to
correct this before it's too late?

John Savard

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:7d0b021e-f997-4fbc-b649-b18004ba4746n@googlegroups.com:

> On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 2:30:42 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula
> Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>> news:36d6c06f-a244-440e...@googlegroups.com:
>
>> > Which is why I noted that the accomodation they ask for
>> > cannot be granted. And instead I noted how we would have to
>> > proceed instead in order to respect the First Amendment
>> > rights of Creationist parents.
>
>> There is no first amendment right to teach religion in science
>> class. The courts are just too cowardly to say so out loud.
>
> I did not advocate teaching any religion in science class.

You made some specific claims about first amendment rights on the
subject.

And you're full of shit.

As usual.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

"pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote in
news:52316d9f-ed71-4758-ba50-6d76a7a8c410n@googlegroups.com:

> On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 8:22:12 PM UTC-4, Ninapenda
> Jibini wrote:
>>
>> But he *can't* help himself. He literally *can't* resist. The
>> hook is set *way* too deep. And he sets it deeper every day,
>> all by himself.
>
> I'm amused every time Terry says this. Who is the
> person who is so obsessed with another that he has to mention
> him in his sig file?

That's just laziness. Haven't found a better fish lately.

Plus, it's a hook in *your* mouth.

> Who has free board in Terry's brain?

You're not as obsessed with me as Alan is, but you're not that far
behind him.

This very conversation is proof of that. You couldn't help yourself.
You *had* to comment.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 11:08:50 PM UTC-6, Titus G wrote:
> An alert policeman with authority to inflict lethal force
> would recognise the type of person most likely to disrespect private
> property and act accordingly.

This, of course, was intended satirically. Not that, sadly, in real life
a lot of police don't act this way; it's because too many of them do
that we have BLM.

Presumably, your point is that my starting point, of strict defense
of the rights of law-abiding citizens from any act of aggression,
however minor, at any cost to the perpetrator, is somehow of a
piece with racism and hatred.

Must I summon a horde of Libertarians to show you the error of
your ways?

There indeed is a pathway by which a legitimate objection to the
view which I expressed could be made. A legal regime that is a
highly effective instrument at suppressing crime, defined as things
like theft and fraud as ordinarily understood, in the short-term
context of currently recognized legal titles to property...

does not leave room, say, for the Plains Indians re-conquering their
original habitat, taken from them by aggressive force.

Or the transfers of wealth away from the peasantry of Europe to
the titled gentry, and so on.

So one can indeed argue that a strict policy of suppressing riots
ignores the context of slavery. But one has to bring in the context
to do that.

John Savard

On 11/09/22 17:13, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 7:51:38 PM UTC-6, Hal Heydt wrote:
>> In article <7effe4d8-0b1a-40c2...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Jonathan Harston <j...@mdfs.net> wrote:
>
>>> To do that you'd have to somehow make it illegal for women
>>> to make life choices that result in them being in low-paid jobs.
>
>> Or, as a society, reassess the value (and pay) of what are now
>> low paying jobs. And, perhaps, some high paying jobs, as well.
>> Are CEOs really worth what they're paid?
>
> While this is a valid point, our society knows no way of
> determining the true and just worth of a job - or a product -
> except by the workings of the Holy Free Market.

To which the richest amongst us could sacrifice young virgins!
Now you're talking, Quadi.
Real D A F de Sade virgins, not manufactured unfeeling Vat girls who
never make you feel really powerful, do they, especially when you see
your beloved's Vat siblings on special at Walmart?

> Letting some politically-motivated government bureaucrat
> decide such things... would, of course, lead us to all be
> doomed to stand in long line-ups to buy toilet paper.

Some of the more inventive amongst us might seek alternatives.

