Church group to protest funeral

stonebeard wrote: Henry Plainview wrote: stonebeard wrote: do you want me to go put flowers on his grave when he dies? No, I never said anything like that. I was more or less asking that question, because you never really gave a solid position on it, other than calling me an asshole (and since we're tossing around fallacies like a philosopher Johnny Appleseed, ad hominem, sucka!)

I didn't say you have to mourn him. Just don't be an asshole.

He posted that pretty early, seems pretty clear to me (since he did at least previously define what he meant by being an asshole).

It seems everybody in this thread should read others' posts at least twice before responding to them.

Science, by defintion, CAN explain everything. This sounds doctrinaire to me.  Of course, science is our only known (and probably is) method for a reliable determination of knowledge.  However, to suggest that it "can explain everything" without providing evidence for this assertion is to employ dogma in a manner which rivals that of the most vulgar of theists.

webster's dictionary wrote: knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world.

So, by definition, science covers anything related to how the universe works.  Thus, science itself CAN and DOES explain everything, even if the study of science cannot.

Haven't you heard?  Only the good die young.  Or in America, only the good die.  Have you ever seen a person interviewed on a newscast talking about a dead person say "He was an asshole?"  No.  They are always the best person who ever lived in the history of mankind.  Maybe this guy will will break the trend. 

Pnoom! wrote: webster's dictionary wrote: knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world. So, by definition, science covers anything related to how the universe works.  Thus, science itself CAN and DOES explain everything, even if the study of science cannot.

Observe that the qualification in the definiens restricts such knowledge (itself a term for which its definition remains controversial) probable through empirical means.  Surely it is not difficult to think of common examples for which the scientific method is not (presently, at least) conducive.  So, it is trivial to conclude from the definition (if it is accepted at all, and for brevity here I will accept it) that the intention of science is to explain everything within the physical universe.  However, this in no way advances the argument that science can explain those phenomena, nor does it approach any proof that science does explain everything, a claim that would not be taken seriously by any non-marginal subset of the scientific community.  Also, I'm not sure if the distinction between "science" and "study of science" is either relevant to the discussion or meaningful in general; but I leave that as an exercise to the reader.

In the interest of clarity, I should note that my argument is neither an assault on science nor a defense of religion, but rather an attempt at precise specification of what is, in fact, science.

NaturalScience wrote: Science provides us with a method of understanding what is observed in the universe - nothing more, nothing less.

Not exactly.  As science has no agency it can't "provide" anything.  However, if you replace the phrase "provides us with" with "is", then we'll agree on the definition.  Perhaps.

Yes, this science debate is irrelevant to the thread.

debrewguy wrote: Ya know, I'm just hoping a mourner walks up to one of those guys, clocks' em, then gets off by claiming the group trespassed at a private event. Ii can see the "offender" getting their legal bill paid by donations, and I think there would be an outside chance that Canadian Jurisprudence might even find a way to deliver a not guilty verdict by way of saying the victim asked for it. This is based on good ol' hockey justice

Even if they didn't get off they should clearly get the minimum sentence/penalty because that is a perfect example of a crime comitted in an "extreme state of mind."

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: The Indiana General Assemby  is not banning the protests of this lunatic, it's only giving a restriction order that prohibits them to protest in a range of 500 feetfrom the cemetery.

Yeah Indiana!

However, this can't be the best way. It's the same as allowing the protests at the Democratic National Committee...but only in free speech zones cages hundreds of yards away from where it could have any impact. You cannot have freedom of speech if you can only practice it in ever-increasingly limited spaces.

But we're getting too far from common sense here. As you pointed out, these cretinous slime yell and picket bereaved families in fragile states, and we expect them to be able to take this situation fairly and stoically as few humans could? They are abusing their right in the name of hatred, and I'm not above saying they should not have that right. Perhaps banning their freedom in these situations would be a slippery slope, perhaps not. Death, it seems, is very sacred, more so than your average herding of the people lest they make their representatives a little uncomfortable as they elect their bullsh*t nominee.

Although I think that Phelps' beliefs are idiotic, I also maintain that he should have the right to articulate them.  However, it seems like petulant kinderspiel to suggest that we possess the right to not have our feelings hurt or our sensibilities offended.  A fortiori it is hypocrisy to eulogize free speech and then to deny its practice (at least if the practice of such privilege is to have any meaning).

WinterLight wrote: Although I think that Phelps' beliefs are idiotic, I also maintain that he should have the right to articulate them.  However, it seems like petulant kinderspiel to suggest that we possess the right to not have our feelings hurt or our sensibilities offended.  A fortiori it is hypocrisy to eulogize free speech and then to deny its practice (at least if the practice of such privilege is to have any meaning).

That is exactly true.