Creationism vs Imax

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
CycloWizard

You are the one who kept harping on the minority aspect of these people.

WinstonSmith

If all they wanted to do was stand out front with signs and pass out flyers, I could live with that. I have observed their tactics first hand when they verbaly assualt others. They become such a pain in the ass that no one wants to deal with them. People give in to them rather than put up with the hassle. They often receive help from politicians looking to make brownie points. I just wish I knew of a solution.

Censorship is just plain wrong unless there is some compelling interest in serving the safety and security of the people. Mostly I blame the media for not condemning censorship any time they see it. I would think fighting censorship would be a bedrock principle for the media.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
CycloWizard

You are the one who kept harping on the minority aspect of these people.

WinstonSmith

If all they wanted to do was stand out front with signs and pass out flyers, I could live with that. I have observed their tactics first hand when they verbaly assualt others. They become such a pain in the ass that no one wants to deal with them. People give in to them rather than put up with the hassle. They often receive help from politicians looking to make brownie points. I just wish I knew of a solution.

Censorship is just plain wrong unless there is some compelling interest in serving the safety and security of the people. Mostly I blame the media for not condemning censorship any time they see it. I would think fighting censorship would be a bedrock principle for the media.

There needs to be limits on what protesters can do. I think a "harassment free zone" would allow for the rights of all.

 

sao123

Lifer
May 27, 2002
12,650
203
106
If the Christian Right (which is neither) wants to boycott the movies that's fine. But what they're doing is pressuring or forcing theater owners (including publicly-funded museums) to not show the film.

So apparently capatilism doesnt work for you, you're still preaching minority rule. if the people who want these films shown arent enough of a majority (let them boycott the theator too, its their right) to make a difference, then tough. You had your say with your dollar. You were still part of the minority. Your vote was heard and counted, and the majority (of dollars) still disagree with you. Publicly funded museums? What are you implying here? Perhaps your looking for some sort of state sponsered atheistic religion that accepts evolution & abiogenesis as fact?



Civil rights are granted or protected by the government....
Religious rights are granted and proteced by the government also.

...Attempts at censorship by a minority are a whole different ball game.
So then you would be opposed to censoring people who proudly display the southern civil war flag, right?
Better yet, you would then accept, instead of censor creationism in public schools, and allow it being taught parallel to evolution in schools?
And finally...you werent one of those fighting to have the 10 commandments display removed from public displays, were you? So let me get this straight... you want evolution exhibits in public museums, but no 10 commandments in the courthouse?






 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
sao123

Creationism can be taught in a public school, but in a philosophy class where it belongs. Evolution is science, creationism is not.

The Ten Commandments is a religeous symbol, nothing more. The concept that it is of historical importance in U.S. law is a total sham.

If a PERSON wants wants to fly the "Stars and Bars", or even a Nazi swastika, I don't care one way or the other. That is up to the person if they want to exercise that right. It might might affect my impression of that person, but I would never say that they could't do it.
 

cquark

Golden Member
Apr 4, 2004
1,741
0
0
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: cquark
Originally posted by: sao123
its ok for civil rights groups to boycott and protest in favor of gay rights, womens rights, rights for this race and that race. But hey... the christians? they are fundamentalists they dont deserve no rights. So... we want all the rights that the minoritys deserve, but lets oppress the religious conservative majority.

Refusing to grant fundamentalists special rights is not oppressing them.

Well I guess I am wearing my conservative hat today, but it's more libertarian.

While the SAO's post is not the best example of the King's English, he didn't say christians were wanting special rights. I think he was pointing out some hypocracy in that some groups seem to be permitted to protest, yet others are frowned upon for doing so because in the personal POV of an individual it has not merit.

I don't think there was an issue about being permitted to protest. I'm not going back to read every post, but I don't recall anyone saying that it should be illegal for fundamentalists to protest. If someone said that, he should've quoted them and addressed his post to that person and not to the rest of us who don't hold such views.

