Could the culture war become civil war?

[SOS2008]

I really don't believe that someone as aggressive and militant as you could be a reverend.

If the culture war becomes a civil war then I will become a casualty.

I will not compromise my beliefs, nor will I take up arms against fellow humans.

Rev Prez isn't a reverend, but no matter, I believe he's been banned. To which I gave my eulogy:

At last the weeping and wailing of a vigil comes to an end, the candles snuffed out…now only about 59,146,826 more to go…

 

[Astronuc]

I am a conservative and I want students to hear this discussion. You are a liberal and you want students to be shielded from this discussion.

Not quite - liberals want an 'honest' and factual discussion.

SOS2008, I'll bet my bottom dollar that you are drop-dead gorgeous.

Yes, she is!

You'd have to be- because A) no man with a spine would give you the time of day based on the quality of your ideas alone, and B) you're not bitter at all, so there must be at least one man (with a spine) in your life.

What's with the personal attack? SOS happens to be a very fine lady - outspoke and strong-willed perhaps - but nevertheless a very fine lady.

Edit: Oh yes, I almost forgot- The culture war has been a civil war for a long time. It's just that the shooting hasn't started yet. No wonder the left is so big on gun control- they need something to level the playing field.

No- I'm saying that people on the left can't shoot people on the right
unless they disarm them first, hence the left's obsession with eliminating
the right to keep and bear arms. The playing field of reason is what's
not level for the left. Their main weapon in the culture war is usually
an appeal to one's (com)passions.

Interestingly, I often observe that it is those on the so-called 'right' who mention the use of violence - guns, bombs, nuking cities! I have yet to see someone on the so-called 'left' advocating violence. Certainly SOS or pattylou have not advocated violence.

Incidentally, I have heard more inflammatory rhetoric and propaganda from the 'right' than from the 'left'.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What doesn't belong in a science class is the hypothesis that they were created by divine intervention, as that simply isn't a scientific hypothesis.

That is an interesting statement. If we were in fact designed, then, if the scientific method works, wouldn't it lead us to the concept of a designer? You seem to be saying that science can only work if there is no God. If it could be shown that no known physical processes can account for life on earth, if we find that for some reason it is not possible for this all to happen by accident, then isn't the concept of intelligent design reasonable to suggest under the constraints of science?

 

[Archon]

That is an interesting statement. If we were in fact designed, then, if the scientific method works, wouldn't it lead us to the concept of a designer? You seem to be saying that science can only work if there is no God. If it could be shown that no known physical processes can account for life on earth, if we find that for some reason it is not possible for this all to happen by accident, then isn't the concept of intelligent design reasonable to suggest under the constraints of science?

If no known processes could account for life on earth, then our first assumption would be that some unknown (but still "non-Divine") process accounts for it. The scientific method would only allow us to accept Intelligent Design if we could show that there is absolutely no other possibility. This will (probably) never happen. Showing that there are no possibilities to the best of our knowledge is not enough to satisfy any sort of scientific rigor.

 

[Skyhunter]

That is an interesting statement. If we were in fact designed, then, if the scientific method works, wouldn't it lead us to the concept of a designer? You seem to be saying that science can only work if there is no God. If it could be shown that no known physical processes can account for life on earth, if we find that for some reason it is not possible for this all to happen by accident, then isn't the concept of intelligent design reasonable to suggest under the constraints of science?

Darwin never suggested that there was not a creator. It is my understanding that he believed in God and like many scientists has no problem reconciling science and religion.

And what about un-intelligent design?

Take rabbit digestion, for example. As herbivores, rabbits need help from bacteria to break down the cell walls of the plants they eat, so, cleverly enough, they have a large section of intestine where such bacterial fermentation takes place. The catch is, it's at the far end of the small intestine, beyond where efficient absorption of nutrients can happen. A sensible system -- as we see in ruminant animals like cattle and deer -- ferments before the small intestine, maximizing nutrient absorption. Rabbits, having to make do with an unintelligent system, instead eat some of their own feces after one trip through, sending half-digested food back through the small intestine for re-digestion.

complete article
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c...2DK21.DTL&hw=intelligent+design&sn=007&sc=394

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This will (probably) never happen. Showing that there are no possibilities to the best of our knowledge is not enough to satisfy any sort of scientific rigor.

This obliquely assumes that the notion of intelligent design is excluded by science. My point was that if, based on the evidence, the proposition of ID is as or more likely than any other explanations, if for some reason this is the case one day, then it is not anti-science to follow that line of reasoning and look for any evidence of ID. Science cannot speak to issues of a God unless we find evidence for one. I agree that the lack of a complete theory of evolution would not be evidence for ID, but if, for example, "unguided evolution" was somehow shown to be statistically impossible, then I think this could be interpreted as evidence for ID.

