This almost makes me want to believe in an anthropomorphic deity.

Post #436,718 by mmoffitt 10/20/20 8:51:36 AM 10/20/20 8:52:23 AM Reply	This almost makes me want to believe in an anthropomorphic deity. New York (CNN Business) Rush Limbaugh, the conservative talk show radio host, is battling stage 4 lung cancer and said Monday he's had a setback in his prognosis. ... "It's tough to realize that the days where I do not think I'm under a death sentence are over," Limbaugh said. https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/20/media/rush-limbaugh-cancer-update-trnd/index.html Edit: I hope it's an extraordinarily painful death. bcnu, Mikem It's mourning in America again. Edited by mmoffitt Oct. 20, 2020, 08:52:23 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #436,719 by malraux 10/20/20 10:08:00 AM 10/20/20 10:08:00 AM Reply	I understand the feeling, but Fuck cancer. I don't care who has it, I don't want it to be a thing for anyone ever. On the other hand, having a terminal illness results in introspection and re-evaluation for some people. Apparently not for Limbaugh, because he's still a shit. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #436,720 by InThane 10/20/20 11:04:49 AM 10/20/20 11:04:50 AM Reply	What Scott said. It's why I don't believe in a diety of any sort - not because I don't think it's possible, but because the sheer horror of this world makes me question what kind of divine being would allow its creations to suffer so.
Post #436,723 by crazy 10/20/20 12:45:21 PM 10/20/20 12:45:21 PM Reply	Clockmaker god Winds shit up and walks away. Like a little kid with a glass enclosed ant farm. We are the ants. God does not give a shit about the individuals, and there are many ant farms in process.
Post #436,759 by InThane 10/22/20 11:38:02 AM 10/22/20 11:38:02 AM Reply	In college, we had to read "Frankenstein" for a tech class. While everybody else was talking about how the book was about how evil science and technology was, I sussed out a different meaning: The consequences of not taking responsibility for your creation. Frankenstein's monster was born innocent, unknowing, and with a kind heart, and the blind man who educated him without judgement showed concern that his creator could not. How might have the story turned out differently if Frankenstein, realizing the hubris of his creation instead of rejecting it, apologized and treated it with kindness and care? If I am wrong, and God exists, either in the clockmaker aspect or Shub-Niggurath, then if we ever amass enough power to lever against God, we should seek redress for the wrongs it has visited upon us, the billions who have suffered because of its unwillingness to make the suffering visited upon us collectively (I acknowledge that I'm privileged and haven't suffered like many others - and even so, the things that I have experienced have made me question the value of existence in our universe. Don't worry, not checking out until the world is done with me, I have obligations and would be increasing net suffering if I did so) less brutal and with a reasonable level of compensation for said suffering. Alternatively, if I meet God I'm kicking it in whatever passes for it's nads.
Post #436,760 by drook 10/22/20 12:00:36 PM 10/22/20 12:00:36 PM Reply	My daughter got a bad grade on her Frankenstein paper The teacher was expecting an analysis of the themes blah blah blah. Daughter basically said that it was so bad as a work of science fiction, with such a poor grasp of the physical reality and the scientific method, that it was hard to accept it as the basis for a useful metaphor. Essentially: What are the moral implications of Dr. Frankenstein's treatment of the creature? "It's not plausible that someone with the ability to reanimate the dead wouldn't have considered how that resurrected person would act. A good experiment anticipates possible outcomes. His failure was in not doing the science correctly." I've seen enough bad sci-fi to get what she's saying, when you can't suspend your disbelief. I don't think the teacher should have just dismissed her analysis as "wrong". -- Drew
Post #436,785 by Ashton 10/24/20 4:43:57 AM 10/24/20 4:43:57 AM Reply	File appeal with Principal? Seems a Teacher unacquainted with the need to teach Imagination ..as a skill. This 'grade' smacks of a tale (likely heard already) ..alleged to be actual, as I heard it. Science test: "Describe how a barometer could be used to determine the height of a building". Student: [evading the obvious answer] Describes ~~ 1) Tie a string to it, lower to ground and measure string length. 2) Drop the barometer, measuring time to landing. 3) Some variants--one IIRC involving arc described: barometer on short string, held \|\| to ground, then freed, allowed to cycle in its circular arcs, measuring the time over n-cycles at ground level and atop. (Air resistance). On appeal student won. Or it wouldn't have gotten ink. Luck!
