>Am I the only person who read the title and had to stifle the urge to write, “But humans are animals, so ‘animal-human hybrid’ makes no sense!”?
Gee, rjung, on the basis of the evidence you’re the only person here who definitely didn’t stifle it.
Nonsense. Not even the most backward, inbred hillbilly thinks that The National Enquirer is a reliable source of scientific knowledge, but most viewers (perhaps including yourself?) think that the Discovery Channels are pretty much just that! And the DCs strongly encourage that belief. In other words, the NE is far more honest than the Discovery Bullshit Channels.
You’ve got to be kidding me! First, if mere “exposure” can reliably spark interest and lead to investigation and genuine knowledge, then the National Enquirer is precisely as credible and worthwhile as the Discovery Channel. But your thinking is flawed: The Bullshit Channels are most viewers’ sole “investigation”; it ends right there! And since these despicable claptrap producers regularly lie and distort and misrepresent genuine knowledge, the viewers actually just get stupider and stupider. They’d be far better off not watching in the first place rather than being fed bullshit in the guise of “science” and hence acquiring negative knowledge and thereby come to believe they know something when in fact they now know less than they knew before!
It’s far better to not know something at all than to believe you know it when you actually don’t.
So I’m not an expert on what they do or don’t do.
But;
Where do you get all this “they” and “most”, etc, information about everyone else? :dubious:
“backward, inbred hillbilly”?
Gimme a break.
That’s just plain crazy.
Actually I agree with ** ambushed**. People are better off not knowing whether human/chimp hybrids are possible than they believing that Oliver was such a hybrid for example.
But this bickering really has nothing to do with the question asked. Perhaps a Debate on the subject? Or a CS thread on Discovery Channel?
"It is a far, far better thing that I do not know now than … " no, that’s not it … Oh, here it is, “The only thing that I know is that I know nothing.” Socrates, I guess.
So, I think I know a little Socrates, and a little Dickens (heh…“little Dickens”). So, you’d say it’d be better that I knew NO Dickens or Socrates? Because I know *some *of their work. How am I to know that my knowlege is incomplete or incorrect? If one adheres to your second point, then one either believes his knowledge is complete and accurate (and who here has never discovered, much to their surprise, that they were in error?) or one realizes that nothing can be believed…and then everyone else will want you to drink poison! Madness! Believe all you see & hear, I say, but understand that sometimes what you see & hear may be incorrect…and not just because it is different from everything else you’ve seen & heard.
…uh…what were we talking about?
[sub]I’m not bickering.[/sub]