A Misconception that should be rooted out

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

There are people on this site that I as an American am embarrassed of. People who I think are the problem with our country. But I don't write this about them publicly because I understand that to be in contrast to both the policy and spirit of this message board. I am quite surprised that this type of language seems to be okay with the mods here.

What do you mean by the last statement there?

[djnemo65]

I don't get the impression that you are that upset but what I consider to be a pretty inflammatory comment. Am I wrong?

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

I don't get the impression that you are that upset but what I consider to be a pretty inflammatory comment. Am I wrong?

You talking about FRPLG's comments?

[MTK]

We banned political talk for a while here for good reason, let's not go back down that road. Keep it civil.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

If any of you guys get a chance you should read Fareed Zakaria's article in the latest Newsweek.

Yup, I read the article. In fact, that's where I learned that the U.S. attracts more immigrants than all of the other nations on the earth ... combined.

You also made a good point about the lies, spying, etc. not being anything novel. I'm a strong advocate of civil rights, but, as a history major and history buff, I am very much aware that the lies, spying, etc. are nothing new. Crazyhorse, I don't think your assertion that Bush's actions (e.g. lying) are unprecedented is accurate. In fact, Bush's "trangressions against the Constitution" are relatively mild.

Consider, for a second, (1) The Alien & Sedition Acts made it unlawful to speak out against the government; (2) where blacks were 30 years ago, (3) that women were not allowed to vote or (in some states) own property until this century, (4) that FDR interned thousands of Japanese in prison camps during WWII (which makes Gitmo look like nothing), (5) FDR authorized the creation of military tribunals to try and execute Nazi terrorists, (6) FDR tried to "pack" the Supreme Court to get his policies approved by the Court (which makes the AUSA scandals look mild), (7) Lincoln suspended habeas corpus to jail guys who simply spoke out against the civil war (See Ex Parte Milligan), and I could go on. I would think that, as a professor in a liberal arts school, you would know that Bush's actions aren't so unprecedented.

For some reason, when railing a agaist Bush, people pretend as though no politicians have ever lied to them, our history is spotless, and everything would be paradise but for Bush. It takes the word exaggeration to new levels. In fact, it kind of reminds me of Kim Jong-Il speeches about the "imperialist, capitalist, pure-evil, blood-sucking" United States."

[Hog1]

I'm inflamed in number of area's with this thread. However, I do not have time at the moment to properly rake those that need to be raked. I'll be back in a bit for a proper reponse! Hold my place in line

[JoeRedskin]

I am inserting my two-cents to compliment the mods and members.

Preliminarily, I heartily disagree with much of crazyhorse's assertions on a variety of levels and particularly on his attitude towards the US and its citzenry. I am fully aware that we are a flawed country but would suggest that, more often than not, this is a country that strives to "do the right thing". Sometimes it fails and does so spectacularly causing great pain and hardship to individuals - both citizens and non-citizens. However, this country is not the Fourth Reich or Pol Pot's Killing Fields. In my opinion, the intent to do evil is not intergral to our government or our citizenry. Rather, although failing to do so through fear, greed, negligence or arrogance, it is the intent to do good and the belief that we can do good that is integral to the our government and our citizens.

As for my compliments: I am glad I live in a country that not only allows statements such as those made by Crazyhorse but, actually,encourages them. Only by allowing such calumny to spoken and discussed openly can it be truly exposed and discredited. To paraphrase Voltair, I do not agree with it but will defend to the death the right to say it.

Both members and mods have, thus far, exhibited both restraint and civility in discussing such a volatile topic. Kudos.

[70Chip]

The thing is that it will never be rooted out. Religion is ineradicable (see Freud). I wish all the people I diasagree with would go away too, but alas...

One problem is that scientists tend to be very poor communicators. They have done a poor job of explaining what natural selection is and why we should believe it. I tend not to take people's word for things. That's just substituting new prophets for old.

