9/11 - 10 Year Anniversary

[Kijutsu]

Yeah.. this thread wasn't complete without one of Concord's nonsensical pseudo intellectualism one liners.

[Slov]

this thread wasn't complete

it still isn't. where's phyto?

[apparition]

9/11: The 10 Year Anniversary came and went like any other day of the year for me. Except I played a shit load more pickup. That was awesome. Sweeping stereotypes of Americans shouldn't deter us from being decent people and valuing human life throughout the world though. Just because it was a couple thousand Americans that died doesn't mean people should act callously. That attitude is probably something the maniac suicide bombers across the world want to encourage. Just sayin.

[Phytotron]

This thread was destined to be a crock of horse apples from the beginning, what with its being on this forum. Most of you weren't even 10 years old when it happened. INW was, what, six? Slov must've been an infant.

Moreover, hardly any of you are interested in even recent history, let alone anything that preceded it. Nor do you take interest in or follow current events, world affairs, foreign policy, or politics. (Jingoistically and superficially bashing other countries as a matter of snotty, pseudo-rebellious fashion doesn't qualify—no matter from which side it's spat out, American or European.)

So, what of value could any of you possibly have to offer here? Nothing but what would have been predicted, and what we've got so far: simplistic, uninformed, unreasoned claptrap. I did expect a bit more mindless emotionalism, though.


Exceptions, of course, being owned and sinewav, and sorta appa.

[Kijutsu]

this thread wasn't complete

it still isn't. where's phyto?

Don't worry, it's complete now with some dose of superiority complex.

[ItzAcid]

this thread wasn't complete

it still isn't. where's phyto?

Don't worry, it's complete now with some dose of superiority complex.

Hahaha.

I feel like it was a wakeup call for some Americans. Kind of like, "HEY! Life isn't perfect, time to comeback from dream land." Yes, I was only... 6? That doesn't discredit looking back on the event though. If you look at it that way, Phyto, we might as well disregard certain other events from the past, which isn't exactly a good thing. I feel that for some of us obese, ignorant Americans (/joke ) it can help us relate to other "catastrophies" elsewhere and realize we STILL have it made. By comparing something this small, though devastating, to other large events in the world, we can create more sympathy with people in other nations. Of course, that doesn't go for all of us.

[sinewav]

I feel like it was a wakeup call for some Americans. Kind of like, "HEY! Life isn't perfect, time to comeback from dream land."

Except no one woke up and the dream is even worse. We still have a government that is completely incapable of protecting us from threats originating both inside and outside our borders and our foreign policy is horrendous.

I feel that for some of us obese, ignorant Americans (/joke ) it can help us relate to other "catastrophies" [sic] elsewhere and realize we STILL have it made. By comparing something this small, though devastating, to other large events in the world, we can create more sympathy with people in other nations.

I don't understand your joke. Are you saying Americans aren't fat and ignorant? We're one of the fattest countries in the world. And with over 60% of the population not able to grasp evolution as a fact of science on par with gravity, we certainly are an ignorant lot. Also, what do you mean by "catastrophes"? How is 9/11 able to compare with, oh let's say, the continued genocide in Gaza? What sympathy can we offer them? None.

All you are doing is regurgitating what you've been spoon-fed as a child. Your post reeks of hubris instead of humility.

[Concord]

evolution and intelligent design are both theories, neither are facts. If you want evidence of Americans' ignorance look here

people's beliefs do not relate to their ignorance.


(that's a second one for good measure, liz )

[sinewav]

evolution and intelligent design are both theories, neither are facts.

A surprising statement from someone who poses as a deep and critical thinker. I didn't know you were in league with Ignorant Designers. You should be embarrassed. Sure ID is a theory, but in the colloquial sense. It's nothing like the scientific use of the word theory, which is how we speak of evolution. It would be more appropriate to say evolution is a theory and ID is a hypothesis, though no actual science has ever been done to support ID whereas evolution has. lernmoar.

And people's beliefs most certainly relate to their ignorance. You're showing it right now.

[Phytotron]

Yes, I was only... 6? That doesn't discredit looking back on the event though. etc. blah blah

Read the second paragraph of my post, kiddo. Try again, and think before you spout off implying a position I didn't take, and rebutting an argument I didn't make.

evolution and intelligent design are both theories, neither are facts.

A surprising statement from someone who poses as a deep and critical thinker.

"Poses" being the operative word. As I've been trying to point out for some time now, he's just another of these muddleheaded, internet-age, generic "postmodernists," declaring (an irony obviously lost on them) everything relativistic and equally true. Muddying the waters in a vain attempt to make them seem deep. It serves as a craven cop out for not having to actually learn anything in any depth, think critically, be analytical, or have the intellectual nuts to actually take a position on anything, because, like, that would totally be like so elitist, and like, you know, conservative and stuff, you know? It's compensation and cover for people with no conviction, who really have nothing to say because they don't know anything about it, who have become so filled with conflicting feelings of "I dunno" and "myeh" that they've gotten to a point of being either nonsensically verbose or aggressively inarticulate (sometimes a horrific combination of the two)—which must then be covered with excruciatingly trite and banal platitudes that will satisfy even stupider people with a "wow, that was so, like, profound and stuff."

