I guess you have not seen professional sports in the U.S…
It is known as “the wave”…
Ahh I thought it looked familiar - I’ve only seen it on TV. In real life it seems less dynamic more stilted. Thanks @skriten
1 Like
A very good friend of mine died at the age of 20. His parents arranged the funeral at a local chapel. They were in no way religious, but opted for the traditional.
The service included many reflections from friends and families. It was a real blow to the community. The chapel was packed with many people and many more people outside the doors to pay their respects. A small town tragedy.
After all had been said and done the pastor got up and began to speak. He expressed his appreciation for how many people fondly remembered my buddy. And then it started.
“This is a time when we reflect on God and the mystery of his plan …”
A solid thirty seconds of this bullshyte passed and my friends father abruptly stood up, ushered the pastor out of the pulpit and distinctly told him:
“That’s enough, thanks.”
A wave of relief you could feel passed over the crowd. I’ve never expressed to the father how exceedingly well he saved what was a very meaningful and emotional good bye from the inane meanderings of a “man of the cloth” trying to justify the meaningless of death through an appeal to God’s plan.
1 Like
So I learned that there is a creation exhibition at the local library, when someone shoved a booklet through my letterbox. Here are some of the hilarious howlers in it, that are commonly used for such creation myths.
“Evolution or Design”
Leaving aside the hysterical random capitalisation (right through their brochure), and the fact that evolution is an objective scientific fact, it is of course a false dichotomy fallacy, and as anyone remotely familiar with this fallacy will know it is not an either or of two choices. Since there is no objective evidence for creationism at all, even were evolution entirely wrong creationism would remain an unevidenced creation myth, from archaic superstitions.
“Not all scientists believe in evolution”
Indeed not, though one assumes they have a larger point than a list of creationists who are being assigned the title scientist? However as Project Steve demonstrates there is an overwhelming consensus among scientists globally that supports the scientific theory of evolution, indeed it would not be an accepted scientific theory were there any credible scientific objections. Why would I care some primary school humanities teacher in Salt Lake city thinks, is that how they think science peer reviews ideas? The sheer hilarity is dampened by me wondering who the fuck is paying for this exhibition at the local library…
And here it is:
“Discover Why The Theory of Evolution is Just That - A Theory.”
I kid you not, I have typed the random capitals verbatim, what is with theists and random capital letters? All I can suggest is they Google the definition of a scientific theory ffs, or go to Hiroshima and tell them that nuclear theory is “just a theory”. Sorry, “Just A Theory” 
Oh this one just leaped out at me:
“The exhibition shows that, just by looking around us at obvious facts and by coming to logical conclusions , we can see that the theory of evolution is not reasonable.”
Leaving aside the hysterically funny punctuation, they couldn’t resist making a claim they were being rational, even with a false dichotomy fallacy emblazoned on the cover of their hilarious booklet, I am half tempted to go along.
Oh and here is a straw man fallacy inside:
“It is absurd for the evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable god to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything”
Courtesy of G.K. Chesterton, I don’t think I have ever had such pleasure in offer a citation, given it is the rankest irrationality using more than one straw man fallacy, quality, I should love to see them present a credible expert in evolution that remotely believed it had come from nothing, do they even realise they have left the field of biology, and waltzed unknowingly through physics and into philosophical assertions about the origins of the universe?
2 Likes
When I see random capitol letters like those you describe I associate them with a book title and so might be prone to give them more weight. But then since that makes no sense because they aren’t talking about the title of a book I settle on the notion that random capitol letters are akin to a small but emphatic shout. Like a (I mean business) adult to child statement. OR @Sheldon it could be as simple as this:
1 Like
Perhaps their inappropriate use of capital letters stems from their habit of capitalizing personal pronouns, such as he, him, and his, when referring to Jebus.
2 Likes
Or perhaps there is something connected to “THE MORE EDUCATED YOU BECOME” the less likely you are to use, CAPITAL LETTERS inappropriately?’
2 Likes
My money is on this. It seems like only a poorly educated person would imagine that random capital letters signify anything more than poor grammar. Though I do remember having a picture bible as a child for xmas, and it didn’t just start new chapters with a capital letter, it made it massive compared to the other text, maybe that’s where this bizarre nonsense comes from?
If any theists or religious apologists read this, could you please explain why we so often see random capital letters used in religious apologetics?
Not so fast. It is quite common in scientific and technical writing to capitalize the first letter in words;
In English-language publications, various conventions are used for the capitalisation of words in publication titles and headlines, including chapter and section headings. The rules differ substantially between individual house styles.
This is also called title case:
Title case or headline case is a style of capitalization used for rendering the titles of published works or works of art in English. When using title case, all words are capitalized, except for minor words (typically articles, short prepositions, and some conjunctions) that are not the first or last word of the title. There are different rules for which words are major, hence capitalized. As an example, a headline might be written like this: “The Quick Brown Fox Jumps over the Lazy Dog”.
Rules for title case is also given in style manuals such as the Chicago Manual of Style:
According to the Chicago Manual of Style (15th edition), the following rules should be applied:[4]
- Always capitalize “major” words (nouns, pronouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, and some conjunctions).
