AZMike 173 Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 You can get a Kindle copy of "Satan's Diary" for $1 from Amazon.(This message has been edited by AZMike) Link to post Share on other sites
packsaddle 753 Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Heh, heh, I guess I could be labeled a 'neo-Luddite'. I really like the feel and inconvenience of paper. Plus...how is anyone going to have a decent book-burning if it's all electronic? Link to post Share on other sites
AZMike 173 Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 I was with you on that until last year - I didn't like the idea of paperless books. Then my wife bought me a KIndle Fire for Christmas, and I found I really liked the ability to download (for free) a lot of out-of-print books that are in the public domain, plus order (usually) less expensive e-copies of expensive texts I want. More and more out-of-print books are being licensed and issued each day (I just bought a book that is out-of-print and cost about $80 used that I had been wanting to buy for years for $8.95), and can check out new Kindle books from the my local library. I can also check my emails, surf the web, read magazine subscriptions, watch free streaming videos on Netflix and Amazon Prime, access a ton of apps (I got one that lists every merit badge and advancement requirement for a couple of bucks, very handy), store pdf documents and photos, etc. So I'm a convert now. I'm on the road a lot, and used to bring a bunch of heavy books, laptop, DVD case, etc., now I just carry the Kindle. I've got so many books waiting to be read that I can always pick something out I want to read. I still like "real" books, but the Kindle is good. Link to post Share on other sites
packsaddle 753 Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 O! M! G! Everyone RUN! AZMike has been assimilated by the Borg! Just kidding. I see the economic and convenience argument. I'm still going to resist mightily. Link to post Share on other sites
Peregrinator 85 Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 I found my Kindle very helpful at summer camp for reading stories to the boys at bedtime. Link to post Share on other sites
CalicoPenn 729 Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 When I go to Barnes and Noble, there is always someone right in front of the door at the big Nook display asking if I'd be interested in buying a Nook. My response is always the same: "If I wanted to buy electronics, I'd go to Best Buy". Link to post Share on other sites
SeattlePioneer 144 Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Hello Peregrinator, > Cub Scouts or Boy Scouts? Just off hand, reading a story to Cub Scouts before lights out at camp seems like a great idea. Reading a story to Boy Scouts sounds rather surprising if that happened. With Cub Scout camping, I generally tell Scouts they can stay up talking as long as they want, secure in the knowledge that ten minutes after they get in bed they will all be asleep! Sounds like a charming idea, but I'm guessing it would need to be a short story if you wanted them to hear the end of it! Link to post Share on other sites
packsaddle 753 Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 "...ten minutes after they get in bed they will all be asleep!" Don't I know it! Oh wait, you're talking about the cubs, not me...oops. Link to post Share on other sites
Peregrinator 85 Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Cub Scouts or Boy Scouts? Cub age boys (I'm not affiliated with the BSA). Jungle Book stories and the like. Yes, I agree - not a great idea for Scout age boys. Link to post Share on other sites
BDPT00 41 Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Amazing. The original subject moved to trivial arguments regarding population and social security to Kindles. There didn't seem to be any alarm or concern that we're talking about our Webelos-aged kids experimenting with sex. No talk about morals and values, except for Seattle (who most relegated to the dark ages). Doesn't that bother anybody? Or has our society gone so far as to accept the notion that it's going to happen anyway, so why concern ourselves with it? It's inevitable, so let's be open-minded and progressive, and get out of the way. Nothing we can do about it, so who cares?! Who needs values anyway? They're old fashioned. BDPT00 Link to post Share on other sites
AZMike 173 Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 "Amazing. The original subject moved to trivial arguments regarding population and social security to Kindles. There didn't seem to be any alarm or concern that we're talking about our Webelos-aged kids experimenting with sex. No talk about morals and values, except for Seattle (who most relegated to the dark ages). Doesn't that bother anybody? Or has our society gone so far as to accept the notion that it's going to happen anyway, so why concern ourselves with it? It's inevitable, so let's be open-minded and progressive, and get out of the way. Nothing we can do about it, so who cares?! Who needs values anyway? They're old fashioned." That's the nature of discussion on long threads, BDPT00, which tend to be inherently ADD in scope. No one ever changed their minds on any political argument on the Internet, ever, about anything. So if we can't agree, we can at least talk about the things with which we do agree. A lot of these threads seem like the conversations we adult leaders have at camp-outs after the kids go to sleep. We have our fair share of both liberals and conservatives, and when the discussions get a little heated, we tend to veer off into sports or pop culture as a way to restore