Geez. First politics, now religion. Yeah, we would probably get along much better in person, because I would avoid these topics like the plague.
Heh,heh! Sorry, but I decided, about 15 years ago, that the "social ban" on discussing politics and religion is a self imposed censorship. They are really the most important topics regarding human affairs, yet "cultivated" people "know better" than to bring them up at cocktail parties and label you a bore, should you break the unwritten code.
Poppycock.
Our founding fathers certainly had no problem discussing both at length. Maybe that explains the almost "superhuman" wisdom contained in the constitution.
The tie-in to the OP is this: You can discern the BIG PICTURE with a lack of evidence. Lack of evidence is evidence in its own right.
That's a dangerous precedent to set. Most of the really far out conspiracy theories rely on it as a premise: "Well, there's no proof that Islamists were behind 9/11; it's much more likely that the US government did it."
I'll be blunt: Islam is a greater threat to the world today than Nazism was in the mid 1930's.
Islam in and of itself is not a threat. Islamism (fundamentalist Islam) certainly could be considered a threat, but if you look at all the problems in the world, more of them tie back to the world's insatiable thirst for oil than any religion.
That said, Islamism will be the cause of the next nuclear war. Whether Iran or Israel shoots first is somewhat moot; it won't be pretty.
I'll be blunt: Islam is a greater threat to the world today than Nazism was in the mid 1930's.
Islam in and of itself is not a threat. Islamism (fundamentalist Islam) certainly could be considered a threat, but if you look at all the problems in the world, more of them tie back to the world's insatiable thirst for oil than any religion.
That said, Islamism will be the cause of the next nuclear war. Whether Iran or Israel shoots first is somewhat moot; it won't be pretty.
That article is a bit too long to read at work, so I'll just scream loudly that I'm right and you're wrong, and your mother was Hitler's concubine.
That should effectively end all reasonable discourse.
That article is a bit too long to read at work, so I'll just scream loudly that I'm right and you're wrong, and your mother was Hitler's concubine.
That should effectively end all reasonable discourse.
Yeah, it is long. I had to set aside some time to really grasp the whole thing. It is VERY convincing though.
Oh, and the new obligatory tag needs to be included here: You sound like a Nazi!
That's a good idea. I think I shall add a balloon coming out of my pet elephant shrew's mouth saying "you smell like a Nazi, and your dog does to."
I feel about the same about folks writing at FreeRepublic as you feel about folks with pony-tails. The difference is that my opinion is based on what they actually write instead of what they look like.
That's a good idea. I think I shall add a balloon coming out of my pet elephant shrew's mouth saying "you smell like a Nazi, and your dog does to."
I feel about the same about folks writing at FreeRepublic as you feel about folks with pony-tails. The difference is that my opinion is based on what they actually write instead of what they look like.
Heh, heh. Mine is a euphemism. It actually IS based on what they write and say. It is just that there is this "look" that often goes with it. I am a HUGE proponent of stereotyping and/or "profiling". At least initially. It is a valuable tool in both sales and law enforcement. It has it's flaws, but they are far overtaken by it's advantages. And they are real!
I definitely think you should add the bubble though.
Also, there are a lot of nutcases at Freerepublic. But then, there are at the NYT as well. And it cannot be denied that Freerepublic broke the Dan Rather forged documents story.
Heh,heh! Sorry, but I decided, about 15 years ago, that the "social ban" on discussing politics and religion is a self imposed censorship. They are really the most important topics regarding human affairs, yet "cultivated" people "know better" than to bring them up at cocktail parties and label you a bore, should you break the unwritten code.
Poppycock.
I agree with you there. Still, I keep mum on all political talk around longtime friends of mine who think it's perfectly okay for the Constitution to be flouted. They spout their views, but I learned that if I ever question their views, they change the subject (just like the religious do).
The tie-in to the OP is this: You can discern the BIG PICTURE with a lack of evidence. Lack of evidence is evidence in its own right.
That's a dangerous precedent to set. Most of the really far out conspiracy theories rely on it as a premise: "Well, there's no proof that Islamists were behind 9/11; it's much more likely that the US government did it."
So you're okay with warring based on a lack of evidence? Like, if Saddam didn't prove that he had no WMDs?
The tie-in to the OP is this: You can discern the BIG PICTURE with a lack of evidence. Lack of evidence is evidence in its own right.
That's a dangerous precedent to set. Most of the really far out conspiracy theories rely on it as a premise: "Well, there's no proof that Islamists were behind 9/11; it's much more likely that the US government did it."
So you're okay with warring based on a lack of evidence? Like, if Saddam didn't prove that he had no WMDs?
No, not at all. Using lack of evidence as evidence can go both ways, that's all. In the 2002 build up, people argued that the lack of evidence was proof Iraq didn't have WMDs, while other people argued that since Saddam had no evidence to prove he didn't, that was proof enough that he did.
