[quote]apbt55 wrote:
As far as evolution , darwinian’s concept of slow evolution has already been disproven. If you don’t get it read “Origin of the Sepcies” then take as example the heart, or the lungs any of these complex organs necesarry for survival.[/quote]
Please, no irreducible complexity. PLEASE.
Argument from personal incredulity is incredibly weak.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
As far as evolution , darwinian’s concept of slow evolution has already been disproven. If you don’t get it read “Origin of the Sepcies” then take as example the heart, or the lungs any of these complex organs necesarry for survival.
Please, no irreducible complexity. PLEASE.
Argument from personal incredulity is incredibly weak.[/quote]
What the thread is about darwinian evolution and darwinian idea, and that chapter ahs long been closed, so if we can move onto some newer arguements used as evvidence for the concept of one of the newer models of evolution that could be fun, but quit telling me the earth is the center of the universe because the sun sets.
evolution is not a fact without a model you have no theory and there is no concise model. there are multiple models being tested but most fail.
Einstein knew you needed a model or equation that worked if you wanted to support your theory concept.
When facts can explain more then one model both models can hold true. It is all in the interpretation of the data.
science in and of itself is not a religion, but the vast majority of people treat it as such. You are really taking a ton of stuff on faith, and nothing else.
1)we take on faith that the scientist set up a valid study. (most of the time scientists do there best)
2)We take it on faith that it was earnestly peer reviewed and was not just peer reviewed by a bunch of buddies that were eager to usher it through. (which happens all the time)
3)we take it on faith that some political party has not grappled onto it because the conclusion supports their claim despite being bad science. (think global warming)
4)we take it on faith that some industry has not grappled onto it because the conclusion supports their claim despite being bad science. (again think global warming)
5)we take it on faith that the scientists involved are interpreting the data in an agnostic fashion. this is big for a couple reasons.
a) scientists very livelihoods are often based on the conclusion going a particular way in fact the nature of NIH grants encourages dishonest behavior in this area.
b) sometimes there is big money involved in it going a certain way
c) lastly, even the most honest scientists still tend to see what they want to see. I have found this to be darn near an epidemic in science.
and the list goes on. I used to do research on doxorubicin, and i was shocked at how much of this goes on. But the system really does encourage it. If you dont believe me consider this survey:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/5438844/Scientists-faking-results-and-omitting-unwanted-findings-in-research.html
i am really surprised that this audience at T-Nation is not skeptical of all science. I would think that body builders, more than any other population, have been takin on rides by scientific community more than just about any other population. So why you would trust one area of science over another area is beyond me.
this is not an endorsement of creatonism btw.
[quote]The other Rob wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
MikeTheBear wrote:
First, let me say that I’m 100% in favor of science and evolution and think the religious crazies are out of control and are a threat to the future of science in America. Notice I use the word “crazies.” I fully realize that there are rational people who can reconcile their religious beliefs with science.
To these folks, I say well done. Which is why I too have wondered why some religious people are so hostile to science and evolution in particular. Then one day I was standing outside the theater in our nature and science museum after we had just finished watching an Imax movie on black holes and the universe.
Really cool stuff. I overheard a lady say to her friend, “That was interesting, but I prefer creationism. It’s simpler.” And there it was.
Very true. Those kinds of people really piss me off. But it is also possible that some religious people get hostile because they are exposed to the equivalent example to your creationist lady in scientists----aka arrogant sons of bitches who look down on them simply for being religious.
I wouldn’t take it too well if some random asshole started calling me a neanderthal out of a superiority complex. I submit one Richard Dawkins for evidence. He’s an asshole. A good scientist, but a grade A US PRIME twat.
And he pisses ME off with his attitude. I can’t imagine what the majority of thinking religious people must feel. There are literally thousands more like him, they just don’t have the public visability he does.
It’s a vicious cycle, we’re exposed to idiots who try to pick apart a theory they have never studied and don’t understand, whilst accepting that a magical sky being made everything exactly the way it is and ignoring the vastness of the questions that raises.
After hearing enough rubbish spouted about evolution you start to lump people together. I have no problem with people being religious, I do have a problem with stupidity, especially stupidity being shoved in my face as fact.