equilibrium and friendship. That's a guy thing, I think. We should be able to disagree and still be friends. For what it's worth, I think it's reprehensible to provide an abortifacient to children while only offering the parents an opt-out option in the small print. If the schools did the same with any other medical treatment - if they had done the same thing with any other medical treatment, such as giving them a vaccination, parents would rightfully be up in arms. But this is what people get when they support a secular nanny state, such as NYC, and elevate abortion to the status of a "progressive" sacrament. Others on this thread obviously disagree with me, a few apparently agree with that position. I don't think anyone changes their mind nowadays, so after everyone expresses their opinion and marshals their supporting arguments and evidence, we should all probably just shut up at some point. Otherwise, we'll sound like that guy in the cartoon who is sitting in front of his computer while his wife is obviously ready for bed, and telling her, "I can't go to bed yet. Somebody on the Internet is wrong." Link to post Share on other sites
BSA24 10 Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 > you could get an auditorium of scientists to agree on ANYTHING... is enough to make most scientists fall out of their chairs This is false. Scientists agree on many billions of things. The areas in which scientists disagree are far more arcane than the topics noted here. > Most researchers have noted that abortion and contraception use rise concurrently in most populations, Most scientific researchers also note that abortion is only tracked when a society becomes liberal enough to allow it to be performed legally, allowing it to be tracked, and that this correlates to a lessening of public shame in the purchase of birth control. Both track upward in trace reporting, not in frequency of use, and cause and effect are not noted. Your conclusion was laughable. > I ask you why the California Democratic Party supported Proposition 37, which would require genetically modified food to carry a warning label. Because the huge companies creating genetically modified food have been using the patents on the genetics in the food to sue small farmers out of existence. > I ask you why so many prominent Democrats and liberal activists link vaccination with autism? I am not aware of any in the scientific community who can present peer-reviewed research that supports this claim. I am only aware of Jenny McCarthy, former Playboy Playmate, as having this belief along with anyone with a money interest in seeing it through. > Let's say an American conservative doesn't believe in the conception of evolution as he and as most liberals, mistakenly understand it. So what? Does his belief hurt us in some way? Yes, it does. It sets up an entire cascade effect in their minds of hand-waving at legitimate science. The belief in magical thinking over evidence, the belief in folk solutions over research and understanding. Human curiosity and exploration are replaced by defensive argument in favor of existing doctrine. It causes stupid beliefs to lie untested, such as the false belief that homosexuality and pedophilia are linked, which science has proven are not. The belief that homosexuality is a learned misbehavior or human dysfunction, when all research suggests it is a natural occurence, and that the entire perception of gender preference as binary is a cultural learning rather than a moral issue. Rejection of science creates a weak mind which can be led by other weak minds with strong personalities. It allows the mind to be more easiy subborned by an agenda, and used for soldiering toward some dark purpose. How can a country lead the world in technology and science when our children are trained that the earth is 7000 years old and our scientists do not understand the atom - even as we use it for power and weaponry - and TV's, and pictures inside our bodies, and all of our chemistry and pharmacopia? Do you not see the damage being done? 44% of Americans are young earth creationists. They doubt that scientists are able to study and prove things and understand the world. This is willful ignorance by people who use electricity and drive automobiles - all creations of science, every day, everywhere they go, yet confidentaly and vehemently reject scientists as a credible source of knowledge. Carl Sagan said that the difference between a faith and science is that science works. You can see it. You can turn on your TV. You can turn on a radio. You can see an X-ray photograph of your bones. You can see an atom bomb detonate. You can see pictures of Neptune taken by our probes. Faith has produced - good feelings. Nothing more. > I ask you why liberals support medical marijuana laws when the science clearly shows that already legal THC alternatives such as marinol are safer than non-FDA regulated pot? Because the science does not clearly show that. The science clearly shows that alcohol and tabacco are far more unhealthy, and are far less regulated. > I ask you why so many liberals oppose nuclear power? 