Are evolutionists pro- or anit- war, or neutral?
donwizard
Iraq, against the war, or remain neutral. I would think "neutral"
would be the stand of the evolutionist. Just let the law of natural
selection work itself out. Is that the case? Thanks.
Richard Uhrich
What makes you think a grasp of scientific evidence correlates with a
specific political or moral viewpoint?
--
Richard Uhrich
---
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. --
Charles Darwin
Tracy P. Hamilton
I will make an argument if you can tell me what inherited
characteristic will be the basis for selection.
Tracy P. Hamilton
Building Manager, Alco Hall
University of Ediacara
engelsman
> I'm curious to whether evolutionist take a stand for the US's war with
> Iraq, against the war, or remain neutral.
Depends on which evolutionist you are talking to.
> I would think "neutral"
> would be the stand of the evolutionist.
There is no such thing as 'the' evolutionist.
> Just let the law of natural
> selection work itself out. Is that the case? Thanks.
no.
dkomo
>
> I'm curious to whether evolutionist take a stand for the US's war with
> Iraq, against the war, or remain neutral.
Probably all of the above. What about you religionists?
AC
Natural selection has nothing to do with international affairs any more than
gravity or the strong nuclear force does. I'm sure with time you might even
come to understand this. If not, then you will have good company in
Jabriol.
--
A. Clausen
maureen...@nospam.alberni.net (Remove "nospam." to contact me)
Bobby D. Bryant
I was wondering the same thing today, but my guess is that "evilutionists"
will tend to be against the war and creationists in favor of it.
The problem with your guess is that the study of evolution isn't the study
of ethics. Scientists just want to understand what makes the world tick.
The same skepticism that makes a good scientist may in fact make an
individual resistant to propaganda.
BTW, I'm in the scientists' camp and I'm adamantly against this war.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Florian
And I'm curious as to whether anti-evolutionists take a stand for the
US war with Iraq, against the war, or remain neutral. I would think
"against" would be the stand of the anti-evolutionist. Thou shalt not
kill. Is that the case? Thanks.
--
odoratusque est Dominus odorem suavitatis
Richard Uhrich
I'm sure you mean creationists, not religionists. Most religious people
are also evolutionists. But downwizard will probably miss your point,
regardless.
Mark VandeWettering
Perhaps if evolution really _were_ a philosophy, that would make some
sense. But evolution is a scientific theory that explains the observed
evidence of biodiversity, and as such, a poor justification for any
political or military action.
Mark
MalumRegnat
"donwizard" <rj11...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:40cef689.03031...@posting.google.com...
does?
--
Carpe noctem.
Malum Regnat-
---
"Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing." - Macbeth
average conrad
I'm against it. As a representative of "the smug asshole" community, can
you tell us about the stand of the smug asshole? I would ass-ume that the
smug asshole is pro-war since there are so many benefits - potentially
touching off armageddon in the correct general vicinity; keeping the
non-christians in their place; fighting the war against those who those who
"hate ar'freedom"; and keeping the spice... um... the oil flowing... Think
of all the evangelical opportunities! Think, think of the children, who
need us to bomb them. Bomb them so that they might be free.
Skald the Rhymer
Ordinarily I try to avoid invective, both in the world at large and in
talk.origins specifically. But this once I'll let fly.
Sir, that assertion is so remarkably, knuckle-draggingly stupid that it's hard
to believe it was made by someone who can tie his own shoes.
Repeat after me: THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS NOT A RELIGION, A MORAL SYSTEM, A
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY, OR AN ETHICAL FRAMEWORK.
A person's position on evolution has NOTHING to do with that person's
supporting President Bush's decision to give Saddam Hussein an ultimatum. The
theory of evolution is descriptive -- it explains how the current panoply of
species developed -- and predictive -- it explains how new species are now
arising and may arise in the future. It is NOT normative -- it doesn't make
moral judgments -- nor is it prescriptive -- it doesn't advise how to behave in
any given situation.
Assuming that a person's belief in evolution will inform his or her political
choices is like assuming that one's understanding of radio astronomy has
anything to do with the same subject. It's such a resoundingly idiotic point
of view that it would indicate that the holder of the belief has a head injury.
For advice on how to live your life, I advise you to check the religious or
ethical philosophy of your choice; I personally go with the Sermon on the
Mount and John 3:16-17. For an explanation of how hominids adapted over time
to the current human species, I recommend Gould and Darwin.
Maxie Maxwell.
"In the middle of the journey of my life,
I found myself in a dark wood
Where the straight way was lost.
Oh, it is hard to speak of what I saw there,
Which even in recall renews my fear."
Dante Alighieri
Gray Shockley
(in message <3e789c00....@maze.dpo.uab.edu>):
I betcha cockroaches will be the winner (again).
Gray Shockley
--------------------------------------------------------
When trouble arises and things look bad, there is always one
individual who perceives a solution and is willing to take
command. Very often, that individual is crazy. -Author Unk
Louann Miller
<bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:21:57 +0000, donwizard wrote:
>
>> I'm curious to whether evolutionist take a stand for the US's war with
>> Iraq, against the war, or remain neutral. I would think "neutral" would
>> be the stand of the evolutionist. Just let the law of natural selection
>> work itself out. Is that the case? Thanks.
>
>I was wondering the same thing today, but my guess is that "evilutionists"
>will tend to be against the war and creationists in favor of it.
I'll give you half of that. Most creationists are probably pro-war on
the "anything labeled conservative is right" algorithm.
>BTW, I'm in the scientists' camp and I'm adamantly against this war.
I can match you one logical positivist (of a nearly Randian level of
ruthlessness) and one Alastair Crowley-ite pagan who are for it.
Louann, who knows some unusual people.
observa
"Skald the Rhymer" <mrmaxie...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20030319134215...@mb-mg.aol.com...
I think this is an example of very constrained invective. But to the point,
which I doubt donwizard will get.
Alan Jeffery
>
>
> Maxie Maxwell.
>
> "In the middle of the journey of my life,
> I found myself in a dark wood
> Where the straight way was lost.
> Oh, it is hard to speak of what I saw there,
> Which even in recall renews my fear."
>
> Dante Alighieri
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.461 / Virus Database: 260 - Release Date: 10/03/2003
John Wilkins
You forgot to mention the crusading possibilities. This is a holy war -
the Son is defending the Father (in the right Spirit, of course).
--
John Wilkins
"Listen to your heart, not the voices in your head" - Marge Simpson
Lenny Flank
> I'm curious to whether evolutionist take a stand for the US's war with
> Iraq, against the war, or remain neutral.
Why would "evolutionists" be any more united on this than would
"gravity-ists" or "molecule-ists". Or people who like carrots, for
that matter.
I would think "neutral"
> would be the stand of the evolutionist. Just let the law of natural
> selection work itself out. Is that the case? Thanks.
This is one of the silliest statements I have ever seen.
Been talking to the Jabriol Creep lately, have ya?
donwizard
>
> Repeat after me: THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS NOT A RELIGION, A MORAL SYSTEM, A
> POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY, OR AN ETHICAL FRAMEWORK.
Please repeat after me: THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION, WITHOUT
A MORAL SYSTEM, THAT INFLUENCES POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY, AND ERODES ANY
ETHICAL FOUNDATION.
Darwin and the theory of evolution affected the political decisions of
Stalin. Do you think President Bush is affected by his Biblical view
of where man came from? The origin of man is a foundational building
block for an individual's worldview. Ideas have consequences.
"Darwinian 'survival of the fittest' ideas thus powerfully shaped
Stalin's approach to society. Oppression, self glorification, atheism
and murder resulted from Stalin's rejection of his Creator after
reading and believing the evolutionary ideas of Darwin."
(http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1285.asp)
> For advice on how to live your life, I advise you to check the religious or
> ethical philosophy of your choice; I personally go with the Sermon on the
> Mount and John 3:16-17. For an explanation of how hominids adapted over time
> to the current human species, I recommend Gould and Darwin.
So, do you believe the Bible for morals and Darwin for origin of man?
Doesn't that conflict?
Would you propose that the Bible was a mere creation by these
"hominids"? Where did the "hominids adapted over time to the current
species" derive their religious and ethical philosophies? Was it from
other less adapted hominids that came before them? Can we just choose
any ethical or religious philosophy that we desire? What if my
philosophy opposes yours? Think that might lead to a conflict? A
war?
Mark Isaak
<loua...@yahoo.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:29:01 +0000 (UTC), "Bobby D. Bryant"
><bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
>I'll give you half of that. Most creationists are probably pro-war on
>the "anything labeled conservative is right" algorithm.
I heard a poll a couple weeks ago which found that religious people
tend to support Bush's War far more than non-religious people do.
--
Mark Isaak at...@earthlink.net
Don't read everything you belive.
MalumRegnat
| Stalin.
You are aware, aren't you that the affects Darwin and evolution may or may
not have had on Stalin, or anyone else, has no bearing on the scientific
verification of the theory of evolution?
anonymous
stories derived directly from evidence of God's creations found in
sedimentary rocks. My ideas on evolution do not project the outcome of my
opinion of the events unfolding in Iraq, although it is a good example of
'survival of the fittest'. The reason why they don't have any bearing is
because I am part of the evolutionary process, I am also fighting for my
share of the freedom.
As for my opinion on the crisis, everything is twisted here. It's a big
powerplay of jealousy and who has the biggest dick (essentially survival of
the fittest). Many people say horrible things and getting everything out of
the closet about the US and France and so on. US is defying the
international democracy and France is only interested in keeping their ties
with former colony Algeria, etc... this is all very typical human behaviour.
The only behaviour that really annoys me is that the one with undoubtebly
the biggest dick boasts a little too much with it. It's not really all that
important but the US cowboy attitude is so irritating and disrespectfull.
Powell is a good man, I like him a lot, but Bush is a terrible person to
listen to, so bloody arrogant. He is probably quite a kind person to meet,
but he seems like a man not in control of his emotions, radical. Many
Americans on the internet and on TV reflect the same attitude. So they go to
war and they have their proper reasons, I agree with them, but don't go
singing yeehaw lets kill some Iraqi soldiers. A little respect for the
diversity of societies on earth would be nice. If they wish to save the
world, do it with a little dignity. After all, the most of the Iraqi
government really believe in their cause, they are entiteled to their
opinion, however sick it may be.
And just to clarify that I am not excusing Iraqi tyranny as acceptable: we,
the democratic majority, have a higher right to render their sick policies
as an offence towards mankind. The US has made a descision. The UN has to
get their crap sorted out. Either stand up against the US for a good reason,
or stand as one as the International Community and get Saddam sorted out.
A.
"donwizard" <rj11...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:40cef689.03031...@posting.google.com...
AC
>
> "donwizard" <rj11...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:40cef689.03031...@posting.google.com...
>|
>| Darwin and the theory of evolution affected the political decisions of
>| Stalin.
>
> You are aware, aren't you that the affects Darwin and evolution may or may
> not have had on Stalin, or anyone else, has no bearing on the scientific
> verification of the theory of evolution?
