Kirk Cameron must be stopped

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by peter12

So what is your solution? Fascism?

Originally Posted by Sliver

I don't know how lies should be contained, but to deny the harm they cause is naive.

...

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Well I'm surprised you guys think it's so harmless to spread baseless lies. It's very counter-productive for society to be blase about the dissemination of misinformation. I think those with facts should push back on stupidity and lies. It is possible for whole groups of people to be wrong (eg Nazis) and allowing untruths to be told is wrong in and of itself, let alone the damage it can cause in extreme cases.

Look at the town hall meetings in the States from a few weeks ago. Stupidity, lies and misinformation are leading to chaotic and dangerous situations in the USA, not to mention the damage to people's lives that will be caused if the States doesn't begin to reform their sub-par medical system. The only thing holding progress back is the outspoken "free speech" of dopes and the inability of the truth to contain lies.

I don't know how lies should be contained, but to deny the harm they cause is naive.

[Winston renders a war hero an "unperson"]
Winston Smith: Rutherford unperson. Substitute Ogilvy. Ogilvy biog details as follows: war hero, recently killed, Malabar front. Today awarded posthumous secondary order of conspicuous merit second class.
[Winston tapes over Rutherford's face, consigning him to oblivion]


O'Brien: Power is tearing human minds apart and putting them back together in new shapes of your own choosing.


Winston Smith: Does Big Brother exist?
O'Brien: Of course he exists.
Winston Smith: Does he exist like you or me?
O'Brien: You do not exist

Big Brother: THE HOUSE IS SURROUNDED!
Julia: Suppose we may as well say goodbye...
Big Brother: YOU MAY AS WELL SAY GOODBYE! While we're on the subject, here comes a candle to light you to bed, here comes a chopper to chop off your head!
[the Thought Police arrive]

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

[Winston renders a war hero an "unperson"]
Winston Smith: Rutherford unperson. Substitute Ogilvy. Ogilvy biog details as follows: war hero, recently killed, Malabar front. Today awarded posthumous secondary order of conspicuous merit second class.
[Winston tapes over Rutherford's face, consigning him to oblivion]


O'Brien: Power is tearing human minds apart and putting them back together in new shapes of your own choosing.


Winston Smith: Does Big Brother exist?
O'Brien: Of course he exists.
Winston Smith: Does he exist like you or me?
O'Brien: You do not exist

Big Brother: THE HOUSE IS SURROUNDED!
Julia: Suppose we may as well say goodbye...
Big Brother: YOU MAY AS WELL SAY GOODBYE! While we're on the subject, here comes a candle to light you to bed, here comes a chopper to chop off your head!
[the Thought Police arrive]

This goes way over my head. I see that I'm quoted in here so I assume your post must have something to do with what I said, but for the life of me I can't figure out what you are quoting and what the hell it is saying. lol

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Well I'm surprised you guys think it's so harmless to spread baseless lies. It's very counter-productive for society to be blase about the dissemination of misinformation. I think those with facts should push back on stupidity and lies. It is possible for whole groups of people to be wrong (eg Nazis) and allowing untruths to be told is wrong in and of itself, let alone the damage it can cause in extreme cases.

Look at the town hall meetings in the States from a few weeks ago. Stupidity, lies and misinformation are leading to chaotic and dangerous situations in the USA, not to mention the damage to people's lives that will be caused if the States doesn't begin to reform their sub-par medical system. The only thing holding progress back is the outspoken "free speech" of dopes and the inability of the truth to contain lies.

I don't know how lies should be contained, but to deny the harm they cause is naive.

Lies are only harmful to the stupid. Those who can't think for themselves or allow emotion to trump logic.

If you start limiting the spread of (mis)information, you start to slide down a pretty slippery slope and inevitably valuable and important information will get caught in the same net. You mention the Nazis as examples of people that should be censored, but remember the Nazis achieved the control they did in part through censorship. All information contrary to Nazi views was destroyed and censored. Censorship can be just as dangerous as misinformation.

Society would be much better served by trying to limit the stupid. Education, civil and rational debate, and the free and open exchange of ideas is the best defence we have against them. You think anyone that engaged in any one of those activities in regards to Kirk Cameron would take him seriously?

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

Lies are only harmful to the stupid. Those who can't think for themselves or allow emotion to trump logic.

If you start limiting the spread of (mis)information, you start to slide down a pretty slippery slope and inevitably valuable and important information will get caught in the same net. You mention the Nazis as examples of people that should be censored, but remember the Nazis achieved the control they did in part through censorship. All information contrary to Nazi views was destroyed and censored. Censorship can be just as dangerous as misinformation.

Society would be much better served by trying to limit the stupid. Education, civil and rational debate, and the free and open exchange of ideas is the best defence we have against them. You think anyone that engaged in any one of those activities in regards to Kirk Cameron would take him seriously?

I don't think I talked once of censorship. I said I don't know how lies should be contained, but I was just hoping for some acknowledgement that lies are 1. at the least counter-productive and 2. inherently wrong.

The problem isn't with the stupid. Intelligent people use lies to mislead stupid people all the time. Look at republicans. Even intelligent people will allow lies to rule them to go with the flock. Just look at patriotism and religion. So the problem isn't stupid people. Stupid people can't do much because they're stupid. The problem likely has more to do with intelligent people using stupid people through lies and intelligent people being too cowardly to counter lies when faced with them.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

Lies are only harmful to the stupid. Those who can't think for themselves or allow emotion to trump logic.

If you start limiting the spread of (mis)information, you start to slide down a pretty slippery slope and inevitably valuable and important information will get caught in the same net. You mention the Nazis as examples of people that should be censored, but remember the Nazis achieved the control they did in part through censorship. All information contrary to Nazi views was destroyed and censored. Censorship can be just as dangerous as misinformation.

Society would be much better served by trying to limit the stupid. Education, civil and rational debate, and the free and open exchange of ideas is the best defence we have against them. You think anyone that engaged in any one of those activities in regards to Kirk Cameron would take him seriously?

How can you define belief as lies.

Is Kirk Cameron lying, or is he promoting his beliefs?

You can Censure one, you cannot do both.

As an enlightened society we have no right to dictate to one what he should or should not believe on a personal level.

Hiding behind the concept of labeling somethign that you don't believe in as a lie is the sign of a serious breech in societies laws.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

How can you define belief as lies.

Is Kirk Cameron lying, or is he promoting his beliefs?

You can Censure one, you cannot do both.

As an enlightened society we have no right to dictate to one what he should or should not believe on a personal level.

Hiding behind the concept of labeling somethign that you don't believe in as a lie is the sign of a serious breech in societies laws.

It's irrelevant whether he is spreading lies or just promoting his beliefs (although I think most people concede he's just spreading his beliefs). He's spreading things that are not true. I'm sure you would chastise your own kids for spreading BS and you would do that because harmful or not, it is not right to say things that are not true.

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I don't think I talked once of censorship. I said I don't know how lies should be contained, but I was just hoping for some acknowledgement that lies are 1. at the least counter-productive and 2. inherently wrong.

Containing information, even lies, is still censorship. Generally, yes, I will agree that lies are counter-productive and wrong. I was arguing that censorship (or containing the lies) is worse.

Originally Posted by Sliver

The problem isn't with the stupid. Intelligent people use lies to mislead stupid people all the time. Look at republicans. Even intelligent people will allow lies to rule them to go with the flock. Just look at patriotism and religion. So the problem isn't stupid people. Stupid people can't do much because they're stupid. The problem likely has more to do with intelligent people using stupid people through lies and intelligent people being too cowardly to counter lies when faced with them.

Going with the flock and patriotism are governed by emotion. If you look at my post, I defined stupid people as people that allow their emotion to trump logic. There's nothing inherently wrong with conformity, patriotism , religion or the emotions that drive them. The problem is when people use these emotions as a basis to dismiss rational, logical arguments or embrace illogical ones.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Look at republicans. Even intelligent people will allow lies to rule them to go with the flock. Just look at patriotism and religion. So the problem isn't stupid people. Stupid people can't do much because they're stupid. The problem likely has more to do with intelligent people using stupid people through lies and intelligent people being too cowardly to counter lies when faced with them.

Yeah, and so will the Democrats.

Politics, because of the emotion involved often becomes an exchange of the ideas of idiots.

Just the way it is.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

Containing information, even lies, is still censorship. Generally, yes, I will agree that lies are counter-productive and wrong. I was arguing that censorship (or containing the lies) is worse.

But containing lies doesn't equal censorship. I'm not for censorship, but I do want truth to quell lies. I don't know how this can be accomplished but I imagine a first step would be to fight fire with fire. If Kirk Cameron is going to preach at universities, it would be nice to see somebody/some group there to counter him. If Sarah Palin is going to give a speech saying Obama wants death panels, the media should be looking for and reporting on proof of this notion and she should be held accountable for what she says. Again, not censorship - lie containment.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Sliver

It's irrelevant whether he is spreading lies or just promoting his beliefs (although I think most people concede he's just spreading his beliefs). He's spreading things that are not true. I'm sure you would chastise your own kids for spreading BS and you would do that because harmful or not, it is not right to say things that are not true.

He's not spreading lies, he's spreading his beliefs and there's a vast difference.

Its up to people if they want to believe what he's spreading.

If my kid is telling a bald faced lie thats harmful and not backed by belief of course I'll chastise him, if he's spreading something thats hatefull of course I'll chastise him.

But I'm not going to censure something that someone believes I might debate him on it.

but its not up to you or me or a commission to decide whats allowed to be heard.

Its up to us as a society to take in that information and decide if its valid or not.

If Kirk Cameron gave me that book, I would take it, thank him very much, probably read the pre-amble and decide that it doesn't jive with what I know based on what I've studied or absorbed or believe.

In your way of thinking, Charles Darwin should have had a sock stuffed in his mouth when he was originally discussing his findings because it went counter to what society believed at the time.

If as a society we're so stupid that we need people to define our beliefs based on someones decision that its a lie then we're a fairly closed minded society.

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

How can you define belief as lies.

Is Kirk Cameron lying, or is he promoting his beliefs?

You can Censure one, you cannot do both.

As an enlightened society we have no right to dictate to one what he should or should not believe on a personal level.

Hiding behind the concept of labeling somethign that you don't believe in as a lie is the sign of a serious breech in societies laws.

I'm not defining his beliefs as lies (or mine as truth). In fact, I was defending his right to propagate his beliefs.

What I, personally, have against Kirk Cameron is that he's trying to use logical arguments, like that ridiculous banana video, to prove his beliefs are true. Since his beliefs are founded in faith and not logic this is impossible, which should be obvious when examining his arguments. I don't think he's lying or even trying to deliberately mislead people. I just think his arguments are stupid.

I never said anywhere though that he shouldn't be able to be allowed to spread the information. I said that society would be better served if we were better able to disseminate the stupid arguments from the good ones instead of censoring the information.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Sliver

But containing lies doesn't equal censorship. I'm not for censorship, but I do want truth to quell lies. I don't know how this can be accomplished but I imagine a first step would be to fight fire with fire. If Kirk Cameron is going to preach at universities, it would be nice to see somebody/some group there to counter him. If Sarah Palin is going to give a speech saying Obama wants death panels, the media should be looking for and reporting on proof of this notion and she should be held accountable for what she says. Again, not censorship - lie containment.

If I remember right, Kirk Cameron did engage in a televised debate against some evolutionists? (I'm assuming thats a term) and he got fairly hammered on it, so I give him points because he's not backing down on his beliefs just like Darwin didn't back down on his or Galileo didn't back down on his.

Sarah Palin has been heavily countered and contained by the media, by opposition members of the party.

The concept of one society one belief died a while ago when the church lost its absolute power within society.

[Knalus]

Many people seem to think it's virtuous to "Contain Lies" or to "Limit the Stupid (people)", when real virtue is to do neither. Containing and limiting are other ways of saying controlling. We know through experience that controlling thoughts and ideas is counterproductive, and often leads to very bad things. It is far better for you and everyone around you to spread truth and increase intelligence than to try to stop people from thinking things you disagree with. They may not immediately agree with you, but they don't resent you the same way they would if you tried to "stop" them instead.


I find it highly ironic that this is the route that Kirk Cameron is trying to go - and that this is somehow seen as bad by some people. I think it's a real positive on his part that he is approaching this issue in this manner, instead of in the manner that many appear to be advocating to try to "stop" him. I disagree with his stance on evolution, and disagree with what he is likely writing in the preface to the book, but the manner in which he is doing his arguing is actually fairly admirable, once you get past the idea you can't force people to agree with you.

You can't force people to agree with you. If you think that's a good idea, think about what happens if someone you disagree with forced you to agree with him.

There are other ways of responding to someone you disagree with. If you can't think of any, then perhaps you're not qualified to "Limit the stupid", as you should be your own first target.

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by Sliver

But containing lies doesn't equal censorship.

Then you'll have to elaborate on what you mean by "containing" lies for me. To me, that means restricting someones ability or right to spread information (even if its not true), which is censorship.

Originally Posted by Sliver

I'm not for censorship, but I do want truth to quell lies. I don't know how this can be accomplished but I imagine a first step would be to fight fire with fire. If Kirk Cameron is going to preach at universities, it would be nice to see somebody/some group there to counter him. If Sarah Palin is going to give a speech saying Obama wants death panels, the media should be looking for and reporting on proof of this notion and she should be held accountable for what she says. Again, not censorship - lie containment.

