Amazon has whacked our affiliate account. Hosting Donations/Commitments $2063 of $1920 (Sept 13/18). In Hand $1466 (Lump sum payments minus paypal graft). Paypal Donation Link Here

Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

Post Reply
Malachite
Posts: 1081
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 8:59 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Malachite » Thu Nov 22, 2012 1:48 am

YellowKing wrote:
Unfortunately, the age of the earth is not "one of the great mysteries," Senator Rubio. You are either an actual idiot or pandering to them.
I take it you would say the same of Obama?
Q: Senator, if one of your daughters asked you—and maybe they already have—“Daddy, did god really create the world in 6 days?,” what would you say?
GQ, interviewing Rubio wrote: How old do you think the Earth is?
Huh. I didn't realize GQ (or it's audience, if you'd rather) was one of Obama's daughters!

How old were the Obama girls in 2008? 10 and 7, right? I can see myself explaining literal vs. allegorical Biblical passages to my son at 10, if he asks, but at 7, there's no way he would have been ready for it.


I'm willing to cut Obama more slack than Rubio, for three reasons:

First, the question to Obama was worded as a question from his daughter, while Rubio's was not. Maybe Obama would have said the same thing if flat out asked "How old is the earth?", but that wasn't what he was asked.

Second, Obama was speaking at "Messiah College", where he probably didn't want to be hit by large numbers of flying shoes, whereas Rubio was being interviewed by GQ, which probably wouldn't have pelted him with shoes even if he'd said Santa wasn't real. I can forgive some degree of tailoring your message to your audience, and Obama did continue on in that speech to say that evolution is real. Unless I'm wrong about who reads GQ, Rubio wasn't talking to a fundamentalist audience, so he doesn't have that excuse.

And finally, I'm not worried about Obama or his party trying to sneak Genesis 1 into my science classroom. I know the same can't be said about Rubio's party, and I have no idea where Rubio himself really stands. Yeah, that's not really fair, but that's reality - I'm willing to overlook a little 'pandering to the idiots' if I'm sure you recognize that they really are 'the idiots'. If I think you may be one of them, I'm not cutting you any slack.

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 38070
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by GreenGoo » Thu Nov 22, 2012 10:02 am

The main issue I have when comparing both those answers is that it seems to me that Rubio wants to answer yes, literally 7 days but knows that is not a good idea, whereas Obama wants to answer No, of course not but knows that is not a good idea.

It really is the difference between someone who knows better but finds themselves between a rock and a hard place politically, and someone who doesn't have a clue other than to know it's a bad idea to claim their beliefs are fact.

They are both pandering, but I cut Obama more slack (I'd still prefer a less wishy-washy answer) than Rubio because based on both their answers it seems to me that Obama knows/believes the "right" answer and Rubio knows/believes the "wrong" answer.

What's particularly frustrating is that a belief system (more specifically those who hold to it) is interfering with acknowledgement of scientific fact by both politicians. If that's not a clear indicator that basing your world view on religious faith to the exclusion of all else is a bad idea, I don't know what would convince people.

This is just one of the reasons religious faith is denigrated by those that don't share it.

User avatar
Holman
Posts: 19485
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Approximately Wissahickon

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Holman » Thu Nov 22, 2012 11:55 am

When did Young-Earth Creationists become a constituency to avoid offending?

I grew up evangelical and went to a conservative Christian high school; in the mid-1980's you would have been laughed out of the room for suggesting that the world was 4,000 years old. Yes, we took the Bible and miracles literally, but we made room for the fact that the seven days of Genesis could easily have been seven ages (etc etc). Many people were suspicious of evolution, but no one went so far as to claim that history started recently.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 38070
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by GreenGoo » Thu Nov 22, 2012 12:07 pm

Holman wrote:When did Young-Earth Creationists become a constituency to avoid offending?
I don't know. I think the seeming increase in the belief that the Earth is a recent creation and that it was created in 7 actual days is a kind of backlash to an increasinlgy secular society. But I have no idea really.

User avatar
Grundbegriff
Posts: 22276
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:46 am
Location: http://baroquepotion.com
Contact:

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Grundbegriff » Fri Nov 23, 2012 11:40 am

Holman wrote:When did Young-Earth Creationists become a constituency to avoid offending?

I grew up evangelical and went to a conservative Christian high school; in the mid-1980's you would have been laughed out of the room for suggesting that the world was 4,000 years old. Yes, we took the Bible and miracles literally, but we made room for the fact that the seven days of Genesis could easily have been seven ages (etc etc). Many people were suspicious of evolution, but no one went so far as to claim that history started recently.
I would agree that Young Earthers are regarded either as holders of an unpopular fundy position or as outright fringe dwellers even in conservative evangelical circles.