By this reasoning, Christianity ought to be finished, because David Koresh
and Adolf Hitler were Christians.
Sensible, reasonable people do not draw the sorts of lines.
anonymous
dkomo
You don't recognize the style in the post? I'll put my money on that
"donwizard", Jabriol and Average Joe are the same shadowy, fetid
entity. They/it are sort of like Usenet's Gollum/Smeagol with a
perverted religious twist.
"Evolution! We hates it!!! Hates it, my precioussssss. Hatesss
it!....forever!!!!"
"One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,/ One Ring to bring
them all and in the darkness bind them...."
dkomo
>
[snip top]
> It's a big
> powerplay of jealousy and who has the biggest dick (essentially survival of
> the fittest).
Cute metaphor about the biggest dick. I have another metaphor: it's
about the extermination of some cockroaches and who has the biggest
can of Raid.
> Many people say horrible things and getting everything out of
> the closet about the US and France and so on. US is defying the
> international democracy and France is only interested in keeping their ties
> with former colony Algeria, etc... this is all very typical human behaviour.
It's typical to hate cockroaches and want to be rid of them.
> The only behaviour that really annoys me is that the one with undoubtebly
> the biggest dick boasts a little too much with it. It's not really all that
> important but the US cowboy attitude is so irritating and disrespectfull.
> Powell is a good man, I like him a lot, but Bush is a terrible person to
> listen to, so bloody arrogant. He is probably quite a kind person to meet,
> but he seems like a man not in control of his emotions, radical. Many
> Americans on the internet and on TV reflect the same attitude. So they go to
> war and they have their proper reasons, I agree with them, but don't go
> singing yeehaw lets kill some Iraqi soldiers. A little respect for the
> diversity of societies on earth would be nice. If they wish to save the
> world, do it with a little dignity. After all, the most of the Iraqi
> government really believe in their cause, they are entiteled to their
> opinion, however sick it may be.
>
> And just to clarify that I am not excusing Iraqi tyranny as acceptable: we,
> the democratic majority, have a higher right to render their sick policies
> as an offence towards mankind. The US has made a descision. The UN has to
> get their crap sorted out. Either stand up against the US for a good reason,
> or stand as one as the International Community and get Saddam sorted out.
>
Just like the UN stood up against the wholesale violation of human
rights in Sudan, Rowanda, Bosnia and Kosovo. Way to go UN!
Speaking of big dicks...and small ones...
Xaonon
<rj11...@yahoo.com> teithant i thiw hin:
> > Sir, that assertion is so remarkably, knuckle-draggingly stupid that
> > it's hard to believe it was made by someone who can tie his own shoes.
> >
> > Repeat after me: THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS NOT A RELIGION, A MORAL
> > SYSTEM, A POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY, OR AN ETHICAL FRAMEWORK.
>
> Please repeat after me: THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION, WITHOUT
> A MORAL SYSTEM, THAT INFLUENCES POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY, AND ERODES ANY
> ETHICAL FOUNDATION.
>
> Darwin and the theory of evolution affected the political decisions of
> Stalin.
Now repeat after *me*: the universe doesn't care what you think. Physical
reality is not dictated by ideological convenience. Even if evolution did
have negative political implications (which it *doesn't*), that wouldn't
matter a bit. It would still be correct.
> Do you think President Bush is affected by his Biblical view
> of where man came from?
Somehow the phrase "shooting oneself in the foot" comes to mind when I read
this sentence.
--
Xaonon, EAC Chief of Mad Scientists and informal BAAWA, aa #1821, Kibo #: 1
Visit The Nexus Of All Coolness (i.e. my site) at http://xaonon.dyndns.org/
"This is the most disturbing surprise Barry Bostwick has pulled on us since
that robot dragonfly came out of his nose on `Lexx'." -- James "Kibo" Parry
Skald the Rhymer
> Repeat after me: THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS NOT A RELIGION, A MORAL SYSTEM, A
> POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY, OR AN ETHICAL FRAMEWORK.
causing DonWizard to reply,
<< Please repeat after me: THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION, WITHOUT
A MORAL SYSTEM, THAT INFLUENCES POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY, AND ERODES ANY
ETHICAL FOUNDATION. >>
All right. Now we know what you were really after in your post, now don't we?
First, let me apologize to everyone for losing my temper. I'm sure the vast
majority of you don't care, but it matters to me, because I believe that my
Lord does not wish me to be churlish.
Now that that's out of the way, let's define some terms.
From the American Heritage Dictionary, third edition, I find that a religion
is:
1.a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as
creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system
grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a
spiritual leader.
4. A cause, a principle, or an activity pursued with zeal or conscientious
devotion.
Now, which of those definitions of religion does "evolution" fall under?
Incidentally, when I was cutting and pasting, I was tempted to leave out
definition #4. But that would have been quote mining, and quote mining is
dishonest. What's more honest of me is to admit that under that definition, an
ardent adherent of evolution might define his attempt to convince others of the
truth of the theory as a religion. But then so is playing golf every weekend,
or trying to persuade people that Kennedy was killed by the CIA, or dissecting
the collected works of J.R.R. Tolkien. The activity might be attacked with
zeal, and thus be "religious" in a broad sense; but the golf, conspiracy
theories, and reading the Simarillion are not.
What do YOU mean when you say evolution is a religion, sir? Do you mean that
it's belief in or reverence for a supernatural power? Clearly it doesn't
qualify under that definition, as the theory of evolution neither requires nor
denies the existence of a god or gods in any way. For that matter, neither do
Newton's laws of motion, nor the atomic theory of matter. Neither of those
scientific theories, nor evolutionary theory, have anything to say about God
because that is not what they are studying. (They don't say anything about
whether Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a better television show than Xena: Warrior
Princess, either.)
Obviously definition two doesn't apply to evolution in the smallest way, so
I'll skip it. Definition three, "a set of beliefs, values, and practices
based on the teachings of a spiritual leader" doesn't apply to evolution
either, because evolution is neither prescriptive nor normative. It has not
pretensions of telling us how to live our lives, nor did Darwin ever claim it
did. THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES is simply that -- an explanation of how the current
diversity of life on earth came to be.
<< Darwin and the theory of evolution affected the political decisions of
Stalin. >>
I'm not convinced of the veracity of that assertion, but, even if it's so, so
what? There are white supremacists, sir, who would claim that I should be
subservient to whites because I am black and blacks are descendants of Ham, the
son who saw Noah's nakedness and was cursed to servitude for doing so. Such
racist interpretations of the Bible were used to justifiy the slave trade and
the enslavement and rape of many of my ancestor, and even today people use them
to justify hatred. Does that mean I should toss out the Bible? of course not,
because the fact that someone MISUSES a tome does not affect the validity of
words in the tome.
<< The origin of man is a foundational building
block for an individual's worldview. Ideas have consequences. >>
I can equally argue that the theory of evolution leads to doctrines of equality
and love. If all men are descended from the same humble origins, if we all
have ancestors at Olduvai Gorge or wherever, then we are equally human and
equally beholden to one another. (See? An ethical worldview BASED on
evolution. But that still doesn't make the theory of evolution an ethical
system, but evolution doesn't demand that I believe such a thing (though, in
fact, I do.) )
The Bible has been used to justify the horrors of the Inquisition and the
Crusades and the virtual genocide of Native American culture as well. Some
people even today use it to justify misogyny and gender-based discrimination.
But those perversion of God's word does not cause me to doubt God, merely those
who abuse God's revelation.
<< So, do you believe the Bible for morals and Darwin for origin of man?
Doesn't that conflict?
>>
I believe that God guided the creation of the universe, the earth, and life on
earth by natural law. There is no more conflict between the idea that God
created the panoply of species through the agency of natural selection and
God's omnipotence than there is between the idea that God causes rain and snow
by using meteorological forces and God's omnipotence.
<< Would you propose that the Bible was a mere creation by these
"hominids"?>>
No, I believe that God inspired some of my hominid forebears (I'm not afraid to
call myself one) to write the Word. But because the Bible was written in
pre-technological times and because it was written by fallible beings, it is
not a science textbook. If I want to figure out how long it takes a quarter
dropped from my window to fall six stories to the earth, I consult my physics
textbook, not the story of Jesus' temptation by the Devil.
<< Where did the "hominids adapted over time to the current
species" derive their religious and ethical philosophies? Was it from
other less adapted hominids that came before them? Can we just choose
any ethical or religious philosophy that we desire? What if my
philosophy opposes yours? Think that might lead to a conflict? A
war? >>
It won't lead to my starting a war with you. I don't believe in shooting
first, and I'm extremely reluctant to shoot at all, because my Lord told me to
turn the other cheek, to do evil to those that do evil unto me, and to love my
enemy. Oddly enough, plenty of putative Christians choose to ignore these
commandments in their cheering for war in the Middle East.
Let me ask you a few questions, sir. It appears that you are a Biblical
literalist, and that you support President Bush's decision to begin a war in
Iraq. Is this correct? If so, how do you reconcile your apparent support of
the coming war with Jesus' admonition to
turn the other cheek and do good to those who do evil unto you?
dandelion
> Just like the UN stood up against the wholesale violation of human
> rights in Sudan, Rowanda, Bosnia and Kosovo. Way to go UN!
The UN is a powerfull as it's contributers make it. It is not omnipotent, it
is no panacea, it does not have any armed forces, it has no jurisdiction in
any country. The US have consistentlly undermined it's functioning by
withholding fundss and has blatantly sabotaged the UN-security council with
regard to Iraq.
The US had just as much chances of addressing these issues as anyone else,
so i regard the current wave of critisism regarding the UN as *highly*
hypocritical.
> Speaking of big dicks...and small ones...
Indeed. Sic transit gloria mundi.
dixi.
--
"I'd love to go out with you, but I'm taking punk totem pole carving."
Mike the Vike
> would be the stand of the evolutionist. Just let the law of natural
> selection work itself out. Is that the case? Thanks.
>
We are pro-war because it gives greater opportunity for rape, thus
increasing the mix of the gene pool - right Jaby?
Dick C
news:40cef689.03031...@posting.google.com:
> I'm curious to whether evolutionist take a stand for the US's war with
> Iraq, against the war, or remain neutral. I would think "neutral"
> would be the stand of the evolutionist. Just let the law of natural
> selection work itself out. Is that the case? Thanks.
Huh? The war in the mid east is a political issue, to some apparently
a religious issue. Evolution addresses neither, it is an explanation
of why we have the vast diversity of life.
As such, you should not make about war decisions based on it.
--
Dick #1349
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
Andre Gide, French author and critic (1869-1951).
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: crav...@msn.com
MalumRegnat
| > Do you think President Bush is affected by his Biblical view
| > of where man came from?
|
innerrantist view of the writings of St. John the Hallucinator.
catshark
(donwizard) wrote:
>I'm curious to whether evolutionist take a stand for the US's war with
>Iraq, against the war, or remain neutral.
Yes.
>I would think "neutral"
>would be the stand of the evolutionist. Just let the law of natural
>selection work itself out.