Otherwise, people have as many rights to object to the fundamentalist protests as the fundamentalists have to protest. Just because one believes that people have the right to protest doesn't mean that you have to agree with every cause that protestors support. Believing that fundamentalists have a right to censorship or that they have a right for no one to object to their protests is indeed supporting special rights for fundamentalists.
 

kogase

Diamond Member
Sep 8, 2004
5,213
0
0
Originally posted by: sao123

So then you would be opposed to censoring people who proudly display the southern civil war flag, right?
Better yet, you would then accept, instead of censor creationism in public schools, and allow it being taught parallel to evolution in schools?
And finally...you werent one of those fighting to have the 10 commandments display removed from public displays, were you? So let me get this straight... you want evolution exhibits in public museums, but no 10 commandments in the courthouse?

You don't post in the Highly Technical forum, right?
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
CycloWizard

You are the one who kept harping on the minority aspect of these people.
Actually, I don't believe I ever mentioned them being a minority... My entire premise is that they're using their rights to control the free market. Your premise, as far as I can tell, is that they shouldn't have such rights because they're a group that you happen to disagree with.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: conjur
Apples and oranges.

If the Christian Right (which is neither) wants to boycott the movies that's fine. But what they're doing is pressuring or forcing theater owners (including publicly-funded museums) to not show the film.

Quite the difference.
Maybe you can explain how boycotting is not the same as applying pressure to the theater owner? I don't see any difference at all.
Boycotting could be responded to with a "who the f*ck cares" by the theater owner. The controversy will drum up ticket sales. It always does. Pressuring them to stop showing a movie is different.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Originally posted by: cquark
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: cquark
Originally posted by: sao123
its ok for civil rights groups to boycott and protest in favor of gay rights, womens rights, rights for this race and that race. But hey... the christians? they are fundamentalists they dont deserve no rights. So... we want all the rights that the minoritys deserve, but lets oppress the religious conservative majority.

Refusing to grant fundamentalists special rights is not oppressing them.

Well I guess I am wearing my conservative hat today, but it's more libertarian.

While the SAO's post is not the best example of the King's English, he didn't say christians were wanting special rights. I think he was pointing out some hypocracy in that some groups seem to be permitted to protest, yet others are frowned upon for doing so because in the personal POV of an individual it has not merit.

I don't think there was an issue about being permitted to protest. I'm not going back to read every post, but I don't recall anyone saying that it should be illegal for fundamentalists to protest. If someone said that, he should've quoted them and addressed his post to that person and not to the rest of us who don't hold such views.

Otherwise, people have as many rights to object to the fundamentalist protests as the fundamentalists have to protest. Just because one believes that people have the right to protest doesn't mean that you have to agree with every cause that protestors support. Believing that fundamentalists have a right to censorship or that they have a right for no one to object to their protests is indeed supporting special rights for fundamentalists.

Maybe splitting hairs, but I didn't see where anyone in fact advocated they be in fact allowed to censor. To protest in ATTEMPT to do so is another matter. Shoe on the other foot for a minute.

There have been boycotts of products when some corporate type made the occasional racial blooper. That boycott is a de facto attempt to censor the speech of that individual. I have no problem with that. It's still an attempt as censorship.

IF these idiots were given unrestrictedfreedom to protest and harass, then yes that would be special treatment. When they go too far they deserved to be slapped down. I havent seen that argument made.

Another thing, is that protesters are subject to being criticised. That's part of free speech. To be able to prevent a peacible protest is a "special" right, and I think that matters.

Note this is not related to any cause. It is something that applies to causes we support or no.

 

kogase

Diamond Member
Sep 8, 2004
5,213
0
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
CycloWizard

You are the one who kept harping on the minority aspect of these people.
Actually, I don't believe I ever mentioned them being a minority... My entire premise is that they're using their rights to control the free market. Your premise, as far as I can tell, is that they shouldn't have such rights because they're a group that you happen to disagree with.

