palin, naipul and creationism
bpuharic
regarding palin and efforts to bring her to rationality from her lies:
I couldn't help but think that it's a fruitless effort. There's
nothing under the facade. She believes her own myths. She is ignorant
and foolish enough to accept modern conservative slogans as true and
believe that they can guide her life, and should guide everyone's. I
grew up in the Assemblies of God, and the only thing that surprises me
is that you insist on trying to hold her to some fact based world of
objective reality.
That just isn't the world as she experiences it. I think she genuinely
is the thing that you call a facade. She's the real facade, if you
will. To someone who lives in the Pentacostal world of magical,
spiritual reality, the contradictions don't matter. God is the answer
to contradictions.
===============
a few years ago i read v.s. naipul's 'among the believers'. he made
basically the same comment about islamist fundamentalists.
but it got me thinking about our local morons like 'nashton' and 'all
seeing' and 'spintronics' who think that magic is a valid way to look
at the world. they can't comprehend the radical simplicity of science
i guess, in a sense, it's useless to try and convince someone who
thinks like a child, with 'magical thinking' that their view of
reality is delusional. it seems to be a common enough mode of thinking
among christians and muslims....
magical thinking. a view of a world filled with demons and
ghosts...they think this is reality. and it's painful to them to think
it's not.
Paul J Gans
>===============
APPLAUSE! Thank you for this post. You've made your points
very well. I not only fully agree, but I also think it necessary
for everyone to understand your points.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
bpuharic
>APPLAUSE! Thank you for this post. You've made your points
>very well. I not only fully agree, but I also think it necessary
>for everyone to understand your points.
thanks, paul...the parallels are striking...and what's equally
disturbing is how many people think palin is the saviour of the nation
Dan Luke
"bpuharic" wrote:
Well said.
This demon haunted person aspired credibly to the office of Vice President
of the United States. That indicates how perilous the struggle still is
between rational civilization and the darkness of superstition.
--
Dan
"How can an idiot be a policeman? Answer me that!"
-Chief Inspector Dreyfus
Free Lunch
talk.origins:
Of course the vast majority of those people would not have any idea why
you put a 'u' in savior.
Kermit
I think most of them literally cannot think of other possibilities.
One thing they are taught from the time they can speak is to *not
think of logical consequences. They must not consider "what happens
if", for then they might question their core beliefs, and if those
beliefs are wrong, then they will die the true death.
This means that they cannot see the world from another person's
viewpoint. Not imperfectly, but rather not at all. We think "What
would it be like if *I were that person... I know I can't imagine it
adequately, but it still must be like *so, because *something).
Fundamentalists can only imagine, imperfectly, what they would have to
feel in order to be that person. "So, why I claim that there is not
God? I guess if I were mad at God because I couldn't party and say
cuss words and wave my wobbly bits at strangers, I might say that."
This means that they don't dare consider the consequences of their
assertions. "Hmmm. If God *did punish Adam and Eve for sinning before
they knew right from wrong, then that would be unfair and God is never
unfair, so there was no Garden of Eden, and I'm going to die AUUGH run
away, run away!" Hence, with practice, they can say two contradictory
things in two sequential sentences and never notice. Or care, if it's
pointed out to them. Nor can they follow your argument. As soon as
they realize it's going into dangerous territory, their minds break
into a ferocious panic with all claws out, like a stray cat on a
leash.
The "real" world is irrelevant to them. Here's a little kid hymn I
learned as a baby fundie:
"This world is not my home, I'm just a passin' through.
My treasures are laid up, somewhere beyond the blue.
The angels beckon me from Heaven's open door
And I can't feel at home in this world anymore"
Catchy tune, too. I was horrified later, when I listened to the actual
words.
Nothing like fanatics who have no emotional investment in the world,
and misunderstand how it works, and with neither introspection nor a
feel for other people, to throw a monkey wrench into any search for
solutions to real problems.
Kermit
Paul J Gans
I'm not too worried about her as a candidate. She's too
vulnerable. Never had an elected job she finished. Even
as mayor, she hired a city manager to do the job for her.
But she is a magnet for abouyt20% of the US electorate. And
they *love* her and may well do what she asks them to do, like
vote for a specific candidate.
Paul J Gans
Nor is that of the slightest importance to either Palin or the
people who love her.
But it isn't Palin I'm concerned about. It is folks like the
current Governor of Texas who *could* run for President.
Paul J Gans
While you say nothing wrong, at least in my opinion, I want
again to make the point that their logic is not the same as
ours. For me, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is one of the
fundamental postulates of the world. For them it is the Bible.
That's it. All springs from that. You have something that
seems to be contradictory in the Bible? That's because we
cannot, with our limited intelligence, know what God meant by
that. It will be revealed in time. That's just as we do not
know about dark matter. We don't worry about it much. It will
be revealed in time.
I know that I'm making it all seem hopeless. Perhaps their
children will be more open to new ideas. I don't know.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
As a child of such people, I can say that some will be, some will not.
bpuharic
a man who. in being complicit in the murder of cameron todd
willingham, conspired to cover up the killing of an innocent man.
he's the perfect conservative candidate for pro lifers
Paul J Gans
Yeah. And he's popular.
Paul J Gans
As you know, they are not bad people in any sense of the word.
Their grounding is simply different than yours and mine.
Kent Paul Dolan
[massove snip]
> [...] what's equally disturbing is how many people
> think palin is the saviour of the nation
In these hard times, she could win just by running
on the "a moose in every pot" platform, promising to
shoot each moose personally herself until they are
extinct.
She could then work her way down the rest of the
antlered animals.
xanthian.
heekster
<gan...@panix.com> wrote:
Not in Texas.
The only reason he was elected the last time, was because there were
two too many candidates on the other side.
Kinky Friedman, yes, the Texas Jewboy.
Carol Keeton Strayhorn Rylander, whose name seems to change yearly.
Chris Bell, the actual Democratic Party candidate
James Werner, the Libertarian Party candidate
James "Patriot" Dillon, write-in candidate
Results
Texas general election, 2006: Governor
Party Candidate Votes
Republican Rick Perry 1,716,803
Democratic Chris Bell 1,310,353
Independent Carole Keeton Strayhorn 797,577
Independent Richard �Kinky� Friedman 546,869
Libertarian James Werner 26,748
Independent James �Patriot� Dillon 718
2.6 million voted against Perry.
only 1.7 million voted for him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_gubernatorial_election,_2006
As governor, Perry has pushed stupid stuff, like mandatory vaccination
of all girls against HPV, and the Trans Texas Corridor debacle.
heekster
Teddy Roosevelt with tits.
Unfortunately, the brain has gone walkabout.
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
"bpuharic" <wf...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vgrdg5tok7vatvtqi...@4ax.com...
> andrew sullivan has a comment posted on his website from a reader
> regarding palin and efforts to bring her to rationality from her lies:
>
>
> I couldn't help but think that it's a fruitless effort. There's
> nothing under the facade. She believes her own myths. She is ignorant
> and foolish enough to accept modern conservative slogans as true and
> believe that they can guide her life, and should guide everyone's. I
> grew up in the Assemblies of God, and the only thing that surprises me
> is that you insist on trying to hold her to some fact based world of
> objective reality.
"Frizzle-brained".
No, I don't know what it means, but we needed a whole new category for
people like Sarah.
When you grow up with a warped view about reality - it would take the energy
of an earthquake and, at least, five erupting volcanoes to bring you back to
reality.
(Reminds me of a talk show where Merv Griffin - a nice guy, but not the
brightest bulb in the pack) brought up (honestly) that the reason the Berlin
wall came down was because Ronald Reagan made his prepared speach,
punch-line "Tear down this wall".
Someone else, there, obviously more in tune with both reality and an
education said - "You really don't believe that ........ do you?".
Merv just sat there with a dumbfounded look on his face - partly because he
was unable to think any further than that one line.
>
> That just isn't the world as she experiences it. I think she genuinely
> is the thing that you call a facade. She's the real facade, if you
> will. To someone who lives in the Pentacostal world of magical,
> spiritual reality, the contradictions don't matter. God is the answer
> to contradictions.
>
>
> ===============
>
> a few years ago i read v.s. naipul's 'among the believers'. he made
> basically the same comment about islamist fundamentalists.
>
> but it got me thinking about our local morons like 'nashton' and 'all
> seeing' and 'spintronics' who think that magic is a valid way to look
> at the world. they can't comprehend the radical simplicity of science
>
> i guess, in a sense, it's useless to try and convince someone who
> thinks like a child, with 'magical thinking' that their view of
> reality is delusional. it seems to be a common enough mode of thinking
> among christians and muslims....
>
> magical thinking. a view of a world filled with demons and
> ghosts...they think this is reality. and it's painful to them to think
> it's not.
>
Would you really vote for someone whose main "claim to fame" is that she is
a hockey mom?
That's nothing more than a glorified chauffeur - mixed in with a little
"Texas "dumb blond"" cheerleader.
Paul J Gans
>Not in Texas.
>Results
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_gubernatorial_election,_2006
All that shows is that he was not the number one choice of
all those who vote. That frequently happens when there are
more than two candidates.
It *does* show that he was the single most popular person
running. If the other candidates had not run, Friedman's
votes likely would have mostly gone to Bell. But how would
Strayhorn's votes gone?
>As governor, Perry has pushed stupid stuff, like mandatory vaccination
>of all girls against HPV, and the Trans Texas Corridor debacle.
I dunno. There's a case to be made for vaccination against HPV.
For men too.
William Morse
were some good points made, but they don't even begin to capture the
complexity of Palin's thinking. and admittedly most do not consider her
a deep thinker.
Nevertheless there are many who find her appealing, and that includes
some who are just as intelligent as you and I. More importantly, while I
really like the phrase "the radical simplicity of science" - because it
should limit debate to what can be shown to be true - that is not how
even scientists actually think. I would offer that all of us think in
stories, and that the good ones are self-consistent. However the
consistency can come from magic as well as science. Science has
succeeded in the long term because it has told better stories -
unsurprising given the basis for stories in science. But if you want in
the short term to counter Palin, or for that matter in the long term to
understand her appeal, you need to hone your skills as a teller of
stories and as a reader of stories told by Sarah.
Paul J Gans
I don't consider her a deep thinker. She's not stupid, but she's
shallow. By that I mean that she considers bunches of superficialities
in coming to her conclusions without seeing any deeper problems or
relationships.
For example, cutting taxes in the face of a major recession simply
leads to a California-type situation where needed services are
decimated. The answer to that, from the shallow-minded, is to
cut the waste instead. Sure there's waste, but often one person's
waste is another person's need.
>Nevertheless there are many who find her appealing, and that includes
>some who are just as intelligent as you and I. More importantly, while I
>really like the phrase "the radical simplicity of science" - because it
>should limit debate to what can be shown to be true - that is not how
>even scientists actually think. I would offer that all of us think in
>stories, and that the good ones are self-consistent. However the
>consistency can come from magic as well as science. Science has
>succeeded in the long term because it has told better stories -
>unsurprising given the basis for stories in science. But if you want in
>the short term to counter Palin, or for that matter in the long term to
>understand her appeal, you need to hone your skills as a teller of
>stories and as a reader of stories told by Sarah.
A couple of things. The radical simplicity of science lies in
its *lack* of need to drag in extraneous factors such as gods,
demons, and communist plots.
And I would argue against the idea that magic can be self-consistent.
If it really is, then it is science. Think about it.
As for stories, I've heard stories like that all my life. They
appeal to certain groups because they reinforce their world outlook,
which is often me first and if you suffer it is because of your
bad choices or lack of faith. That does not make them bad folks.
They are often kind and generous, willing to give of their time
and money. But in many cases they are their own worst enemies
in their frequently shown disdain for education and in their lack
of understanding that society is an organic whole, not a collection
of locals and evil outsiders.
One example: try to get those of her followers who are dead set
against any government intrusion into medical care to understand
that their medicare and medicade are government programs that are
relatively efficient and work for their beneficiaries.
bpuharic
<wdNOSP...@verizon.net> wrote:
>I hope you don't hurt yourselves patting each other on the back. There
>were some good points made, but they don't even begin to capture the
>complexity of Palin's thinking. and admittedly most do not consider her
>a deep thinker.
palin doesn't think. she's a liar. why not visit andrewsullivan.com.
he's got a fairly complete list of dozens...and i'm not
exaggerating...lies told by palin over the last few years
>
>Nevertheless there are many who find her appealing, and that includes
>some who are just as intelligent as you and I.
her base is the 20% of the populist, hard core right.
More importantly, while I
>really like the phrase "the radical simplicity of science" - because it
>should limit debate to what can be shown to be true - that is not how
>even scientists actually think. I would offer that all of us think in
>stories, and that the good ones are self-consistent. However the
>consistency can come from magic as well as science. Science has
>succeeded in the long term because it has told better stories -
>unsurprising given the basis for stories in science. But if you want in
>the short term to counter Palin, or for that matter in the long term to
>understand her appeal, you need to hone your skills as a teller of
>stories and as a reader of stories told by Sarah.
i'm not sure you do understand her appeal. i do. i come from the lower
middle class, white, conservative inner city joe six pack she curries
favor with
so before you pat yourself on YOUR back you might consder that there
are intelligent people
who think she's insane
William Morse
I probably didn't do a very good job of explaining myself. I agree that
Palin is not a deep thinker. As far as I have seen she doesn't even have
the depth of Dubya, and he made Reagan look like a philosopher, which is
something I would have told you in 1988 was flat out impossible. My
point was that even as shallow a thinker as Palin would need many pages
to characterize, rather than a few short paragraphs.
> For example, cutting taxes in the face of a major recession simply
> leads to a California-type situation where needed services are
> decimated. The answer to that, from the shallow-minded, is to
> cut the waste instead. Sure there's waste, but often one person's
> waste is another person's need.
>
>> Nevertheless there are many who find her appealing, and that includes
>> some who are just as intelligent as you and I. More importantly, while I
>> really like the phrase "the radical simplicity of science" - because it
>> should limit debate to what can be shown to be true - that is not how
>> even scientists actually think. I would offer that all of us think in
>> stories, and that the good ones are self-consistent. However the
>> consistency can come from magic as well as science. Science has
>> succeeded in the long term because it has told better stories -
>> unsurprising given the basis for stories in science. But if you want in
>> the short term to counter Palin, or for that matter in the long term to
>> understand her appeal, you need to hone your skills as a teller of
>> stories and as a reader of stories told by Sarah.
>
> A couple of things. The radical simplicity of science lies in
> its *lack* of need to drag in extraneous factors such as gods,
> demons, and communist plots.
Yes of course. But that is not how most humans think. Computer
programming should be easy - after all, the computer does exactly what
you tell it to do. For most, that is in fact the problem, that it did
what I told it to do rather than what I wanted it to do.
> And I would argue against the idea that magic can be self-consistent.
> If it really is, then it is science. Think about it.
Well, magic works by rules. If you haven't already, I highly recommend
reading "The Incomplete Enchanter". But I admit that after I sent my
reply I told myself that self-consistent is not what I am trying to get
at, although it is part of it. Resonance may capture part of it - there
are sets of ideas that seem to reinforce each other. Part of it of
course is what ideas fit in with genetic predispositions, and IIRC there
is research that indicates whether one is liberal or conservative has a
genetic component. Part of what I was trying to get at is that the idea
that there are two kinds of people, those who believe in science and
those who believe in magic, is itself a delusion. None of us (as yet)
are digital computers, so all of us believe in magic to some extent, and
all of us believe in science to some extent.
> As for stories, I've heard stories like that all my life. They
> appeal to certain groups because they reinforce their world outlook,
> which is often me first and if you suffer it is because of your
> bad choices or lack of faith. That does not make them bad folks.
> They are often kind and generous, willing to give of their time
> and money. But in many cases they are their own worst enemies
> in their frequently shown disdain for education and in their lack
> of understanding that society is an organic whole, not a collection
> of locals and evil outsiders.
>
> One example: try to get those of her followers who are dead set
> against any government intrusion into medical care to understand
> that their medicare and medicade are government programs that are
> relatively efficient and work for their beneficiaries.
A good example, and one that should go into the basket of conundrums
that my as yet undeveloped theory of evolution of political beliefs
would have to explain. Some others in the basket are why are those who
oppose the death penalty often pro-choice and vice versa, and why do
liberals contribute less on average to charity than conservatives.
Yours,
Bill Morse
William Morse
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 23:19:50 -0500, William Morse
> <wdNOSP...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>> I hope you don't hurt yourselves patting each other on the back. There
>> were some good points made, but they don't even begin to capture the
>> complexity of Palin's thinking. and admittedly most do not consider her
>> a deep thinker.
>
> palin doesn't think. she's a liar. why not visit andrewsullivan.com.
> he's got a fairly complete list of dozens...and i'm not
> exaggerating...lies told by palin over the last few years
Robert Wright in "The Moral Animal" does a good job of explaining why it
is an evolutionary advantage for hypocrites to sincerely believe in the
things they are saying that are to their advantage. Good salesmen tend
to be gullible. Are Palin's statements lies? I agree that many of the
things Palin says are false. I don't know to what extent she has
convinced herself they are true.
>> Nevertheless there are many who find her appealing, and that includes
>> some who are just as intelligent as you and I.
>
> her base is the 20% of the populist, hard core right.
I might argue several percentage points, but that doesn't make
unintelligent the people who find her appealing.
>
> More importantly, while I
>> really like the phrase "the radical simplicity of science" - because it
>> should limit debate to what can be shown to be true - that is not how
>> even scientists actually think. I would offer that all of us think in
>> stories, and that the good ones are self-consistent. However the
>> consistency can come from magic as well as science. Science has
>> succeeded in the long term because it has told better stories -
>> unsurprising given the basis for stories in science. But if you want in
>> the short term to counter Palin, or for that matter in the long term to
>> understand her appeal, you need to hone your skills as a teller of
>> stories and as a reader of stories told by Sarah.
>
> i'm not sure you do understand her appeal. i do. i come from the lower
> middle class, white, conservative inner city joe six pack she curries
> favor with
And are you saying they think like children? I don't think so. My
question is why does she appeal to the lower middle class white
conservatives? They may not all be well educated but they are not stupid.
> so before you pat yourself on YOUR back you might consder that there
> are intelligent people
>
> who think she's insane
>
Understand that I am not a Sarah Palin fan. I think most of us agree
that she is not remotely presidential material. What I am trying to
understand is why some intelligent people do think she is.
Yours,
Bill Morse
Rodjk #613
> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:46:29 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com>
> >wrote in talk.origins:
I have to agree with this. It amazes me how many people around me are
*good* people...friendly, caring, helpful...and at the same time bat-
shit crazy.
I live in fear of any sort of political conversation. You CANNOT pick
out the loons by sight or by general conversation alone. But once the
conversation switches to politics or religion (much the same thing,
here in Texas) and it is amazing the things that come out. My own term
for this is 'functionally delusional'.
One thing I truly cannot get over, the amount of double-think.
For example, a lady bitching about illegal immigrants and how we ought
to shoot them at the border...then the next minute saying how little
she paid to have her yard work done. Yeah, the guy was an illegal, but
he did great work for cheap. Or, as you said earlier, the people on
medicare who bitch about socialism.
It is scary how many of these folk are talking about 'the next
revolution'.
I tried pointing out that we had one, in Nov of 08. It did not go over
well.
Rodjk #613
bpuharic
<wdNOSP...@verizon.net> wrote:
>bpuharic wrote:
>> i'm not sure you do understand her appeal. i do. i come from the lower
>> middle class, white, conservative inner city joe six pack she curries
>> favor with
>
>And are you saying they think like children? I don't think so. My
>question is why does she appeal to the lower middle class white
>conservatives? They may not all be well educated but they are not stupid.
she curries favor with them, and they have a higher tendency to
believe magical thinking...like creationism. they're not stupid but
there's a reason why racism and homophobia tends to be more common
among less educated folks, and why people like karl rove found fertile
soil in that group.
>
>
>> so before you pat yourself on YOUR back you might consder that there
>> are intelligent people
>>
>> who think she's insane
>>
>
>Understand that I am not a Sarah Palin fan. I think most of us agree
>that she is not remotely presidential material. What I am trying to
>understand is why some intelligent people do think she is.
power. pure power. if they can recapture the reagan democrats...with
all the horror that conjures up...then they can recapture the white
house.
Mitchell Coffey
Yes, I immediately thought "Bull Moose Party" too.
Mitchell Coffey
Mitchell Coffey
> bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:28:07 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>
> >>APPLAUSE! Thank you for this post. You've made your points
> >>very well. I not only fully agree, but I also think it necessary
> >>for everyone to understand your points.
> >thanks, paul...the parallels are striking...and what's equally
> >disturbing is how many people think palin is the saviour of the nation
>
> I'm not too worried about her as a candidate. She's too
> vulnerable.
When I was young I promised myself never to being a sentence "I'm old
enough to have ... ."
I'm old enough to have walked precincts for Gov. Pat Brown's re-
election campaign in 1966. I remember the primary election, wherein
grown up liberals were hoping for Ronald Reagan to get the Republican
nomination rather than a moderate with a chance at beating Brown.
Yeah, I know, that's a heuristic analysis rather than one based on a
rational consideration of the facts of the case at hand, but rational
consideration seems always to underplay to possibilities of stupid in
American politics.
Mitchell
heekster
Mencken said it best.
"Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under."
Paul J Gans
There's a connection between voting for President and the need
for a God. We have problems, serious problems. The Commies are
coming to suck out our vital fluids and get sex from our women
who won't give us any. We don't need no steenkin' techocrat, we
need a GOD!
And so Ronald Reagan won, the California university system was
destroyed, and the rest is history.