A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

Re the earlier discussion (sexism), I'll just quickly point out the use of a particular term in the on-going Hillary narrative... "cackle". Men don't 'cackle', witches make that sound.

Quote:

The Cackle joins The Haircut and The Sigh
The media's comical obsession earlier this month with the tone and frequency of Sen. Hillary Clinton's laugh didn't just represent another head-smacking moment in the annals of awful campaign journalism. It also served as a preview of what's likely to come in 2008.

Anybody who thinks that if Clinton wins the Democratic nomination that the Cackle narrative won't be revived has not been paying attention in recent years. That's why it's so important to take a moment to understand the press dynamics that allow a story like The Cackle to flourish, and why pointless stories like that -- and John Edwards' Haircut or Al Gore's Sighs during a 2000 presidential debate -- only affect Democrats.

Blatham's fidelity to the prescripts of a certain secular convention of thought has itself a certain evangelical quality that makes his preoccupation with some Christians seem a bit odd - at least to me.

[
With the difference being, environmentalism has at least a basis in science and is ostensibly is open to changes based upon new scientific studies. On the other hand, religion has exactly zero basis in any test-able or verifiable science.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

[
With the difference being, environmentalism has at least a basis in science and is ostensibly is open to changes based upon new scientific studies. On the other hand, religion has exactly zero basis in any test-able or verifiable science.

An interesting bit of rank sophistry. Religion and philosophy are not subsets of science. To say that religion cannot be supported by science is to say exactly nothing.

Do you consider "environmentalism" an equivalent to or substitute for religion? If you will take the trouble to learn, I think you will find that, in its human application, it is even more replete with error, misplaced priorities and half-assed analysis than even Protestant Christianity. I find no particular fault with Environmentalism because of this - it reflects only the flaws of the humans who support it. The remarkable part here is that somehow you find it inherently superior.

So, george, would you be pleased if that 50%+ went up to 75%? An honest answer of yes or no seems hardly too much to ask.

"I think you will find that, in its human application, it is even more replete with error, misplaced priorities and half-assed analysis than even Protestant Christianity."

I don't believe that (say) Europeans who answer polls in a way suggesting less belief in the mythology of literal interpretation of Christian texts, are any more or less intelligent than those who answer otherwise.

georgeob1 wrote:

I don't believe that (say) Europeans who answer polls in a way suggesting less belief in the mythology of literal interpretation of Christian texts, are any more or less intelligent than those who answer otherwise.

I would argue against that, but I don't want to overwork your dim-witted American mind.

[This line -

"I think you will find that, in its human application, it is even more replete with error, misplaced priorities and half-assed analysis than even Protestant Christianity."

Is completely false, and nothing more then your opinion. I can at least show some of the logic which goes into environmental calculations. We can do empirical testing of many of the tenets of environmentalism.

With respect to religion, there is no basis of logic whatsoever backing up anyone's belief; indeed, it is the exact opposite of logic, Faith, which supports the religious system. There is exactly zero empirical testing which can be done to prove or disprove the theory.

Even if you are against the environmentalists' conclusions, you could show scientifically how they are incorrect. This is impossible WRT religion. Therefore, it is impossible to say that environmentalism is inferior to religion in any way, or not superior. One has a basis in science and the other does not.

I will go with theories which can be proven or disproven over those which must be accepted on faith and zero evidence each and every time. The fact that you can't understand this places you right about on the level of the 45% in question.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

[This line -

"I think you will find that, in its human application, it is even more replete with error, misplaced priorities and half-assed analysis than even Protestant Christianity."

Is completely false, and nothing more then your opinion. I can at least show some of the logic which goes into environmental calculations. We can do empirical testing of many of the tenets of environmentalism.

With respect to religion, there is no basis of logic whatsoever backing up anyone's belief; indeed, it is the exact opposite of logic, Faith, which supports the religious system. There is exactly zero empirical testing which can be done to prove or disprove the theory.

