Glenn Beck Lies About LGF

Media • Views: 9,292

Since Glenn Beck just launched an attack on me on his comedy show (right after a Ron Paul-like isolationist rant about bringing all US troops home now), here’s the text of the post I put up last night: Glenn Beck: Frog Killer.

This might have been another Glenn Beck stunt, designed to deliberately provoke outrage. He might come on his show tomorrow and say, “Hah! Fooled all you liberal commies! Had you going!”

Or he might not. How sad is it that we even have to ask the question?

But even if it was a stunt, and no frog was killed … this is still amazingly sick. This show airs at a time in the early afternoon when children are watching.

And to make my point even clearer, I posted this update a bit later:

I don’t watch Glenn Beck, but readers inform me that after this segment Beck revealed he was using a rubber frog.

My point about the irresponsibility of this kind of stunt still stands.

But Beck portrayed this as if I accused him — literally — of killing a frog. As you can see, that’s nothing short of a lie. And sure enough, there he was, playing a gotcha game just as I predicted.

Please note, however, that I don’t back down from anything I said above. It’s incredibly irresponsible of Beck to televise stunts that involve the killing — real or staged — of animals.

Nice to see that Glenn’s watching LGF, though. And maybe some of his viewers will be tempted to check out LGF, and see Beck squirming and weaseling out of explaining what he meant by “white culture.”

UPDATE at 9/24/09 2:58:55 pm:

Here’s the video clip:

Youtube Video

Jump to bottom

664 comments
1 sngnsgt  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 2:41:07pm

Buck Glenn Feck.

2 Kragar  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 2:42:28pm

Beck, your 15 minutes are just about up.

3 Kosh's Shadow  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 2:43:32pm

So let's see. He'll drive traffic here while those few of his viewers who are literate come to see what the fuss is about. Meanwhile there are more hits on the ad for his book that shows up here. More money out of his publisher's pocket to Charles.

4 bosforus  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 2:44:15pm

He's such a hack. Palestinian TV has been making light of animal abuse since August, 2007.
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

5 researchok  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 2:44:44pm

Charles- you sound genuinely surprised at his behavior.

You expected better?

6 Gus  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 2:45:22pm

Glenn Beck was quick to create a segment showing the frog trick but refused to define what he called white culture.

7 tracon  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 2:45:28pm

Who wants to start a betting pool. I bet 20 fake Internet dollars that he will tell us all to go to our windows and yell "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore." So our bet's will be placed in a time frame. I call within the week of Oct 12-16 he will use that line.

Its from the movie Network by the way which pretty much predicted Blenn Geck and everyone else on TV now in some way...

8 Kosh's Shadow  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 2:46:38pm

re: #7 tracon

Who wants to start a betting pool. I bet 20 fake Internet dollars that he will tell us all to go to our windows and yell "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore." So our bet's will be placed in a time frame. I call within the week of Oct 12-16 he will use that line.

Its from the movie Network by the way which pretty much predicted Blenn Geck and everyone else on TV now in some way...

The question is, when will he threaten to commit suicide on TV?
(Also from Network; I'm not suggesting he do it)

9 captdiggs  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 2:46:38pm

re: #2 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Beck, your 15 minutes are just about up.

I agree.
I think they would have been up a while ago except that he's getting so much (too much) attention.

10 Danny  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 2:47:14pm

Maybe when he said "white culture" he really meant "bankers."

11 SixDegrees  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 2:48:07pm

Just a note on Beck's premise involving the story about the slowly boiling frog: it's completely false. The origin appears to be a 19th century experiment in which a frog did, indeed, sit still in a pot of water as the temperature was raised, never jumping out - but the frog in question had had it's brain removed beforehand, in an attempt to sort out the responsibilities of the brains versus the autonomic nervous system.

So Beck has inadvertently identified himself as a brainless frog. Or something. And has once again premised an entire segment on a lie.

More on the frog tale that is completely untrue here.

12 reine.de.tout  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 2:48:46pm

In addition to your post, there were several comments making the point that there appeared to be a pause or something, and that it did not appear anything actually landed in the water.

In other words, we here were fairly sure no frog was hurt.

The bigger point - the appopriateness of such a stunt, even if fake - has he addressed that?

13 Locker  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 2:49:02pm

Seems likely that Glen Beck would compulsively google himself.

14 theheat  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 2:49:19pm

So rarely do you really get to connect with celebrities, call them a lunatic, and they actually read it. You can't get odds like that in Vegas.

Pudgy. Ranting. Racist. Uberdouche. Tack liar to the end of that.

15 FrogMarch  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 2:49:45pm

re: #13 Locker

Seems likely that Glen Beck would compulsively google himself.

In bed.

16 SixDegrees  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 2:50:13pm

re: #13 Locker

Seems likely that Glen Beck would compulsively google himself.

"I was googling myself" sounds like something that would give Beck blisters on his palms.

17 theheat  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 2:50:46pm

re: #16 SixDegrees

He wears mom jeans. I'm not so sure.

18 wrenchwench  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 2:51:01pm

So he pantomimes killing a frog, and gets offended that someone might think he killed a frog, and he uses the phrase "white culture," and gets offended when he's asked what he meant by that.

Facts = Attacks

You don't like it Mr. Beck? Maybe you should just not say anything, and not do anything. Then nobody will ask you what you were up to.

19 SixDegrees  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 2:51:11pm

re: #14 theheat

Uberdouche.

I'm totally stealing that. Nice one.

20 [deleted]  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 2:51:28pm
21 Athos  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 2:51:37pm

re: #12 reine.de.tout

The bigger point - the appopriateness of such a stunt, even if fake - has he addressed that?

Of course not. That isn't defensible - hence the spin on the fake frog / no frog was ever in danger of injury in the filming of his farce.

22 Killgore Trout  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 2:52:04pm

Here's the antiwar rant...

No mention of LGF, the next segment will probably be posted shortly.

23 OldLineTexan  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 2:52:25pm

re: #20 mjwsatx

/hold on, I haven't any popcorn

24 Achilles Tang  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 2:52:44pm

I suspect his core audience is internet illiterate, which might explain why he promotes LGF; of course it might be stupidity too. Bets?

25 [deleted]  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 2:52:58pm
26 Jetpilot1101  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 2:53:15pm

Charles, when the video becomes available, would you mind posting it here so those of us who were unable to partake of the GBCH can view it at our leisure.

Thank you and keep up the great work. You are obviously having an effect of the maestro of insanity wouldn't take so much notice.

27 Achilles Tang  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 2:53:45pm

re: #20 mjwsatx

Charles - 3 Beck threads in one day. I think you're getting a little Beckobsessed.

Some of us like the chase. What is your obsession today?

28 [deleted]  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 2:54:10pm
29 Killgore Trout  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 2:54:13pm

Ah here it is...
Glenn Beck Proves He Didn't "Kill A Frog"

30 Danny  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 2:54:55pm

re: #20 mjwsatx

He's just trying to give Beck's publishers a little extra "exposure" to their web ad.

31 [deleted]  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 2:55:05pm
32 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 2:55:40pm

Beck appears to be too stupid to realize he was grabbing what amounts to a tar baby.

I'm forced to wonder if he gets it now ... or ever will.

33 JEA62  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 2:56:10pm

Yes, I'll have have the fried frog legs, please.

34 Flyovercountry  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 2:57:20pm

re: #2 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Beck, your 15 minutes are just about up.

Unfortunately, he gets more than 15 minutes. Someone in the accounting office at Fox discovered that a live psychotic episode on T.V. every day can be very lucrative for broadcasters. On the bright side, when Charles has linked his meltdowns for our viewing pleasure, more often than not, they have been entertaining. It is not often you can see this kind of idiocy and realize that it is playing to millions.

35 Lee Coller  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 2:57:27pm
(right after advocating a full-on retreat from Afghanistan and Iraq, and bringing all US troops home now)

I wonder if that will wake a few of his fans up?

36 TheMatrix31  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 2:57:43pm

re: #33 JEA62

No joke, frog legs are delicious.

37 [deleted]  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 2:58:25pm
38 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 2:58:34pm

re: #28 teleskiguy

I think Charles is doing a great service by exposing this hack for what he is, a half-witted oppurtunist playing on irrational fears of the far-right wing. Glenn Beck is poisoning our political discourse and he needs to be flogged in public.

Nice sneaky way to mirror Pam's rant that Charles should be publicly flogged, so that subsequently some kind of fake moral equivalence could be drawn between them.

39 Lee Coller  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 2:59:11pm

re: #37 dcam25

Sleeper Warning!

40 bosforus  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 2:59:31pm

re: #32 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Beck appears to be too stupid to realize he was grabbing what amounts to a tar baby.

I'm forced to wonder if he gets it now ... or ever will.


Great metaphor.
The tar baby

41 theheat  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:00:09pm

re: #37 dcam25

Yeah, such a forthcoming guy. And about that whole "white culture" business?

Go ahead. Make my day.

42 Charpete67  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:00:13pm

re: #37 dcam25

Hi Glen

43 mrbaracuda  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:00:23pm

Oh my, The Lizard on Beck. Well, you are advertising for him. Maybe unwillingly. Anyway! The speech held by Netanyahu is up, maybe you want to include it in the post, Charles. (For example, here)

44 SixDegrees  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:00:25pm

re: #37 dcam25

Reading comprehension problems?

The original post is linked directly above. It does no such thing.

It does, however, point out that Beck is a flaming asshole, which is simply a statement of fact.

45 jantjepietje  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:01:39pm

Glenn beck:

I mean look at me; I'm practically half dog

thanks for confirming that for us Beck.

46 OldLineTexan  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:01:46pm

re: #40 bosforus

Not really. You will be accused of racism so fast your head will swim.

47 Danny  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:01:54pm

re: #45 jantjepietje

Glenn beck:

thanks for confirming that for us Beck.

The rear half.

48 Gus  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:02:20pm

re: #22 Killgore Trout

Here's the antiwar rant...

No mention of LGF, the next segment will probably be posted shortly.

He pulls the "he was playing golf meme" that the left used on Bush.

Also, he sets up Obama as the fall guy for a failure in Afghanistan as the rationale for surrendering. I'm pretty sure the Beck Fanboys will swallow that whole.

As usual he couldn't resist his usual crying stunt.

49 wrenchwench  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:02:23pm

re: #39 Lee Coller

Sleeper Warning!

It flung down its sock in defense of its Lord, Beck.

50 bosforus  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:02:40pm

re: #46 OldLineTexan

I know. Which is too bad. It's tar. What color do people want it be?

51 [deleted]  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:02:44pm
52 Athos  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:03:19pm

re: #45 jantjepietje

I mean look at me; I'm practically half dog

Must be referring to the back half...

53 OldLineTexan  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:03:34pm

re: #50 bosforus

I know. Which is too bad. It's tar. What color do people want it be?

Don't forget it's a Brer Rabbit/Uncle Remus story.

54 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:03:35pm

re: #46 OldLineTexan

Not really. You will be accused of racism so fast your head will swim.

For . the . record
I was the one who brought that up in this thread.

/cheerfully painting a bullseye on my backside

55 FrogMarch  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:03:40pm

re: #22 Killgore Trout

I just listened to most of it. Beck does say that he wants Obama to listen to General McCrystal's request -or- bring the troops home. At least that's what I heard.

56 Athos  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:03:42pm

re: #47 Danny

The rear half.

GMTA

57 OldLineTexan  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:03:56pm

re: #51 MikeySDCA

And the other half is chimp.

Like Bush, right?

58 OldLineTexan  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:04:30pm

re: #54 pre-Boomer Marine brat

For . the . record
I was the one who brought that up in this thread.

/cheerfully painting a bullseye on my backside

Wow, that really DOES make your ass look big.

/

59 avanti  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:04:43pm

re: #32 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Beck appears to be too stupid to realize he was grabbing what amounts to a tar baby.

I'm forced to wonder if he gets it now ... or ever will.

Just reminded me of a pet peeve of mine. Disney won't put "Song of the South" on DVD because it's perceived as racist. I saw it a dozen times as a child, and I wanted a Uncle Remus.

60 bosforus  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:05:05pm

re: #53 OldLineTexan

It's been a while since I've actually read the story. Are there racial references regarding the tar baby in it? If so, then perhaps it's best left unused.

61 [deleted]  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:05:24pm
62 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:06:06pm

re: #58 OldLineTexan

Wow, that really DOES make your ass look big.

/

YIKES!
*running for the paint remover*

And btw, I'm well aware of those stories' original setting and purpose.
They are STILL great literature.

63 OldLineTexan  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:06:11pm

re: #60 bosforus

It's been a while since I've actually read the story. Are there racial references regarding the tar baby in it? If so, then perhaps it's best left unused.

avanti has capsulized the problem in #59.

However, one could buy "Song of the South" overseas for the longest time.

Go figure.

64 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:06:39pm

re: #59 avanti

Just reminded me of a pet peeve of mine. Disney won't put "Song of the South" on DVD because it's perceived as racist. I saw it a dozen times as a child, and I wanted a Uncle Remus.

And Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn is banned in many schools for using the N word, even though the book itself is a satirical broadside against slavery and racism.

65 OldLineTexan  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:06:46pm

re: #61 MikeySDCA

Shrub's out of office, so he's a no-fire zone, IMO.

I just think the poor chimps need a rest.

No human is THEIR fault.

66 mich-again  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:06:58pm

I didn't think the frog stunt was nearly as bad as the one where he pretended to pour gasoline on the guys head and said that was what Obama was doing to America.

He's only good at preaching to the choir. He's just like Reverend Jeremiah Wright in my mind. You can have him. He's a twit.

67 sngnsgt  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:07:14pm

re: #29 Killgore Trout

I didn't really think Beck was dumb enough to give that much fuel to a group such as PETA. He did prove one thing though, sometimes people are gullable.

68 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:08:04pm

re: #60 bosforus

It's been a while since I've actually read the story. Are there racial references regarding the tar baby in it? If so, then perhaps it's best left unused.

The reference is in the orginal telling of the stories.
They date back into slavery, and the characters and plots are extremely metaphorical.

69 Neutral President  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:08:29pm

re: #64 Salamantis

And Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn is banned in many schools for using the N word, even though the book itself is a satirical broadside against slavery and racism.

They will take Blazing Saddles from me when they pry it from my cold, dead hand.

70 bosforus  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:08:55pm

re: #63 OldLineTexan

avanti has capsulized the problem in #59.

However, one could buy "Song of the South" overseas for the longest time.

Go figure.

Sweet potato pie and I shut my mouth?

71 OldLineTexan  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:09:37pm

re: #70 bosforus

Pie is always good, and so is free speech.

72 [deleted]  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:09:38pm
73 Gus  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:10:16pm

re: #29 Killgore Trout

Ah here it is...
Glenn Beck Proves He Didn't "Kill A Frog"

Glenn Beck: White Culturalist!

//Just don't ask him to define it.

/

74 OldLineTexan  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:10:53pm

Did someone throw a whole box of Flounce Brain Softener in teh Innernetz today?

75 Athos  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:11:15pm

re: #72 DawnofTruth

So, is it sanity to let the fringe right (and fringe left) take center stage?

76 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:11:15pm

re: #72 DawnofTruth

You say that this is not a flounce.

And yet you state that the site has devolved, and that it is insane.

Ahh, something new; a non-flounce flounce!

77 CapeCoddah  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:11:47pm

re: #72 DawnofTruth

Sanity reigns here, and apparently only here. This is called fairness. Kooks are Kooks, no matter who they support politically. Thanks Charles.. you are one of the only bloggers I have respect for, because of your unwavering honesty. The truth is rarely pretty.

78 SixDegrees  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:11:53pm

re: #59 avanti

Just reminded me of a pet peeve of mine. Disney won't put "Song of the South" on DVD because it's perceived as racist. I saw it a dozen times as a child, and I wanted a Uncle Remus.

I last saw it in the late 70s during a theatrical re-release.

My impression, as a Disney fan, was that it totally sucked and was the lamest excuse for entertainment that Disney ever produced. The racial angle was grating, but the poor production quality was just as bad, especially given the source.

Even without the near-whitefaced portrayal of blacks, I can see why Disney would keep it off the market. Epic fail.

79 Lee Coller  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:11:54pm

re: #74 OldLineTexan

Did someone throw a whole box of Flounce Brain Softener in teh Innernetz today?

In my #25 I said that there hadn't been a flounce on any of the Beck threads today. I think that brought them out.

80 theheat  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:12:29pm

re: #72 DawnofTruth

Devolve is a matter of opinion. I prefer to classify it as current events. And every day, crazy people do crazy stuff. Many are repeat offenders, hence Beck's popularity.

81 Charles Johnson  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:12:42pm

That last one had a sock puppet registered too. Bye now!

82 mich-again  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:13:18pm

Glen Beck on Michael Vick.

. You know, Michael Vick, right. Dogs just mean different things to him. He sees them as a cash machine. You see them as an animal. (Laughing). Silly you. (Applause). Who knew. I mean, why aren't you making money on your animal, too, huh? That's great. I'm torturing mine on the website. I've got a torturehimjustforjollies.com. You might think of it as torture. I look at it as a way to make money. There's a lot of people who would like to see me peel the skin off my dog. What's the problem? It's a matter of perspective.

Such an idiot.

83 Killgore Trout  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:13:22pm

How embarrassing that John Bolton is there to verify the frog is plastic. Politicians used to have more dignity.

84 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:13:25pm

re: #72 DawnofTruth

Go back to yesterday evening's post of the Victor Davis Hansen comment.

There's been no devolution whatsoever. LGF is still anti-Idiotarian.

85 avanti  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:13:38pm

re: #78 SixDegrees

I last saw it in the late 70s during a theatrical re-release.

My impression, as a Disney fan, was that it totally sucked and was the lamest excuse for entertainment that Disney ever produced. The racial angle was grating, but the poor production quality was just as bad, especially given the source.

Even without the near-whitefaced portrayal of blacks, I can see why Disney would keep it off the market. Epic fail.

You have to recall I was 6 or 7 when I fell in love with the movie over 50 years ago. here's a taste:

86 FrogMarch  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:14:07pm

ok - I just watched the above clip and I am stumped. In that little cage/aquarium - it looks as if real frogs are jumping around.
But I guess they went to all that trouble - and still used a rubber frog.

what a weird thing to do.

