Brain damaged children...

[varwoche]

I think electing Bush and concluding that the US is going to turn into a radical fundamentalist society (or already is and that's why he was elected) is a fallacy.

A flawed but welcome point.

All that's needed are 2-3 appointments in the Scalia/Thomas mold to cause significant changes to our society. Do you debate this, or just think it unlikely to happen?

Second, if my rhetorical(?) theory is true, the harm is being done today, irrespective if we become a "radical fundamentalist society", hence your argument is invalid.

Third, a threat doesn't have to be absolute fact. Suppose it is proven there's a 80% chance that in x years an identified meteor is going to wipe out life on earth. And that diverting it is technically doable but expensive. Easy choice, yes? Probably even at 50%. Maybe even 20%. It depends on the cost -- weighing upside and downside.

Fourth, though I believe (with zeal) in quantifiable facts, it doesn't always work that way in the political realm. We must speculate and infer based on statements, voting record, etc. -- the facts as best known.

fwiw, the notion of writing a religion vs science primer for children is not new to me, disconnected from politics.

 

[varwoche]

Yes, they do. First you complain about the "Big Lie" tactic, then you engage in it yourself. Why didn't you actually link to the poll, instead of a misleading article about the poll? You have called much less from Bush a "lie". I guess the criteria change depending on which side is doing it, huh?

Art, are you genuinely this dense and argumentative, or are you holding a grudge? To equate my minor league laziness (go ahead, sue me) with teaching mythology to children as if fact is really whacked out. What a pompous jackass.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Contesting false statements is "argumentative"? To refer to disregard for the truth as "minor league laziness" and substitute personal abuse for mature discussion is what is truly "whacked out". This is just another mythology that has become accepted by left-wingers through constant repitition, the very "Big Lie" phenomenon that you claim to oppose.

 

[jj]

Contesting false statements is "argumentative"? To refer to disregard for the truth as "minor league laziness" and substitute personal abuse for mature discussion is what is truly "whacked out". This is just another mythology that has become accepted by left-wingers through constant repitition, the very "Big Lie" phenomenon that you claim to oppose.

(edited to say)
Never mind, the bullies are going to have their way.

 

[varwoche]

1) Children are brainwashed into believing that mythology is fact. Surely, this early training can only hurt a child's cognitive skills.

2) One or two science classes later, it is patently obvious that the mythology is mythology. So one of two things occurs: a) the child wises up, or b) the mind is contorted to rationalize away the conflicting "realities", resulting in rhetorical(?) brain damage.

And though a correlation is highly speculative:

3) Fundamentalists overwhelmingly supported Bush.

4) Bush supporters swallowed the Saddam/911 nonsense, despite patent bogosity.

5) It can be extrapolated that fundamentalists (likely) swallowed the Saddam/911 mythology moreso than non-fundamentalists.

6) Remove fundamentalists from the voting population and I suspect the election would have been one of the biggest landslides in history.

 

[AWPrime]

Don't worry we will find a cure for religion yet!

 

[fsol]

Richard Dawkins said on the radio last month that teaching children creationism over evolution was akin to child abuse.

 

[varwoche]

Richard Dawkins said on the radio last month that teaching children creationism over evolution was akin to child abuse.

Putting aside the political aspect, teaching lies to a child is immoral imo.

 

[varwoche]

Psychosis is a loss of contact with reality, typically including delusions (false ideas about what is taking place or who one is) and hallucinations (seeing or hearing things which aren't there).

Symptoms:
loss of touch with reality
seeing, hearing, feeling, or otherwise perceiving things that are not there (hallucinations)
extreme excitement (mania)
confusion
mistaken perceptions (illusions)
false beliefs (delusions)

Natl Institute of Health

 

[varwoche]

Vonnegut via Newt Hoenikker:

No wonder kids grow up crazy. A cat's cradle is nothing but a bunch of X's between somebody's hands, and little kids look and look and look at all those X's . . . No damn cat, no damn cradle.

 

[Cylinder]

5) It can be extrapolated that fundamentalists (likely) swallowed the Saddam/911 mythology moreso than non-fundamentalists.

Can you cite any source for anyone in the administration claiming Hussien was responsible for the 9-11 attacks - I don't remember that assertion and I pay fairly close attention to these matters. Thanks in advance.

 

[Snide]

This entire thread is hilarious.


You realize the condescending attitudes expressed here are part of what energize the faithful? I grew up in their midst. They feed on your sneers, you disses, your smirks to fuel their us versus them mentality.

Anecdote: It was the likes of these folks here who helped wake me up...condescending attitudes, sneers and smirks notwithstanding.

But fighting fire with fire may not be best. Water probably works better.

 

[Orwell]

Can you cite any source for anyone in the administration claiming Hussien was responsible for the 9-11 attacks - I don't remember that assertion and I pay fairly close attention to these matters. Thanks in advance.

Hussein Link to 9/11 Lingers in Many Minds

Bush, in his speeches, did not say directly that Hussein was culpable in the Sept. 11 attacks. But he frequently juxtaposed Iraq and al Qaeda in ways that hinted at a link. In a March speech about Iraq's "weapons of terror," Bush said: "If the world fails to confront the threat posed by the Iraqi regime, refusing to use force, even as a last resort, free nations would assume immense and unacceptable risks. The attacks of September the 11th, 2001, showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction."

Then, in declaring the end of major combat in Iraq on May 1, Bush linked Iraq and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks: "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions."

Moments later, Bush added: "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more. In these 19 months that changed the world, our actions have been focused and deliberate and proportionate to the offense. We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th -- the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got."

A number of nongovernment officials close to the Bush administration have made the link more directly. Richard N. Perle, who until recently was chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, long argued that there was Iraqi involvement, calling the evidence "overwhelming."

 

[varwoche]

Can you cite any source for anyone in the administration claiming Hussien was responsible for the 9-11 attacks - I don't remember that assertion and I pay fairly close attention to these matters. Thanks in advance.

There have been an abundance of inferences (see Orwell's post), but not an out-and-out assertion that I'm aware of.

And if those of us who saw abundant inferences were just wrong, then the confused state of the american public was (is?) truly perplexing. How did this mass hallucination occur?

 

[Cylinder]

There have been an abundance of inferences (see Orwell's post), but not an out-and-out assertion that I'm aware of.

Inferences? Isn't that a bit vague? The 9-11 attacks did directly influenced the decision to go to war with Baathist Iraq and the administration made that very clear. I see no reason for confusion on anyone's part - no matter their idealogical slant.

And if those of us who saw abundant inferences were just wrong, then the confused state of the american public was (is?) truly perplexing. How did this mass hallucination occur?

Many of those polls are so badly reported that it defies honest interpretation. Polls should never be cited without providing the questionnaire because of data manipulation. The articles using the post-election Gallup poll usually report the same editorial line, but the questionnaire showed that Bush voters were more likely to answer correctly than Kerry voters. I treated this on another board and will be happy to try to find that post.

 

[Cylinder]

Actually it was thisPIPA poll that was used. Who do you think was more correct - Kerry or Bush voters?

 

[varwoche]

Inferences? Isn't that a bit vague?

Yes it is.

When I started this thread on Nov 4, even then I wasn't wanting to debate that aspect of my post here. I shouldn't have bumped the thread; my apology.

 

[varwoche]

Actually it was thisPIPA poll that was used. Who do you think was more correct - Kerry or Bush voters?

This is interesting though. As best I recollect, pipa was the original source. I'm going to look into it, but it appears I reached some rash conclusions. (And that's what I get for not going to the source.)

 

[Cylinder]

Yes it is.

When I started this thread on Nov 4, even then I wasn't wanting to debate that aspect of my post here. I shouldn't have bumped the thread; my apology.

I didn't notice the date stamps. No need to apologize.

 

[RandFan]

A flawed but welcome point.

All that's needed are 2-3 appointments in the Scalia/Thomas mold to cause significant changes to our society. Do you debate this, or just think it unlikely to happen?

We live in a democratic republic. The system was put together to balance the need of the majority and to protect the rights of the minority. The founders were very specific as to how our government should function and it has by and large worked pretty well. Though to be sure there were some really big hiccups.

It's kind of funny though that Bush uses the boogey man of terrorism for political purposes and his detractors use the boogey man of the Democratic Process as constituted by the founding fathers for their own political purposes. There is some rich irony in there somewhere?

I do have concerns about the direction of our nation but as I have argued countless times the sky is not falling and we are not going to radically change the society. The constitution is still the constitution. Precedent is still precedent. Americans still value their freedoms and rights. Could there be some changes? Sure. It's called a democracy. But how much change and for how long? No one is willing to tell us what exactly we have to fear. Do me a favor, give us your worst case scenario. What is it specifically that we should be afraid of and I don't mean just that a conservative judge will be installed? Prayer in schools? Outlawed abortion? Evolution outlawed or ID given equal weight in high school?