• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Poll: Republicans reject evolution...

ImaginalDisc said:
You must invite me to the dreamworld you inhabit some day. The United States became rich from stealing resource rich land from Indians and kidnapping and enslaving Afrcians. I'm sure that there are some rich families who owe their wealth to faultless and industrious inventors and shrewd business accumen. There's far more whose money derives from monstrous insitutous that are a shameful part of our past, no matter how nice the people in those institutions were.
Click to expand...
I like his dreamworld better than yours.
 
Kerberos said:
I like his dreamworld better than yours.
Click to expand...
Despite ideological preferences, I have to agree, in all honesty.

Stereotyping rich people is no better than stereotyping poor people.

(And before you say it, no, I wasn't stereotyping in my last post- that's a logical exercise, to wit, raising doubt about a logical construct by demonstrating that its conclusion can follow from other premises than those proposed. Along with a little humor, which if you can't take it I guess you need some assistance from a qualified professional.)
 
So whats the percent of democrats who don't believe in evolution for comparison?

But let me digress, before you throw stones about americans not believing in evolution.... I was raised in a very puritanical southern evangelical home. We went to church every Sunday morning. Many americans were indoctrinated by their communities of faith in believing that even if evolution does occur that God is the source.

Now, I don't believe that anymore. But expecting the other millions who grew up in similar environments to just throw off all that indoctrination is silly. For one thing, evolution doesn't affect most of their jobs, income, and doesn't have anything to do with balancing their checkbooks. You can imagine if as few as 30 years ago that God was the source of all healing and that medicine was hokum, how that attitude would have changed by now. Opinions from ignorance based on faith are more likely to change when they affect someone's livelihood.

So yeah, lets flame those millions of americans who comfortably believe in superstitions and feel good about slamming their benign ignorance because of the vocal handful who make a distasteful spectacle with the Creation Museums and School activism.

When you make fun of them, your making fun of my mother who doesn't understand science and never will but practices her christian generosity in ways that drive me nuts. I'd take her ignorant backwards country mind over some pompous ass on the internet any day. At least she can make a good buttermilk pie.
 
corplinx said:
So whats the percent of democrats who don't believe in evolution for comparison?
Click to expand...
Party / Believe / Don't Believe

Republicans / 30 / 68
Democrats / 57 / 40
Independents / 61 / 37

Also, 3% of those responding believe that both evolution and creationism are "definitely true".
 
corplinx said:
... When you make fun of them, your making fun of my mother who doesn't understand science and never will but practices her christian generosity in ways that drive me nuts. I'd take her ignorant backwards country mind over some pompous ass on the internet any day. At least she can make a good buttermilk pie.
Click to expand...

Let's not too throw out all those babies with that dirty bathwater ... many Christian people are very good people -- very helpful/helping people -- and very generous people. Not all want to convert everyone they meet. There are bad apples in every bunch, so let's simply put them aside for the moment. My mom too is religious (as were her parents) and will likely never understand even the basic principles of Newtonian mechanics or modern astronomy or how a simple triode tube works. But I wouldn't trade her (or her mother) for any other mom/grandma in the world.

PS: My atheism drives her nuts -- but we still love each other.
 
Last edited:
Schneibster said:
Despite ideological preferences, I have to agree, in all honesty.

Stereotyping rich people is no better than stereotyping poor people.

(And before you say it, no, I wasn't stereotyping in my last post- that's a logical exercise, to wit, raising doubt about a logical construct by demonstrating that its conclusion can follow from other premises than those proposed. Along with a little humor, which if you can't take it I guess you need some assistance from a qualified professional.)
Click to expand...

I did not sterotype rich people, I characterised institutions. There's a difference.

In our history more people have become rich because of questionable institutions than became rich making an honest buck. Heck, it's hard enough to make an honest living now.
 
Last edited:
ImaginalDisc said:
I did not sterotype rich people, I characterised institutions. There's a difference.

In our history more people have become rich because of questionable institutions than became rich making an honest buck.
Click to expand...
Oh, right, you were saying that before - we all got rich by killing Indians and stealing their land and enslaving black people and living off the fruit of their labor. Except that we haven't done either of those for going on 150 years (and even before slavery was outlawed throughout the US, most people lived in states where it was illegal, and the vast majority of Americans owned no slaves at all, even people living in slave states). So what were the "questionable institutions" that have made America rich since then?

BTW, you never answered my earlier question regarding whether or not you thought the total amount of wealth in the US is the same today as it was in 149,200 BC.
 
Last edited:
BPSCG said:
Oh, right, you were saying that before - we all got rich by killing Indians and stealing their land and enslaving black people and living off the fruit of their labor. Except that we haven't done either of those for going on 150 years (and even before slavery was outlawed throughout the US, most people lived in states where it was illegal, and the vast majority of Americans owned no slaves at all, even people living in slave states). So what were the "questionable institutions" that have made America rich since then?
Click to expand...

You don't even try to read, do you? We killed the indians and pushed them off their land, and spent centuries clear cutting forests (which we've since done an excellent job of managing and bringing back up to previous acreage), mining out coal, and minerals, trading slaves and using slave labor, (which helped build such cities as Boston and Charleston) supressed unions, (You do remember that, right?), polluted wantonly as a matter of course and then disposed of waste through shady means after it has become illegal. We're mining our aquifers (that means withdrawing water at a rate faster than recharge), letting unlined landfills drp lechate into the very same aquifers. . .

Need I go on? There's no shortage of problems with the institutions in our society. We're a whole lot better then we used to be, but wanton disregard for the lives of future generation and the lives of people who don't directly benefit from our abundant wealth seems to be par for the course.