87 reine.de.tout  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:14:10pm

re: #83 Killgore Trout

How embarrassing that John Bolton is there to verify the frog is plastic. Politicians used to have more dignity.

Bolton looked a tad embarrassed, to me.
Maybe I just read that into it.

88 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:14:25pm

re: #81 Charles

You're slowing down in your old age.
I had a chance to get a shot in at it.

:D

89 reine.de.tout  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:14:37pm

re: #84 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Go back to yesterday evening's post of the Victor Davis Hansen comment.

There's been no devolution whatsoever. LGF is still anti-Idiotarian.

I wish Charles would put that VHD post up in a pink box at the top.

90 Athos  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:14:45pm

re: #83 Killgore Trout

How embarrassing that John Bolton is there to verify the frog is plastic. Politicians used to have more dignity.

He didn't look all that pleased being a part of that.

91 reine.de.tout  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:15:43pm

re: #89 reine.de.tout

I wish Charles would put that VDH VHD post up in a pink box at the top.

92 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:15:49pm

re: #83 Killgore Trout

How embarrassing that John Bolton is there to verify the frog is plastic. Politicians used to have more dignity.

Who isn't embarrassed to be Borated?

93 Charles Johnson  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:15:49pm

re: #89 reine.de.tout

I wish Charles would put that VHD post up in a pink box at the top.

Good idea. Will do.

94 theheat  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:16:39pm

re: #90 Athos

He'd have salvaged as much integrity on Jerry Springer.

95 mich-again  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:16:52pm

re: 72 [deleted]

Yet another person who thinks politics is a sport and you're always supposed to root for your team and boo the other team.

There are 10 million other websites out there on the left and right that do just that. Go there.

96 Danny  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:16:55pm

re: #72 DawnofTruth

"This user is blocked."

Restoration complete.

97 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:17:00pm

re: #85 avanti

You have to recall I was 6 or 7 when I fell in love with the movie over 50 years ago. here's a taste:

I'm not at all certain, but I think I read the stories, and don't recall seeing the movie until much later.

(I studied the context in one of my Afro-American history classes.)

98 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:17:42pm

re: #89 reine.de.tout

I wish Charles would put that VHD post up in a pink box at the top.

Good idea. I just Reported your comment.

99 wrenchwench  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:18:47pm

If you click on the "Glenn Beck" tag, and look at page three, you can see that back in late '06 and early '07 Beck got some non-negative attention here. Lots of Beck flouncers seem to have registered at that time and never posted until now. Creepy.

100 mich-again  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:19:54pm

I would love to see Glen Beck get a sign-on ID here and actually try to debate his points. He'd get tossed around here by any average group of posters.

His show is a stand-up comedy routine except for the part about comedy.

101 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:20:52pm

re: #99 wrenchwench

If you click on the "Glenn Beck" tag, and look at page three, you can see that back in late '06 and early '07 Beck got some non-negative attention here. Lots of Beck flouncers seem to have registered at that time and never posted until now. Creepy.

He wasn't that bad when CNN had his insanity tightly reined in.

But Fox opened the asylum and let his crazy loose.

102 researchok  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:21:29pm
103 theheat  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:22:10pm

re: #100 mich-again

And the tears of angels.

104 mich-again  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:22:26pm

Charles is stealing all the Left's fun by taking the lead in exposing Beck for being such a creepy idiot. Ha.

105 Killgore Trout  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:23:08pm

The stalkers are claiming that Charles changed his original from post. Here's the google cache from last night. Take screen shots if you want...
LGF cache

106 Gus  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:23:43pm

Apparently Glenn Beck faked killing a puppy on the radio once.

Mental case.

107 Charles Johnson  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:24:33pm

re: #105 Killgore Trout

The stalkers are claiming that Charles changed his original from post. Here's the google cache from last night. Take screen shots if you want...
LGF cache

Morons.

108 Charles Johnson  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:25:09pm

re: #105 Killgore Trout

The stalkers are claiming that Charles changed his original from post. Here's the google cache from last night. Take screen shots if you want...
LGF cache

You can see it right there in the video of Beck's show.

109 CapeCoddah  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:25:11pm

re: #107 Charles

Morons.

And that is being kind.

110 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:25:29pm

re: #101 Salamantis

He wasn't that bad when CNN had his insanity tightly reined in.

But Fox opened the asylum and let his crazy loose.

I keep waiting for Lou Dobbs to take the same sad downhill path.

111 Killgore Trout  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:25:39pm

re: #107 Charles

We are blessed with moronic adversaries.

112 Mike in Boulder  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:25:52pm

Can you get rid of the Glenn Beck advert that keeps appearing on the upper right hand portion of your site? His photo makes me throw up in my mouth a little bit.

113 SpaceJesus  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:26:41pm

my favorite glenn beck take ever from colbert,

114 BenghaziHoops  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:26:48pm

I have a new recipe for the Cookbook Reine
1 part outrage
1 part truth
1 part tears
1 part insane
1 part a call to arms
1 part deception
Mix Well..add a dash of Salt
Bake for 45 minutes at 350.
Remove and cover in a colorful pure sugar Fox frosting...
And there you have it
Beck Cake

115 Killgore Trout  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:27:16pm

re: #108 Charles

Heh, I didn't catch that the first time through. Clearly visible.

116 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:27:34pm

re: #112 Mike in Boulder

Can you get rid of the Glenn Beck advert that keeps appearing on the upper right hand portion of your site? His photo makes me throw up in my mouth a little bit.

Me too, but whotthell -- if Charles makes some money off it, then the irony is delicious.

117 wrenchwench  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:27:41pm

re: #112 Mike in Boulder

Can you get rid of the Glenn Beck advert that keeps appearing on the upper right hand portion of your site? His photo makes me throw up in my mouth a little bit.

Put some duct tape over that spot. It's a money-maker.

118 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:28:00pm

Glenn Beck's book is entitled Arguing With Idiots.

Why does that conjure up a picture in my mind of Glenn standing in front of a mirror ranting at himself, kinda like Robert DeNiro in Taxi Driver?

119 Charles Johnson  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:28:16pm

re: #112 Mike in Boulder

Can you get rid of the Glenn Beck advert that keeps appearing on the upper right hand portion of your site? His photo makes me throw up in my mouth a little bit.

Why? They're paying me perfectly good money to run it.

120 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:29:43pm

re: #117 wrenchwench

Put some duct tape over that spot. It's a money-maker.

Reminds me of a Texas Aggie joke.

121 Drogheda  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:31:08pm

re: #117 wrenchwench

Put some duct tape over that spot. It's a money-maker.

I resorted to the tape-cover-up method before. I taped over the bottom-most segment of my TV screen a month or two after 9/11 because the ticker was so distracting.

122 mich-again  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:32:08pm

re: #118 Salamantis

Glenn Beck's book is entitled Arguing With Idiots.

Glen Beck lost in a mirror maze.

123 wrenchwench  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:33:36pm

re: #121 Drogheda

I resorted to the tape-cover-up method before. I taped over the bottom-most segment of my TV screen a month or two after 9/11 because the ticker was so distracting.

I think 9/11 was when those bottom-of-the-screen things started going way overboard. Haven't turned on the TV in about 5 years, so I've saved a lot on tape.

124 Mike in Boulder  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:35:38pm

re: #119 Charles

Fair enough. I am sure part of the proceeds go to People for the Ethical Treatment of Frogs.

125 Egregious Philbin  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:35:57pm

Hey Glenn, I remember you when you were in PHX, you were an awful, ratings obsessed, sleazy, dirty trick player. Making fun of a competitor on the air whose wife just had a miscarriage when you called her on the air? So much to be proud of.

But, now you found Jeebus, and you expect us to by your latest schtick? No thanks Mr. uneducated shock jock, you are a crass and empty wannabe voice for conservatives.

BTW, how much schtick did you steal from Phil Hendrie (you know, the DJ with talent...)

126 Equable  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:37:24pm

re: #125 Egregious Philbin

Phil Hendrie is the man, I've been a fan for years.

127 tradewind  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:37:35pm

I was a little concerned that Beck would use the ' did he really kill a frog ? ' outrage as a distraction, and it looks as if that's what he's doing. There's no other reason why he's jump on this with all four feet.
Don't let him change the subject.

128 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:37:37pm

re: #124 Mike in Boulder

Fair enough. I am sure part of the proceeds go to People for the Ethical Treatment of Frogs.

I'm sure part of them do. Charles wouldn't want to Kermit a sin of omission.

129 Drogheda  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:37:57pm

re: #123 wrenchwench

I think 9/11 was when those bottom-of-the-screen things started going way overboard.

I'm pretty sure the financial channels were using scrolling tickers for market information back then but the tickers just weren't nearly as prevalent on the news channels before 9/11 that I recall. They used to drive me to distraction. I kept them covered for most of 2002 I think.

Now they're just a normal part of the scene.

130 tradewind  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:38:40pm

re: #126 Equable

Have you heard him argue with himself while he fakes being a moron phoning in an outrage?
Sooo funny. Is he still around?

131 Flyovercountry  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:38:43pm

re: #119 Charles

Why? They're paying me perfectly good money to run it.

Isn't capitalism great?

132 bosforus  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:38:50pm

re: #119 Charles

Probably not for much longer. Unless, of course, they're still getting sales through the link. Win-win!

133 Charles Johnson  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:38:54pm

re: #128 pre-Boomer Marine brat

I'm sure part of them do. Charles wouldn't want to Kermit a sin of omission.

It's not easy being Little Green Footballs.

134 BenghaziHoops  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:39:20pm

re: #123 wrenchwench

I think 9/11 was when those bottom-of-the-screen things started going way overboard. Haven't turned on the TV in about 5 years, so I've saved a lot on tape.

But..Without a TV how do you watch Sports? I don't understand..
I'm lost here..Can someone explain it to me? No TV?
*scratches head*
I'm not following you...OK try again...You don't watch TV...What? what does that mean?
*wink*

135 Gus  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:39:45pm

re: #125 Egregious Philbin

Glenn Beck becomes damaged goods
Page 3

Hey Glenn, I remember you when you were in PHX, you were an awful, ratings obsessed, sleazy, dirty trick player. Making fun of a competitor on the air whose wife just had a miscarriage when you called her on the air? So much to be proud of.

But, now you found Jeebus, and you expect us to by your latest schtick? No thanks Mr. uneducated shock jock, you are a crass and empty wannabe voice for conservatives.

BTW, how much schtick did you steal from Phil Hendrie (you know, the DJ with talent...)

"Glenn Beck was the king of dirty tricks," says Guy Zapoleon, KZZP's program director. "It may seem mild in retrospect, but at the time that wedding prank was nasty and over the line. Beck was always desperate for ratings and attention."

The animosity between Beck and Kelly continued to deepen. When Beck and Hattrick produced a local version of Orson Welles' "War of the Worlds" for Halloween -- a recurring motif in Beck's life and career -- Kelly told a local reporter that the bit was a stupid rip-off of a syndicated gag. The slight outraged Beck, who got his revenge with what may rank as one of the cruelest bits in the history of morning radio. "A couple days after Kelly's wife, Terry, had a miscarriage, Beck called her live on the air and says, 'We hear you had a miscarriage,' " remembers Brad Miller, a former Y95 DJ and Clear Channel programmer. "When Terry said, 'Yes,' Beck proceeded to joke about how Bruce [Kelly] apparently can't do anything right -- about he can't even have a baby."

136 tradewind  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:40:03pm

re: #133 Charles
But it's gotta be a fun gig nonetheless.

137 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:40:26pm

re: #133 Charles

It's not easy being Little Green Footballs.

ROFLMAO!

138 Egregious Philbin  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:41:32pm

re: #126 Equable

Phil Hendrie is the man, I've been a fan for years.

Phil is the only guy who tells the truth about talk show hosts, they are all phonies, himself included. They don't give a damn about what they say, its a job, keep your listeners angry and listening. I heard a bit of Levin last nite, is he trying to out scream Savage? Its LCD radio, aimed at idiots.

139 Neutral President  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:42:30pm

re: #133 Charles

It's not easy being Little Green Footballs.

Wouldn't want you to frogo the extra ad revenue.

140 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:42:59pm

re: #136 tradewind

But it's gotta be a fun gig nonetheless.

At least Fozzie time being.

141 debutaunt  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:43:01pm

re: #112 Mike in Boulder

Can you get rid of the Glenn Beck advert that keeps appearing on the upper right hand portion of your site? His photo makes me throw up in my mouth a little bit.

Put a post-it note over it like the rest of us, silly.

142 wrenchwench  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:43:52pm

Medaura's latest should not languish on a semi-dead thread.

143 Mike in Boulder  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:44:16pm

re: #133 Charles

Frogs and Lizards unite!

144 bosforus  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:45:29pm

re: #135 Gus 802

Audio or corroborating witnesses or it didn't happen.

145 albusteve  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:45:51pm

Glenn Beck the Myth is dying...here's hoping he takes his viewers with him when he goes down...unfortunately none of that's probably not going to happen

146 Gus  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:46:06pm

re: #144 bosforus

Audio or corroborating witnesses or it didn't happen.

It's everywhere on the internet.

Don't see where he denied it.

147 cliffster  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:47:16pm

re: #67 sngnsgt

I didn't really think Beck was dumb enough to give that much fuel to a group such as PETA. He did prove one thing though, sometimes people are gullable.

He published a letter from PETA where they said they knew it was fake, they know he's an animal lover, but perhaps he should clarify again on the air that it was fake.

148 Charles Johnson  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:47:38pm

re: #142 wrenchwench

Medaura's latest should not languish on a semi-dead thread.

I'm about to do a post on that.

149 tradewind  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:48:09pm

re: #135 Gus 802

Sorry, but I call bullshit unless you can prove it. I'll apologize profusely if you can. If not, then you should.

150 CapeCoddah  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:48:18pm

re: #140 pre-Boomer Marine brat

LOL, That pun should be an arrestable offense!

151 Charles Johnson  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:48:22pm

Speaking of Kejda, get a load of this one:

[Link: bit.ly...]

152 Gus  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:48:43pm

re: #149 tradewind

Sorry, but I call bullshit unless you can prove it. I'll apologize profusely if you can. If not, then you should.

That's from Salon Magazine.

153 Achilles Tang  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:49:01pm

re: #76 Salamantis

You say that this is not a flounce.

And yet you state that the site has devolved, and that it is insane.

Ahh, something new; a non-flounce flounce!

Most of these (deleted) have such a similar MO. I suspect Charles has a programmed watch list for them, popping up any incoming posts.

I wonder how many remain?

154 tradewind  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:49:42pm

re: #146 Gus 802

It's everywhere on the internet


Yeah, and so is The Truth About 9-11.
Seriously, I doubt that is factual, and won't believe it without a credible (non-whackjob) media link.

155 bosforus  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:49:42pm

re: #146 Gus 802

It's everywhere on the internet.


Well, there's plenty wrong with that type of game playing. If he addresses it and doesn't deny I'd say he did it. But just because he hasn't denied something that from what I see was only posted on the internet two days ago I wouldn't be so quick to believe. Not saying he didn't do it, I'm just sayin.

156 calcajun  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:49:48pm

re: #137 pre-Boomer Marine brat

ROFLMAO!

Quit yer toadying.

157 tradewind  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:50:11pm

re: #152 Gus 802

So post it. You alleged it. I'm sure you can rustle us up a link...

158 CapeCoddah  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:50:25pm

re: #149 tradewind

Sorry, but I call bullshit unless you can prove it. I'll apologize profusely if you can. If not, then you should.

I believe it...have you ever heard Beck? He is unhinged. And this is the SOBER Beck. Drunk, there is nothing I would put past him.

159 Charles Johnson  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:50:48pm

re: #154 tradewind

Yeah, and so is The Truth About 9-11.
Seriously, I doubt that is factual, and won't believe it without a credible (non-whackjob) media link.

That article is absolutely credible and sourced, with names and dates. If you still want to refuse to believe it, that's your choice.

160 Gus  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:51:01pm

re: #155 bosforus

re: #157 tradewind

Did either of you two bother to read this?

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

161 Gus  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:51:37pm

re: #157 tradewind

So post it. You alleged it. I'm sure you can rustle us up a link...

I didn't allege it.

Can't you read?

Hello?

162 albusteve  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:51:39pm

re: #151 Charles

Speaking of Kejda, get a load of this one:

[Link: bit.ly...]

yowza!...just plain sureal

163 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:51:57pm

Glenn Beck backhandedly brags that he's a rodeo clown, but that's not what he's trying to be - he's trying to be a rhetorical tightrope walker, always teetering on the edge of bigoted and crazy but never falling over into it.

Unfortunately for him, his cognitive equilibrium sux. Big time. Regally and royally.

164 Achilles Tang  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:51:59pm

re: #131 Flyovercountry

Isn't capitalism great?

Isn't common sense great?

165 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:52:01pm

re: #142 wrenchwench

Medaura's latest should not languish on a semi-dead thread.

Thank you. Up-dinged it.

/For the record -- yes, I honor certain aspects of the Confederacy -- valor on the battlefield -- dedication to a cause which, at one level, was very admirable. I do that without ANY agreement whatsoever with the overarching purposes of the rebellion, or the underlying uses to which its memory is put today.

166 tradewind  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:52:16pm

re: #158 CapeCoddah

This isn't about whether or not Beck is a whackjob, which I don't doubt.
This is something so heinous that the rest of the MSM would be slathering it all over the news right now, given his heightened profile.

167 tradewind  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:52:39pm

re: #161 Gus 802

Sorry, wrong turn.

168 Charles Johnson  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:53:23pm

re: #166 tradewind

This isn't about whether or not Beck is a whackjob, which I don't doubt.
This is something so heinous that the rest of the MSM would be slathering it all over the news right now, given his heightened profile.

It's true. It's well-documented.

But go ahead and keep denying.

169 Throbert McGee  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:53:24pm

I'm still not getting why the frog stunt was so outrageously inappropriate.

(1) Kids are unlikely to be watching the Glenn Beck show by themselves.
(2) In the event that a kid saw the stunt while a parent was watching the show, the parent would be right there to explain to the kid that it was just a magic trick.
(3) And the parent should know that it was just a magic trick because there was a very obvious cut in the video, and also because Beck explained that it was a fake frog less than a minute after he threw it into the pot, a point that was subsequently emphasized again in the exchange with John Bolton.