I suspect that folks who equate Young Earth creationism with evangelicalism as a whole do not understand how many well educated evangelicals, including engineers and scientists and such, make up that demographic.

User avatar
Grundbegriff
Posts: 22276
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:46 am
Location: http://baroquepotion.com
Contact:

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Grundbegriff » Fri Nov 23, 2012 11:43 am

Malachite wrote:
GQ, interviewing Rubio wrote: How old do you think the Earth is?
Huh. I didn't realize GQ (or it's audience, if you'd rather) was one of Obama's daughters!

How old were the Obama girls in 2008? 10 and 7, right? I can see myself explaining literal vs. allegorical Biblical passages to my son at 10, if he asks, but at 7, there's no way he would have been ready for it.
Had they been teens at the time, it would've gone like this: "The first time you engage a creator and sustainer of the cosmos, you want it to be with a great guy...."

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 38070
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by GreenGoo » Fri Nov 23, 2012 11:46 am

Grundbegriff wrote:I suspect that folks who equate Young Earth creationism with evangelicalism as a whole do not understand how many well educated evangelicals, including engineers and scientists and such, make up that demographic.
I don't doubt that actually, but it's hard to reconcile that with the fact that politicians on both sides of the aisle are not willing to ostracize the Young Earth creationists by stating point blank that it is an almost intolerable position in our modern society to take. Why are politicians so willing to pander and hedge their comments when discussing the topic if the YE people are a fringe group?

User avatar
Grundbegriff
Posts: 22276
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:46 am
Location: http://baroquepotion.com
Contact:

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Grundbegriff » Fri Nov 23, 2012 12:00 pm

GreenGoo wrote:I don't doubt that actually, but it's hard to reconcile that with the fact that politicians on both sides of the aisle are not willing to ostracize the Young Earth creationists by stating point blank that it is an almost intolerable position in our modern society to take.
I have two issues with this. First, since when is it a surprise that politicians pander to people who may be willing to vote for them or give them money? Expressing extreme dismay just in this case seems disproportionate, given that such behavior is the common stock of the political class. Second, why be intolerant of people who sincerely hold mistaken or ignorant beliefs? There are many such people. Indeed, the phenomenon of being either mistaken or ignorant is about as universal as any you might name.

In a top-down political order, idealism may be the best corrective. In a democracy, it ought to be obvious that the disparate views of the people will find their voice, however loud or dim, and use it.

"Modern society" has taken many intolerable positions, some rooted in scientific ignorance and some not. "Modern society" is hardly a beacon of perfection, as anyone acquainted with the last two centuries should know.
Why are politicians so willing to pander and hedge their comments when discussing the topic if the YE people are a fringe group?
Several possibilities:
(a) the politician also shares the YE view
(b) the politician does not share the YE view, but regards it as a legitimate option and doesn't want to offend those who likewise view it as an option
(c) the politician regards the YE view as aberrant, but does not understand who else regards it as aberrant and so avoids offense by playing at tolerance
(d) the politician regards YE as aberrant but believes that garnering those votes would produce a better political outcome than losing them
(e) the politician genuinely believes that politicians who are not also scientists should not take hard stands on scientific issues
(f) the politician has contempt for YE and doesn't care about those votes, but is too weak or intimidated to take a clear stand
(g) ...

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 38070
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by GreenGoo » Fri Nov 23, 2012 2:36 pm

Grundbegriff wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:I don't doubt that actually, but it's hard to reconcile that with the fact that politicians on both sides of the aisle are not willing to ostracize the Young Earth creationists by stating point blank that it is an almost intolerable position in our modern society to take.
I have two issues with this. First, since when is it a surprise that politicians pander to people who may be willing to vote for them or give them money? Expressing extreme dismay just in this case seems disproportionate, given that such behavior is the common stock of the political class. Second, why be intolerant of people who sincerely hold mistaken or ignorant beliefs? There are many such people. Indeed, the phenomenon of being either mistaken or ignorant is about as universal as any you might name.

In a top-down political order, idealism may be the best corrective. In a democracy, it ought to be obvious that the disparate views of the people will find their voice, however loud or dim, and use it.