70% of scientists favor nuclear power Why do you think that scientists and liberals are two separate groups? Almost all scientists are liberals. Most who know anything about nuclear power favor Thorium over plutonium reactors. However, governments favor plutonium because they can use the output to make weapons. Thorium is far cleaner, but cannot be used to make weapons. It is not opposition to nuclear power. It is opposition to filthy, dangerous technology which risks the planet for short-sighted production of unusable weaponry. > I ask you why so many liberals oppose animal research and testing Basic sympathy for another living creature that feels pain? I can't really speak to that one. It is not a major concern of mine. > I ask you why liberals insist that life does not begin at conception, when EVERY medical, obstetric, and scientific textbook stated that life began at conception, until Roe v. Wade - a purely political pretense. At the same time that every textbook said that black people do not have souls? I am not interested when life begins. Life lives in my nose in my boogers. I am interested when consciousness begins. It is not life that is precious. It is conscious awareness. It is the enjoyment of life that is precious. A 10 week old fetus to me is pushing the limits of what can be aborted without guilt. Before that, I am comfortable that there is no capability for self-awareness. > I ask you why the 1965 research of Daniel Patrick Moynihan on the negative social effects of welfare dependency and out-of-wedlock births on the African-American community was derided by (mostly white) liberals, even as it has become the accepted wisdom now. I am not a big fan of welfare myself, so I cannot really speak to that. I was a conservative myself until a few years ago, so I am not well versed in liberal arcana from when I was a child. > I ask you why any social research that affects liberal views on differences in gender, ethnicity, class, or sexual preference is automatically derided as unscientific? Political people and people with agendas deride anything that harms their position. You are, I am, we all do. > Now, you might notice, BSA24, that most of these anti-scientifiic obsessions of liberals have an actual real-world effect on people's lives, certainly much more so than a disbelief in the popular conception of what evolution is. How much does it really affect the body politic if someone believes in a biblically literal view of creation? I damages the nation's ability to do science so dramatically that we may lose control of the world and become a backward nation like Iran. It damages our future far more than possibly anything ever could. I believe it is the one, greatest challenge facing our country: The rejection of education, intelligence, reasoning, and science as values to strive for. Link to post Share on other sites
Peregrinator 85 Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Life lives in my nose in my boogers. How do you expect others to take your scientific knowledge seriously when you assert that your boogers are alive? Mucus is a secretion and is no more alive than sweat or urine. Link to post Share on other sites
packsaddle 753 Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Mucus! The stuff that jokes are made of....I started catching up on this thread this morning and thought it would be something good...but it'snot! tee hee hee hee I remember a great t-shirt I liked a lot that said "Without MUCUS, life itself would not be possible", or something along those lines. Of course that was an invertebrate biology view, lol. While I applaud BSA24's defense of science (at least I think that's what he's trying to do) I'd like to move the focus away from BSA24's 'boogers' and back to those billions of things scientists agree on. Actually, since I am one of them, I'm curious to understand what BSA24 thinks they are. BSA24 could you list some examples? I don't even need the first billion, a few hundred would do nicely. I'm aware of the 44% statistic regarding 'young earth' creationism. My observations are that when most of those scratch the surface of the evidence, they are not REALLY young earth creationists but rather merely ignorant of the evidence. The young earth 'true believers' are impervious to evidence. Likewise, opposition to nuclear power also crosses political boundaries. While I am aware that most of the people IN the nuclear industry (and I guess that sort of includes me in a way) tend to be 'conservative' in their political views, it isn't the monolithic political structure that one might assume. Actually, I'd have to say that there's a lot more sympathy for 'Libertarian' views than in the general public. But the whole nuclear power thing is another thread, another time. "Life begins at conception". Wow. How many times do I have to correct this? Life does not begin at conception. Life, for sexually-reproducing organisms becomes 'diploid' at fertilization, but it doesn't begin there at all. I continue to wonder why we devalue the haploid part of the life cycle? I completely agree with AZMike's statement about these threads being somewhat ADD. I'm a happy contributor to the truth of that statement. I guess I should also comment on the supposed link between vaccines and autism. Around these parts at least, that idea crosses political boundaries. It is one thing on which some of the crazy environmental types agree with the crazy Tea Party types. See, we can all get along after all. AZMike, and BSA24...I suggest that you both are interested in seeking truth. I suggest that both of you are interested in promotion of science and associated knowledge and understanding. And I also suggest that 'non-science' nonsense has no political boundary. Yes, I know it's fun to squabble with each other by making those kinds of political connections. But I try to remember that the squabble is more about the politics than about the science. I suppose I could be wrong. Play on. Link to post Share on other sites
AZMike 173 Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 "All" scientific textbooks said black people do not have souls? Source, please? Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now