On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 22:52:28 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> 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.
>> 
> For the person it comforts, this seems valuable. But... There is really
> no way to respond to this, other than that, in general, there are
> **lots** of things we no longer consider of value, because, well... they
> don't really add any value to anything else. I certainly wouldn't try to
> convince the guy he was wrong on his death bed, (though.. the same
> compunction never seems to enter the minds of the other side, for some
> reason), but I am not going to excuse it when mentioning it to someone
> else either. Honor people for what they did that is "worth" honoring,
> not the stuff that didn't help them, or anyone else.

Generally, I agree.  And yeah, *some* people on the other side do not 
show the same kind of respect.  I'm glad we both agree that at least in 
this case, that's not an excuse to engage in the same dispicable behavour.

>>> Mostly.. He starts off
>>> with "atheists believe in nothing, and need a lot of faith for that",
>> 
>> Now that *is* funny. ;-)
>> 
> Not the way he "intended" it though. lol

Did he communicate what his intention was?

>>> 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.
>> 
> But, that is the point. Beyond the initial bit, the entire thing became
> diatribe. Sorry, but, given the audience, the circumstances, and the
> "way" he presented it, unless he admitted "Poeing" the whole thing, I
> have to consider it "highly" probable that he took all of it 100%
> seriously, and his use of the contents was *entirely* directed at an
> audience he knew would either agree with him, or not call him on any of
> it.

That's a matter of opinion, though.  Again I cite Colbert's early 
episodes, where it was really hard to read his intentions properly.


>> 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.
>> 
> Did you watch it? 

No, I haven't had time.

> Jest my ass. Like I said, the "initial" part was jest,
> everything after was nothing but a rambling litany of things he thought
> where true, using arguments that.. OK, fine. If I was ignorant,
> clueless, right wing, had **never** heard any of it before, or more to
> the point, why it was all bullshit, I **might** find it funny. But then,
> some people probably thought the Bundy's from Married With Children
> where not funny, because it was too "similar" to their own family...

Actually, that's a good analogy.  Just because humour doesn't suit your 
tastes doesn't mean that the intention was to not be humourous - what's 
funny and what's not is a matter of opinion.

>> 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.
>>
> See, the problem is, they don't, "all think the same way", and never
> did. 

Part of the reason for that at this juncture is because there is a 
galvanizing force.  Have you sat in meetings with people who essentially 
think the same way?  You don't get a lot of calls for drastic advancement 
when everyone's response is essentially "what he said".  Even if there 
are disagreements on minor details (which almost always is the case), 
nothing tends to drive people more than a direct challenge to their 
authority or idea.

> But, unless you can site something to suggest that "anything" about
> evolution underwent "huge" shifts in perspective, purely as a result of
> this challenge, other than its advocacy and the aggressiveness of those
> apposed to groups that seek to undermine it, I would love to see it.

It would be difficult to cite something that came about purely because of 
the nonsense about ID, because it's impossible to know what work would 
have been done without it or on what schedule the work that was done 
would otherwise have been done on.  That doesn't mean my point is invalid.

>>> 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?
>> 
> Not at all. But, the central premise you suggested was that it helped
> the ToE, not that it helped them see a danger to it more clearly. 

Sometimes premises evolve. :-)  And sometimes more than one thing can 
result from an action, too - highlighting that our science/math education 
in the US is bad doesn't preclude the notion that the ID "discussion" 
also may well have helped in terms of making those who study the ToE 
shore up their presentation of the ideas or to do further research (which 
they may or may not have otherwise done) to - for example - find "the 
missing link".

> Had you argued that the "shake up" was solely in the number of idiots
> that still imagine that taking their picture steals their life force...
> you would have had a valid point. lol

I think the point stands regardless of whether we're talking about soul-
stealing cameras or ID vs. Evolution.  The principles are still the same.

>> Side note:  As a BSG fan myself, it's "frakking".  No "c", double 'k'.
>> ;-)
>> 
> Bah.. I am spelling it the Tauron way, not like you damn Capricans!
> (Heh, any excuse in a storm. ;) lol)

LOL - but William Adama was a Tauron.  ;-)

>> 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.
>> 
> Don't know.. Works for House. ;) 

<singing> Fiction! </singing> ;)

> And, seriously, again, I don't see them
> "starting" with that a lot. Well, not unless its the same twit showing
> up for the 580th time to repeat the same nonsense.

Whether they start or end with it, though, or it falls somewhere in the 
middle, the idea still remains the same:  Making them a victim doesn't 
help you make your case.  Personally, I think they count on being able to 
play the victim card to advance their cause.

>>> 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.
>> 
> The line often being, "Shouting fire in a crowded theater". Some of the
> BS comes damn close, or even "crosses" that line, if it was "anything"
> other than a church saying it. They get by with **way** too much.

No, that doesn't really apply here - shouting fire in a crowded theater 
when there isn't a fire is incitement - and there are laws about that.  
Saying "the world was created as the Bible says it was" isn't incitement, 
no matter how much you spin it.

>> 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?
>> 
> Yep. I do. Most other people do to. The only times I see most people
> failing at it, is, as I said before, when its someone showing up with
> the same arguments for the 580th time. At some point, you have to call a
>   spade a spade, and damn whether or not someone makes you dig a hole
> with it.

Again, that's what I think they count on my representing the same tired 
old arguments - being able to claim "victim" status.

>> Then you're not debating the ideas, you ARE attacking them - which
>> doesn't help in the debate about the ideas.
>> 
> Sigh.. What ideas? These people don't have ideas, just a flow chart of
> every failed argument to regurgitate ever invented.