"Modern society" has taken many intolerable positions, some rooted in scientific ignorance and some not. "Modern society" is hardly a beacon of perfection, as anyone acquainted with the last two centuries should know.
Why are politicians so willing to pander and hedge their comments when discussing the topic if the YE people are a fringe group?
Several possibilities:
(a) the politician also shares the YE view
(b) the politician does not share the YE view, but regards it as a legitimate option and doesn't want to offend those who likewise view it as an option
(c) the politician regards the YE view as aberrant, but does not understand who else regards it as aberrant and so avoids offense by playing at tolerance
(d) the politician regards YE as aberrant but believes that garnering those votes would produce a better political outcome than losing them
(e) the politician genuinely believes that politicians who are not also scientists should not take hard stands on scientific issues
(f) the politician has contempt for YE and doesn't care about those votes, but is too weak or intimidated to take a clear stand
(g) ...
It's a surprise when the group they are pandering to is so small, and the pandering has a net negative effect on those that are insulted by the very idea that it is a controversy. It's 2012. The gain is a few votes. The loss is general disapproval by the rest of the population. It's intellectually offensive to me.

As for it being this particular case that is casing extreme dismay, it's not. This is the case we happen to be talking about in thread. If you want to talk about other subjects where a politician is pandering we can, and we do. This particular topic is about YE, which is why I'm addressing YE here. My offense is in direct proportion to how solid a truth is that is being questioned. I don't work in the geological field, nor do I work in the theological field. So my concern is not personal, it's about intellectual dishonesty. You can be as misguided as you want about ambiguous topics, but when you have to work so very hard to make your belief "work" contrary to everything around you, I have little respect for that. It's not faith, it's bullshit.

You may be right, and that modern society has taken all sorts of stances that are wrong. Either scientifically or otherwise. But I like to think that each generation believes that stamping out these stances is a positive, progressive thing. I like to think that our current society is less ignorant in general than earlier iterations of it. The fact that modern society still makes lots of mistakes is absolutely no reasoning whatsoever to excuse making this one.

I know you like to obfuscate a specific topic by bringing in all the other questionable positions that might be comparable, but let's stick to one for now.

On the one hand we have multiple, entire fields of science that corroborate each other in this area. Built up over centuries and centuries under the labour of thousands and thousands of people. On the other hand we have a book claiming to know better, written a couple of thousand years ago.
The weight of scientific evidence is extreme in it's refutation of the words in that book. There is no debate. This is not pro-life/pro-choice. It's not even climate change. There is nothing to be discussed. One side of age of the Earth topic is entirely made up, and the other side is irrefutable fact.

I don't know about you, but I would prefer our nations' leaders not perpetuate the idea that there is some debate here. It's a disservice to the people they govern. It's dishonest and embarrassing.

User avatar
Grundbegriff
Posts: 22276
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:46 am
Location: http://baroquepotion.com
Contact:

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Grundbegriff » Fri Nov 23, 2012 3:55 pm

GreenGoo wrote:It's intellectually offensive to me.
This is where you lose me. Why should anyone care what's "intellectually offensive" (whatever that may mean) to you?

If I made a list of criteria for identifying "intellectual offenses" and for considering them relevant to me, and then set about either applying those criteria explicitly or becoming a reactionary who takes offense automatically, how would I ever find time to do anything else?
My offense is in direct proportion to how solid a truth is that is being questioned.
What counts as a "solid truth" relative to a particular human agent? If you tolerate only assertions confirmed empirically to a high degree of confidence, you'll find yourself in very sparse company; most theories of truth are considerably more broad and open than that.
So my concern is not personal, it's about intellectual dishonesty.
Why do you suppose Young Earthers are being intellectually dishonest? Or that politicians who think Young Earthers, too, can be good or valuable citizens are being intellectually dishonest? The epistemic purity of one's explicit beliefs is not the only criterion of human value, and is perhaps not even close to the top of that list.
You can be as misguided as you want about ambiguous topics, but when you have to work so very hard to make your belief "work" contrary to everything around you, I have little respect for that. It's not faith, it's bullshit.
You'd be surprised, evidently, at how much ambiguity surrounds your own beliefs and about how deep runs the intellectual sludge in which you stand.

Given the near universality of clay feet, humility is much more becoming than perpetually taking "intellectual offense".
I know you like to obfuscate a specific topic by bringing in all the other questionable positions that might be comparable, but let's stick to one for now.
I'm simply aiming to be intellectually honest.
On the other hand we have a book claiming to know better, written a couple of thousand years ago.
Does it? Or do we have a post-enlightenment Anglo-American fundamentalism that popularized one particular interpretation of Genesis that had previously never been considered obligatory, much less solitary....
I don't know about you, but I would prefer our nations' leaders not perpetuate the idea that there is some debate here. It's a disservice to the people they govern. It's dishonest and embarrassing.
It's no big deal, except among rabble rousers looking for a pretext to propagandize.

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 38070
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by GreenGoo » Fri Nov 23, 2012 4:28 pm

Grundbegriff wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:It's intellectually offensive to me.
This is where you lose me. Why should anyone care what's "intellectually offensive" (whatever that may mean) to you?