170 Drogheda  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:53:31pm

re: #151 Charles

Speaking of Kejda, get a load of this one:

[Link: bit.ly...]

I came across that guy last night. He says he was one of the participants in the debate that contained RSM's comment on interracial marriage.

171 Velvet Elvis  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:53:35pm

re: #157 tradewind

[Link: www.salon.com...]

172 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:53:40pm

re: #150 CapeCoddah

LOL, That pun should be an arrestable offense!

I've Gonzo far 'round the bend, I'm unredeemable.

173 bosforus  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:54:11pm

re: #160 Gus 802

Guess it just seems odd that something like this would take so long to become "news".

174 Neutral President  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:54:13pm

re: #151 Charles

Which unhinged d-bag that was probably lauched into orbit by Stinky's foot runs that blog?

I wonder how long the link to VDH will stay there as well.

175 tradewind  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:54:22pm

re: #162 albusteve

It's a cute picture. Too bad the SOB who runs the site didn't have a flattering motive in mind. I hope she takes care and watches her back.

176 wrenchwench  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:54:23pm

re: #151 Charles

Speaking of Kejda, get a load of this one:

[Link: bit.ly...]

Sheesh. I was just about to post this:


re: #148 Charles

I'm about to do a post on that.

You're obsessed!!!1!

///

...and then you show me that. Talk about obsessed...

177 Gus  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:55:20pm

re: #173 bosforus

Guess it just seems odd that something like this would take so long to become "news".

It happened in 1986. Looks like it came to the surface in 2007 so it's not really that new. I never heard about it until now.

178 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:55:52pm

re: #156 calcajun

Quit yer toadying.

Good one.

(I actually did LOL as that scrolled into view. One doesn't often see a pun from Charles. Totally unexpected.)

179 reine.de.tout  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:58:38pm

re: #114 HoosierHoops

I have a new recipe for the Cookbook Reine
1 part outrage
1 part truth
1 part tears
1 part insane
1 part a call to arms
1 part deception
Mix Well..add a dash of Salt
Bake for 45 minutes at 350.
Remove and cover in a colorful pure sugar Fox frosting...
And there you have it
Beck Cake

Got it.

180 wrenchwench  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:58:59pm

re: #169 Throbert McGee

I'm still not getting why the frog stunt was so outrageously inappropriate.

Maybe it was just badly inappropriate. Are you saying it was completely appropriate?

181 Killgore Trout  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:59:10pm

BTW, the video that everyone is freaking out about of the school children singing about Obama was from a Black History month celebration earlier this year...
School says "recording and distribution" of Black History Month activity "were unauthorized"

Dear Burlington Township Families:

Today we became aware of a video that was placed on the internet which has been reported in the media. The video is of a class of students singing a song about President Obama. The activity took place during Black History Month in 2009, which is recognized each February to honor the contributions of African Americans to our country. Our curriculum studies, honors and recognizes those who serve our country. The recording and distribution of the class activity were unauthorized.

If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me or Dr. King, Principal of B. Bernice Young School, directly.

Sincerely,

Dr. Christopher M. Manno,

Superintendent of Schools

When I looked at the school's website earlier it also appeared to be a private school, part of some network of private schools.

182 Throbert McGee  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:59:15pm
Since Glenn Beck just launched an attack on me on his comedy show

But Beck portrayed this as if I accused him — literally — of killing a frog. As you can see, that’s nothing short of a lie.

What "attack"? What "accusation"? What "lie"? He flashed a screenshot of your own headline Glenn Beck: Frog Killer and left it at that.

183 dwells38  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:59:28pm

White culture? What the hell does that mean?

So far I'm getting the sense from him that you aren't in "white culture" if you are:

an athiest
a jazz musician
sport a pony tail
ride a bike
off put by Glen Beck's effed up conspiracy Kool Aid.
think Obama isn't a foreigner, the antichrist or Fidel Castro with a hook shot.

184 BenghaziHoops  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:59:28pm

re: #162 albusteve

yowza!...just plain sureal

I agree.. A very ugly post Steve over there...The level of discourse there is this..If you don't buy my bullshit I'll post this:
The question is: Why? Is she secretly pro-terrorist? Does she have links to Al-Qaeda? Or is she just profoundly ignorant about Islam, its history, beliefs, practices and goals?
I think during halftime of the Ole Miss football game I'll just wander on over and blow that blog up...Somethings need to be answered and stood up too..Lies, Distortions, accusations, insanity and hate...
There will be words...

185 bosforus  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:00:59pm

re: #177 Gus 802

It happened in 1986. Looks like it came to the surface in 2007 so it's not really that new. I never heard about it until now.

How/where did it surface in 2007? Forgive me for not finding out for myself. I couldn't find that date in the salon article.

186 tradewind  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:03:40pm

Sometimes you really can't go home again:
[Link: www.google.com...]

187 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:04:24pm

re: #184 HoosierHoops

I agree.. A very ugly post Steve over there...The level of discourse there is this..If you don't buy my bullshit I'll post this:
The question is: Why? Is she secretly pro-terrorist? Does she have links to Al-Qaeda? Or is she just profoundly ignorant about Islam, its history, beliefs, practices and goals?
I think during halftime of the Ole Miss football game I'll just wander on over and blow that blog up...Somethings need to be answered and stood up too..Lies, Distortions, accusations, insanity and hate...
There will be words...

Here's betting that your posts will be held awaiting moderation, and will never appear.

188 CapeCoddah  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:04:42pm

re: #166 tradewind

This isn't about whether or not Beck is a whackjob, which I don't doubt.
This is something so heinous that the rest of the MSM would be slathering it all over the news right now, given his heightened profile.

Never put ANYTHING past a whackjob. It is heinous, and sounds exactly like something Beck would do, the prick.

189 Athos  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:05:12pm

re: #151 Charles

What a freakin' loon...

190 Randall Gross  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:05:33pm

White Culture: That's what grows on the three week old bean dip in the back of the fridge.

Seriously, I challenge any Glen Beck supporter here to identify something that is definitely part of white culture and white culture alone. (and no, hate groups like stormfront don't count.) I don't think there is a "white culture" anymore than there's a specific culture for any other race.

191 Velvet Elvis  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:06:00pm

Fox Nation: "It’s always a bad sign when a US president gets several rounds of heavy applause at the UN General Assembly, as Barack Obama did this morning in New York"

192 albusteve  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:07:33pm

re: #187 Salamantis

Here's betting that your posts will be held awaiting moderation, and will never appear.

going in guns akimbo...into a black hole

193 Throbert McGee  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:07:35pm

re: #180 wrenchwench

Maybe it was just badly inappropriate. Are you saying it was completely appropriate?

It was appropriate to whatever extent a bit of mildly tasteless and amateurish stage magic can be "appropriate." (And even the tastelessness of the humor was mitigated by the fact that it was immediately explained as having been a trick using a rubber frog.)

194 Spare O'Lake  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:08:13pm

Glenn Beck's antics say as much or more about his audience, network and sponsors, not to mention the sad state of American journalism, than about the nutty huckster himself.

195 CapeCoddah  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:08:39pm

re: #184 HoosierHoops

Went, left a post, never appeared.

196 albusteve  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:09:38pm

re: #194 Spare O'Lake

Glenn Beck's antics say as much or more about his audience, network and sponsors, not to mention the sad state of American journalism, than about the nutty huckster himself.

he needs a red rubber nose

197 Randall Gross  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:09:52pm

I've got to step out a bit for work, but I'll check back later to see if there are any takers for my challenge.

198 Flyovercountry  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:10:42pm

re: #169 Throbert McGee

I'm still not getting why the frog stunt was so outrageously inappropriate.

(1) Kids are unlikely to be watching the Glenn Beck show by themselves.
(2) In the event that a kid saw the stunt while a parent was watching the show, the parent would be right there to explain to the kid that it was just a magic trick.
(3) And the parent should know that it was just a magic trick because there was a very obvious cut in the video, and also because Beck explained that it was a fake frog less than a minute after he threw it into the pot, a point that was subsequently emphasized again in the exchange with John Bolton.

You obviously don't have any children of your own, or you would not have made this comment. Let me help you out.

1. It is impossible to watch your children constantly once they learn to walk.
2. The concept of majic tricks is a tough one for really young children. After your well thought out explanation, they would only be more frightened of the man who can now magically kill frogs.
3. Traumatize children are generally difficult to deal with. This was just sick.

No, it does not replace, "Oligarhy," as my favorite Beck Meltdown moment, more because of its insidious nature.

199 Spare O'Lake  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:11:20pm

re: #196 albusteve

he needs a red rubber nose

It's "Unreality TV"!

200 tradewind  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:11:40pm

#173 bosforus
This salon bit was written by Alexander Zaitchek, who writes for Alternet, a far left website, and passed on originally by FireDogLake, which is about as far left as you can go. Not sure I would use either of them as a reliable source.
That said, the event supposedly occurred at the height of Beck's self- admitted cocaine addiction, which would explain a lot. I would still be leery of its accuracy.
[Link: www.alternet.org...]re:

201 BenghaziHoops  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:11:51pm

re: #190 Thanos

White Culture: That's what grows on the three week old bean dip in the back of the fridge.

Seriously, I challenge any Glen Beck supporter here to identify something that is definitely part of white culture and white culture alone. (and no, hate groups like stormfront don't count.) I don't think there is a "white culture" anymore than there's a specific culture for any other race.

Really? Wow...
I don't know what to say...

202 researchok  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:12:19pm

re: #182 Throbert McGee

Charles remarks were comments on infantile behavior and poor taste as it was on anything else.

203 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:12:20pm

re: #195 CapeCoddah

Went, left a post, never appeared.

These craven cowards speak only where they can completely control any conversation - where no posts credibly refuting their slanderous lies are allowed to appear.

204 sngnsgt  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:12:42pm

re: #133 Charles

It's not easy being Little Green Footballs.

Be-dum-bum!

205 CapeCoddah  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:13:00pm

The post did just appear..surprisingly.

206 bosforus  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:13:28pm

Well, Beck's an idiot. And Y95 rocked in 1992. Must have been because he had already left.

207 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:15:22pm

re: #205 CapeCoddah

The post did just appear..surprisingly.

Maybe the fact that he even RECEIVED a post was tres precious to him; he can probably count all the comments posted on his blog on his fingers and toes.

208 Athos  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:15:58pm

re: #181 Killgore Trout

According to Wiki its a public school PreK - 2nd grade in the Burlington Township School District.

The School District as another elementary school that hosts Grades 3 -6.

209 tradewind  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:16:51pm

Fox News just got a massive ratings boost: Chavez is on a rant against it.
Oughta be good for a double digit numbers jump.

210 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:17:11pm

re: #208 Athos

According to Wiki its a public school PreK - 2nd grade in the Burlington Township School District.

The School District as another elementary school that hosts Grades 3 -6.

It's easier to brainwash 'em when they're young...

211 Athos  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:18:16pm

re: #210 Salamantis

It's easier to brainwash 'em when they're young...

Yeah, it took me years to recover from dancing the May Pole dance when I was in Elementary School...
/

212 tradewind  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:19:26pm

re: #181 Killgore Trout

Burlington VT? Sanctuary City, Nuke-Free zone, warrant- for- Bush's -arrest Burlington? I'm surprised they haven't made private schools illegal.

213 calcajun  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:20:08pm

re: #184 HoosierHoops

Too little time to say all that it on my mind. I'll try and do it this weekend. But, I have spent the past several nights gamboling among the "other" websites, lurking as it were, on what is being said--and how. Still forming my opinions, but I can say that I don't have any high ones of several of those sites.

Back to salt mines-- unless more pun threads start up.

214 dwells38  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:20:18pm

So let's see. Could white culture mean...western culture? Obama hates Europeans? Oh wait he wants european style socialism. That can't be it.

Does he hate whites? He had a white guy running his campaign and a white chief of staff and many other whites in his administration. But other than that he hates whites. Oh wait HE'S HALF WHITE!

This all sounds a lot like when Bush was in office. Remember he hated blacks. Except Condi Rice and she doesn't count because she's just so ...whitish what with the brains and the classical piano chops and the russian expertise. Oh and Colin Powell but he's...oh never mind.

215 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:20:51pm

I was just musing...

Back in the days of McCarthy, it took years for the other media sources to grow a pair and take him down.

These days our Murrow is Charles...

216 calcajun  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:20:53pm

re: #211 Athos

Yeah, it took me years to recover from dancing the May Pole dance when I was in Elementary School...
/

Hey, when is "The Wicker Man" going to be on TV again?/

217 calcajun  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:21:37pm

re: #216 calcajun

Hey, when is "The Wicker Man" going to be on TV again?/

The original one-- not that POS with Nicholas Cage.

218 Killgore Trout  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:21:45pm

re: #208 Athos

Ah, thanks. I couldn't figure it out from their webpage (now crashed)

219 tradewind  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:22:06pm

re: #168 Charles

I can't deny something I have no knowledge of, and so I'm not. I was doubting.
Still have not seen the original source. But if it took place when he was coked out and drunk 24/7, there's no telling what he did.

220 avanti  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:22:52pm

Having them walk out would be so much better./

221 Athos  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:23:09pm

re: #212 tradewind

Burlington Township New Jersey - town about halfway between Philly and Trenton on the Delaware. Opposite Bristol, PA.

222 Killgore Trout  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:24:00pm

re: #212 tradewind

New Jersey. Seems it's a public school, either way I can't get too worked up about it.. Black history month. They're singing a song about racial equality and the first black President. I just can't get outraged by it.

223 tradewind  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:24:00pm

re: #221 Athos

Oh. Completely different story.
I thought the video looked way too diverse for VT.
///

224 Guanxi88  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:24:03pm

re: #13 Locker

Seems likely that Glen Beck would compulsively google himself.

He can go blind from that.

225 Guanxi88  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:24:44pm

re: #216 calcajun

Hey, when is "The Wicker Man" going to be on TV again?/

Ahh, the young people! Does not the sight of them refresh you, officer?

226 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:25:23pm

re: #224 Guanxi88

He can go blind from that.

Or eventually get to the point where he has to shave his palms daily.

227 Truck Monkey  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:29:35pm

re: #222 Killgore Trout

New Jersey. Seems it's a public school, either way I can't get too worked up about it.. Black history month. They're singing a song about racial equality and the first black President. I just can't get outraged by it.

I can. I don't my kid being forced to sing praises to any man... I don't care who he is.

228 albusteve  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:32:36pm

re: #222 Killgore Trout

New Jersey. Seems it's a public school, either way I can't get too worked up about it.. Black history month. They're singing a song about racial equality and the first black President. I just can't get outraged by it.

it's nauseating...he is not some historical figure in a past sense...indoctrination pure and simple...for effect they should sing a song about Jackie Robinson

229 medaura18586  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:32:51pm

re: #151 Charles

Speaking of Kejda, get a load of this one:

[Link: bit.ly...]

The most offensive lie that dimwit is propagating about me is that I'm 26. These morons better hope I do my research on them with the same diligence they are doing theirs on mine.

230 medaura18586  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:33:42pm

re: #229 medaura18586

pimf: These morons better hope I do my research on them with the same diligence they are doing theirs on me.

231 Killgore Trout  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:35:01pm

re: #227 Truck Monkey

As an atheist kid I used to have recite the pledge of allegiance in school and boyscouts. Never bothered me any. Obama is the president. There might be a technical issue with a public school doing this but but I don't see anything wrong with it. I think kids should be raised to respect the president. Unfortunately we have too many adults who want to raise their children blinded with hate for the "other".

232 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:35:36pm

re: #230 medaura18586

pimf: These morons better hope I do my research on them with the same diligence [with which] they are doing theirs on me.

FTFY...;~)

233 Killgore Trout  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:36:34pm

re: #228 albusteve

..for effect they should sing a song about Jackie Robinson


No complaints from my but the Yankee fans would bitch up a storm.

234 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:37:21pm

re: #231 Killgore Trout

As an atheist kid I used to have recite the pledge of allegiance in school and boyscouts. Never bothered me any. Obama is the president. There might be a technical issue with a public school doing this but but I don't see anything wrong with it. I think kids should be raised to respect the president. Unfortunately we have too many adults who want to raise their children blinded with hate for the "other".

I just don't want to see them blinded with adoration or devotion to an elected public servant, either.

235 CapeCoddah  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:37:34pm

re: #231 Killgore Trout

Killgore, the Pledge of Allegiance is a pledge to a nation, not a single person, there is a big difference.

236 Killgore Trout  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:37:35pm

re: #229 medaura18586

Rodan stalked somebody recently thinking it was me. Not sure it it was online or in the real world but they sure are stupid.

237 Killgore Trout  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:38:05pm

re: #235 CapeCoddah

The God part was what I was alluding to on that one.

238 medaura18586  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:38:37pm

re: #232 Salamantis

No, come on now! that is implied... I subscribe to the school of rhetoric according to which connectors should be omitted when they are obvious. Trims the prose nicely.

239 Athos  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:38:39pm

re: #233 Killgore Trout

No complaints from my but the Yankee fans would bitch up a storm.

Not this one...

240 CapeCoddah  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:38:49pm

re: #237 Killgore Trout

I got that.

241 Killgore Trout  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:39:55pm

...and that video was from February. Looks like they were rehearsing tp put on some sort of performance. Parents probably attended and thought it was cute. Not everybody lives in a hyper-partisan world.

242 fat.elvis  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:40:05pm

If I keep watching these Beck clips I'm going to lose every last brain cell.

243 Danny  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:40:12pm

Ky. Authorities: Census Bureau Employee Died of Asphyxiation

The Census Bureau employee who was found dead and tied to a tree in Eastern Kentucky earlier this month died of asphyxiation, according to preliminary findings of a medical report.

State and federal law enforcement officials on Thursday dismissed the suggestion from a news service report that the man, William Sparkman, 51, might have been targeted because he worked for the federal government, calling that speculative.

...

"I think to give this impression that he was strung up because he was a federal employee is giving a bad impression to the nation," said Dave Beyer, spokesman for the FBI field office in Louisville, which is working with state officials on their investigation.

244 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:41:43pm

Could this guy have scrawled FED on his own chest, then hung himself? Or do they have forensic evidence that someone else was involved?