You seem to think that conflict *within* a social species is good for
that species. That is probably wrong.
Now, if you are thinking of a benefit of *other* species (cockroaches
and rats, in particular), you might be right . . .
>Is that the case? Thanks.
No. And you're welcome.
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Bludgeoning moribund Equidae for fun and profit.
Mark VandeWettering
>>
>> Repeat after me: THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS NOT A RELIGION, A MORAL SYSTEM, A
>> POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY, OR AN ETHICAL FRAMEWORK.
>
> Please repeat after me: THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION, WITHOUT
> A MORAL SYSTEM, THAT INFLUENCES POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY, AND ERODES ANY
> ETHICAL FOUNDATION.
Why would we choose to repeat a statement which is so obviously false?
> Darwin and the theory of evolution affected the political decisions of
> Stalin. Do you think President Bush is affected by his Biblical view
> of where man came from?
Yes. I'd also hazard a guess that it's probably a bad thing for
innocent Iraqi citizens tonight.
> The origin of man is a foundational building block for an individual's
> worldview. Ideas have consequences.
Nobody needs Darwin's theory in order to be crappy to others.
> "Darwinian 'survival of the fittest' ideas thus powerfully shaped
> Stalin's approach to society. Oppression, self glorification, atheism
> and murder resulted from Stalin's rejection of his Creator after
> reading and believing the evolutionary ideas of Darwin."
> (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1285.asp)
Golly. AiG. There's a calm, sober evaluation of history.
Not.
>> For advice on how to live your life, I advise you to check the
>> religious or ethical philosophy of your choice; I personally go with
>> the Sermon on the Mount and John 3:16-17. For an explanation of how
>> hominids adapted over time to the current human species, I recommend
>> Gould and Darwin.
> So, do you believe the Bible for morals and Darwin for origin of man?
> Doesn't that conflict?
No, it doesn't?
>
> Would you propose that the Bible was a mere creation by these
> "hominids"?
If he doesn't, I will, since it is so obviously true.
> Where did the "hominids adapted over time to the current
> species" derive their religious and ethical philosophies?
From themselves, of course.
> Was it from other less adapted hominids that came before them? Can we
> just choose any ethical or religious philosophy that we desire?
Of course we can. Was this supposed to be a trick question?
> What if my philosophy opposes yours? Think that might lead to a
> conflict? A war?
Yes, that's certainly possible. Was this supposed to be a trick question?
Mark
dkomo
>
> dkomo wrote:
>
> > Just like the UN stood up against the wholesale violation of human
> > rights in Sudan, Rowanda, Bosnia and Kosovo. Way to go UN!
>
> The UN is a powerfull as it's contributers make it. It is not omnipotent, it
> is no panacea, it does not have any armed forces, it has no jurisdiction in
> any country. The US have consistentlly undermined it's functioning by
> withholding fundss and has blatantly sabotaged the UN-security council with
> regard to Iraq.
>
No, we've given the UN the respect it deserves. It doesn't take that
much money to support a debating/pompous moralizing society. Some
microphones, chairs, translators, a chamber, that's all the UN needs.
It can then get about the business of what's it's best at: passing
vacuous impotent resolutions which it doesn't enforce and not passing
the important ones.
Quick, can you think of one effective thing the UN has done in the
past fifteen years to make this world a less dangerous place?
> The US had just as much chances of addressing these issues as anyone else,
> so i regard the current wave of critisism regarding the UN as *highly*
> hypocritical.
>
Speaking of hypocritical, I was listening to some of the speeches at
the UN today on the radio via satellite. Sheesh...the diplomats were
mewling and wringing their hands over a potential humanitarian
disaster in Iraq. As if the past 20 years under Saddam hasn't already
been a humanitarian disaster for Iraqis. And Kurds. And Iranians if
you count the Iran-Iraq war. And then there's the Gulf War. How many
millions of people have already been killed in this 20 year period of
time?
But these paragons of morality are more than willing to give Saddam as
much more time as he needs.
> > Speaking of big dicks...and small ones...
>
> Indeed. Sic transit gloria mundi.
>
In the UN's case there never was a gloria mundi to sic transit.
Bobby D. Bryant
> On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:13:22 +0000 (UTC), Louann Miller
> <loua...@yahoo.net> wrote:
>>On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:29:01 +0000 (UTC), "Bobby D. Bryant"
>><bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>
>> I'll give you half of that. Most creationists are probably pro-war on
>> the "anything labeled conservative is right" algorithm.
>
> I heard a poll a couple weeks ago which found that religious people tend
> to support Bush's War far more than non-religious people do.
Yes, and interestingly the clergy, at least of the more progressive sects,
has been speaking out against it.
BTW, here's the poll I saw:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030306.asp
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Mitchell Coffey
> I'm curious to whether evolutionist take a stand for the US's war with
> Iraq, against the war, or remain neutral. I would think "neutral"
> would be the stand of the evolutionist. Just let the law of natural
> selection work itself out. Is that the case? Thanks.
No T.O. regular, to my knowledge, believes that laws of nature have any
moral standing. Reporting the news is not the same as approving of it.
Mitchell Coffey
Mitchell Coffey
news:pijh7vcsnbiolngk7...@4ax.com:
I know whom you mean by the Alastair Crowley-ite, but who's the logical
positivist? I didn't know there were any.
Oh, and count me on the side of science and against this war.
Mitchell Coffey, who knows Louann
R. Baldwin
that it's hard to believe it was made by someone who can tie his own
shoes.
> >
> > Repeat after me: THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS NOT A RELIGION, A
MORAL SYSTEM, A
> > POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY, OR AN ETHICAL FRAMEWORK.
>
> Please repeat after me: THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION,
WITHOUT
> A MORAL SYSTEM, THAT INFLUENCES POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY, AND ERODES ANY
> ETHICAL FOUNDATION.
Why should we repeat such nonsense? No scientific theory is a
religion. A theory is simply an explanation of natural phenomena that
correlates well with observed facts and can be used to predict
observations with an acceptable level of accuracy.
>
> Darwin and the theory of evolution affected the political decisions
of
> Stalin. Do you think President Bush is affected by his Biblical
view
> of where man came from? The origin of man is a foundational
building
> block for an individual's worldview. Ideas have consequences.
Whether or not Stalin was influenced by Darwin is not relevant to the
correctness of Darwin's theory.
>
> "Darwinian 'survival of the fittest' ideas thus powerfully shaped
> Stalin's approach to society. Oppression, self glorification,
atheism
> and murder resulted from Stalin's rejection of his Creator after
> reading and believing the evolutionary ideas of Darwin."
> (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1285.asp)
Can you find a more reputable source to back up your assertion?
>
> > For advice on how to live your life, I advise you to check the
religious or
> > ethical philosophy of your choice; I personally go with the
Sermon on the
> > Mount and John 3:16-17. For an explanation of how hominids
adapted over time
> > to the current human species, I recommend Gould and Darwin.
>
> So, do you believe the Bible for morals and Darwin for origin of
man?
> Doesn't that conflict?
How would Biblical morals conflict with any scientific theory? It is
only the Bible as natural history that conflicts with science. Natural
history is not a moral. The Bible is a poor science textbook. It was
never intended to be one. I don't see how the message of Christ
depends on the scientific accuracy of Genesis.
>
> Would you propose that the Bible was a mere creation by these
> "hominids"? Where did the "hominids adapted over time to the
current
> species" derive their religious and ethical philosophies? Was it
from
> other less adapted hominids that came before them? Can we just
choose
> any ethical or religious philosophy that we desire? What if my
> philosophy opposes yours? Think that might lead to a conflict? A
> war?
>
The Bible in its present form was designed by committee, thanks to
Emporer Constantine. The subject of divine inspiration is a matter of
personal faith.
There is certainly evidence of change in religious and ethical
philosophies over time, undoubtedly beginning before the Earth Mother
Goddess icons of prehistoric humanity first showed up.
Clearly, you can choose any ethical or religious philosophy you
desire. Yours does oppose mine. This forum exists because of conflict.
War hardly seems a useful way to settle the matter.
Mitchell Coffey
> Darwin and the theory of evolution affected the political decisions of
> Stalin. Do you think President Bush is affected by his Biblical view
> of where man came from? The origin of man is a foundational building
> block for an individual's worldview. Ideas have consequences.
>
> "Darwinian 'survival of the fittest' ideas thus powerfully shaped
> Stalin's approach to society. Oppression, self glorification, atheism
> and murder resulted from Stalin's rejection of his Creator after
> reading and believing the evolutionary ideas of Darwin."
> (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1285.asp)
You have a problem with your source material. Stalin was famously
anti-Darwinist. Stalin had scientists who persisted in supporting
"Darwinism" removed from their positions, sent to the Gulag and/or
killed. Stalin believed in the inheritance of acquired charateristics
and teleology. He ruthlessly suppressed biological science in Russia,
puting a pseudo-scientist named Lysenko in charge of those sciences.
Any scientist who reported the "wrong," that is to say, correct
experimental results risk at very least his career, and possibly his
life.
"The Lysenko Affair" is widely known, it's incredible that your source
chose to suppress it. This was not a minor issue with Stalin; it was a
issue important to him for most of his life. As early as 1906, when
your source claimed he was a Darwinian, he published an article,
"Anarchism or Socialism?," in which he attacked Darwinism and advocated
Lamarckism.
See: http://evonet.sdsc.edu/evoscisociety/lesson_from_history.htm
Mitchell Coffey
stew dean
> Iraq, against the war, or remain neutral. I would think "neutral"
> would be the stand of the evolutionist. Just let the law of natural
> selection work itself out. Is that the case? Thanks.
This is a political issue not a scientific one.
I have my own views - I am against the war.
I don't speak for any other person, how can I? There is no church of
evolution with someone telling the minions what to do. So everyone
will have their own view independent of scientific knowledge and
religions faith.
Stew Dean
zzzzara
> >
> > Repeat after me: THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS NOT A RELIGION, A MORAL SYSTEM, A
> > POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY, OR AN ETHICAL FRAMEWORK.
>
> Please repeat after me: THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION, WITHOUT
> A MORAL SYSTEM, THAT INFLUENCES POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY, AND ERODES ANY
> ETHICAL FOUNDATION.
>
> Darwin and the theory of evolution affected the political decisions of
> Stalin.
Actually Stalin didn't like Darwin's theory at all - he favoured
Lysenko's pseudo-scentific alternative theory (which he considered
more "Leninist"). Biologists upholding Darwinian natural selection
lost their jobs and, in many cases, their lives.
Google: "lysenko evolution" finds 2,380 results. Try doing some
research next time.
J McCoy
Both Darwinism and Lamarkism are evolutionary theories.
J McCoy
Ian H Spedding
rj11...@yahoo.com says...
>
> I'm curious to whether evolutionist take a stand for the US's war with
> Iraq, against the war, or remain neutral. I would think "neutral"
> would be the stand of the evolutionist. Just let the law of natural
> selection work itself out. Is that the case? Thanks.
I am an evilutionist and I also support the war against Saddam
Hussein and his regime, but the Theory of Evolution has no more
bearing on my position than Einstein's Theories of Relativity.
By stretching the meaning of the word, you might make a case that
this war is a stage in the evolution of some form of
international authority with greater credibility and legitimacy
than the UN. But that's all.
Ian
--
Ian H Spedding
Lilith
> > Sir, that assertion is so remarkably, knuckle-draggingly stupid that it's hard to believe it was made by someone who can tie his own shoes.
> >
> > Repeat after me: THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS NOT A RELIGION, A MORAL SYSTEM, A
> > POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY, OR AN ETHICAL FRAMEWORK.
>
> Please repeat after me: THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION, WITHOUT
> A MORAL SYSTEM, THAT INFLUENCES POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY, AND ERODES ANY
> ETHICAL FOUNDATION.
>
> Stalin. Do you think President Bush is affected by his Biblical view
> of where man came from? The origin of man is a foundational building
> block for an individual's worldview. Ideas have consequences.
> "Darwinian 'survival of the fittest' ideas thus powerfully shaped
> Stalin's approach to society. Oppression, self glorification, atheism
> and murder resulted from Stalin's rejection of his Creator after
> reading and believing the evolutionary ideas of Darwin."
> (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1285.asp)
Wow, AIG demonstrates their scholarship (cough cough) again. Stalin
routinely killed Darwinists and gave lots of support to Lamarckian
scientists. See your history books.
> > For advice on how to live your life, I advise you to check the religious or
> > ethical philosophy of your choice; I personally go with the Sermon on the
> > Mount and John 3:16-17. For an explanation of how hominids adapted over time
> > to the current human species, I recommend Gould and Darwin.
>
> So, do you believe the Bible for morals and Darwin for origin of man?
> Doesn't that conflict?
Look, this is a tired, tired argument. Science and religion do not
intersect. Therefore they do not conflict. The only people who try to
force them to intersect/conflict are fundamentalists (aka American
Taliban), politicians and social psychologists who want to write
books, and some wacky guys with agendas who jump up on soap boxes on
some Usenet groups and try to tell us Stalin was a Darwinist.
The rest of us are pretty comfortable with ethical and moral issues
being guided by principles obtained from our own personal moral
judgements, religions, and/or ethics. You're seriously miguided and
you're wasting your breath, here. You might as well claim birthday
cakes are responsible for world poverty.
> Would you propose that the Bible was a mere creation by these
> "hominids"?
Are you questioning that hominids are inspired by God? Boy, you're a
piece of work.
> Where did the "hominids adapted over time to the current
> species" derive their religious and ethical philosophies?
That's a complicated question. In short: a need for sustainable
society and culture. Some might feel a need to add that "hominids"
also have a moral/ethical philosophical structure in order to be able
to set up a relationship with their own God/gods/higher power, etc.
>Was it from
> other less adapted hominids that came before them?
Our ancestors were no less adapted than we are for their environments
and certainly had a more-than-utilitarian view of death, for example.
See studies on Neanderthal and early mankind's burial practices.
>Can we just choose
> any ethical or religious philosophy that we desire?
News flash: Cultural and personal selection of religion pre-dates
Darwinism. In case you didn't know that. I suppose you also understand
that there are many religions in the world today. Your brand is no
better than anybody else's brand of religion.
>What if my
> philosophy opposes yours? Think that might lead to a conflict? A
> war?
Religions cause war all the time. That has to do with the bad attitude
and the poor choices of the leaders who convince their people that
"the others" (not of their religion) are out to get them, are
evil/bad.
But Darwinism has nothing to do with war. There are no deeply held
convictions that can whip people up into a religious frenzy about
Darwinism. I'm sure the peanut gallery will scoff and say that TO
posters tend to get vehement about Darwinism, but actually, people who
defend Darwinism are defending objective reality. What you make of
objective reality is your own problem.
Walter Bushell
> On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 10:36:20 -0600, Tracy P. Hamilton wrote
> (in message <3e789c00....@maze.dpo.uab.edu>):
>
> > On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:21:57 +0000 (UTC), We get signal. Main screen
> > turn on. rj11...@yahoo.com (donwizard) said:
> >
> >> I'm curious to whether evolutionist take a stand for the US's war with
> >> Iraq, against the war, or remain neutral. I would think "neutral"
> >> would be the stand of the evolutionist. Just let the law of natural
> >> selection work itself out. Is that the case? Thanks.
> >
> > I will make an argument if you can tell me what inherited
> > characteristic will be the basis for selection.
> >
> > Tracy P. Hamilton
> >
> > Building Manager, Alco Hall
> > University of Ediacara
> >
>
> I betcha cockroaches will be the winner (again).
>
>
>
Also rats, carpenter worms etc. will also get a good feed.
--
Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day; set him on fire and he
will be warm for the rest of his life. (John Calvin)
Walter
Walter Bushell
> In article <40cef689.03031...@posting.google.com>, donwizard wrote:
> > I'm curious to whether evolutionist take a stand for the US's war with
> > Iraq, against the war, or remain neutral. I would think "neutral"
> > would be the stand of the evolutionist. Just let the law of natural
> > selection work itself out. Is that the case? Thanks.
>
> Natural selection has nothing to do with international affairs any more than
> gravity or the strong nuclear force does. I'm sure with time you might even
> come to understand this. If not, then you will have good company in
> Jabriol.
LOL, Jabriol being good company for anyone.
ReidRover
>Message-id: <pan.2003.03.20....@mail.utexas.edu>
>
>On Thu, 20 Mar 2003 00:32:44 +0000, Mark Isaak wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:13:22 +0000 (UTC), Louann Miller
>> <loua...@yahoo.net> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:29:01 +0000 (UTC), "Bobby D. Bryant"
>>><bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'll give you half of that. Most creationists are probably pro-war on
>>> the "anything labeled conservative is right" algorithm.
>>
>> I heard a poll a couple weeks ago which found that religious people tend
>> to support Bush's War far more than non-religious people do.
>
>Yes, and interestingly the clergy, at least of the more progressive sects,
>has been speaking out against it.
>
No matter what the media says support or non-support of this war, is not
really confined to one identifiable group..for example I am for the war but
most definatlly against Bush and his regime, I want to see the end of the
Hussein regime .
I have a workmate who is ultra Christian fundementalist..hes also against the
war ( hes very conservative too) as he thinks the USA should not be involved
at all in foreign wars.
Laurence A. Moran
anonymous <ve...@anonymous.nil> wrote:
[snip]
>The US has made a descision. The UN has to get their crap sorted out.
>Either stand up against the US for a good reason, or stand as one as the
>International Community and get Saddam sorted out.
Many members of the United Nations and many of America's closest
allies have already chosen the first option - "stand up against
the US for a good reason." Haven't you been paying attention?
Larry Moran
Matt Silberstein
(donwizard):
>I'm curious to whether evolutionist take a stand for the US's war with
>Iraq, against the war, or remain neutral. I would think "neutral"
>would be the stand of the evolutionist. Just let the law of natural
>selection work itself out. Is that the case? Thanks.
You have that exactly right. As a staunch moral evolutionist I am
completely neutral on *everything*. I am practically catatonic
AAMOF. After all, you never know what action will affect natural
selection and how. So I just sit calmly in a dark room and try to
avoid moving.
Sheesh.
--
Matt Silberstein TBC HRL OMM
Politics is the art of the possible
Bismarck, but not the ship
dandelion
plonk
--
"Virtual" means never knowing where your next byte is coming from.
boikat
> Iraq, against the war, or remain neutral. I would think "neutral"
> would be the stand of the evolutionist. Just let the law of natural
> selection work itself out. Is that the case? Thanks.
What makes you think that "evolutionists" are one monolithic block that all
think the same?
Boikat
>
boikat
"J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.03032...@posting.google.com...
It is noted that the OP claimed that Stalin's views were shaped by
"Darwinsim", not Lamarkism, a point which soared over your head. No
surprise there, regardless of both being "evolutionary theories".
Boikat
--
--
Go ahead and hate your neighbor,
go ahead and cheat a friend,
do it in the name of Heaven,
you can justify it in the end.
There wont be any trumpets blowing,
come the judgement day.
On the bloody morning after,
One Tin Soldier rides away.
-- "One Tin Soldier"
Pokemoto
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!newsfeed1.bredband.com!br
edband!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!newsfeed.stanford.edu!
darwin.ediacara.org!there.is.no.cabal
>From: rj11...@yahoo.com (donwizard)
>Newsgroups: talk.origins
>Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:21:57 +0000 (UTC)
>Organization: http://groups.google.com/
>Lines: 5
>Sender: ro...@darwin.ediacara.org
>Approved: rob...@ediacara.org
>Message-ID: <40cef689.03031...@posting.google.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
>X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1048090917 14553 128.100.83.246 (19 Mar 2003
>16:21:57 GMT)
>X-Complaints-To: use...@darwin.ediacara.org
>NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:21:57 +0000 (UTC)
>
>
>
>I'm curious to whether evolutionist take a stand for the US's war with
>Iraq, against the war, or remain neutral. I would think "neutral"
>would be the stand of the evolutionist. Just let the law of natural
>selection work itself out. Is that the case? Thanks.
Do you know why it is that about the first ones that are lined up against the
wall and shot by fanatical regimes are intellectuals?
They don't blindly follow political propaganda. They have the reputation of
actually thinking about the issues before making decisions.
Which side of the issue (Evolution or the typical YEC special creation) is more
likely to follow political propaganda blindly?
If the cause is just it doesn't really matter, 20:20 hindsight will tell us if
this was the course our nation should have taken. This country was founded on
the basis that intellectuals would have a say in the government and that we
would have a democracy, controled by people that had the brains to think first
before acting. Not only that, but no one person or group has the final say.
No one that I know has called our current president an intellectual, but he has
advisors. The process of checks and balances have been played out and Congress
has given the go ahead months ago. We can only hope that the system is working
well enough so that the people making those decisions are making the best ones
that they can at this time.
One of the good things about this country is that if this turns out to be a bad
decision our constitution allows us to make changes so that we can try and keep
the same mistakes from happening in the future.
This is not a pain free process. It is simply trial and error. It is a
process that lets this country make mistakes and learn from them. I don't know
if this is a mistake or not, but one of the things that has made this country
what it is, is the fact that a lot of people are involved in making these
mistakes, and in many cases they have been able to see them as such and do the
right thing in making it more difficult to make the same mistakes.
Ron Okimoto
John Bode
> Iraq, against the war, or remain neutral. I would think "neutral"
> would be the stand of the evolutionist. Just let the law of natural
> selection work itself out. Is that the case? Thanks.
Well, since you've already shown your true colors elsewhere in this
thread, this response is probably useless, but what the hell....
Substitute "evolutionist" (yuck) with "particle physicist", or any of
a number of other branches of science, and see if your question sounds
any more or less silly.