> While legislation to prohibit paying women less for identical
> work has been generally accepted as fair, this more radical
> proposal from certain feminist circles has *understandably*
> met with some resistance. The government can and should
> put its thumb on the scales of the free market to deal with
> the lack of market power on the part of the ordinary working
> class;

Blasphemous Witch!
Heretic!

failing that, the electorate will try to hold it to account,

How? How many thumbs does the government have? Will they be able to
trace these stained brown thumbs to where they normally reside?

> potentially leading to disastrous results, of which the election
> of Trump as President is an example.

Did he corner the toilet paper market?

> I know that many years ago, I occasionally saw in the letter
> columns of newspapers letters asking why hockey players
> ought to be paid more money than doctors.

None of us knew that you knew this many years ago until now.
I have been waiting for a moment of epiphany and am now becoming anxious.

> While it's true that a doctor's work is more genuinely useful
> than that of a hockey player, I would have two counter-arguments:
>
> 1) A hockey player entertains more than one person at a time,
> and

I have never been to a hockey game so don't know if anybody could be so
bored that they would wish to go but there was never one dry eye from
laughter in our extended family when old Doc Stewart trotted out the two
aspirins, call me in the morning, telephone reply.

> 2) A cap on the salaries of hockey players only benefits the
> people who own hockey teams.

A cap on the salaries of hockey players prevents the richest team owners
from dominating competitions between teams of short term contracted
mercenaries.

How are _they_ so valuable
> that they need to make even more money?

If there is more competition, there are more spectators for advertisers
to prey on and more money for team owners.

Oops. Now I'm just being silly, (talking seriously to Fourbricks), so
I'll stop.

On Sunday, 11 September 2022 at 05:57:18 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 2:30:42 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> > Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
> > news:36d6c06f-a244-440e...@googlegroups.com:
> > > Which is why I noted that the accomodation they ask for cannot
> > > be granted. And instead I noted how we would have to proceed
> > > instead in order to respect the First Amendment rights of
> > > Creationist parents.
>
> > There is no first amendment right to teach religion in science
> > class. The courts are just too cowardly to say so out loud.
> I did not advocate teaching any religion in science class.
>
> I advocated omitting one bit of the science of evolution in
> science class, the fact that it really happened, instead of merely
> being something claimed by one particular group of scientists,
> that, for no particular reason, is the only version of life's origins
> being presented in science class.
>
> The reason is to avoid teaching students that the literal word of
> the Bible is wrong. Because that would be indoctrinating students
> in a position concerning a matter about which some denominations
> are concerned.

Will you also suppress that the earth rotates,
and that pi is a number greater than three?

On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 6:39:52 AM UTC-6, Robert Carnegie wrote:

> Will you also suppress that the earth rotates,
> and that pi is a number greater than three?

At the present time, unlike Creation versus evolution, one has
"where numbers warrant" as an escape clause. (This phrase is
used in Canada in connection with official bilingualism; we do
not provide services in both official languages where hardly anyone
speaks the less common official language in an area, making
doing so wildly impractical.)

And I'm not talking about *suppressing* evolution in science class.
The curriculum will still have to cover it fully and properly. Only the
detail that it actually happened, rather than being merely the
conceit of an unspecified group of scientists, is omitted.

Weasel-wording, yes, but suppression no.

