“Yes, distasteful speech is PRECISELY what the first amendment was designed to protect. You should do a bit of research. Your reaction here reinforces negative stereotypes of Muslims *as much or more* than the violence on the street.”
“You just slandered 1.5 billion Muslims. According to your argument, most or all of them would be "provoked to retaliation" (i.e. violence). But thank goodness, you are completely wrong. Very few of the 1.5 billion Muslims were "provoked to retaliation" so we already know that *by definition* neither the "average person" nor the "average Muslim" was provoked into retaliation.
You say: "A judge could very well use the same logic today and rule that the actual consequences of this disgusting film were the reactions of an "average" person and thus can be deemed as fighting words."
That judge would have to have a severe misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "average". 0.0001% of all Muslims engaged in violent retaliation. Even if we count only the Muslims within Tripoli, most still did not engage in violent retaliation.”
NafasJaan on Sep 19, 2012 at 11:38:07
“Wrong. Read Chaplinksy again.
Here's the ruling since you did not read it properly: "The Court issued a now-famous description of "low value" speech, including "insulting or 'fighting' words -- those which by their very utterance inflict injury *OR* tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." (Emphasis Mine)
Please note the operative "or" which means that if one of the following exists, it can be argued as being deemed fighting words:
- those by which their very utterance inflict injury OR
- tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace
As a Muslim, I can safely argue that the majority of the world's 1.5 million Muslims would consider this film as an injury. Regardless, even the thousands of people who have been protesting throughout the world and even in the US may be able to fall within the second category as well - fulfilling either one or both conditions of the conditions.
Let's go back to Chaplinsky - He called the marshal a "a damned fascist and racketeer" in public. There was no violence following this statement. There were no protests. It wasn't 1.5 billion people here affected. Yet still, Murphy found him at fault.
It's not very hard to imagine that Murphy would agree that this film is in fact, fighting words.
“It's hard for me to believe that Christian Piatt does not "get" atheists. It seems more likely that he does not WANT to get atheists. The answer to his quandry is right in the article he himself wrote. Just as he can be an "agnostic Christian", millions of us are "agnostic atheists." In fact: I've met a much higher percentage of atheists who term themselves "agnostic atheists" than I have Christians who will call themselves "agnostic Christians".
The other thing to note is that the "null hypothesis" is supposed to be the *default position*. So atheism is the default position. If you say that Christ was resurrected, it is up to you to prove it.”
tim00 on Jan 29, 2012 at 04:02:42
“We must work out our own salvation. The only one a person has to prove it to, is himself. Even tho there were many wittnesses that saw Jesus after he was crucified after he died. Many watched him (Jesus) ascend into heaven they looked in disbelief. Even if some people (atheists) saw proof they would probably look in disbelief ....”
CodyGirl on Jan 26, 2012 at 13:11:53
“No, the null hypothesis is not the "default position" in relationship to the God Yes/No question. It is a statistical construct/concept. There is no "default position" on the question of God's existence.
You don't meet many "agnostic Christians" because a person who does not know that God exists is unlikely to believe that Jesus is the Son of God & to make a commitment to a life based on this belief.”
“To answer your rhetorical questions: scientists believe that an infinite number of solar systems exist. According to wikipedia and Wolfram Alpha, the observable subset of our universe has around 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
“"I posit to you that all the evidence points, in an obvious and inextricable way, to a supernatural explanation for the origin of life. If there are no known naturalistic explanations and the likelihood that "chance" played any role is wildly minute, then it is a perfectly reasonable position to take that a conscious super-intelligence (that some of us call God) was the architect of life on this planet."
Your position is ridiculous and unscientific. Let's roll back the clock 500 years. "There are no known naturalistic explanations for how the tides work. It is perfectly reasonable to take the position that a conscious super-intelligence (that some of us call God) moves the tides each day."
Humanity has been on this earth for 100,000 years. We have been researching the abiogenis problem for 100 years. So 0.001% of humanity's existence. It's stupid to throw in the towel, and in fact it is a sterling example of the very real harm religion does to science. "You don't need to figure that out guys -- we've already got it fall figured out. God diddit!" God makes the thunder with his bowling balls. God turned dirt into life. God lifts the sun every day with his little finger. Ignorance is bliss. Faith is all you need.”
“What does marijuana have to do with morals? The only thing I can think of is this: it is immoral to keep medical marijuana away from sick people. It's also impolite to hog the joint rather than passing it around equitably.”
Furthermore, I think that your argument about earth becoming isolated is based on a misunderstanding of expansion.
"The matter in the very early universe was flying apart for unknown reasons (most likely as a result of cosmic inflation) and has simply continued to do so, though at an ever-decreasing rate due to the attractive effect of gravity. In addition to slowing the overall expansion, gravity causes local clumping of matter into stars and galaxies. These stars and galaxies do not subsequently expand, there being no force compelling them to do so."
“If it is true that Stephen Hawking has no insight into the psychology of aliens, then it is equally true of every other human being. We have no way of knowing whether the aliens will come here and feel kinship or disgust, and whether they will want to work with us or destroy us.