245 karmic_inquisitor  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:42:09pm

re: #231 Killgore Trout

As an atheist kid I used to have recite the pledge of allegiance in school and boyscouts. Never bothered me any. Obama is the president. There might be a technical issue with a public school doing this but but I don't see anything wrong with it. I think kids should be raised to respect the president. Unfortunately we have too many adults who want to raise their children blinded with hate for the "other".

There is one more issue here - that of local school control.

For as long as I can remember conservatives have lobbied for local school control. Let the community decide what students get in the way of curriculum. In fact, that is the vector that the Discovery Institute wants to use to get creationism adopted in curriculum.

So why aren't conservatives defending the locals having a Black History Month activity that they came up with? Oh - they don't like the outcome. So what is with the local control argument?

246 CapeCoddah  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:42:16pm

I wonder if the post where I point out that "Sphincter Point" would be a more appropriate name for that blog will go up?

247 Athos  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:42:50pm

re: #235 CapeCoddah

Killgore, the Pledge of Allegiance is a pledge to a nation, not a single person, there is a big difference.

When I first attended school in the US, I was sent to the principle because I would not recite the Pledge - just stand still when it was recited. Since I wasn't an American - the teacher was told to leave me alone as long as I was respectful. I was a little older than those kids - but knew the issue.

If my daughter was in that position at that age - my issue would have been with the focus on the President - with the author of a kid's book about the President being there, hyping the book, and apparently putting the video on YouTube. I would have raised an issue about it being inappropriate.

248 Killgore Trout  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:42:51pm

re: #243 Danny

Thanks for the update.

249 Truck Monkey  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:43:24pm

re: #231 Killgore Trout

As an atheist kid I used to have recite the pledge of allegiance in school and boyscouts. Never bothered me any. Obama is the president. There might be a technical issue with a public school doing this but but I don't see anything wrong with it. I think kids should be raised to respect the president. Unfortunately we have too many adults who want to raise their children blinded with hate for the "other".

I never said anything about hate did I? If it were about Ronald Reagan I wouldn't want them doing it then eiher. This is too creepy for words.

250 Danny  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:43:36pm

The article implies there may be doubts about the validity of the "Fed" claim.

251 debutaunt  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:43:49pm

re: #181 Killgore Trout

BTW, the video that everyone is freaking out about of the school children singing about Obama was from a Black History month celebration earlier this year...
School says "recording and distribution" of Black History Month activity "were unauthorized"


When I looked at the school's website earlier it also appeared to be a private school, part of some network of private schools.

Is it a private school? I couldn't get the webste to open...

252 Mich-again  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:44:00pm

re: #243 Danny

"

I think to give this impression that he was strung up because he was a federal employee is giving a bad impression to the nation,"

Someone murdered him and scribbled the word "fed" on his corpse. What other impression could anyone have?

253 CapeCoddah  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:44:17pm

re: #251 debutaunt

site crashed

254 Killgore Trout  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:44:48pm

re: #251 debutaunt

No, it appears to be a public school.

255 Throbert McGee  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:45:11pm

re: #198 Flyovercountry

2. The concept of magic tricks is a tough one for really young children. After your well thought out explanation, they would only be more frightened of the man who can now magically kill frogs.

Oh for fuck's sake.

Fine, let me amend my recommendation: After being clued in to the fact that it was just a fake frog because Beck made this point twice immediately after the "skit," a parent could explain to a child that it was "special effects" or "a magic trick," or that it was "only a toy frog," as age-appropriate for the child in question.

Would this thread even exist if the frog stunt had been done by someone who wasn't a well-established asshole, like Beck? I think that a lot of people are letting their (quite understandable) distaste for Beck color their reactions to what they would otherwise see as an essentially innocuous bit of tasteless humor on TV. And the outrage over the "frog killing" has distracted some people from criticizing Beck's implied and over-the-top accusation that Obama is boiling us all alive -- which I believe was the entire point of the skit, and that's the thing that Beck ought to be attacked for.

256 Athos  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:45:29pm

re: #251 debutaunt

Is it a private school? I couldn't get the webste to open...

It's a public school - part of the Burlington Township School District.

257 albusteve  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:45:48pm

re: #231 Killgore Trout

As an atheist kid I used to have recite the pledge of allegiance in school and boyscouts. Never bothered me any. Obama is the president. There might be a technical issue with a public school doing this but but I don't see anything wrong with it. I think kids should be raised to respect the president. Unfortunately we have too many adults who want to raise their children blinded with hate for the "other".

it's not about the President, it's about BO who's been in office less than one year...what if he's impeached hahaha!...how do you undo the cute little ditty then?

258 medaura18586  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:46:05pm

re: #231 Killgore Trout

As an atheist AND an exchange student, I got away with never reciting it. No regrets on that department...

259 Killgore Trout  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:48:39pm

re: #257 albusteve

...what if he's impeached hahaha!...how do you undo the cute little ditty then?


Sing about President Biden, of course.

260 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:49:00pm

re: #258 medaura18586

As an atheist AND an exchange student, I got away with never reciting it. No regrets on that department...

Oh, so you're one of those Islamist atheists, ayy? Nasty folks, those...
Not very many of 'em, though...
/

261 wrenchwench  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:49:54pm

re: #255 Throbert McGee

And the outrage over the "frog killing" has distracted some people from criticizing Beck's implied and over-the-top accusation that Obama is boiling us all alive -- which I believe was the entire point of the skit, and that's the thing that Beck ought to be attacked for.

You could have said that in the first place, instead of getting outraged at the outrage.

262 [deleted]  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:49:57pm
263 Truck Monkey  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:50:28pm

re: #259 Killgore Trout

Sing about President Biden, of course.

I could probably come up with something pretty quick. Question. Would you be troubled if these children were paying tribute to George Bush? I would.

264 Mich-again  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:50:45pm

re: #231 Killgore Trout

I think that song is not nearly as offensive as when schools let kids out of their classes for a day so they can take them to political rallies for candidates. That's wrong. As for the song, if it was voluntary, fine. But if kids were forced into it, that would be wrong as well in my opinion.

In either case, its not at all the same as having kids recite the Pledge of Allegiance (to the United States of America.)

265 debutaunt  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:51:08pm

re: #254 Killgore Trout

No, it appears to be a public school.

It would have been much easier to take had it been a private school, but parents will have to deal with it each time it happens.

266 medaura18586  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:51:19pm

re: #260 Salamantis

Oh, so you're one of those Islamist atheists, ayy? Nasty folks, those...
Not very many of 'em, though...
/

I'm a Jihadist concern troll AND a dogmatic, atheistic [Ayn] Randian. I keep all those plates spinning... master juggler I am...

267 albusteve  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:51:45pm

re: #259 Killgore Trout

Sing about President Biden, of course.

HAIL!

268 Gus  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:51:47pm

re: #151 Charles

Speaking of Kejda, get a load of this one:

[Link: bit.ly...]

Might want to check this.

269 Charles Johnson  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:52:22pm

re: #229 medaura18586

The most offensive lie that dimwit is propagating about me is that I'm 26. These morons better hope I do my research on them with the same diligence they are doing theirs on mine.

He sent this email to me yesterday before I IP-blocked him:

I hate the way you continually lie about Stacy McCain being a "white supremacist." You are worse than a liar, you are one sick fuck and you
need a good lawsuit for libel.

270 [deleted]  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:52:42pm
271 Danny  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:53:01pm

re: #268 Gus 802

Same person?

272 Gus  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:53:20pm

re: #271 Danny

Same person?

Don't know.

273 Killgore Trout  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:53:54pm

re: #263 Truck Monkey

Would you be troubled if these children were paying tribute to George Bush?


Nope.

274 Guanxi88  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:53:59pm

re: #231 Killgore Trout

As an atheist kid I used to have recite the pledge of allegiance in school and boyscouts. Never bothered me any. Obama is the president. .

And, so far as I can tell, he's certainly the first to have hymns composed and chanted in his honor before the end of his first year in office.

This stuff is of a piece with the freelance Obamolatry that has sprung up around this guy since his campaign got going in earnest. He hasn't instigated it, but he certainly has done nothing of which I know to discourage it.

What should bother folk even more than this, but the latest in an ever-growing catalog of such incidents, is the enthusiasm and fervor with which so many are all too willing to make an object of their adoration and hopes this Chauncey Gardner out of Chicago.

A question raised by this and similar instances:

1) If such words were chanted in honor of Jesus, the Buddha, or any other religious figure or prophet, would it constitute religious instruction?

275 debutaunt  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:54:05pm

re: #265 debutaunt

It would have been much easier to take had it been a private school, but parents will have to deal with it each time it happens.

Did the little kiddies ever sing like that about our previous president?

276 Killgore Trout  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:54:15pm

re: #270 buzzsawmonkey

Nice one!

277 Charles Johnson  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:54:49pm

re: #198 Flyovercountry

You obviously don't have any children of your own, or you would not have made this comment. Let me help you out.

1. It is impossible to watch your children constantly once they learn to walk.
2. The concept of majic tricks is a tough one for really young children. After your well thought out explanation, they would only be more frightened of the man who can now magically kill frogs.
3. Traumatize children are generally difficult to deal with. This was just sick.

No, it does not replace, "Oligarhy," as my favorite Beck Meltdown moment, more because of its insidious nature.

I don't have children either, but I don't seem to be having any problem understanding this extremely simple point.

278 avanti  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:54:55pm

re: #264 Mich-again

I think that song is not nearly as offensive as when schools let kids out of their classes for a day so they can take them to political rallies for candidates. That's wrong. As for the song, if it was voluntary, fine. But if kids were forced into it, that would be wrong as well in my opinion.

In either case, its not at all the same as having kids recite the Pledge of Allegiance (to the United States of America.)

I don't support the choice to have the kids sing the song. My guess is someone was a bit to caught up in her joy of a black POTUS and went overboard. She screwed up, no question.

279 Truck Monkey  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:56:12pm

re: #273 Killgore Trout

Nope.

That's a bit creepy. GW is just a man that happened to be born to be president. //

280 wrenchwench  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:57:05pm

re: #271 Danny

Same person?

On its posts its nic has a link to the same blog.

281 karmic_inquisitor  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:57:12pm

re: #269 Charles

From his posts at his and other sites we can all safely assume he was praying for you while calling you a "sick fuck".

282 Killgore Trout  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:57:27pm

re: #274 Guanxi88


And, so far as I can tell, he's certainly the first to have hymns composed and chanted in his honor before the end of his first year in office.


I doubt that. Citizenship has been an important value in American culture for most of our history. I guess it kinda died out in the 70's (I blame Disco). I wouldn't at all be surprised to learn that public schools up to the 50's and 60's all had portraits of the president hing on the wall. They would write essays about how they could help the country of advise the president . This was probably once very common.

283 avanti  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:57:35pm

re: #263 Truck Monkey

I could probably come up with something pretty quick. Question. Would you be troubled if these children were paying tribute to George Bush? I would.

That was done too, but at a religious retreat for some Jesus's teen army sort of a deal, even with a cardboard cut out of GW. I didn't much care for that either.

284 reine.de.tout  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:57:38pm

re: #247 Athos

When I first attended school in the US, I was sent to the principle because I would not recite the Pledge - just stand still when it was recited. Since I wasn't an American - the teacher was told to leave me alone as long as I was respectful. I was a little older than those kids - but knew the issue.

If my daughter was in that position at that age - my issue would have been with the focus on the President - with the author of a kid's book about the President being there, hyping the book, and apparently putting the video on YouTube. I would have raised an issue about it being inappropriate.

that author had a whole series of events planned, for instance at a "jack and jill club" (or something) - no problem.

If this was a public school, and the author was there hawking her book, and having the kids sing the praises, not of our country and our system, but of Barack Obama (who her book is about) - the whole idea of doing all of that in a public school was very poorly thought out, imo.

This was NOT an attempt by the administration itself to "indoctrinate" schoolkids.

It was an author trying to sell a book about a particular elected official, and using schoolkids singing the praises of that person to try to do it. Very poor decision on the part of the school to let that happen.

285 Danny  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:58:04pm

re: #280 wrenchwench

On its posts its nic has a link to the same blog.

Sheer coincidence, probably.

/

286 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:58:15pm

re: #279 Truck Monkey

That's a bit creepy. GW is just a man that happened to be born to be president. //

According to the late former Democrat governor of Texas Ann Richards, he was "born with a silver foot in his mouth."

287 MandyManners  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:58:40pm

I'm gonna' pop in really quickly to ask for your thoughts and prayers. The Kid has H1N1 and is extremely sick. He has a script for Tamiflu and one for a powerful anti-biotic because bacterial infections are not uncommone with it. I just hope he won't puke it all up. Thank you for your thoughts and prayers in advance.

288 [deleted]  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:58:46pm
289 medaura18586  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:59:00pm

re: #269 Charles

Here is where the "twits" and "sick fucks" congregate... he found their nest. But if he wants to sue me, he'll have to get in line behind Robert Spencer and Stacy McCain. They've both threatened. Why he would willingly offer his IP for blocking and tracking is beyond me.

290 Killgore Trout  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:59:29pm

re: #274 Guanxi88

A question raised by this and similar instances:

1) If such words were chanted in honor of Jesus, the Buddha, or any other religious figure or prophet, would it constitute religious instruction?


An elected leader is not a religious figure. Very big difference. Btw, the only people I ever see likening Obama to a god are people on the right.

291 debutaunt  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:59:39pm

re: #287 MandyManners

I'm gonna' pop in really quickly to ask for your thoughts and prayers. The Kid has H1N1 and is extremely sick. He has a script for Tamiflu and one for a powerful anti-biotic because bacterial infections are not uncommone with it. I just hope he won't puke it all up. Thank you for your thoughts and prayers in advance.

Oh Mandy! Is is running through the school?

292 karmic_inquisitor  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:59:45pm

re: #287 MandyManners

Thank you for your thoughts and prayers in advance.

You and your son have mine.

293 Danny  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:59:46pm

re: #287 MandyManners

I'm gonna' pop in really quickly to ask for your thoughts and prayers. The Kid has H1N1 and is extremely sick. He has a script for Tamiflu and one for a powerful anti-biotic because bacterial infections are not uncommone with it. I just hope he won't puke it all up. Thank you for your thoughts and prayers in advance.

Both of you will be in my prayers, Mandy.

294 CapeCoddah  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:59:49pm

Jeeze, Mandy, Prayers here... hope he is OK, and you as well. Anything we can do, just ask.

295 reine.de.tout  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:00:22pm

re: #287 MandyManners

I'm gonna' pop in really quickly to ask for your thoughts and prayers. The Kid has H1N1 and is extremely sick. He has a script for Tamiflu and one for a powerful anti-biotic because bacterial infections are not uncommone with it. I just hope he won't puke it all up. Thank you for your thoughts and prayers in advance.

you got it Mandy

296 Charles Johnson  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:00:26pm

re: #222 Killgore Trout

New Jersey. Seems it's a public school, either way I can't get too worked up about it.. Black history month. They're singing a song about racial equality and the first black President. I just can't get outraged by it.

The outrages are coming fast and furious. A new one every day. Gotta keep those angry readers at a boil.

297 albusteve  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:00:44pm

re: #287 MandyManners

I'm gonna' pop in really quickly to ask for your thoughts and prayers. The Kid has H1N1 and is extremely sick. He has a script for Tamiflu and one for a powerful anti-biotic because bacterial infections are not uncommone with it. I just hope he won't puke it all up. Thank you for your thoughts and prayers in advance.

my highest and best hopes for him, and you...

298 Killgore Trout  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:00:48pm

re: #284 reine.de.tout

If this was a public school, and the author was there hawking her book, and having the kids sing the praises, not of our country and our system, but of Barack Obama (who her book is about) - the whole idea of doing all of that in a public school was very poorly thought out, imo.

This was NOT an attempt by the administration itself to "indoctrinate" schoolkids.

It was an author trying to sell a book about a particular elected official, and using schoolkids singing the praises of that person to try to do it. Very poor decision on the part of the school to let that happen.


Well said.

299 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:01:54pm

re: #287 MandyManners

I'm gonna' pop in really quickly to ask for your thoughts and prayers. The Kid has H1N1 and is extremely sick. He has a script for Tamiflu and one for a powerful anti-biotic because bacterial infections are not uncommone with it. I just hope he won't puke it all up. Thank you for your thoughts and prayers in advance.

I had it earlier. It was rough as hell for about 5 days, then gradually tailed off over then next two weeks.

But then again, I'm 54 soon. And I hear that it strikes the young harder than it does the old, due to residual immunity from past flu infections.

300 calcajun  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:01:57pm

re: #262 buzzsawmonkey

Maybe he was confused and meant to carve "def"?

301 Randall Gross  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:02:08pm

re: #287 MandyManners

I'm gonna' pop in really quickly to ask for your thoughts and prayers. The Kid has H1N1 and is extremely sick. He has a script for Tamiflu and one for a powerful anti-biotic because bacterial infections are not uncommone with it. I just hope he won't puke it all up. Thank you for your thoughts and prayers in advance.

Mandy, hope that he gets better fast.

302 Guanxi88  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:02:16pm

re: #282 Killgore Trout

I doubt that. Citizenship has been an important value in American culture for most of our history. I guess it kinda died out in the 70's (I blame Disco). I wouldn't at all be surprised to learn that public schools up to the 50's and 60's all had portraits of the president hing on the wall. They would write essays about how they could help the country of advise the president . This was probably once very common.

I'd hope there were Presidential portraits hanging up in the classrooms; education for citizenship is of course very important, and it helps to sort of personalize the President by being able to see his picture regularly. The democracy of the image, after all. The chants in his honor (in this and in other cases) is a very different thing. The portrait brings him into the room, and makes the President part of the classroom; the chants and songs make him an object of adoration.

There's no getting around it; I sang no songs in honor of Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, et al. as part of ANY activities during my public education, and I would be quite surprised to learn of anyone else having a different experience.

303 karmic_inquisitor  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:02:34pm

re: #296 Charles

The outrages are coming fast and furious. A new one every day. Gotta keep those angry readers at a boil.

Boil a new rabbit everyday. Glen Close type rage.