John Savard

On Sat, 10 Sep 2022 11:49:52 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, 10 September 2022 at 17:06:56 UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 10:40:29 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, 9 September 2022 at 17:03:27 UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 8 Sep 2022 18:57:21 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 5:55:32 PM UTC-6, Jay E. Morris wrote:
>> >> >> Don't remember how we got there but at one point he calls
>> >> >> out to his mother, "do we know anybody for sure going to hell?". The
>> >> >> instant reply was "Martin Luther".
>> >> >
>> >> >As he was the author of "The Jews and Their Lies", it's hard for me to disagree.
>> >> Yes, he was. The traditional excuse is that he was old and cranky. But
>> >> he was also a man of his times.
>> >> >Also, he accused Copernicus of trying to "overturn the whole science
>> >> >of astronomy".
>> >> I don't doubt it, but I do not recall ever hearing it before.
>> >
>> ><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus>
>> >mentions a brief, doubtfully quoted remark over dinner
>> >from Luther, but a call for government suppression from
>> >"Luther's collaborator Philipp Melanchthon".
>>
>> Melanchthon was not Luther. But they were collaborators, as you note.
>>
>> And what was to be suppressed? Luther is, IIRC, on record as arguing
>> that religiously obnoxious persons should be /banished/, not
>> /executed/.
>>
>> Keep in mind that "religious freedom" as we know it did not exist back
>> then. Luther's position was "cujus regio, ejus religio" (the spelling
>> of which may be dubious). Except for the Jews, everybody was expected
>> to be a Christian of whatever form the ruler was.
>>
>> >You get this when people are awfully religious -
>> >Luther is said to argue that since the bible says
>> >Joshua commanded and got God to make the sun
>> >(and the moon) to stop moving, and not the earth,
>> >evidently it was not the earth that was moving anyway.
>> >All of which is not good evidence against, well,
>> >everything else - unless you're religious.
>>
>> As I said, educated in Scholasticism and a man of his time.
>>
>> That might, however, support the authenticity of his rejection of
>> Copernicus, who did indeed have the Earth moving. Even though "moving"
>> here means "rotating", while in Copernicus it mostly meant "circling
>> the Sun". Although, clearly, rotating would have to be involved to get
>> the Sun to rise and set.
>>
>> I think it was Copernicus who pointed out that a rotating Earth would
>> be moving a lot slower than a rotating fixed sphere of stars so far
>> away that the Earth was but a point in comparison.
>
>Wikipedia reports Melanchthon's understanding of
>Copernicanism to include specifically that the sun
>is stationary and the earth follows an orbit round it.
>The Christians, these ones at least, prefer the sun
>moving - except when God is told to stop it - and the
>earth not moving and not rotating.

Although the Bible has the Sun stopping, we still speak of it rising
and setting even though we know perfectly well it does nothing of the
kind. Figures of speech do exist.

The real problem may have been Aristotle, who insisted the Earth,
stationary, was at the center of the World.

A lot of the science condemned in the late Middle Ages was condemned
because it contradicted Aristotle, not the Bible.

>On reflection, Luther referring to the book of Joshua
>so specifically might seem too well researched for
>casual dinner conversation, but he was a big bible
>reader after all - if during meals, I don't know.

The Sun standing still is a very well-known Biblical story.

And, yes, Luther knew the Bible very well. In fact, he translated it
into German -- and some even credit him with inventing literary German
in the process.

There were, and probably still are, books like /The Child's Story
Bible/, which (as might be imagined) is exactly what it claims to be
-- a book of stories, all taken from the Bible, adapted to younger
hearers/readers.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Sun, 11 Sep 2022 05:39:50 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, 11 September 2022 at 05:57:18 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 2:30:42 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> > Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>> > news:36d6c06f-a244-440e...@googlegroups.com:
>> > > Which is why I noted that the accomodation they ask for cannot
>> > > be granted. And instead I noted how we would have to proceed
>> > > instead in order to respect the First Amendment rights of
>> > > Creationist parents.
>>
>> > There is no first amendment right to teach religion in science
>> > class. The courts are just too cowardly to say so out loud.
>> I did not advocate teaching any religion in science class.
>>
>> I advocated omitting one bit of the science of evolution in
>> science class, the fact that it really happened, instead of merely
>> being something claimed by one particular group of scientists,
>> that, for no particular reason, is the only version of life's origins
>> being presented in science class.
>>
>> The reason is to avoid teaching students that the literal word of
>> the Bible is wrong. Because that would be indoctrinating students
>> in a position concerning a matter about which some denominations
>> are concerned.
>
>Will you also suppress that the earth rotates,
>and that pi is a number greater than three?

Pi, to 0 decimal places is, in point of fact, "3".