<snip>

It's no big deal, except among rabble rousers looking for a pretext to propagandize.
I care because I care about honesty in public discourse. I think it's valuable, and I think dishonesty holds us back as a society and a civilization. I think political discourse today almost never deals with actual issues that need to be addressed. Platitudes and sound bites rule the day. There are plenty of questions that need answering. Let's work on those. How old the earth is is not one of them. People in charge of governing (what I like to think of as) the most progressive countries in the world, world leaders if you will, need to be looking and moving forward. Comments like this aren't conducive to that, imo.

YE adherents aren't a big deal. Presidents commenting ambiguously on the validity of YE adherents is a problem though for a few reasons, one of which is it shows that being honest is an unacceptable stance for a politician to hold, on even the most obvious, uncontroversial subject. When honesty is a liability for our leaders, it's "not good". Imo bien sur. You are free of course to think it's not worth mentioning. I feel differently.

I guess it depends on how much responsibility you think our elected officials have to actually lead us. If leadership is not something you value, or you think a leader can lead while refusing to give a definitive answer to even the most innocuous question, then I can see why you feel differently than I do.

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 38070
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by GreenGoo » Fri Nov 23, 2012 4:39 pm

Grundbegriff wrote:
My offense is in direct proportion to how solid a truth is that is being questioned.
What counts as a "solid truth" relative to a particular human agent? If you tolerate only assertions confirmed empirically to a high degree of confidence, you'll find yourself in very sparse company; most theories of truth are considerably more broad and open than that.
First, I don't only tolerate assertions that have been confirmed empirically. As you say, a person would be left with such doubt as to be unable to function in that case. But we're not talking about every possible assertion, we're talking about this particular one. It's ok to think WTF, when a president is asked if he thinks water is wet or not, and he answers that there are lots of opinions and that he's not sure but he thinks America is great because it's a country where a person is free to believe that water is not wet, gosh darn it.

There are topics that have value in examining and re-examining. This is not one of them. By lumping it in with other theories of truth that are more open to interpretation, you are commiting the exact opposite "crime" you are accusing me of. If I only tolerate assertions confirmed empirically, you would argue that all assertions are of equal value, and equally broad and open. And if you're not arguing that, you should have little trouble understanding why this particular one is of note. Aside from it being brought up in this thread of course.

Since I know that you understand the term "intellectually honesty", I can only assume you are intentionally playing devil's advocate in an "intellectually dishonest" fashion. :P

User avatar
Grundbegriff
Posts: 22276
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:46 am
Location: http://baroquepotion.com
Contact:

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Grundbegriff » Fri Nov 23, 2012 5:31 pm

GreenGoo wrote:There are topics that have value in examining and re-examining. This is not one of them. By lumping it in with other theories of truth that are more open to interpretation, you are commiting the exact opposite "crime" you are accusing me of. If I only tolerate assertions confirmed empirically, you would argue that all assertions are of equal value, and equally broad and open. And if you're not arguing that, you should have little trouble understanding why this particular one is of note.
This either/or thinking-- either one "would argue that all assertions are of equal value" xor one "should have little trouble understanding why this particular one is of note"-- strikes me as too simplistic. There's a middle ground in which one might have trouble understanding why this issue is of note without committing to the notion that all assertions are of equal value.
Since I know that you understand the term "intellectually honesty", I can only assume you are intentionally playing devil's advocate in an "intellectually dishonest" fashion. :P
That's not a thing you "can only assume"; it's merely the thing you choose to assume.

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 38070
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by GreenGoo » Fri Nov 23, 2012 5:55 pm

As I see it, you are taking two exceptions to my comments.

1) I feel this truth is not debatable. You feel truths are broad and open.
2) Why does it matter that the interviewees refuse to commit to an opinion, one way or another.

Is that correct? I'm trying to figure out what your issue is with my opinion on this.

If that is not correct, can you let me know what your issues are in point form please? It might save some confusion on my part.

Thanks.

User avatar
Grundbegriff
Posts: 22276
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:46 am
Location: http://baroquepotion.com
Contact:

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Grundbegriff » Fri Nov 23, 2012 6:06 pm

GreenGoo wrote:As I see it, you are taking two exceptions to my comments.
1) I feel this truth is not debatable. You feel truths are broad and open.
For me, the political context is relevant. If we were discussing, say, a curriculum at a state university, I'd take a strong stance against the inclusion of YE creationism as a matter of scientific, rather than sociological, interest. But in a discussion of political hedging to steer clear of inane hot-button controversies or to include folks of otherwise common cause, I see it as a pretty mundane compromise.