I’ve managed to avoid reading any of Dawkins non-scientific texts, but his books on evolution are brilliant, I don’t think he should be written off just because he made an ill-advised jump into philosophy.[/quote]
Boy was it ever ill advised.
Just to be clear, I wasn’t advocating ignoring Dawkins truly scientific work. I just said he was an arrogant asshole with a serious psychotic hatred of religious people, and that pisses me off. Also I wasn’t talking about any particular subset of religious people, although I think my statement was probably aimed more at the Christian population.
[quote]Chuck24 wrote:
Doc L wrote:
Chuck24 wrote:
It also assumes that God is this mean individual who will punish anyone who does not believe. Really? A being with all the power in the universe gets mad if a mere human doesn’t believe? That’s laughable.
God will punish eternally anyone who doesnt believe Christ his son died on the cross and he who doesnt repent of sins and turn their back on them. Its a realtionship with Christ. Not a sitting in church on Sundays. Church dont get you to heaven. A relationship does. God actually HAS given you a choice on where your eternal destiny will be. Hes a HOLY God who wont tolerate sin. Before Christ died you didnt have a choice. Christ didnt just die and thats was it. When on the cross Jesus took Gods angry viscious wrath in just 3 hours which would have been eternal hell for 1 beleiver. But took eternal Hell for everyone who would believe in 3 hours and then died when God was finished with him. Only an eternal being was capable of this. Im trying to explain this to you and not so much trying to preach to you. So its more constructive discussion. I hope you take it that way.
So according to this belief system, the Jews (God’s chosen ppl, who don’t believe that Christ is the Son of God) are going to hell? Even if they are devout and follow God’s law?
If this is what they beleive then what you ask is correct. Scripture teaches the only way to the father is through his son Jesus Christ. There is no other way. I can only give you what is written. These are not my opinions.
[/quote]
In order to treat scripture fairly (and not misrepresent it or christianity, for that matter) you must read its entirety. Not take one principal and speculate off of that. Paul says in Galatians that the Jews are still God’s chosen people. If they follow the law, then salvation is theirs.
[quote]mcstoots082 wrote:
I don’t know who told you that Darwins theory of evolution is widely accepted but you are wrong. A jewish dude just did a documentary a couple years ago about people in the science world getting ostracized for teaching Darwin theoris in school settings all across the world even Europe. It came out a couple years ago I think the guys name is Ben weinstein or something.[/quote]
The man you are thinking of is Ben Stein and the movie is actually about creationism not evolution being ostracized. I don’t know what it is called.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Boy was it ever ill advised.
Just to be clear, I wasn’t advocating ignoring Dawkins truly scientific work. I just said he was an arrogant asshole with a serious psychotic hatred of religious people, and that pisses me off. Also I wasn’t talking about any particular subset of religious people, although I think my statement was probably aimed more at the Christian population.[/quote]
Uh, you sure? His wife was deeply religious. Where is this psychotic hatred coming from?
[quote]lokidj wrote:
Otep wrote:
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that we’re so rediculously culturally successful, there’s no way we could have done it on our own.
Lol - Yeah so culturally successful that you have the highest crime rates in the world and also the fatest population in the world. What a culture!!! Mc DOnalds and gangbanging!
Not that alll of America and americans are like that obviously im grossley generalising, but i wouldnt be too proud of your great culture.
[/quote]
I would be more careful if I were you. We do not have the highest rates of violent crime in the world. You obviously have not looked at the statistics. As of 2001 in fact, I don’t even think we were in the top 10 (study by Leiden University in Holland). That may have changed but I highly doubt we top the list of industrialized nations.
I find your arrogance and your obviously unresearched point rather offensive. There’s lots of shit wrong here, but you’d do well to quit mocking. You’ve got your own problems.
[quote]Chuck24 wrote:
colton wrote:
Chuck24 wrote:
If you take into account male and female reproductive organs you can expand your thinking on evolution vs. creationism.
If evolution is the evolving of an orgap to a better organism as additions such as ears,eyes,fingernails,reproductive organs, etc. would develop basically into what we are today.
All this basically formed over time basically from nothing. Ok…If we evolved and got different features over long periods of time how did evolution know what ingrediants it would take for humans to reproduce?