What does this particular layman who accepts the theory of evolution
as the most likely explanation for the origin of modern species (okay,
okay, have it your way, "evolutionist") think about the war? I'm
disappointed that Iraq could not be disarmed through diplomatic means,
but realistic enough to accept that if it hasn't worked after 12
years, it never will. Do I think Iraq poses a direct, credible threat
to American citizens on US soil? No. Do I think Iraq poses a direct,
credible threat to American citizens, allies, and interests in the
Middle East? Yes. Do I think Saddam Hussein is a murderous bastard
who should be removed from power ASAP? Yes. Do I think this is the
best possible way to do it? No. Do I think that a better solution is
at hand? No. Do I like shooting first? No. Am I worried that there
will be reprisals from terrorist cells in the US and abroad? Yes. Am
I worried that there will be severe hell to pay if we go through with
this and later find out Iraq really didn't have the WMD's we thought
they did (not at all likely, but still)? Oh hell yes.
So call it reluctant support.
My fervent and unrealistic hope is that Hussein and his cronies will
voluntarily leave, that whatever government replaces them will quickly
move to destroy Iraq's MWD stocks, and that we'll all get along
happily ever after. My realistic hope is that this war will be over
quickly, with a minimum of casualties on both sides, and only minor
destabilization throughout the region.
The theory of evolution does not inform my personal ethics. Since I
am an atheist, neither does religion. The Golden Rule, which is
pretty much common sense, seems to work well for the majority of
situations I encounter.
Richard Uhrich
A good friend of mine, very Catholic, is angry over this war (as am I);
but he's also still angry over FDR forcing the Japanese to attack us in
WWII. And he hates Woodrow Wilson for getting us into WWI.
--
Richard Uhrich
---
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. --
Charles Darwin
Gray Shockley
(in message <3f355ee.03032...@posting.google.com>):
And Christianity and Satanism are both religions. (Well, actually Satanism is
just a branch of Christianity).
Gray Shockley
--------------------------
"Swinehood hath no remedy." - Sidney Lanier
AC
And both Christianity and Islam are monotheistic religions. So what? The
statement was that Stalin was a Darwinist, which he was not. It does
matter, though, because if you can use some dictator's mad beliefs in a
scientific theory to condemn that scientific theory, then I can do the same
to a religion, and at that point Christianity utterly and hopelessly
invalidates itself as a moral and righteous religion.
Of cuorse, Mr. McCoy, sensible people do not draw these lines. They
understand that nasty people can claim to adhere to all sorts of theories,
philosophies and religions. That does not automatically invalidate said
theories, philosophies and religions.
--
A. Clausen
maureen...@nospam.alberni.net (Remove "nospam." to contact me)
Louann Miller
<uhr...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>A good friend of mine, very Catholic, is angry over this war (as am I);
>but he's also still angry over FDR forcing the Japanese to attack us in
>WWII.
Tell him to read "At Dawn We Slept" by Gordon Prange and calm the heck
down. FDR had his moments of micro-management but he didn't tell
Kimmel and Short to ignore a potential attack that had been
predictable for 20 years at that point. He certainly didn't teach
Yamamoto about keeping really good operational security.
Louann Miller
<m.remov...@removestarpower.net> wrote:
>Louann Miller <loua...@yahoo.net> wrote in
>> On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:29:01 +0000 (UTC), "Bobby D. Bryant"
>>>BTW, I'm in the scientists' camp and I'm adamantly against this war.
>>
>> I can match you one logical positivist (of a nearly Randian level of
>> ruthlessness) and one Alastair Crowley-ite pagan who are for it.
>>
>> Louann, who knows some unusual people.
>
>I know whom you mean by the Alastair Crowley-ite,
yep, it's Madam "list rules about taglines don't apply to me."
> but who's the logical
>positivist? I didn't know there were any.
His name's Steve, but people call him by his initials. Visits
Nantucket fairly frequently.
Louann Miller
They (in the sense of "the leaders of those countries") don't have
much choice. They're democracies. Their populations are generally
against the war as such. They have to listen to their bosses.
Louann Miller
<mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In talk.origins I read this message from rj11...@yahoo.com
>(donwizard):
>
>>I'm curious to whether evolutionist take a stand for the US's war with
>>Iraq, against the war, or remain neutral. I would think "neutral"
>>would be the stand of the evolutionist. Just let the law of natural
>>selection work itself out. Is that the case? Thanks.
>
>You have that exactly right. As a staunch moral evolutionist I am
>completely neutral on *everything*. I am practically catatonic
>AAMOF. After all, you never know what action will affect natural
>selection and how. So I just sit calmly in a dark room and try to
>avoid moving.
Doesn't that affect your reproductive fitness?
David Iain Greig
Pace Tony Blair.
When Chretien stood up and announced in Parliament that Canada would
not join the U.S. invasion of Iraq, he was given a sustained ovation.
--D.
dkomo
AC
By his own party. It was hardly unanimous in the House.
John Wilkins
Not Matt's. They practically beat that door down. No wonder he needs a
dark room to stay calm.
--
John Wilkins
"Listen to your heart, not the voices in your head" - Marge Simpson
Skald the Rhymer
<< You have that exactly right. As a staunch moral evolutionist I am
completely neutral on *everything*. I am practically catatonic
AAMOF. After all, you never know what action will affect natural
selection and how. So I just sit calmly in a dark room and try to
avoid moving. >>
::rubbing my knee::
I was wondering who that was in my basement. I keep tripping over you. Move
your ass.
Maxie Maxwell.
"In the middle of the journey of my life,
I found myself in a dark wood
Where the straight way was lost.
Oh, it is hard to speak of what I saw there,
Which even in recall renews my fear."
Dante Alighieri
Skald the Rhymer
<< What does this particular layman who accepts the theory of evolution
as the most likely explanation for the origin of modern species (okay,
okay, have it your way, "evolutionist") think about the war? I'm
disappointed that Iraq could not be disarmed through diplomatic means,
but realistic enough to accept that if it hasn't worked after 12
years, it never will. Do I think Iraq poses a direct, credible threat
to American citizens on US soil? No. Do I think Iraq poses a direct,
credible threat to American citizens, allies, and interests in the
Middle East? Yes. Do I think Saddam Hussein is a murderous bastard
who should be removed from power ASAP? Yes. Do I think this is the
best possible way to do it? No. Do I think that a better solution is
at hand? No. Do I like shooting first? No. Am I worried that there
will be reprisals from terrorist cells in the US and abroad? Yes. Am
I worried that there will be severe hell to pay if we go through with
this and later find out Iraq really didn't have the WMD's we thought
they did (not at all likely, but still)? Oh hell yes.
So call it reluctant support.
>>
Sir, you've summarized my own thoughts so accurately that I'm a little nervous
that I may have developed a split personality and wrote all that in my sleep.
Assuming we're actually different persons, do you mind if I borrow what you
wrote to explain my own position?
Skald the Rhymer
is
just a branch of Christianity).
>>
Satanism is the idiot's religion, even worse than fundamentalist Christianity.
Let's examine the thought process of two Satanists, Biff & Skippy, and see
where it leads them.
Biff: "Skippy, let's worship the Prince of Evil and Father of Lies! He's
destined to win the celestial war and will reward those who follow him with
virgins to ravish for all of eternity!"
Skippy: "Okay, Biff! I'm SURE we can trust the father of lies and I likes
those virgins, I do."
(skip ahead to judgment day. Two possibilities: God wins or Satan wins.)
(If God wins)
God: "Skippy and Biff, you have offered succor to Mine ancient enemy. To the
lake of fire with you!"
Biff: "Lord, it was all Skiffy's fault! I'm sorry."
Skippy: "Shut up, Biff."
God: "Gabe, put those guys in the really hot part of the lake of fire. They
just piss me off for some reason."
Gabriel: "Okay."
OR
(if Satan wins)
Satan: "Skippy and Biff, you have served me well -- I have triumphed over God!"
Skippy: "Cool!"
Biff: "Bring on the virgins! I got me some raping to do!"
Satan: "No virgins for you two. You're going in the lake of fire with the
Christians."
Skippy & Biff:: "WHAT?"
Satan (annoyed): "Oh, please. Weren't you paying attention? I'm the freaking
PRINCE of LIES."
Skippy: "This is all your fault, Biff!"
Biff: "Shut up!"
Satan: "Mephistopheles,, drop 'em in the cage with the flesh-eating squirrels
afore you take 'em to the lake of fire."
Mephistopheles: "Okay."
Richard Uhrich
He's not the type you tell anything about politics, religion, gun
control, etc.! As for me, I need no convincing the attack was
inevitable, but there was no reason to expect it would be Hawaii more
than Philippines or Indonesia or Maylasia. In contrast to our current
president, FDR's remark on Dec 6, '41, on reading the 13tth part of the
14 part Japanese Purple code was, "This means war! Too bad we can't
strike first." I know, I know; now this thread will now degenerate into
an argument over Iraq = Dec 11th, right?
Incidentally, I recently read "FDR's Secret War," "Pearl Harbor:
Betrayed," and "Pearl Harbor: Final Solution." The last is very credible
and claims Kimmel and Short were both guilty of dereliction; "Betrayed"
had me convinced they were uninformed scapegoats, especially Kimball.
What do you think? Will "At Dawn" help me make up my mind?
Gray Shockley
(in message <20030320155318...@mb-de.aol.com>):
> << And Christianity and Satanism are both religions. (Well, actually Satanism
> is just a branch of Christianity).
>
>
> Satanism is the idiot's religion, even worse than fundamentalist
> Christianity.
> Let's examine the thought process of two Satanists, Biff & Skippy, and see
> where it leads them.
Let's check with Joan d'Arc on this.
Louann Miller
<uhr...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>Louann Miller wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:04:00 +0000 (UTC), Richard Uhrich
>> <uhr...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>A good friend of mine, very Catholic, is angry over this war (as am I);
>>>but he's also still angry over FDR forcing the Japanese to attack us in
>>>WWII.
>>
>> Tell him to read "At Dawn We Slept" by Gordon Prange and calm the heck
>> down. FDR had his moments of micro-management but he didn't tell
>> Kimmel and Short to ignore a potential attack that had been
>> predictable for 20 years at that point. He certainly didn't teach
>> Yamamoto about keeping really good operational security.
>>
>
>He's not the type you tell anything about politics, religion, gun
>control, etc.! As for me, I need no convincing the attack was
>inevitable, but there was no reason to expect it would be Hawaii more
>than Philippines or Indonesia or Maylasia.
If you want really _good_ conspiracy fodder, then the followup attack
on the Phillipines is a much more fertile soil than Pearl Harbor
itself. Douglas "hooray for me" MacArthur had a good eight hours
warning that Pearl Harbor had already been attacked -- exactly the
sort of warning Kimmel would have sold his soul for -- and still
managed to get caught with his planes on the ground. I'm always
surprised that more conspiracy buffs haven't latched onto that part of
it.
> In contrast to our current
>president, FDR's remark on Dec 6, '41, on reading the 13tth part of the
>14 part Japanese Purple code was, "This means war! Too bad we can't
>strike first."