Just because it isn't a practical value doesn't make 3 not the value
of pi to 0 decimal places.

Also, IIRC, the assertion involves merging two slightly different
descriptions of the same object. IOW, it is inferential, not explicit.

Now, if pi ever turns out to have a closed value, or even to be a
repeating decimal, that would change the situation. But it hasn't so
far. And so far is, IIRC, into the millions of digits.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On 9/10/2022 10:12 PM, Robert Woodward wrote:
> In article <tfjg2b$1q45t$3@dont-email.me>,
> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> On 9/10/2022 6:41 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>> In article <7effe4d8-0b1a-40c2-a53d-f60af0050c9an@googlegroups.com>,
>>> Jonathan Harston <jgh@mdfs.net> wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 5:01:21 PM UTC+1, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>>>> Alternatively.... Eliminate sex-based pay disparity by bringing
>>>>> the pay of women up to that of men. That will increase the
>>>>> chances that a woman can afford to be the sole support of a
>>>>> family, and two-income families will do quite well.
>>>>
>>>> To do that you'd have to somehow make it illegal for women
>>>> to make life choices that result in them being in low-paid jobs.
>>>
>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>> Or, as a society, reassess the value (and pay) of what are now
>>> low paying jobs. And, perhaps, some high paying jobs, as well.
>>> Are CEOs really worth what they're paid?
>>
>> No.
>
> It is something of a bureaucratic status game. If the board of company A
> pays its CEO 70% of the pay of company B's CEO, they are admitting that
> their CEO isn't as good as company B's (or at least giving that
> appearance).
>
Or maybe that their company is 30% easier to run.

There is also the issue of "golden parachutes" that essentially insulate
CEOs and such from the consequences of their bad decisions. Combine
that with the idiotic belief by many company boards that "the more
companies that have failed under this person, they better they must be
at not having that happen because of all that experience".

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Sat, 10 Sep 2022 18:47:32 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
Heydt) wrote:

>In article <a89aed29-0e13-4f84-9a1a-1024f546d8e6n@googlegroups.com>,
>Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>>On Saturday, 10 September 2022 at 03:07:25 UTC+1, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>> >One cannot "teach the controversy" if there is no controversy, and
>>> >there _is_ _no_ _controversy_, because creationism and intelligent
>>> >design are *not* science, and don't even pretend to be.
>>>
>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>> Correct on both points.
>>
>>...except for being called "Creation Science" and
>>"Scientific Creationism" until that was thrown out
>>of the public schools by law, in the 1980s.
>>Admittedly - for not having any actual science.
>
>(Hal Heydt)
>After which "Intelligent Design" was concocted with a--wink,
>wink, nudge, nudge--unknown "Designer".

That is, of course, why the atheists among those who accept evolution
dislike having it taught -- they are desperate to attack anything that
implies design. Having no scientific support is, of course, a valid
reason, but does not explain the viciousness of the attack.

They prefer the course of biological evolution [1] to be random.

While often insisting that reality is 100% deterministic.

And they do not see any contradiction between the two positions.

Which, of course, does not exist if "random" is defined as meaning
"fully deterministic, but we haven't figured out how yet".

Yes, this comes from a discussion 20 years ago on a different
newsgroup.

[1] Stellar evolution is, of course, not random at all.

>That dodge fell apart with the Kitxmiller v. Dover case, where
>the ID/creationists actually *asked* the judge to rule on whether
>or not ID was "science". Much to their chagrin, he ruled it
>wasn't.

That was in 2005, apparently, a long way from the 1980s.

But I'm glad it happened. Science class is for teaching science.
Which, BTW, /does/ involve indoctrinating students in thinking
scientifically.

>It was amusing to watch both the trial (by reading the
>transcripts) and surrounding events. The ID/creations were
>*sure* the fix was in, because the judge was appointed by a
>Republican friendly to their cause and they were certain he
>wouldn't risk any chance of being nominated for a higher court by
>ruling against them. Turned out, he was an honest jurist and
>ruled based on the evidence and the law.