Imagine, for example, that they highly value biodiversity. They note that one of the million species on the planet is destroying the biodiversity. Perhaps the species is incredibly primitive in their minds, like a cockroach to us. Maybe they'll call in the exterminators to rid the planet of the "infestation".”
katrine1976 on Apr 25, 2010 at 18:40:56
“I don't see how this species could be incredibly primitive in their minds if they're gotten to our planet through a travel mode that is interstellar at the very minimum.”
Strattastic on Apr 25, 2010 at 18:33:14
“Again, I tend to imagine that they don't try to play God of the Universe.
I also like how you say no one knows the psychology of aliens, then you proceed to tell us a scary psychology of aliens.”
“Expressing a belief based upon statistics is not the same as having "faith". Faith and belief are not the same thing. I believe it will rain this afternoon. That's not the same as having "Faith" in an omnipotent omniscient interdimensional sentient being. The scientist's belief would take a long time to disprove, but it is disprovable. The "Faith" can never be disproved, not in 100 years, 1000 years, a million or a billion years. It is a claim specifically and carefully crafted to be immune to being disproven.”
Dallas May on Apr 25, 2010 at 19:56:30
“And how do you suggest making an experiment that could disprove that aliens exist? You can't. You don't "believe" that it'll rain tomorrow. You might guess, or have sufficient evidence that it'll rain. But that's not the same a believing.
Thinking that there could be other life forms despite any evidence at all is faith.”
ThermoChemist on Apr 25, 2010 at 18:47:21
“"Faith" can never be disproved... It is a claim specifically and carefully
crafted to be immune to being disproven.
“Faith does not give you the answers, it just stops you asking the questions.”
- Frater Ravus
Science is answers that must always be questioned.
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered.
Religion is answers that must never be questioned.
Politics is answers that lobbyists pay for
Berkeleylefty on Apr 25, 2010 at 18:27:43
“You saw "Contact" too?? Cool...”
Ellyllon on Apr 25, 2010 at 18:22:53
“And fanned for being sensible!”
Ellyllon on Apr 25, 2010 at 18:22:33
Actually, that's such a good description, I think I'll cut/paste/save it. Thank you!”
People die when people extrapolate wrongly from their personal experiences. This has been proven over and over in history. "Those who will not learn from history..."”
isjois on Mar 12, 2010 at 12:04:36
“Even pharma admits their vaccines result in severe side effects for some who receive them.
It is irresponsible to ignore all anecdotal evidence. It is also scary to think that the current vaccine schedule has never been examined scientifically to observe the effects of administering such a large number of shots in such a short period of time.”
Mar 12, 2010 at 03:42:42
“Arabianway: if A happens after B, it does not mean that A is the cause of B, no matter how close they are in time. It might just be coincidence, or they could both be caused by a common factor.
Let's say that we agree that the chances of a child coincidentally starting to exhibit signs of autism right after a vaccination are 1 in 1,000,000 (like a lottery). Then in a population of 300,000,000 like the United States, you would expect 300 children to experience that coincidence. If their parents are innumerate, then they will each say that they have seen "cause and effect." But it is just a lottery.
Let's say you picked a lottery number and won the lottery by using your birthday: would that be proof that using a birthday would always win the lottery? Or would it be just coincidence that you happened to get lucky that way that one time?
In truth, though, the chances of it happening "coincidentally" are much, much higher than 1 in a million for all kinds of reasons.
This is basic statistics. You absolutely DO need to ignore the evidence "right in front of your eyes" until it has been backed up by a study. The idea that people can recognize the patterns by watching their own lives anecdotally is not just false, but dangerous. It's the basis for "medical" cures like leeches, bleeding, eating tiger penises, wearing magnetic bracelets, etc.”
isjois on Mar 12, 2010 at 12:01:14
“My children were both talking. They received their MMR and stopped talking.
Nobody wants to believe that vaccines harm children, but they do harm some.
(PS - My children suffered encephalitic reactions to this shot. It wasn't just a loss of verbal ability. There was screaming and a whole other set of "side effects" that they suffered.)”
arabianway on Mar 12, 2010 at 11:41:44
“You've made a good case for "Do you believe what I tell you, or do you believe what you saw with your own eyes?" I'll take the latter.
Scientists change their minds every few years about lots of things. It keeps that government grant money coming in. Leech cures notwithstanding, how many FDA approved drugs have been removd from the market in the last five years because people suffered serious side effects? Now that's dangerous.”
Mar 12, 2010 at 03:28:26
“" I'd rather follow the human heart, than a cold fish intellectual, any day. "
Science and corporatism could not be more different. One is a technique for establishing the truth (repeatability) of claims. The other is an ideology for social organization. The human heart is a very important and valuable thing: also one which has been demonstrated over and over to be a terrible tool for discovering medical treatments. It is the "human heart" that came up with leaches and bleeding and witch-burning. Use your human heart to fight corporatism. That's what it is for. Use your "cold fish brain" and statistics and mathematics to determine what will improve your health. Science is what has raised average life expectancies from 30 to 80. That's an unbelievably good track record.”
StephenJK on Mar 12, 2010 at 07:11:30
“Maybe you're not seeing the melding of corporatism with "science" (especially the social sciences). I do, however. It's a dangerous, insidious game.”