Approximately accurate quote, but at the end of the 14th part of the
14 part message (which Prange quotes in detail) there was no actual
declaration of war. Certainly not "of all your installations that we
might attack, Pearl Harbor is the one, go stuff yourselves you
-gaijin-." The sum of the 14 part message was that the Japanese were
feeling harsh and liable to break off negotiations, maybe even formal
diplomatic relations, but nobody much needed to be told that at that
point.
>I know, I know; now this thread will now degenerate into
>an argument over Iraq = Dec 11th, right?
>
>
>Incidentally, I recently read "FDR's Secret War," "Pearl Harbor:
>Betrayed," and "Pearl Harbor: Final Solution." The last is very credible
>and claims Kimmel and Short were both guilty of dereliction; "Betrayed"
>had me convinced they were uninformed scapegoats, especially Kimball.
>What do you think? Will "At Dawn" help me make up my mind?
Prange was (a) a full-time professional historian (b) fluent in
Japanese which he learned during his own military duties in Occupied
Japan (c) an in-freaking-credible detail freak. He interviewed
first-hand pretty much everyone who was involved in Pearl Harbor and
survived the war, on both Japanese and US sides. You want to know what
Nagumo had for breakfast on the day of the attack or what Kimmel's
plans for Sunday morning were to have been (golf) then Prange's books
are the place to check. I know that sounds about as interesting as
reading D&D manuals, but he also has the storyteller's art and makes
it fun to read.
Prange wrote sympathetically about Kimmel, whom he got to know and
like in the course of his researches. (Short died only a few years
after the war, and Prange did not meet him personally.) And he
certainly gives due blame to what might be called the spirit of the
age, which was a heavy handicap to taking the Japanese seriously. But
at the bottom line, they were the commanders of the only large US
fleet in the Pacific and the most advanced (toward the area of combat)
military base in US territory. There was a war going on. The doctrine
of treating the enemy military forces as a primary target goes back to
at least the US Civil War. What the heck did they _think_ they were
being paid to do in Hawaii, defend themselves from a surprise attack
by New Zealand?
Louann, who admittedly has never enraged a kiwi bird.
pz
Louann Miller <loua...@yahoo.net> wrote:
I thought the US was a democracy (at least of the republican sort).
I guess I was wrong.
--
pz
Mitchell Coffey
[snip]
Creationism is an evolutionary belief, because it posits biological
evolution - in fact at rate far higher than has ever been observed;
else we'd now see only those "kinds" that made it onto the Ark. Of
course, with Creationism biological evolution is guided by some
supernatural principle - as it was with Lamarkism. This is to say,
Creationism and Lamarkism are in this sense of a piece, because
teleology are key to both. "Darwinism" is non-teleological, and so by
this measure it is in a different category.
Meanwhile, you're avoiding the issue by changing the subject.
"donwizard" claimed Stalin was a "Darwinist." As the slightest bit of
research shows, he wasn't. Furthermore, his anti-Darwinism was *not*
tangential to his world view. Not being confined to his "Lysenko"
period, he'd written an attack on "Darwinism" as early as 1906.
Citations on request.
Mitchell Coffey
Matt Silberstein
Frank J
> In article <40cef689.03031...@posting.google.com>,
> rj11...@yahoo.com says...
> >
> > I'm curious to whether evolutionist take a stand for the US's war with
> > Iraq, against the war, or remain neutral. I would think "neutral"
> > would be the stand of the evolutionist. Just let the law of natural
> > selection work itself out. Is that the case? Thanks.
>
> Hussein and his regime, but the Theory of Evolution has no more
> bearing on my position than Einstein's Theories of Relativity.
>
> By stretching the meaning of the word, you might make a case that
> this war is a stage in the evolution of some form of
> international authority with greater credibility and legitimacy
> than the UN. But that's all.
>
> Ian
Megadittos (no I'm not a Rush fan even though I agree with him on many
issues).
I think that, on this ng at least, that the vocal defenders of
evolution lean left, which is a correlation with mostly anti-war
sentiment. Conversely, the vocal opponents of evolution lean right,
which is a correlation with mostly pro-war sentiment. Though not as
much as in the general population, there are, as you know, many
exceptions here. Wonder what Average Joe thinks?
AC
More importantly, even if Stalin had been a "Darwinist", it would mean a
damn thing, any more than the fact that Adolf Hitler was a Catholic means
that somehow Catholicism is tainted. It's just more pathetic grasping of
straws.
Laurence A. Moran
That's correct. On the other hand, there are some leaders who support
President Bush in spite of the fact that their populations oppose the
war. The spin on these leaders is that they are very noble and brave
for standing up for their principles in the face of massive public
opposition. It seems that leaders who don't listen to their bosses
are good guys as long as they do listen to Washington.
Larry Moran
Richard Uhrich
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2003 21:59:19 +0000 (UTC), Richard Uhrich
> <uhr...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
<snip>
Sorry to get so off-topic, but this is to interesting to drop.
>
> If you want really _good_ conspiracy fodder, then the followup attack
> on the Phillipines is a much more fertile soil than Pearl Harbor
> itself. Douglas "hooray for me" MacArthur had a good eight hours
> warning that Pearl Harbor had already been attacked -- exactly the
> sort of warning Kimmel would have sold his soul for -- and still
> managed to get caught with his planes on the ground. I'm always
> surprised that more conspiracy buffs haven't latched onto that part of
> it.
Why did this happen? do you know what excuse MacArthur give?
>
>
>>In contrast to our current
>>president, FDR's remark on Dec 6, '41, on reading the 13tth part of the
>>14 part Japanese Purple code was, "This means war! Too bad we can't
>>strike first."
>>
>
> Approximately accurate quote, but at the end of the 14th part of the
> 14 part message (which Prange quotes in detail) there was no actual
> declaration of war. Certainly not "of all your installations that we
> might attack, Pearl Harbor is the one, go stuff yourselves you
> -gaijin-." The sum of the 14 part message was that the Japanese were
> feeling harsh and liable to break off negotiations, maybe even formal
> diplomatic relations, but nobody much needed to be told that at that
> point.
>
The quote may be only an approximation. It was recalled by the courier
who waited to take it back after FDR and Knox (or Stimpson) read it and
commented. I'm too lazy t look it up. But the 14th part was not there,
the one that ordered the presentation and destruction of the remaining
code machine by 1 PM Washington time... 7:30 or so in Hawaii, at that
time. A specific time and orders to destroy codes.
In "Pearl Harbor: Final Judgment" Gen. Short sounded like he was just
plain not interested even though defense of Hawaii was primarily his
responsibility. He wanted too command a ship. Besides, his wife was
bitchy and ....
Never mind; I'll have to read Prange. Thanks!
> Louann, who admittedly has never enraged a kiwi bird.
>
>
--
Skald the Rhymer
Let's check with Joan d'Arc on this. >>
She's busy being dead,so let's not bother her.
John Wilkins
> <<
> Let's check with Joan d'Arc on this. >>
>
>
> She's busy being dead,so let's not bother her.
She and Voltaire will be around again in a few thousand years, according
to the later _Foundation_ series...
--
John Wilkins
B'dies, Brutius
Robert Parson
<loua...@yahoo.net> wrote:
>I'll give you half of that. Most creationists are probably pro-war on
>the "anything labeled conservative is right" algorithm.
The Schlafly Brothers are split - Roger's pro-war, Andy is strongly
opposed. (Not too surprising, actually - Andy come across as a classic
paleoconservative, whereas Roger is more of a neoconservative with
some libertarian components.)
But more interesting than the war-talk is their ongoing argument about
human intelligence. Andy believes that humanity is getting more and
more stupid with each successive generation. He believes that this is
an ineluctable consequence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Roger thinks we're getting smarter, as demonstrated by the clear
superiority of English to all older languages.
-------
Robert
Gray Shockley
(in message <1fs678d.u7r7cq173s8ndN%wil...@wehi.edu.au>):
> Skald the Rhymer <mrmaxie...@aol.comnospam> wrote:
>
>> <<
>> Let's check with Joan d'Arc on this. >>
>>
>>
>> She's busy being dead,so let's not bother her.
>
> She and Voltaire will be around again in a few thousand years, according
> to the later _Foundation_ series...
I don't care if it's light or dark,
Long as I've got my Joan d'Arc,
Riding on . . . . . .
Gray
Richard Uhrich
> responsibility. He wanted to command a ship. Besides, his wife was
^^^^
Geez. He wanted a nice cushy army base. He considered Hawwaii the boonies.
Dick C
news:43618c0e.03032...@posting.google.com:
> rj11...@yahoo.com (donwizard) wrote in message
> news:<40cef689.03031...@posting.google.com>...
>> I'm curious to whether evolutionist take a stand for the US's war
>> with Iraq, against the war, or remain neutral. I would think
>> "neutral" would be the stand of the evolutionist. Just let the law
>> of natural selection work itself out. Is that the case? Thanks.
>
> Well, since you've already shown your true colors elsewhere in this
> thread, this response is probably useless, but what the hell....
>
> Substitute "evolutionist" (yuck) with "particle physicist", or any of
> a number of other branches of science, and see if your question sounds
> any more or less silly.
>
> What does this particular layman who accepts the theory of evolution
> as the most likely explanation for the origin of modern species (okay,
> okay, have it your way, "evolutionist") think about the war? I'm
> disappointed that Iraq could not be disarmed through diplomatic means,
> but realistic enough to accept that if it hasn't worked after 12
> years, it never will.
I can think of better ways to have handled the problem from the
beginning, and I can think of ways that we could still handle the
problem without going to war. I also am aware of the history preceeding
the original war, and our historical treatment of non Europeans.
I view this war as just more of the same. I was not, and still am
not happy with going to war. But I am realistic enough to realize that
we now need to support our people over there, and trust that they
will do the best they can.
From the way the start of the war sounds, it seems like Bush at least
is trying to do no more than he needs to to end Hussein.
Do I think Iraq poses a direct, credible threat
> to American citizens on US soil? No. Do I think Iraq poses a direct,
> credible threat to American citizens, allies, and interests in the
> Middle East? Yes.
I agree with the above. With the caveat that our war with Iraq
poses a direct and credible threat to the above.
Do I think Saddam Hussein is a murderous bastard
> who should be removed from power ASAP? Yes. Do I think this is the
> best possible way to do it? No. Do I think that a better solution is
> at hand? No. Do I like shooting first? No. Am I worried that there
> will be reprisals from terrorist cells in the US and abroad? Yes. Am
> I worried that there will be severe hell to pay if we go through with
> this and later find out Iraq really didn't have the WMD's we thought
> they did (not at all likely, but still)? Oh hell yes.
And I think that that there will be severe hell to pay even if he
does have the nasties. Not from him using them (which is a possibility)
but from the various peoples who do not want us over there to begin
with. People who seem to think that the people living in the area
should be allowed to decide their own destiny.
One of the things that should be apparent is that the best way to
counter bad regimes, and bad countries is to help everyone else
become prosperous and free without military force. On the other
hand we do need to step in and protect them when it needs to be
done. It needed to be done 12 years ago, now it is rather late.
>
> So call it reluctant support.
Same here.