Or as my man Dawkins describes it, with particular, relevant nod to the subject of evolution: "Relativism, the quaint notion that there are many truths all equally deserving of respect, even if they contradict each other, is rife today. It sounds like a respectful gesture towards multiculturalism. Actually, it's a pretentious cop-out. There really is something special about scientific evidence. Science works. Planes fly, magic carpets and broomsticks don't. Gravity's not a version of the truth, it is the truth. Anybody who doubts it is invited to jump out of a 10th-floor window. Evolution, too, is reality. You don't decide whether to believe it or not believe it on the basis of whim or culture. The evidence supports it. Evolution is the plain truth."

The stork or cabbage patch are not equally valid explanatory models for human sexual reproduction. Like the "theories" of gravity or germs or plate tectonics or heliocentrism, evolution exists and occurs whether you believe in it or not. Indeed, the evidence for evolution and its explanatory model is the best established in all of science, more so than even those first four I mentioned. Yes, the evidence for evolution exceeds that for gravity. Deal with it. Or, you know, never visit a physician since evolution undergirds and makes sense of all of biology.

Anyway, as I established some time ago, by his own standards any opinion or argument Concord states is meaningless and can be summarily ignored as worthless. There's such a thing as being so open-minded one's brain drops out, and that has apparently occurred in his case.

*****

[matchbox53]

@Luck : I do know you joke alot but i didnt expect you would joke in a serious post and i am sorry if i offended you.


@Sinewav : I am really surprised that you actually mentioned what happened in Gaza , The reason why i am surprised is because we in middle east hardly see any western people know about these things or knows whats is happening in the middle east in general.

Let me add this also i am 1 of the 6 million Palestinians who are banned or not allowed to go into palestine since our grandfathers in 1948 who were kicked out , cause the Israel state was getting established so people like us had to live outside their country with no rights with nothing.

Whatever happened in 9/11 is cruel and its bad and murdering civilians is always a bad thing and its not compared to kill a military person, but there are or have been worst in the past and in the present and i wouldn't think that this event can be in top 10 worst events cause there has been plenty. The only reason that 9/11 is really famous or grabbed a lot of attention because it happened to a country who its known to have the best protection i was 16 years old i think when all the news was directed to it.

I hope 1 day that all these useless endless wars would stop.

[syllabear]

Haha, sinewav/phyto you guys are misunderstanding Concord in your overwhelming sense to criticise anyone who doesn't think exactly like you.

What Concord (and I am saying right now, so please don't get this confused either) said is that they are both theories, which is true. He didn't say creationism was the more likely, nor did he say he believed in it.

And of course, like most things, there are many other theories out there that explain how we got to where we are now. The theory of evolution in my opinion is most likely correct (heck the mechanism has pretty much been proved), however I believe there still may be a few more kinks to work out (no matter how minor).

Anyway, your other fallacy (phyto) was stating that Newton's law of universal gravitation is a theory, which it isn't.

And I like your very personal view that evolution has the most scientific backing, but I don't think there's any scientific backing to that statement!

...think critically, be analytical, or have the intellectual nuts to actually take a position on anything, because, like, that would totally be like so elitist, and like, you know, conservative and stuff, you know?

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, I thought you were above this

But lets sum it up shall we? This is, at the end of the day, a forum for a video game. And as such, some "younger people" (read teenagers and below) will play it. And you are right, not everyone at that age reads or watches the news, and few have a well-rounded and informed view on the world and her workings.

Expecting to come to this forum and only read material of the higheset quality is folly, and coming into a topic as flame-inspired as this, did you really expect any better? (Note, I'm not saying what anyone else wrote is wrong, bad, etc. since everyone is entitled to their own opinion, though Phytotron may disagree with me there.)

[Word]

For me, another thing that's tragic about 9/11 is how the terrorists began to use typically western means (the internet, airplances, weapons) to make it happen - there are so many civil wars in Africa which are fought with American and European (often German) weapons that it's embarrassing.

We had the TV running half the day, they started broadcasting it shortly after I returned home from school. I was 9 years old. It was surprising for me to see how fast they had new views from some helicopter or another building, and I thought the whole time that it was over and everyone was safe now and hoped the building was smaller than it looks on TV. Then the second tower collapsed.

It started something in the media I think, but maybe that's just because I was growing up and perceived it like that. After 9/11 there seemed to be more and more "apocalypse"-news, about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, global warming, the economy, our demographic change, terrorism (not just Islamists but also the RAF) - everything seemed to get worse, even in my personal life because I was too concerned with things that had nothing directly to do with me, and I just don't read a lot of articles about it anymore. There's too much for one person to worry about (this doesn't mean that I don't care). I envy people who are less affected by such things, and still care.

