Support NeoGAF

[Phoenix]

There's no excuse for any adult in a first-world country to be that ignorant. Those who willfully turn a blind eye to facts deserve to be mocked.

Washington, DC — The Bush Administration has decided that it will stand by its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah’s flood rather than by geologic forces, according to internal documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

Giving approval to a book != believing its claims. I think that book is probably comforting for people who believe that and I see little harm in that and letting that book be sold shouldn't be anyones concern IMO and I don't believe that any president or administration could properly 'not approve' of this book. Anyone who did would immediately be accused of censorship and have various Farenheit references made. Its not their job to bar this book.

 

[fart]

i think the issue is that selling the book could imply an endorsement of the beliefs held by the authors, which is not particularly allowed. i think you are being too kind to an administration that refuses to investigate or stimulate intellectual discourse on these issues, phoenix.

 

[Phoenix]

i think the issue is that selling the book could imply an endorsement of the beliefs held by the authors, which is not particularly allowed. i think you are being too kind to an administration that refuses to investigate or stimulate intellectual discourse on these issues, phoenix.

My only point is that just because they are ignorant does not mean that we should be. Their lack of tolerance should not mean that we shouldn't be tolerant. And legally their endorsement of a book is actually allowed. That doesn't actually cross the line defined by the supreme court.

 

[Do The Mario]

Bush says teh funny!

http://www.majorityreportradio.com/weblog/archives/Bush - Tribal Sovereignty.mp3

:lol

 

[Hitokage]

Just so I understand you correctly. If a politician has an opinion about something they have no right to express that because they are a politician. Being a politician means giving up the right to free speech.

Since when was the state and a politician the same thing? Let's not play straw man.

 

[Deku Tree]

I don't support Bush. But using examples like this one, e.g. Bush choosing not to censor a book on creationism, to bash Bush just makes Anti-Bushies look bad.

 

[bob_arctor]

Bush says teh funny!

http://www.majorityreportradio.com/weblog/archives/Bush - Tribal Sovereignty.mp3

:lol

Holy Shitballs. Where is this from? How recent is this? And for the love of God, how can anyone be that stupid?

 

[Phoenix]

Since when was the state and a politician the same thing? Let's not play straw man.

"The State" doesn't have a voice - it is an abstract concept.... a collection of people, only politicians have a voice and can have an opinion.

 

[fart]

hmm, good points. i don't particularly agree with your interpretations of tolerance/intolerance though. the key issue here is that an endorsement of non-secular ideology (the book) is particularly intolerant. we agree on that, at least. however, the way to deal with intolerance is not to ignore it (and hope it goes away), but to point it out and educate people on just who, what, and why it marginalizes. certainly, we should not sit back and allow others to marginalize us just because it's their belief and we want to be tolerant of other people's beliefs.

obviously this is not so cut and dry, but i do think it is wrong to overlook missteps like this.

 

[Do The Mario]

Holy Shitballs. Where is this from? How recent is this? And for the love of God, how can anyone be that stupid?

It’s old but a friend and I were chatting about bush a few nights ago and about how great his comedic value is.

I think it’s about 8ish months old.

 

[Drozmight]

what? is this a government facility? if so, that's just wrong... I mean what happened to the seperation?

 

[fart]

"The State" doesn't have a voice - it is an abstract concept.... a collection of people, only politicians have a voice and can have an opinion.

although a legislator may hate african americans and want them all to die (and sadly, that is his personal right), he is not allowed to pass a law that allows the government to kill african americans. his actions as an agent of the government are his "speech made by the state". also note that this particular president loves to use pronouns that imply that he is speaking in service of the entirety of the country (eg, the terrorists hate _our_ freedom).

the fact that the state is an abstract conglomerate is irrelevant.

 

[Hitokage]

"The State" doesn't have a voice - it is an abstract concept.... a collection of people, only politicians have a voice and can have an opinion.

It does have a voice: through laws, actions, resolutions, and endorsements. Now, you may view the state as merely a conduit for such politicians and that's fine, but understand that just because one conduit of speech is restricted doesn't mean others are.

Furthermore, if we're going to include mythological explainations for natural phenomena, then why does Christianity get special treatment?

 

[Willco]

I don't see where it says the Bush Administration said Noah's Flood created the Grand Canyon or them endorsing it. Way to fucking read, guys. They're just letting the park sell the book because it's popular. Who cares? People like the book, people are buying the book and let people read the book.

... It's not like the fucking Holocaust or something.

 

[Do The Mario]

I don't see where it says the Bush Administration said Noah's Flood created the Grand Canyon or them endorsing it. Way to fucking read, guys. They're just letting the park sell the book because it's popular. Who cares? People like the book, people are buying the book and let people read the book.

... It's not like the fucking Holocaust or something.

well bush said himself

"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.'' —Townsend, Tenn., Feb. 21, 2001


Find more bush funnies here

http://politicalhumor.about.com/cs/georgewbush/a/top10bushisms.htm

and don't forget

http://www.majorityreportradio.com/...Sovereignty.mp3

it only takes a few secs to download even on 56k!!

