|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Yet another Congressman who doesn't accept the theory of evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5951 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
He's also Tea Party. Our tax dollars at work.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5951 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
As I recall, to be provincial is to think in ways that are peculiar to your locality.
Ah! Duel by Dictionary! Dictionaries try to map out the usage of words. And you will find that many words have more than one meaning, so choosing one meaning out of many is one way to deceive. I'm sure there's a name for that kind of fallacy. What matters is not what the dictionary says, but rather what the person using that word means by it. For one thing, the person using the word might not be applying a dictionary definition. For another, you might be picking the wrong definition out of your dictionary, including the definitions that your dictionary didn't happen to carry. Duel by Dictionary is usually a last-resort measure. Though it could be a valid approach to take if you are inviting your opponent to divulge his particular meaning of the terms that he used ... which is not what you were doing.
All you are saying is that americans think in ways that are peculiar to us and that the rest of western civilization is alarmed by such thinking. This is fine with us. All we have to do is get along with the rest of you; we don't have to fit in with your clique. We're not a metropolitan species, but rather a tribal one. Our brains are wired for dealing with groups of a particular size, about the size of a tribe. Even the mega-churches realize this when they organize themselves into smaller groups; first and foremost a church is a community, but we cannot feel a part of a 100's of thousands large group. So even the international community fits into this tribal model, with individual nations serving as individuals and its leaders and representatives providing those "individuals'" "personality." So think about a local community. A town or a student body. You've been a member of both. Ever encounter any nut-jobs? How well do they fit into the community? Would you give any of them a leadership role in the community? Or would you rather avoid them? Whenever they attempt to engage you in conversation, don't you utter non-committal say-nothings as you desperately try to disengage from them? And what would happen if one of these bat-shit-crazy wing-nuts were to rise to a position of leadership within the community? Wouldn't the sane members of that community have real reason to be concerned? Basically, isn't that what wing-nut whack-job "provincial" nonsense from members of the US government communicates to the rest of the world? And since we are in a leading leadership role in the international community, a super-power as a result of WWII and thereafter, wouldn't that be reason for the rest of the international community to be concerned for the sanity of the USA? The President of the United States of America has access to nuclear codes for launching nuclear death upon this earth many times over, to understate the situation. When G.W.Bush was elected President by the activist judges, a fellow chief, a Religious Programs Chief Petty Officer (RPs provide administrative, protective, and other support to the Chaplain Corps), expressed excitement that a "true believer" had been "elected" to our highest office. I offered him a simple scenario: if a true believer in the Apocalypse were to be given access to the means of speeding up the Apocalypse, would you really want that to happen? My brother chief, the RPC, grew silent, very pensive, and rather worried. It's not a question of fitting into any "clique." It's a question of whether we are sane enough to continue our leadership role in the international community. If we were some minor back-water country, such as we were earlier in the past century, nobody would care. But we are the 500-pound gorilla at the tea party. Everybody cares what the 500-pound gorilla will do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5951 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
DWise1 writes: The rest of the world is just looking for an excuse to think of us that way anyway. Believing in a few crazy things doesn't mean you are a total looney tunes overall. You can still be quite intelligent and productive contributor even though you don't believe in the holy grail of evolution, big bang and a few other things the outside world hold dear. Basically, isn't that what wing-nut whack-job "provincial" nonsense from members of the US government communicates to the rest of the world? Sorry, but I have to call "bullshit" on that. The rest of the world does not need to look for any excuse; we provide them with far too many. It's not just evolution and big bang and other things. Rather, it's the entire fundamentalist-cult bat-shit-crazy contrary-to-fact mentality. In your local community, the community leader shows up to every meeting wearing a tin-foil hat to block out the aliens' signals. And you're trying to tell me that's not pure bat-shit crazy?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5951 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
This usage is probably not in the dictionary because, like most mainstream publishers and mainstream media, they don't like to look at the truth of themselves in their inner core. And yet when I Google on "Clintonistas using Stalinist tactics to silence ABC", on http://www.newswithviews.com/Kouri/jim74.htm I find that it was written by Jim Kouri. The site certainly looks like a right-wing neo-conservative historical-revisionist "Christians being persecuted"-fraud-spreading site. Hardly "mainstream". The one on ECUSA bishops doesn't identify the author, but it's apparently concerning infighting with the Anglican and Espicopal churches. The one on UK PM Gordon Brown is at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...used-of-Stalinist-tactics.html and about the only information supporting the title is in the first paragraph:
quote:And it's apparently the Labour Party voicing their opposition to the PM. And it refers directly to re-writing history which was one of many things that Stalin, a paranoid, did -- all the photographic retouching needed to remove purged Party members kept the artists very busy. Now, you've been asked this before and I haven't noticed your answer, so here it is yet again: Do you even know what "Stalinist tactics" means? Please tell us what it means.