Your not talking about 1 miracle now as in the evolving of 1 human but your talking now about an evolving 2nd type of human as in the female. Are you saying something intelligent that created itself knew how to do this and figured out male and female reproductive parts before everything became extinct?
Your not just talking about humans but the whole animal kingdom have VERY similar looking reproductive parts. Evolution seems to have figured all this out and said to itself “ok we got reproductive figured out now lets make this happen with all similar looking parts for the whole animal kingdom”.
Evolution could have done reproduction many ways but it happens almost all the same in every animal. Thats a very smart evolution. It figured out males and females and what it took to reproduce. Thats just the start of everything complicated thats left to discuss. I dont buy evolution whatsoever as everything its about agreed with itself and evolved all animals with the same looking and the same acting reproductive parts.
I believe we were created by an eternal creator who resides outside of time who got it right the first time. I dont believe Life came from no life, Intelligence came from non-intelligence, cause came from no cause and meaning came from no meaning.
so basically you dont believe in evolution because i have a penis??? wtf seriosuly worst argument ever, not to mention the fact that there are a variety of ways reproduction occurs if we take into acount organisms other than humans.
Are you serious? Because you have a penis? I didnt say that. I also understand there are a variety of ways of reproduction but in order to reproduce something needs to figure out what both mates need for reproduction to happen.
Do you think “nothing” is that smart to figure that out? So the first organism comes from nothing, it needs to reproduce to keep its kind in existance. Do you think it knows that and thinks "i better get moving on creating my kind? HAHA.
Is it really that smart to produce another organism and make it a female counterpart? Its a miracle its even alive because before it WAS nothing and non-existant. [/quote]
So, you’re sayin the male of all species were made first and since they could not reproduce, figured out how to make a female so they could? Why couldn’t male and female be created at the same time? And obviously, we have the same body parts because they work. Evolution is the true testament of natural selection. Those things that did not work, were weeded out. You don’t need proof of that, you see it every day. Living organisms that cannot adapt to their surroundings, die.
[quote]Chuck24 wrote:
It also assumes that God is this mean individual who will punish anyone who does not believe. Really? A being with all the power in the universe gets mad if a mere human doesn’t believe? That’s laughable.
God will punish eternally anyone who doesnt believe Christ his son died on the cross and he who doesnt repent of sins and turn their back on them. Its a realtionship with Christ. Not a sitting in church on Sundays. Church dont get you to heaven. A relationship does. God actually HAS given you a choice on where your eternal destiny will be. Hes a HOLY God who wont tolerate sin. Before Christ died you didnt have a choice. Christ didnt just die and thats was it. When on the cross Jesus took Gods angry viscious wrath in just 3 hours which would have been eternal hell for 1 beleiver. But took eternal Hell for everyone who would believe in 3 hours and then died when God was finished with him. Only an eternal being was capable of this. Im trying to explain this to you and not so much trying to preach to you. So its more constructive discussion. I hope you take it that way.
[/quote]
I’m sorry, but you just proved his point. If I don’t believe Christ died for my sins, I go to Hell. So…if I’m Jewish, I go to Hell, if I’m Athiest, I go to Hell, if I’m Agnostic I go to Hell, if I’m Muslim, I go to Hell, if I’m Hindu, I go to Hell, if I’m a Buddhist, I go to Hell. If I’m anything BUT Christian, I go to Hell. It doesn’t matter that I would go to those religions’ version of Heaven, as long as it’s not CHRISTIAN Heaven, it doesn’t matter? And I will still go to CHRISTIAN Hell? I’m sorry, but I wouldn’t want to believe in a supreme being that narrow minded and bigoted to not respect other beliefs.
That’s basically what you just said.
[quote]donovanbrambila wrote:
In order to treat scripture fairly (and not misrepresent it or christianity, for that matter) you must read its entirety. Not take one principal and speculate off of that. Paul says in Galatians that the Jews are still God’s chosen people. If they follow the law, then salvation is theirs.[/quote]
Time to stone the unruly children then. There is nothing in the Bible that specifically says you don’t have to follow the Old Testament.
[quote]trav123456 wrote:
angry chicken wrote:
Has anyone else seen Thib’s new arm workout video? It’s like a half hour of curls and triceps extensions in the squat rack!