I've said it before and I say it again: judicial conservatism is /not/
social conservatism. Particularly the gamier forms associated with
Trump.

>One point of evidence was an early draft of the book the
>ID/creationists were pushing, _Of Pandas and People_ that had
>"cdesign proponentists" embedded in it. A clear, failed, attempt
>at a global search-and-replace to swap in "intelligent design" in
>place of "creationists".
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Sun, 11 Sep 2022 17:08:42 +1200, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On 10/09/22 23:14, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 11:01:22 PM UTC-6, Hal Heydt wrote:
>>
>>> yes, there was damage. Whether or not it was "extensive" is a
>>> judgement call. Some individual building certainly took what I
>>> would consider to be extensive damage.
>>>
>>> As for out and out murders? Got numbers? Got numbers on *both*
>>> sides?
>>
>> Of course, though, his real question is about the behavior of the media.
>>
>> When a riot damages the property of innocent people, of course the
>> people living in the community will be angry at the rioters.
>>
>> I myself think that, in general, in principle, it is entirely right and proper
>> for the police to use lethal force to prevent property damage. After all,
>> someone proposing to break a window, let's say, had a _choice_. He could
>> have chosen not to break any windows that day. The owner of the window
>> didn't make any wrong choices.
>
>I someone else think that, in particular, in practice that your weak
>kneed response is exactly what causes most of societies' problems. Why
>should such a potential criminal even consider breaking or not breaking
>a window? An alert policeman with authority to inflict lethal force
>would recognise the type of person most likely to disrespect private
>property and act accordingly. It is softie Jewess Communists such as
>yourself keeping lawyers in business and there is only one side to that
>story. Or maybe the owner of the window chose breakable glass?

I don't know about /that/, but, a couple years ago, when protests were
ongoing, some badly-printed notices about a protest at a local
shopping center went up. It never occurred.

The next time I went shopping there, the store windows were covered in
wood. Clearly, the mgmt. had taken the notices seriously enough to
advice the individual stores to take precautions.

But one store was different: the wood was on the /inside/. It was as
if they didn't care if the window was broken, so long as nobody got
in.

So, in a sense, yes, one owner did choose "breakable glass".

Note that the march/demonstration never occurred.

I also recall seeing notices on telephone polls "signed" by the
Anarchists (using their new name "Antifa", as if anyone around here
was fooled) explaining /why/ bad police behavior justified breaking
store windows. Utter tripe, of course, but it is interesting that they
felt the need to tie their actual interest (anarchy) in with current
events even while pretending to be something other than what they
actually were (Antifa rather than Anarchist).
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On 2022-09-10 12:29, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 8:22:12 PM UTC-4, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>>
>> But he *can't* help himself. He literally *can't* resist. The hook is
>> set *way* too deep. And he sets it deeper every day, all by himself.
>
> I'm amused every time Terry says this. Who is the
> person who is so obsessed with another that he has to mention
> him in his sig file? Who has free board in Terry's brain?
>
>> Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
>> Lynn:
>> https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
>
> pt

And it took so little effort to move in!

:-)