To label how they treat contrarian viewpoints as stalinist would be to acknowledge how censorious and authoritarian they are when it comes to everyone believing what they believe to be true.
Well, that most certainly does describe the right-wing media contributors like your Jim Kouri. Oh, and in case you haven't caught on to it yet, your examples do not support your point. {ABE -- not to be confused with "Anybody But England", which I heard was the best selling t-shirt in Scotland during the most recent World Cup}
PS Just where did all this talk of "Stalinist tactics" come from anyway? Quick search and it started in Message 32 by ... {drum roll, please} ... foreveryoung:
foreveryoung writes: It is stalinist to declare a person useless or even worse a danger to society because he fails to believe in what all the "educated" people believe in. Well then, since you are the one to introduce that slur into this topic, then you should be quite able and ready to provide what you mean by it! If you already have, then please point us to the pertinent message and quote the pertinent part from that pertinent message. If you still have not, then why not? So far, your wanting to tar "liberals" (conservative Nixon, the reason why I decided to register as a Democrat, would be a flaming liberal today, as Obama would have largely been considered a conservative back then) as using the term "Stalinist" to describe others sounds rather hollow when we consider that you are the first one to drop that turd in this topic. Edited by dwise1, : PS
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5951 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Yeah. "Knowledge is Power." And the dogmatic must at all costs fear knowledge.
Also, "Die Gedanken sind frei!" ("thoughts are free!"). Freedom is the enemy of dogma. As knowledge is the enemy of dogma. So the dogmatic must always attack both freedom and knowledge. And these idiots want to claim that their way is the American way? In fact, some people hate education sooo much that they will shoot a 14 year old girl in the head to stop her learning.
That sentiment is so alien that it is difficult for the mind to even begin to comprehend. Though somehow I have a feeling that Christian fundamentalists could not even begin to understand. To them, ignorance is bliss. Pardon me while I shudder. OK, gotta say more. As I've stated before, I first got involved in this creation/evolution "controversy" (any controversy is purely of creationist manufacture) back around 1981. In 1990, the California Board of Education released a new Science Framework (frak! link now broken) with a new Anti-Dogmatism Statement.This is what that Statement has to say about the purpose of education in general, science education in particular: quote: That last part is very important. There is a difference between understanding ideas and subscribing to them (ie, believing in them.). The first link I attempted has been disabled because of some PII concerns (Personally Identifiable Information; eg, in military files names were linked with social security numbers). The fundamental idea that was conveyed by that first link was that the goal of education is the understanding of the ideas being taught, not that the students should actually be required to believe in those ideas. As a practical example, in 1982 I attended the first phase of the United States Air Force Non-Commissioned Officer Academy, "Leadership School", which in 1982 for the Air Force Communications Command was held at Keesler AFB, MS. Part of our curriculum in that course was an examination of Communism and of the USSR's government structure. Obviously, we were being required to understand the concepts of Communism and of the Soviet government and how it functioned. Obviously, at no time were we being required to accept and believe in the concepts of Communism nor of the Soviet government. When Christian fundamentalists are involved in education, it repeatedly appears to deal far more with indoctrination rather than with understanding. What is the purpose of education? To understand a variety of ideas? Or to be indoctrinated in one particular set of ideas. That seems to be the source of conflict here. I have been on-line trying to discuss "creation/evolution" since the mid-1980's, a bit over 20 years now (to down-play it a bit). One scenario I have encountered more than a few times was with a creationist whom I asked to think it all through and whose response was something like, "If I were to do that, then that would require me to accept evolution!" "Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot-Over"????? I, a non-Zeus believer, could conceptually work through a scenario in which Father Zeus does not exist. A Christian fundamentalist cannot conceptually deal with the scenario that Jesus does not exist? Furthermore, that Christian fundamentalist maintains that he would have to actually believe that Jesus does not exist? While from the start I did not believe in Father Zeus? In short, a Christian fundamentalist believes that he has to actually believe in something before he could ever begin to think about it. Whereas normals realize without even thinking about it that ideas are ideas and nothing more. As a result, in science education, the ideas of science are presented and the students are required to understand those ideas. Whenever "creation science" is taught, the students are required to choose those creationist ideas over the ideas of science. In the former situation, where the students are required to understand the ideas, they learn to understand the ideas. In the latter situation, where the students are required to believe the ideas they are taught, the stupid ones believe the religious nonsense that's been taught them, whereas the smart ones can see through the deception and will choose atheism, an artificial decision that had only been forced upon them by creation science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5951 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
What, really? No, look, it's simple:
Which I am neither willing nor able to do. Conversion would require me to become a monster, which I absolutely refuse to do.
