Seconds After NFL Star Says “Jesus Died For My Sins”, CNN shuts him down. (1)
Being a “free thinker” is hard.
Atheists claim to be such, but when their beliefs come to the test they fail miserably.
Listen to what others have to say.
Whether they are atheists, theists, agnostics or just kids.
Find wisdom in what you consider garbage.
Stop tagging things as logical or “illogical”.
You must not know what “logical” is if you wish to discover it…
Hooded gunmen dressed in black burst into the office of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo Wednesday 7/1/2015, killing 12 people in a coordinated strike and escaping onto the streets of Paris.
The three suspects behind the attack have been identified, Paris Deputy Mayor Patrick Klugman told CNN. Two of them are brothers.
French authorities vowed to step up security and apprehend those responsible.
“Everything will be done to arrest (the attackers)”, French President Francois Hollande said in a speech Wednesday night. “… We also have to protect all public places. Security forces will be deployed everywhere there can be the beginning” of a threat. (1)
It seems tragic.
It seems unfair.
It seems wrong.
And it is.
But are we calm enough to see the obvious?
Showing disrespect to things which are holy to other people is also…
No, the one does not justify the other.
These statements are just both true. At the same time.
Killing people is bad. Christianism is the first who said that.
But which fascist was defeated by showing Jesus Christ fucking God and the Holy Spirit fucking Jesus? What kind of freedom of speech right was justified and honored by showing Jesus Christ fucking God and the Holy Spirit fucking Jesus?
Lack of limitations, lack of rules, is characteristic of the jungle…
The BBC has to adopt “clear editorial guidelines” for its reporting on the issue of climate change, MPs have said.
The Science and Technology Committee said the organisation played a “central” role in informing the public.
But some editors were “poor” at determining viewers’ and listeners’ level of expertise and sometimes pitted lobbyists against “top scientists” as if their views had “equal weight”. The BBC said it did “not believe in erasing wider viewpoints”. In its report, the committee said news teams, including those on Radio 4’s Today programme, had committed the mistake of attributing the same weight to opinions and scientific fact when covering climate science. (1)
Science is the new religion.
And no one can doubt it. (even though there are numerous counter-arguments for the human-made climate change – search Harmonia Philosophica with “ecology” or the “against ecology” tag)
We live in an era of dogmatism.
We MUST believe in science!
Because science tells the FACTS!
We have forgotten that science merely offers interpretation models.
We have forgotten that the facts are only visions inside our mind.
We have chosen to forget philosophy.
We have become followers.
We have stopped being Thinkers.
Let’s get back to where we were!
Let’s start being children again…
For centuries people have observed strange phenomena before large earthquakes, such as light emanating from ridges and mountaintops. These reports were once dismissed by many scientists, in part because they are often entangled in unscientific theories. For example, some who reported the lights thought they were produced by UFOs.
But the lights are not (necessarily) hallucinations nor created by E.T. “Earthquake lights are a real phenomenon–they’re not UFOs,” researcher Robert Thériault, a geologist at Quebec’s Ministry of Natural Resources, told Nature. “They can be scientifically explained.”
In study published in the January/February issue of the journal Seismological Research Letters, Thériault and colleagues pulled together reliable sightings of these lights since 1600, and found some strange similarities. A total of 63 out of the 65 sightings occurred along nearly vertical faults. The researchers suggest that along these faults, the stress of rocks grinding against each other produces electrical charges, which can travel upward and interact with the atmosphere to create light. (1)
Science is often found to discard claims from “stupid citizens” on the basis that these claims are made by “non experts”. Censoring things based on what you ALREADY know is simply UNscientific. Listening to what you do not understand and accept is the way to go forward. Science should get down from its throne and start listening to simple people telling stupid things.
A premier science museum in North Carolina has sparked some controversy by refusing to show an hour-long film about climate change and rising sea levels. “The suppression of information is not in in the spirit of what a museum ought to do,” says Charles “Pete” Peterson, a marine ecologist at the University of North Carolina’s Institute of Marine Sciences in Morehead City. (1)
But museum officials deny any attempt to avoid the topic. “I have a track record of dealing with these issues head on”, says Emlyn Koster, who directs the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences in Raleigh.
The museum may be in a bit of a delicate position. It is part of a state agency, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. The state government has been perceived as hostile to action on climate change; last year, the legislature passed a bill forbidding the state coastal commission from defining rates of sea-level rise for regulation before 2016. Although Koster is a state employee who is exempt from some civil service protections and serves at the pleasure of Governor Pat McCrory (R), he stresses his independence. “At no time have I been told what to do or what to think”.
Besides the obvious joke here (“define rates of sea level rise for regulation”?!? Are you serious?!?), I believe it is a matter of grave importance to define suppression and oppression here. Not allowing a specific opinion to be heard is suppression. But is it not oppression to impose the hearing of a specific opinion as well? If there are places where the opinion A can be heard, why have the need to impose everyone hosting this opinion, especially when this opinion is mutually exclusive with opinion B?