 

[Archon]

This obliquely assumes that the notion of intelligent design is excluded by science. My point was that if, based on the evidence, the proposition of ID is as or more likely than any other explanations, if for some reason this is the case one day, then it is not anti-science to follow that line of reasoning and look for any evidence of ID. Science cannot speak to issues of a God unless we find evidence for one. I agree that the lack of a complete theory of evolution would not be evidence for ID, but if, for example, "unguided evolution" was somehow shown to be statistically impossible, then I think this could be interpreted as evidence for ID.

Like I said in some previous post, it's entirely possible that the development of life on Earth was "statistically impossible." But this is not evidence of Intelligent Design because regardless of how unlikely this was, it may have happened. We could at some point in the future find evidence that it was virtually impossible for humans to develop without a "creator." But we won't be able to differentiate between intelligent design and our unlikely but still possible spontaneous development. In both cases, the end result is the same and no "traces" are left.

I don't necessarily disagree with Intelligent Design. I just think that there's no way we'll ever know whether it's the real explanation or not. This is why it shouldn't be taught as science: there's no way for us to know with any reasonable degree of certainty whether or not it is a valid theory. It can't be tested in the usual sense.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well, obviously this is all completely hypothetical, but just for the sake of what-ifs, what if evidence was left by a designer? My basic objection is that science does not assume the lack of designer, rather, most scientists feel that we have a fairly comprehensive model that accounts for life without the need for a designer. Were there evidence to the contrary we could address this question just as any other - through the application of the scientific method. The original comments suggested that science implicity excludes the possibility of an ID, which I think is completely wrong, but I would agree that most scientists feel that it appears to eliminate the need for ID explicitly; based on the evidence.

 

[Archon]

It's not that science excludes the possibility of an intelligent designer. Rather, science (probably) cannot be used to determine whether there is an intelligent designer, so the theory of Intelligent Design is currently outside the realm of science. It's true that if evidence existed that life was created by an intelligent designer, then we could apply the scientific method. But no such evidence has been found yet, and thus, supporting I.D. is an act of faith. Much as supporting evolution would be if we had no evidence to support it.

 

[The Smoking Man]

It's not that science excludes the possibility of an intelligent designer. Rather, science (probably) cannot be used to determine whether there is an intelligent designer, so the theory of Intelligent Design is currently outside the realm of science. It's true that if evidence existed that life was created by an intelligent designer, then we could apply the scientific method. But no such evidence has been found yet, and thus, supporting I.D. is an act of faith. Much as supporting evolution would be if we had no evidence to support it.

So ... it follows then that a geneticist IS an intelligent designer.

On the contrary ... Men have nipples. Where is the inteligence in that?

 

[Archon]

So ... it follows then that a geneticist IS an intelligent designer.

A geneticist alters life, but does not create it. Anyway, I didn't say anything about intelligent designers except that there is no evidence for them. Specifically, I mean an intelligent designer that created or influenced the creation of life in our universe on a large scale.

On the contrary ... Men have nipples. Where is the inteligence in that?

Further evidence against intelligent design. Either that, or your nipples serve some purpose that you don't understand yet.

 

[outsider]

On the contrary ... Men have nipples. Where is the inteligence in that?

LOL! Why don't you design a new man with all the necessities? I'd be willing to donate my brain and let the women do the thinking for me... I'm tired! :zzz:

 

[Smurf]

So.. if men have nipples... does that mean that we have routes in asexual organisms?

hmmm, I guess we must have since originally we should have had to have evolved from bacteria.

Still, it's interesting, in what other species to males have nipples (or any gender with any redundant organs)

 

[outsider]

So.. if men have nipples... does that mean that we have routes in asexual organisms?

hmmm, I guess we must have since originally we should have had to have evolved from bacteria.

Still, it's interesting, in what other species to males have nipples (or any gender with any redundant organs)

I've never found nipples on my dog, nor do steer have udders

 

[Skyhunter]

So ... it follows then that a geneticist IS an intelligent designer.

On the contrary ... Men have nipples. Where is the inteligence in that?

On a personal note I would like to say that spreading the erogenous zones to parts of the body other than the sex organs is intelligent design.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I've never found nipples on my dog,

Ummm ... You LOOKED!?

Gocha!

 

[outsider]

Ummm ... You LOOKED!?

Gocha!

Yeah you got me! LOL! He's got no nutsack either FYI... poor kid

 

[SOS2008]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8950293/

Christian groups hold ‘Justice Sunday II’
Latest conservative rally takes aim at judicial activism

...“We’ve seen a conservative president get re-elected, the conservative Congressional base expand. The (Supreme) Court is part of a cultural problem,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, the organization responsible for “Justice Sunday II: God Save the United States and this Honorable Court!”

Time to play what's wrong with this picture. The answer below:

Rita Nakashima Brock, founder of Faith Voices for the Common Good, said at the counter gathering that “Justice Sunday II” called for a theocracy instead of democracy.

 

[Skyhunter]

Here is the latest from Crawford Texas

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/08/17/sheehan1/index.html

Meanwhile, police have filed a criminal charge against the the man who allegedly expressed his displeasure with Sheehan's protest by driving his pickup truck through rows of crosses bearing the names of soldiers killed in Iraq. Larry Northern, a 59-year-old resident of Waco, Texas, was charged with felony criminal mischief. Police say he ran over 500 crosses and 40 American flags to make his point.

What a way to support the troops.

I'll bet he supports and amendment to ban flag burning too.

 

[Amp1]

I agree that's not the way to support the troops. We could do better by providing them with what they were promised when they signed on to serve Bu... oops our country.

 

[TRCSF]

Here is the latest from Crawford Texas

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/08/17/sheehan1/index.html


What a way to support the troops.

I'll bet he supports and amendment to ban flag burning too.

Yuck. Reminds me of when Ron Kovic got spat on during by a delegate at the Republican National Convention.

 

[alexandra]

Here is the latest from Crawford Texas

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/08/17/sheehan1/index.html


What a way to support the troops.

I'll bet he supports and amendment to ban flag burning too.

An interesting development:

Vigils to support Sheehan protest

More than 1,000 anti-war vigils are to take place around the United States in support of a bereaved mother protesting outside President Bush's Texas ranch.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4160032.stm

 

[SOS2008]

Unfortunately the wacko from Waco typifies many Bush supporters. They are clueless about what real patriotism is, and what freedom and democracy are. When they say support our troops, we know they are really saying support Bush.

 

[TRCSF]

Unfortunately the wacko from Waco typifies many Bush supporters. They are clueless about what real patriotism is, and what freedom and democracy are. When they say support our troops, we know they are really saying support Bush.

Of course. I sure hope that nobody's really surprised this happened. The guy who did this is getting all sorts of support from rightwingers. Rightwing pundits like Limbaugh are jumping up and down on Cindy Sheehan.

 

[SOS2008]

Of course. I sure hope that nobody's really surprised this happened. The guy who did this is getting all sorts of support from rightwingers. Rightwing pundits like Limbaugh are jumping up and down on Cindy Sheehan.

What this shows is that hate rhetoric is linked with right-wing conservatives far more than liberals (per discussions in the thread on Clear Channel), which started with the likes of Limbaugh. That their true colors are being shown for all to see (like those who intervened in the Schiavo incident) is fine with me. I hope they will finally go the way of the KKK and be shunned by all civil Americans.

 

[TRCSF]

I hope they will finally go the way of the KKK and be shunned by all civil Americans.

I sure hope the pendulum keeps swinging that way. It's started to. God knows I'm sick of James Dobson and his hate group getting legitimate air time.

 

[BobG]

I sure hope the pendulum keeps swinging that way. It's started to. God knows I'm sick of James Dobson and his hate group getting legitimate air time.

I really don't care to care to defend James Dobson and his Focus on the Family organization. If they stayed out of politics, I probably wouldn't care one way or the other about them. But your comment does make me curious.

What is the criteria is for being labeled a hate group?

 

[Smurf]

A hate group is an organized group or movement that advocates hate, hostility or violence towards one or more groups of people or organizations usually upon spurious grounds and despite a wider consensus that these people are not necessarily better or worse than any others.

 

[BobG]

A hate group is an organized group or movement that advocates hate, hostility or violence towards one or more groups of people or organizations usually upon spurious grounds and despite a wider consensus that these people are not necessarily better or worse than any others.

Is Howard Dean leading a anti-Republican hate group? His comments about Republicans is hostile, sometimes even derogatory. Or is there a lack of consensus about whether Republicans are better or worse than any others? Is being Republican a sign of inferior intelligence? (I could have said the same about Mehlman and Democrats - the particular party isn't the point)

I only raise the point because I would normally consider the 'hostility' to mean verbal violence - slurs and suggestions that the world would be better off if a certain group were wiped off the face of the Earth, etc. Basically, a form of violence committed by groups afraid to actually act out the physical violence they'd like to dish out.

It made we wonder what Focus on the Family had done to qualify as a hate group. They're definitely anti-gay - they think homosexuality is a sin and say so quite publicly. They were active in pushing anti-homosexual legislation in several states. And accusing cartoon characters of homosexuality is ... well ... weird. Considering legislative laws can have a bigger effect on a group than isolated incidents of violence, does that qualify them as a hate group?

 

[Smurf]

Well everyone's interpretation is valid, but I would say that yes, yes and yes. There are many hate groups involving themselves in American politics these days.