"Fucking bitches, trying to get one over on me. I'll show 'em." It's the easiest thing in the world to understand. You just have to disable your humanity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5951 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Except that I'll bet that it is not reflective of his beliefs at all, but merely sucking up to his intended audience.
I disagree. There are lots of ways to weasel-word available to politicians. For example, at an evangelical event in Dallas, Texas, on 22 August 1980, candidate Ronald Reagan said (as quoted at http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan):
quote:Now obviously Reagan was sucking up to a large voting block (that election and the following years marked the rise of the Radical Religious Right) and he may have even believed some of what he said, but instead of condemning "evil-ution" he just parroted the creationist party line while at the same time trying to not sound too radical. Plus, while voicing support for "balanced treatment" (the creationist deception du jour at that time), I do not recall him stating that he was himself a young-earther or the like; I read that he was a Disciplines of Christ member and then later a Presbyterian. In contrast, Paul Broun made no attempt to temper the vitriol of his verbal attack against evolution, embryology, and the Big Bang Theory. His statement makes it clear that he's at least an evangelical and he explicitly identifies himself as a young-earther. While Reagan left some wiggle room about how strongly he actually believed what he had said, Broun leaves no doubt at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5951 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
I don't consider you people educated in the real sense of the word. When I say the "educated" man, I mean the propagandized, group thinked, and brainwashed man. You all think exactly the same way. There is not one original thought in every last one of you. That is what I am calling "educated".
So then by "educated" you mean "dogmatic." Like fundamentalist Christians who must all accept the dogma they are taught and be very careful to not actually think about any of what they are told.
I am much more educated in the real sense than any of you robots are or will ever hope to be.
So then just exactly what is being "educated in the real sense"? Just exactly how does it differ from fundamentalist indoctrination and brainwashing? Add that to the list of words you need to define and so far have refused to. I have long noticed that the fundamentalist view of education seems very different from the normal view of education. In my Message 46, I discuss that as well as quoting from the Anti-Dogmatism Statement in the 1990 California Board of Education Science Framework; abridged here:
quote:To that, I offered a practical example and then discussed the attitude about education that I have gotten from fundamentalists over the decades: DWise1 writes: The fundamental idea that was conveyed by that first link was that the goal of education is the understanding of the ideas being taught, not that the students should actually be required to believe in those ideas. As a practical example, in 1982 I attended the first phase of the United States Air Force Non-Commissioned Officer Academy, "Leadership School", which in 1982 for the Air Force Communications Command was held at Keesler AFB, MS. Part of our curriculum in that course was an examination of Communism and of the USSR's government structure. Obviously, we were being required to understand the concepts of Communism and of the Soviet government and how it functioned. Obviously, at no time were we being required to accept and believe in the concepts of Communism nor of the Soviet government. When Christian fundamentalists are involved in education, it repeatedly appears to deal far more with indoctrination rather than with understanding. What is the purpose of education? To understand a variety of ideas? Or to be indoctrinated in one particular set of ideas. That seems to be the source of conflict here. I have been on-line trying to discuss "creation/evolution" since the mid-1980's, a bit over 20 years now (to down-play it a bit). One scenario I have encountered more than a few times was with a creationist whom I asked to think it all through and whose response was something like, "If I were to do that, then that would require me to accept evolution!" . . . In short, a Christian fundamentalist believes that he has to actually believe in something before he could ever begin to think about it. Whereas normals realize without even thinking about it that ideas are ideas and nothing more. As a result, in science education, the ideas of science are presented and the students are required to understand those ideas. Whenever "creation science" is taught, the students are required to choose those creationist ideas over the ideas of science. In the former situation, where the students are required to understand the ideas, they learn to understand the ideas. In the latter situation, where the students are required to believe the ideas they are taught, the stupid ones believe the religious nonsense that's been taught them, whereas the smart ones can see through the deception and will choose atheism, an artificial decision that had only been forced upon them by creation science. Now, it is true that when fundamentalist Christians go to college and university, many of them suffer some crises of faith. Christian youth ministers who don't go into denial about this (entire churches do, though) place those figures of young people raised as fundamentalists leaving religion altogether at upwards of 80% -- more conservative under-estimates are at about 60%. The "reasons" they offer to explain this demonstrate that they don't yet have a handle on the real reasons, but at least those few youth ministers do realize that they have a problem, which is the first step. It appears that the main reason is not hedonism as marc9000 and most fundamentalists imagine, nor is it exposure to what science really is and what it really teaches as I and I'm sure many here imagine. Rather, it is the humanities, such as English lit. Where students are taught that there is more than one perspective and part of what literature does is to present the world through a perspective different from the reader's own perspective. To