NYC Schools want to ban "controversial" words like: Dinosaur, Birthday, Pepperoni

• I Wear Pants

  sleeper;1131960 wrote:Only in the NYC..

  It isn't OSU, you don't need to put a pointless "the" in front of NYC.
• sleeper

  

  I Wear Pants;1131961 wrote:It isn't OSU, you don't need to put a pointless "the" in front of NYC.

  ...
• jmog

  I Wear Pants;1131958 wrote:And creationists are retards if they get offended about dinosaurs. Or even if they don't.
  

  I agree that they are retards if they are offended by dinosaurs, but "the even if they don't" part is factually incorrect.
• chicago510

  

  Don't even think about including "[LEFT]Homes with swimming pools" or "home computers" only library computers and public pools!
  
  Yay communism![/LEFT]
• gut

  Heretic;1131959 wrote:I thought one of the right's biggest nutjobs has this really popular radio show that's supposedly listened to by gazillions of people on a daily basis.

  No, he's hardly a nutjob. Makes some rather outrageous and shocking statements like most in that line of work, but if he's a nutjob then Nancy Pelosi is literally brain dead and actually a puppet controlled by Bill Maher.
  
  And these days it seems like most of Rush's listeners are liberals who wet themselves over anticipation of getting their panties into a bunch over something he says.
• password

  

  Will they be banning the word White, since it offends some blacks?
• gut

  I Wear Pants;1131958 wrote: But anyway the only logical course of action for all those involved in this, the people who get offended by these things and the people who proposed this rule is to SHOOT.THEM.ALL.
  

  You'd be missing out on a very interesting (and entertaining) science experiment. Round them up, then put them on a deserted island and see who Darwin favors.
  
  My guess how that plays out:
  The religious nuts all pray to God for salvation and die from dehydration in about 7 days.
  The liberals look around for someone they can take resources from, and die from dehydration in about 7 days.
• sjmvsfscs08

  Shoot. Them. All.
• Heretic

  

  gut;1132000 wrote:No, he's hardly a nutjob. Makes some rather outrageous and shocking statements like most in that line of work, but if he's a nutjob then Nancy Pelosi is literally brain dead and actually a puppet controlled by Bill Maher.

  I wouldn't dispute either claim.
• I Wear Pants

  gut;1132007 wrote:You'd be missing out on a very interesting (and entertaining) science experiment. Round them up, then put them on a deserted island and see who Darwin favors.
  
  My guess how that plays out:
  The religious nuts all pray to God for salvation and die from dehydration in about 7 days.
  The liberals look around for someone they can take resources from, and die from dehydration in about 7 days.

  Indeed, though we could just save the time and Shoot.Them.All.
  
  "I agree that they are retards if they are offended by dinosaurs, but "the even if they don't" part is factually incorrect."
  
  I should have clarified what I meant by creationists being retarded. I'm talking about young earth, anti-evolution types. That line of thinking is simply factually wrong. I did not intend to imply (though I did imply it because I did not define what I meant by creationists) that anyone who believes in a creator is retarded. You are right in saying that would be factually incorrect.
• I Wear Pants

  gut;1132000 wrote:No, he's hardly a nutjob. Makes some rather outrageous and shocking statements like most in that line of work, but if he's a nutjob then Nancy Pelosi is literally brain dead and actually a puppet controlled by Bill Maher.
  
  And these days it seems like most of Rush's listeners are liberals who wet themselves over anticipation of getting their panties into a bunch over something he says.

  Ok so Rush is simply viewed as a good troll to conservatives and yet they get their panties in a bunch at any liberal (or anyone they view as liberal) on tv. I don't see the difference.
  
  And Pelosi is brain dead, though Maher doesn't control anyone and has never been honored on the house floor by Dems like Rush has by Repubs so it isn't exactly a good comparison.
• ytownfootball

  

  I Wear Pants;1132047 wrote:Ok so Rush is simply viewed as a good troll to conservatives and yet they get their panties in a bunch at any liberal (or anyone they view as liberal) on tv. I don't see the difference.
  
  And Pelosi is brain dead, though Maher doesn't control anyone and has never been honored on the house floor by Dems like Rush has by Repubs so it isn't exactly a good comparison.

  mockery =/= getting panties in a bunch
• DeadliestWarrior34

  

  
• I Wear Pants

  ytownfootball;1132057 wrote:mockery =/= getting panties in a bunch

  I see just as many conservatives getting their panties in a bunch over Maher/Colbert/Stewart/whoever as I do liberals over Rush, et al.
  
  Don't confuse one group for being better than the other.
• gut

  ytownfootball;1132057 wrote:mockery =/= getting panties in a bunch

  Yeah. Maybe if the MSM wasn't so left-slanted we'd see more outrage, but as it is it's pretty non-existent.
• I Wear Pants

  gut;1132070 wrote:Yeah. Maybe if the MSM wasn't so left-slanted we'd see more outrage, but as it is it's pretty non-existent.

