% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.


  • notthatflop notthatflop Mar 15, 2014 11:38 AM Flag

    OT: The Problem with some People

    Let’s be honest, the problem with people (RWNJs) can be boiled down to a few points. This is attributed in parts to Kay McSpadden (wanted: an educated populace). We believe the things we do because they serve our purposes, not because they are true or false. Studies confirm that people with the least amount of information show the most confidence that they are correct (hello RWNJs and Fox News junkies– are you processing this?).

    From Robert Proctor – how cultures perpetuate ignorance. “If half the country thinks he earth is 6000 years old, how can you really develop an effective environmental policy?” He further states; “This sort of traditional or inertial ignorance bars us from being able to act responsible on large social issues.”

    From Kay McSpadden: “Individuals believing what they want to believe is one thing, when it impacts public policy, it becomes a serious concern.”

    Proctor rightfully concludes; “The myth of the information society is that we’re drowning in knowledge but, it’s easier to propagate ignorance.”

    Hello RWNJs – read it again and again…..start using that thing above your shoulders……I know the Loony Pole will be shocked that it has other purposes besides keeping rain out.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Nott I've never met anyone that believed the earth was 6000 yrs old either. Just wondering what kind of social circles you circulate in

      • 2 Replies to hayflicklim

        Mother Jones / By Chris Mooney | March 19, 2014

        The following post first appeared on Mother Jones. For more great content, subscribe to Mother Jones here.

        If you think the first episode of the new Fox Cosmos series was controversial [4] (with its relatively minor mentions of climate change, evolution, and the Big Bang), Sunday night's show [5] threw down the gauntlet. Pretty much the entire episode was devoted to the topic of evolution, and the vast profusion of evidence (especially genetic evidence [6]) showing that it is indeed the explanation behind all life on Earth. At one point, host Neil deGrasse Tyson stated it as plainly as you possibly can: "The theory of evolution, like the theory of gravity, is a scientific fact."

        Not surprisingly, those who deny the theory of evolution were not happy with this. Indeed, the science denial crowd hasn't been happy with Cosmos in general. Here are some principal lines of attack:

        1. DENYING THE BIG BANG: In the first episode of Cosmos, titled "Standing Up in the Milky Way," Tyson dons shades just before witnessing the Big Bang. You know, the start of everything. Some creationists, though, don't like the Big Bang; at Ken Ham's Answers in Genesis, a critique of Cosmos [7] asserts that "the big bang model is unable to explain many scientific observations, but this is of course not mentioned."

        Alas, this creationist critique seems very poorly timed: A major new scientific discovery [8], just described in detail in the New York Times, has now provided "smoking gun" evidence [9] for "inflation [10]," a crucial component of our understanding of the stunning happenings just after the Big Bang. Using a special telescope to examine the cosmic microwave background radiation (which has been dubbed the "afterglow [11]" of the Big Bang), researchers at the South Pole detected "direct evidence [9]" of the previously theoretical gravitational waves [8] that are believed to have originated in the Big Bang and caused an incredibly sudden and dramatic inflation of the universe. (For an easy to digest discussion, Phil Plait has more [12].)

        2. DENYING EVOLUTION: Sunday's episode of Cosmos was all about evolution. It closely followed the rhetorical strategy of Charles Darwin's world-changing 1859 book, On the Origin of Species, beginning with an example of "artificial selection" by breeders (Darwin used pigeons, Cosmosused domestic dogs) to get us ready to appreciate the far vaster power of natural selection. It employed Darwin's favorite metaphor: the "tree of life," an analogy that helps us see how all organisms are living on different branches of the same hereditary tree. In the episode, Tyson also refuted one of the creationist's favorite canards [13]: the idea that complex organs, like the eye, could not have been produced through evolution.

        3. DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE: Thus far, Cosmos has referred to climate change in each of its two opening episodes, but has not gone into any depth on the matter. Perhaps that's for a later episode. But in the meantime, it seems some conservatives are already bashing Tyson as a global warming proponent. Writing at [14] the Media Research Center's Newsbusters blog, Jeffrey Meyer critiques a recent Tyson appearance on Late Night With Seth Myers. "Meyers and deGrasse Tyson chose to take a cheap shot at religious people and claim they don't believe in science i.e. liberal causes like global warming," writes Meyer. Over at the pro-"intelligent design" Discovery Institute, they're not happy. Senior fellow David Klinghoffer writes [15] that the latest Cosmos episode "[extrapolated] shamelessly, promiscuously from artificial selection (dogs from wolves) to minor stuff like the color of a polar bear's fur to the development of the human eye." In a much more elaborate attempted takedown [16], meanwhile, the institute's Casey Luskin accuses Tyson and Cosmos of engaging in "attempts to persuade people of both evolutionary scientific views and larger materialistic evolutionary beliefs, not just by the force of the evidence, but by rhetoric and emotion, and especially by leaving out important contrary arguments and evidence." Luskin goes on to contend that there is something wrong with the idea of the "tree of life." Tell that to the scientists involved in theOpen Tree of Life [17] project, which plans to produce "the first online, comprehensive first-draft tree of all 1.8 million named species, accessible to both the public and scientific communities." Precisely how to reconstruct every last evolutionary relationship may still be an open scientific question, but the idea of common ancestry, the core of evolution (represented conceptually by a tree of life), is not.