To try to drive a wedge between "not debatable" and "truths are broad and open" and then pigeonhole the both of us, btw, is another example of the constrained thinking that seems to limit your participation in this conversation. No, I do not categorically "feel truths are broad and open" (whatever that may mean; on my best construction of it, I think it's false of me).
2) Why does it matter that the interviewees refuse to commit to an opinion, one way or another.
That's closer to the center of the issue. In some contexts, taking a clear stand based on an explicit articulation of well-delineated principles and evidence is mandatory; in some, conventional. In the context of a politician being interviewed for the popular press? Not so much.

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 38070
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by GreenGoo » Fri Nov 23, 2012 6:07 pm

Grundbegriff wrote:
Since I know that you understand the term "intellectually honesty", I can only assume you are intentionally playing devil's advocate in an "intellectually dishonest" fashion. :P
That's not a thing you "can only assume"; it's merely the thing you choose to assume.
No, you really leave me little choice when you attribute to me opinions that are not mine. Especially when we all agree your a member of OO with vast intellect and understanding of many things, including the written word.
Grundbegriff wrote: Why do you suppose Young Earthers are being intellectually dishonest? Or that politicians who think Young Earthers, too, can be good or valuable citizens are being intellectually dishonest? The epistemic purity of one's explicit beliefs is not the only criterion of human value, and is perhaps not even close to the top of that list.
I do not suppose this, nor did I say it or imply it.

Perhaps the point form I requested will prevent these misunderstandings in the future, for both of us.

User avatar
Grundbegriff
Posts: 22276
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:46 am
Location: http://baroquepotion.com
Contact:

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Grundbegriff » Fri Nov 23, 2012 6:15 pm

GreenGoo wrote:
Grundbegriff wrote:
Since I know that you understand the term "intellectually honesty", I can only assume you are intentionally playing devil's advocate in an "intellectually dishonest" fashion. :P
That's not a thing you "can only assume"; it's merely the thing you choose to assume.
No, you really leave me little choice when you attribute to me opinions that are not mine. Especially when we all agree your a member of OO with vast intellect and understanding of many things, including the written word.
Let's just be clear: at no point in my participation in this forum have ever made, implied, or encouraged such claims about myself. I'm only here for the happychat.
Grundbegriff wrote:Why do you suppose Young Earthers are being intellectually dishonest?...
I do not suppose this, nor did I say it or imply it.
So when you wrote "This particular topic is about YE, which is why I'm addressing YE here. My offense is in direct proportion to how solid a truth is that is being questioned. I don't work in the geological field, nor do I work in the theological field. So my concern is not personal, it's about intellectual dishonesty.", you were neither supposing, nor saying, nor implying that advocates of YE (or those who pander to them) are being intellectually dishonest?

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 38070
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by GreenGoo » Fri Nov 23, 2012 6:19 pm

Grundbegriff wrote: To try to drive a wedge between "not debatable" and "truths are broad and open" and then pigeonhole the both of us, btw, is another example of the constrained thinking that seems to limit your participation in this conversation. No, I do not categorically "feel truths are broad and open" (whatever that may mean; on my best construction of it, I think it's false of me).
Interesting, because those are your words (broad and open). If I am mistaken in thinking you believe that all truths are broad and open (and, to be fair, you did say "some") then would it be fair of me to interpret your words as applying to the YE stance? And if you don't believe "broad and open" applies to the YE stance, why bring it up at all? Do you feel that I, as an aside, required education on this topic and this thread was as good a place as any to bring it up?

Forgive me if I misrepresented you on this "truths" thing. I thought it was related to the topic at hand in some way.

As for the political ramifications of answering a reporter honestly, I think in this particular case (YE position) the evidence of truth is so great, and the political risk so small, that it infuriates me that we live in an society where it is a better idea to utter a non-answer than to answer honestly. It speaks poorly of our culture and our seeming lack of desire for honest discourse (and yes, even in so benign a situation as a stupid fluff question from a reporter on the fly).

It sucks.

In a world where one of the biggest complaints about politicians is their lack of honestly, witnessing this dancing around the answer is anger inducing.

Pointless, directionless anger.