[Concord]

I was hoping I wouldn't be attacked, but apparently smart people do that to those they disagree with.

There's nothing weak about either empathy or tolerance, and, I suggest to both of you, anyone who wants to actually change the state of this nation for the better, rather than just whine about and point out the flaws of it, needs to recognize man as his own best governor. If he cannot be trusted govern himself, he cannot be reasonably expected to govern others.

Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties:
(1) Those that fear and distrust people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes.
(2) Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depository of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist; and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves."

As a third point, I hold certain views and if you would like me to share them I will. You ought to ensure someone doesn't have an opinion on something before announcing they have none. It's only responsible. It seems more likely that both of you think them irrelevant, which I gather from how you described me in your own posts.

[Phytotron]

What Concord (and I am saying right now, so please don't get this confused either) said is that they are both theories, which is true.

No, it's not true, not if you understand the meanings and usages of the word "theory" in its respective contexts. Re-read sinewav's post and the wikipedia article he linked to. They're only both "theories" when two completely different definitions for that word are used. They are not equivalent in teleology or veracity. You're the one who is confused.

Anyway, your other fallacy (phyto) was stating that Newton's law of universal gravitation is a theory, which it isn't.

Nope, you're quite wrong. Newtonian physics, as refined by general relativity, is "just a theory." A scientific theory is an explanatory model based on a veracity of empirical, predictable, experimental, falsifiable evidence. In scientific parlance, a theory is as good as it gets. A theory in science may be called a fact or "law" colloquially.

ID is not a scientific theory. It is, at most charitable, a colloquial "theory," as in a hunch, or a guess. At worst, and in actuality, it's pseudoscience based on an untestable faith claim, a thinly veiled scheme to insert creationism theocracy into public schools. Again, you're the one who is confused.

And I like your very personal view that evolution has the most scientific backing, but I don't think there's any scientific backing to that statement!

It's not my personal view. It's not a view at all. It's simply true that there is a greater body of solid evidence in support of evolution, studied in greater degree, than anything else in science.

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, I thought you were above this

It wasn't sarcasm, it was satirical mockery.

Expecting to come to this forum and only read material of the highest quality is folly, and coming into a topic as flame-inspired as this, did you really expect any better?

Read my first post. On the contrary, I predicted it, and was lamenting the fact that a subject of this nature would even be on a forum of this type, currently populated by the demographic that it is. If INW was sincerely interested in his query, there's no reason why he shouldn't have gone and done some reading rather than asking a bunch of uninformed, uninterested kids on a video game forum.

(Note, I'm not saying what anyone else wrote is wrong, bad, etc. since everyone is entitled to their own opinion, though Phytotron may disagree with me there.)

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. No one is entitled to their own facts. An opinion based on falsehoods is wrong, bad, and deserving of criticism or rebuttal.

For me, another thing that's tragic about 9/11 is how the terrorists began to use typically western means (the internet, airplances, weapons) to make it happen - there are so many civil wars in Africa which are fought with American and European (often German) weapons that it's embarrassing.

Wait, what? That's not new. Like, what, terrorists and Africans were using stone-age tools before that? Middle Easterners and Africans are all backwards, pre-technological societies? Dude.

You really think hijacking aircraft is something new? "Between 1948 and 1957 there were 15 hijackings worldwide, an average of a little more than one per year. Between 1958 and 1967, this climbed to 48, or about five per year. The number dropped to 38 in 1968, but grew to 82 in 1969, the largest number in a single year in the history of civil aviation; in January 1969 alone, eight airliners were hijacked to Cuba. Between 1968 and 1977, the annual average jumped to 41." It was a fashionable thing with the PFLP for awhile there.

Crashing them into big buildings was new—they usually were done for demands, like hostage-taking—but not the act of hijacking itself. (The internet was necessarily new, so that's kinda...duh.)

It started something in the media I think, but maybe that's just because I was growing up and perceived it like that.

Yes, the latter. Media in general have been getting more sensationalistic over the years, especially the cable news (read: infotainment) networks, but that began well before 9/11. It was just a spectacular event that allowed them to put it in your face even more.

(And by the way, climate change and the current state of the economy are not exaggerated by the mainstream media. If anything, they're underplayed.)

One thing 9/11 did introduce (or at least widely popularise) in the media is the now-ubiquitous "news ticker" crawl, at least in the US. Even ESPN has one running all the time now. Funny thing about that, is that compared to the cable news networks, the ESPN one scrolls more quickly and has significantly fewer grammatical and spelling errors. Apparently ESPN has a higher regard for the literacy of dumb jocks watching them than the "news" networks do for their audiences. Go figure.

More irrelevant pseudophilosophical blather

Who are you addressing there (following the first sentence, obviously), anyway?