PZ Myers. 2005 Feb 23. I'd say, "Welcome, Power Line!" but so far you aren't impressing me. <http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/id_say_welcome_power_line_but_so_far_you_arent_impressing_me/>. Accessed 2008 Dec 01.
Posted on M00o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr on Wednesday, February 23, 2005
I'd say, "Welcome, Power Line!" but so far you aren't impressing me
I'm very popular today. So popular that I had to pare down the usual graphics-heavy layout of the page to accommodate all the traffic. The cause? The Power Line blog picked up on my criticisms of their main man, Hindrocket, and have posted a reply titled "Call me stupid".
OK, you're stupid.
Sorry about that. It's also pretty stupid to feed a guy such an obvious straight line, especially since you know that everyone who comments on it is going to say the same thing. Anyway, the reply is weird. It's the usual whimper of fragile right-wing egos demanding that they be treated better than they treat others, while still insisting on holding the line on the rank foolishness of the original post.
- As Ogged has noted, they don't say the sensible, intelligent thing ("Of course we accept the best scientific explanation of our origins!"), but instead babble about "orthodoxies." The whole bunch over there must be wanking creationists. And yes, that certainly does discredit them—it means that they are not interested in the honest, critical evaluation of the evidence, but instead leap to conclusions based on ideology.
- They complain that my short comment did not present the evidence for evolution. Silly people. I've got articles all over this weblog discussing the evidence for evolution. Check out the Panda's Thumb or many of the sites in the science and evolution categories of my blogroll. Or heck, go to a library. This isn't secret stuff. These guys aren't aware of any of it—so where do they get off criticizing legitimate biology?
- They don't understand how their opinion of evolution is relevant to any assessment of their political stance. There is a sense in which that is correct—if someone honestly says they don't know enough of the scientific story to be able to judge, I think that would actually speak well of their ability to evaluate evidence. That is not what Hindrocket did, however. He pompously claimed that "the empirical foundations of Darwinism have crumbled under attack by a new generation of biologists, especially microbiologists." Either he knows better, and he's lying, or he's completely ignorant of what biologists say, and he shouldn't be pretending to have knowledge he lacks. Either way, he's demonstrating a disgraceful lack of respect for the evidence, and that does call his judgment into question. If I, who have never cracked a lawbook in my life, were to try to tell lawyers how to practice law, and made egregious errors of fact in my claim and even mangled the vocabulary, there'd be no hesitation about deservedly calling me a fool, an idiot, a pretentious poseur…so I'm returning the favor here. Hindrocket doesn't know biology, period. He's a fool, an idiot, and a pretentious poseur for acting as if he does.
- They whine that they've been insulted. I'm sorry, but when Hindrocket can blandly assert that almost the entire Democratic party consists of traitors who are in alliance with terrorists to destroy America, they've lost the privilege of complaining from a lofty moral height about the level of the criticisms levied by others. Wingers are incredibly thin-skinned, aren't they? They can fling it, but they can't take it.
- And, you know, they don't have comments on Power Line, but their fan base is appalling. I got a pair of obscene phone calls last night, after their article was posted, an attempted denial-of-service attack, and a flood of e-mail this morning. Some of it is just godawful stacks of obscenities, while the more civil stuff is basically, "I am a lawyer, and evolution is just a theory." Good grief. Go read this and come back when you have half a clue. You're confirming my prejudice that Power Line readers are benighted morons.
Posted by PZ Myers on 02/23 at 10:48 AM
Creationism • Politics • Rethuglicans • 10 Trackbacks • Other weblogs • Permalink
Creationism • Politics • Rethuglicans • 10 Trackbacks • Other weblogs • Permalink
-
Good luck being Diogenes! I guess people were always trying to blow out his lantern.
For the record, the scientific claims of Powerline are about one rung above (or a descendant of) "God put dinosaur fossils here to test our faith," which later morphed into the "humans and dinosaurs frolicking together" exhibit at that creationist museum.
This is a counterpart to the know-nothingism of non-scholars who have "figured out" the Middle East by watching Fox News or who have economic theory explained to them by Charles Krauthammer. Of course, being correct and/or learned is some of the flimsiest insulation to attack around.#: Posted by norbizness on 02/23 at 11:07 AM -
FWIW, I thought the calls to Rindhocket's workplace were out of line. Harassing receptionists who are simply trying to do their job doesn't accomplish anything. Stick to e-mail, please.
#: Posted by on 02/23 at 11:07 AM
-
What PL and its ilk fail to grasp is that it's not their attacks on evolution per se that reflect on their political stance, it's their attacks on the scientific method itself.
There was a time when conservatives could legitimately suggest that the political left was in denial of science, whereas they themselves represented the sober realities of the world. (Admittedly, this view probably hit its high mark when Hayek was at his best and the Soviet conception of, ahem, evolution was at its worst.) Today, however, the right is characterized by the belief that facts, theories, and research are trumped by ideology.
When asked how I can square my acceptance of genetics and evolution with my religious views, the shorthand answer I inevitably provide is, "Truth is greater than facts." By this, I mean that if a person sees the world with a religious framework, and testable facts seem to contravene that view, then the religion must be expansive enough to accomodate those facts. I'm suspicious enough of Man's ability to directly apprehend the divine that I'll take the reseacher's test tube over the revelator's text any day.
However, for some people (PL contributors evidently included), their soi disan truth obviates the need for facts. Whether it's in the realm of economics (supply-side theory is true, damn your empirical eyes!) or science (who cares if Murray and Herrnstein didn't actually understand multiple regression?), the new right is marked by a bold refusal to see the world as it is, rather than how they want it to work; every one of their policies begins with a solution (such as marketizing a commodity) that they then distort to make it fit a specific problem, regardless of how it actually plays out. That this inevitably places an expiration date on a political movement does not seem to faze them, but we'll see where they are a decade from now.#: Posted by on 02/23 at 11:23 AM -
I would think that any kind of harassment would be out of line; email or otherwise.
The argument that because you are ignorant of one thing leads to the ignorance of another as fact is ridiculous. It’s a non sequitur.
Also, calling a man a "...a fool, an idiot, and a pretentious poseur" for having a opinion contrary to your own seems rather petty and personal. It seems the mark of a good philosopher is the ability to separate one’s opinions from one’s being: where an attack on the former does not presuppose the latter. I would like to think that that is the most appropriate manner of discourse in all fields, not just philosophy.
Just my $.02#: Posted by on 02/23 at 11:30 AM -
PZ, save those caller ID records.
#: Posted by Chris Clarke on 02/23 at 11:31 AM
-
I know this may be hard for some of PZ's regular readers to believe, but you don't have to be a liberal to be appalled by these guys.