Well good media should do that. But what the media should report and what they actually do report on is another debate entirely.

I think the major difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying is that you think the state, the media or some kind of entity should be responsible for ensuring that truth is presented whereas I'm saying its up to the individual.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by photon

He said that populations adapt to their environment via descent with modification through natural selection. He also said that all life on earth has a common ancestor. He didn't say humans came from pond scum, but he did say that humans and pond scum share a common ancestor.

He can say whatever he wants, what he proved is what I care about.

He proved the theroy of evolution exists, anyone who has travelled around the world can see that (or look on the web to see it).

He didnt prove common ancestory. Those who believe humans came from pond scum will always believe it, and those of us who dont wont.

[arloiginla]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

Then you'll have to elaborate on what you mean by "containing" lies for me. To me, that means restricting someones ability or right to spread information (even if its not true), which is censorship.



Well good media should do that. But what the media should report and what they actually do report on is another debate entirely.

I think the major difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying is that you think the state, the media or some kind of entity should be responsible for ensuring that truth is presented whereas I'm saying its up to the individual.

Clearly "truth" represents your opinion, so you shouldn't be surprised that it doesn't "quell lies" (in other words others still disagree with you). Like Captain said...

If as a society we're so stupid that we need people to define our beliefs based on someones decision that its a lie then we're a fairly closed minded society.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Sorry we don't live in a one society, one belief world anymore.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

He didnt prove common ancestory. Those who believe humans came from pond scum will always believe it, and those of us who dont wont.

Common descent is a scientific fact. You can choose to disbelieve it, but that is like believing the world is flat, or the sun goes around the earth. An irrational belief.

The evidence:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Common descent is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, macroevolutionary history and processes necessarily entail the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences.


This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.

[Sliver]

I'm not saying what you think I am saying.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

He's not spreading lies, he's spreading his beliefs and there's a vast difference.

I know he's not spreading lies to the extent that he believes what he's saying. But he is spreading misinformation. His beliefs are objectively not true.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Its up to people if they want to believe what he's spreading.

If my kid is telling a bald faced lie thats harmful and not backed by belief of course I'll chastise him, if he's spreading something thats hatefull of course I'll chastise him.

But I'm not going to censure something that someone believes I might debate him on it.

You guys, please quit saying I want to censor Kirk Cameron. You are spreading misinformation about me.

Seriously though, I'm not for censorship but I am fundamentally against the spread of things that aren't true pawned off as the truth.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

but its not up to you or me or a commission to decide whats allowed to be heard.

Its up to us as a society to take in that information and decide if its valid or not.

I agree. It is up to our society to decide if that information is valid or not. And we've decided. Kirk Cameron's ideas are dumb - just ask anybody who is logical and rational.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

If Kirk Cameron gave me that book, I would take it, thank him very much, probably read the pre-amble and decide that it doesn't jive with what I know based on what I've studied or absorbed or believe.

In your way of thinking, Charles Darwin should have had a sock stuffed in his mouth when he was originally discussing his findings because it went counter to what society believed at the time.

What are you talking about? Charles Darwin's ideas were rational and logical. My criteria for accepting an idea isn't whether or not the masses do, it's whether or not it's true. Kirk Cameron's ideas are antiquated and have been disproved time and time again.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

If as a society we're so stupid that we need people to define our beliefs based on someones decision that its a lie then we're a fairly closed minded society.

I'm not talking about somebody arbitrarily deciding what is true and what is a lie. There are objective truths and untruths. What Cameron spouts is objectively untrue.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

If I remember right, Kirk Cameron did engage in a televised debate against some evolutionists? (I'm assuming thats a term) and he got fairly hammered on it, so I give him points because he's not backing down on his beliefs just like Darwin didn't back down on his or Galileo didn't back down on his.

Sarah Palin has been heavily countered and contained by the media, by opposition members of the party.

The concept of one society one belief died a while ago when the church lost its absolute power within society.

See I don't give him points for not backing down after losing a debate. That is close minded. I'm much more open minded than that. I'm an atheist because I have never seen a shred of evidence that supports the idea that there is a god or gods. If I was presented with evidence, I would happily change my mind.

Religious people, conversely, are faced with evidence against their beliefs regularly yet because they have "faith," they ignore the evidence and proceed to believe things that are not true. That to me is not praise worthy.

[Knalus]

nm