Skip to comments.
DOOMSDAY: UT professor says death is imminent
The Gazette-Enterprise (Texas) ^
| April 2, 2006
| Jamie Mobley
Posted on 04/01/2006 11:28:14 PM PST by adiaireton8
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220, 221-238 next last
To: Right Wing Professor
I have found in the past that you have a very unusual sense of humor. Mine is subtle. I make serious points when I mock and I am mocking when I am serious. I suppose it requires a mind that sees more than just the surface. Do you deny the early 20th century fascination with eugenics? Do you deny the biological basis for it? It seems biologists cannot take responsibility for the children they have fathered. Singer's work is in bioethics. His justifications, his way of seeing the world, his language is all biological. But why don't you discuss the very subject of the thread? Apparently, you only want to talk about me. It seems once a subdiscipline leaves the nest and sets up "medical" schools, their medicine was the result of immaculate research. But it is obvious that evolution is a subject whose subtleties can be grasped by the average junior high school student. And I know this because you have implied it.
181
posted on
04/03/2006 7:03:13 PM PDT
by
AmishDude
(AmishDude, servant of the dark lord Xenu.)
To: AmishDude
In paragraphs:
I have found in the past that you have a very unusual sense of humor. Mine is subtle. I make serious points when I mock and I am mocking when I am serious. I suppose it requires a mind that sees more than just the surface.
Do you deny the biological basis for it? It seems biologists cannot take responsibility for the children they have fathered. Singer's work is in bioethics. It ain't business ethics. His justifications, his way of seeing the world, his language is all biological.
It seems once a subdiscipline leaves the nest and sets up "medical" schools, their medicine was the result of immaculate research.
But why don't you discuss the very subject of the thread? Apparently, you only want to talk about me.
But it is obvious that evolution is a subject whose subtleties can be grasped by the average junior high school student.
And I know this because you have implied it.
182
posted on
04/03/2006 7:05:26 PM PDT
by
AmishDude
(AmishDude, servant of the dark lord Xenu.)
To: AmishDude
Rather Luddite don't you think? Do you blame physicists for the atom bomb and the Industrial Revolution for smog?
183
posted on
04/03/2006 10:32:18 PM PDT
by
Borges
To: Borges
Not Luddite at all. If you will notice the thread, many defenders of
the faithscience asked not to be pinged here.
They didn't want to have to deal with it.
That's being a Luddite.
184
posted on
04/03/2006 11:17:27 PM PDT
by
AmishDude
(AmishDude, servant of the dark lord Xenu.)
To: chilepepper
You are right, it is plain socialism. Cloning is socialism, whereby strength is not gauged by one's determination and efforts but by "gaining more immigrants" and what not.
It's not more funding, nor more men in Iraq, nor more immigrants for "Americans who do not want to do the job", but the actual will to fight and work. An army that has no will to fight is nothing, and that means trying to do more with less time, or to run the same time on a longer stretch. Cloning, like inbreeding and socialism engender decay: fighting spirit is not added in number, quite the contrary.
185
posted on
04/04/2006 9:42:20 AM PDT
by
JudgemAll
(Condemn me, make me naked and kill me, or be silent for ever on my gun ownership and law enforcement)
To: chilepepper
Fighting spirit is not added in number, quite the contrary, it is independent of numbers.
Liberals hate those families and a world that can make it in greater numbers with apparently less, is what I really meant in the end. THey are afraid of workers, real ones.
186
posted on
04/04/2006 9:43:29 AM PDT
by
JudgemAll
(Condemn me, make me naked and kill me, or be silent for ever on my gun ownership and law enforcement)
To: adiaireton8
"The biggest enemy we face is anthropocentrism," he said, describing the belief system in which humans are the central element of the universe. "This is that common attitude that everything on this Earth was put here for [human] use."
I thought God DID create the Universe for my use and pleaure? Why did he have Adam name everything, if he didn't want us to use it? Why did he make animals out of tasty meat, and later have someone invent BBQ sauce, if he didn't want us to enjoy ourselves while we're here?
Step off, Perfesser.
187
posted on
04/04/2006 9:50:52 AM PDT
by
Diana in Wisconsin
(Save The Earth. It's The Only Planet With Chocolate.)
To: AmishDude
Do you deny the early 20th century fascination with eugenics? No.
Do you deny the biological basis for it?
Yes.
It seems biologists cannot take responsibility for the children they have fathered.
The idea of the 'improvement of the species' is a 19th century one that has little to do with evolution; Darwin's theory was a scientific excuse for it, nothing more. You see the same sorts of arguments in Christian apologetics for slavery, predating Darwin.
Singer's work is in bioethics. His justifications, his way of seeing the world, his language is all biological.
Have you ever actually read anything by Singer? I see very little in Singer's writings to indicate he's particularly conversant with modern biology.
It seems once a subdiscipline leaves the nest and sets up "medical" schools, their medicine was the result of immaculate research.
Medical schools predated any sort of organized biological science.
To: adiaireton8
In the immortal words of Penn and Teller...well! actually only Penn Gilette: "BULL$H!T!!!!
189
posted on
04/04/2006 4:46:46 PM PDT
by
gc4nra
( this tag line protected by Kimber and the First Amendment (I voted for McClintock))
To: adiaireton8
To: Right Wing Professor
Even before finding out Mims was a creationist, I was disinclined to accept his account, on the basis of the selectivity of his citations. However, upon reading Pianka's homepage, I have to admit that his ideas on population control are decidedly outre, although his knowledge of population science itself is perfectly sound. Pianka should be well aware that they will lead themselves to misinterpretation if he fails to successfully articulate them, and that appears to be what has happened here. And there's no doubt that he's an excellent teacher: here's some of the
glowing praise he has received from students.
