Kentucky religious conservatives cannot wrap their head around theory of evolution

Yep. One of the things you have to be careful about satirical work is that your audience might take you seriously. Some people are all too likely to think that this is legitimate scientific work, or even thinking. Heck, some people actually think Creation Science is science, so I think we have to hit that a little more squarely in the head to make it stick.

LarryC wrote:

Yep. One of the things you have to be careful about satirical work is that your audience might take you seriously. Some people are all too likely to think that this is legitimate scientific work, or even thinking. Heck, some people actually think Creation Science is science, so I think we have to hit that a little more squarely in the head to make it stick.

So we're not allowed to poke fun at things in case we invoke Poe's Law? Screw that for a game of soldiers.

I refuse to censor myself for fear of someone misinterpreting me. Because if I did, I would be permanently mute.

LarryC wrote:

Yep. One of the things you have to be careful about satirical work is that your audience might take you seriously..

In my opinion one of the greatest compliments that can be given to a satirical work is to learn that a segment of people, without any prompting or deception, embraced that work and assimilated it into the reality the piece was addressing.

Rezzy wrote:
LarryC wrote:

Yep. One of the things you have to be careful about satirical work is that your audience might take you seriously..

In my opinion one of the greatest compliments that can be given to a satirical work is to learn that a segment of people, without any prompting or deception, embraced that work and assimilated it into the reality the piece was addressing.

Yep! Larry just failed to understand who the audience was for.

I'm taking a writing class that was inspired by the teacher because she had some previous students that did not understand that Colbert was not conservative. It's been a really interesting class. I had never read A Modest Proposal before, which is fantastic piece of satire that was misunderstood by many. And the failure of so many to understand that it was satire helped make the point even more.

At the risk of derailing, we are reading Revel With a Cause right now. It's definitely worth reading if you have an interest in the history of American satire.

Jonman wrote:

I refuse to censor myself for fear of someone misinterpreting me. Because if I did, I would be permanently mute.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Bonus_Eruptus wrote:
Jonman wrote:

I refuse to censor myself for fear of someone misinterpreting me. Because if I did, I would be permanently mute.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

The world's a big place, full of a lot of diverse people. Some of them are going to misinterpret me, whatever I say, satire or no.

If I took Larry's advice - "One of the things you have to be careful about satirical work is that your audience might take you seriously", then I would never say anything satirical for fear of someone missing the satire.

Jonman wrote:
Bonus_Eruptus wrote:
Jonman wrote:

I refuse to censor myself for fear of someone misinterpreting me. Because if I did, I would be permanently mute.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

The world's a big place, full of a lot of diverse people. Some of them are going to misinterpret me, whatever I say, satire or no.

If I took Larry's advice - "One of the things you have to be careful about satirical work is that your audience might take you seriously", then I would never say anything satirical for fear of someone missing the satire.

I was misinterpreting you on purpose.

Bonus_Eruptus wrote:

I was misinterpreting you on purpose.

That made me laugh, for realsies.

Bonus_Eruptus wrote:
Jonman wrote:
Bonus_Eruptus wrote:
Jonman wrote:

I refuse to censor myself for fear of someone misinterpreting me. Because if I did, I would be permanently mute.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

The world's a big place, full of a lot of diverse people. Some of them are going to misinterpret me, whatever I say, satire or no.

If I took Larry's advice - "One of the things you have to be careful about satirical work is that your audience might take you seriously", then I would never say anything satirical for fear of someone missing the satire.

I was misinterpreting you on purpose.

Hush now...

Jayhawker wrote:
Bonus_Eruptus wrote:
Jonman wrote:
Bonus_Eruptus wrote:
Jonman wrote:

I refuse to censor myself for fear of someone misinterpreting me. Because if I did, I would be permanently mute.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

The world's a big place, full of a lot of diverse people. Some of them are going to misinterpret me, whatever I say, satire or no.

If I took Larry's advice - "One of the things you have to be careful about satirical work is that your audience might take you seriously", then I would never say anything satirical for fear of someone missing the satire.

I was misinterpreting you on purpose.

Hush now...

Was this meant for me?

HAH. I didn't get it either. Bonus Eruptus pulls the mega win.

It was super ironic. FWIW, I've never been an overly huge fan of satire, at least for making a point. The people most likely to understand it are already duly informed.

Some people are all too likely to think that this is legitimate scientific work, or even thinking.

There's no science being done in that poster. It's just an exploration of declared "facts", and their actual meaning if taken in a Biblical-literalist way.

Yeah. I got that.

Malor wrote:
Some people are all too likely to think that this is legitimate scientific work, or even thinking.

There's no science being done in that poster. It's just an exploration of declared "facts", and their actual meaning if taken in a Biblical-literalist way.

LarryC wrote:

Yeah. I got that.

Descended from ham? That is a new one.

SallyNasty wrote:

Descended from ham? That is a new one.

Nah, goes back at least five or six hundred years.

Tanglebones wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

Descended from ham? That is a new one.

Nah, goes back at least five or six hundred years.

How does that even make sense?

SallyNasty wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

Descended from ham? That is a new one.

Nah, goes back at least five or six hundred years.

How does that even make sense?

Ham, the son of Noah, not Ham the food product - and it doesn't.

The idea that the Caucasian/Asian/African "races" descend from Japeth, Shem, and Ham is a very old idea that was used historically to prove that God created the races separately and they therefore needed to stay that way. It was used to justify slavery, racism, segregation, and ban "race mixing". Its legacy is frankly disgusting and appalling in every conceivable way.

Tanglebones wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

Descended from ham? That is a new one.

Nah, goes back at least five or six hundred years.

How does that even make sense?

Ham, the son of Noah, not Ham the food product - and it doesn't.

That is hilarious, I thought it meant Pork. Lol.

Racism as a rule is stupid, but I thought that was an exceptional low.

I'd have loved to be there to answer by positing that it's equally unlikely that the senator's lineage will evolve into an intelligent lifeform.

He asks if there’s any direct example of evolution that can be taught in class.

Erm if that's the standard on what can be taught vs not taught isn't creationism out? I don't see any direct examples of that around.

Chickens, lizards, dinosaurs comes to mind. I have always found the evolution of Hominids to be fascinating, and you get to look at skulls.

Can you do the pea experiment in 1 year? Fruit flies?

It seems to be a lot easier than getting people in Texas to include study of the Bible without violating the constitution. And that only encompasses 220 years.

You can do fruit flies in something like six weeks. We did them in high school. One kid who the others didn't like had his experiment corrupted, but he did a trait analysis and figured out who had put some of their flies in his vials. Bonus points.

Edit - it must have been an entire semester, since six weeks would only be six generations, and I recall more. So more like 12.

God, Robear, I come here for accurate recollections of your school science experiments. Hop on the trolley!

But did those fruit flies evolve into persons?

Most wrote:

But did those fruit flies evolve into persons?

Evolution does not work that way!

IMAGE(http://oi50.tinypic.com/2ywwk7p.jpg)