 

[SteveMeister]

The contents of the book are idiotic, and only an imbecile would actually believe them.

But, even imbeciles have a right to freedom of speech.

That said, the books could come with a free t-shirt that says "I'm a fucking moron."

 

[Phoenix]

although a legislator may hate african americans and want them all to die (and sadly, that is his personal right),

And he can even say that openly as it is his right to do so.

he is not allowed to pass a law that allows the government to kill african americans. his actions as an agent of the government are his "speech made by the state". also note that this particular president loves to use pronouns that imply that he is speaking in service of the entirety of the country (eg, the terrorists hate _our_ freedom).

the fact that the state is an abstract conglomerate is irrelevant.

Legislation has never been interpreted by the courts to be a form of 'speech'. To even suggest that IS dangerous because of that it implies as there are laws protecting speech, but no laws protecting legislation.

 

[MrPing1000]

Ok mr I've got one word for you. "Dinosaurs"


"Ohh God put them there to test us"

Now I don't know about you but that bothers the fuck outta me. Hey I'm god and I'm a prankster!

 

[Hitokage]

Legislation has never been interpreted by the courts to be a form of 'speech'. To even suggest that IS dangerous because of that it implies as there are laws protecting speech, but no laws protecting legislation.

Now you're bordering on being self-contradictory.

 

[Shig]

Anybody see the sketch on Comedy Central's Last Laugh '04 with Andy Dick as Dubya's speechwriter? It was priceless.

There was a bit with footage of the debates, where Bush took forever to answer, and they put in Dick's audio feeding into Bush's earpiece:
"don't talk....don't talk... don't you dare say anything... (cont'd for a minute) ... don't talk... okay talk"
Bush: Well, I believe...
"NO WAIT STOP don't talk yet waiiiiit.... waiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit.....don't talk.... okay talk again"

 

[fart]

And he can even say that openly as it is his right to do so.

yes but his statement is "i hate african americans", not "the american government hates african americans"

 

[Manics]

How do you know Noah's flood didn't create the Grand Canyon? Were you there?

 

[Teflar]

We know because there is scientific geological evidence that shows otherwise.

I'm not saying the book shouldn't be sold. Or that I'm trying to persude anyone to agree with me. If they want to believe 2000 year old fairy tales, more power to them. I'm gonna go with what I can see and understand.

 

[Manics]

We know because there is scientific geological evidence that shows otherwise

Scientists disagree with each other all the time. I think the flood could have caused it.

 

[Teflar]

More power to you

 

[Manics]

More power to you

You're gonna feel dumb when in the afterlife I ask God "hey was it geological changes or Noahs' flood that caused the Grand Canyon -- it was the flood right?" And God gives me the thumbs up.

 

[Teflar]

As long as He explains to me how the dinosaurs died, I am willing to be wrong about the flood,

 

[Particle Physicist]

Old news. It's just a book or are you a censorship person? Were other books available as well? (yes). John Kerry lost.

seriously.. im all for separation of church and state.. but all they did here was to allow a book to be sold at some national parks.

 

[SteveMeister]

How do you know Noah's flood didn't create the Grand Canyon? Were you there?

Because the river that carved it is still there.

 

[demon]

Scientists disagree with each other all the time. I think the flood could have caused it.

So what are the other theories as to how the canyon was formed, and what scientific/factual-based evidence is there to support them?

 

[Phoenix]

Now you're bordering on being self-contradictory.

Legislation is not speech and not covered under freedom of speech which is what we're talking about.

 

[fart]

jesus christ if you don't understand the scientific method or enlightenment era reason, please don't try to speak authoritatively on it.

science is based on the foundation that evidence must be used to suggest that anything is true. the reasonable view of the grand canyon is that it was probably created by geological phenomena over a very long time. the probability of this being true is reasonably high because there is significant physical evidence and a plausible geological model that allows it. notice that this same reasoning allows there to be a possibility that noah's flood created the grand canyon, however there is basically no physical evidence or a plausible geological model that would allow a single flood to create the canyon or any evidence that there was a flood in the first place, so the probability is very low.

the reason why creationism is not reasonable is because it states very matter of factly that certain things did happen, without physical evidence. it is not reasonable to think that a multiply translated and interpreted text has described things like historical geology exactly to the word of your native language basically ever.

(and yes i see the huylarious irony in the first line)

 

[ChrisReid]

Hey, you never know, right? You can't disprove that theory, can you? Well then...

It takes no evidence whatsoever to create a theory, so merely being unable to disprove a theory seems a pretty weak reason to give it consideration.

 

[Phoenix]

It takes no evidence whatsoever to create a theory, so merely being unable to disprove a theory seems a pretty weak reason to give it consideration.

It takes no evidence to create a hypothesis. To have a theory you have to have some evidence or some observations which show that your hypothesis to be correct.