What I find most interesting is that many of those jumping to defend Pianka now had, almost exactly a year ago, attacked-hell, eviscerated- Larry Summers on the basis of equally biased and out-of-context hearsay.
191
posted on
04/05/2006 9:32:16 AM PDT
by
RightWingAtheist
(Creationism is to conservatism what Howard Dean is to liberalism)
To: 4U2OUI
192
posted on
04/05/2006 9:33:57 AM PDT
by
Leatherneck_MT
(An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens.)
To: Question_Assumptions
Given the power he would invent Soylent Green.
193
posted on
04/05/2006 9:41:55 AM PDT
by
oyez
(Appeasement is insanity)
To: RightWingAtheist
Another point (made on PT) is that the same people baying for Pianka's head were the ones defending von Sternberg's 'academic freedom' to publish drivel.
If, as seems clear except to a few wingnuts, Pianka was not calling for the extermination of 90% of humanity, but claiming it was likely to happen, he's guilty of nothing more than holding a rather extreme environmentalist point of view.
Incidentally, Bill Dembski reported Pianka to DHS. I guess wasting the time of the people entrusted with our protection from terrorism is unimportant compared with scoring political points and maybe marking someone as a dissident. What a vile little excuse for a man he is.
To: Right Wing Professor
I also read that on Panda's Thumb. Apparently, Pianka'd is quickly becoming a verb, meaning to get one's actual statements grossly misinterpreted by the blogosphere's ignorati (is that last word redundant?)
195
posted on
04/05/2006 10:34:37 AM PDT
by
RightWingAtheist
(Creationism is to conservatism what Howard Dean is to liberalism)
To: Right Wing Professor
I was suspicious of Mims' comments as well. The "standing ovation" seemed to be a weird response and I figured he was misrepresenting it.
But to be honest, if he's only saying that population implosion is inevitable (remember Marx was "only" saying that Communism was inevitable) a lot of his students are getting the same mistaken idea. If you go to the link to the evaluations web page (Is one supposed to post such things on the web? It seems pretty obnoxious to me.) you will see the following in Fall 2004:
- "Being of the same mindset as you, Dr. Pianka, I greatly appreciate your dedication to educating the university's undergrads about the plight of the earth and how wholly it is underscored by economic goals and successes. The only path to change is education." [This sounds like a political advocacy class to me.]
- "I have a much greater empathy for those non-human creatures who are suffering. Much of the info you taught is swept under the rug by politicians and corporations, and I am sad that it took an upper division college course to show me how important this is. I watch commercials with fear seeing all the new disposable products I will not buy. I am not writing this because I did well in this class (I HOPE to get a C!). I was truly touched by your dogma." [I guess the student doesn't realize the irony of the last sentence.]
- "I don't root for ebola, but maybe a ban on having more than one child. I agree . . . too many people ruining this planet."
- "Though I agree that convervation biology is of utmost importance to the world, I do not think that preaching that 90% of the human population should die of ebola is the most effective means of encouraging conservation awareness. I found Pianka to be knowledgable, but spent too much time focusing on his specific research and personal views."
From Spring 2004:
- "Dr. Pianka, Very interesting lectures. You were intimidating enough to make me actually listen. This class elaborated a lot on former evolution classes I have taken. I definately won't have a ton of kids now, to keep the population down for the good of the future planet. "
- "Prof. Pianka is an excellent professor. I don't think I've ever enjoyed a lecture as much as his. He is opinionated, and I really enjoyed that. Not enough profs are so willing to express their beliefs so openly and bluntly."
- "I really enjoyed the class. You put a whole new perspective on how humans fit in the world."
If he's playing intellectual parlour games, he's a particularly actor.
And I should say this: He's a popular teacher, not necessarily a good one.
I'd definitely encourage you to take note of any student comment that mentions "math" or "equations". :)
196
posted on
04/05/2006 1:07:10 PM PDT
by
AmishDude
(AmishDude, servant of the dark lord Xenu.)
To: FormerACLUmember
All the books he reads are left-leaning.
197
posted on
04/05/2006 1:12:58 PM PDT
by
johnny7
(“Nah, I ain’t Jewish, I just don’t dig on swine, that’s all.”)
To: Right Wing Professor
Don't know if anyone has posted this yet, but according to THIS:
mash here
Mim's account of the talk borders on what might be characterized as psychotic confabulation.
198
posted on
04/05/2006 1:34:28 PM PDT
by
longshadow
(FReeper #405, entering his ninth year of ignoring nitwits, nutcases, and recycled newbies)
To: longshadow
I said above that I was suspicious of Mims' report, very much so now.
But I think it is worth noting that the fascinating choice of reading material you link to thinks that Pianka's word is sufficient for 'debunking'. (The TV report is gone from that website.)
Now maybe I have higher standards, but is that what consists of sufficient evidence to justify a theory in this field? Because he says so?
199
posted on
04/05/2006 3:39:51 PM PDT
by
AmishDude
(AmishDude, servant of the dark lord Xenu.)
To: longshadow
I found (a transcript of?) the
TV report. Again, the "debunking" comes only from the lips of Pianka. He blames a "rival," unnamed in the article. If it were Mims, I'd guess that would be mentioned.
This seems to have been a very well-attended and well-advertised talk and I seem to have read somewhere that it was not videotaped and remember that they phrased it in a way that suggested that this was done at his request.
Most talks, of course, are not taped. Did he have (Powerpoint?) slides which can be posted online?
200
posted on
04/05/2006 3:58:07 PM PDT
by
AmishDude
(AmishDude, servant of the dark lord Xenu.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220, 221-238 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson