The Original Operation Academic Freedom
A wannabe instapunk suggests an Operation Academic Freedom in May 2005.
Tanks, shmanks. An M1A has about as much chance against Harvard as the instapunk has outarguing a Professor of Women Studies.
Select Committees are the True Weapons of Choice in Operation Academic Freedom
How cute, "instapunk" is a creationist too. Loser.
Tanks, shmanks. An M1A has about as much chance against Harvard as the instapunk has outarguing a Professor of Women Studies.
Select Committees are the True Weapons of Choice in Operation Academic Freedom
How cute, "instapunk" is a creationist too. Loser.
posted by Steinn at 1:46 PM
14 Comments:
Apparently, you didn't read what Instapunk said. The post says that the creationists are dead wrong. Do you comprehend English?
Your comments are offensive.
You are incorrect, I did read what instapunk said and I comprehend English adequately.
If I may quote from instapunk:
"Scientists love to haul out Occam's razor -- the simplest idea is probably right. I'll haul it out here. It's far easier to explain the process by which Japanese bees acquired this defense mechanism through the inference that some kind of intelligence exists within the species as a whole which does explicitly recognize the hornet threat and responds appropriately by reprogramming the brains of Japanese honey bees.
This kind of intelligence does not have to be God. But the evolutionists resist it because the appearance of any kind of intelligence within their materialistic system opens the door to the possibility that intelligence, and therefore consciousness, and therefore possibly some supreme consciousness, is an intrinsic attribute of the universe. This is unacceptable not for scientific reasons but for religious reasons. The atheists can't stomach it."
They propose an argument by design, and implicitly a deistic argument - a step above naive literal biblical creationism, but only barely.
Oh, and the number of neurons in a honey bee brain is about a million, not hundred...
You should try not to be so easily offended. And maybe also try not to attempt to be offensive yourself either.
Offensensitivity.
PS - do you think advocating the killing of most of the staff of the nations universities, starting with the best ones, is offensive, or not offensive?
See Steinn, you are just showing the typical lack of sense of humor that the left has. Instapunk was just making a joke.
Of course, if a left leaning individual said the same sort thing, let us kill all who oppose us, they would be showing the true side the of left, that the left are Pol Pot wanna-bes....
I can also quote from Instapunk:
"I'll clarify the point I'm making by explaining that I believe the Creationists are dead wrong in their whole approach to the problem, and I believe the evolutionists are substantially wrong about process."
And this:
"POSTSCRIPT: I'll predict that if any evolutionists read this piece, they'll attack me in one or more of three ways. 1) They'll get personal immediately, calling me an idiot, a moron, a religious nut, etc."
For your information, since Instapunk is a Harvard graduate, he's entitled to imagine M1 tanks counterattacking the building he saw seized by smelly undergraduates in the 60s. As to your confidence that a women's studies professor could take Instapunk down a peg or two, forget it. His sister -- and I've met her -- has a Ph. D. in Women's Studies from Cornell. She's lost every argument she's ever started with Instapunk and she doesn't bring the subject up any more.
Unfortunately, Instapunk (who graduated from Harvard at 19) is now aware of you. If you're lucky, he'll laugh and forget you. If you're not lucky -- put on your armor Hector, you are about to meet Achilleus.
I think receiving a BA from Harvard at the tender age of 19 is not quite sufficient dispensation to forgive his poor sense of humour -either that, or Harvard left him more emotionally scarred than he appreciates - I'm rather fond of my alma maters.
In either case, instapunk may feel the strawmen "Creationists" he postulates are wrong in their approach, he still is a creationist hiding under a thin veneer of a deus ex machina. He also can't count.
Anyway, isn't "instapunk" supposed to be some sort of collective blog? You say its just a single guy who can't get along with his close family?
Ah well, I await and tremble. Maybe I can explain to him how his inability to figure out how collective defence in honey bees can evolve incrementally is not proof of design. Just his poor imagination.
PS: instapunk was wrong, I called him a loser.
PPS: Brad - I'm not "left leaning", I'm Scandihoovian. None of us have a sense of humour, just ask Garrison Keillor.
Oh, and while I am flattered by the Hector comparison, and slightly surprised at the Achilles one; let me just note that I advise my brothers to shoot first, from cover.
The macho single combat crap is sooo like 9th century.
PS - do you think advocating the killing of most of the staff of the nations universities, starting with the best ones, is offensive, or not offensive?
Not offensive. Though, having read your posts both here and elsewhere, I find your lacking the ability to comprehend satire unsurprising.
Cheers.
I think receiving a BA from Harvard at the tender age of 19 is not quite sufficient dispensation to forgive his poor sense of humour...
[ snip ]
Anyway, isn't "instapunk" supposed to be some sort of collective blog?
You, sir—and I say this not as an ad hominem attack, rather as factual commentary on your intellect—are either a certifiable moron or completely ignorant. Perhaps you should do some research before you open your big, egomaniacal yap.
InstaPunk is perhaps the most intelligent philosophical thinker ever to grace God's green earth. He has conducted successful analysis of the entire history of mankind and presented such in one of the most insightful works ever created.
The best part: despite this, he is completely humble and open-minded with respect to his education, never basing his positions on simple faith—be it in a religion or in a closed system of inquiry which forbids consideration of the alternatives (a.k.a., the "scientific" method).
Save your breath for your next debate with your boyfriend.
Dear "j"
"Tanks, shmanks. An M1A has about as much chance against Harvard as the instapunk has outarguing a Professor of Women Studies. "
I got the joke, thanks (hint: the "shmanks" bit...)
What is interesting about jokes is the underlying attitudes they reveal. Instaprude definitely has some issues, as they say. I hope he works through them ok.
Dear Anonymous.
Thank you for your very helpful input.
So cute, a fanboy.
Fortunately Robert Laird (who by all accounts is a very pretty man, in a manly man sort of way), stopped by to tell us about his book, which apparently is one of the greatest ever published.
I am relieved to hear he is also humble, lest we be overwhelmed by his sheer animal charisma.
I am sorry to hear about your insecurity over your sexual orientation; maybe if you visit instaprude he'll let you mount his new toy and you can feel that bad boy throb between your thighs. Seems to do good things for the instaprude. Age I guess.
PS: the book is a joke. Maybe you'll get the memo next time.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/1563050757/ref=dp_proddesc_0/103-9824442-9415814?%5Fencoding=UTF8&n=283155
Damn, sales rank 272,604 as of this weekend. That's impressive. I mean that's only about 259,000 behind the Illuminatus trilogy. At least that is funny in parts.
Damn, sales rank 272,604 as of this weekend.
For now we'll ignore the fact that you haven't responded to any previous claims in any manner that might be called reasoned—or even reasonable—instead choosing to ignore such claims outright or resort to fallacious "argument"—personal attacks, for example.
Rather, let's consider your final implication. Just to be clear, your best reasoned argument boils down to: "the number of sales indicates the quality of the work." Have I got that right? Sales rank = value o the idea?
Well, then, how many copies of your last book were sold? I need to know in order to judge the quality of your work. Better yet, let's simply assume you've not published a book due to lack of editor confidence and examine your blog statistics instead. How many unique visitors do you host each month?
Sheesh Marty, are you some kinda commie? Do you not think the market is the judge of quality and importance.
Oh, and you should probably not start a discussion about personal attacks sweetie, you don't have a standing there.
PS working scientists publish primarily in journals; I decline invitations to write books, at this stage of my career. Waste of my time.
Wow. What brilliance! All these comments by one author perhaps?
Post a Comment
<< Home