Post #436,786 by drook 10/24/20 9:43:05 AM 10/24/20 9:43:05 AM Reply	If I were that teacher ... 1. If you had a tape long enough to measure the string, you would just measure the height with that. 2. The question stipulated that you had a barometer, not a stopwatch. 3. To use air resistance throughout the arc of the swing, you'd first have to know the pressure at the top and the bottom. Which you could measure with a barometer. But once you have those, subtraction is a more direct solution. IOW "Fair play, kid. But here's how this game is played." -- Drew
Post #436,789 by Ashton 10/24/20 6:08:40 PM 10/24/20 6:08:40 PM Reply	Clever-lad but.. in 'Murica the emotional decision of the Overseer--went with the kid's send-up. ;^> Yeah.. I've tilted at such windmills too.. knowing it was only a recreation. Pure logic hardly ever wins alone--except in IT, nukes, a few special matters, right? (And always--in Law--we have the advice of Fred Rodell), Dean @ Harvard Law) [again] "the pseudo-science of The Law". Maybe only in Math is there a genuine 'Proof' of anything? At least, this is the enviro in which I have lived, amidst the science-illiterates who ain't got no Respect for what they know-not. Carrion.
Post #436,791 by crazy 10/24/20 6:17:22 PM 10/24/20 6:17:22 PM Reply	Re: recreation. About 15 years ago I was with the wife, who wasn't the wife quite yet, at a resort at the Poconos. We got our little bungalow with the heart-shaped bed. Don't do that. Heart-shaped beds are just not meant to be slept upon. And we got gatherings with other people in the center with the entertainment. We got to meet people at dinner and we were sat with them every evening so each day we got a little bit more the same people. I was sat next to an evangelical preacher. And his hot wife. He was a bit holier than thou so of course I got into a few arguments. I explained to him the difference between procreation and recreation and I got him to explain exactly what he was doing here at this resort with me. Because this resort was designed for recreation. He was both amused and not amused. That was a fun dinner.
Post #436,796 by pwhysall 10/25/20 2:46:40 AM 10/25/20 2:46:40 AM Reply	Re: My daughter got a bad grade on her Frankenstein paper This was a literature class, right? A literary answer should have been given. Your daughter's answer is clever, and technically correct (although I'm not convinced that scientists think things through to the extent that is posited), but Frankenstein is a moral tale first, and science fiction second. I'm on the fence here. Daughter has dodged the question, but in an innovative way; but, fundamentally, she's failed to answer the question posed.
Post #436,799 by drook 10/25/20 2:34:15 PM 10/25/20 2:34:15 PM Reply	It wasn't explicitly stated before the fact That's the thing about teaching really old books. When the science is central to the story, and we now know that the science was all wrong, it's going to be hard for kids to get past that. -- Drew
Post #439,136 by CRConrad 5/19/21 3:51:47 AM 5/19/21 3:51:47 AM Reply	You seem to have quite fundamentally misunderstood the genre. PeeWee capaldis: ...but Frankenstein is a moral tale first, and science fiction second. Science fiction is a genre of moral tales. -- Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Apparently Still Knows Fucking Everything Mail: Same username as at the top left of this post, at iki.fi
Post #439,140 by pwhysall 5/19/21 8:26:25 AM 5/19/21 8:26:25 AM Reply	And? You're in firm r/confidentlyincorrect territory here.
Post #439,145 by crazy 5/19/21 1:08:43 PM 5/19/21 1:08:43 PM Reply	The man who knows effing everything is wrong "Genre of" indicates hierarchy and there's no way in hell sci-fi is within a hierarchy of moral tales. A sci-fi tale may be a moral tale but it doesn't have to be.
Post #436,724 by boxley 10/20/20 3:21:13 PM 10/20/20 3:21:13 PM Reply	maybe they think it is amusing "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
Post #436,733 by rcareaga 10/20/20 8:01:32 PM 10/20/20 8:01:32 PM Reply	What kind of divine being? Why, this kind! How Great Our Lord! Folks up here Ask me why Things go so badly down below— I tell them when they ask me why I really do not know Randy Newman and James Taylor: a match made in (cough!) heaven. devoutly,
Post #436,746 by Ashton 10/21/20 4:17:22 PM 10/21/20 4:17:22 PM Reply	A counter-Tenor role, perhaps? "Let me not to the marriage of true minds .... admit impediments".
Post #436,736 by a6l6e6x 10/20/20 10:54:38 PM 10/20/20 10:54:38 PM Reply	You're just trying to cheer me up! :) Alex "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." -- Isaac Asimov

Welcome to IWETHEY!