Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Is Web 2.0 the new XML?
 From: 'Alan Gutierrez' [mailto:alan-xml-dev@e...] >> Use a false argument such as "teach the controversy" to get >> political action for an issue in which there is only one side. > Political arguments are not true or false, they just are. Wrong. Political arguments are designed to get people to do or not do something they would not do or do otherwise. In this case, create unity among those who get up every morning scared to death of the God they are told created them 1000 years ago by telling them He is really an intelligent old fellow and told Noah to load two of the dinosaurs on the Ark with the rest of his incest-ridden family. >> It's boobery. > It's working. They Creationists have framed the debate in such > a way that the debate can be had. That's a coup. It's boobery. That 45% of the American voters are scared and easily made more scared is proof of the depth of the damage done by the boobs. > I'm not arguing in favor of Intelligent Design, I'm saying that > it's benign. NO. It'w wrong. It puts superstition in the place of the scientific method. It asks us to surrender inquiry to belief because the problem is tooo hard. It scales for the same reason as presented for the web: it is easy. But this isn't a technology; it is surrendering the education of our children and the future of our nation to self-optimizing, self-centered, undereducated, over-monied boobs who are sending our sons and daughters to the ends of the earth to kill and maim others in the name of their booby leaders. But worst of all, it uses God as the excuse. WWJD? The rough short stocky Jewish carpenter would take a board and ram it up their collective asses and then push them into the business end of a fully-engaged 757 turbine engine so the blades could dispose of their boobery and boobisms post haste. Is that clear? This isn't benign. This is a fight for children who cannot be made to bow down to these hideously perverse people and their agenda to mask grabs for power with piety. > My point was, that the 'democratization' of information is a > process that is already alive and well, does not require Web 2.0. There is no issue of democracy here. You don't get to vote on the design of the 757 engine and you don't get to vote on the means and processes of evolution. You can investigate, hypothesise, experiment, observe, record, publish and repeat, but otherwise, take your faith to your church, synagogue, mosque or temple and I am with you, but push it into a science curriculum, and I am here with the carpenter, board in hand to ram it up your collection plates. > The argument that democracy is nothing more than mob-rule is > old, tired. Enhancing the process of 'democratization' will only > make that argument older, ever more tired. That is an insidious message from pathetic liars whose faith is so weak that they want to rob science and democracy of its real strength to beggar a failing religion. No compromise. No controversy. No bloody way. len 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