  And I hadn't even mentioned the pantie-twist induced crying about the MSM which is a perpetual QQ train for conservatives.
• gut

  I Wear Pants;1132065 wrote:I see just as many conservatives getting their panties in a bunch over Maher/Colbert/Stewart/whoever

  What the heck man, the last 2 and their shows are ACTUAL comedians and NOTHING they say can be taken seriously. One of those is not like the others.
• gut

  I Wear Pants;1132075 wrote:And I hadn't even mentioned the pantie-twist induced crying about the MSM which is a perpetual QQ train for conservatives.

  I think it's more disappointment over the disappearance of the 4th Estate. They and their ignorant followers are people to laugh at for those of us who can think for ourselves. They all spew BS, there's just more on the left due to sheer numbers in the media.
• I Wear Pants

  gut;1132081 wrote:I think it's more disappointment over the disappearance of the 4th Estate. They and their ignorant followers are people to laugh at for those of us who can think for ourselves. They all spew BS, there's just more on the left due to sheer numbers in the media.

  Shouldn't you conservatives be saying things like "well if you don't like it why don't you go start your own news network"?
  \
• I Wear Pants

  gut;1132077 wrote:What the heck man, the last 2 and their shows are ACTUAL comedians and NOTHING they say can be taken seriously. One of those is not like the others.

  If you don't consider Maher an actual comedian then you have to throw out the arguments that Rush is just being funny or ridiculous seeing as he actually isn't a comedian and never has been. Can't have it both ways.
• Heretic

  

  I Wear Pants;1132089 wrote:Shouldn't you conservatives be saying things like "well if you don't like it why don't you go start your own news network"?
  \

  THEY WANT NEWS ENTITLEMENTS AND HANDOUTS!!!!!
• I Wear Pants

  Heretic;1132094 wrote:THEY WANT NEWS ENTITLEMENTS AND HANDOUTS!!!!!

  COMMUNISTS, ANTI AMERICANS!!!!
  
  Okay, enough of this. Let's get back to agreeing that banning words like dinosaur, or really any words is stupid and not in the spirit of intellectual growth.
• jmog

  I Wear Pants;1132044 wrote: "I agree that they are retards if they are offended by dinosaurs, but "the even if they don't" part is factually incorrect."
  
  I should have clarified what I meant by creationists being retarded. I'm talking about young earth, anti-evolution types. That line of thinking is simply factually wrong. I did not intend to imply (though I did imply it because I did not define what I meant by creationists) that anyone who believes in a creator is retarded. You are right in saying that would be factually incorrect.

  I still would contend that young-earth creationists are not retarded, and your claim of that line of thinking being factually wrong is still incorrect. There is supporting, valid, evidence for both "millions/billions" of years and a young earth model. However, due to the young earth model reinforcing Biblical teachings it is scoffed and laughed apon, not due to its actual science.
  
  Honestly young earth creation scientists and evolutionary biology scientists are looking at the same scientific data, just starting with vastly different assumptions/world views. Starting with different assumptions does not make the results any less valid than the other groups'.
  
  However, in the world we live in today, one side is laughed at just because of their beliefs while the others is not. Perception creates reality, no ifs ands or buts about it.
• I Wear Pants

  jmog;1132103 wrote:I still would contend that young-earth creationists are not retarded, and your claim of that line of thinking being factually wrong is still incorrect. There is supporting, valid, evidence for both "millions/billions" of years and a young earth model. However, due to the young earth model reinforcing Biblical teachings it is scoffed and laughed apon, not due to its actual science.
  
  Honestly young earth creation scientists and evolutionary biology scientists are looking at the same scientific data, just starting with vastly different assumptions/world views. Starting with different assumptions does not make the results any less valid than the other groups'.
  
  However, in the world we live in today, one side is laughed at just because of their beliefs while the others is not. Perception creates reality, no ifs ands or buts about it.

  There is no evidence supporting the notion that the earth is 6,000 years old or whatever it is. None. The earth is old as shit, accept it.
  
  And they're laughed at not because they believe in a creator but because for thousands of years they've been consistently wrong about science and punished and killed those who thought differently only to later accept the truths uncovered. Rotation of the planets, earth not being the center of the universe, the world not being flat, evolution, etc. If theists would stop fighting scientific progress and the intellectual growth of our species there would be no perceived mockery because it wouldn't be necessary.
  
  Young earth creations scientists are practicing bad science because they start with an assumption. Real scientists do not. And young earth creationists cannot be persuaded by evidence that their hypothesis about the creation of the earth is wrong so really they aren't scientists at all.
• QuakerOats

  password;1132005 wrote:Will they be banning the word White, since it offends some blacks?

  
  They can't do that because the New York Times would not be able to use their newly coined term "White Hispanic".