My politics tend to lean center-right (with a libertarian streak), and guys like Hindrocket embarrass the heck out of me, as do blatherers like Ann Coulter and Mark Levin. When it's so mind-numbingly clear that he doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to evolution (and, worse, hasn't bothered even to try to educate himself). People like Hindrocket are totally embarrassing and one of the reasons I can no longer consider myself a Republican.
It's particularly annoying when they use the old "just a theory" crap, because it reveals such a monumental ignorance of not just evolution, but of science, that I don't know whether to laugh or cry about it.
No wonder they don't allow comments on Powerline. - I think real scientists have every right to take it "personally" when non-experts dismiss their life's work in a single monstrously ill-informed sentence.
-
You aren't reading carefully, Chris. I'm not making "The argument that because you are ignorant of one thing leads to the ignorance of another"...in fact, I explicitly said up there that I don't condemn someone for admitting ignorance of a subject. What is damning, though, is pretending to be well-informed on a subject when you aren't, and Hindrocket is definitely guilty of that.
Orac, trust me, I know. There are sensible conservatives and Republicans. These guys who now dominate Republican party politics are batshit insane extremists, and I do not confuse them with rational conservatives. -
PZ: yes. At the very least, it should be clear that Hindrocket's willingness to believe seriously faulty arguments in the face of massive counterevidence for the sake of preserving some prior ideological commitment puts him in a funny position. It looks to me, on the surface at least, like he's just being irrational. Now, it's possible that he's irrational when he's speculating about science and perfectly reasonable when he puts on the politics hat, but, well, that isn't the only possibility.
#: Posted by Fontana Labs on 02/23 at 11:40 AM
-
I agree that calling receptionists is bad posture. But Hindrocket is a complete loon of a wingnut who repeatedly states that all people on the "left" are in bed with Islamic radicals. Why shouldn't the people he works with be alerted to his wingnuttery. I am sure that many clients (and probably many of his colleagues) of his firm would be appalled by his extremist, neofascist views.
#: Posted by on 02/23 at 11:58 AM
-
This "Hindrocket" incident has some echoes of the earlier Jonah Goldberg/Juan Cole tete-a-tete, in which Juan Cole pretty brutally disposed of Goldberg. Goldberg really seemed to be unable to get his mind around the fundamental issue: agree or disagree with Cole, he knew what he was talking about and Goldberg didn't. I'm sure that breezy, uninformed opining about all and sundry is not unique to rightwing pundits, but it does seem lately that rightwingers are providing the most grotesque examples: the ineffable Bill O'Reilly perhaps the worst of all. A smart conservative (I won't say libertarian; O'Reilly is in many ways the opposite of a libertarian) ought to feel quite embarrassed by these people. I can't exclude the possibility it's my limited, blinkered perspective here, but it seems to me this stuff has become widespread on the right in a truly disturbing way. I'm not aware of a left wing Ann Coulter, or O'Reilly, or what have you. If I'm right, I wonder why this has become a trend. I would like to say to Professor Myers: "Why are you wasting your time on these idiots?" But I have to admit that (while probably time-wasting) it's a more interesting subject to me than agnathic jaws. This doesn't speak well of me, I know.
#: Posted by on 02/23 at 12:07 PM
-
Actually (at the risk of drawing hate mail from the libs), I will point out that Michael Moore comes close to being a left wing Ann Coulter, IMHO. He's a polemicist and propagandist and certainly isn't above cherry picking facts that agree with his point and ignoring facts that don't. Ward Churchill might qualify if he hadn't been so utterly obscure to most of the nation before his 9/11 comments were unearthed. The problem is that right now the right wing polemicists have a much wider audience than the left wing polemicists, most of whom are not nearly as well known.
And many smart conservatives (like yours truly) are embarrassed by the likes of Coulter and O'Reilly (not to mention Michelle "Defense of Internment" Malkin). -
Well, Moore certainly can be a loose cannon. My attitude toward him is somewhat complex, and I'd share it if I weren't certain it would just bore people speechless.
I'm trying to recover now from the realization that Hindrocket is (heaven help us) a lawyer. I don't mind being regarded as the scum of the earth (really I don't); but if people start to conclude that lawyers are just-plain dumb, too . . . I may not be able to survive that.#: Posted by on 02/23 at 12:38 PM -
I would say that I read it just fine. "Either way, he’s demonstrating a disgraceful lack of respect for the evidence, and that does call his judgment into question." is very hard to misinterpret. But, I may have worded my response ineffectually. Rather than claiming that he is ignorant of other manners as a result of a contrarian theory on evolution, you used his ignorance of a particular matter as proof of logical fallacy in another, or rather that he is “a fool, an idiot, and a pretentious poseur for acting as if he [knows biology]". Regardless of the weight of his argument in this manner, your disagreement with his stance should logically be contained in this manner alone.
You did the same with:
“What is damning, though, is pretending to be well-informed on a subject when you aren’t, and Hindrocket is definitely guilty of that.” By “damning” I assume that you mean that his logic is flawed in other manners as a result of his “pretending”.
So I apologize for misinterpreting your position with respect to ignorance, but would still stand by the original spirit of my argument; that claiming knowledge of something of which you are ignorant is grounds for dismissing other opinions. That is a non sequitur, as well.
As for Andrew being offended by his remarks on Darwinism: do you intend this to be a defense of responding with insults? Personal attacks are hardly a substantive portion of debate. They prove nothing, and only serve to weaken the sympathy for your position. You will be dismissed as being petty and shrill any time that you respond to anything (including personal attacks directed at you) with terms such as "idiot".
Again, just my $.02.#: Posted by on 02/23 at 12:39 PM -
"Actually (at the risk of drawing hate mail from the libs)"
We're not kneejerk unless you insult our intelligence. Your post doesn't, and it's highly refreshing to read something from "the other side" that's reasonable. Just to quibble a bit, whatever his accuracy, Moore is a mockumentary filmmaker and his product is analagous to that of Mel Gibson's, not O'Reilly and the rest.
Frankly, I hope like hell you take back your party. There is a legitimate conservative POV that is essential to the health of the country.#: Posted by on 02/23 at 12:41 PM -
Chris O. -- By all means, ideas should stand alone. On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with raising the possibility that someone who is so intellectually dishonest in one area might be lacking in others. If Hinderaker is willing to dissemble on biology, where he has no training, it might be possible for him to do so in other areas.
I think PZ's goal was more to highlight the ignorance of the Powerline position, and he chose to do so with hyperbole, exactly the kind of rhetoric that is so often used against the scientific community. Personally, I say more power to him.#: Posted by Thomas Wilburn on 02/23 at 12:56 PM -
OK, Chris, do you understand the difference between these two statements?
1. "I'm a lawyer. I don't know the evidence for or against evolution very well, so let's ask some biologists who do understand it."
