|
Grex > Agora35 > #18: The 2000 presidential campaign item | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 406 responses total. |
tod
|
|
response 58 of 406:
| 
Sep 26 17:46 UTC 2000 |
I'd like to repeat that evolution is a theory just like creationism.
Calling evolution and science the same is insulting.
(re #41)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 59 of 406:
|
Sep 26 18:00 UTC 2000 |
I see you have been brainwashed by the creationists. Evolution, to
science, is a fact. The theories being debated concern mechanisms.
There is overwhelming evidence for the fact of evolution; there is
not evidence for the assertions of creationism, which is just biblical
mythologies.
|
tod
|
|
response 60 of 406:
|
Sep 26 18:21 UTC 2000 |
I said BOTH are theory. My disagreement with you is hardly enough
reason for you to label me as a creationist. I would think that anyone
with a 'scientific' mind would question ALL and never ASSUME.
There is evidence on both counts, but the truth is that both are
just theories.
|
jazz
|
|
response 61 of 406:
|
Sep 26 18:52 UTC 2000 |
(although this is the 2000 campaign item)
It's deceptive in the extreme to say that "evolution is just a theory"
and to say that "there is evidence on both counts". Gravity, by that
standard of presentation, is just a theory, and there is evidence that you
could fly by sheer willpower, but I wouldn't go walking off of a cliff any
time soon.
|
md
|
|
response 62 of 406:
|
Sep 26 19:29 UTC 2000 |
I agree with Rane. [clutches throat and falls to floor]
|
polygon
|
|
response 63 of 406:
|
Sep 26 19:34 UTC 2000 |
Re 51. Yes, the Whig party was pretty much replaced by the Republican
Party; the large majority of the early Republican candidates and voters
were former Whigs.
In the South, the picture is more complicated; though most ex-Whigs became
Democrats, a lot of the Southern Republican leaders of the 1877-1963
period (between Reconstruction and Civil Rights) came from former Whig
families. Not that being a Republican leader in the Deep South was worth
much in that era.
Re 52. That observation is not original with me; I got it from Garry
Wills.
Yup, the coalitions change over time, partly because of political
opportunities, but partly because the country changes, too.
Re 53. I didn't really mean it was strictly "necessary" to vote for
candidates of the two major parties; it is only necessary if you want to
have an impact on immediate-term policies.
I like to say that many political and social issues are conflicts between
what is "necessary" and what is "important". "Necessary" refers to
claims about practical reality; "important" refers to claims about
basic values.
Building a freeway is necessary; protecting a historic building in its
path is important. Raising taxes is necessary; reducing taxes is
important. Jobs (even in polluting industries) are necessary; the
environment (even at economic cost) is important. Regulating guns is
necessary; protecting gun freedom is important. Legal abortion (or the
death penalty) is necessary; preserving life (even unborn or criminals) is
important. [Yeah, yeah, you can quibble with all of those.]
What usually happens is that "necessary" wins all the battles, and
"important" wins the war.
For a politically liberal person, voting for Gore is necessary, but voting
for Nader is important.
|
flem
|
|
response 64 of 406:
|
Sep 26 19:45 UTC 2000 |
On the subject of politics.... Ever since the conclusion of the
Republican primary, I had been planning on voting for Gore. I'm
not really impressed by Gore, and I'd have liked to have the luxury
of voting for Nader or Choate or Mary Remmers, but the notion of
Bush on the presidential throne offended me in so many ways
that I was ready to throw myself on the grenade of voting for
Gore.
I still lean in that direction. It still boggles my mind that
someone who has demonstrated such complete lack of personal
ability as Bush is seriously being considered as our national
leader, but I'm less *afraid* of the notion than I used to be.
From the looks of this campaign, it seems unlikely that the
Republican party leaders are likely to loosen their grip on Bush
enough to allow him to make many actual *mistakes*. (Assuming,
for the moment, that one doesn't consider the actual policies of
the Republican party to be mistakes, which is clearly a poor
assumption indeed...) But it still seems that it would be
embarrassing for the United States, self-proclaimed leader of the
Free World, to have such an obvious puppet president.
On the other hand, Gore's conduct in this campaign has been depressing
enough to make me seriously reconsider whether it would not be
just as much of an embarrassment and a disaster for him to be
elected as Bush. I'm not quite convinced of that yet, but if he
keeps spouting this much crap about how immoral the entertainment
industry is, mary may yet get my vote.
|
md
|
|
response 65 of 406:
|
Sep 26 19:50 UTC 2000 |
If Nader draws away enough of the liberal (environmentalist,
consumerist, and all the rest) vote to cost Gore the election, then
that will have a huge near- and long-term effect on Democrat party
politics. For one thing, you'll see the party's drift to the right
come to a screeching halt. Would it be worth having a Bush
administration for four years? Fuckin' A, as they say on mnet.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 66 of 406:
|
Sep 26 19:53 UTC 2000 |
Some "theories" have more evidence than others. The "theory" of
gravitation was mentioned, for which there is overwhelming evidence (one
can navigate to Jupiter and take pictures, based upon the theory of
graviation, though a little relativity correction is necessary if you want
to be very accurate). Quantum "theory" in some cases agrees with
observation to 10 significant figures. (Interestingly, exactly *why*
these theories are so good is not known - we have only crude theories of
what the *causes* of gravity and quantum effects are, but they are great
theories for applications.)
Now, what "theory" in creationism agrees with anything and is useful for
predicting anything?
"They are both just theories" is a favorite rallying cry of creationists,
who have no idea what a theory is in science, but it appeals to a few of
the unthinking lay public. A theory is a mental construction, which covers
everything from quantum mechanics to astrology. But is it a "good" or
useful theory? Evolution is a good theory because the observed progress
of life over the millenia is consistent with it and every test of it has
been supportive. Creationism is a bad theory because it agrees with
nothing and there has never been a successful test of it.
|
md
|
|
response 67 of 406:
|
Sep 26 20:01 UTC 2000 |
I agree with Rane again. [starts to turn slightly blue around the lips]
|
tod
|
|
response 68 of 406:
|
Sep 26 20:07 UTC 2000 |
Then we agree that evolution is not a fact, thus calling it only a theory
does not make one anti-science.
It's sad to see the disapproval of evolution as fact being chastised
as a creationist attempt rather than just a truthful stance.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 69 of 406:
|
Sep 26 20:07 UTC 2000 |
Aw, I think we could find instances if we searched the past half dozen
agoras where you have agreed with me, and it wasn't fatal. I think
there was even an instance, or two, when I agreed with you, and I'm
still alive and kicking and thinking.
|
tod
|
|
response 70 of 406:
|
Sep 26 20:15 UTC 2000 |
See, if you asked nicely, you'd realize that my believe on the origin
of the human species is not aligned with either evolution or creationism. It
involves felines.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 71 of 406:
|
Sep 26 20:15 UTC 2000 |
Agreed: evolution is a much better theory than creationism.
But when Todd baited you with the "they're both just theories" line,
(I'm pretty sure he knows the relative merits of each theory and was
simply trolling..) you panicked and declared "Evolution, to science,
is a fact." On the face of it that statement is almost as ridiculous
as a creationist declaring that creationism is fact according to their
god's revealed and infallible word and it's far less excusable in your
case -- we expect you to know better..
|
rcurl
|
|
response 72 of 406:
|
Sep 26 20:16 UTC 2000 |
Scientists call theories for which there is no contrary evidence "facts".
Scientists are also aware that new information may arise that contradicts
such a "fact", in which case they quite readily "go back to the drawing
board". No creationist has ever done that. They just hold rigidly forever
to their discredited "theories".