Well, they technically have a right to do so, but doing so isn't actually right. I think that they are using their "rights" to abuse the free market, personally.
 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
CycloWizard

Perhaps I just read too much into your posts. Your use of " generalizations" and "sweeping generalizations" in reference to fundimentalists gave me the impression that you felt that only a fraction of them were involved. If that is incorrect, It is my error. (No sarcasm intended; an honest assessment of a possible error on my part.)
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: conjur
Boycotting could be responded to with a "who the f*ck cares" by the theater owner. The controversy will drum up ticket sales. It always does. Pressuring them to stop showing a movie is different.
Boycott - to engage in a concerted refusal to have dealings with (as a person, store, or organization) usually to express disapproval or to force acceptance of certain conditions

A boycott IS one manner of pressuring an organization to do or not do something. That's the entire point.
Originally posted by: kogase
Well, they technically have a right to do so, but doing so isn't actually right. I think that they are using their "rights" to abuse the free market, personally.
You can't abuse the free market. It's free because it responds to stimulus of its own accord, without outside intervention. That's the whole point.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: conjur
Boycotting could be responded to with a "who the f*ck cares" by the theater owner. The controversy will drum up ticket sales. It always does. Pressuring them to stop showing a movie is different.
Boycott - to engage in a concerted refusal to have dealings with (as a person, store, or organization) usually to express disapproval or to force acceptance of certain conditions

A boycott IS one manner of pressuring an organization to do or not do something. That's the entire point
Notice the "or" portion? These groups aren't just threatening to boycott. They are directly pressuring. Why don't you see the difference?

Oh, I know. Because you love to troll.
 

sao123

Lifer
May 27, 2002
12,650
203
106
Isnt the point of a free market that whoever (individual or group) has the most money dictates what the market does? Still not seeing the abuse.

Then I guess all of you guys are also opposed to unions and what benefits they have gotten us all? Afterall they must abuse the free market too with their picketing and striking.



 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: sao123
Isnt the point of a free market that whoever (individual or group) has the most money dictates what the market does? Still not seeing the abuse.

Then I guess all of you guys are also opposed to unions and what benefits they have gotten us all? Afterall they must abuse the free market too with their picketing and striking.
Bill Gates has the most money, is he dictating what happens in the marketplace?


Didn't think so.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: conjur
Boycotting could be responded to with a "who the f*ck cares" by the theater owner. The controversy will drum up ticket sales. It always does. Pressuring them to stop showing a movie is different.
Boycott - to engage in a concerted refusal to have dealings with (as a person, store, or organization) usually to express disapproval or to force acceptance of certain conditions

A boycott IS one manner of pressuring an organization to do or not do something. That's the entire point
Notice the "or" portion? These groups aren't just threatening to boycott. They are directly pressuring. Why don't you see the difference?

Oh, I know. Because you love to troll.
The 'or' indicates that a boycott can have either purpose. English isn't your first language, is it? Maybe, some day when you're older and more mature, you'll be able to admit that you're wrong. If not, then I'll just have to keep demonstrating that you're an idiot and let people form their own opinions.
 

sao123

Lifer
May 27, 2002
12,650
203
106
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: sao123
Isnt the point of a free market that whoever (individual or group) has the most money dictates what the market does? Still not seeing the abuse.

Then I guess all of you guys are also opposed to unions and what benefits they have gotten us all? Afterall they must abuse the free market too with their picketing and striking.
Bill Gates has the most money, is he dictating what happens in the marketplace?


Didn't think so.


Bill Gates as himself? Probably doesnt have enough purchasing volume (even though he has the money) to make a difference.
But if Bill Gates says to GM. No-one at employed Microsoft will every buy a GM vehicle again until you raise your minority hiring from 3% to 5%. then yes, he dictates what the market will do.

 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: conjur
Boycotting could be responded to with a "who the f*ck cares" by the theater owner. The controversy will drum up ticket sales. It always does. Pressuring them to stop showing a movie is different.
Boycott - to engage in a concerted refusal to have dealings with (as a person, store, or organization) usually to express disapproval or to force acceptance of certain conditions

A boycott IS one manner of pressuring an organization to do or not do something. That's the entire point
Notice the "or" portion? These groups aren't just threatening to boycott. They are directly pressuring. Why don't you see the difference?

Oh, I know. Because you love to troll.
The 'or' indicates that a boycott can have either purpose. English isn't your first language, is it? Maybe, some day when you're older and more mature, you'll be able to admit that you're wrong. If not, then I'll just have to keep demonstrating that you're an idiot and let people form their own opinions.

Have you already forgotten the content of the original article? Might want to go back and re-read it. We're not talking boycotts. We're talking direct pressure.

<Napoleon Dynamite>

Freakin' IDIOT!
 

kogase

Diamond Member
Sep 8, 2004
5,213
0
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: kogase
Well, they technically have a right to do so, but doing so isn't actually right. I think that they are using their "rights" to abuse the free market, personally.
You can't abuse the free market. It's free because it responds to stimulus of its own accord, without outside intervention. That's the whole point.

Monopolies are considered abuse of the free market. Or abuse of the people using the free market as a tool. That's why they are illegal for the most part. Of course, I'm simply using monopolies as an example. I consider racketeering another abuse of the free market, or an abuse of the consumer using the free market, whatever. And I'm drawing parallels between these Christians' tactics and racketeering.
 

sao123

Lifer
May 27, 2002
12,650
203
106
Have you already forgotten the content of the original article? Might want to go back and re-read it. We're not talking boycotts. We're talking direct pressure.


You will never argue successfully that the market can & will if left unpressured allow itself to be controlled by the minority of individuals. a market left unpressured will stagnate and fail. the market must be driven and driven by the majority, not the minority. If the market goes against the majority, a boycott and other pressures should be expected.

I consider racketeering another abuse of the free market, or an abuse of the consumer using the free market, whatever. And I'm drawing parallels between these Christians' tactics and racketeering.
Sorry, It doesnt become racketeering or extortion until money or property is demanded or changes hands as a result of the pressure. Pressuring a company to change their product to suit your needs is perfectly legal.


Your weak arguement still boils down to you are P][SSED off that a particular group of people that you disagree with (the christians) are the majority and they control the regional market, and you as a minority cant stop them.

 

kogase

Diamond Member
Sep 8, 2004
5,213
0
0
Originally posted by: sao123

I consider racketeering another abuse of the free market, or an abuse of the consumer using the free market, whatever. And I'm drawing parallels between these Christians' tactics and racketeering.
Sorry, It doesnt become racketeering or extortion until money or property is demanded or changes hands as a result of the pressure. Pressuring a company to change their product to suit your needs is perfectly legal.


Your weak arguement still boils down to you are P][SSED off that a particular group of people that you disagree with (the christians) are the majority and they control the regional market, and you as a minority cant stop them.

Of course it's not racketeering in technical terms, which is why I never accused them of racketeering. Like I said, I'm drawing parallels.

I don't really think you have any grounds to say that I'm pissed. I certainly haven't gotten as passionate as, say, you.

Church leaders using coercive tactics, towards theaters and towards their own followers, is both unethical and indefensible. Especially when it's not just their own mindless followers that are affected, as there are nonfundamentalists spread throughout the Bible Belt.
 

sao123

Lifer
May 27, 2002
12,650
203
106
Conjur. After reading months of your posts...
I dont want to sound insulting to you...but
I would almost say that you would ether shut down your imax theator or go bankrupt, rather than let a group of infererior Christians tell you what to do.
Do you really feel that they are inferior, because they believe in God?

 

eigen

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2003
4,000
1
0
Originally posted by: sao123
Conjur. After reading months of your posts...
I dont want to sound insulting to you...but
I would almost say that you would ether shut down your imax theator or go bankrupt, rather than let a group of infererior Christians tell you what to do.
Do you really feel that they are inferior, because they believe in God?
I know that I would rather close down or fail as a business than let anyone tell me how to run it.No matter the business or reason why.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: conjur
Have you already forgotten the content of the original article? Might want to go back and re-read it. We're not talking boycotts. We're talking direct pressure.
A boycott is a form of applying pressure. Why is any other form worse or better? You have yet to make a single coherent point. Feel free to do so. Also feel free to keep your childish jackassery to yourself.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Has anyone seen the movie, "The Village?"

In case you haven't, it's basically about a group of people who decide to create an isolated Amish-level technology village out in the middle of the forest. They even create a mythological semi-dangerous species of creature that supposedly inhabit the surrounding woods, thereby removing any temptation to stray into civilized lands beyond. In effect, these people have willingly removed themselves from western society and culture.

Sometimes, I think this might be an ideal solution for evangelicals.