Topic Proposal Issues

This is all fine and dandy but it is very old news. Muller had his conversion in 2012.

quote:

---

On July 28, 2012, he stated, "[G]lobal warming [is] real .... Humans are almost entirely the cause."

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Muller

Charles Johnson is not really known for being up on the latest or accurate for that matter.

Please don't put my panties in a twist by promoting this piece of crap. Let GIA carry the burden of argument where GIA began it.*

____________________________________________________________________________________________
*Respecting by pronoun absence GIA's gender mystery, although it seems a Bizarro Planet version of innocence...

Especially when it starts off with a false premise: That somehow "Every moral legal system I know of in the West and most of the non-Islamic world begins with equality for all."

Both Judaism and Christianity deny equality for all, especially for women. Very few philosophies manage to live up to the concept of equality in general and equality of the sexes in particular.

This is naught but Islamophobia.

I'd like to see the thread go through.

Not for reading what Greatest I am might have to say on the issue, but for the sake of having a discussion about the treatment of people within various religious cultures.

That some might consider such discussion 'Islamophobic' is really no reason to suppress it.

Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

About Greatest I Am's latest thread proposal, Should the rest of the world adopt Islam's view of the inequality of women?, I see AdminAsgara is looking at it. Usually the nature of a topic isn't a factor in promotion, though there have been a couple of particularly racist proposals that were turned own, or maybe they were threads that were shut down.

But what does GIA's topic have to do with the creation/evolution debate? Seems like GIA could have just dumped it into Coffee House.

After mulling it over a few days, I decided I should clarify my position. I'm aware this isn't intended as a debate thread, and I'll limit myself to this one clarification.

I have no desire to suppress any discussions. In fact, the topic GIA proposes in his new thread was already under discussion in his existing thread: the two threads are mirror images, halves of GIA's dilemma:

"Should countries outlaw the hijab, niqab and burka?" or "Should the rest of the world adopt Islam's view of the inequality of women?"

GIA's advocacy of the former led quite naturally to discussion of the latter. Unfortunately (for both GIA's case and the discussion), GIA made demonstrably counterfactual claims and then refused to defend them. Consequently, the thread became a joke field: for the failed discussion, read up to the pajamas; for the jokes, start with the pajamas. Darn good jokes, too.

So now GIA wishes to shake off the dust of that behavior--a refusal to support the unsupportable, i.e., the untrue--in favor of a thread which contains neither examples of GIA's willingness to misrepresent the facts, nor GIA's refusal either to defend them or acknowledge them as untrue.

Sure, GIA could turn to the Coffee House. Fine. But I thought the topic promotion process was intended for something more serious than sweeping the proposer's ongoing catastrophic failure to debate honestly on the same topic under the rug.

GIA should engage the challenges already made to the counterfactual claims, and then, if possible, make the case at hand. Letting GIA step from 'Should we let them beat their wives?' to 'Should we all beat our wives?' is absurd enough. Doing so when the active thread displays an embarrassingly cavalier disregard for the facts rewards dishonest debate.

Seriously. Why encourage this kind of stuff? I understand that GIA could have put the thread into Coffee House himself, but still, why not let him figure out, or not figure out that by himself?

I think if herebedragons needs to clarify or expand on any points, he might do so as well or better at the request of the membership (including Percy qua member) as at the behest of Admin.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You're writing about the thread proposal at Discussion of Phylogenetic Methods. I read the first message without looking at the second. I thought I was dealing with a technical thread proposal where I just needed to make sure I understood a few things first, the goal being to make sure the thread gets a good start with a comprehensible opening post.

Only after posting my reply to the first message did I glance at the second. This is beyond my current available time to review and understand. If you can get a second in favor of your motion to promote as is then I will do so.

Second

Also, why not promote forexhr's thread?

Yeah, his OP is very long. But I could condense the answer into three sentences, or two if I leave off "So fuck you, you pretentious monkey-loving jizz-spoon".

I'll leave that off, shall I? OK. I'll be nice.

ETA: I'm talking here about his topic proposal "Proof that evolution can build things by random chance alone". His other topic proposal is even stupider and easier, but let's do this one at a time.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Also, why not promote forexhr's thread?

It would be interesting to see how fast he folds.

Also, why not promote forexhr's thread? It would be interesting to see how fast he folds.

It is pretty funny to see this guy dive right in with a smug, zealous, authoritative manner and expecting to be taken seriously with dozens of spelling, grammar, and word usage errors. English must not be his 1st language.

With regards to OrthodoxJew's thread about Nahmanides and the Big Bang and people not having access to the source material, Sefaria.org, a huge online library of Jewish texts, is working on a public domain English translation of Nahmanides commentaries - his commentaries on Genesis are available here. It is still mostly incomplete, but if OrthodoxJew tells us where to look we could see if the relevant passage is there. The whole thing is there in Hebrew if anyone else understands that.

Reading the sections I have looked through gives you a good idea at least of Nahmanides' worldview, and allows you to judge pretty clearly whether his cosmology accords with modern science (I'll give you only one guess).

How about Archangel's "Why did animals have to die in the great flood?" topic, then?