He’s just lucky he doesen’t live in travoria, such heretics would be made an example of. lol[/quote]
Thib’s got a nice workaround for this problem. In the discussion thread he says it’s a “curl rack”. Ha!
[quote]donovanbrambila wrote:
In order to treat scripture fairly (and not misrepresent it or christianity, for that matter) you must read its entirety. Not take one principal and speculate off of that. Paul says in Galatians that the Jews are still God’s chosen people. If they follow the law, then salvation is theirs.[/quote]
Time to stone the unruly children then. There is nothing in the Bible that specifically says you don’t have to follow the Old Testament.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
lokidj wrote:
Otep wrote:
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that we’re so rediculously culturally successful, there’s no way we could have done it on our own.
Lol - Yeah so culturally successful that you have the highest crime rates in the world and also the fatest population in the world. What a culture!!! Mc DOnalds and gangbanging!
Not that alll of America and americans are like that obviously im grossley generalising, but i wouldnt be too proud of your great culture.
I would be more careful if I were you. We do not have the highest rates of violent crime in the world. You obviously have not looked at the statistics. As of 2001 in fact, I don’t even think we were in the top 10 (study by Leiden University in Holland). That may have changed but I highly doubt we top the list of industrialized nations.
I find your arrogance and your obviously unresearched point rather offensive. There’s lots of shit wrong here, but you’d do well to quit mocking. You’ve got your own problems.[/quote]
Yup your right, your number 24 my mistake, but you are the number 2 for most poluting and thats not great.
What have i got to be carefull of???
What i am moking, is not your country, i am moking the fact that Otep thinks that America is so culturally successful. What culture??? Am i missing something here? What is it that makes America so culturally successful??
Please enlighten me so that i can look into it and change my views.
Also, what problems do I have that you know of?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Boy was it ever ill advised.
Just to be clear, I wasn’t advocating ignoring Dawkins truly scientific work. I just said he was an arrogant asshole with a serious psychotic hatred of religious people, and that pisses me off. Also I wasn’t talking about any particular subset of religious people, although I think my statement was probably aimed more at the Christian population.
Uh, you sure? His wife was deeply religious. Where is this psychotic hatred coming from?[/quote]
I don’t know anything about his private life. I didn’t even know he was married. My observation comes from everything he’s written, said, lectured, or interviewed on.
Along with a healthy dose of hyperbole. (It was an inside reference with myself to a George Carlin joke. sorry.).
I still stand by my arrogant asshole position though.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
I don’t know anything about his private life. I didn’t even know he was married. My observation comes from everything he’s written, said, lectured, or interviewed on.
Along with a healthy dose of hyperbole. (It was an inside reference with myself to a George Carlin joke. sorry.).
I still stand by my arrogant asshole position though.[/quote]
He struggled long and hard with the ramifications of his work with regard to God. Also, I’ve never read anything that would indicate he hated religion, could you point some of this out for me?
Makavali, Aragorn was talking about Richard Dawkins having a deep hatred for religion, not Darwin.
[quote]lokidj wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
lokidj wrote:
Otep wrote:
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that we’re so rediculously culturally successful, there’s no way we could have done it on our own.
Lol - Yeah so culturally successful that you have the highest crime rates in the world and also the fatest population in the world. What a culture!!! Mc DOnalds and gangbanging!
Not that alll of America and americans are like that obviously im grossley generalising, but i wouldnt be too proud of your great culture.
I would be more careful if I were you. We do not have the highest rates of violent crime in the world. You obviously have not looked at the statistics. As of 2001 in fact, I don’t even think we were in the top 10 (study by Leiden University in Holland). That may have changed but I highly doubt we top the list of industrialized nations.
I find your arrogance and your obviously unresearched point rather offensive. There’s lots of shit wrong here, but you’d do well to quit mocking. You’ve got your own problems.
Yup your right, your number 24 my mistake, but you are the number 2 for most poluting and thats not great.
What have i got to be carefull of???
What i am moking, is not your country, i am moking the fact that Otep thinks that America is so culturally successful. What culture??? Am i missing something here? What is it that makes America so culturally successful??
Please enlighten me so that i can look into it and change my views.[/quote]
You’ve got to be careful that that points you make are actually valid, or else people will take you task on them quite easily. Also, the attitude I perceive from you is rather irritating, and that makes people in general less likely to listen to your arguments.
We don’t have a culture in the same sense as, say, Italy where it’s a couple thousand years old, historically established province. There are pubs in England twice as old as our entire country.
However, “culture” can be seen differently, as a sum total of ideas, perspectives, attitudes, images, literature, film, music, sports, clothing that a people or region have.
I think it’s fairly obvious that these things make up a culture. And I think when it’s spelled out like this it becomes fairly easily argued that American culture is exported everywhere in the world, perhaps the most widely exported culture present. I believe both you and Otep were using exportation as benchmark of success.
American films set the standard worldwide, are always the biggest blockbusters, are always the most widely followed and viewed (Star Wars anyone?), lampooned, and parodied. Parody in itself is a sort of implied admission of importance as well. Sure, we make a lot of junk too, but our hits are hits worldwide and our good filmmaking has inspired billions, literally.
American sports stars are among the most well known in the world–Jordan was maybe the single most famous person in the world when he played with the Bulls and the first US Olympic “Dream” team. People who are barely literate in China can be found wearing his jersey, and know who he is. Tiger Woods is another example. There are quite a few out there, given that we suck at the worlds sport of soccer.
American attitudes and ideas on a variety of issues (most definitely NOT gun control though) have been exported to many countries. The american idea of a democratic republic has been extremely influential in politics–pre-Iraq. France’s revolution was inspired in part by the infant republic across the Atlantic. Other countries have borrowed ideas and adapted them to their own political systems.
I would say we are weaker on literature because we don’t have that long historical record that Italy, England, Spain etc have-- but I can still think of a number of classics that are well known and thought of, both in prose and poetry.
American music has been exported for quite a while, and has had quite an impact. Woodstock anyone? It became a worldwide phenomenon. I would not say we have a monopoly on it, just to be clear, as music is a very regional thing and each country has a number of individual styles. But looking at the development of the “pop” star in other countries shows a well defined link to the early M-TV generation and its influence, and the Beach Boys and other American bands are known and played in little corners of developing nations and industrialized giants alike. Our popular music of 15-25 years ago is still popular in a number of countries. The idea of the music video was created here, and has been exported EVERYWHERE.
Landmark images and photographs such as the moon landscape are universally known and were taken by American astronauts or photographers, or have American subjects. We’re still the only country to make it to the moon.
The popularization of the automobile, the invention of the electric traffic lights, radio, television, the movie, the record player (that’s vinyl LPs), the LIGHTBULB, the first battery (benjamin franklin), the carbon microphone, refrigerated transit (began as the refrigerated railroad car), the machine gun, the metal detector, the laser, the skyscraper, the blood bank, the gasoline fuel dispenser, dishwasher, drinking straw, paper towel, escalator, the zipper, the jackhammer, comic book, remote control, flashlight, ASSEMBLY LINE PRODUCTION, the first industrial robots (now standard in factories), air conditioning, the AIRPLANE, the nuclear weapon, the supermarket, lie detector/polygraph, liquid-fuel rockets, drive-thru food, electric razors, sunglasses, the weather satellite, the integrated circuit, PERSONAL COMPUTER, digital camera, THE INTERNET (NSFnet, 1983, opened to commercial interests in '85), GPS.
That is an incomplete list.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
lokidj wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
lokidj wrote:
Otep wrote:
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that we’re so rediculously culturally successful, there’s no way we could have done it on our own.
Lol - Yeah so culturally successful that you have the highest crime rates in the world and also the fatest population in the world. What a culture!!! Mc DOnalds and gangbanging!
Not that alll of America and americans are like that obviously im grossley generalising, but i wouldnt be too proud of your great culture.
I would be more careful if I were you. We do not have the highest rates of violent crime in the world. You obviously have not looked at the statistics. As of 2001 in fact, I don’t even think we were in the top 10 (study by Leiden University in Holland). That may have changed but I highly doubt we top the list of industrialized nations.
I find your arrogance and your obviously unresearched point rather offensive. There’s lots of shit wrong here, but you’d do well to quit mocking. You’ve got your own problems.
Yup your right, your number 24 my mistake, but you are the number 2 for most poluting and thats not great.
What have i got to be carefull of???