The 2002 buildup used a lot of guilt-by-association evidence, more so than a lack of evidence, as justification. Not to mention the adage that if you say something enough times, most people will start believing it as truth.
Using lack of evidence as evidence can go both ways, that's all.
I agree.
In the 2002 build up, people argued that the lack of evidence was proof Iraq didn't have WMDs, while other people argued that since Saddam had no evidence to prove he didn't, that was proof enough that he did.
The latter group proved they're dumb.
Whenever the gov't tells me that such-and-so is so, but they can't show the evidence for some reason, I reject their claim. History shows that having faith in their word alone is almost always a bad thing.
The FBI kidnapped a Mexican doctor off a street in Mexico City, who supposedly helped kill a DEA agent. They held him for a couple years without charges until the courts forced them to provide evidence of a crime, at which point they announced they had none, but if given more time, they just might get some. The judge disagreed, thankfully. It's too bad for our country that some 51% of people would have given the FBI more time.
Using lack of evidence as evidence can go both ways, that's all.
I agree.
In the 2002 build up, people argued that the lack of evidence was proof Iraq didn't have WMDs, while other people argued that since Saddam had no evidence to prove he didn't, that was proof enough that he did.
The latter group proved they're dumb.
Whenever the gov't tells me that such-and-so is so, but they can't show the evidence for some reason, I reject their claim. History shows that having faith in their word alone is almost always a bad thing.
The FBI kidnapped a Mexican doctor off a street in Mexico City, who supposedly helped kill a DEA agent. They held him for a couple years without charges until the courts forced them to provide evidence of a crime, at which point they announced they had none, but if given more time, they just might get some. The judge disagreed, thankfully. It's too bad for our country that some 51% of people would have given the FBI more time.
Sounds like a Tom Clancy novel plot, except in a Clancy novel, Jack would have simply eliminated the Dr. due to reasons for which the evidence could not really be revealed.
Comments
Heh,heh! Sorry, but I decided, about 15 years ago, that the "social ban" on discussing politics and religion is a self imposed censorship. They are really the most important topics regarding human affairs, yet "cultivated" people "know better" than to bring them up at cocktail parties and label you a bore, should you break the unwritten code.
Poppycock.
Our founding fathers certainly had no problem discussing both at length. Maybe that explains the almost "superhuman" wisdom contained in the constitution.
That's a dangerous precedent to set. Most of the really far out conspiracy theories rely on it as a premise: "Well, there's no proof that Islamists were behind 9/11; it's much more likely that the US government did it."
Islam in and of itself is not a threat. Islamism (fundamentalist Islam) certainly could be considered a threat, but if you look at all the problems in the world, more of them tie back to the world's insatiable thirst for oil than any religion.
That said, Islamism will be the cause of the next nuclear war. Whether Iran or Israel shoots first is somewhat moot; it won't be pretty.
Strictly speaking, you'd have to call someone a Nazi or compare them unfavorably to Hitler to invoke Godwin's law.
This is also an interesting related story: http://hotair.com/archives/2008/03/01/d ... elativism/ Your paintings are as bad as Hitler's early work! There, Godwin's law fulfilled!
That should effectively end all reasonable discourse.
Oh, and the new obligatory tag needs to be included here: You sound like a Nazi!
I feel about the same about folks writing at FreeRepublic as you feel about folks with pony-tails. The difference is that my opinion is based on what they actually write instead of what they look like.
I definitely think you should add the bubble though.
Also, there are a lot of nutcases at Freerepublic. But then, there are at the NYT as well. And it cannot be denied that Freerepublic broke the Dan Rather forged documents story.
No, not at all. Using lack of evidence as evidence can go both ways, that's all. In the 2002 build up, people argued that the lack of evidence was proof Iraq didn't have WMDs, while other people argued that since Saddam had no evidence to prove he didn't, that was proof enough that he did.
The 2002 buildup used a lot of guilt-by-association evidence, more so than a lack of evidence, as justification. Not to mention the adage that if you say something enough times, most people will start believing it as truth.
The latter group proved they're dumb.
Whenever the gov't tells me that such-and-so is so, but they can't show the evidence for some reason, I reject their claim. History shows that having faith in their word alone is almost always a bad thing.
The FBI kidnapped a Mexican doctor off a street in Mexico City, who supposedly helped kill a DEA agent. They held him for a couple years without charges until the courts forced them to provide evidence of a crime, at which point they announced they had none, but if given more time, they just might get some. The judge disagreed, thankfully. It's too bad for our country that some 51% of people would have given the FBI more time.
Sounds like a Tom Clancy novel plot, except in a Clancy novel, Jack would have simply eliminated the Dr. due to reasons for which the evidence could not really be revealed.