I don't think most people who say they believe in evolution know the first thing about it. At least not the ones that I have met. They mostly rail against the backward and superstitious fools who disagree with them and leave it there. If someone would take the time to explain it to people in a way that makes sense then I think the average person would say, "yeah, that makes sense." I don't know why they don't do that. They have PBS shows that explain all sorts of complex ideas. Einstein's quest to unify relativity and quantum mechanics, black holes, and the like. When it comes to Darwin, we get some old British actor traipsing about Galapagos with lots of pretty pictures of turtles. It shouldn't be that hard to explain the science, especially given all that we have learned about DNA in the last few years.

[That Guy]

natural selection's been explained pretty clearly; I really don't think that's the problem.

in brief - through breeding, sometimes a mutation arises. it can be bad (causing retardation or some other undesirable thing). Other times the mutation helps the species to adapt to their environment to give them a better chance at survival. For example, moth wing patterns changing over time to match their surroundings after being imported to a new country (by humans). The new patterns make them harder to see and less likely to be eaten by birds, so more of these "mutated" moths live long enough to breed and pass on an ever higher chance of receiving that beneficial mutation to their offspring.


it really has been explained well and in multiple different ways, but a lot of people get disinterested when it can't be conveyed in three words, or don't feel like taking the time to read through how it works (since one theory is based on other based on another etc and that reading can stack up).

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by That Guy

natural selection's been explained pretty clearly; I really don't think that's the problem.

in brief - through breeding, sometimes a mutation arises. it can be bad (causing retardation or some other undesirable thing). Other times the mutation helps the species to adapt to their environment to give them a better chance at survival. For example, moth wing patterns changing over time to match their surroundings after being imported to a new country (by humans). The new patterns make them harder to see and less likely to be eaten by birds, so more of these "mutated" moths live long enough to breed and pass on an ever higher chance of receiving that beneficial mutation to their offspring.


it really has been explained well and in multiple different ways, but a lot of people get disinterested when it can't be conveyed in three words, or don't feel like taking the time to read through how it works (since one theory is based on other based on another etc and that reading can stack up).

You've stated it simply enough. What I don't understand is why there isn't a greater effort to explain it to the masses. You would think that since this ignorance causes so much chagrin in the scientific community that there would be a more user friendly approach. Sometimes I think they prefer to have something to rail against.

Here's a question I always had: Cell theory says that all cells are derived from other cells. There is no spontaneous generation. What about the first instance?

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

You've stated it simply enough. What I don't understand is why there isn't a greater effort to explain it to the masses. You would think that since this ignorance causes so much chagrin in the scientific community that there would be a more user friendly approach. Sometimes I think they prefer to have something to rail against.

Here's a question I always had: Cell theory says that all cells are derived from other cells. There is no spontaneous generation. What about the first instance?

really not my field, sorry . the beginning of everything is still VERY hypothetical and there are plenty of ideas, but not so much certainty.

natural selection, selective breeding, etc have been studied in the very long term though and are well understood.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by That Guy

really not my field, sorry . the beginning of everything is still VERY hypothetical and there are plenty of ideas, but not so much certainty.

natural selection, selective breeding, etc have been studied in the very long term though and are well understood.

Thanks anyways. BTW, long time no see post. Welcome Back.

[Crazyhorse1]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Yup, I read the article. In fact, that's where I learned that the U.S. attracts more immigrants than all of the other nations on the earth ... combined.

You also made a good point about the lies, spying, etc. not being anything novel. I'm a strong advocate of civil rights, but, as a history major and history buff, I am very much aware that the lies, spying, etc. are nothing new. Crazyhorse, I don't think your assertion that Bush's actions (e.g. lying) are unprecedented is accurate. In fact, Bush's "trangressions against the Constitution" are relatively mild.

