On 28-10-2009 9:49, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 26-10-2009 20:17, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> andrel wrote:
>>>>> Meaningless. Its enough that far too many of them will turn right 
>>>>> around and insist that every damn thing they **did** use to make 
>>>>> their decision was meaningless, unimportant, and unnecessary, 
>>>>> because "god" led them to the choice. This is the thing that pisses 
>>>>> **everyone** that is an intellectual, from Christians who manage to 
>>>>> mostly compartmentalize things enough to still think about it, to 
>>>>> humanists, to atheists, the outright refusal, and apparent 
>>>>> inability, of too many "believers" to believe in, respect, or 
>>>>> recognize, their own thinking and how they reached a conclusion, 
>>>>> and all too often, actually not just claim they reached the result 
>>>>> "without" something, but the turn right around and declare, "And 
>>>>> since I never need, or use X, no one should need X", right after 
>>>>> frakking using X to reach their original conclusions. You honestly 
>>>>> think that what we get annoyed at is mere "statement" that they 
>>>>> believe in something? Man do you have a distorted view of the issue...
>>>>
>>>> Uhm, can you run that by me again. Preferable slightly more coherent.
>>>>
>>> Ok.. Example - Some believer says, "I went to the doctor, who checked 
>>> me out, and told me I have X problem. However, since I don't believe 
>>> in modern medicine, I am going to reject what the doctor recommended 
>>> I take for it, and pray instead." You can find myriad such examples, 
>>> where someone applies logic, or even science, to figuring something 
>>> out, then turns right around, when attempting to apply the result, 
>>> and rejecting the very thing they just used to get there. ID is 
>>> another good example. Rejections of ***every single conclusion*** 
>>> reached by performing the science, yet a demand and insistence that 
>>> they need science to prove their own interpretations right, which the 
>>> laughable result that nothing they present ever resembles either real 
>>> science, valid conclusions, or even and understanding of how science 
>>> works at all.
>>
>> yes?....and?...
>>
>> sorry, what was the context and what is your point?
>>
>>
> Hmm. Would it help you to know that an entire political party in the US, 
> and one news station seems to now function in this kind of fantasy land 
> of ignorance and blind stupidity? Oh, and that in the state that buys 
> the *largest* number of text books in the country, and thus tends to 
> drive what everyone else has to select from, has been systematically 
> replacing everything they can with precisely these sorts of people since 
> well before George Bush represented them, never mind before they got him 
> elected to be commander in chimp. We are, at the moment, watching the 
> rather disturbing trend that, on one hand, they might actually "keep" 
> their power base, and make things even worse, while at the same time 
> watching a civil war break out in their own party, over whether or not 
> certain members are crazy, stupid, ignorant, or religious, enough to 
> deserve to *be* members of the party. Its like watching a train wreck, 
> form the uneasy position of someone tied to the train track.
> 
> Understandably, in such a context, what seems like "minor" wackiness, 
> which only effects a few morons that believe it, to you, is a tad more 
> serious to *everyone* viewing it from the same room, as it where.

There are some things that I wouldn't say that way, but the big picture 
is something I am very familiar with. I still fail to see why you are 
telling me, pretending I don't know. As far as I can see there was and 
is no reason for that.
Or put another way as, long as you are bringing up points in a 
discussion while I think the issue is a metadiscussion we don't get 
anywhere.

Post a reply to this message