|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 06/06/2011 : 06:13:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Originally posted by marfknox
Dude wrote: | Penn Jillette's position is that you don't have to defend the truth because it is the truth. |
You obviously interpret him differently than I did. And frankly I think my interpretation is better supported considering that Penn devotes much of his career to defending truth.
| Now imagine the public view if those issues were not defended by the people on the side of the evidence. |
I guess I have to repeat myself. Let me cut and paste from my own last post: "truth is by its nature more persuasive and convincing, and thus it will always have people passionately fighting on its side."
So quit fucking acting as if I'm advocating that nobody defend truth. The POINT of my posts in this thread have been that I'm not worried about us losing the war with the religious right. If you want to disagree with that, fine, but don't fucking put words in my mouth.
|
I had to stop myself from answering back with, "What the hell, why do you keep insisting that the truth doesn't need defending?!" Then misquoting you to make my point. Because I'm totally here just to put words into your mouth, but now that you're on to me I can't do it anymore!
Seriously, calm down.
Penn is the one I'm after on this point, not you. I thought I made that clear. When he was discussing the creationism v evolution thing with Maher he absolutely said that evolution didn't need defending (at all) because it's the truth, and the truth will win in the end. Its an odd thing for him to have said given that he spends a lot of his time advocating for truth on other issues.
Also, to counter your point that we need not worry about losing this fight with the religitards, I pointed out that two issues (climate science and evolution) that have broad scientific consensus but are sitting at that 50/50 (or worse) point in the public view.
Those illustrate both of my points, that there is a real danger posed by the tea party and other religious conservatives, the outcome is less certain than you think, and that without vigorous defense the truth can be easily trampled into the mud.
|
There is real danger should a theocrat gain power. The first thing they can do is to mobilize the Federal police forces against minority religions. They would then, cloaked in patriotism and armed with accusations that defenders of the minority religions are endangering the country, move on to other religions. They can also mobilize against those without religion.
The Neo-Pagan community has seen an upwelling of theocratic abuses in rural areas and in smaller cities. These mostly in the Bible belt. They have been going underground again. Pagan-friendly stores have closed up or put on a Christian facade. Neo-Pagan groups have stopped putting out flyers to let people know in the community that they exist.
There has been some paranoid ranting concerning DEA/FBI raids on Neo-Pagan gatherings where they are looking for anything to be able to harrass the participants. A Pagan gathering in a forest preserve was repeatedly asked to see their permit by the forest preserve police. Something that large groups rarely have happen. This was due to the officers being part of a Charismatic Christian mega-church in the area. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 06/06/2011 : 15:28:58 [Permalink]
|
I’m sure that by now, the only people in the country who haven’t heard of Sarah’s version of Paul Revere’s ride -- warning the British that they weren’t gonna take our guns, and ringin’ them bells all along the way  -- are those living in remote, Alaskan leper colonies. Called on it, she then came up with pretty much the same nonsense, lightly modified, claiming that she didn’t flub the story after all; and another good laugh was had by the evil, intellectual elite who actually know the history.
Everybody, that is, laughed except for her teabagging fans, who are desperately trying to edit Wikipedia’s article to fit her flibbertigibbet’s fantasy.
Sarah Palin supporters are literally attempting to rewrite history after she flubbed the story of Paul Revere's ride last week last week, taking to Wikipedia with their own revisions to the beloved story in an effort to make Palin's version look true.
"He who warned the British that they weren't going to be taking away our arms uh by ringing those bells and making sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free and we were going to be armed," Palin explained to reporters in Boston, Massachusetts Thursday.
But Wikipedia didn't back up Palin's suggestion that Revere's mission was to warn the British or that he rang bells in the process so her fans tried to update the page.
"Most colonial residents at the time considered themselves British as they were all legally British subjects," was the revision that one user added to the page.
That update was later reverted with the message "content not backed by a reliable sources (it was sarah palin interview videos)."
Another update to the page said, "Accounts differ regarding the method of alerting the colonists; the generally accepted position is that the warnings were verbal in nature, although one disputed account suggested that Revere rang bells during his ride."
"In the article on Paul Revere, someone has added false information in an effort to support Sarah Palin's FALSE claims about Paul Revere," one Wikipedia editor noted. "This must be removed as it is a LIE designed to mislead."
|
Oh my poor bullshit detector; it scarcly goes off where Palin is involved. It becomes fat & lazy, as she is so obvious that BS-D has little work to do. Oh well; what with all the other Republicans, not to mention some Democrats, out there, it could use a rest.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2011 : 20:47:46 [Permalink]
|
Even a Fox News commentator was laughing at Palin's gaffes.
Of course, Fox recently ran a story about Palin accompanied by a photo of Tina Fey. This, after a 2009 "zero tolerance" policy against on-screen mistakes prompted by old photos of Palin being shown to audiences as "pictures just coming in." So Fox News doesn't exactly have much room to laugh at Palin's revisionism. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2011 : 10:54:47 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: *sheepish shrug* Okay.
| Penn is the one I'm after on this point, not you. I thought I made that clear. When he was discussing the creationism v evolution thing with Maher he absolutely said that evolution didn't need defending (at all) because it's the truth, and the truth will win in the end. Its an odd thing for him to have said given that he spends a lot of his time advocating for truth on other issues. |
I'm gonna trust you on this one because I saw that video some years ago and I don't remember it well enough. It is most likely that I just took away a meaning that resolved the contradiction, but in reality Penn was being contradictory.
| Also, to counter your point that we need not worry about losing this fight with the religitards, I pointed out that two issues (climate science and evolution) that have broad scientific consensus but are sitting at that 50/50 (or worse) point in the public view. |
Oh, I realize that. I just don't think that the public view is a huge concern. A lot of those people in the public who say that on surveys are not particularly emotionally invested or political mobilized. They are only on the fence or on the wrong side because they are ignorant and going on general things they have heard from disreputable sources. For example, when my brother was 19 I was having a discussion with him about evolution and he said "But evolution is a controversial theory." My brother is a liberal and was raised by liberal intellectuals and went to a Catholic school (so they taught evolution in science class.) But my dear bro is also more of a humanities guy and not particularly interested in biological sciences, so his impression of the issue was based more on sound bites from mainstream news. My parents and I were rather shocked and sort of laughed a bit before straightening him out on the issue. But it really made me wonder how many people on the fence about evolution are like him. In other words, harmless. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Palin: an insight
