DNA offensive

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Aaron S. (USA) on August 9, 2009 at 11:48am

I think this is some sort of spoof. If you check the link to a related story, it's the exact same story but with a few details changed. The one seems to link to another related story, but I couldn't get the link to work...

The related story can be found here.

Or is it possible that the reporters are just REALLY lazy, or using some kind of template for their stories? I don't know much about how the business works, so I can't say...

Permalink Reply by State of Protest on August 9, 2009 at 12:24pm

The Skepticism is Strong in This One.


(btw, it's satire)


The ultimate questions are: Do people reacting to the anti-DNA situation act the same way for the anti-abstract nude sculptures situation? If not, why not? What's the difference? (and if there is a difference, is it rational?)

Permalink Reply by Hugh Kramer on August 9, 2009 at 6:20pm

I started getting suspicious after googling "Claremont Park Elementary School" and finding none listed in Berkeley... or even in Claremont. Too bad. I wanted to write a story about it for Examiner.com. Having been burned by my own credulity before, I now always check for secondary sources. I didn't know it was satire though. I just dropped the idea of writing about it when I couldn't find more information.

Permalink Reply by State of Protest on August 9, 2009 at 7:28pm

Your Bullshit Meter is working well. Kudos.

Hope the underlying issue still makes some sort of impact, or at least brings up some deep thinking and analysis.

(Oh, and I got burned a few times before, myself, and it's one of my missions now to teach others to watch for this sort of stuff.)

Besides all of that, what do you think of the abstract nude sculptures issue?

Permalink Reply by Andrew on August 9, 2009 at 11:50am

I prefer this view of the sculpture which includes kids having fun, as they should, rather than the cold isolated portrait the PTA might prefer. I think that the grounds keeper summed up the structure quite nicely, "It's honest and natural."

Permalink Reply by The Secular One on August 9, 2009 at 12:19pm

...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

DNA is vile and offensive because it isn't in the Bible and was hidden from our eyes? Explain me this: if it is so hidden then how do we figure it out? It their god so lame it can't hide anything from us mortals?

Permalink Reply by Susan Stanko on August 9, 2009 at 12:28pm

This looks like something that would appear in Landover Baptist.

Permalink Reply by State of Protest on August 9, 2009 at 5:36pm

Exactly.

Permalink Reply by State of Protest on August 9, 2009 at 7:24pm

Ever read The Onion? The entire thing is satire posted as news. There is a rich history of satire being used this way to bring attention to important issues.

Fact is, the article is tagged with "Satire," it's in the Satire category on the site, drops multiple hints in the article (hat tips to Poe's Law, for example), links the original article twice, and hints again that it's satire in the footnotes. If after all of that, it's still taken as real news, whoever takes it as such needs a bullshit meter calibration.

It's "fraud" when the author says "This is real." The author here did everything possible to suggest that it was not real up to the point of saying at the top of the article "This is not real." At that point, it's not satire, it's just pointless.

Permalink Reply by State of Protest on August 9, 2009 at 7:53pm

This was not in response to Susan Stanko's comment.

This was in response to someone else who apparently removed all of his comments after my reply to his not so subtle suggestion that my satire might be considered "fraud." I'm leaving my response here for integral purposes.

Permalink Reply by The Secular One on August 10, 2009 at 12:56pm

Well, thanks for the good laugh then!

Permalink Reply by susan thomason on August 12, 2009 at 12:52am

I just Googled this and I came up with some neat pictures of the artwork. If the parents are having a hard time with this it's because they have nothing better to be offended by at the moment. As if there narrow view of life isn't small enough.