On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 17:51:10 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

>> of Independence, the Bill of Rights, etc.  "All men are created equal"
>> didn't apply to "all men" (and certainly didn't apply to women).
>> 
> And.. A logical examination of the "evidence", even then, would have
> shown that the there wasn't any "factual" evidence to be had at all in
> the argument. 

Sure, there wasn't.  But again, that's a product of hindsight.  Some 
people thought there was incontrovertible proof that "white" people were 
superior.

> If you ignore the historical reason why some communities are they way
> they are.. there is more "evidence" today of the possible inequality of
> some people, than there ever was back when it was simply "assumed".
>
> Feeling you can prove something is **not** the same as having solid fact
> to support it. I don't give a frack what someone "feels" they can prove.
> They invariably trot out a lot of things they "imagine" no one has
> responded to before, make a lot of assertions about evidence they can
> never actually provide, then eventually just admit, if honest, that they
> only "feel" that its right, and "imagine" that someone, someplace else,
> has better evidence of the view.

The standards of evidence are something that has changed over time.  
Applying today's standards to the historical application of what was 
accepted as scientific evidence is an application of hindsight.  It was 
observable that the sun revolved around the earth and not the other way 
around.  That was something that was not disputed often and those who did 
dispute it tended to be ridiculed even by their scientific peers.

>>> Some things either work or don't, and if you can motivate someone out
>>> of doing them right, there are 50 other people, far better equipped,
>>> to motivate them to do it wrong, or not at all.
>> 
>> Sometimes life ain't fair.  I don't like that, but that's a fact proven
>> again and again.
>> 
> These are people that stuff 10 aces up their sleeve, then get cheered
> when they claim to win, while you are booed, for pointing out that *no*
> poker hand has 6 aces in it. Its not that life isn't fair, its that one

It sure seems to me like you're basically saying "but it isn't FAIR!".  
Because if life was fair, then this:

> side has no honor, morals, or compunction against cheating, but
> everyone, due to indoctrination from childhood, and being told that
> "some people" are above suspicion or skepticism, 

wouldn't be a factor.

> calling them on it hasn't any. Fair and unfair imply "the possibility"
> of fairness. But, when you know you will lose in that circumstance, and
> you have no honor, you make sure that the dude you want to lose has no
> armor, a blunt stick, once hand tied behind their back, and that, when
> it comes time for the fight, its an 600 pound, hungry lion, not a 3 inch
> field mouse, they find themselves confronted by. Oh, and.. You glue
> mouse ears on, and shave, the lion, and take blurry photos, so you can
> still claim it was "seasoned warrior vs. field mouse" to the newspapers
> when the guy is bleeding on the ground at the end.
> 
> Fair? I would settle for just honestly "unfair".

"Unfair" implies the possibility of fairness, just as "fair" does.

Some people fight dirty.  Ugly little fact of life.  Some people fight to 
win, and they generally take the stand that the winner is the one left 
standing and that they should fight to win at all costs.  Again, sad but 
true fact of life when it comes to debating ideas.

>> I could see that.  It's a very similar reaction that those who feel the
>> foundation of their life is under attack from someone who doesn't
>> understand it.  That's the sort of thing I mean when I say "put
>> yourself in their shoes" - you've been there, done that, and reacted
>> badly to it. It shouldn't be so difficult to understand why others
>> react that way when they feel the basis of their life is under attack.
>> :-)
>> 
> But, that's just it. If someone is attacking the foundation of your
> life, ask why, don't just get pissed about it. 

When the attack takes the form of "You're wrong, wrong wrong wrong wrong 
wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong 
wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong 
wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong 
wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong 
wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong 
WRONG WRONG WRONG!", it's (a) a little hard to get a word in edgeways, 
and (b) again puts the recipient on the defensive.  Defensive people tend 
to not examine their own motivations, but to question the motivations of 
the people who are putting them on the defensive.  It's rare that the 
motivations of the offender are viewed in a good light in such 
circumstances.

> At the very least, *you*
> may be seriously wrong about what the foundation is. And, frankly..
> anyone that thinks their "faith" is the foundation, not their family,
> life experiences, loved ones, and friends, are doing "massive"
> disservice to everything that actually "means" anything. Anyone claiming
> that their faith means "more" than that.. well, I haven't seen too many
> who think that way, when being honest about it, and the few that do,
> have no friends, rejected their families, and are usually seriously
> unhinged, if not dangerous.

I have seen people like that, and they generally are very good people.  I 
had a good friend who died recently (sudden heart attack) who was 
absolutely convinced that Obama being elected was a sign of the coming 
apocalypse, that his being elected was going to cause Bush to have to 
take a nuclear shot at Iran, and all sorts of really bad shit was going 
to happen.  Frank was otherwise a very kind and gentle friend (and I miss 
him very much - we debated on topics like this a lot and rarely if ever 
saw eye to eye on politics or religion).  His life experiences brought 
him to a conclusion that differed from mine, and he knew (both in his 
heart and in his head) that he had seen proof of God's existence.

Who are you or I to say he didn't?  It's what gave him comfort, and if he 
happened to be right, he's watching me have this discussion with you.  If 
not, then he's gone other than the memory of his friends and family who 
loved him.

Now whether his faith meant more to him than his family is anybody's 
guess.  I know it meant a lot to him and that nothing would shake it.  
And I'm certain that it gave him comfort just before he died.

>>> Watched some clips today of various comics, and the strongly religious
>>> one was precisely like that. His absolute 100% position was, "I
>>> believe, I know I am right, so therefor 'everything' I say about
>>> non-believers or sinner **has to be funny**.
>> 
>> Consider:  Perhaps he was being satirical.
> 
> Ok.. I rewatched it and.. He isn't as blindingly boring as Ben Stein,
> and he "is" trying to be, vaguely, satirical. 

It seems that your interpretation and his may differ on this point.  I 
don't know the comedian, but I know that people who are in comedy are 
there first and foremost to be funny.  Some people are better at it than 
others, and apparently to your tastes, this guy wasn't very good.

> Mostly.. He starts off
> with "atheists believe in nothing, and need a lot of faith for that",

Now that *is* funny. ;-)

> I mean... I don't even know where to start counting the flat out "wrong"
> things. 

You don't, it's comedy, for entertainment purposes.  You can't take every 
damned thing people say seriously.  Or rather, if you do, you're going to 
be in for a pretty miserable time on this planet.

> If this guy was on a forum, instead of a stage, no one would be
> laughing. 

Then it's a damned good thing he was on a stage.  My point is, you can 
take many things that people say in jest and not change one word but 
change the venue and as such change the entire meaning.  Context is 
important.

>> One of the things that alternate ideas do is force us to reexamine what
>> we believe in.  The debate about Intelligent Design vs. Evolution, for
>> example - what that has done is galvanized a large part of the
>> scientific community that deals with evolutionary science, and it seems
>> that we are discovering more things that demonstrate evolution in
>> practical terms. If we didn't have Creationists challenging the very
>> idea of Evolution, it's likely we wouldn't have had the advances.
> 
> Bullocks. We where making progress even without them. 

Well, I disagree, and it's quite easy to prove that if you put a bunch of 
people in a room together who disagree about nothing, they don't make 
progress.  I've seen it many times at work in meetings, because I've been 
the one who has not agreed.  When someone who has a different perspective 
introduces a new idea, sometimes that gets a "gee, I never thought about 
that".  That idea might come in later, sure, but the point is that it 
comes in later, and that's a slowness in progress.

It's bullocks to think that a bunch of people who think the same way are 
going to push themselves as hard as a bunch of people who are having 
their ideas challenged, even if the challenges are coming from idiots.

>> The lack of a challenge
>> often leads to complacency and lazy thinking.  But having to structure
>> a debate, even against something that you and I think is patently
>> ridiculous, helps science.
>> 
> No, it just wastes time and money. The only thing that ID has done is
> emphasize, at least to scientists, that science education in the US
> isn't "bad", so much as, "terrifyingly bad", 

And it's a bad thing to highlight this reality?

Posit:  The ID crowd says nothing or doesn't exist.  Science education 
continues as it's going.  Where's the improvement again?  If it's bad and 
something doesn't come along to change the course, then it stays the same 
(kinda an application of Newtonian physics to the idea of following an 
educational path, I guess:  A bad system in motion will tend to stay in 
motion until some force changes it.)

> fracking

Side note:  As a BSG fan myself, it's "frakking".  No "c", double 'k'. ;-)

>> So what's the alternative?  And to add a constraint, an alternative
>> that doesn't limit the rights of those who push a particular point of
>> view?
>> 
> All you can do is point out why the conspiracy theorists are wrong, 

Yep.  So do that.

> and
> sometimes that "means" saying things that some of their supporters, like
> it or not, are going to see as "attacks". 

It helps if you don't start your counterargument with "well, they're all 
a bunch of frakkin' idiots".  First, as I've said a few times, it puts 
them on the defensive and allows them to paint themselves as victims, 
which doesn't help you.  Second, it doesn't exactly inspire some self-
reflection on their part.

