Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Yet another Congressman who doesn't accept the theory of evolution
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 3 of 231 (675157)
10-07-2012 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by NoNukes
10-06-2012 11:25 PM


He's also Tea Party. Our tax dollars at work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NoNukes, posted 10-06-2012 11:25 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by NoNukes, posted 10-07-2012 9:57 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 27 of 231 (675703)
10-15-2012 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by foreveryoung
10-15-2012 12:49 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by foreveryoung, posted 10-15-2012 12:49 AM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by foreveryoung, posted 10-15-2012 2:37 AM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 29 of 231 (675705)
10-15-2012 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by foreveryoung
10-15-2012 2:37 AM


DWise1 writes:
Basically, isn't that what wing-nut whack-job "provincial" nonsense from members of the US government communicates to the rest of the world?
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.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by foreveryoung, posted 10-15-2012 2:37 AM foreveryoung has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 43 of 231 (675976)
10-18-2012 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by foreveryoung
10-17-2012 10:17 PM


Mainstream Media? Really?
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:
Gordon Brown has been accused of a Stalinist re-writing of history after his official review of the year glossed over recent political disasters.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by foreveryoung, posted 10-17-2012 10:17 PM foreveryoung has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Panda, posted 10-18-2012 2:58 AM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(4)
Message 46 of 231 (675981)
10-18-2012 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Panda
10-18-2012 2:58 AM


Re: Mainstream Media? Really?
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:
The domain of the natural sciences is the natural world. Science is limited by its tools observable facts and testable hypotheses.
Discussions of any scientific fact, hypothesis, or theory related to the origins of the universe, the earth, and life (the how) are appropriate to the science curriculum. Discussions of divine creation, ultimate purposes, or ultimate causes (the why) are appropriate to the history-social science and English-language arts curricula.
Nothing in science or in any other field of knowledge shall be taught dogmatically. Dogma is a system of beliefs that is not subject to scientific test and refutation. Compelling belief is inconsistent with the goal of education; the goal is to encourage understanding.
To be fully informed citizens, students do not have to accept everything that is taught in the natural science curriculum, but they do have to understand the major strands of scientific thought, including its methods, facts, hypotheses, theories, and laws.
A scientific fact is an understanding based on confirmable observations and is subject to test and rejection. A scientific hypothesis is an attempt to frame a question as a testable proposition. A scientific theory is a logical construct based on facts and hypotheses that organizes and explains a range of natural phenomena. Scientific theories are constantly subject to testing, modification, and refutation as new evidence and new ideas emerge. Because scientific theories have predictive capabilities, they essentially guide further investigations.
From time to time natural science teachers are asked to teach content that does not meet the criteria of scientific fact, hypothesis, and theory as these terms are used in natural science and as defined in this policy. As a matter of principle, science teachers are professionally bound to limit their teaching to science and should resist pressure to do otherwise. Administrators should support teachers in this regard.
Philosophical and religious beliefs are based, at least in part, on faith and are not subject to scientific test and refutation. Such beliefs should be discussed in the social science and language arts curricula. The Board's position has been stated in the History-Social Science Framework (adopted by the Board).1 If a student should raise a question in a natural science class that the teacher determines is outside the domain of science, the teacher should treat the question with respect. The teacher should explain why the question is outside the domain of natural science and encourage the student to discuss the question further with his or her family and clergy.
Neither the California nor the United States Constitution requires that time be given in the curriculum to religious views in order to accommodate those who object to certain material presented or activities conducted in science classes. It may be unconstitutional to grant time for that reason.
Nothing in the California Education Code allows students (or their parents or guardians) to excuse their class attendance on the basis of disagreements with the curriculum, except as specified for (1) any class in which human reproductive organs and their functions and process are described, illustrated, or discussed; and (2) an education project involving the harmful or destructive use of animals. (See California Education Code Section 51550 and Chapter 2.3 of Part 19 commencing with Section 32255.) However, the United States Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion, and local governing boards and school districts are encouraged to develop statements, such as this one on policy, that recognize and respect that freedom in the teaching of science. Ultimately, students should be made aware of the difference between understanding, which is the goal of education, and subscribing to ideas.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Panda, posted 10-18-2012 2:58 AM Panda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by crashfrog, posted 10-18-2012 8:13 AM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 50 of 231 (676006)
10-18-2012 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by crashfrog
10-18-2012 8:13 AM


Re: Mainstream Media? Really?
What, really? No, look, it's simple:
"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.
Which I am neither willing nor able to do. Conversion would require me to become a monster, which I absolutely refuse to do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by crashfrog, posted 10-18-2012 8:13 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 53 of 231 (676043)
10-18-2012 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Coragyps
10-17-2012 9:17 AM


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:
{Evolution} has in recent years been challenged in the world of science and is not yet believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was believed. But if it was going to be taught in the schools, then I think that also the biblical theory of creation, which is not a theory but the biblical story of creation, should also be taught.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Coragyps, posted 10-17-2012 9:17 AM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by NoNukes, posted 10-18-2012 4:20 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(3)
Message 69 of 231 (676211)
10-20-2012 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by foreveryoung
10-20-2012 12:59 AM


Re: Mainstream Media? Really?
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:
Nothing in science or in any other field of knowledge shall be taught dogmatically. Dogma is a system of beliefs that is not subject to scientific test and refutation. Compelling belief is inconsistent with the goal of education; the goal is to encourage understanding.
To be fully informed citizens, students do not have to accept everything that is taught in the natural science curriculum, but they do have to understand the major strands of scientific thought, including its methods, facts, hypotheses, theories, and laws.
. . .
Ultimately, students should be made aware of the difference between understanding, which is the goal of education, and subscribing to ideas.
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:
I've read many of the materials written by young-earth creationists such as Steve Austin, Thomas Barnes, Carl Baugh, Duane Gish, Ken Ham, Henry Morris, John Morris, Gary Parker, and Harold Slusher among others. I'm also very familiar with the material put out by Answers in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research and the Creation Research Society. In addition, I've even attended lectures and seminars by several well-known young-earth creationists.
In general, I've been dismayed by the lack of scholarship, research, and ethics displayed by these men who claim to be devout Christians. They totally misrepresent mainstream science and scientists, ignore evidence contrary to their claims, and display an amazing ignorance of even the most basic fundamentals of science and scientific inquiry. Their materials are aimed toward laypeople who are in no position to evaluate their claims. I don't mean to sound arrogant, but who is better qualified to judge the accuracy of K-Ar dating, an evangelist who reads creationist literature and has never taken a physics or geology course in his life or a Ph.D. in isotope geochemistry (who may also be a devout Christian) who has spent 25 years studying K-Ar dating in granites?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by foreveryoung, posted 10-20-2012 12:59 AM foreveryoung has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(3)
Message 98 of 231 (676951)
10-26-2012 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by foreveryoung
10-26-2012 1:39 AM


Re: Please show evidence Murrow said that
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:
  1. Its author
  2. What it actually says.
The "Books of Moses" depend upon their purported author, Moses, for their authenticity and for their authority. Their contents are absolutely meaningless unless it was Moses Himself who had written them down. If it should turn out that they were written by anybody else, then their authenticity and authoritativeness immediately becomes meaningless. The inherent value of the writings of Moses depends entirely upon their authorship; if it were found that they were written by somebody else, then they would immediately become absolutely worthless.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by foreveryoung, posted 10-26-2012 1:39 AM foreveryoung has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-26-2012 2:37 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(2)
Message 144 of 231 (677136)
10-27-2012 5:45 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by foreveryoung
10-26-2012 12:07 PM


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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by foreveryoung, posted 10-26-2012 12:07 PM foreveryoung has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Percy, posted 10-27-2012 5:16 PM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 156 of 231 (677176)
10-27-2012 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Percy
10-27-2012 5:16 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Percy, posted 10-27-2012 5:16 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Percy, posted 10-27-2012 8:32 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 159 of 231 (677179)
10-27-2012 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by foreveryoung
10-27-2012 7:05 PM


Re: Have No Idea What You are Talking About
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by foreveryoung, posted 10-27-2012 7:05 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by foreveryoung, posted 10-27-2012 7:28 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024