BTW, you never answered my earlier question regarding whether or not you thought the total amount of wealth in the US is the same today as it was in 149,200 BC.
Click to expand...

I can't answer that question until you define "wealth."

Is wealth Gross National Product? GNP is a perverse measurement of "wealth" because it measures money spent on goods and services, so a costly oil spill that costs billions to clean up raises GNP. A flu epeidemic that prompts billions of dollars in emergency spending raised GNP. Saving money frugally and paying down our national debt would lower GNP.

Is wealth property? Do nicer clothes and flashier cars mean we're better off? Is health a measure of wealth? Is knowledge and education? I'd happly answer your question if you could explain what you mean. I'm pleased to have the benefit of intitutions which provide me a good education, good health, a home, and food on my table, all of which are better than we had hundreds of years ago. But, we have problems now that we didn't have then. We're all beneficiaries of the crimes of the past. History is a litany of awful behavior. I'm glad for the benefits we have, but the problems we've caused really need to be addresed.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
I can't answer that question until you define "wealth."

Is wealth Gross National Product? GNP is a perverse measurement of "wealth" because it measures money spent on goods and services, so a costly oil spill that costs billions to clean up raises GNP. A flu epeidemic that prompts billions of dollars in emergency spending raised GNP. Saving money frugally and paying down our national debt would lower GNP.

Is wealth property? Do nicer clothes and flashier cars mean we're better off? Is health a measure of wealth? Is knowledge and education? I'd happly answer your question if you could explain what you mean. I'm pleased to have the benefit of intitutions which provide me a good education, good health, a home, and food on my table, all of which are better than we had hundreds of years ago. But, we have problems now that we didn't have then. We're all beneficiaries of the crimes of the past. History is a litany of awful behavior. I'm glad for the benefits we have, but the problems we've caused really need to be addresed.
Click to expand...
Nice way to weasel out. You know you can't seriously argue that there is no more wealth today than there was 100,000 years ago without completely destroying your own argument that we got most of it by killing and stealing.

So you try to weasel out by saying, "Oh, yeah, but we still have problems." And then you try to put lipstick on your pig of an argument by saying "We're all beneficiaries of the crimes of the past. History is a litany of awful behavior," which is just another way of repeating your silly claim that wealth is created mostly by killing and stealing.

No, wealth is created by using human ingenuity to shape the earth's resources to fulfill our needs. Killing and stealing only transfers wealth that already existed; it does not create it.
 
BPSCG said:
Nice way to weasel out. You know you can't seriously argue that there is no more wealth today than there was 100,000 years ago without completely destroying your own argument that we got most of it by killing and stealing.

So you try to weasel out by saying, "Oh, yeah, but we still have problems." And then you try to put lipstick on your pig of an argument by saying "We're all beneficiaries of the crimes of the past. History is a litany of awful behavior," which is just another way of repeating your silly claim that wealth is created mostly by killing and stealing.

No, wealth is created by using human ingenuity to shape the earth's resources to fulfill our needs. Killing and stealing only transfers wealth that already existed; it does not create it.
Click to expand...

Are you done ranting? You're asking if we have more wealth. It's up to you to define what wealth is. I can say I'd rather be alive today as who I am (no one of consequence) than a king, emperor, or chieftan or any earlier age. I like having dental care, cable TV, exotic foods from around the world, and the knowledge of the ages avialable through the internet. Is that what wealth is?
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Are you done ranting? You're asking if we have more wealth. It's up to you to define what wealth is. I can say I'd rather be alive today as who I am (no one of consequence) than a king, emperor, or chieftan or any earlier age. I like having dental care, cable TV, exotic foods from around the world, and the knowledge of the ages avialable through the internet. Is that what wealth is?
Click to expand...
Keep weaseling. Why don't we go with "anything that has utility and is capable of being appropriated or exchanged." Though any common understanding of the term would probably serve just as well.

Now, for about the fourth time, do you believe that there is no more wealth today than there was 100,000 years ago? Do you seriously believe that most of today's wealth was produced by by killing and stealing?
 
Let me ask you the following:

Now, for about the fourth time, do you believe that there is no more blearg today than there was 100,000 years ago? Do you seriously believe that most of today's blearg was produced by by killing and stealing?

Can you answer that question without knowing what I mean by "blearg?"
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Let me ask you the following:

Now, for about the fourth time, do you believe that there is no more blearg today than there was 100,000 years ago? Do you seriously believe that most of today's blearg was produced by by killing and stealing?

Can you answer that question without knowing what I mean by "blearg?"
Click to expand...
Okay, so now you're refusing to answer the question even with a definition of wealth.

Your surrender is accepted.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
I did not sterotype rich people, I characterised institutions. There's a difference.

In our history more people have become rich because of questionable institutions than became rich making an honest buck. Heck, it's hard enough to make an honest living now.
Click to expand...

I don't supose you'd like to share how you arive at that conclusion? Including perhaps some explanation of how you determine whether a person has become rich by "questionable institutions" as pposed to making an "honest buck"? Let alone excactly what these rather vague terms mean?
 
One look at the Democrat presidential primary and you can see there's no such thing as evolution physically, mentally, or philosophically. Marx is still among us in the flesh with that crowd.
 
FarmallMTA said:
One look at the Democrat presidential primary and you can see there's no such thing as evolution physically, mentally, or philosophically. Marx is still among us in the flesh with that crowd.
Click to expand...
Which ones are advocating nationalizing industry?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom