Pheobe Debates The Theory of Evolution

Original scene from the show... Friends. ^ | NA | NA

[Mr.Atos]

I was just lisening to Medved debating Creationism with Athiests on the air. I found it interesting that while Medved argued his side quite effectively from the standpoint of faith, his opponents resorted to condescension and beliitled him with statements like, "when it rains, is that God crying?" I was reminded of the best (at least most amusing)debate that I have ever heard on the subject of Creationism vs Evolution, albeit a fictional setting. It occurred on the show, Friends of all places between the characters Pheobe (The Hippy) and Ross (The Paleontologist). It went like this...

Pheebs: Okay...it's very faint, but I can still sense him in the building...GO INTO THE LIGHT MR. HECKLES!!

Ross: Whoa, whoa, whoa. What, uh, you don't believe in evolution? Pheebs: Nah. Not really. Ross: You don't believe in evolution? Pheebs: I don't know. It's just, ya know, monkeys, Darwin, ya know, it's a, it's a nice story. I just think it's a little too easy.

Ross: Uh, excuse me. Evolution is not for you to buy, Phoebe. Evolution is scientific fact. Like, like, the air we breathe, like gravity... Pheebs: Uh, okay, don't get me started on gravity.

Ross: You uh, you don't believe in gravity? Pheebs: Well, it's not so much that ya know, like I don't *believe* in it, ya know. It's just...I don't know. Lately I get the feeling that I'm not so much being pulled down, as I am being pushed.

Ross: How can you NOT BELIEVE in evolution? Pheebs: [shrugs] I unh-huh...Look at this funky shirt!!

Ross: Well, there ya go. Pheebs: Huh. So now, the REAL question is: who put those fossils there, and why...?

Ross: OPPOSABLE THUMBS!! Without evolution, how do YOU explain OPPOSABLE THUMBS?!? Pheebs: Maybe the overlords needed them to steer their spacecrafts!

Pheebs: Uh-oh! Scary Scientist Man!

Pheebs: Okay, Ross? Could you just open your mind like, *this* much?? Okay? Now wasn't there a time when the brightest minds in the world believed that the Earth was flat? And up until what, like, fifty years ago, you all thought the atom was the smallest thing, until you split it open, and this like, whole mess o' crap came out! Now, are you telling me that you are so unbelievably arrogant that you can't admit that there's a teeny, tiny possibility that you could be wrong about this?!?

Pheebs: I can't believe you caved. Ross: What? Pheebs: You just ABANDONED your whole belief system! I mean, before, I didn't agree with you, but at least I respected you. Ross: But uh.. Pheebs: Yeah...how...how are you gonna go in to work tomorrow? How...how are you gonna face the other science guys? How...how are you gonna face yourself? Oh! [Ross runs away dejected] Pheebs: That was fun. So who's hungry?

[PatrickHenry]

I was away for the evening, and thus managed to avoid most of the fun around here. I hope the current dustup is sufficiently resolved. Everyone is reminded of the following general recommendations, mostly from Alamo-Girl but some tossed in from me:

1. Accusations should be backed up when made.
2. Appologies go a long way toward calming things down.
3. Admissions of error are very helpful.
4. Alamo-Girl is right, we should be more diligent policing our own respective sides.
5. But no one wants to be a nanny, so we should also police ourselves a bit more.
6. Virtual Ignore is the best response to provocations from previously-warned non-compliant posters.

And speaking only for myself, it's getting irksome and bordering on provocative to continually hear whining and nit-picking from those who, through misguided loyalty, champion the "cause" of previously-warned non-compliant posters.

[ALS]

Instead of posting a bloviated butt-kissing post, you should have posted examples of your so called "self-policing" and started cleaning house.

you are a phoney

You need to think twice about spinning what is going on as well. If members have complaints, they don't need you pirouetting in attempting to invalidate their complaints.

Let the questions be asked and the answers given. I know that's a new concept for you and some noted others, but deal with it.

[f.Christian]

Virtual bore --- pest !

[Nataku X]

Here, evo correcting own side...

You have to remember the Repukie/Democrap syndrome... if PersonX in FR uses the word "Democrap", and PersonX is called offensive & belittling, he'd (and most other Freepers) say "huh?".

But, if PersonY says "Repukie" in indentical context, he'd be banned--even though the offense, objectively, is equal in nature.

The vice-versa applies to posters from DU.

Point being... people, generally, have a very hard time detecting what is offensive for the other side--and it is doubly difficult if they believe that whatever offensive thing they are saying is true--the prime example being "evolutionists are marxists and nazi" and "creationists are narrowed-minded bigots." Who cares if it's offensive? Deal with the truth, baby!

The point being... it all comes down to, most people do NOT have the ability to detect what is offensive to the other side. Someone on the other side has to point it out, back up their evidence, and ask them to recant it.

That's human nature, and I wouldn't begrudge either side for failing to note their own's trepasses any more than I would begrudge FreeRepublic to notice all the abuse they give to Democrats.

That being said, next time, I suggest that you try politely asking the offender to take it back. If the offender won't take it back, then ping in the agreement police.

As for Aric2000--I have never known Aric2000 to tell a lie, and he is very good-natured. ALS, on the other hand, has been demonstrated to be very fickle in his loyalty, caustic, and unreliable. Aric2000 said that the taunt was largely unprovoked--and even if it were mutual taunting (in which case Aric2000 would be a liar) it does not take away the truth of what ALS said in his freepmail.

I stand by Alamo-Girl in her assestment of all things.

As for VadeRetro, take back your words...

As for jennyp (and anyone else), may I suggest that, since only non-complying posters will be bringing up the evolution=marxism=communism=slavery argument, you ignore them... oh, and stop calling evolutionists marxists if you were doing that... :-P

PH and A-G, why don't we put a suggestion in the next draft that we do not engage in debates started by non-complying posters when the poster is engaged in non-complying tactics. For example, some are quite nice and do not comply with the agreement for their own reasons... we're fine if we debate them. However, when a noncomplying poster says "Hey, you bigoted facists, there's no way that the earth is 6000 years old" or "You whiney piehole, you and your side are all Marxists" I suggest we make a provision to not to do not debate with them.

[Nataku X]

oops, I forgot to ping you to 2564... y'all get mentions in that post.

[VadeRetro]

As to the rest I laid out explicit charges and furthermore, Vade agravated the situation by saying I was drunk.

Strictly speaking, I suggested that whatever you are doing is not working: that if you are sober you should take a drink, but if you are drunk you should sober up.

For some reason, this suggestion has been taken by some even on my own side as belittling, so I apologize in accordance with the Tehran Treaty of 1922, suparagraph 3.2.7.

That said, I'm still rather stunned with your contention that no creo is responsible for the content of his or her own posts while in discussion with the heathen evos. (That is to say, on these threads.) To me, that sounds like the very definition of irresponsibility. Now, I have said many things while upset, and sometimes my being upset was justifiable, but I always take responsibility for the content of my own posts. I would hope this principle will apply to others as well.

[PatrickHenry]

PH and A-G, why don't we put a suggestion in the next draft that we do not engage in debates started by non-complying posters when the poster is engaged in non-complying tactics.

Back up in post 2525, I made a comment to a similar suggestion by Aric2000 (in post 2524). I said that I think we're pretty much covered already. You and Aric think we need another provision; so it's obviously an open issue. We probably need more commentary on it.

Unless they wish to express genuine contrition and join us in the agreement, I'm not interested in the comments of previously-warned, non-complying posters.

[VadeRetro]

I apologize for calling you a poophead, I just lost it there for a minute....

You are this close to Virtual Ignore, troll-boy, but I'll leave you on probation for now!

[AndrewC]

Here, evo correcting own side...

Excellent! I correct myself, therefore, and retract my erroneous statements.

Please note in explanation that not all posts in all threads are read by everyone so that things are missed.

Two observations. One, the "peacemakers" have a common characteristic. Two, concerning Nakatu X, Luk 13:30 And, behold, there are last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last.

[Nataku X]

Well, it wouldn't be a new provision--but a separate, suggested guideline on how to deal with non-complying posters engaging in non-compliant tactics. Perhaps another suggested guideline on how to deal with offending posts would be in order, also. In any case, the agreement appears to be working well as a whole, and the flaws/omissions are minor.

[stanz]

How did I get on your ping list? I haven't agreed with one thing you've said for the last year or so.

[balrog666]

Excellent! I correct myself, therefore, and retract my erroneous statements.

Bravo!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the heads up to the discussion! I take the matter as closed as well.

[Alamo-Girl]

PatrickHenry and Nakatu X: Thank you so much for the encouragements, analysis and insights!

All of you have had ideas of how the agreement should be improved or repaired. Would you kindly formulate those ideas as text changes, or new text, for the next mediator and post them to the agreement website?

Agreement of the Willing

It would be a real time saver for the next mediator and if the initiatives are urgent enough for an earlier review, the record will be there and ready-to-go for a repair.

[PatrickHenry]

Okay, I'm doing it. (But I don't know what this business of the "next mediator" is all about.)

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post!

But I don't know what this business of the "next mediator" is all about.

Some of those who failed to garner enough votes for their initiative in the end blame me personally for their loss, i.e. that I mishandled the negotiation. Specifically, I am blamed for forcing the vote rather than allowing the final contention to be resolved by debate.

After two days of debate and no acceptance of compromise wording, I concluded in the interest of the negotiation, there was no point in prolonging the matter. I gave a warning the night before and called the vote the next day when the debate devolved into a flame-ette.

Thus, as long as there are complaints out there about my handling of the negotiation - it cannot be presumed that all parties who desire peace would be comfortable with my mediating the review or repair.

[PatrickHenry]

Thus, as long as there are complaints out there about my handling of the negotiation - it cannot be presumed that all parties who desire peace would be comfortable with my mediating the review or repair.

Except for a tiny group of non-complying posters (the "un-willing"), who have opted out of the whole process, you've received universal praise from everyone else. I don't think there's anyone else who can do the job. (Well, Jim Robinson could, but we can safely assume he has other things on his mind.) So it looks to me like you're stuck with the job. Hee hee.

[longshadow]

NTT placemarker

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Some of those who failed to garner enough votes for their initiative in the end blame me personally for their loss, i.e. that I mishandled the negotiation. Specifically, I am blamed for forcing the vote rather than allowing the final contention to be resolved by debate.

Let me be the first to say that space should be made at Guantanamo for anyone who thinks you "mishandled" the agreement in any way. I saw the flame wars that sprang up during the negotiation. Anyone who pretended to be an adult could have had their say, but some folks were just carried away by whatever it is that carries them away.

I think you did a great job under duress, and make a motion that JimRob name you FReeper of the Year for your efforts. ;)

Seconds??

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very, very much for the kudos and support!

But if anyone has an objection it should aired. If the one who objects would rather remain anonymous he/she could post via a third party. As a voluntary agreement which requires self-policing it is crucial that everyone involved has confidence in its integrity.