User avatar
Grundbegriff
Posts: 22276
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:46 am
Location: http://baroquepotion.com
Contact:

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Grundbegriff » Fri Nov 23, 2012 6:28 pm

GreenGoo wrote:
Grundbegriff wrote: To try to drive a wedge between "not debatable" and "truths are broad and open" and then pigeonhole the both of us, btw, is another example of the constrained thinking that seems to limit your participation in this conversation. No, I do not categorically "feel truths are broad and open" (whatever that may mean; on my best construction of it, I think it's false of me).
Interesting, because those are your words (broad and open).
Those are English words. You used them differently from the way I used them, and then ascribed your different usage to me. Here's what I actually wrote:
me wrote:If you tolerate only assertions confirmed empirically to a high degree of confidence, you'll find yourself in very sparse company; most theories of truth are considerably more broad and open than that.
Note the difference. You: "truths are broad and open". Me: "most theories of truth are broad and open". Apples and kumquats.
If I am mistaken in thinking you believe that all truths are broad and open (and, to be fair, you did say "some") then would it be fair of me to interpret your words as applying to the YE stance?
It would be fair of you to interpret my words "broad and open" as applying to "most theories of truth". YE isn't a truth theory; it's an a priori conviction about geological time.
And if you don't believe "broad and open" applies to the YE stance, why bring it up at all? Do you feel that I, as an aside, required education on this topic and this thread was as good a place as any to bring it up?
You can be the judge of that.
Forgive me if I misrepresented you on this "truths" thing. I thought it was related to the topic at hand in some way.
It's possible for the thing I write to be relevant to the topic at hand even if you misinterpret the thing I write.
As for the political ramifications of answering a reporter honestly, I think in this particular case (YE position) the evidence of truth is so great, and the political risk so small, that it infuriates me that we live in an society where it is a better idea to utter a non-answer than to answer honestly.... In a world where one of the biggest complaints about politicians is their lack of honestly, witnessing this dancing around the answer is anger inducing. Pointless, directionless anger.
That's an interesting datum about your psychology.

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 38070
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by GreenGoo » Fri Nov 23, 2012 6:29 pm

Grundbegriff wrote: Let's just be clear: at no point in my participation in this forum have ever made, implied, or encouraged such claims about myself. I'm only here for the happychat.
I didn't mean to include you in the "we all", if that makes you feel better.
Grundbegriff wrote: So when you wrote "This particular topic is about YE, which is why I'm addressing YE here. My offense is in direct proportion to how solid a truth is that is being questioned. I don't work in the geological field, nor do I work in the theological field. So my concern is not personal, it's about intellectual dishonesty.", you were neither supposing, nor saying, nor implying that advocates of YE (or those who pander to them) are being intellectually dishonest?
We were good up until "(or those that pander to them)". I think YE are being willfully ignorant. They've decided that the age of the earth is a subject of faith and not of verifiable fact. That in no way implies that I think they can't be good or valuable citizen. At least they have an answer to the question.

The intellectual dishonesty comes when interviewees provide non-answers in the hopes of not offending someone. Either the YE group which is politically powerless (assuming they are as small as you implied) or everyone else. And if they come down on the YE side of this equation, I'd like to know that before I put them in office, because it would put there judgement into serious question, imo.

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 38070
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by GreenGoo » Fri Nov 23, 2012 6:40 pm

Grundbegriff wrote: It's possible for the thing I write to be relevant to the topic at hand even if you misinterpret the thing I write.
Do you know how many times you've said this on this forum? Do you know how many times you've said this and then taken the time to clarify your words to your humble interlocutor?

I find little value in participating in discussions with you because of this. You're actually one of my least favourite debaters on this forum because of this. To debate with or to simply read. Which is not to say that you don't often post things of great value when your posts are for informational purposes. It's debate that is so often ended with "it's not my fault you don't understand me". Do you know that I wrote a short blurb earlier in the thread predicting this exact outcome, but I deleted it because I did not want to be provocative.

Fine. I don't understand the things you say. And by your posting history, many others have struggled to comprehend your words at one point or another as well. Oh well.

I don't mean to insult, but I think I've reached my limit for today.

User avatar
Grundbegriff
Posts: 22276
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:46 am
Location: http://baroquepotion.com
Contact:

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Grundbegriff » Fri Nov 23, 2012 6:48 pm

GreenGoo wrote:I find little value in participating in discussions with you because of this. You're actually one of my least favourite debaters on this forum because of this. To debate with or to simply read.
And yet, here you are. Strange compulsion.

In retrospect, I think this is what happened: you complained that a politician was a weasel -- something I take as given -- and I proceeded to hold your way of expressing that contempt to too rigorous a standard. As a result, I found errors or confusion where you didn't intend them and didn't aspire to greater clarity.

Instead of pushing for consistency, I should have simply joined you on our common ground: contempt for politicians. ;)
I don't mean to insult, but I think I've reached my limit for today.
That's fine. I actually entered the thread only to make this joke. But I was drawn in like a magpie by the shiny.