2. "I'm a lawyer. I don't know the evidence for or against evolution very well, but I know that evolution is an orthodoxy cooked up by a conspiracy of atheists to destroy America."
Both are examples of ignorance. #1 is a fair and reasonable position. #2 is raving lunacy.
Guess which position is Hindrocket's? Why should I respect a demonstrably raving lunatic's position on any issue?
Many of us have spent many years patiently explaining biology to people. We know the majority of people are actually in position #1, and we can respect that. We also know that an increasing number of people are following strategy #2, and we've learned from experience that reasoning with them doesn't work. We've lost patience with them. It's long past time to call the lying idiots what they are, and time to stop treating them nicely. They do not deserve it. -
Hey, I'm all for raising possibilities, but referring to these "intellectual dishonest" instances as "damning" with regards to other things is hardly a conclusive argument.
As for your second point, I would refer to the old adage of “two wrongs” and their incongruent relation to “a right”.#: Posted by on 02/23 at 01:10 PM -
"It’s long past time to call the lying idiots what they are, and time to stop treating them nicely. They do not deserve it. "
Well, then this may not be the place for me, then. I don't agree with that statement even in the slightest.
I certainly hope that the state of American debate is not this bad.
I will be signing off now.#: Posted by on 02/23 at 01:15 PM -
I certainly hope that the state of American debate is not this bad.
Oh, it's *much* worse than you imply. I mean, creationists, ID'ers and their ilk have been foisting off lies, half-truths and various rhetorical deceptions for decades now. If you don't understand where PZ's anger is coming from on this, I suggest you look through the archives of TalkOrigins.org sometime and learn a bit about why sharing the niceness is seen with a rather jaundiced eye on his part these days.#: Posted by on 02/23 at 01:33 PM -
I would refer to the old adage of “two wrongs” and their incongruent relation to “a right.”
What's with these folk and their old dogmatic adages? Get with the times, people!
Chris - Thanks for keeping us updated on your blogging activity!#: Posted by on 02/23 at 01:46 PM -
I hope those guys don't get too horrible.
Good for you, though. You're a brave man for standing up to them.
Powerline = "Blog of the Year"? My arse...#: Posted by on 02/23 at 01:55 PM -
Powerline's posturing both before and after PZ's assessment fits in very nicely with an article at the New Republic on-line by Jonathan Chait. His thesis is that the distinction between Republicans and Democrats lies in the former being ideologues, for whom the goal is ideological purity—less government—and the latter being emipirically driven pragmatism for whom real results matter—the size of the government being incidental. An interesting read and well illustrated by the fencing between ID promoters like Hindrocket and the DI on the one hand and scientists like PZ on the other.
#: Posted by on 02/23 at 02:05 PM
-
I find this tempest in a teapot discussion quite hilarious. I don't go the doctor for legal advice and I don't ask a lawyer why my back hurts. Trying to say someone's beliefs outside their area of expertise compromises that expertise doesn't hold water either. Science is full of great pioneers who had odd and sometimes bizarre political beliefs that did not affect their scientific ability. Some of the greatist politcians had terrible personal lives that, if made public, would have ruined them. Yet, did not interfere with the social changes they championed for the good of all. The scientists I detest the most, are the ones condencending about their area of expertise and extending that to areas that are not. Anyone depending on Power Line for scientific information and this site for political insight would be doubly mistaken.
#: Posted by on 02/23 at 02:09 PM
- Actually, I just came across a post that precisely shows what is so irritating about creationists to some of us. In this one, David Heddle uses the classic tu quoque fallacy and labels biologists who defend the theory of evolution as "fundamentalists."
- be careful now PZ, or they'll do to you "what they did to Dan Rather ..." That's an e-mail I got the other day from a powerline reader. I say bring it on, please for Odin's sake, please, hurry up and make me a multi-millionaire mega celebrity anchor man for twenty years and then force me into early retirement with all my money and fans.
- I think the page is somewhat easier to read without the background images.
-
What is so wrong with standing up and calling incompetent lying s#!ts out for what they are? And how is this equivalent with what Hindrocket's statements?
#: Posted by on 02/23 at 02:35 PM
-
“I am a lawyer, and evolution is just a theory.”
I am a former paralegal, and evolution is a fact. Who wins this rhetorical battle?#: Posted by on 02/23 at 02:45 PM -
"I'm a mathematician, and the new cryogenic procedure used at John Hopkins to excise brain tumors in the left medial symphosis is utterly worthless."
BTW Orac, I had some dealings with David Heddle. I didn't find him to be in the same league of raving winger manaic thugs that some of his pals are. But he didn't seem very interested in exploring how creationists had hoodwinked him using his faith as a lever. If I recall correctly, he was a Young earther. It's been awhile. -
"They can fling it, but they can’t take it."
The only thing I disagree with. Oh these people can take it. However, they pretend to be thin skinned because it is an effective (sometimes) defense against the other side. Play the weak and make the other side look like callous and unreasonable beasts taking on the lesser strong! -
Whatever Powerline's faults on the subject of evolution, they got the "Rathergate" documents right, and were assaulted by moonbats of the left who believed all sorts of fantasies about their provenance.
Whatever your faults on the subject of politics, you get evolution right, despite assaults by moonbats of the right who believe in the literal truth of the Bible.
Both sites serve a useful purpose, in spite of the tendency both have to overdo the rhetorical heat now and then, and despite the proprietors being trustworthy on some topics and less so on others.
Remember not all evolutionists are left-wing.#: Posted by on 02/23 at 03:08 PM -
Chris O. — 02/23 at 01:15 PM
“It’s long past time to call the lying idiots what they are, and time to stop treating them nicely. They do not deserve it.“
Well, then this may not be the place for me, then. I don’t agree with that statement even in the slightest.
I think you are missing a minor point here. If I'm a lawyer and I talk about law you assume I know what I'm talking about. However, if I talk about science, you may think that I may or may not know what I'm talking about. There really is no way to tell without looking at the context. If I make a wild leap at some scientific topic or another and attempt to pass myself off as an expert on this topic, some experts will notice and call my bluff. This should be expected.
What the point they are trying to make is that if you attempt to pass yourself off as an expert on something you are not, others will be sceptical of the things you are an expert in. In other words, if you attempt to speak as if you know something in areas where you are inadequate likely occurs in areas where you should be more informed. Without being honest about your ignorance, you put yourself in a position to be criticized in things you may indeed be capable. Why would anyone do that? It is just dumb.#: Posted by Monty Zoom on 02/23 at 03:10 PM -
<blockquote>Whatever Powerline’s faults on the subject of evolution, they got the “Rathergate” documents right, and were assaulted by moonbats of the left who believed all sorts of fantasies about their provenance.</bloxckquote>
Really? What I watched was a bunch of people making allegations that were quietly questioned by experts in the field, and CBS News knuckling under when the noise from the echo-chamber became too intense. Both sides raised good points, as I recall, and the issue was never satisfactorily resolved despite the victory crowing by self-appointed typographical experts at LGF.