>
> My fervent and unrealistic hope is that Hussein and his cronies will
> voluntarily leave, that whatever government replaces them will quickly
> move to destroy Iraq's MWD stocks, and that we'll all get along
> happily ever after. My realistic hope is that this war will be over
> quickly, with a minimum of casualties on both sides, and only minor
> destabilization throughout the region.
I see that Rumsfeld is negotiating with leading Iraqis about their
surrender. These people also include Republican Guards.
>
> The theory of evolution does not inform my personal ethics. Since I
> am an atheist, neither does religion. The Golden Rule, which is
> pretty much common sense, seems to work well for the majority of
> situations I encounter.
Oh so true. If only our present adminstration would try to remember
that.
--
Dick #1349
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
Andre Gide, French author and critic (1869-1951).
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: crav...@msn.com
Dick C
news:3e7a6fa5....@netnews.attbi.com:
Oh, man, there are just too many straight lines in there to even
try.
>
> http://schlafly.net/blog
>
> -------
> Robert
Dick C
news:3E7A39D8...@san.rr.com:
I never read the book, but as reality tends to show so often, the
truth is probably somewhere in between. It is easy to dismiss
intelligence, especially then when it was all to often false. It is
also easy to be somewhat uninformed when you are a commander, your
subordinates have to decide what to tell you. There were so many
places where we failed prior to the attack that it is almost impossible
to assign blame. It is far easier, and more productive, to see who
actually did the right thing and why.
I find it unfair to blame only a couple of people when virtually
the entire military and political structure failed so miserably.
One thing that led to this, I am sure, is the feeling of isolation
that America felt. Too far away from Europe to fight that war, and
too far away from Japan to be threatened by them. The only real
threat would be in the far east, and Japan was too smart to attack
any country as big as we are. This is also the feeling we all had
on September 10th, 2001.
John Wilkins
> In article <3e791126$0$49116$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>,
> anonymous <ve...@anonymous.nil> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >The US has made a descision. The UN has to get their crap sorted out.
> >Either stand up against the US for a good reason, or stand as one as the
> >International Community and get Saddam sorted out.
>
> Many members of the United Nations and many of America's closest
> allies have already chosen the first option - "stand up against
> the US for a good reason." Haven't you been paying attention?
>
I am profoundly divided over this war. On the one hand I want to see
nations behave under a rule of law, and to expect that authority is
granted by the international community and not on the whim of some small
coterie of military and ideological conspirators, which is how all wars
are begun and prosecuted. In that respect I am not happy that my country
has gone to war without UN mandate.
On the other hand, looking at the probable immediate outcome I am very
pleased to see a tyrant deposed (even if by the decisions of little men)
and a country's people restored to some semblance of civil society, even
if a liberal democracy is unlikely. The Kurds in the north have had a
dozen years of stable life due to the exclusion zones imposed by the US
and its allies. In that respect I am pleased that my country's military
are involved in a good cause, and expect of them that they will behave
with honour in the peace that follows.
Wars get fought - they are a fact of life. If a war has to be fought I'd
rather it was over something that generates a slight nobility of purpose
than to grab territory or win a slave population. As wars go, this one
isn't the worst we will see.
But then there is the high-flown morality of those who try to justify
the war, and their real motives. To begin with, I doubt that oil plays
that great a role - Bush's Texan oil cohort will not benefit from Iraqi
oil flowing, although the US and western economies might overall. Russia
had most to gain from Iraqi oil, and that is the reason why they
prevented the Security council vote.
I think that whatever the motivation of Bush (which is, I believe,
mostly family honour), or the neocons in the administration (a mix of
views based on Israeli regional interests, and wheels spinning from the
loss of the old enemies when the Cold War fell into disrepair), or the
Australians (which resolves to begging: "can we please get a better deal
for our agribusiness Mr Bush?") or the Brits (and it is, after all,
*their* mess in the first place); the war itself may in fact be a just
one. They aren't justified in prosecuting it, but liberating oppressed
peoples from tyranny is a Good Thing.
There is the broader problem that this is likely to divert attention and
resources from terrorism, but that was never going to be dealt with
militarily. If Bush & co have realised that, then this is a good thing.
Maybe they will start to realise that they have to deal more equitably
with parts of the world that they have overlooked or treated with
disdain, and start to act like a neighbour not a jailer or overbearing
parent. Probably not, though. Cynicism over what they understand and
intend is probably the most realistic way to approach them.
But whatever their moral capital or debt, whatever their self-serving
reasons, deposing Saddam is a good thing. I just wish that the
international community would take their responsibilities more seriously
and oppose nations that are aggressive and dangerous more often.
Occasionally, that includes western nations too. Nobody holds a moral
flush in their hand at this game anyway.
Oh, and in case the lunatics are listening; this has nothing whatsoever
to do with evolution - states are not individuals and they do not
compete in ways that affect their fitness; only the fitness of their
citizens and members get affected and it strikes all alike.
Laurence A. Moran
John Wilkins <john.w...@bigpond.com> wrote:
[snip]
>I am profoundly divided over this war. ...
I understand. Let me apologize, in advance, for snipping out most of
your excellent message in order to concetrate on one small point.
[snip]
>There is the broader problem that this is likely to divert attention
>and resources from terrorism, but that was never going to be dealt with
>militarily. If Bush & co have realised that, then this is a good thing.
>Maybe they will start to realise that they have to deal more equitably
>with parts of the world that they have overlooked or treated with
>disdain, and start to act like a neighbour not a jailer or overbearing
>parent.
How do you think they're doing so far? Is invading a second Muslim
nation a good beginning?
>Probably not, though. Cynicism over what they understand and
>intend is probably the most realistic way to approach them.
I see the answer to my question. Why wasn't the Australian government
more realistic and cynical like many other nations?
>But whatever their moral capital or debt, whatever their self-serving
>reasons, deposing Saddam is a good thing. I just wish that the
>international community would take their responsibilities more seriously
>and oppose nations that are aggressive and dangerous more often.
Many nations take their resonsibility very seriously. When you are
forced to choose between the lesser of two evils nobody wins. While
it may be a "good thing" to depose Saddam it isn't clear that this
action is in the best interests of the rest of the world at this time.
It would be nice if the world was a very simple place and we could
knock off every dictator whenever we feel like it. The reality is
very different and I like being realistic. :-)
There are some people who see the USA as an agressive and dangerous
nation. They wish that the international community would take their
responsibilities more seriously and oppose the reckless behaviour of
that extremely powerful nation. Maybe they're being too cynical?
Larry Moran
John Wilkins
> In article <1fs6lhr.1vkubefaswbe6N%john.w...@bigpond.com>,
> John Wilkins <john.w...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >I am profoundly divided over this war. ...
>
> I understand. Let me apologize, in advance, for snipping out most of
> your excellent message in order to concetrate on one small point.
>
> [snip]
>
> >There is the broader problem that this is likely to divert attention
> >and resources from terrorism, but that was never going to be dealt with
> >militarily. If Bush & co have realised that, then this is a good thing.
> >Maybe they will start to realise that they have to deal more equitably
> >with parts of the world that they have overlooked or treated with
> >disdain, and start to act like a neighbour not a jailer or overbearing
> >parent.
>
> How do you think they're doing so far? Is invading a second Muslim
> nation a good beginning?
Iran is a Muslim country? I thought it was a mix of Islamic (Shia and
Sunni), Kurdish, Christian (several kinds IIRC) and the odd other
variety. Did they enforce the Sharia? Was the Imam of Baghdad the head
of state? What?
Muslims seem to be objecting to the invasion of a *regional Arab*
nation.
And to answer your question, the plans being mooted for the
reconstruction of Iraw after the war sound like a good start. I would
love to see this done in Iraq, and aid given to Pakistan as well - so
many dangers would be averted if these countries could be *secular*
Muslim states (in the sense that the religious leadership and the
political were distinct) not run by the military.
>
> >Probably not, though. Cynicism over what they understand and
> >intend is probably the most realistic way to approach them.
>
> I see the answer to my question. Why wasn't the Australian government
> more realistic and cynical like many other nations?
Answered already - we want to get to trade more evenly. Actually, it is
entirely possible that the Australian government actually was convinced
by America on this - there is evidence the Prime Minister thinks George
Bush lightens rooms by mooning them. Hey, we elect leaders near the mode
of intelligence - he's as smart as your average TV slob, OK?
>
> >But whatever their moral capital or debt, whatever their self-serving
> >reasons, deposing Saddam is a good thing. I just wish that the
> >international community would take their responsibilities more seriously
> >and oppose nations that are aggressive and dangerous more often.
>
> Many nations take their resonsibility very seriously. When you are
> forced to choose between the lesser of two evils nobody wins. While
> it may be a "good thing" to depose Saddam it isn't clear that this
> action is in the best interests of the rest of the world at this time.
> It would be nice if the world was a very simple place and we could
> knock off every dictator whenever we feel like it. The reality is
> very different and I like being realistic. :-)
No, I do not want to see that. But I would like to see nations that
don't "play nice" with their neighbours (including those that are of
different religions) brought to book. Iraq invaded a neighbour, and
bombed another country (Israel), and fought a bloody war against one of
its other nations, at great cost to everyone. *That* we cannot tolerate
in a global village.
Dictatorships as such deserve to be overthrown by the citizens of a
country, and even if they approach Stalinesque proportions, it is not
the job of any other nation to directly intervene by force.
>
> There are some people who see the USA as an agressive and dangerous
> nation. They wish that the international community would take their
> responsibilities more seriously and oppose the reckless behaviour of
> that extremely powerful nation. Maybe they're being too cynical?
Well, if they continue to behave badly, I wish that the Security Council
would impose trade sanctions against the US. Then we could sell *our*
wheat competitively, if the US got the sanctions imposed for bombing
Europe ;-)
John Bode
[snip]
>
> Assuming we're actually different persons, do you mind if I borrow what you
> wrote to explain my own position?
>
Not at all. Feel free to improve upon it.
Louann Miller
Parson) wrote:
> The Schlafly Brothers ...
>But more interesting than the war-talk is their ongoing argument about
>human intelligence. Andy believes that humanity is getting more and
>more stupid with each successive generation. He believes that this is
>an ineluctable consequence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
>Roger thinks we're getting smarter, as demonstrated by the clear
>superiority of English to all older languages.
>
>http://schlafly.net/blog
I am SO glad I'm never likely to be invited to their family dinners.
Ian H Spedding
gr...@ediacara.org says...
>
> Louann Miller <loua...@yahoo.net> wrote:
[...]
> >They (in the sense of "the leaders of those countries") don't have
> >much choice. They're democracies. Their populations are generally
> >against the war as such. They have to listen to their bosses.
>
> Pace Tony Blair.
>
> When Chretien stood up and announced in Parliament that Canada would
> not join the U.S. invasion of Iraq, he was given a sustained ovation.
So was Robin Cook when he announced his resignation from the
British government. But if you look closely at the arguments he
deployed they don't stand up to critical scrutiny.
Ian
--
Ian H Spedding
Ian H Spedding
john.w...@bigpond.com says...
[...]