On 2022-09-10 13:24, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
> news:rHz9Io.97F@kithrup.com:
>
>> In article <XnsAF0DD613460EFtaustincagmailcom@85.12.62.232>,
>> Ninapenda Jibini <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>>> news:rHz1IJ.qJF@kithrup.com:
>>>
>>>> In article <XnsAF0DB1F25581Ataustincagmailcom@85.12.62.245>,
>>>> Ninapenda Jibini <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> You really should get your news from more sources than
>>>>> C(ommunist)N (ews)N(etwork).
>>>>
>>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>>> I don't get *any* of my news from CNN. On the other hand, I
>>>> don't get any of it from Faux News, either.
>>>>
>>> I don't know where you get it, but if they told you no one was
>>> murdered and the damage wasn't *extensive* during the 2016
>>> riots, they lied. Not misunderstood, not played down, not
>>> mistaken, they *lied*.
>>
>> (Hal Heydt)
>> yes, there was damage. Whether or not it was "extensive" is a
>> judgement call. Some individual building certainly took what I
>> would consider to be extensive damage.
>>
>> As for out and out murders? Got numbers? Got numbers on *both*
>> sides?
>>
>> And before you get your bowels in an uproar, in Oakland there
>> were a couple of right wing extremists who took advantage of the
>> fact that there was a demonstation a couple of blocks away to
>> shoot and kill (there's a murder for you) a guard at a Federal
>> building. One of them later set up an ambush in the Santa Cruz
>> mountains and killed a deputy sheriff. You can have that as a
>> murder as well. But neither of those involved anybody in
>> the--actually destructive--demonstarion.
>>
>> I should also point out, though not current, that in *all* of
>> the demonstrations on and around the UC Berkeley campus, no one
>> was killed until the Alameda County Sheriffs were brought in
>> during the "People's Park" event and one of the sheriffs shot
>> and killed a guy who was sitting on top of a roof just watching.
>
> Not a single murder charge has been filed against anyone involved
> in the Jan 6 riot. Including against the police officer who shot
> and killed a rioter, the only deliberate killing all day.
>

So where are the charges against the Antifi/BLM protesters for what you
claim were deliberate murders?

Ooops.

On 2022-09-10 13:24, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
> news:9dcc66bb-0db1-4dc7-86a3-3d366308bfbbn@googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 11:01:22 PM UTC-6, Hal Heydt
>> wrote:
>>
>>> yes, there was damage. Whether or not it was "extensive" is a
>>> judgement call. Some individual building certainly took what I
>>> would consider to be extensive damage.
>>>
>>> As for out and out murders? Got numbers? Got numbers on *both*
>>> sides?
>>
>> Of course, though, his real question is about the behavior of
>> the media.
>>
>> When a riot damages the property of innocent people, of course
>> the people living in the community will be angry at the rioters.
>>
>> I myself think that, in general, in principle, it is entirely
>> right and proper for the police to use lethal force to prevent
>> property damage.
>
> But then, you're a psychopath.
>
>

Says the guy on record as claiming Democrats are "sub-human"...

On 2022-09-10 13:27, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
> news:ojephh1l2u3tvi6pqoioa1d8u0mvt6blcm@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2022 00:28:06 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
>> <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in news:qAHSK.90416
>>> $elEa.3488@fx09.iad:
>>>
>>>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>>>>> In article <XnsAF0C9152CF814taustingmail@85.12.62.232>,
>>>>> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Jan 6 was some hillbillies who had a party that got out of
>>>>>> hand, and did very minimal damage to anybody.
>>>>>
>>>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>>>> Dead is "minimal damage"?
>>>>
>>>> Don't respond to Terry's trolling, please.
>>>>
>>> Especially on subjects where the facts make lefties look like
>>> the insane, violent insurgents so many of them are.
>>
>> Project much?
>>
>> Trump does.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_derangement_syndrome
>>
>> And I want to thank the various Republicans telling us clearly
>> that they are preparing more insurrectionary activity under the
>> guise of warning us how upset their followers are.
>
> Why wouldn't they? They feel duty bound to resist the coup that has
> already taken place. It's their patriotic duty. Just ask them.

No coup has taken place.

There was a failed coup...

....by Republicans.

>
> If you *act* like a junta staging a coup - and make no mistake, the
> Democrats do, every fucking day - they people will assume that's
> what you're doing.

Describe precisely how they do that...

>>
>> Here's hoping the FBI, Secret Service, and local law enforcement
>> are up to the challenge!
>
> The FBI is a joke, local law enforcement too small and varied to
> make much of a difference, and the Secret Service works for the
> junta.

Really? Did they work for the "junta" when Trump was president?

:-)