        Actually, as Tyson explained on our Inquiring Minds podcast [18], Cosmos is certainly not anti-religion. As for characterizing global warming as simply a "liberal cause": In a now famous study [19] finding that 97 percent of scientific studies (that bother to take a position on the matter) agree with the idea of human-caused global warming, researchers reviewed 12,000 scientific abstracts published between the years 1991 and 2011. In other words, this is a field in which a very large volume of science is being published. That hardly sounds like an advocacy endeavor.

        Sentiment: Strong Buy

      • come and live down south......some of those folks will come by and knock on your door and try to convince you that you are a sinner and will burn if you don't join 'their way' of thinking.

    • The real problem with people is that they will ascribe other people to the opposing mainstream and marketed ideology if those people aren't in agreement with the tenets of their own self-ascribed mainstream and marketed ideology.

      Another problem with people is that they will unquestioningly believe anything they read and hear and see that fits with their own instilled beliefs and understandings, or if it comes from an official source they deem worthy. They mistake that for being learned. They believe themselves to thus be great thinkers, yet they don't really know how to think at all.

    • I do find it interesting when people are so certain of their position. I've never in my life met anyone who thinks the world is 6000 years old.

      "Since the early 1980s, the National Science Board has asked Americans if they accept the idea that the continents have been moving for millions of years — and 80 percent agree. Ten percent say they don’t know, and only another ten percent firmly reject it.

      “In short, then, the hard core of young-earth creationists represents at most one in ten Americans — maybe about 31 million people — with another quarter favoring creationism but not necessarily committed to a young earth,” Rosenau concludes. “One or two in ten seem firmly committed to evolution, and another third leans heavily toward evolution. About a third of the public in the middle are open to evolution, but feel strongly that a god or gods must have been involved somehow, and wind up in different camps depending how a given poll is worded.”

      • 2 Replies to theresnobeachhere
      • Texas Public Schools Are Teaching Creationism
        An investigation into charter schools’ dishonest and unconstitutional science, history, and “values” lessons.
        By Zack Kopplin
        A Texas charter school group has a secular veneer and is funded by public money, but it has been connected from its inception to the creationist movement.
        Illustration by Lisa Larson-Walker
        When public-school students enrolled in Texas’ largest charter program open their biology workbooks, they will read that the fossil record is “sketchy.” That evolution is “dogma” and an “unproved theory” with no experimental basis. They will be told that leading scientists dispute the mechanisms of evolution and the age of the Earth. These are all lies.
        The more than 17,000 students in the Responsive Education Solutions charter system will learn in their history classes that some residents of the Philippines were “pagans in various levels of civilization.” They’ll read in a history textbook that feminism forced women to turn to the government as a “surrogate husband.”
        Responsive Ed has a secular veneer and is funded by public money, but it has been connected from its inception to the creationist movement and to far-right fundamentalists who seek to undermine the separation of church and state.
        The opening line of the workbook section declares, “In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth.”
        Infiltrating and subverting the charter-school movement has allowed Responsive Ed to carry out its religious agenda—and it is succeeding. Operating more than 65 campuses in Texas, Arkansas, and Indiana, Responsive Ed receives more than $82 million in taxpayer money annually, and it is expanding, with 20 more Texas campuses opening in 2014.
        Charter schools may be run independently, but they are still public schools, and through an open records request, I was able to obtain a set of Responsive Ed’s biology “Knowledge Units,” workbooks that Responsive Ed students must complete to pass biology. These

      • Beach - I take it you haven't visited the south? Those people do exist. Try Texas, Kentucky and West Virginia too. And the reproduce like crazy.

    • Flop, the problem with your post is it is misdirected to the right wing patriots. With very little change I could easily turn it around and send it to all your LWNJ friends. HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN that it was the radical left who pushed Obama to the WH. When he hid his past records none of you questioned his motives. When he promised change none of you questioned what kind of change he had in mind. He also promised to transform the country………..into WHAT? Do any of you still even care today? One thing is for sure, the low information voters inhabit the left and the record shows it. ARE YOU SERIOUS?

    • Funny LWNJs think shipping all of our jobs fixes these problems by putting the environmental issues on the poor nations that have no choice but to suffer through the consequences, it also solves the problem of the oldest argument in the world "survival of the fittest". Who needs to be fit when everyone can make the same amount $ . Sorry the NIMBY LWNJs it is coming and coming fast. Your socialist dreams are close to a reality!

    • Flop. you are posing a pissin contest,, not all or even a fraction of repubs like myself are anything like this,, any nit wit can say stuff and you take it to the inth degree,,

      Sentiment: Hold