Consider, for a second, (1) The Alien & Sedition Acts made it unlawful to speak out against the government; (2) where blacks were 30 years ago, (3) that women were not allowed to vote or (in some states) own property until this century, (4) that FDR interned thousands of Japanese in prison camps during WWII (which makes Gitmo look like nothing), (5) FDR authorized the creation of military tribunals to try and execute Nazi terrorists, (6) FDR tried to "pack" the Supreme Court to get his policies approved by the Court (which makes the AUSA scandals look mild), (7) Lincoln suspended habeas corpus to jail guys who simply spoke out against the civil war (See Ex Parte Milligan), and I could go on. I would think that, as a professor in a liberal arts school, you would know that Bush's actions aren't so unprecedented.

For some reason, when railing a agaist Bush, people pretend as though no politicians have ever lied to them, our history is spotless, and everything would be paradise but for Bush. It takes the word exaggeration to new levels. In fact, it kind of reminds me of Kim Jong-Il speeches about the "imperialist, capitalist, pure-evil, blood-sucking" United States."

Your point is well taken and I am forced to agree that a case can be made that many of Bush's violations of Oath of Office, the Constitution, and international law, as well as his serial lying are not unprecedented. The McCarthy era, the Civil War (during which the City of New York actually fought a war against the United States over the draft), the Nixon era, Jefferson's nearly successful attempt at empire, Manifest Destiny, the Robber Barron era, etc. were all a threat to freedom and principles, as well as the desidera of irrational national phenomena.
Our country as conceived has teetered on the precipice a number of times. However, none of the above should make us easier on Bush, but rather harder. Nixon, FDR, Kennedy, Jefferson, Johnson and others got away with their crimes, which has only encouraged the tyranical behavior of present and furture Presidents.
The message we've continued to send chief executives and others in high office is that they can do whatever they want without paying for their crimes. Would there have been a Bush if Nixon had spent the jail time he deserved or FDR had to answer in court for imprisioning innocent people. I don't think so.
It's much worse to let top government officials get away with violating the law than other people. The guys at the top can hurt millions of people and plunge the nation into chaos, just the way this set of immoral lame brains has. They simply must obey the law and protect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They are not kings, Dukes, or Earls.
There seems to be a lot of people who do not support the principles of America, its Bill of Rights, Constitution, its Democratic idealism and notions of equality before the law and open government, yet claim to love America. How can anyone love America without loving what America is and stands for. Worse, how can anyone love America without opposing those who do not support all of the above?
Is George Bush America? No, he is not. He does not support what America is all about; he opposes it. Right now, in fact, American is not America; it is something else. Until this criminal conspiracy that currently calls itself America is driven from America's body, there is no America. To support this thing that calls itself America is not patriotic. Patriots are busy trying to drive the demon out so the real America can return to consciousness.

[Crazyhorse1]

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Gallup_Majority_of_Republicans_doubt_evolution
_0611.html

Not a shock, merely the obvious, which backs up my view that the religious right, churchgoers or not, are very much driving the GOP, which has driven this war. 68% of Republicans doubt evolution. Same guys and gals who support torture, the Iraq invasion and occupation, doubt global warming, hate the U.N., think cluster bombing for children is OK, believe gays are unnatural, used to believe that slavery was supported by the Bible, equate the President with America and think liberals are unAmerican, in spite of the fact that the liberal creed is almost a celebration of the philosophy of Christ..

The religious right in America is as dangerous to freedom in America as the Islamic religious right continues to be in the Middle East. Further, the religious right in America is the spear carrier for the GOP and as such is at odds with Christian philosophy in regard to war, the poor, kindness, generousity, loving one's neighbors, the corrupting power of riches, the arrogance of punishment, the illusion of worldly success and temporal power, etc.

Bush is both a warning and a proof that this is true.

Just so you know: I've gone to almost very evangelical church in my area a number of times. I really enjoy the music and the whole energy of the scene. I like it. I was raised in it, and I enjoy it, as well as know it very well. I do not believe in it, since there's no reason to. I do, however, believe in the morality and wisdom of Christ's teachings. They weren't particularly original, of course, but I embrace most of them anyway.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

Thanks anyways. BTW, long time no see post. Welcome Back.

yeah, joined the USAF... they, uh, don't give you a lot of free time or any kind of access the first few months. things should be a bit better now though.