>>> or.. if you are lucky, someone wondering, "Could I be wrong." Another
>>> "trend" in recent years seems to be the insane, and often
>>> ***specifically worded*** this way, idea that, "One should have a
>>> right to not be offended." Bullshit!
>> 
>> I agree with this.  However that also means that you and I don't have a
>> right to be offended by religion.  That's a two-way street.
>> 
> Uh.. No, thought I was clear. We have no right to "not be offended", and
> by extension, we can be offended by anything we want too. 

D'oh, I'm not sure what I was thinking there - but reading that over 
again, no, it doesn't make sense.  But you bring up another point, which 
is that it's your choice to be offended.  It's not necessary to be.

> Its like free
> speech. Just because I have to let someone talk doesn't mean I have to
> "like" them talking, or do nothing at all to try to stop people
> listening too it. 

There's a fine line between convincing people to stop listening and 
suppressing the speech you don't like, though.

> If I did, then I wouldn't be exercising "my" rights.
> Sure its a "two way street". 

Agree.

> That is why respect has to be earned, not
> handed to every half wit that shows up with some sort of opinion. 

Respect is a different matter.  Just because we don't respect someone 
doesn't mean they don't have the right to express an opinion, no matter 
how stupid it is.  The Klan has a constitutionally protected right to 
spew their offensive hate speech as much as they want.  It's not a 
problem until they (or someone else) acts on it in a way that violates 
the law.

> They
> can hold it all they want. They want me to respect it... well, accepting
> that they hold it isn't the "same" as respecting it. 

Agreed.  They can't make you believe something you don't.

> Yet, truth be told,
> most of the people we have been talking about a) assume respect must
> come automatically to "their" ideas, especially if religious, and this
> is practically written in the same law that ironically is "supposed" to
> limit its influence of the people that are not *supposed* to be giving
> it undue respect, and b) no one else's deserves the same treatment.

Well, then they're wrong.  But just because they have bad or false 
expectations about how people should react to their ideas doesn't mean 
their ideas should be suppressed, again, no matter how idiotic they are.

Put another way:  Respect for ideas is not something that's 
constitutionally protected.  If some people think it is, then they are 
wrong.

>> It's about presentation, Patrick.  If your goal is to persuade someone
>> that they're being what you consider an "irrational fool", using
>> inflammatory language to get the point across will cause them to raise
>> their shields (that's human nature) and to fight back.
> 
> Yeah, yeah. Framing. As in, framing the argument to the point where you
> find yourself painted in to a corner, because you where unwilling to be
> a bit less than "nice. 

It's not just a question of being unwilling to be a little bit less than 
nice, but also about wanting to be taken seriously.  I find myself 
repeating myself, but those who want to be taken seriously have to act in 
a way that inspires people to take them seriously.  Those who don't tend 
to be marginalized, and that doesn't help your cause.

> But, seriously, its beside the point. I am not so
> stupid I don't know to adjust my approach when I am dealing with someone
> that "is" able to change opinion, and not addressing the "audience"
> through ridicule of the object my comments are directed at. The argument
> amount to, "Well, someone might be listening, who would change their
> mind if you where nicer." 

Maybe not nicer, but having a better word choice.  Instead of "they're 
all a bunch of idiots" (a personal attack), "the idea is ridiculous 
because..." (ie, refuting the idea rather than the person/people).  Do 
you see the difference?

> Look, I guess my point is that the same tactic that works on one person
> doesn't work on another, 

Yes - we're all individuals.  But that doesn't mean that you can't take a 
stance that generally focuses more on the ideas and in refuting the ideas 
rather than attacking the people (see above).

>> Those watching are likely to see someone "on the attack", and that
>> gives the "recipient" of the ridicule the ability to draw sympathy from
>> those on the sidelines.  If you want to affect those watching from the
>> sidelines, you have to not make the target of your discussion into a
>> victim.  What's more, if the "attack" is seen to be unprovoked, you're
>> more than likely going to drive those on the sidelines (and on the
>> fence) to *help* the "victim".
>> 
> They claim "victim" regardless of how nice you are. 

Some will, yes.  But the probability is higher if you make the attack 
personal (ie, "they're all idiots") rather than arguing the ideas.  Then 
when they say "you're attacking me", you can say "no, I'm not, I'm 
debating the idea.  You don't agree with me, and that's fine - your 
agreement isn't required for me to make my point, which is that <idea> is 
wrong for these reasons....".

> Are we even talking about the same thing? I am not talking
> about just showing up an calling someone names. 