User avatar
Exodor
Posts: 16348
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:10 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Exodor » Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:55 pm

GreenGoo wrote:Do you know how many times you've said this on this forum? Do you know how many times you've said this and then taken the time to clarify your words to your humble interlocutor?

I find little value in participating in discussions with you because of this.
Check out the "foe" function. I rarely need to use it but when used appropriately it makes the forum a much more pleasant place.


User avatar
Exodor
Posts: 16348
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:10 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Exodor » Fri Nov 30, 2012 6:18 pm

Pat Robertson challenges Young Earth Creationism
“You go back in time, you've got radiocarbon dating. You got all these things, and you've got the carcasses of dinosaurs frozen in time out in the Dakotas,” Robertson said. “They're out there. So, there was a time when these giant reptiles were on the Earth, and it was before the time of the Bible. So, don't try and cover it up and make like everything was 6,000 years. That's not the Bible.”

“If you fight science, you are going to lose your children, and I believe in telling them the way it was,” Robertson concluded.
When Pat Robertson has become the voice of reason you know you've gone way out there.

User avatar
malichai11
Posts: 1843
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2004 10:44 pm
Location: Lawrence, KS

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by malichai11 » Fri Nov 30, 2012 6:48 pm

Exodor wrote:Pat Robertson challenges Young Earth Creationism
“You go back in time, you've got radiocarbon dating. You got all these things, and you've got the carcasses of dinosaurs frozen in time out in the Dakotas,” Robertson said. “They're out there. So, there was a time when these giant reptiles were on the Earth, and it was before the time of the Bible. So, don't try and cover it up and make like everything was 6,000 years. That's not the Bible.”

“If you fight science, you are going to lose your children, and I believe in telling them the way it was,” Robertson concluded.
When Pat Robertson has become the voice of reason you know you've gone way out there.
I know little to nothing about Pat Robertson, so I would've just assumed he was a Young Earth nutter. I find this pleasantly surprising.

User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 57161
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:
Isgrimnur’s avatar
Offline

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Isgrimnur » Fri Nov 30, 2012 7:10 pm

So I wonder if CBN will stop selling Dinosaurs for Kids written by Ken Ham, the founder of the Creation Museum.
Silver - 3k

People who are wrong often get mad at people who are right. (I have surprisingly never been shot.) (h/t Kevin Underhill, Lowering the Bar)

User avatar
Holman
Posts: 19485
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Approximately Wissahickon

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Holman » Fri Nov 30, 2012 7:24 pm

malichai11 wrote: I know little to nothing about Pat Robertson, so I would've just assumed he was a Young Earth nutter. I find this pleasantly surprising.
Young-Earth Creationism has been pretty unusual, even among Evangelicals. I think it has come to more prominence in the past couple of decades as a certain breed of Biblical literalist has doubled down against the challenge of modernity. I wouldn't be surprised if YEC hasn't ticked up significantly as a side-effect of the climate change debate--If you're going to deny Earth science, you might as well go all in.

Pat Robertson is crazy nuts on many issues, but he's too old-school for the hip new YEC generation.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.

User avatar
YellowKing
Posts: 24792
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:02 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by YellowKing » Fri Nov 30, 2012 9:37 pm

Young-Earth Creationism has been pretty unusual, even among Evangelicals.
Yeah, I've been around a lot of church folks including friends and family, and I don't know anybody that believes in YEC. Now I do know many who don't believe in evolution, but that's a different kettle of fish.

The idea that 40+% of people believe that humans were created less than 10,000 years ago, I think, speaks more of our general ignorance of science and history than in any widespread evangelism.

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 38070
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by GreenGoo » Fri Nov 30, 2012 9:56 pm

YellowKing wrote:The idea that 40+% of people believe that humans were created less than 10,000 years ago, I think, speaks more of our general ignorance of science and history than in any widespread evangelism.
Possibly. It really depends on where that belief comes from. It could be just wrong headed guess work for those who just don't know, sure.

User avatar
Holman
Posts: 19485
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Approximately Wissahickon

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Holman » Fri Nov 30, 2012 11:00 pm

YellowKing wrote: The idea that 40+% of people believe that humans were created less than 10,000 years ago, I think, speaks more of our general ignorance of science and history than in any widespread evangelism.
I'll bet a lot of it is simple innumeracy.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.

User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 32778
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:
Kraken’s avatar
Loading…

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Kraken » Fri Nov 30, 2012 11:21 pm

Holman wrote:
YellowKing wrote: The idea that 40+% of people believe that humans were created less than 10,000 years ago, I think, speaks more of our general ignorance of science and history than in any widespread evangelism.
I'll bet a lot of it is simple innumeracy.
That was my thought as well. 10,000 years, 10,000,000 years...both are unfathomable spans of time to the innumerate.