I'm prepared to believe Powerline got the Rather thing right, but I haven't seen those pesky little counterarguments addressed yet. And I suspect now that victory has been declared, we never will.#: Posted by Chris Clarke on 02/23 at 03:15 PM -
PZ wrote
"It’s long past time to call the lying idiots what they are, and time to stop treating them nicely. They do not deserve it."
and then
Chris O wrote
"Well, then this may not be the place for me, then. I don’t agree with that statement even in the slightest."
Chris, you might want to check out http://www.pandasthumb.org . They evidently have a policy there of banning (or threatening to ban) posters who espouse and embody PZ Myers' philosophy.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000827.html
Ironically, PZ appears to be a member of the group that "runs" that blog ...#: Posted by on 02/23 at 03:16 PM -
It's about time someone finally stood up and yelled, "bulls**t!" These same people continue to argue that we've found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that the global warming is a myth, and that working class people will get rich if only you permanently do away with the estate tax. If the guys who run Powerline had a shred of shame, this would turn into a cautionary tale about how not to publicly talk out of your arse. But, alas, they'll probably just declare themselves the winner and take a victory lap.
#: Posted by Captain Salty on 02/23 at 03:21 PM
-
> I’d say, “Welcome, Power Line!” but so far you aren’t impressing me
Speaking for myself, consider the sentiment mutual. So far, you've demonstrated extraordinary expertise at name-calling, but Don Rickles is good at that too, and even he doesn't see that as cause for such intellectual pretentiousness.#: Posted by on 02/23 at 03:26 PM -
The often quite harsh verbal thumping that the good Professor deals out to all who annoy him has to be assessed, I think, with regard to its object. If the object is in fact someone who opines with willful or complacent ignorance on a subject the Professor actually knows--well I'm inclined to think the victim deserves what he gets. Verbal abuse (by Myers or others) in some other context is much more bothersome for me, but surely we haven't become so mealy-mouthed as to think that debate is degraded by calling a liar a liar and a fool a fool.
#: Posted by on 02/23 at 03:27 PM
-
Lee
"So far, you’ve demonstrated extraordinary expertise at name-calling, but Don Rickles is good at that too, and even he doesn’t see that as cause for such intellectual pretentiousness."
Myers has demonstrated a lot more than name-calling expertise, Lee. He demonstrated that the Powerline commentator was a moron talking out of the wrong orifice.
It's too bad you can't bring yourself to admit that, Lee. Funny, that's an unfortunate trait shared by many self-proclaimed "open minded" rubes who frequent sad empty blogsites like Powerline.#: Posted by on 02/23 at 03:42 PM -
Aristotle once said (roughly) that we shouldn't expect more precision from a study that is suited to its subject matter. Lawyers talking about evolution are often out of their depth because they haven't been trained in the level of detail and reasoning that natural science requires-- So they're often unduly impressed by the bulls**t arguments of ID theory, and utterly insensitive to the contrast between god-of-the-gaps explanations and real science.
But I think this provides important support for PZ's worries about the political arguments we find on PL and similar places. If anything, a serious, evidentially grounded account of social, political and economic matters is far harder to produce. (That's one reason why we haven't got one!). But these people have no hesitation: It seems that the truth, on these very obscure and difficult matters, has been revealed to them, and only the stupid and the traitorous could possibly disagree. I smell a very dangerous absolutism here-- one that fits all too well with the nonsense peddled by ID types, where all evidence on one side is dismissed with a sniffy 'unproven', while a trivial 'everything explainer' is promoted as a scientific alternative. Only an arrogant disregard for evidence and its limits can account for either point of view.#: Posted by Bryson Brown on 02/23 at 03:47 PM -
A note for those who have expressed distaste for PZ's occasional visible impatience with people who persist in repeating the same untruths over and over:
Get used to it.
You'll be hearing more and more in the months to come, and some of it will make PZ's "rudeness" seem as though he was tucking you in all comfy at night.
Because there are more and more of us who are FUCKING FED UP not only with the lies, but with the oh-so genteel people who cluck their tongues at us when we dare to respond in anything but the politest, most apologetic tones to those who would keep children ignorant, purge society of dissent and force their own cultic theocracy down our throats. At least 20,000 civilians killed in Iraq, and 1500 plus US troops, to spur a millennial paranoid cult prophecy, environmental and labor and civil protections swept away with the strokes of a few pens, the underpinning of all the biological sciences being kept from our kids by ignorant zealots intimidating teachers, and you think the worst thing about the situation is some people saying "screw that"?
Then screw you.
(Is PZ seeming more reasonable yet?)#: Posted by Chris Clarke on 02/23 at 03:49 PM - yeah Dave funny thing about that Rahergate gig ... Didn't President Bush use a document that was forged to make the case for war/ And haven't a lot of folks died a sa result? And correct me if I'm wrong, but when the guy they sent over there to vet them reported back they were obvious phonies, and BushCo outed his wife from the CIA, did Powerline get all up in arms about that forgery? Or is their outrage at forgeries extremely conveneient given their warped, thuggish, political views and support of the extremist neo-Christie creeps?
-
"Lawyers talking about evolution are often out of their depth because they haven’t been trained in the level of detail and reasoning that natural science requires— So they’re often unduly impressed by the bulls**t arguments of ID theory, and utterly insensitive to the contrast between god-of-the-gaps explanations and real science."
Speaking as a lawyer, I must take exception to this comment.
On the contrary, nuance, detail and logical reasoning are the bread and butter of the legal mind. A failure to understand a high level of detail and the difference between subtle nuances in logical arguements often leads to bad lawyering. The two professions of lawyer and scientist aren't as far apart as you might think.
Furthering that argument, I would immediately become suspicious of the lawyering skills of any lawyer who endorsed ID, or advanced the arguments that Powerline is making. These arguments show a remarkable lack of insight in even the very basics of logic, and a failure to examine evidence, which, to a lawyer, shows a lack of commitment to the profession.
Finally, a good lawyer should always realize when they are out of their league--only the truly unethical assume that they know everything. The hallmark of a good lawyer is the willingness to consult, and defer to, an expert. That Hindrocket fails to exhibit any of these trademarks of legal skill and reasoning makes me question his legal fitness.#: Posted by on 02/23 at 04:32 PM -
I, for one, will be happy to see people become more impatient. Growing up, I remember talking out of my arse a few times, and oftentimes there was someone around who'd call me on it. Not only did it teach me to be more careful about what I said, but it's also caused me to -- oh, I don't know -- read up on the odd issue before speaking out.