I think we're talking about the presentation of ideas in a way so as to 
persuade, either the person the debate is with or those who are watching 
from the sidelines.

> I am talking about
> showing why they "deserve" some of the names. 

Then you're not debating the ideas, you ARE attacking them - which 
doesn't help in the debate about the ideas.

> If you can't even be mild and "nice" and avoid being called a monster...

Just because someone calls you names doesn't mean you have to reply in 
kind.  Take the high ground and draw the debate back to being about ideas 
rather than people.

If anything, when they decide to call you a monster, you get to play the 
victim card for a change.... ;-)  (Yes, I know you're unlikely to, but 
those on the sidelines might be persuaded by the fact that those you are 
debating have turned you into a victim by starting to call names).

>> At some point, it's not a question of "unwillingness", but a question
>> of "is it even worth my time?".  If you or I spent all of our time
>> trying to convince people all the things we think are ridiculous are
>> ridiculous, we'd have scarce time to ourselves.
>> 
> Sigh.. Again, we tried that for "decades". 

Let me ask you a question.....What do you want out of your life?

> You can't ignore or lose every "public" battle, other than the ones in
> court, and expect to win the fracking war on the idea. 

No, but you can't fight every battle, either.  You have to pick your 
battles, and pick ones that you can win.  Then you have to apply a 
strategy that allows you to win.  Sometimes that might mean taking a "win 
at all costs" stance, and sometimes it doesn't.

>> suppose) owned by the church.  What do you suppose the tax advantages
>> are for having an insurance company that's owned by a religious
>> organization?
>> 
> No kidding..

So that's something that needs to be addressed in the tax code.  Now 
there are two ways to go about this.  The first is to go down to the Salt 
Lake City Temple with 100 of your closest friends and picket, disrupt 
people's weddings, and other such things.

The other is to get those 100 friends together and start lobbying the 
people who actually make the laws to change them.  We have groups like 
the NRA who do that and get their way.  The problem is that those of us 
who think that these kinds of tax breaks are bullshit aren't as organized 
as the people who got the exceptions into the tax code.  Jumping up and 
down and being disruptive won't fix it, because the core problem with the 
people who want it to change is they're not organized enough to effect a 
change like that.

That's why Prop 8 in CA went the way it did.  Those who were against it 
weren't organized enough, and the LDS Church (amongst others, but they 
were one of the largest organizations that put money into the advertising 
coffers) was organized enough to mobilize its membership to donate to the 
"Vote Yes on 8" groups.

>>> Right.. Because no one can come along and just declare, by fiat that
>>> Stem cells are useless, or, like in India, we should be using Vedic
>>> math and science, including alchemy, instead of "western" ideas...
>> 
>> There are short periods of idiocy in policy, again, that's one of the
>> things that happens in a free society.
>> 
> Would be a nice argument if not for the "minor" flaw that "some" such
> idiocies lead to increasingly "less" free societies.

And those things can be corrected by using the idea of strength in 
numbers.  We saw the start of the reversal of several Bush Jr. policies 
when Obama was elected.  Not as many as I'd have liked, but it's a start.

Personally, I agree with Bill Maher on this:  Obama needs a little of 
Bush's swagger and certainty.  At least he's got *good* ideas.  Bush had 
certainty and bad ideas.  That's a bad combination.

> If we where talking about anything to extreme, you would have a point.
> We are talking about people claiming a threat to a way of life that
> ***isn't even*** the one they claim they based it on in the first place,

That's not really my point.  My point is to show that the "slippery 
slope" logic is used on both sides of a debate.  I think that's my point, 
anyways.  These messages are getting to be a bit too long to manage. ;-)

> I am sure that, should enough creationists ever get into power and start
> banning things in science they don't like, it won't be the end of the
> world, 

It's fortunate that should that happen we have the bill of rights to back 
up our right to dissent, and we have laws in place that prevent us from 
having a dictator for too long.  What's needed is organization of those 
who agree that these are bad ideas - I've said it before in this message, 
but that's the way to effect change - by recognizing the strength in 
numbers.

> but.. what country is going to accept the millions of refugees
> that leave in disgust over it, or in the years that follow, as they
> institute more and more religious laws, take away more freedoms, and
> make the country more an more like.. well, Afghanistan or Iran? lol

Leaving is kinda the easy way out.  Better to stay and work to improve 
things.  (This is being said by someone who actually does plan to leave 
the US at some point and resettle in Europe - but not for political 
reasons, just because that's where the larger group of my friends are)

Jim

Post a reply to this message