> I am profoundly divided over this war. On the one hand I want to see
> nations behave under a rule of law, and to expect that authority is
> granted by the international community and not on the whim of some small
> coterie of military and ideological conspirators, which is how all wars
> are begun and prosecuted. In that respect I am not happy that my country
> has gone to war without UN mandate.
We would all like an unequivocal mandate from our fellows, even
though a mandate already exists in previous UN resolutions. The
question is: just what exactly is the nature of of the UN's
authority apart from the approval of other countries?
[...]
> I think that whatever the motivation of Bush (which is, I believe,
> mostly family honour), or the neocons in the administration (a mix of
> views based on Israeli regional interests, and wheels spinning from the
> loss of the old enemies when the Cold War fell into disrepair), or the
> Australians (which resolves to begging: "can we please get a better deal
> for our agribusiness Mr Bush?") or the Brits (and it is, after all,
> *their* mess in the first place)
Oh no, it isn't! The Slavs started it. They shot Arch-Duke
Ferdinand.
[...]
> But whatever their moral capital or debt, whatever their self-serving
> reasons, deposing Saddam is a good thing. I just wish that the
> international community would take their responsibilities more seriously
> and oppose nations that are aggressive and dangerous more often.
> Occasionally, that includes western nations too. Nobody holds a moral
> flush in their hand at this game anyway.
Unfortunately, the will of the international community can only
be expressed through the United Nations and it rarely, if ever,
speaks with a single voice. It is largely impotent in the face
of a ruthless and single-minded despot and, that being the case,
what are we to do about such a person?
Ian H Spedding
loua...@yahoo.net says...
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2003 13:49:26 +0000 (UTC),
>
> >In article <3e791126$0$49116$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>,
> >anonymous <ve...@anonymous.nil> wrote:
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >>The US has made a descision. The UN has to get their crap sorted out.
> >>Either stand up against the US for a good reason, or stand as one as the
> >>International Community and get Saddam sorted out.
> >
> >Many members of the United Nations and many of America's closest
> >allies have already chosen the first option - "stand up against
> >the US for a good reason." Haven't you been paying attention?
>
> much choice. They're democracies. Their populations are generally
> against the war as such. They have to listen to their bosses.
They have to listen to them but they don't have to go along with
every outbreak of mass hysteria. Democracy is not mob rule.
Ian H Spedding
fn...@comcast.net says...
>
> Ian H Spedding <ian_sp...@lineone.net> wrote in message news:<MPG.18e3a475a...@news.CIS.DFN.DE>...
> >
> > In article <40cef689.03031...@posting.google.com>,
> > rj11...@yahoo.com says...
> > >
> > > I'm curious to whether evolutionist take a stand for the US's war with
> > > Iraq, against the war, or remain neutral. I would think "neutral"
> > > would be the stand of the evolutionist. Just let the law of natural
> > > selection work itself out. Is that the case? Thanks.
> >
> > I am an evilutionist and I also support the war against Saddam
> > Hussein and his regime, but the Theory of Evolution has no more
> > bearing on my position than Einstein's Theories of Relativity.
> >
> > By stretching the meaning of the word, you might make a case that
> > this war is a stage in the evolution of some form of
> > international authority with greater credibility and legitimacy
> > than the UN. But that's all.
[...]
> Megadittos (no I'm not a Rush fan even though I agree with him on many
> issues).
> I think that, on this ng at least, that the vocal defenders of
> evolution lean left, which is a correlation with mostly anti-war
> sentiment. Conversely, the vocal opponents of evolution lean right,
> which is a correlation with mostly pro-war sentiment. Though not as
> much as in the general population, there are, as you know, many
> exceptions here. Wonder what Average Joe thinks?
I thought the question was _does_ AJ think? But perhaps I'm
being too harsh. :)
I assume that most academics lean towards the liberal left which
is consistent with what we see on this group. I suspect they
would characterise me as right-wing because I support the war
against Saddam and I'm in favour of capital punishment. On the
other hand, I am for the legalisation of drugs and support a
woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. In
fact we're all probably a mixture of right- and left-wing views.
Louann Miller
<uhr...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>Louann Miller wrote:
><snip>
>
>Sorry to get so off-topic, but this is to interesting to drop.
>
>> If you want really _good_ conspiracy fodder, then the followup attack
>> on the Phillipines is a much more fertile soil than Pearl Harbor
>> itself. Douglas "hooray for me" MacArthur had a good eight hours
>> warning that Pearl Harbor had already been attacked -- exactly the
>> sort of warning Kimmel would have sold his soul for -- and still
>> managed to get caught with his planes on the ground. I'm always
>> surprised that more conspiracy buffs haven't latched onto that part of
>> it.
>
>Why did this happen? do you know what excuse MacArthur give?
I've honestly never heard; the one biography of his I've read
(Manchester, "American Caesar") doesn't give it much detail.
Ian H Spedding
lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca says...
[...]
> >They (in the sense of "the leaders of those countries") don't have
> >much choice. They're democracies. Their populations are generally
> >against the war as such. They have to listen to their bosses.
>
> That's correct. On the other hand, there are some leaders who support
> President Bush in spite of the fact that their populations oppose the
> war. The spin on these leaders is that they are very noble and brave
> for standing up for their principles in the face of massive public
> opposition. It seems that leaders who don't listen to their bosses
> are good guys as long as they do listen to Washington.
Some people here seem to be under the misapprehension that
democracy is some form of mob rule in which the government is
obliged to follow every popular whim, whatever the cost. It
isn't. Voters elect representatives to a legislature from which
an executive is formed. That executive has a mandate and a duty
to govern in what they decide is the best interests of the
nation. Ill-informed public opinion is not always a reliable
guide in such matters.
Louann Miller
I suspect that Bush may not think of that as disobeying their bosses
(foreign voters) but rather obeying their boss (him).
Matt Silberstein
>Laurence A. Moran <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
>> In article <3e791126$0$49116$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>,
>> anonymous <ve...@anonymous.nil> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >The US has made a descision. The UN has to get their crap sorted out.
>> >Either stand up against the US for a good reason, or stand as one as the
>> >International Community and get Saddam sorted out.
>>
>> Many members of the United Nations and many of America's closest
>> allies have already chosen the first option - "stand up against
>> the US for a good reason." Haven't you been paying attention?
>>
>I am profoundly divided over this war.
As am I. More about the potential after affects rather than the
war itself. The Admin position is that this domino will lead to
democracy in every nation in the region. I think it will lead to
the defeat of the fledgling Iranian democracy and instability for
a long time.
I should also make it clear that I have joined protests, written
letters, worn buttons, etc. I am divided, but when divided over
war I will oppose the war.
> On the one hand I want to see
>nations behave under a rule of law, and to expect that authority is
>granted by the international community and not on the whim of some small
>coterie of military and ideological conspirators, which is how all wars
>are begun and prosecuted. In that respect I am not happy that my country
>has gone to war without UN mandate.
There are arguments on both sides here. Saddam is "lawful" in
some sense, but in that sense I find law worthless. OTOH I really
wish my country had worked to support the authority of the U.N..
*That* would have been an important victory, even if the U.N. had
ended up not supporting war.
>On the other hand, looking at the probable immediate outcome I am very
>pleased to see a tyrant deposed (even if by the decisions of little men)
>and a country's people restored to some semblance of civil society, even
>if a liberal democracy is unlikely.
If the war is very short and the elite units survive whole, the
Baathists will remain in power. If they are destroyed the country
will have a civil war. No democracy will result.
> The Kurds in the north have had a
>dozen years of stable life due to the exclusion zones imposed by the US
>and its allies. In that respect I am pleased that my country's military
>are involved in a good cause, and expect of them that they will behave
>with honour in the peace that follows.
The only good thing is that the Turks have stayed out, which
reduces the chances of Turkish action against the Kurds. An
independent Kurdistan would be great, except that Turkey would
kill thousands to prevent it.
>Wars get fought - they are a fact of life. If a war has to be fought I'd
>rather it was over something that generates a slight nobility of purpose
>than to grab territory or win a slave population. As wars go, this one
>isn't the worst we will see.
>
>But then there is the high-flown morality of those who try to justify
>the war, and their real motives. To begin with, I doubt that oil plays
>that great a role - Bush's Texan oil cohort will not benefit from Iraqi
>oil flowing, although the US and western economies might overall. Russia
>had most to gain from Iraqi oil, and that is the reason why they
>prevented the Security council vote.
I agree. The Texas people would prefer no Iraqi oil flow. That
would bump up the price of their oil.
>I think that whatever the motivation of Bush (which is, I believe,
>mostly family honour), or the neocons in the administration (a mix of
>views based on Israeli regional interests, and wheels spinning from the
>loss of the old enemies when the Cold War fell into disrepair),
I have heard this "Israeli" argument and I don't quite see it.
Israel would certainly like Iraq gone, Iraq does support
terrorism against Israel. But the instability of the war do not
do Israel any good. OTOH I just read an interesting article in
the _New Yorker_ (profiles _The Prince_ by Elsa Walsh, March 24,
2003) about Prince Bandar bin Sultan, Saudi ambassador to the
U.S. The article presents a *very* close relationship between
Bush, and his inner circle, and this prince. I wonder if the
Saudis want this war and Israel, possibly with their consent, are
the public explanation not the real explanation.
>or the
>Australians (which resolves to begging: "can we please get a better deal
>for our agribusiness Mr Bush?") or the Brits (and it is, after all,
>*their* mess in the first place); the war itself may in fact be a just
>one. They aren't justified in prosecuting it, but liberating oppressed
>peoples from tyranny is a Good Thing.
>
>There is the broader problem that this is likely to divert attention and
>resources from terrorism, but that was never going to be dealt with
>militarily. If Bush & co have realised that, then this is a good thing.
>Maybe they will start to realise that they have to deal more equitably
>with parts of the world that they have overlooked or treated with
>disdain, and start to act like a neighbour not a jailer or overbearing
>parent. Probably not, though. Cynicism over what they understand and
>intend is probably the most realistic way to approach them.
>
>But whatever their moral capital or debt, whatever their self-serving
>reasons, deposing Saddam is a good thing.
Only if someone better replaces him. Given our (i.e. the U.S.)
willingness to hand prisoners over to torturers I am not sure
someone better will get to rule Iraq.
> I just wish that the
>international community would take their responsibilities more seriously
>and oppose nations that are aggressive and dangerous more often.
The error was in Somalia and the Rwanda. The U.S. took 18 deaths
in Somalia and gave up any use of force. So we saw genocide in
Bosnia and Rwanda. I will the U.S. had stepped in like a hammer
(ok, a mixed metaphor) in the beginning in Bosnia. Much
difficulty would have been avoided. And it is a crime that we did
nothing in Rwanda.
>Occasionally, that includes western nations too. Nobody holds a moral
>flush in their hand at this game anyway.
>
>Oh, and in case the lunatics are listening; this has nothing whatsoever
>to do with evolution - states are not individuals and they do not
>compete in ways that affect their fitness; only the fitness of their
>citizens and members get affected and it strikes all alike.
--
Matt Silberstein TBC HRL OMM