#: Posted by Captain Salty on 02/23 at 04:35 PM
-
What Chris Clarke said.
#: Posted by on 02/23 at 04:43 PM
-
PZ'z opinion that because someone does not believe in evolution then there views on other subjects therefore have to be mistaken seems rather excessive.
I'm familiar with a few rare cases of postgraduate geology students who are creationists. I think they have to have an odd psychology to do this but one of them is extremely knowledgeable about mineralogy and their politics are pretty main stream.
It’s probably better, and more liberal, to judge people on an issue by issue basis.#: Posted by on 02/23 at 05:22 PM -
Neil
"I’m familiar with a few rare cases of postgraduate geology students who are creationists. I think they have to have an odd psychology to do this but one of them is extremely knowledgeable about mineralogy and their politics are pretty main stream."
Guess what? I have no problem telling this person that his medieval views about biology are fucked and that it causes me to take everything else he says with a grain of salt.
Will that alienate this person? Maybe. So what.
I can then proceed to get my mineralogy info and political info from someone without "odd psychology" and who doesn't believe in Sasquatch, ESP, communication with the dead, and the healing powers of crystals.
Creationism and new age bullshit is the sort of garbage I put up with from the people who bag my groceries. I don't need to tolerate anti-scientific crap spewing from the mouths of my so-called "peers" in science who should fucking know better.#: Posted by on 02/23 at 05:36 PM -
Gladys, I'm not sure that "Creationism and new age bullshit is the sort of garbage I put up with from the people who bag my groceries" was a wise, or indeed liberal, remark. Are you as insulting to these people on a face to face basis?
#: Posted by on 02/23 at 06:13 PM
-
I think there is actually some substance to the "you don't believe evolution so your other ideas are suspect" idea. Sure, it's a fallacy, but when I find that someone doesn't accept modern science their abilities in assessing data in general become suspect to me. Not 100% fair, but it's true. If someone is willing to let ideology cloud their vision in science (where solid data is available) shouldn't I be more concerned that it might cloud their assessments elsewhere? Or, if they are swayed by some third party opinion (as is often the case in Evo/Cre debate), doesn't this bring into question their choices in authorities?
As for "Evo/Cre" as a right-left issue. Although the Creationism forces have found a home on the right, I don't think it's emblematic of some intellectual weakness on the right. I know a very thoughtful evolutionist who's happily right wing. And I've seen plenty of mushy headed, new agey stuff on the left.#: Posted by on 02/23 at 06:21 PM -
As for “Evo/Cre” as a right-left issue. Although the Creationism forces have found a home on the right, I don’t think it’s emblematic of some intellectual weakness on the right. I know a very thoughtful evolutionist who’s happily right wing. And I’ve seen plenty of mushy headed, new agey stuff on the left.
Oh, you bet. Creationism is certainly not inherently allied with the right, as any student of the career of William Jennings Bryan will tell you. It was once the case, a century ago, that many christian fundamentalists gravitated to the left as a vehicle for their outrage.
I've been wondering lately about the cognitive disconnect necessary for flavor-of-the-month ID advocates to concurrently espouse free-market economics. They don't think it possible that natural selection could account for the biodiversity we enjoy even given 600 million years of time for it to evolve in, and claim there must be a designer somewhere responsible for all of it. But they're certain that an undirected, essentially random economic structure with millions of players each trying to survive in a hostile environment is the best insurance of an efficient market, and the thought that some intelligent visible hand might justifiably try to design an economic structure is anathema to them.#: Posted by Chris Clarke on 02/23 at 06:37 PM -
Actually (at the risk of drawing hate mail from the libs), I will point out that Michael Moore comes close to being a left wing Ann Coulter, IMHO.
Michael Moore isn't even on the same planet as Ann Coulter. Moore is certainly a polemicist, and he's played fast and loose with the facts when is served his political point. Coulter oozes malicious, bloodthirsty glee and is completely unapologetic about it. She *revels* in this, in her persona as a vicious harpy. She also routinely lies all while striking a strident and arrogant tone. At worst, Moore occassionally distorts, uses footage without permission, and--apparently--Photoshops newspaper headlines that never existed. He's not even that liberal. He's a traditional labor Democrat with some environmental sympathies. Big deal. That puts him to the left of most elected Democrats--who got where they are by "compromising"--but it hardly makes him the socialist revolutionary that the right-wing media like to fantasize that he is. Please. Moore is dead in the middle of the left side of the political spectrum. He's not radical. He's a muckraker who breaks rules and covets the spotlight. Coulter, on the other hand, has opined that we should murder or covert all Muslims, and has openly wished death on the staff of the New York Times.
When Moore is given a seat as a mainstream liberal commentator on half a dozen Fox New Shows, let me know.#: Posted by on 02/23 at 06:42 PM -
On the one hand we have "conservative" political commentators with a website featuring often lucid analysis of unethical goings-on down at the sausage-making factory -- and who then shoot their own feet by allowing their witless religious unthink to manifest.
On the other hand, we have "progressives" who, while accurately observing that "the overwhelming majority of scientists support evolution…as they should, since it is the theory best supported by the evidence", nevertheless skitter and evade, all Hindrocket-like, the glaringly obvious fact that Marxism (the principle underlying the various and sundry loot-&-redistribute government policies they endorse) is abundantly obvious to be the worst (social) "theory" lending toward human betterment since The Prophet began his bloody rampage out of the Arabian desert 1,400 years ago.
A pox on *both* your houses -- Justice is you and Powerline with your hands around each other's throats for all eternity in a linear-thinking limbo -- you *deserve* each other.
(Meanwhile, the Sphere floats over Flatland, marveling at the depths of imbecility it observes.)#: Posted by on 02/23 at 07:20 PM -
The powerline attack on PZ's logic was flawed, and I told them so- my reading of the logic to them went like this:
"
I think the way you phrase the argument pharyngula (PZ Myers) makes about Hindrocket is incorrect. It seems as if the argument is not "Hindrocket knows nothing about biology, therefore he knows nothing about politics." It is rather "Hindrocket is prone to state right-wing talking points about topics he knows nothing about. Biology is definitely one such topic. One would hypothesize that all topics could be considered similarly mastered by Hindrocket." This would not a priori be a false hypothesis, but one could argue that it is not true based on Hindrocket's actual expertise in other areas (this would be considered falsifying predictions of incompetence based on Hindrocket's demonstrated incompetence about biology with demonstrations of his competence in other areas). This is known as the scientific method, and is also logical. PZ Myers, while harsh is also logical. Your comment in response seems less logical."#: Posted by on 02/23 at 07:23 PM -
I can then proceed to get my mineralogy info and political info from someone without “odd psychology” and who doesn’t believe in Sasquatch, ESP, communication with the dead, and the healing powers of crystals.