What calling such well established ideas "only a theory" does is create an
illusion in the listeners uninformed mind that said theory is not an
excellent description or explanation. By saying that scientific
explanations are *also* just theories, they attempt to divert scrutiny
from their own hopelessly inadequate ideas. It is just a rhetorical ploy,
not a critical evaluation.
|
jazz
|
|
response 73 of 406:
|
Sep 26 20:18 UTC 2000 |
It's the rhetorical analogy of asking someone if they've stopped
beating their wife recently.
|
md
|
|
response 74 of 406:
|
Sep 26 20:20 UTC 2000 |
[eyes roll back in head, breathing becomes shallow and irregular]
|
rcurl
|
|
response 75 of 406:
|
Sep 26 20:23 UTC 2000 |
(Applying CPR.)
|
k8
|
|
response 76 of 406:
|
Sep 26 20:30 UTC 2000 |
I'm voting David McReynolds. No question.
|
tod
|
|
response 77 of 406:
|
Sep 26 20:30 UTC 2000 |
In laymen's terms, Rane is just stomping his feet about his false declaration
on evolution being a fact.
"By saying that scientific
explanations are *also* just theories, they attempt to divert scrutiny
from their own hopelessly inadequate ideas."
|
flem
|
|
response 78 of 406:
|
Sep 26 20:40 UTC 2000 |
> Scientists call theories for which there is no contrary evidence
> "facts".
Scientists who do so are guilty of a gross and unjustifiable abuse
of terminology, and contribute significantly to the general belief
among mathematicians that scientists are sloppy thinkers. :)
|
tod
|
|
response 79 of 406:
|
Sep 26 20:50 UTC 2000 |
Agreed.
|
bruin
|
|
response 80 of 406:
|
Sep 26 21:07 UTC 2000 |
Who is David McReynolds?
|
gull
|
|
response 81 of 406:
|
Sep 26 21:54 UTC 2000 |
Re #45:
But if Nader is able to get 15% (I think that's the number) of the popular
vote, the Green Party will be included in debates during the next race.
That has the potential to at least raise the intelligence level a bit; the
Republicrats won't be able to simply spout their usual scripts, they'll
actually have someone challenging their assumptions for a change.
Re #46:
> Btw, anyone thinking of voting for Ralph Nader had better take a hard
> look at the Green Party platform first. There is a lot of good stuff
> in it, but also a *lot* of bullshit.
--> 95% of *any* party platform is pure bullshit. Compare what Clinton or
Bush promised before their elections to what they actually got done. Don't
expect it to be any different this time around.
Re #47:
> What is real, what is a fact, is that the next president of the United
> States will be either george w. bush or al gore. That is the reality we
> will have to live with for the next four years. People's lives and
> freedoms are at stake. Our economic prosperity and freedoms could be
> at stake. It is irresponsible to ourselves and ourchildren of future
> generations to look at this election, and effectively either sititout
> or avoid the issue, by not making the real choice.
--> This reminds me of a Simpsons episode where the two major candidates are
replaced by evil space aliens. This is discovered before the election, but
one of them is voted in *anyway* because no one wants to "throw their vote
away" by voting for a third party.
I'm sick of having to settle for voting for the lesser of two evils,
especially when there's so little difference between the two major parties
anymore. One of the reasons we *don't* ever have any major change is that
people think the way you do. It's getting dangerously close to Soviet
elections, where there was only one candidate on the ballot but you were
expected to go vote for them anyway.
Like I said, I'm willing to risk it. If the country survived eight years of
Reagan, it'll make it through four years of Bush.
Re #48:
> and if Ralph Nader really wanted to be president,he'd have run in the
> democratic primary, where he'd havefoundlots of supportand he'd have been
> in debatesand been vetted as to experience and ideas.
--> He wouldn't have a chance in the Democratic primary, and he knew it.
Bradley was a better candidate than Gore in most ways, but everyone knew
Gore would win the primary because he has name recognition. Some thing with
Bush and McCain. You can't win a primary if you're trying to buck the party
machinery. Nader's criticisms of campaign funding would also ring pretty
hollow if he were a member of *either* major party -- McCain suffered that
credibility problem. He was basically saying, "I don't think it's right to
do what I've just been doing."
|
rcurl
|
|
response 82 of 406:
|
Sep 26 23:17 UTC 2000 |
Re #s77, 78, 79: you can write pompously all you want, but it is a "fact"
that most scientists would consider the "fact" that the earth rotates
mainly around the sun is, in fact, a fact. Do you deny this, and yourself
consider it "just a theory"? The "fact" of evolution is just as well
established as heliocentricity.
|