Also, it's no coincidence that they conflate the beginning to the world with the beginning of civilization. That's just anthropocentrism.

User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 59608
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by LordMortis » Tue Dec 04, 2012 4:55 pm

Apparently they are defined like Modern Banking and Daimler Chrysler and Enron.

http://news.yahoo.com/tea-party-group-c ... 48591.html" target="_blank

Rise to the top and then pay them 8 Million Dollars to quit after failure.

What I don't get is that he wanted to quit and still got a crazy payout... by fund raisers.
At least 83 of 87 Republican House members who were allied with Tea Party anti-government spending causes ran for re-election in November, and all but eleven were returned to office.
I'm actually impressed... or was that depressed?
FreedomWorks' internal secrecy and its role as a high-financed super political action committee became an issue in the weeks before the election when federal campaign finance documents revealed that a shadowy Tennessee-based corporation had funneled seven donations totaling $5.28 million to the Tea Party group. The amount was the largest political contribution to a super PAC in 2012 from a business group that would not identify its donor.
I have to wonder how much these people are playing with fire. When your principle demographic is a demographic of zeal and guns whom feel they are being cheated, I'd think a ton of closed door dealings could eventually leave you worrying for your physical safety.


I still hold hope that somehow out of all of this I will find a political leaning I will like. The genetics are there, it just never seems to develop strong root with which to grow.

User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 57161
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:
Isgrimnur’s avatar
Offline

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Isgrimnur » Tue Dec 04, 2012 4:57 pm

LordMortis wrote:When your principle demographic is a demographic of zeal and guns whom feel they are being cheated, I'd think a ton of closed door dealings could eventually leave you worrying for your physical safety.
"You didn't say 'God bless you' when I sneezed!"
Silver - 3k

People who are wrong often get mad at people who are right. (I have surprisingly never been shot.) (h/t Kevin Underhill, Lowering the Bar)

User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 59608
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by LordMortis » Tue Dec 04, 2012 5:04 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:"You didn't say 'God bless you' when I sneezed!"
Image

User avatar
Fireball
Posts: 4466
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:43 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Fireball » Tue Dec 04, 2012 6:39 pm

malichai11 wrote:
Exodor wrote:Pat Robertson challenges Young Earth Creationism
“You go back in time, you've got radiocarbon dating. You got all these things, and you've got the carcasses of dinosaurs frozen in time out in the Dakotas,” Robertson said. “They're out there. So, there was a time when these giant reptiles were on the Earth, and it was before the time of the Bible. So, don't try and cover it up and make like everything was 6,000 years. That's not the Bible.”

“If you fight science, you are going to lose your children, and I believe in telling them the way it was,” Robertson concluded.
When Pat Robertson has become the voice of reason you know you've gone way out there.
I know little to nothing about Pat Robertson, so I would've just assumed he was a Young Earth nutter. I find this pleasantly surprising.
Yeah, I once saw him interviewed by a TV reporter, where the reporter said something like "well, the earth is millions of years old, or maybe thousands," and Robertson replied "actually, it's closer to six billion years old." This was ten years ago or so. So he gets one credibility point from me. :)
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)

User avatar
Unagi
Posts: 16318
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:14 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Unagi » Wed Dec 05, 2012 12:32 am

YellowKing wrote:Now I do know many who don't believe in evolution, but that's a different kettle of fish.
Different fish, but the same kettle. (IMO)

User avatar
silverjon
Posts: 10781
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 7:16 pm
Location: Western Canuckistan

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by silverjon » Wed Dec 05, 2012 12:42 am

Enlarge Image
wot?

To be fair, adolescent power fantasy tripe is way easier to write than absurd existential horror, and every community has got to start somewhere... right?

Unless one loses a precious thing, he will never know its true value. A little light finally scratches the darkness; it lets the exhausted one face his shattered dream and realize his path cannot be walked. Can man live happily without embracing his wounded heart?

User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 59608
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by LordMortis » Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:34 pm

Is this ship sinking?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/flor ... MotMKz3ThV" target="_blank
Crist was elected governor as a Republican and then ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate as an independent. He tweeted Friday night that he was becoming a Democrat.

User avatar
Holman
Posts: 19485
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Approximately Wissahickon

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Holman » Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:39 pm

LordMortis wrote:Is this ship sinking?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/flor ... MotMKz3ThV" target="_blank
Crist was elected governor as a Republican and then ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate as an independent. He tweeted Friday night that he was becoming a Democrat.
Crist was pretty much the definition of a RINO all along. He was an early victim of the Tea Party purge.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.

Post Reply