- Lowercase the conjunctions and, but, for, or, and nor.
- Lowercase the articles the, a, and an.
- Lowercase prepositions, regardless of length, except when they are stressed, are used adverbially or adjectivally, or are used as conjunctions.
- Lowercase the words to and as.
- Lowercase the second part of Latin species names.
- Lowercase the second word after a hyphenated prefix (e.g., Mid-, Anti-, Super-, etc.) in compound modifiers (e.g., Mid-year, Anti-hero, etc.).[5]
- Always capitalize the first and last words of titles and subtitles (overrides the rules above).
Lots of scientific journals use title case in the journal names, such as those published by AIP (American Institute of Physics):
Admittedly, AIP don’t seem to use title case in the published papers, so it is in limited use here. However, I have seen and read lots of scientific papers that use title case in headlines and titles.
1 Like
Yes, But I am Talking about Random Capital Letters, Dispersed through Sentences for no Apparent Reason?
Ahhhhh, ahhhhh, my eyes…you have no idea what typing that did to my OCD.
1 Like
They Probably Use it for Emphasis, to Pound Home the Importance of Their Message. Nothing is More Important Than the Word of GOd (Since One Capital Letter is not Enough) and to Refute and Destroy the False Idea of a Non-Divine Source of All Life. Therefore it Needs Emphasis. So There.
1 Like
Yes . . . but my fellow Americans rarely understand what socialism actually is, and how much of the United States is actually socialized.
Libraries–for example–are mostly socialistic. So are the police, most (but not all) emergency medical services, and most (but not all) fire departments.
I–myself–tend to be very capitalistic . . . but I still acknowledge it’s dangers and failures.
As an example, infant mortality is appallingly high in the USA, and there’s absolutely no excuse for it. Socialized medicine in countries like Cuba, Honduras, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia do much better than us. Cuba has even completely eliminated prenatal syphillis, while this stll occurs in the States.
Unrestrained capitalism in the States has caused about 35% of the global warming when we make up about 5% of the world’s population, and this is beyond awful.
I also argue that unrestrained capitalism is a complex mechanism that enables my country to extract material wealth and resources from other countries . . . which creates poverty.
So . . . our wealth comes at the expense of other people.
So yes, I believe in capitalism, but I think that capitalism should be directed and managed for the common good of humanity.
As a proof of principle for how this should be done, I suggested an argument in a sociology course (a prerequisite for nursing school).
In Australia, the great white shark attracts fishermen from around the world. It was then decided that each shark is worth–perhaps–about $11,000.00 to the Australian economy, which creates problems.
There is a financial incentive to poach, and game wardens can’t be everywhere. The consequence is that the population of great whites was declining rapidly. We see a similar issue in Africa when people poach ivory and rhinoceros horn.
The answer came from capitalism when fishing boats were converted (at minimal cost) to cater to adventurous (and crazy?) SCUBA divers who come from all over the world to dive in shark cages and film these magnificent predators eating bait without the sharks getting killed.
It was calculated that this approach meant that each shark is worth about $80,000.00 to the Australian economy, and everybody walks away from this arrangement as a winner . . . including the sharks, as there is much less incentive to kill them.
I believe that this approach is a “proof of principle” that capitalism can be used to fix the world rather than destroying it . . . and that this would take creativity and a little bit of vision, which I don’t see if we elect Donald Trump.
You’re probably right. They could have used the formatting features many platforms have, such as this one, to do the same thing:
They probably use it for emphasis, to pound home the importance of their message. Nothing is more important than the word of god (since one capital letter is not enough) and to refute and destroy the false idea of a non-divine source of all life. Therefore it needs emphasis. So there.
That’s a good approach to that particular problem, and I suspect that we’re going to see more of it as people realize that we can’t continue raping the planet and indiscriminately killing wildlife.
Here’s another example: Bullfighting in some parts of the world has evolved away from a blood sport where the bull is killed in the end. This new form of bullfighting involves the matadors dodging the bull and doing things like jumps and acrobatics over a charging bull. The bulls are not harmed by this version of the sport.
1 Like
Thank you for seeing my point, and I agree with you.
Maybe not physically, but the animal is still exposed to repeated stress, possibly also fear. I don’t know to which extent animals can develop PTSD, but a human exposed to the same kind of stressed situations would surely be in danger of developing PTSD.
True, but compared to the alternative, it’s more humane. And maybe the bulls enjoy it, especially when they score a hit on a matador. 
1 Like
I never doubted that was their intention, but my question remains, why?
Now to demonstrate my point, see if that gains anything here:
I Never Doubted that Was Their Intention, but My Question remains, Why?
You see what I mean right? Why would anyone think that lends anything to an argument, or assertion? Either reader or writer?
1 Like
There are a number of social enterprises that have a for-profit model but are designed to promote positive change. Tom’s Shoes and 4Ocean come to mind.
1 Like
It Looks More Authorative, Like Academic Writing?
2 Likes