think about and understand new ideas. To broaden the students' minds, which can have a devastating effect on the shackled mind raised on fundamentalist indoctrination and brainwashing. Of course, learning about other religions and religious views and the history of their own religion also contributes. So then, please do teach us what exactly being "educated in the real sense" is and how it works. PS In keeping with others' remarks that you are advocating taking pride in ignorance, I offer a quotation from Dr. Steven Schimmrich. He's an active evangelical Christian and in the 1980's and 1990's was very active on-line in discussions about religion and science while he was a post-graduate student working on his PhD Physical Geology; his on-line presence abruptly ceased after he graduated because he had to devote more time to his new career and family. He was also a strong opponent of "creation science" and I'm sure that he still is, just not as vocal on-line. From his What is a Creationist?:
quote: According to you, that PhD Isotope Geochemistry and devout Christian who has studied K-Ar dating in granites cannot be trusted because he is "educated", whereas that "creation science" evangelist is a reliable expert on the subject. Isn't that the position that you are arguing for? Can't even you see how foolish that position is? {ABE}
PPS Plus there's the case of Glenn R. Morton. First he was "educated" (ie, indoctrinated) by the YEC "geologists" at the Institute for Creation Research (ICR, whose president, Dr. Henry Morris, PhD Hydraulic Engineering, "Father of Flood Geology", quite literally wrote the book on "creation science geology"). Then he went to work as a field geologist for a petroleum exploration company. The rock-solid geological evidence that he had to work with in the real world demonstrated that everything that the ICR had taught him as challenging traditional geology was completely and utter false. The fellow geology graduates from the ICR that he had hired went through the exact same experience. All of them suffered crises of faith because of their YEC indoctrination. Or as you would put it, because they had been "educated" by fundamentalists. Edited by dwise1, : PPS
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5951 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Quite obviously, famous people will quote other famous people. Maybe Murrow did not originate that quote (please note that I am saying neither that he did nor that he didn't), but that alone would not mean that he never quoted it (not saying that he did, mind you). For example, there was a quote attributed to Mark Twain about lies, damned lies, and statistics, which apparently actually originated with Prime Minister Disraeli. However, whether you attribute it to Twain or to Disraeli, the words themselves should be able to stand on their own.
You know, the Father of the American Revolution, Thomas Paine, had something to say about this in his Age of Reason. It turns out that the value of a quote depends on one of two things:
But the works of Euclid are quite different. Even if it were to turn out that Euclid did not in fact write his works on geometry, that would make absolutely no difference whatsoever. The inherent value of Euclid's Elements is so self-evidentially and manifestly right and correct, that only a fucking idiot could even think to say otherwise. It would prove problematic to discuss these matters regarding Thomas Paine, since at that time he was in a french prison for attempting to export the American Revolution to a monarchial France. Obviously, the problem that Paine saw with
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5951 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
My overall EFFECTIVE tax has greatly risen.
I remember President Ronald Reagan's big and much bally-hoo'ed tax break. Big tax reductions! For the rich! My own income tax that year? It doubled! And I wasn't the only one to notice that. The rich got a huge tax break, while us middle-class people got the shaft. I have lived through what Republicans do to us! How anybody who is not rich could ever support the Republicans completely escapes me. I am the youngest of three, with my oldest sister being 8 years older than I. Her husband, a life-long Republican is now retired and has been for at least half a decade. One night over dinner, he announced that he had come to a conclusion: The Republicans are not his friends! Are you rich? No? Then please wake up!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5951 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
If you're talking about the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, I remember it, too. If your tax bill doubled it wasn't because of this bill. It isn't that hard to criticize Reagan for things he actually did do, there's no need to make stuff up.
I am not making anything up. And it wasn't in 1981 that I'm talking about, but rather a few years later. When I did my taxes, I compared it with the previous year. No big changes in salary nor in expenses, deductions, etc. But my taxes literally doubled! The other thing I remember about that tax year was that tax rates for the top tier, those making over $150,000 (as I recall the cut-off), had been reduced drastically. I'm not making anything up here. That really did happen.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5951 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
What we get a degree in does not restrict us to just that specific position, but rather for a number of jobs. One of my degrees is in computer science, but I work as a software engineer which is one of the jobs that my degree qualifies me for -- in my first job, I was the only programmer with a computer science degree; one programmer had a master's in marine biology.
A friend a couple decades ago had a PhD Chemistry, but he worked as a chemical engineer. And according to Dilbert, an English degree qualifies you to spend all day walking through the engineering offices waving your arms in order to keep the motion-sensor-controlled lighting on (I worked in such an office, but we had to wave our own arms when the lights would suddenly go out). Just because the word "engineering" is not in your degree's name does not mean that you wouldn't end up working as a geological engineer.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024