But they do have ideas.  They may be wrong ideas by your or my standards, 
but they are ideas that they're trying to support with bad logic and 
arguments.

> OK, I admit, probably the "best" response would be to take a copy of the
> "list" and all the responses, and every time they start wandering into
> stupid land, just staple the list to the wall, tell them, "I'll be back
> when you finish repeating things off this list, as though they are new,
> or never refuted, assuming you 'ever' do." But, see, ironically, its the
> "proper" response, but it still says, "You are an idiot." All you do by
> trying to refute each damn thing on the list, one at a time, is run out
> of your own time, and take longer calling them an idiot.

That would work better, sure, because it shows them that you've already 
debated the common points.  Then you can refer them to that reference 
when they bring something already discussed up again.

> Its a bit like the group of fools that have "special classes" on how to
> curse up a blue streak, using silly sounding words, with no meaning,
> because it makes the world a "better" place, if you say shazbot, instead
> of shit. 

Or like "frakking"? ;-)  Personally, I prefer "belgium" or "joojooflop".  
Occasionally "swutting". ;-)

> Long winded is what they want. Time is on **their** side, not
> yours in such "debates", because "you" have to actually present facts,
> all they have to do is keep asserting things until you run away.

So the list idea solves that by shortcutting the long-winded portion.

>> 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).
>> 
> Doesn't work. They will spin it to make it sound like you where
> "rightly" victimized, the press won't, usually, bother with your version
> of events, and even if they do, there are 500 other agencies that are
> more than willing to print the creationists version of events, to every
> one who is willing to listen to yours, some of them, paid by the very
> people you supposedly "debated".

Depends on the press you court.  Fox News probably ain't gonna cut it.  
You need someone more objective. :-)

>>> Sigh.. Again, we tried that for "decades".
>> 
>> Let me ask you a question.....What do you want out of your life?
>> 
> Making things better for people in the future might be one. But, anyone
> in that position needs to look at things in terms of what the enemies
> resources are, not just what, in the short term, they look like.

Perhaps, but at the same time there's more than just arguing about the 
past that is important to achieving that goal.  And in a way, that's what 
ID vs. Evolution is - an argument about the past.

>>> 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.
>> 
> We don't get to "pick" the battles, they do. That is, at this moment,
> the biggest problem. You can't ignore 50 battles you don't "want" to
> fight, or which might, in the short term, make you look bad, hoping for
> one "major" one, where everything will go right.

The only reason they get to pick the battles is because you let them.  
I'm reminded of Eddie Izzard's skit about the Germans.  "I've got a 
better idea, I've got a better idea, Ooooh!  It's the same idea, it's the 
same idea".  That after deciding that Russia was "a bit cold" and 
invasion was probably not a smart idea.

Fighting a war on too many fronts is a losing proposition.  History has 
taught us that.

> This is true. And, its kind of one of the critical issues. Fact is, most
> of us either think, or "do", have better things to do, than wander
> around waving silly signs, and we "certainly" don't have either
> employers that would let us get by with it, or groups willing to "fund"
> it, if they did. I know I can't even get days off I want, most times, at
> my job, for "normal" stuff. If I said I wanted to join some protest
> against creationist.. I would probably "misteriously" end up being on an
> 8 hour shift that day, because they "needed me", and.. its probably not
> all that refutable.

Perhaps not, but those on the other side do make that choice - so here 
you do show a sense of prioritization that puts working at a higher 
priority over fighting this idiocy.

> Worse, the reason "they" can find 100 people to do this is because all
> they have to do is go to their local church. Me.. I am lucky if I "know"
> 100 people closely enough to do that, never mind that all of them
> "agree" enough with me to do such a thing.

Bingo.  And that's the thing that needs to happen to be more successful 
in the battle - organization.  Think of them (if you like) as 
professional soldiers.  You can't go in with an unorganized or 
uncoordinated strategy.  That won't work.

>> 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.
>> 
> Part of it was also "recognizing" that there was a clear, untapped
> group, who held "religion" much higher than the general populous, and,
> despite not being "radicals" in the same sense as the LDS, are "never
> the less" more likely to side with religious "standards" than secular
> ones, if someone pushes the issue hard enough.

Oh yes, absolutely.  It helped a lot as well that those in favor of Prop 
8 were able to use "moral and religious outrage" over the "redefinition" 
of "marriage" to mobilize their "troops".

>> 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.
>> 
> No, he needs to stop trying to be "both" a good guy for the religious
> and a good guy for everyone else, at the same time. 

Obama, yes, I agree.  At the same time, if he did (as Maher suggested) 
got up one morning and stepped out on the front lawn of the White House 
and said "Jesus told me to fix health care!", hey, as long as it gets the 
job done.  Heck, if he did that that might even motivate the Right to 
*help* him. ;-)

>> 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.
>> 
> Its unfortunate that their "interpretation" of that document is about as
> consistent as their understanding that Lemarckian, and other "early"
> theories, as the same as Darwinian evolution, and constantly misquoting
> the former ones, as part of the later. They would, and have, happily,
> quoted lines from everything from letters by "some" founders, which
> vaguely relate to the values of religion, or the declaration's
> statements about divine rights, with what is "actually" in the
> constitution.

Their interpretation isn't particularly important, as long as a challenge 
continues to be mounted.  "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" and 
all that.

> As they say, history is written by those who win, 

History is written by the winners, but as long as the fight continues on, 
there isn't a winner.

Jim

Post a reply to this message