Even if you are against the environmentalists' conclusions, you could show scientifically how they are incorrect. This is impossible WRT religion. Therefore, it is impossible to say that environmentalism is inferior to religion in any way, or not superior. One has a basis in science and the other does not.

I will go with theories which can be proven or disproven over those which must be accepted on faith and zero evidence each and every time. The fact that you can't understand this places you right about on the level of the 45% in question.

Cycloptichorn

Well, once again you are cherry picking pieces of the fabric as the basis for counter attack.

And just what is "the level of the 45%" ? Do you consider yourself to be superior to them? On what basis?

I have no argument wirh empiricism - except when the malinformed attempt to presume there is no other basis for thought or deduction.

I am CEO of an Environmental company. We make lost of money performing EPA mandated human health risk assessments and in designing & constructing remedial solutions, large and small. I routinely observe the environmental regulators deliberately ignoring the scientific results of these risk analyses in the pursuit of their social and bureaucratic goals. Does that make me (or any of them) "Environmentalists"? Is it "Environmentalism" when they (regulators and advocacy groups) mandate huge expenditures for remedial action when the science of the matter demonstrates that there will be no measurable public benefit? This happens routinely - if that is environmentalism then you should beware of it.

I submit there is much more to these questions than you appear to be willing to acknowledge.

And just what is "the level of the 45%" ? Do you consider yourself to be superior to them? On what basis?

Naturally. Logical thought is superior to illogical faith. Even if logical thought is incorrect, it can be shown to be incorrect. It is not possible to show that faith is incorrect. One type of thought is provably superior then the other.

Just ask one question: what advances for society has faith wrought? What advances has logic wrought? The two are hardly comparable, in that religion and faith have not materially advanced the cause of humanity in any real way, whereas science and logic have done so.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Naturally. Logical thought is superior to illogical faith. Even if logical thought is incorrect, it can be shown to be incorrect. It is not possible to show that faith is incorrect. One type of thought is provably superior then the other.

Just ask one question: what advances for society has faith wrought? What advances has logic wrought? The two are hardly comparable, in that religion and faith have not materially advanced the cause of humanity in any real way, whereas science and logic have done so.

Cycloptichorn

You are a nice, likeable guy, but you have a lot to learn.

okie wrote:

Well, I just looked at the poll you cited and if you look at the numbers, it is obviously a flawed poll. 53% definitely or probably believe man evolved over a long period of time from lower forms of life, but 66% definitely or probably believe man was created in the last 10,000 years. So almost 20% of the people directly contradict themselves with their answers, probably because of the questions not being answerable with exactly what they might believe.

That doesn't mean the poll was flawed. It only means the pollsters interviewed flawed people.

blatham wrote:

So, george, would you be pleased if that 50%+ went up to 75%? An honest answer of yes or no seems hardly too much to ask.

The honest answer is that I wouldn't care one way or the other. Human nature is what it is. Most of the accepted 'immutable truths' of any age or culture are subsequently found to be defective in one way or another.

Therefore I am more preoccupied with the preservation of my own freedom to think and do as I choose than I am about the beliefs of others - except for those who actually have the power to coerce me.

Maybe the pollsters are more stupid than the people being polled?

georgeob1 wrote:

blatham wrote:

So, george, would you be pleased if that 50%+ went up to 75%? An honest answer of yes or no seems hardly too much to ask.

The honest answer is that I wouldn't care one way or the other. Human nature is what it is. Most of the accepted 'immutable truths' of any age or culture are subsequently found to be defective in one way or another.

Therefore I am more preoccupied with the preservation of my own freedom to think and do as I choose than I am about the beliefs of others - except for those who actually have the power to coerce me.

Fine. Consistency in reasoning (which we know you value) would now have you making the claim that you wouldn't care one way or the other if 75% or even 100% of Americans came to believe that 'environmentalist ideas' were correct/immutable.

Yes or no? Take your pick. Or you could just chicken out again.