What i am moking, is not your country, i am moking the fact that Otep thinks that America is so culturally successful. What culture??? Am i missing something here? What is it that makes America so culturally successful??
Please enlighten me so that i can look into it and change my views.
You’ve got to be careful that that points you make are actually valid, or else people will take you task on them quite easily. Also, the attitude I perceive from you is rather irritating, and that makes people in general less likely to listen to your arguments.
We don’t have a culture in the same sense as, say, Italy where it’s a couple thousand years old, historically established province. There are pubs in England twice as old as our entire country.
However, “culture” can be seen differently, as a sum total of ideas, perspectives, attitudes, images, literature, film, music, sports, clothing that a people or region have.
I think it’s fairly obvious that these things make up a culture. And I think when it’s spelled out like this it becomes fairly easily argued that American culture is exported everywhere in the world, perhaps the most widely exported culture present. I believe both you and Otep were using exportation as benchmark of success.
American films set the standard worldwide, are always the biggest blockbusters, are always the most widely followed and viewed (Star Wars anyone?), lampooned, and parodied. Parody in itself is a sort of implied admission of importance as well. Sure, we make a lot of junk too, but our hits are hits worldwide and our good filmmaking has inspired billions, literally.
American sports stars are among the most well known in the world–Jordan was maybe the single most famous person in the world when he played with the Bulls and the first US Olympic “Dream” team. People who are barely literate in China can be found wearing his jersey, and know who he is. Tiger Woods is another example. There are quite a few out there, given that we suck at the worlds sport of soccer.
American attitudes and ideas on a variety of issues (most definitely NOT gun control though) have been exported to many countries. The american idea of a democratic republic has been extremely influential in politics–pre-Iraq. France’s revolution was inspired in part by the infant republic across the Atlantic. Other countries have borrowed ideas and adapted them to their own political systems.
I would say we are weaker on literature because we don’t have that long historical record that Italy, England, Spain etc have-- but I can still think of a number of classics that are well known and thought of, both in prose and poetry.
American music has been exported for quite a while, and has had quite an impact. Woodstock anyone? It became a worldwide phenomenon. I would not say we have a monopoly on it, just to be clear, as music is a very regional thing and each country has a number of individual styles. But looking at the development of the “pop” star in other countries shows a well defined link to the early M-TV generation and its influence, and the Beach Boys and other American bands are known and played in little corners of developing nations and industrialized giants alike. Our popular music of 15-25 years ago is still popular in a number of countries. The idea of the music video was created here, and has been exported EVERYWHERE.
Landmark images and photographs such as the moon landscape are universally known and were taken by American astronauts or photographers, or have American subjects. We’re still the only country to make it to the moon.
The popularization of the automobile, the invention of the electric traffic lights, radio, television, the movie, the record player (that’s vinyl LPs), the LIGHTBULB, the first battery (benjamin franklin), the carbon microphone, refrigerated transit (began as the refrigerated railroad car), the machine gun, the metal detector, the laser, the skyscraper, the blood bank, the gasoline fuel dispenser, dishwasher, drinking straw, paper towel, escalator, the zipper, the jackhammer, comic book, remote control, flashlight, ASSEMBLY LINE PRODUCTION, the first industrial robots (now standard in factories), air conditioning, the AIRPLANE, the nuclear weapon, the supermarket, lie detector/polygraph, liquid-fuel rockets, drive-thru food, electric razors, sunglasses, the weather satellite, the integrated circuit, PERSONAL COMPUTER, digital camera, THE INTERNET (NSFnet, 1983, opened to commercial interests in '85), GPS.
That is an incomplete list.[/quote]
Wow!!! and heres me thinking all you had was Mc Donalds and gangbanging. You have a fairly good point there, or points. Lol!
Actually i wasnt using exportation as a benchmark as i dont really identify myself as being from any particular country. I dont see how being born in a certain place is something that one should be proud of. I was thinking more in the way of your present Gun Ho - invade that country for their petrol and lets see how much junk food i can get in my body while im still alive. Im sry that you took offense to my post as it was something that i thought and hadnt looked into. I also said several times that i was obviously making a gross generalisation and that i was sure that all America and americans werent stupid or uncultured.
These threads are always funny, because at the very least it lets you recognize the people who are batshit insane.