The very heart of science is “experimentation.” Thus, the proper scientific response to a claim that “do A and get B” is to conduct an experiment based on that claim. Does A actually cause B? Only one way way to really find out.
So some jackhole cleric in Iran claimed a few days back that women being immodest causes earthquakes. What’s the proper scientific response to that claim? Why, “Boobquake,” of course!
“I encourage other female skeptics to join me and embrace the supposed supernatural power of their breasts. Or short shorts, if that’s your preferred form of immodesty.
“With the power of our scandalous bodies combined, we should surely produce an earthquake.
“If not, I’m sure Sedighi can come up with a rational explanation for why the ground didn’t rumble.”
Science is awesome.
24 Responses to “SCIENCE!!!”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I’m on the side with the boobs, err science. Yeah, science.
Okay, you want to do real science? The claim is that women exposing body parts causes men to do improper things. If he’s right, any exposed boobs will cause all sorts of evil — primarily, it seems, sexual contact. To test the chap’s idea, we need to expose some boobs and have the men react. If men do something — and the women cooperate — then the test becomes a question of whether there is an earthquake.
Who’s with me to write a grant application?
Just got married last week. I’m out.
Actually, I would have thought that that would be a bonus on getting a close-up examination of the data….
But with a reduction in sample set size.
(Who am I kidding? Last name is Allegrezza, not Clooney. )
I re-read it. The Iranian claims that the problem is that women “lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society.” If chastity is merely lusting in their hearts, then no physical interaction is needed to trigger an earthquake.
It appears that what women think means nothing in this. Women are tools of the devil, perhaps?
Anyway, it’s time for testing.
> It appears that what women think means nothing in this.
Gee, ya think? I’m shocked, shocked to find that the thoughts and opinions of women meaning nothing to an Islamic fundamentalist.
> But with a reduction in sample set size.
A sample size of one (or perhaps two, more’n likley) may not be scientifically optimal, but it’s an infinitely better sample size than “zero.” Or a statistical set filled with theoreticals or moobs.
George; Simply explain that it’s for SCIENCE! I’m sure she’ll understand…
(Then again it has been explained to me that MY wife’s attitude on my visting places like strip-joints MAY be slightly different than the norm… ;o)
Randy
Scott?
“moobs” is that a scientific term I’m not familiar with? Have I less chance of getting my face (and other parts of my body) pummled if I ask to see a woman’s “moobs”?
Randy
> a woman’s “moobs”?
A woman should not *have* moobs.
Behold the power of Google:
Now if’n y’all will excuse me, it’s time for me to go hurl.
Gahhhhh! My eyes! My eyes!
(I never knew a flat-screen monitor could melt down like that…. :o)
Randy
(BTW: This probably ALSO explains why the work servers actually filtered MY google search… Thanks Diety! :o)
Randy
But I thought earthquakes were caused by global warming! Certainly the two opinions have equal scientific validity 😉
Actually, the global warmign theory has some validity. Not, of course, the “it’s Bush’s fault” branch of warmist nuttery, but on a multi-millenia timescale. Specifically, we’ve been warming up for the last 10K years or so. As a result, the vast glaciers have retreated, and the oceans have filled. The result of *not* having several miles of ice pressing down on the ground, and of having several hundred feet of additional *water* pressing down on the ocean floor, is “rebound.” The continents are still rising slowly, springing back from having been squished. This messes with the fault lines.
Moobs? Never heard of ’em. Ignorance is preferable to this need to spew my guts out.
Can we get back to women?
Anyway, I’m ready to be tested. I’m ready to view an immodest woman (or tow, or three) and discover whether my reaction will cause the destruction of Teheran. (Hey ..!)
> discover whether my reaction will cause the destruction of Teheran.
Finally, reality meets internet humor…
It’s nice to know their clerics are as unhinged as our TV evangelists:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/13/pat-robertson-haiti-curse_n_422099.html
BTW, this is a riot, as the 2010 Iranian Army parade shows us the incredibly hairy “Bigfoot Brigade” and the all-white-uniformed “Ghost Corps”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_6vkWFoCYo
“It’s nice to know their clerics are as unhinged as our TV evangelists:”
The only problem being that nobody takes the TV evangelists seriously. The Iranian clerics are simultaneously have much more power (through the theocratic regime), have a much larger audience (both those who support them and abroad through the regime), and are much less dependent on voluntary compliance for their insanity (again, theocratic regime).
“Specifically, we’ve been warming up for the last 10K years or so. As a result, the vast glaciers have retreated, and the oceans have filled. The result of *not* having several miles of ice pressing down on the ground, and of having several hundred feet of additional *water* pressing down on the ocean floor, is “rebound.” The continents are still rising slowly, springing back from having been squished. This messes with the fault lines.”
Interesting. Didn’t occur to me, but makes sense. Still, doubt that Al Gore understands the ideas behind it or that we can do much about it.
Hey, and don’t forget that condoms don’t protect againts AIDS and that homosexuals and feminists caused God to punish the USA on 9-11.
It’s a pityt we hear so little about Eastern buddhists monks. I’m sure they are at least as funny as our Western religious guys.
Doubt it. Buddhism is almost more of a philosophy than it is a religion, and they seem to have skipped out on most of the truly nutty options. Christian evangelists used to get really confused by going into China, converting people to Christianity, then passing by a Buddhist shrine a week later only to find their “convert” right back in there, because they (the evangelicals) didn’t get that Buddhism wasn’t an exclusive religion 🙂
Brianna wrote:
“The only problem being that nobody takes the TV evangelists seriously. The Iranian clerics are simultaneously have much more power (through the theocratic regime), have a much larger audience (both those who support them and abroad through the regime), and are much less dependent on voluntary compliance for their insanity (again, theocratic regime).”
A correction needs to be made to this as it misses a very important point:
PEOPLE DO LISTEN AND BELIEVE THE TV EVANGELISTS! (or they wouldn’t BE TV-evangelists :o) The MAJOR difference is that there is no political organization where the majority of these views are held over and above the political process itself!
Recall that the Repulican party management HAS actually embraced the majority of the Evangellical view-point and also considers this to be their public support base of voters. The do NOT however embrace leadership by or the election of those same evangelists over party politics or the political process themselves. This is a cultural difference having to do with citizen apathy as applied to the political and religious operations in Western Civilization overall and the United States in particular.
This disorganization, apathy, and other factors are what have “saved” the US from ever becoming a theocracy itself as the run-ups to the 2000 election showed. This included actual “calls” and pronouncments that every “ill” in America was because we had ‘fallen’ to far from Christian doctren and teachings. That Bill Clinton was the “anti-Christ,” that there was a satanic conspiricy that had taken over the US government and rather serious campaigns aimed at organizing a “faith-based” take over of the American government in order to ensure we were a “Godly” nation by the millennium. This period also saw the peak of politcal activity by evangelical christians where they were the most organized and committed to placing as many “members” into political positions as possible.
More than one “tv-evangelist” during the time publiclly spoke out on how a Christian-based theocratic government wouldn’t REALLY be a theocracy, but that even if it WERE one that would be “better” and more “American” than the current government and system.
But the efforts fell apart and disintegrated or were abandoned even before the actual elections. There just were never the numbers of voters, as organized voting blocks, to carry such things forward.
Which of course is not to say there are not those out there still very active in trying to emplace such a theocracy in America. It still COULD happen here :o)
Randy
“Which of course is not to say there are not those out there still very active in trying to emplace such a theocracy in America. It still COULD happen here :o)”
Yes, we are in such danger of becoming a Christian theocracy under the impeccably diverse, multicultural BHO. /sarcasm
…