And how is any of this worse than believing that there's a bearded guy in the sky who sent his son to die for our sins, resurrected him on the third day, and is going to come any moment now to send us all into a pit of fire if we've been naughty? Do you extend the same scepticism to the 90% of your fellow citizens who are religious? Their beliefs are no less nutty than those you list.
I think in general that it is valid to be suspicious of people who confidently espouse nonsensical theories outside their areas of expertise, but then again, I think it is valid to be sceptical about what people say outside their own domains whether or not it sounds nonsensical to the ear. The fact of the matter is that all sorts of people confidently state things that are at variance with the facts as generally understood by specialists within the field - P.Z. Myers himself has commented many a time on here about economic matters without betraying a shred of doubt that his answers were right - and while the "suspect anyone who spouts nonsense outside his field" rule of thumb is useful, there can be no substitute in the end for looking at what people actually say when their own areas of interest are at issue.
Looking at what Myers has to say about biological matters, it is obvious to anyone with a half-decent biological education that he knows his stuff inside and out, while looking at what the Powerline people have to say on international affairs, history or economics, it is clear that the contributors, while undoubtedly sometimes given to rhetorical excesses that are common everywhere people take their politics a bit too seriously (even here, where libertarians and conservatives have been condemned en masse as fools, knaves and liars several times in the past), they are anything but "idiots" or "extremists," whether or not one agrees with their positions. To insist that they must be such because of some admittedly boneheaded statements on evolution by Hindrocket is simply to give the impression to non-camp-followers that one's mind was made up from the start to think the worst, objective considerations be damned. If everyone who insinuated that all those on the other side of the aisle were the dregs of the earth were an extremist, then this site too would qualify, as would 90% of politically opinionated sites with the exception of unrufflable types like Matthew Yglesias.
Powerline's archives are hardly state secrets, and trawling through them, although I disagree with maybe 50% of what they have to say, I just don't see the "idiocy" or "extremism" that so many are talking about here. I can understand why P.Z. Myers would be ticked off by assholes sending threatening messages and making obscene phone calls - I'd be mad as hell too if it were me, and I'd definitely call the police no matter what - but if Atrios isn't to be held to account for allowing his comment threads to degenerate into a cesspool of bigotry and extremism (as if he couldn't just shut down said comments section) I fail to see how Powerline's authors can be held responsible for the nasty behavior of mannerless fools they haven't ever corrresponded with in any way.
NB - For what it's worth, as far as the Rathergate memos are concerned, the folks at Powerline and LGF (which I detest) did get their story right, and the evidence is so crushingly in their favor at this point that it only damages one's credibility to deny as much; Charles Johnson may be all too happy to play host to any number of "nuke em all" crazies, but he does know his typography, as anyone can easily confirm by picking up a book or two on desktop publishing. Sometimes one simply has to give the devil his due.#: Posted by Abiola Lapite on 02/23 at 07:29 PM -
Andrew Wyatt: "Moore occassionally distorts, uses footage without permission, and—apparently—Photoshops newspaper headlines that never existed. He’s not even that liberal. He’s a traditional labor Democrat with some environmental sympathies. Big deal."
Let's get something straight, here: Michael Moore is a loathesome narcissist whose Marxist overtures to the envy classes and reflexive anti-American classes are merely a calcuated pitch to slide through life without any heavy lifting. He's simply a traveling con-artist who has found his niche -- a dowser plying his crop of suckers.
http://tinyurl.com/28hjy#: Posted by on 02/23 at 07:37 PM -
Unless, of course, they are labeled "Rethuglican."
It is interesting to see how, on the basis of the stated opinion of 1/4 contributors to a well-known blog that the proprietor of this site extrapolates that the entirety of the blog is, perforce, crap.
Sometimes the utmost of book-smarts can be hidden inside a little mind.#: Posted by on 02/23 at 07:40 PM -
How fortunate we all are, Mr Schneider, that you have arrived to inform us all with your ex cathedra pronouncements. This discussion was lacking a fundamentalist propertarian's contribution. We are in your debt.
#: Posted by Chris Clarke on 02/23 at 07:42 PM
-
#54: For what it’s worth, as far as the Rathergate memos are concerned, the folks at Powerline and LGF (which I detest) did get their story right, and the evidence is so crushingly in their favor at this point that it only damages one’s credibility to deny as much; Charles Johnson may be all too happy to play host to any number of “nuke em all” crazies, but he does know his typography, as anyone can easily confirm by picking up a book or two on desktop publishing. Sometimes one simply has to give the devil his due.
-- One needn't know the first thing about typography to determine that those memos were obvious facts; of far greater utility are their improper dates and preposterous justifications.
Watching leftists mount stumbling defenses of Rather and Moore is like watch rightists selling Creationism.#: Posted by on 02/23 at 07:43 PM -
#57: Chris Clarke — 02/23 at 07:42 PM
How fortunate we all are, Mr Schneider, that you have arrived to inform us all with your ex cathedra pronouncements. This discussion was lacking a fundamentalist propertarian’s contribution. We are in your debt.
[Drumming fingers.... Well, now....]
Two questions:
1. What on earth is a "propertarian" (let alone a "fundamelentalist" one)? If I ASSume it may have something to do with property, and that your objection is over my disparagement of Marxist attitudes toward same, may I ask you your opinion as to who rightly owns the shirt on your back, and by what logic you assert so?
2. Who's this "We" and "us" you refer to? Do you have a gerbil somewhere?#: Posted by on 02/23 at 07:51 PM -
Let’s get something straight, here: Michael Moore is a loathesome narcissist whose Marxist overtures to the envy classes and reflexive anti-American classes are merely a calcuated pitch to slide through life without any heavy lifting. He’s simply a traveling con-artist who has found his niche — a dowser plying his crop of suckers.
Apparently calling the elite on their lies and their abuse of power makes one a "con-artist", not to mention "loathesome" and a "narcissist". Peddle the baseless mudslinging somewhere else, please. Using the term "Marxist" as if it were a slander won't score you any points with me.#: Posted by on 02/23 at 07:56 PM -
I suspect the "we" and "us" must be all us Marxist and Trotskyites hanging out here.
Hey! All you communists! Go hide, the John Birchers are here! - BTW PZ mail is coming back as undeliverable ... You getting slammed or something?
-
Doodedoodoo-doodedoodoo-doodedoodoo...
You are now entering the Fallacy of the Excluded-Middle Zone, wherein any criticism of Marxism will instantly shift your ideological position (even if you don't have one) to that identical to John Birch. Or, at least, from the parallex view of Marxists, at any rate....
Doodedoodoo-doodedoodoo-doodedoodoo...#: Posted by on 02/23 at 08:03 PM -
Abiola,
"Do you extend the same scepticism to the 90% of your fellow citizens who are religious? Their beliefs are no less nutty than those you list."
You know that religion != scriptural literalism. You've been decidedly debunked by people more erudite than me on this site previously for extolling the social virtues of indulging the teeming joe-average-citizens in their religiously inspired irrationalisms. I think this is just another variation on that same theme.
Look, we're not saying that if you are a scriptural literalist that it's therefore impossible for you to learn to drive a car, use google, or write a complex sentence. We're saying that such a belief structure is inconsistent with the person functioning as an reliable authority when matters are in doubt.
I think Scalia's behaviour in December 2000 is quite a good example of why one shouldn't do this.#: Posted by on 02/23 at 08:06 PM -
#60: Andrew Wyatt — 02/23 at 07:56 PM
Apparently calling the elite on their lies and their abuse of power makes one a “con-artist”...
No. Lying while accusing opponants of same makes one a con-artist.
And: If Moore isn't the very "elite" you disparage, by all means tell me how many hundreds of millions of dollars one must possess before one achieves such an august title. (Does George Soros qualify yet?)
Using the term “Marxist” as if it were a slander won’t score you any points with me.
I am already acutely aware of the world burgeoning at the seams with rank hypocrites who squawl like scalded cats when the government they've authorized to plunder others drops by to pick up a measure of swag from *them*.#: Posted by on 02/23 at 08:09 PM -
My politics tend to lean center-right (with a libertarian streak), and guys like Hindrocket embarrass the heck out of me, as do blatherers like Ann Coulter and Mark Levin.
Me too, but the sad part is that you seem to feel obliged to point that out. The only qualifier for being embarassed by the existence of Coulter et al should be that you have two brain cells to rub together.
2. Who’s this “We” and “us” you refer to? Do you have a gerbil somewhere?
Noooo! It's "Who's we, you got a turd in your pocket?" A perfect opportunity to use a Cartman line and it's wasted. WASTED!! -
PZ, he's only sayng that because he didn't understand what a fundamentalist propertarian is. It's a common failing of those who derive their Weltanschauung from the two-axis libertarian political quiz. He probably doesn't believe there's such a thing as libertarian socialism, either.
Mike, rest assured that there's plenty of nuance here to describe you. The fact that you don't understand it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Just to blow your mind: I'm not a Marxist, I'm a libertarian socialist.#: Posted by Chris Clarke on 02/23 at 08:11 PM - Yes, somebody is trying to break through...it started in the early hours of the morning. I slapped up a fairly indiscriminate firewall; sometime in the next few days I'll take the time to puzzle out what's going on and fine tune it a bit.
-
IDIOT, n.
A member of a large and powerful tribe whose influence in human affairs has always been dominant and controlling. The Idiot's activity is not confined to any special field of thought or action, but "pervades and regulates the whole." He has the last word in everything; his decision is unappealable. He sets the fashions and opinion of taste, dictates the limitations of speech and circumscribes conduct with a dead-line.
IGNORAMUS, n.
A person unacquainted with certain kinds of knowledge familiar to yourself, and having certain other kinds that you know nothing about.
Dumble was an ignoramus,
Mumble was for learning famous.
Mumble said one day to Dumble:
"Ignorance should be more humble.
Not a spark have you of knowledge
That was got in any college."
Dumble said to Mumble: "Truly
You're self-satisfied unduly.
Of things in college I'm denied
A knowledge -- you of all beside."
Borelli
Ambrose Bierce
The Devil's Dictionary#: Posted by on 02/23 at 08:18 PM -
#67: Chris Clarke — 02/23 at 08:11 PM
PZ, he’s only sayng that because he didn’t understand what a fundamentalist propertarian is.
It's rather difficult to "understand" an undefined term. By all means, proceed to do so.
It’s a common failing of those who derive their Weltanschauung from the two-axis libertarian political quiz.
Am I to understanding that you're accusing such of me?
He probably doesn’t believe there’s such a thing as libertarian socialism, either.
"Libertarian socialism" is an oxymoron inasmuch as it has absolutely nothing to do with liberty.#: Posted by on 02/23 at 08:21 PM -
He sounds like an anarcho-capitalist, and probably can't define anarchy properly. Great blog, BTW.
#: Posted by on 02/23 at 08:28 PM
-
I am already acutely aware of the world burgeoning at the seams with rank hypocrites who squawl like scalded cats when the government they’ve authorized to plunder others drops by to pick up a measure of swag from *them*.
Let me provide an example of this: Marxist-redistributionists (some of whom now label themselves libertarian-socialists) egg on a government to tax the "rich" (defined: anyone with money) and give to, well, them as much as possible. Later, they realize, to their sudden horror and consternation, that a government based on mob-rule (AKA "democracy") will, as a matter of inevitable probability, come to support redistribution toward projects of which they intensely disapprove -- such as Creationist school textbooks.
Oh, well....
Fools.#: Posted by on 02/23 at 08:28 PM -
QED.
#: Posted by Chris Clarke on 02/23 at 08:28 PM
-
> Myers has demonstrated a lot more than name-calling expertise, Lee. He demonstrated that the Powerline commentator was a moron talking out of the wrong orifice.
Do you mean that if I can come up with a more clever way than you can of saying Myers is a moron talking out of his butt, I win the argument? Wow. I'm, like, overwhelmed by the sheer Aristotelian force of your logic.
> It’s too bad you can’t bring yourself to admit that, Lee.
Let's review the arguments put forth:
> "OK, you’re stupid."
Wow. Sheer genius. Let's look at another.
> "It’s the usual whimper of fragile right-wing egos demanding that they be treated better than they treat others, while still insisting on holding the line on the ran foolishness of the original post."
Wow. Fragile right-wing egos. Foolishness. Stop me when you hear a real argument of any sort.
> "Either he knows better, and he’s lying, or he’s completely ignorant of what biologists say, and he shouldn’t be pretending to have knowledge he lacks."
I think this one's called "begging the question", but don't stop him now, he's on a roll.
> "He’s a fool, an idiot, and a pretentious poseur for acting as if he does."
It just gets more impressive. Okay, I take it back. Myers is a genius. I mean, it would be just name-calling if I behaved like that, but I never knew name-calling could sound so positively erudite in the hands of the right guy.
> Funny, that’s an unfortunate trait shared by many self-
proclaimed “open minded” rubes who frequent sad empty blogsites like Powerline.
Sounds like you frequent the correct web site.#: Posted by on 02/23 at 08:33 PM -
#71: borelli — 02/23 at 08:28 PM
He sounds like an anarcho-capitalist, and probably can’t define anarchy properly.
I won't accept that term (AC), on the (I confess purely pragmatic) grounds that it freights in the baggage of hundreds of years' worth of mangled concepts.
But you insist, I'm down with Roy Childs, as expressed here:
http://no-treason.com/wild/Childs_Open_Letter_to_Rand.html#: Posted by on 02/23 at 08:39 PM -
I have a bit of a problem with anyone who would refer to Ayn Rand as having a "political philosophy" but I will give it a read with an open mind. Thanks
#: Posted by on 02/23 at 08:44 PM
- K, I thgouht maybe you were just mad at me. Sorry to hear you getting messed with though. Fame has it's price my friend. Are the big bucks rolling in yet though?
-
I have a bit of a problem with anyone who would refer to Ayn Rand as having a “political philosophy”
I have yet to see a disparaging remark like that from anyone who has actually read any of Rand's non-fictional work.
Be that as it may, Childs' letter is *critical* of a particular bone still stuck in Rand's throat, and addresses it compellingly.
Borelli, Objectivist Epistemology is the premier accomplishment in philosophy in the last one-hundred years -- the conflict-of-interest opinions of tax-funded academic philosophy departments (they know where their bread is buttered) and the "second-hander" legacy leeches at the ARI notwithstanding.
If you're prepared to at least look at Childs with a rational mind, then proceed from there to this place: http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php
Toss That Lady's name, or epistemology, into the search-engine down the left side.#: Posted by on 02/23 at 08:53 PM -
I am reading it. I find many things to be critical of, but only because I am somewhat of an anarchist myself, so I have given it much thought over the years. Right off the bat, I have a real problem with RAC because I accept the need for a more situational view of ethics. But I am not put off by it. I am going to look at both links and cogitate on them. You will think my idea of a sensible political economy is as wacky as people think yours is. I am an Anarcho-Georgist. As in Henry George. Ha!
Congrats to the site for your Koufax Award. That's why I dropped by. Probably the losers who are trying to hack you. If that's what's happening.#: Posted by on 02/23 at 09:14 PM -
Let me provide an example of this: Marxist-redistributionists (some of whom now label themselves libertarian-socialists) egg on a government to tax the “rich” (defined: anyone with money) and give to, well, them as much as possible.
There are more than just two approaches to taxes and economy, you know. It doesn't come down to either you're a Marxist or laissez faire capitalist. There are some of us who, you know, are 'tweeners. Like, maybe, if there are services best offered by government, then perhaps the people most able should pay the most.
There's even a school of thought that whatever redistribution of wealth there is through taxation ... and no one ever went to the poor house paying in a progressive tax structure ... is good because it puts more money down towards the bottom, where people are more apt to buy things with it rather than invest it or let it sit in a bank.
Later, they realize, to their sudden horror and consternation, that a government based on mob-rule (AKA “democracy”) will, as a matter of inevitable probability, come to support redistribution toward projects of which they intensely disapprove — such as Creationist school textbooks.
Except that the country wasn't founded as a democracy. It was founded as a Republic, with checks and balances specifically put in place to prevent mob rule. I'd expect someone with a vocabulary of so man ten-cent words to know that.#: Posted by Captain Salty on 02/23 at 09:14 PM -
Captain, page up to #75, and hit the link to Roy Childs' Open Letter. At that site, bop down to "Why is a limited government a floating abstraction?"
The United States is a *democracy* by that name, and any other, you prefer (e.g., "republic"). The so-called "checks and balances" of the Constitution are themselves conditional to the whims of mob approval (as expressed in judicial appointments by the mob's candidates), and are nothing more than a sieve in a sewer-line -- you've still got shit coming out the end; and the mess you and I see ourselves in today was predicted two hundred years ago by Alexis de Tocqueville.#: Posted by on 02/23 at 09:29 PM -
#79: borelli "....I am reading [Childs' Letter]. I find many things to be critical of, but only because I am somewhat of an anarchist myself, so I have given it much thought over the years. Right off the bat, I have a real problem with RAC because I accept the need for a more situational view of ethics.
The "need" of whom?
"Situational ethics", I have observed, is invariably predatory rationalizing of UNethical behavior, and can and will be trotted out at whim to justify all manner of barbaric hypocrisies. It reminds me of the exchange in "Repo Man" between Emilio Estevez' character and his dying friend:
Duke: The lights are growing dim, Otto. I know a life of crime has led me to this sorry fate, and yet, I blame society. Society made me what I am.
Otto: That's bullshit. You're a white suburban punk just like me.
But I am not put off by it. I am going to look at both links and cogitate on them. You will think my idea of a sensible political economy is as wacky as people think yours is. I am an Anarcho-Georgist. As in Henry George. Ha!
I (and Google) are at a loss there; what is AG?#: Posted by on 02/23 at 10:06 PM -
I gotta admit right off that I probably won't follow that link. Nothing personal to Roy Childs ... I'm sure he's a man of fine upstanding character ... it's just that the idea of following a link to get a definition for a term used in the comments section of someone else's blog fills me with a deep ennui.
The so-called “checks and balances” of the Constitution are themselves conditional to the whims of mob approval...
Providing, of course, that the courts side with the mob. So far, for example, they've done pretty well in keeping religion and science classrooms separated.#: Posted by Captain Salty on 02/23 at 10:21 PM - I'm a Republican leaning moderate and Mike's embaressing the shit out of me. Please Mike, don't argue for my side anymore. Good Lord you're coming off like a pompous ass that doesn't know he's out of his league.
-
"'Libertarian socialism' is an oxymoron inasmuch as it has absolutely nothing to do with liberty."
"Libertarians are the party of oxymoron.
Individualists unite!"
The will to a system is a lack of integrity.
Fred Neitzsche#: Posted by on 02/24 at 01:39 AM -
CAPTAIN SALTY:"These same people continue to argue that we’ve found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that the global warming is a myth, and that working class people will get rich if only you permanently do away with the estate tax."
Great comment! The key point here about wingnuts is that for them ideology triumphs reality. -
MIKE SCHNEIDER:" Marxism (the principle underlying the various and sundry loot-&-redistribute government policies they endorse)"
What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. The Wealth of Nations, Book I Chapter VIII
The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The Wealth of Nations, Book V Chapter II
So, is this guy also a Marxist? -
MIKE SCHNEIDER:"If Moore isn’t the very “elite” you disparage, by all means tell me how many hundreds of millions of dollars one must possess before one achieves such an august title. "
How much money does Richard Mellon Scaife control?
or "Rev." Moon? -
MIKE SCHNEIDER:"Objectivist Epistemology is the premier accomplishment in philosophy in the last one-hundred years "
Better tell Frege, Russell, Quine and Kripke. - Mike: how come they don't fund creationist books in any democracy apart from the ones sitting on religious fundamentalist populations, like the USA? And how come no third world country has ever left that status without strong governmental regulation of the economy? Economics like the one espoused by Mao leads to horrible things. So does economics espoused by Friedman; tyr