304 [deleted]  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:02:46pm
305 tradewind  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:03:45pm

re: #278 avanti

It's no different from the cult-ish ' Because of Obama I can (fill in normal life skill of choice) ___' rap video featuring high school boys marching in like automatons. If they all want to do it, I don't see anything wrong with it. I wouldn't want to make it a mandatory class activity.
I do hope these teachers aren't filling the children with the notion that because of TOTUS, they'll find a pony under the tree this Christmas. It kind of feels like that sometimes.

306 karmic_inquisitor  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:04:26pm

re: #290 Killgore Trout

An elected leader is not a religious figure. Very big difference. Btw, the only people I ever see likening Obama to a god are people on the right.

You have to admit that the whole "lightworker" thing was creepy. And it didn't come from the right - it was authentic other-worldly adoration.

307 reine.de.tout  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:04:59pm

re: #304 buzzsawmonkey

True. Which is why quasi-religious adulation of an elected leader is disturbing.

As someone who has done a number of song parodies, I will observe that you take as your base text what seems to fit the thought of the moment. But I could certainly see how a parent, for instance, might be somewhat perturbed that one verse from the kidvid song was not only based on, but pretty much fully appropriated for the President, the verse of "Jesus loves the little children."

When I was in the fifth grade, we learned a song called, "Hail to George Washington".

So, the nuns in the school decided to have us sing it class, instead, as "Hail to John Kennedy", who was President at the time.

My dad flipped his lid.
But more importantly, I was not scarred for life.

308 calcajun  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:05:13pm

re: #303 karmic_inquisitor

Boil a new rabbit everyday. Glen Close type rage.

Holy hoppin' hassenfeffer!

309 debutaunt  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:05:15pm

re: #302 Guanxi88

It does seem like a new phenomenon and in public schools yet.

310 CapeCoddah  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:05:47pm

re: #302 Guanxi88

We learned about the duties and responsibilities of the OFFICE of the presidency. Never the current man himself, with the exception of knowing his name.

311 reine.de.tout  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:05:55pm

re: #307 reine.de.tout

When I was in the fifth grade, we learned a song called, "Hail to George Washington".

So, the nuns in the school decided to have us sing it class, instead, as "Hail to John Kennedy", who was President at the time.

My dad flipped his lid.
But more importantly, I was not scarred for life.

OOps.
need to finish.

I'm not saying this kind of stuff should go on, or is a good decision of the schools when they allow it.

However, it happens, and people survive.

312 Charles Johnson  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:06:01pm

re: #306 karmic_inquisitor

You have to admit that the whole "lightworker" thing was creepy. And it didn't come from the right - it was authentic other-worldly adoration.

The "Lightworker" idiocy came from SF Chronicle moonbat Mark Morford -- one of the most whacked out fools currently writing for any newspaper. I don't think it ever really caught on outside of his weird little world.

313 Truck Monkey  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:06:08pm

re: #296 Charles

The outrages are coming fast and furious. A new one every day. Gotta keep those angry readers at a boil.

I'm not boiling but I certainly do find it objectionable.

314 tradewind  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:06:19pm

re: #290 Killgore Trout

You haven't really looked around, then. There really are paens to him all over as the messiah. As in 'We are the Ones We have been Waiting For', only these people hear it in the singular.

315 Guanxi88  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:06:30pm

re: #290 Killgore Trout

An elected leader is not a religious figure. Very big difference. Btw, the only people I ever see likening Obama to a god are people on the right.

At least we agree on that. Very good, then, just to be clear:

Red and yellow black and white
All are equal in his sight

is a paraphrase of a favorite children's hymn. The plagiarism is so obvious and disturbing as to be unavoidable.

The god-complex thing was inevitable; the President didn't create it, but he has done nothing to stop it. Their are any number of pseudo-religious portraits of the man (in photographs and in other media) that are not the work of his opponents, but of those wishing to express their spontaneous and (for them) genuine admiration of the fellow.

As for rightists likening him to a divinity, I think it's a base canard, as the iconography that has built around the man is most decidedly not of rightist origin.

316 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:06:47pm

re: #306 karmic_inquisitor

You have to admit that the whole "lightworker" thing was creepy. And it didn't come from the right - it was authentic other-worldly adoration.

Dammit, Jim, he's our nation's elected president, not its anointed lord!

/perturbed Bones mode off

317 debutaunt  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:06:52pm

re: #307 reine.de.tout

When I was in the fifth grade, we learned a song called, "Hail to George Washington".

So, the nuns in the school decided to have us sing it class, instead, as "Hail to John Kennedy", who was President at the time.

My dad flipped his lid.
But more importantly, I was not scarred for life.

Private school - big difference.

318 Killgore Trout  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:07:07pm

re: #296 Charles

Also this outraged is being pushed by Beck (who think "white culture" is under attack), Malkin (who writes for VDARE) and Hot Air (which until recently allowed commenters to call black women wookies). Their feelings about a black history month celebration aren't important to me. Even if I did object I wouldn't be jumping on their bandwagon.

319 [deleted]  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:07:30pm
320 albusteve  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:07:51pm

re: #307 reine.de.tout

When I was in the fifth grade, we learned a song called, "Hail to George Washington".

So, the nuns in the school decided to have us sing it class, instead, as "Hail to John Kennedy", who was President at the time.

My dad flipped his lid.
But more importantly, I was not scarred for life.

at least George was elected to Mt Rushmore...that might count for something

321 Randall Gross  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:08:04pm

I just got off the Todd Tiahrt townhall call, he's running for senator from Kansas to replace Brownback. From the townhall I get that he's just another Brownback, a Socon in Fiscon clothing.

322 tradewind  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:08:49pm

re: #315 Guanxi88

Red and yellow black and white
All are equal in his sight

... and the next line and title of the song..
'Jesus Loves the Little Children Of the World'.
Hard to escape that religious symbolism thing.

323 Killgore Trout  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:09:17pm

re: #319 buzzsawmonkey

Don't make me point out that the atheist demographic is very much on the left, and that atheists as a class tend to deny that their behavior resembles religious worship--usually with a vehemence in direct proportion to the closeness of the resemblence.

Blasphemy!

324 karmic_inquisitor  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:09:25pm

re: #312 Charles

The "Lightworker" idiocy came from SF Chronicle moonbat Mark Morford -- one of the most whacked out fools currently writing for any newspaper. I don't think it ever really caught on outside of his weird little world.

The sign of the "O" never really caught on either. But there was a hero worship vibe that has thankfully tapered off.

325 Charles Johnson  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:09:36pm

re: #321 Thanos

I just got off the Todd Tiahrt townhall call, he's running for senator from Kansas to replace Brownback. From the townhall I get that he's just another Brownback, a Socon in Fiscon clothing.

Not surprised. The religious far right is tightening their grip on the GOP.

326 [deleted]  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:10:09pm
327 reine.de.tout  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:10:15pm

re: #317 debutaunt

Private school - big difference.

Yes, but still not right, as far as my dad was concerned, to be singing praises to the specific person who was president at the time, rather than a historical figure.

And I think he was correct about that, whether the school was private or public.

The point is:
1. Schools sometimes make poor choices.
2. Kids survive.

328 calcajun  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:10:19pm

re: #290 Killgore Trout

Btw, the only people I ever see likening Obama to a god are people on the right.

That because the godless leftists don't have one, silly. All this idol chatter is making me hungry for some sacred cow burger./

329 medaura18586  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:10:36pm

re: #315 Guanxi88

At least we agree on that. Very good, then, just to be clear:

Red and yellow black and white
All are equal in his sight

is a paraphrase of a favorite children's hymn. The plagiarism is so obvious and disturbing as to be unavoidable.

The god-complex thing was inevitable; the President didn't create it, but he has done nothing to stop it. Their are any number of pseudo-religious portraits of the man (in photographs and in other media) that are not the work of his opponents, but of those wishing to express their spontaneous and (for them) genuine admiration of the fellow.

As for rightists likening him to a divinity, I think it's a base canard, as the iconography that has built around the man is most decidedly not of rightist origin.

My husband and I made this video a while back to capture the phenomenon. Obamabots managed to redflag it on YouTube bu the way,.. too satirical of their beloved.

330 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:11:04pm

re: #318 Killgore Trout

Also this outraged is being pushed by Beck (who think "white culture" is under attack), Malkin (who writes for VDARE) and Hot Air (which until recently allowed commenters to call black women wookies). Their feelings about a black history month celebration aren't important to me. Even if I did object I wouldn't be jumping on their bandwagon.

Never cede blind squirrels sole possession of stumbled upon nuts.

331 Randall Gross  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:11:13pm

re: #325 Charles

Not surprised. The religious far right is tightening their grip on the GOP.

His opponent is Jerry Moran, and that's where my vote's going.

332 tradewind  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:11:20pm

re: #252 Mich-again
That he was a narc, whether he was or not. He was found in a pot-growing, meth-lab-infested part of the forest where his family and friends say he really had no reason to be, and he may have stumbled across a booming cottage industry that did not want to be inspected.

333 calcajun  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:11:29pm

re: #319 buzzsawmonkey

Don't make me point out that the atheist demographic is very much on the left, and that atheists as a class tend to deny that their behavior resembles religious worship--usually with a vehemence in direct proportion to the closeness of the resemblence.

The word you're grappling for is "cult"--but with personality.

334 The Shadow Do  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:11:59pm

Anyone else a little edgy about the domestic Jihadi news these days?
One in my backyard just today.

Tomorrow? Attorney to terrorists organizes Muslim rally at Capitol

335 wrenchwench  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:12:08pm

re: #325 Charles

Not surprised. The religious far right is tightening their grip on the GOP.

Too bad their grip is around its neck.

336 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:12:40pm

re: #325 Charles

Not surprised. The religious far right is tightening their grip on the GOP.


337 Truck Monkey  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:12:44pm

re: #335 wrenchwench

Too bad their grip is around its neck.

In bed.

/had to

338 [deleted]  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:12:52pm
339 Athos  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:13:20pm

re: #325 Charles

Not surprised. The religious far right is tightening their grip on the GOP.

Which, if it is not checked, will result in the GOP having the same results in the 2010 / 2012 election cycle as the States Rights Democratic Party did in 1948.

340 tradewind  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:13:31pm

re: #334 The Shadow Do

Wow, that oughta be a barn burner. Let's hope it's as well attended as that last Million Muslim March on Washington.
///

341 avanti  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:13:52pm

Here's the closest Bush song I could find on a quick search, by the Katrina kids. Not a school thing though.

song.

342 Truck Monkey  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:14:46pm

re: #338 buzzsawmonkey

'Cause he's got cult--personality!
Charm--personality!
Bland--personality!
Warmth--and personality!

...sorry, I just can't do this one.

343 FrogMarch  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:15:50pm

re: #319 buzzsawmonkey

Don't make me point out that the atheist demographic is very much on the left, and that atheists as a class tend to deny that their behavior resembles religious worship--usually with a vehemence in direct proportion to the closeness of the resemblence.

Indeed. Oprah referred to Obama as "the One". Others on the left practically deified him too, and then we cannot forget all of the endless images with the halo of light behind his head. Sure, the right took it and ran with it. But they didn't create it out of whole cloth.

344 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:16:20pm

re: #336 LudwigVanQuixote

and just because...

345 JamesTKirk  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:16:50pm

re: #337 Truck Monkey

re: #335 wrenchwench
re: #325 Charles
The religious far right is tightening their grip on the GOP.

Too bad their grip is around its neck.

In bed.

No, in bed means they're giving the GOP a "reach around", which is an entirely different thing.

346 wiffersnapper  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:17:01pm

Glenn, you're not helping, sorry.

347 Guanxi88  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:17:04pm

re: #341 avanti

Here's the closest Bush song I could find on a quick search, by the Katrina kids. Not a school thing though.

song.

That's a pretty good find, though. Not exactly stanza after stanza praising the man's achievements and accomplishments, but a song well within the meaning of the word.

348 [deleted]  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:17:24pm
349 JamesTKirk  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:17:36pm

re: #338 buzzsawmonkey

'Cause he's got cult--personality!
Charm--personality!
Bland--personality!
Warmth--and personality!

...sorry, I just can't do this one.

350 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:17:40pm

re: #345 JamesTKirk

No, in bed means they're giving the GOP a "reach around", which is an entirely different thing.

You learn that from one of those green dancing girls?

351 Jetpilot1101  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:18:09pm

re: #325 Charles

Not surprised. The religious far right is tightening their grip on the GOP.

...and in doing so they go against one of the teachings of the God they purport to serve which is laid out pretty clearly in Mark 12:17 - And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.

Maybe some of these "Christians" should pick up their Bibles as opposed to picking up a protest sign.

352 Truck Monkey  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:18:25pm

re: #349 JamesTKirk



Beat you by Thaaat much.

353 Guanxi88  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:18:28pm

re: #350 LudwigVanQuixote

You learn that from one of those green dancing girls?

Don't you know that Kirk taught them? Hell, every known species received the Karma Sutra directly from him.

354 Truck Monkey  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:19:14pm

re: #353 Guanxi88

Don't you know that Kirk taught them? Hell, every known species received the Karma Sutra directly from him.

Ewww

355 [deleted]  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:20:06pm
356 tradewind  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:20:28pm

re: #287 MandyManners

MM,
My 19-year old nephew came home from college two weeks ago with confirmed H1N1... he felt lousy and it ran a regular flu like course... best wishes, bet he'll be up in no time. It took my nephew about a week, they kept him out of school for a week and a half. He's back now and messaged us to watch for him on ESPN tonight at the game, so I know he's fine.

357 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:20:34pm

re: #353 Guanxi88

Don't you know that Kirk taught them? Hell, every known species received the Karma Sutra directly from him.

Well nothing can stop Shatner...

358 BARACK THE VOTE  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:21:15pm

re: #319 buzzsawmonkey

Don't make me point out that the atheist demographic is very much on the left, and that atheists as a class tend to deny that their behavior resembles religious worship--usually with a vehemence in direct proportion to the closeness of the resemblence.

Rubbish. It's a common wheeze of the religious to claim that atheists 'worship atheism', just as it's a common claim that scientists worship something called 'darwinism', or that people who are opposed to creationism and are pro-science are somehow 'worshipping science'.

All false, and all attempts to redefine the terms of the discussion in such a way as to claim that atheists, or scientists, or the enemy du jour are zealots and fanatics who won't listen to reason-- and usually these attempts are made by people who ARE zealots and fanatics and won't listen to reason.

BTW, if current trends continue, 25% of Americans will claim 'no religion' in 20 years.

Yet another bad demographic gamble by the GOP.

359 medaura18586  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:22:18pm

re: #329 medaura18586

My husband and I made this video a while back to capture the phenomenon. Obamabots managed to redflag it on YouTube by the way,.. too satirical of their beloved.

Damn, I'd forgotten how good that video is. Tooting my own horn here, but it really wraps up things better than any commentary.

360 JamesTKirk  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:23:19pm

re: #357 LudwigVanQuixote

Well nothing can stop Shatner...

Except for more Shatners!

361 calcajun  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:23:34pm

re: #348 buzzsawmonkey

I ought to down-ding for that one. Really.

But, I'm reassessing my opinion of BHO from a naive tin-eared neophyte to a real asshole. For starters-- you give Gordon Brown a DVD set of movies you know he can't watch 'cause they're for the wrong region--and at the same time you return the gift bust of Churchill--both of which are diplomatic disses. This is not the State Dept. having multiple brain farts--it's calculated behavior. Cripes-- he gives the queen an I-pod---loaded with his speeches (this might be apocryphal --it's too wild to be true)

Hell-- phone call time..

BBL

362 Charles Johnson  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:23:35pm

Lost of hate mail coming in now from Glenn Beck fans.

From the address "upyours@yahoo.com":

Really Charles, no wonder you are losing readership. You have to be one of the more asinine imbeciles in the blog world!

You claim everybody but you and yours are racists, haters, Nazis, extremists... you name it.

Charles, stop projecting!

(Of course, LGF's readership has been rising steadily for the past two months, and we're current on track to have well over 2 million page views this month.)

363 BARACK THE VOTE  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:24:04pm

re: #359 medaura18586

Damn, I'd forgotten how good that video is. Tooting my own horn here, but it really wraps up things better than any commentary.

I just saw that video of yours-- and I like Obama, and thought it was terrific. Loved it!

364 Jetpilot1101  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:24:10pm

re: #358 iceweasel

Quite honestly, the fanatical religious right doesn't care because we are "living in the end times and all you godless heathens are ging to burn in hell".

I'm a Christian and the current attitude of our "leadership" in this country makes me want to vomit.

365 avanti  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:24:13pm

re: #347 Guanxi88

That's a pretty good find, though. Not exactly stanza after stanza praising the man's achievements and accomplishments, but a song well within the meaning of the word.

This one is way scarier that the Obama song.

Jesus camp.

366 tradewind  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:24:31pm

re: #358 iceweasel

BTW, if current trends continue, 25% of Americans will claim 'no religion' in 20 years. Yet another bad demographic gamble by the GOP


Yes, that's been the pattern in Western Europe now for the past few decades.
How's that working out for them?

367 Gus  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:24:46pm

re: #319 buzzsawmonkey

Don't make me point out that the atheist demographic is very much on the left, and that atheists as a class tend to deny that their behavior resembles religious worship--usually with a vehemence in direct proportion to the closeness of the resemblence.

So you speak for atheists too? Had an atheist done the same regarding your beliefs I doubt you would be in agreement.

368 MJ  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:24:47pm

Hmmm, didn't know this about Beck:

But the more talk radio Beck did, the more he wanted to do. In 1998, he surprised colleagues by linking up with talk radio super-agent George Hiltzik, a Democrat and a heavy hitter with New York's N.S. Bienstock agency who also repped Matt Drudge. (And whose son, Matt, now handles P.R. for Beck.)

[Link: www.salon.com...]

369 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:25:59pm

re: #319 buzzsawmonkey

re: #358 iceweasel

Just to be clear about science and theology, all and any theology...

It is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of G-d or gods or any spiritual construct. This is because you can not do an experiment on G-d.

Therefore, scientifically, saying there is no G-d is just as scientific as saying there is a G-d.

Both are statements of pure faith without any empirical evidence.

As a result both arguments are equally unscientific.

Now just because you can't prove something is there does not mean it isn't. However, it certainly doesn't mean it is either. As a result any discussion of religion and science must always carefully separate the two.

370 Big Steve  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:26:06pm

The two clips of Beck here represent the most time I have watched the guy. No joke, listening to him makes me physically ill. He is a complete fake and I don't doubt for a moment he doesn't believe himself most of what he says.

371 FrogMarch  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:26:31pm

re: #359 medaura18586

Damn, I'd forgotten how good that video is. Tooting my own horn here, but it really wraps up things better than any commentary.


He is calling me... Dude!

Very nice.

372 [deleted]  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:26:53pm
373 AtadOFF  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:27:26pm

Is it just me or have the lunatics taken over the asylum?

374 BARACK THE VOTE  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:27:44pm

re: #366 tradewind

Yes, that's been the pattern in Western Europe now for the past few decades.
How's that working out for them?

Pretty damned well, actually. As far as I know they don't have museums dedicated to proving that Jesus rode a dinosaur, or politicians trying to mandate that we teach our biology students that the earth is 6000 years old.

375 debutaunt  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:28:13pm

re: #370 Big Steve

The two clips of Beck here represent the most time I have watched the guy. No joke, listening to him makes me physically ill. He is a complete fake and I don't doubt for a moment he doesn't believe himself most of what he says.

That is how politicians affect me.

376 Truck Monkey  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:28:24pm

re: #365 avanti

This one is way scarier that the Obama song.

Jesus camp.

That is some spooky shit right there and the kids are the pawns.

377 [deleted]  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:28:42pm
378 tradewind  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:28:49pm

re: #373 AtadOFF

Are you trying to Ratchet up the rhetoric here?
///

379 Ayeless in Ghazi  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:29:23pm

re: #319 buzzsawmonkey

Don't make me point out that the atheist demographic is very much on the left, and that atheists as a class tend to deny that their behavior resembles religious worship--usually with a vehemence in direct proportion to the closeness of the resemblence.

Just silly. Perhaps you can explain for us how it is that people of no belief are like religious worshippers instead of just making the bald claim. And it's interesting that you draw the comparison with religious believers like yourself not to praise but to disparage them. Very interesting.

380 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:29:46pm

re: #374 iceweasel

Pretty damned well, actually. As far as I know they don't have museums dedicated to proving that Jesus rode a dinosaur, or politicians trying to mandate that we teach our biology students that the earth is 6000 years old.

They also have little respect for their own culture or any of the good things done by religion.

I certainly oppose fundie crazies very strongly. However, there is also a baby in the bath water.

381 MJ  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:30:18pm

re: #370 Big Steve

The two clips of Beck here represent the most time I have watched the guy. No joke, listening to him makes me physically ill. He is a complete fake and I don't doubt for a moment he doesn't believe himself most of what he says.

Example of Fake from Beck:

Beck then goes for the emotional jugular for the first time. The move comes in the form of a story about an unnamed "friend" of Beck's. This friend returned from Vietnam only to endure the abuse of protesting peaceniks. "He got off the plane from Vietnam and a woman spat in his face and called him 'baby killer,'" explains Beck. "Then he left his medal of honor in a trash can."

Whether Beck was aware that he was quoting almost verbatim from Sylvester Stallone's closing monologue in "First Blood," it is impossible to say. But whatever its source, the story is dubious. As documented by Jerry Lembcke in his book "The Spitting Image," stories of Vietnam vets being spit upon didn't gain currency until the 1980s. So many of those stories dissolved upon closer inspection that even after serious research efforts, not a single case of a Vietnam veteran being spat upon has ever been documented.

Beck's story about his veteran buddy sounds so pat that even his conservative listeners have to wonder. Within minutes, a caller asks, "About your friend who threw away his medal -- did that really happen?" Beck mutters, "Yes, but he regrets it now," then changes the subject.

382 Big Steve  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:30:18pm

re: #369 LudwigVanQuixote

re: #358 iceweasel

Now just because you can't prove something is there does not mean it isn't. However, it certainly doesn't mean it is either. As a result any discussion of religion and science must always carefully separate the two.

Scientific method is only one way to acquire knowledge. There are other ontological constructs that also can result in knowledge. However for religion, say belief in God, you can construct an argument that goes along the lines of "in order to believe A to be true, one also has to believe X or Y or Z to be true."

383 BARACK THE VOTE  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:30:21pm

re: #372 buzzsawmonkey

Keep telling yourself that.

Many dogmatic atheists are funhouse-mirror images of everything they claim to dislike in terms of fanaticism, narrow-mindedness, etc. Anyone who has ever met one of these sad puppies--and most people, by the time they have reached their mid-twenties, have met a number of them--sees with crystal clarity that they have merely transferred their unfortunate personality quirks from one belief system to another.

Bollocks, buzz. You're the one slandering all atheists as having 'unfortunate personality quirks'. You'll notice I haven't felt the need to slander all people who believe in God. If someone here is exhibiting an 'unfortunate personality quirk' I reckon it's you: exhibiting bigotry and intolerance.

BTW, it's highly possible that those atheists you've met simply didn't like you. Can't say it's surprising either, if you felt the need to sneer at them as 'sad puppies'.

384 [deleted]  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:30:56pm
385 tradewind  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:31:25pm

re: #374 iceweasel
Let's see. They're not having any children , their culture is going right down the toilet, and the suicide rate is way up. Anti-Semitism is rampant.
Yeah, sounds like a big improvement.

386 Truck Monkey  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:31:48pm

re: #383 iceweasel

Kind of unnecessary don't you think?

387 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:32:07pm

re: #379 Jimmah

To be fair to Buzzy, Dawkins is just as dogmatic about hating religion as any fundie.

To be fair to Dawwkins, he has met with the most ignorant and repugnant of the religious set, and that set is trying it's level best to tear down all that he stands for as an educated man of science. My only beef with Dawkins is that he paints with too wide a brush.

388 BARACK THE VOTE  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:32:33pm

re: #380 LudwigVanQuixote

They also have little respect for their own culture or any of the good things done by religion.


Who is this 'they'?

There are a few atheists (such as Christopher Hitchens) who will claim that religion has done absolutely nothing good. However, people like him are in the minority. Most atheists would just like the same freedom they accord the religious: the freedom to NOT worship God, in their own way.

389 FrogMarch  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:32:51pm

re: #348 buzzsawmonkey

"Halo. My name is Barack Obama. Dreams From My Father. Prepare for lies."

--not The Princess Bride

har...

I've alwasy found it strange that Obama's logo became more important the the office he holds.

390 calcajun  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:32:52pm

re: #378 tradewind

Are you trying to Ratchet up the rhetoric here?
///

Yeah-- Socket to me, baby!

391 Killgore Trout  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:33:10pm

re: #359 medaura18586

Wow, I didn't know you did that. Very good work!

392 Ayeless in Ghazi  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:33:30pm

re: #372 buzzsawmonkey

Keep telling yourself that.

Many dogmatic atheists are funhouse-mirror images of everything they claim to dislike in terms of fanaticism, narrow-mindedness, etc. Anyone who has ever met one of these sad puppies--and most people, by the time they have reached their mid-twenties, have met a number of them--sees with crystal clarity that they have merely transferred their unfortunate personality quirks from one belief system to another.

I don't know who you have in mind but the atheists I know are nothing like that. They are just perfectly ordinary people who happen not to have a belief in God.

393 Dark_Falcon  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:33:34pm

re: #372 buzzsawmonkey

Keep telling yourself that.

Many dogmatic atheists are funhouse-mirror images of everything they claim to dislike in terms of fanaticism, narrow-mindedness, etc. Anyone who has ever met one of these sad puppies--and most people, by the time they have reached their mid-twenties, have met a number of them--sees with crystal clarity that they have merely transferred their unfortunate personality quirks from one belief system to another.

I mostly agree. I don't see the "no religion" box ever getting above 15%, faith simply play too great a role in American life, and those who believe will find ways to keep their faith strong. The GOP has demographic problems but I don't think that will be a major one.

394 avanti  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:33:34pm

re: #376 Truck Monkey

That is some spooky shit right there and the kids are the pawns.

Here's the trailer for the scary movie. I feel terrible for the kids.

Jesus camp trailer .

395 CapeCoddah  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:33:37pm

re: #374 iceweasel

Pretty damned well, actually. As far as I know they don't have museums dedicated to proving that Jesus rode a dinosaur, or politicians trying to mandate that we teach our biology students that the earth is 6000 years old.

Yes, They do.
Brit creationist museum

396 BARACK THE VOTE  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:34:19pm

re: #385 tradewind

Let's see. They're not having any children , their culture is going right down the toilet, and the suicide rate is way up. Anti-Semitism is rampant.
Yeah, sounds like a big improvement.

I hope you're not referring to those ridiculous 'demographic' studies of Europe.

And what the hell do you mean by claiming that Europe's culture is going right down the toilet? What is this 'European culture' of which you speak, exactly?

397 tradewind  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:34:52pm

re: #388 iceweasel

Most atheists would just like the same freedom they accord the religious: the freedom to NOT worship God, in their own way.


Last time I checked, they

had

it.
Even those who are suing the school districts and attempting to redesign the currency.

398 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:34:53pm

re: #382 Big Steve

Scientific method is only one way to acquire knowledge. There are other ontological constructs that also can result in knowledge. However for religion, say belief in God, you can construct an argument that goes along the lines of "in order to believe A to be true, one also has to believe X or Y or Z to be true."

I'm not so Platonic or Pythagorean. I think that Kant's critique has it's place.

While as a believing Jew, I obviously do believe in G-d, I am not willing to confuse my ontology with science. My faith is a construct that I devoutly believe to be true for many reasons, but I do not fall into the trap of claiming I can prove it.

399 calcajun  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:34:58pm

re: #377 buzzsawmonkey

No, I don't speak for atheists.

If you did, would that make you their patron saint?/

400 BARACK THE VOTE  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:35:00pm

re: #395 CapeCoddah

Yes, They do.
Brit creationist museum

Well, that should make the fundies happy.

401 Big Steve  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:35:44pm

re: #381 MJ

Agreed...and that "off the plane from Vietnam, getting spat on" chestnut ignores the fact that most Vietnam vets rolled back to a US base and then were discharged. I know I was. This idea that some plane flew from Saigon and landed directly in East Bumfuck and dropped some shell shocked soldier off is a joke.

402 MJ  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:36:04pm

re: #387 LudwigVanQuixote

To be fair to Buzzy, Dawkins is just as dogmatic about hating religion as any fundie.

To be fair to Dawwkins, he has met with the most ignorant and repugnant of the religious set, and that set is trying it's level best to tear down all that he stands for as an educated man of science. My only beef with Dawkins is that he paints with too wide a brush.

My beef with Dawkins is that he supports the boycott of Israel and Israelis:

Prof Baker is one of the signatories of a British-led petition of more than 700 academics from several countries launched by Steven Rose, an Open University professor. Signatories including Oxford professors Colin Blakemore and Richard Dawkins say they "can no longer in good conscience continue to cooperate with official Israeli institutions, including universities".

[Link: www.guardian.co.uk...]

403 BARACK THE VOTE  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:36:34pm

re: #393 Dark_Falcon

I mostly agree. I don't see the "no religion" box ever getting above 15%

We're already at 15 % according to the polls.

404 Dark_Falcon  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:36:59pm

re: #384 buzzsawmonkey

Buzz, you were a little over-the-top there. Iceweasel is a liberal, but she is honest.

405 calcajun  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:37:23pm

re: #374 iceweasel

As far as I know they don't have museums dedicated to proving that Jesus rode a dinosaur...

Dinosaur? BWAH. All intelligent people know he rode a mammoth and not a donkey./

406 BARACK THE VOTE  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:37:49pm

re: #386 Truck Monkey

Kind of unnecessary don't you think?

Nope. Quite necessary.

407 debutaunt  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:38:13pm

re: #404 Dark_Falcon

Except for #400.

408 Ayeless in Ghazi  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:38:30pm

re: #387 LudwigVanQuixote

To be fair to Buzzy, Dawkins is just as dogmatic about hating religion as any fundie..

That's just over the top, Ludwig, as I'm sure you'll agree after a moment's refliection. When you try to draw an equivalence between Dawkins and "any Fundie" - you are drawing an equivalence between a highly respected scientist and author who happens to be highly critical of religion, and like likes of Fred Phelps. Think on that.

409 Gus  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:38:52pm

re: #377 buzzsawmonkey

No, I don't speak for atheists. I merely speak of them. And not all of them either--merely the nasty, fanatic fringe.

I suppose there's some truth to that. It's not unlike the nasty, fanatic fringe we find in Christianity.

410 [deleted]  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:39:28pm
411 calcajun  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:40:05pm

He attacked everything in life with a mix of extraordinary genius and naive incompetence, and it was often difficult to tell which was which.

Douglas Adams

412 Dark_Falcon  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:40:58pm

re: #407 debutaunt

Except for #400.

How was that line dishonest? Most Young Earth Creationists are fundamentalists. Its not dishonest to point that out.

413 Spare O'Lake  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:41:37pm

re: #388 iceweasel

Who is this 'they'?

There are a few atheists (such as Christopher Hitchens) who will claim that religion has done absolutely nothing good. However, people like him are in the minority. Most atheists would just like the same freedom they accord the religious: the freedom to NOT worship God, in their own way.

Do you believe that you are being denied that freedom?

414 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:41:56pm

re: #388 iceweasel

Who is this 'they'?

There are a few atheists (such as Christopher Hitchens) who will claim that religion has done absolutely nothing good. However, people like him are in the minority. Most atheists would just like the same freedom they accord the religious: the freedom to NOT worship God, in their own way.

On this I whole heartedly agree. I have no beef with atheists. However, the image that one receives from the chattering class in Europe is that one ought to be ashamed of having any faith of any kind - at least if you are Christian or Jewish. If this is a false impression, I will happily accept being corrected. However, it is certainly the one I have received from looking at their media and listening to COE dilute their doctrine to make it more PC.

The fact is that it is not all a quaint and useless thing of the past for many people and can be an engine for good.

I am not trying to piss on anyone's personal choices in regards to faith. I am rather trying to prevent an image of atheist vs believer that is unnecessary. There is little point. No-one will convince the other and it will only lead to strife that will look bad.

I am suggesting respectfully that everyone has the right to come to their own terms with this and that no-one should attack the other for holding any principle of faith that is not clearly insane. Clearly insane would be, in this instance, things that cause them to reject proven realities.

415 medaura18586  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:42:09pm

re: #358 iceweasel

I too have noticed how Religious Supremacists à la Discovery Institute try to degrade science (especially evolution) as a religion,... which sounds bizarre, since these people claim religion is the greatest, purest source of knowledge. This is like Richard Spencer raising his hand on Zionism being racism, and being a proud racist himself. Is he pro-Israel or not? Crazy...

So yes, no doubt there is that paradoxical meme spreading from the Religious Right, smearing science as if it were religion.

But, once you transcend that oxymoron, there is another level, subtler but more fundamental, at which buzzsawmonkey's comment holds: The human psyche is chronically vulnerably to dogma. We don't like uncertainty, we're not comfortable living with doubt. To be agnostic or atheist is a necessary but not sufficient condition to living free of dogma. This highly recommended book, the Black Swan, outlines some interesting cognitive pitfalls.

I think in this day and age, most religious folk feel uneasy about the surreal portions of their dogma (be it seven-day creation, the Garden of Eden, immaculate conception, raising from the dead). Deep down, most of them know this stuff doesn't make any sense. The uneasiness keeps them on edge---the ridiculous things they believe in are an elephant in the room. Secular folks, on the other hands, have no obvious thorns to prick their confidence in what they believe. Hence it's easier for them to not realize they're being dogmatic when they are. Harder to devise reality checks...

But that humans are drawn to dogmas is undeniable, and atheists are just as prone to them. It takes a sharp intellect, intellectual honesty, and constant skepticism to not fall into one trap of the mind or another.

416 calcajun  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:42:13pm

Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.

-Douglas Adams

417 debutaunt  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:42:35pm

re: #412 Dark_Falcon

How was that line dishonest? Most Young Earth Creationists are fundamentalists. Its not dishonest to point that out.

I thought it would have been honest to own up to the assertion made and disproved.

418 Dark_Falcon  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:43:28pm

re: #410 buzzsawmonkey

I'd have to advise you to log off. I'm not going to take sides here, but I'd ask that you step back for a few minutes. Alternatively, I'd recommend changing the subject.

419 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:43:38pm

re: #402 MJ

My beef with Dawkins is that he supports the boycott of Israel and Israelis:

Prof Baker is one of the signatories of a British-led petition of more than 700 academics from several countries launched by Steven Rose, an Open University professor. Signatories including Oxford professors Colin Blakemore and Richard Dawkins say they "can no longer in good conscience continue to cooperate with official Israeli institutions, including universities".

[Link: www.guardian.co.uk...]

SHIT! I did not see this or know this. Well that puts him on my asshole list, but not because he is an atheist. Rather because he should know better.

420 calcajun  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:43:47pm

He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.

-Douglas Adams

421 BARACK THE VOTE  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:43:47pm

re: #398 LudwigVanQuixote

I'm not so Platonic or Pythagorean. I think that Kant's critique has it's place.

While as a believing Jew, I obviously do believe in G-d, I am not willing to confuse my ontology with science. My faith is a construct that I devoutly believe to be true for many reasons, but I do not fall into the trap of claiming I can prove it.

re: #382 Big Steve

Scientific method is only one way to acquire knowledge. There are other ontological constructs that also can result in knowledge. However for religion, say belief in God, you can construct an argument that goes along the lines of "in order to believe A to be true, one also has to believe X or Y or Z to be true."

Steve means epistemological construct, not ontological. And the argument Steve is making is, IIRC, essentially the structure of Aquinas' proofs of God's existence. Although you can't derive an ontological conclusion from epistemological premises, so it has to be reworded so as to avoid that and accord more closely with the proof by Aquinas.

Ludwig is making the smart point, which all religions and religious people ought to, that faith is a means of knowledge, and one separate from reason (and the sorts of proofs we expect for matters in which reason is involved). This is the smart move from a rhetorical perspective, because it will sidestep the atheist's arguments and more or less dissolve the impasse.

422 BARACK THE VOTE  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:44:54pm

re: #417 debutaunt

I thought it would have been honest to own up to the assertion made and disproved.

Bollocks. I answered it. How was that not acknowledging it?

423 MJ  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:45:22pm

re: #419 LudwigVanQuixote

SHIT! I did not see this or know this. Well that puts him on my asshole list, but not because he is an atheist. Rather because he should know better.

Yeah, that expresses my exact feeling about him.

424 Dark_Falcon  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:45:27pm

re: #417 debutaunt

I thought it would have been honest to own up to the assertion made and disproved.

I don't follow. What do you mean?

/not sarc, I genuinely don't understand.

425 Dark_Falcon  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:45:49pm

re: #419 LudwigVanQuixote

SHIT! I did not see this or know this. Well that puts him on my asshole list, but not because he is an atheist. Rather because he should know better.

Quite concur.

426 Ayeless in Ghazi  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:46:28pm

re: #410 buzzsawmonkey

Not that I've seen.

I haven't said word one about iceweasel's liberalism, as such--merely about her blatant, intentional, outright distortion of words that have been written clearly enough for even an iceweasel to read and understand--provided there is no ideological intent to make up a series of strawman arguments.

Condescending crap. I bet you can't back a single one of those statements up, and won't even make the attempt.

427 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:46:30pm

Who are the New Atheists?

Richard Dawkins. Christopher Hitchens. Sam Harris. Daniel C. Dennett. Victor J. Stenger. John Allen Paulos. Pascal Boyer. Steven Pinker.

Looks like a pretty accomplished bunch to me.

428 calcajun  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:46:30pm

If somebody thinks they're a hedgehog, presumably you just give 'em a mirror and a few pictures of hedgehogs and tell them to sort it out for themselves.

--Douglas Adams

429 BARACK THE VOTE  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:46:38pm

re: #415 medaura18586

Agreed, although I'd disagree that it's any harder for secularists to devise reality checks. The attributes you mention in your last paragraph do it. Those are hard for anyone though.

430 [deleted]  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:47:18pm
431 calcajun  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:47:19pm

re: #427 Salamantis

Who are the New Atheists?.

Why it's the new comedy show on Must-see TV Thursdays...

432 BARACK THE VOTE  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:47:50pm

re: #410 buzzsawmonkey

Not that I've seen.

I haven't said word one about iceweasel's liberalism, as such--merely about her blatant, intentional, outright distortion of words that have been written clearly enough for even an iceweasel to read and understand--provided there is no ideological intent to make up a series of strawman arguments.

"even" an iceweasel? You're being a total asshole now buzz.

433 BARACK THE VOTE  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:48:14pm

re: #430 buzzsawmonkey

I'm not asking you to take sides. I generally log off around this time anyway, and the prospect of being subjected to a pack of attack chihuahuas merely encourages keeping to schedule. The iceweasel, or one of her sidekicks, will doubtless take the fact that I do not conform to the British posting schedule as evidence of some sort of triumph, but that's their problem, not mine.

Later!

434 debutaunt  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:48:47pm

re: #424 Dark_Falcon

I don't follow. What do you mean?

/not sarc, I genuinely don't understand.

Comments #374, 395 and 400.

Sorry I must leave - it's dinnertime.

435 BenghaziHoops  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:49:02pm

re: #398 LudwigVanQuixote

I'm not so Platonic or Pythagorean. I think that Kant's critique has it's place.

While as a believing Jew, I obviously do believe in G-d, I am not willing to confuse my ontology with science. My faith is a construct that I devoutly believe to be true for many reasons, but I do not fall into the trap of claiming I can prove it.

I believe in God (not g-d who ever that is..Call me by my name)
I was almost aborted and given away as a baby...Born outside a farm in Firebaugh and I have no idea who mommy and daddy are...
God spared me from a yes or no life...I was adopted...at 12 years old...
I have a deep love in my heart for the Mercy of God...
I do not buy the bullshit of religion...I have shown many deep cutting comments here about the religious right and left since I have joined here...
More humans have died in the name of God than for any other reason in our history..I want a word count on how many times God was said at the UN yesterday..
They are all so pious and religious...Is it just me or do you just somebody would walk up to dinnerjacket and slap him? LOL
Stop talking about God!
/Sorry...Football and Beer

436 [deleted]  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:49:14pm
437 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:49:41pm

re: #408 Jimmah

That's just over the top, Ludwig, as I'm sure you'll agree after a moment's refliection. When you try to draw an equivalence between Dawkins and "any Fundie" - you are drawing an equivalence between a highly respected scientist and author who happens to be highly critical of religion, and like likes of Fred Phelps. Think on that.

NO Sir, Dawkins has made it very clear that he is on the attack against religion and he does so with quite a fervor. I have never questioned his science or his ability as a scientist. However, my point is that since you can not do an experiment on G-d, his attempts to promote atheism are just as dogmatic and unscientific as any fundie's attempt to push religion.

If Dawkins would just stick to the science I would like him much more.

Anyone who has seen me write on an ID thread or an AGW thread knows about the level of patience I have for anti-science.

However, Dawkins is very much interested in tearing down religion. That is in of itself a faith based act.

438 BARACK THE VOTE  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:49:49pm

re: #426 Jimmah

Condescending crap. I bet you can't back a single one of those statements up, and won't even make the attempt.

Oh no, Brave Sir Buzzsaw has to log off. Again.
After his usual pooflinging, of course.

439 Ayeless in Ghazi  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:50:20pm

re: #402 MJ

Now THAT is a fair criticism, but that's the UK left for you (part of it at any rate).

440 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:50:44pm

re: #436 gimpskinny

Ask rudely and ye shall surely receive.

441 Gus  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:51:11pm

re: #436 gimpskinny

Any other final thoughts?

442 Ayeless in Ghazi  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:51:24pm

re: #430 buzzsawmonkey

I'm not asking you to take sides. I generally log off around this time anyway, and the prospect of being subjected to a pack of attack chihuahuas merely encourages keeping to schedule. The iceweasel, or one of her sidekicks, will doubtless take the fact that I do not conform to the British posting schedule as evidence of some sort of triumph, but that's their problem, not mine.

We can continue this any time you like, Brave Sir Buzzsaw.

443 medaura18586  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:51:59pm

re: #429 iceweasel

Agreed, although I'd disagree that it's any harder for secularists to devise reality checks. The attributes you mention in your last paragraph do it. Those are hard for anyone though.

Harder, because the standards get higher, and the pitfalls more elusive. Here's a reality check that can weed out millions, perhaps billions, of people as insane in one fell swoop: "Do you believe God created the Earth in seven days less than 10,000 years ago"

Yes --- insane

No --- ask the next question.

As on Jeopardy, they keep getting harder and more obscure the higher the stakes get.

444 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:52:10pm

re: #421 iceweasel

Steve means epistemological construct, not ontological. And the argument Steve is making is, IIRC, essentially the structure of Aquinas' proofs of God's existence. Although you can't derive an ontological conclusion from epistemological premises, so it has to be reworded so as to avoid that and accord more closely with the proof by Aquinas.

Ludwig is making the smart point, which all religions and religious people ought to, that faith is a means of knowledge, and one separate from reason (and the sorts of proofs we expect for matters in which reason is involved). This is the smart move from a rhetorical perspective, because it will sidestep the atheist's arguments and more or less dissolve the impasse.

I do love your knowledge of philosophy. Very brilliant explanation of epistemology.

445 BARACK THE VOTE  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:52:14pm

re: #379 Jimmah

Just silly. Perhaps you can explain for us how it is that people of no belief are like religious worshippers instead of just making the bald claim. And it's interesting that you draw the comparison with religious believers like yourself not to praise but to disparage them. Very interesting.

One would almost say...logically inconsistent.

446 BARACK THE VOTE  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:53:13pm

re: #441 Gus 802

Any other final thoughts?

He'd have to form a thought in the first place, in order to have a final one.

447 MandyManners  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:53:37pm

re: #436 gimpskinny

Oh, go piss up a rope.

448 Gus  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:54:18pm

re: #446 iceweasel

He'd have to form a thought in the first place, in order to have a final one.

Right. The usual tribal talking points.

449 gregb  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:55:51pm

re: #337 Truck Monkey

In bed.

/had to

[Link: xkcd.com...]

450 BARACK THE VOTE  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:55:58pm

re: #444 LudwigVanQuixote

I do love your knowledge of philosophy. Very brilliant explanation of epistemology.

Cheers LVQ. All that time in Catholic school didn't go entirely to waste.

How's your flu, bubeleh?

451 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:56:47pm

re: #435 HoosierHoops

I believe in God (not g-d who ever that is..Call me by my name)
I was almost aborted and given away as a baby...Born outside a farm in Firebaugh and I have no idea who mommy and daddy are...
God spared me from a yes or no life...I was adopted...at 12 years old...
I have a deep love in my heart for the Mercy of God...
I do not buy the bullshit of religion...I have shown many deep cutting comments here about the religious right and left since I have joined here...
More humans have died in the name of God than for any other reason in our history..I want a word count on how many times God was said at the UN yesterday..
They are all so pious and religious...Is it just me or do you just somebody would walk up to dinnerjacket and slap him? LOL
Stop talking about God!
/Sorry...Football and Beer

All good Hoops... That's really the point. We have a personal experience with the Divine. Even if we are talking about the same things from the same creed, they mean different things to each of us. This is a statement that the way I see blue may well be a fundamentally different experience for me than the way you do - even if we both agree that something is blue.

For all I know what you are experiencing would be what I call green, if I could see through your eyes.

This issue is even more strongly magnified by the lifetime of experiences that add up to faith.

452 Spare O'Lake  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:58:17pm

An atheist believes with moral certainty that no higher intelligent power created anything.
Atheists believe the opposite.
Neither can be proven or disproven by current science.

453 Spare O'Lake  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:59:13pm

re: #452 Spare O'Lake

An atheist believes with moral certainty that no higher intelligent power created anything.
Theists believe the opposite.
Neither can be proven or disproven by current science.

PIMF

454 BARACK THE VOTE  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:59:45pm

re: #452 Spare O'Lake

An atheist believes with moral certainty that no higher intelligent power created anything.
Atheists believe the opposite.
Neither can be proven or disproven by current science.

You've got some words wrong in there. Try again?

455 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 5:59:45pm

re: #415 medaura18586

I really like your posts.

456 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:00:35pm

re: #421 iceweasel

Steve means epistemological construct, not ontological. And the argument Steve is making is, IIRC, essentially the structure of Aquinas' proofs of God's existence. Although you can't derive an ontological conclusion from epistemological premises, so it has to be reworded so as to avoid that and accord more closely with the proof by Aquinas.

Ludwig is making the smart point, which all religions and religious people ought to, that faith is a means of knowledge, and one separate from reason (and the sorts of proofs we expect for matters in which reason is involved). This is the smart move from a rhetorical perspective, because it will sidestep the atheist's arguments and more or less dissolve the impasse.

Actually, faith and knowledge are quite separate; faith only manifests in the absence of empirical evidence; knowledge manifests in its presence. The moment supporting evidence appears for a contention, that contention, can no longer be an article of faith; it becomes an article of (probable or provisional) knowledge, because then it can be known rather than only be believed in. And of course when evidence appears that falsifies a contention, it can be absolutely known to be false.

No general empirical assertion can be absolutely proven to be true (although specific empirical assertions can be), but both can absolutely be proven to be false, via concrete counterexample.

457 Ayeless in Ghazi  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:01:25pm

re: #437 LudwigVanQuixote

NO Sir, Dawkins has made it very clear that he is on the attack against religion and he does so with quite a fervor. I have never questioned his science or his ability as a scientist. However, my point is that since you can not do an experiment on G-d, his attempts to promote atheism are just as dogmatic and unscientific as any fundie's attempt to push religion.

If Dawkins would just stick to the science I would like him much more.

Anyone who has seen me write on an ID thread or an AGW thread knows about the level of patience I have for anti-science.

However, Dawkins is very much interested in tearing down religion. That is in of itself a faith based act.

Yes, he does attack religion with at times as you say, fervour. But he always does so from a strictly rational standpoint. At no stage does he invoke the words of some revealed scripture, at no point does he beseech us to appease anything remotely analagous to deities or appeal to anything outside the realm of empirical science. It's hard therefore to see how the 'religious' smear can be justified. It seems to me all you really have in this argument is an invitation to compare his level of passion with that of some fundies. Well, I don't think passion is in itself either a bad or necessarily a religious thing at all. When you argue passionately for the understanding of climate science, would you say that you were being religious? Wouldn't it be a lot fairer to say you are just passionate about demonstrating what you can clearly see - based not on revelation but on observation and scientific understanding - to be the case?

458 medaura18586  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:01:44pm

re: #437 LudwigVanQuixote

NO Sir, Dawkins has made it very clear that he is on the attack against religion and he does so with quite a fervor. I have never questioned his science or his ability as a scientist. However, my point is that since you can not do an experiment on G-d, his attempts to promote atheism are just as dogmatic and unscientific as any fundie's attempt to push religion.

If Dawkins would just stick to the science I would like him much more.

Anyone who has seen me write on an ID thread or an AGW thread knows about the level of patience I have for anti-science.

However, Dawkins is very much interested in tearing down religion. That is in of itself a faith based act.

As a radical atheist, I must agree. Dawkins reminds me of how I used to be between 9-14 years of age. That I had figured out the Garden of Eden and Noah's Ark were bullshit, I just felt so superior to everyone around me who hadn't, and would rub it in their faces. People who stop at that, at feeling so smugly brilliant for not believing in organized religion, are intellectual dwarfs. And they reveal that they never got over their relationship with religion. I myself have so long settled theological issues with my conscience that they don't arouse in me any passions. I just don't believe in God, and that's that. I've moved on.

Dawkins, on the other hand, trashes the Abrahamic God with such gloating passion that it sounds as if he's talking about an entity he deems to be real. And that I don't quite that.

I find Dawkins dogmatic to his core and disagreeable as a person. His stance on Israel is just a symptom of his overall way of thinking.

As for epistemology, I am a student of Karl Popper.

459 swamprat  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:01:54pm

re: #435 HoosierHoops

I believe in God (not g-d who ever that is..Call me by my name)
I was almost aborted and given away as a baby...Born outside a farm in Firebaugh and I have no idea who mommy and daddy are...
God spared me from a yes or no life...I was adopted...at 12 years old...
I have a deep love in my heart for the Mercy of God...
I do not buy the bullshit of religion...I have shown many deep cutting comments here about the religious right and left since I have joined here...
More humans have died in the name of God than for any other reason in our history..I want a word count on how many times God was said at the UN yesterday..
They are all so pious and religious...Is it just me or do you just somebody would walk up to dinnerjacket and slap him? LOL
Stop talking about God!
/Sorry...Football and Beer


No longer true. The communists pulled ahead in this century.

460 [deleted]  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:02:51pm
461 BARACK THE VOTE  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:03:56pm

re: #452 Spare O'Lake

An atheist believes with moral certainty that no higher intelligent power created anything.
Atheists believe the opposite.
Neither can be proven or disproven by current science.

Ok, better, but atheists don't have to believe that there is no higher power, much less 'with moral certainty'(strange phrase, I wonder what you mean by it)-- they merely do not believe in a higher power.

Absence of belief is not the same as belief. It's the difference between asserting "P" and not asserting P -- as opposed to asserting "not-P". These are three different belief states.

For an atheist, saying I don't believe in God is like saying I don't believe there are faeries at the bottom of my garden. They simply don't believe they're there. This is different from believing in a thing called the "not-faerie".

462 Big Steve  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:04:15pm

re: #421 iceweasel

Steve means epistemological construct, not ontological. And the argument Steve is making is, IIRC, essentially the structure of Aquinas' proofs of God's existence. Although you can't derive an ontological conclusion from epistemological premises, so it has to be reworded so as to avoid that and accord more closely with the proof by Aquinas.

Ludwig is making the smart point, which all religions and religious people ought to, that faith is a means of knowledge, and one separate from reason (and the sorts of proofs we expect for matters in which reason is involved). This is the smart move from a rhetorical perspective, because it will sidestep the atheist's arguments and more or less dissolve the impasse.

Agreed I am making the epistemological order argument...that being that to have knowledge requires the idea of order. We can justify saying we know something by appealing to something else we know.

463 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:04:23pm

re: #453 Spare O'Lake

An atheist believes with moral certainty that no higher intelligent power created anything.

That is actually the main problem with Dawkins' anti-religious arguments. He really does believe that religion is immoral.

If you were to ask him the basis of his morality, he would argue that one does not need religion to be moral. This is true as far as it goes, but it quickly runs into the issue of OK he likes his construct of whatever morality is better than the one received from religion.

Since you can not write an equation for morality, once again, he is only projecting his personal constructs as universal truths.

464 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:05:32pm

re: #457 Jimmah

I am not smearing him at all. Please see my 463. In a real sense, that is the crux of the argument.

465 medaura18586  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:05:33pm

re: #455 LudwigVanQuixote

I really like your posts.

Thanks! And you're pretty brilliant from what I've noticed. Please drop me a line, I have something to ask of you and don't have your e-mail address.

466 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:06:01pm

re: #465 medaura18586

Thanks! And you're pretty brilliant from what I've noticed. Please drop me a line, I have something to ask of you and don't have your e-mail address.

my nic is blue

467 medaura18586  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:06:36pm

re: #458 medaura18586

PIMF: And that I don't quite get.

468 MJ  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:06:56pm

re: #435 HoosierHoops

I believe in God (not g-d who ever that is..Call me by my name)

This might help explain that usage:

The Nature of G-d

[Link: www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...]

469 BARACK THE VOTE  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:07:51pm

re: #463 LudwigVanQuixote

That is actually the main problem with Dawkins' anti-religious arguments. He really does believe that religion is immoral.

If you were to ask him the basis of his morality, he would argue that one does not need religion to be moral. This is true as far as it goes, but it quickly runs into the issue of OK he likes his construct of whatever morality is better than the one received from religion.

Since you can not write an equation for morality, once again, he is only projecting his personal constructs as universal truths.

Not so. People need to read or reread Plato-- the Euthyphro. the gods are not the source of morality.

470 Ayeless in Ghazi  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:07:58pm

re: #452 Spare O'Lake

An atheist believes with moral certainty that no higher intelligent power created anything.
Atheists believe the opposite.
Neither can be proven or disproven by current science.

Thanks for telling me what I as an atheist think , but I have to tell you that you have got it wrong. I simply don't have a belief in God. I don't have a positive belief in his non-existence.

471 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:08:28pm

re: #462 Big Steve

Agreed I am making the epistemological order argument...that being that to have knowledge requires the idea of order. We can justify saying we know something by appealing to something else we know.

Which leads to a reductio ad absurdum. You always come back to sense experiences, and how to make sense of them, at some point.

472 BARACK THE VOTE  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:12:09pm

re: #471 LudwigVanQuixote

Which leads to a reductio ad absurdum. You always come back to sense experiences, and how to make sense of them, at some point.

Yeah, that's the problem with the epistemic argument. Also, by separating faith from reason in the way i did, I was suggesting they're different epistemic modes of access to different sorts of truths.

Now I, personally, don't buy that, largely for the reasons Sal touched on above, (and ones medaura will like as well, given her love of Popper-- violates the falisifiability principle) but I've got no problem helping out the religious to make a better argument. :)

473 Big Steve  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:12:47pm

re: #471 LudwigVanQuixote

Which leads to a reductio ad absurdum. You always come back to sense experiences, and how to make sense of them, at some point.

I seem to remember Roderick Chisholm taking this on with his "states" arguments for knowledge without bedrocking on sensory data...but to be honest its been a while since I read up on it.

474 BARACK THE VOTE  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:13:34pm

re: #470 Jimmah

Thanks for telling me what I as an atheist think , but I have to tell you that you have got it wrong. I simply don't have a belief in God. I don't have a positive belief in his non-existence.

Right. Not believing in God is not the same as having a positive belief in not-god-- a point that those who wish to argue that atheists believe in atheism with 'religious-like fervour' tend to deliberately obfuscate.

475 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:13:53pm

re: #469 iceweasel

Not so. People need to read or reread Plato-- the Euthyphro. the gods are not the source of morality.

Ohhh I loved Euthyphro! I am not arguing that. Not at all in the way you think.

I am saying much more simply that people choose to buy into moral constructs that make sense to them for whatever reason.

If you are being brought up in a faith, you either buy the construct or not, or parts of it etc... The fact that you did not originate the construct, but that it was told to you and you liked it, is no more or less valid than accepting a construct of your own devices.

You are making a very good point, but I am talking to a much more basic level. At the end of the day, we all choose the moral system that makes sense to us, and no moral system is provably anything other than a human construct.

Now I believe the construct from Torah and I believe in G-d, but I can not prove it is so. At best, like an atheist, I can make utilitarian arguments and emotional appeals to what seems right. The conclusion to draw from this is that is exactly what the Atheist who argues his system of morality must do as well.

476 Ayeless in Ghazi  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:14:15pm

re: #463 LudwigVanQuixote

That is actually the main problem with Dawkins' anti-religious arguments. He really does believe that religion is immoral.

If you were to ask him the basis of his morality, he would argue that one does not need religion to be moral. This is true as far as it goes, but it quickly runs into the issue of OK he likes his construct of whatever morality is better than the one received from religion.

Since you can not write an equation for morality, once again, he is only projecting his personal constructs as universal truths.

I take it you are aware of the scientific arguments countering that?

477 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:15:55pm

re: #476 Jimmah

I take it you are aware of the scientific arguments countering that?

Countering what? And be careful, the definition of a scientific argument is only that which follows the scientific method. If you can't prove it with data, you may have a logical argument, but not a scientific one.

478 Ayeless in Ghazi  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:16:16pm

re: #474 iceweasel

Right. Not believing in God is not the same as having a positive belief in not-god-- a point that those who wish to argue that atheists believe in atheism with 'religious-like fervour' tend to deliberately obfuscate.

Exactly, iceweaselski. "Atheism is a religion as much as baldness is a hairstyle"

479 BARACK THE VOTE  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:16:17pm

re: #473 Big Steve

I seem to remember Roderick Chisholm taking this on with his "states" arguments for knowledge without bedrocking on sensory data...but to be honest its been a while since I read up on it.

That's right. Though I'm not much of a fan of Chisholm. And it's been a while.

Russell has some good stuff on knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description, but IIRC the Russellian sense data stuff was all wacky. Chisholm was likely responding to some of the problems Russell himself introduced there with that construct.

480 Spare O'Lake  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:19:41pm

re: #461 iceweasel

Ok, better, but atheists don't have to believe that there is no higher power, much less 'with moral certainty'(strange phrase, I wonder what you mean by it)-- they merely do not believe in a higher power.

Absence of belief is not the same as belief. It's the difference between asserting "P" and not asserting P -- as opposed to asserting "not-P". These are three different belief states.

For an atheist, saying I don't believe in God is like saying I don't believe there are faeries at the bottom of my garden. They simply don't believe they're there. This is different from believing in a thing called the "not-faerie".

Belief to a moral certainty is the same as belief beyond a reasonable doubt. Both are common legal formulations of the criminal standard of proof.
The rest of your response boils down to an evasion of a very simple proposition: As an atheist, you must believe that there is no God - otherwise you are simply not certain, which makes you an agnostic.

481 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:19:53pm

re: #478 Jimmah

Exactly, iceweaselski. "Atheism is a religion as much as baldness is a hairstyle"

What if you choose to be bald and shave your head? Then it is a style that you chose over say, a ponytail. That is exactly the point that you are missing.

You choose to not believe just as much as one chooses to believe and both choices are equally unscientific.

482 BARACK THE VOTE  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:20:38pm

re: #475 LudwigVanQuixote

t I am talking to a much more basic level. At the end of the day, we all choose the moral system that makes sense to us, and no moral system is provably anything other than a human construct

This much I can agree with, and it's one of the main reasons for the rise of Intuitionism (GE Moore) and emotivism (RM Hare) as metaethical theories.

My own position is that there certainly do exist universal moral truths, and that these truths are predicated upon our natures as human beings, embodied minds.

The very messy questions of how we achieve epistemic access to those truths, and what sort of ontological and metaphysical status such facts have--- well, that I choose not to opine on.

483 Spare O'Lake  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:20:55pm

re: #470 Jimmah

Thanks for telling me what I as an atheist think , but I have to tell you that you have got it wrong. I simply don't have a belief in God. I don't have a positive belief in his non-existence.

Then you are not sure that he does not exist. You are an agnostic, not an atheist.

484 Big Steve  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:21:08pm

re: #479 iceweasel

That's right. Though I'm not much of a fan of Chisholm. And it's been a while.

Russell has some good stuff on knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description, but IIRC the Russellian sense data stuff was all wacky. Chisholm was likely responding to some of the problems Russell himself introduced there with that construct.

It has been 31 years since my Philosophy degree so I am happy I even remembered Chisholm at all.

485 Ayeless in Ghazi  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:21:14pm

re: #477 LudwigVanQuixote

Countering what? And be careful, the definition of a scientific argument is only that which follows the scientific method. If you can't prove it with data, you may have a logical argument, but not a scientific one.

The arguments countering the notion that morality as defined in a non religious context is just another construct. There are increasingly strong scientific 'models' for the emergence of morality that are getting support from observations of animal behaviour.

486 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:21:41pm

re: #482 iceweasel

This much I can agree with, and it's one of the main reasons for the rise of Intuitionism (GE Moore) and emotivism (RM Hare) as metaethical theories.

My own position is that there certainly do exist universal moral truths, and that these truths are predicated upon our natures as human beings, embodied minds.

The very messy questions of how we achieve epistemic access to those truths, and what sort of ontological and metaphysical status such facts have--- well, that I choose not to opine on.

Me either, and certainly not in the context of science with the absence of data.

487 BARACK THE VOTE  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:22:33pm

re: #481 LudwigVanQuixote


You choose to not believe just as much as one chooses to believe and both choices are equally unscientific.

That isn't true, because there is no act of faith involved in not believing. Not believing isn't a positive state; it's a failure to hold a belief.

488 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:23:32pm

re: #485 Jimmah

The arguments countering the notion that morality as defined in a non religious context is just another construct. There are increasingly strong scientific 'models' for the emergence of morality that are getting support from observations of animal behaviour.

Which can never disprove a soul, which is argued as the source of morality. I am not trying to give you too hard a time, I am trying to point out that as a philosophical exercise, there is always room to wiggle out, because you can't do an experiment on the soul either.

489 Ayeless in Ghazi  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:25:29pm

re: #483 Spare O'Lake

Then you are not sure that he does not exist. You are an agnostic, not an atheist.

According to your definition - a definition which, interstingly, also paints Dawkins as an agnostic. Consider the word 'atheism'. 'a' : lacking - 'theism' :belief in God.

I am not uncertain as to whether I believe or not - I simply don't believe. But that is not the same as having a positive belief in the non-existence of God.

490 BARACK THE VOTE  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:25:51pm

re: #483 Spare O'Lake

Then you are not sure that he does not exist. You are an agnostic, not an atheist.

Uh, no. The agnostic says he lacks knowledge: that is, believes that there may be some knowledge, somewhere, such that if he acquired it he could believe that there is a god.

The atheist does not see the reason to remain in the indeterminate state. There isn't enough evidence or reason to say "Maybe God exists", just as they do not have to be agnostic about Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy: "Maybe they exist".

491 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:26:22pm

re: #487 iceweasel

That isn't true, because there is no act of faith involved in not believing. Not believing isn't a positive state; it's a failure to hold a belief.

Not so at all.

The agnostic position is neither a belief in God or a belief in no God.

That is the state you are referring to.

The atheist position is another statement of faith i.e. there is no G-d, only with a minus sign. In the absence of proof, either statement is one of belief without evidence. Belief without evidence is the definition of faith.

492 BARACK THE VOTE  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:27:10pm

re: #488 LudwigVanQuixote

Which can never disprove a soul, which is argued as the source of morality. I am not trying to give you too hard a time, I am trying to point out that as a philosophical exercise, there is always room to wiggle out, because you can't do an experiment on the soul either.

Define 'soul' and explain how and why it is different from 'mind'.

There isn't always a lot of wiggle room in philosophy. :)

493 Ayeless in Ghazi  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:27:24pm

re: #488 LudwigVanQuixote

Which can never disprove a soul, which is argued as the source of morality. I am not trying to give you too hard a time, I am trying to point out that as a philosophical exercise, there is always room to wiggle out, because you can't do an experiment on the soul either.

Nor can I do experiments on unicorns, another example of an entity there is no scientific evidence for ;-).

494 Spare O'Lake  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:28:02pm

Iceweasel/Jimmah - you are not atheists unless you are sure there is no God. You are not sure, so you are agnostics, like me.
Welcome to the honesty of uncertainty.

495 Ayeless in Ghazi  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:28:21pm

re: #491 LudwigVanQuixote

See my #489

496 BARACK THE VOTE  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:28:54pm

re: #484 Big Steve

It has been 31 years since my Philosophy degree so I am happy I even remembered Chisholm at all.

Extremely impressive, seriously!

497 BARACK THE VOTE  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:29:45pm

re: #494 Spare O'Lake

Iceweasel/Jimmah - you are not atheists unless you are sure there is no God. You are not sure, so you are agnostics, like me.
Welcome to the honesty of uncertainty.

False. You don't get to tell us what our beliefs are, and you don't get to redefine the word atheist so that virtually every atheist counts as an agnostic.

498 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:30:16pm

re: #492 iceweasel

Define 'soul' and explain how and why it is different from 'mind'.

There isn't always a lot of wiggle room in philosophy. :)

The soul is the spiritual essence of an individual and the Divine spark that animates their consciousness. Since it is not physical in any aspect it can never be observed or experimented upon. Thus, it is inviolate by definition from any scientific observation.

Can we not do Cartesian Dualism and say we did? ;)

499 Gus  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:30:48pm

re: #491 LudwigVanQuixote

Not so at all.

The agnostic position is neither a belief in God or a belief in no God.

That is the state you are referring to.

The atheist position is another statement of faith i.e. there is no G-d, only with a minus sign. In the absence of proof, either statement is one of belief without evidence. Belief without evidence is the definition of faith.

I'm not sure if I agree with this:

The atheist position is another statement of faith i.e. there is no G-d.

For me it's not a matter of faith but my own rational conclusion. My philosophy, if you can call it that, is not based on no God. It really doesn't come into the forefront of my mind other than when I think about human interactions, psychology, sociology, etc.

500 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:30:55pm

re: #493 Jimmah

Nor can I do experiments on unicorns, another example of an entity there is no scientific evidence for ;-).

And that is the point actually. That is the whole point if you follow it to its conclusion without bias.

501 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:31:38pm

re: #499 Gus 802

For me it's not a matter of faith but my own rational conclusion. My philosophy, if you can call it that, is not based on no God. It really doesn't come into the forefront of my mind other than when I think about human interactions, psychology, sociology, etc.

Right but you can not prove there is no G-d. Belief in something you can not prove is the definition of faith.

502 Gus  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:32:55pm

re: #501 LudwigVanQuixote

Right but you can not prove there is no G-d. Belief in something you can not prove is the definition of faith.

Right. But I don't endeavor to prove there is not God. So it's not an active process. Again based on my own personal ideas. I know many do.

503 BARACK THE VOTE  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:34:18pm

re: #498 LudwigVanQuixote

The soul is the spiritual essence of an individual and the Divine spark that animates their consciousness. Since it is not physical in any aspect it can never be observed or experimented upon. Thus, it is inviolate by definition from any scientific observation.

Can we not do Cartesian Dualism and say we did? ;)

You've failed to explain how and why it would be different than mind, except by introducing another undefined term, 'spiritual'.

BTW, it would be very odd for you to paint the soul as the source of all morality, as you did above-- unless you want to endorse the idea of complete relativism w/r/t to morality, every individual soul having its own and therefore operating under its own rules.

The alternative would be to posit a single soul, a world-soul, as the source of morality-- which is obviously what you would want to do. You're still going to be left with all the messy problems that creates, however. Which is why I offered the initial idea of faith as a separate epistemic conduit to knowledge-- it gives believers a nice out. :)

504 Ayeless in Ghazi  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:34:24pm

re: #494 Spare O'Lake

Iceweasel/Jimmah - you are not atheists unless you are sure there is no God. You are not sure, so you are agnostics, like me.
Welcome to the honesty of uncertainty.

So you keep asserting. To you it doesn't matter what the word actually means or what atheists say they believe/don't believe. This is obviously an article of faith for you - arguing further would seem to be a waste of time.

505 BARACK THE VOTE  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:35:38pm

re: #501 LudwigVanQuixote

Right but you can not prove there is no G-d. Belief in something you can not prove is the definition of faith.

The atheist isn't tasked with proving there is no God. One can't prove a negative. The atheist has an absence of belief in god.

506 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:35:48pm

An absence of a belief in a presence is not the same thing as the presence of a belief in an absence.

507 Big Steve  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:38:28pm

re: #496 iceweasel

Extremely impressive, seriously!

So you will like this story. My first degree was in Philosophy then later I got a chemical engineering degree and worked up to being the site manager of a Major Oil company refinery. My first university interviewed interested in how a philosopher could end up a plant manager. I was quoted as saying "there are 25,000 philosophers in my company but I am the only one trained"

508 Ayeless in Ghazi  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:41:14pm

re: #500 LudwigVanQuixote

And that is the point actually. That is the whole point if you follow it to its conclusion without bias.

I think you have missed the point, Ludwig. You've got the same wiggle room for the soul as you have for the unicorn. And the same onus on science to disprove both - ie none.

509 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:41:23pm

re: #503 iceweasel

You've failed to explain how and why it would be different than mind, except by introducing another undefined term, 'spiritual'.

BTW, it would be very odd for you to paint the soul as the source of all morality, as you did above-- unless you want to endorse the idea of complete relativism w/r/t to morality, every individual soul having its own and therefore operating under its own rules.

The alternative would be to posit a single soul, a world-soul, as the source of morality-- which is obviously what you would want to do. You're still going to be left with all the messy problems that creates, however. Which is why I offered the initial idea of faith as a separate epistemic conduit to knowledge-- it gives believers a nice out. :)

Not at all. Just because you do not believe the definition, that the soul is something which is defined as different from mind does not believe that the definition does not exist.

The idea from the Jewish view is that we really do have dual nature. The soul acts something like a Freudian super ego but is defined to be something ultimately external to you. If you say wait a minute, when you make a moral choice this that or the other part of your brain lights up, the Jew responds, sure, we have physical bodies that must interface with the spiritual and that the soul ultimately is what lit those portions up.

As long as it is possible for a choice to be made, i.e. it is possible to allow something different to happen in the brain, given the same initial conditions, i.e. free will can exist, you can never disprove a soul from a scientific basis.

Now that is not a proof of the souls, rather it is a disproof of no soul. You can not prove either.

Also can we not do free will vs. determinism and say we did ;)

510 BARACK THE VOTE  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:41:32pm

re: #507 Big Steve

So you will like this story. My first degree was in Philosophy then later I got a chemical engineering degree and worked up to being the site manager of a Major Oil company refinery. My first university interviewed interested in how a philosopher could end up a plant manager. I was quoted as saying "there are 25,000 philosophers in my company but I am the only one trained"

Love it. Reminds me of this, of course:

511 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:41:49pm

re: #498 LudwigVanQuixote

The soul is the spiritual essence of an individual and the Divine spark that animates their consciousness. Since it is not physical in any aspect it can never be observed or experimented upon. Thus, it is inviolate by definition from any scientific observation.

Can we not do Cartesian Dualism and say we did? ;)

Yep, Descartes famously opined that immaterial souls commanded machinelike bodies via etheric transmissions received by the pineal gland. He chose the pineal gland for this function because, unlike most other cortical stuctures, there is only one of them per brain.

We've come a ways since then.

512 Ayeless in Ghazi  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:41:53pm

re: #506 Salamantis

An absence of a belief in a presence is not the same thing as the presence of a belief in an absence.

Nicely crystallised, Sal.

513 Spare O'Lake  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:43:39pm

re: #497 iceweasel

False. You don't get to tell us what our beliefs are, and you don't get to redefine the word atheist so that virtually every atheist counts as an agnostic.

I think we are pretty much done with this argument. You told me what your beliefs are, not me. To me, it seems so easy once one gets past one's irrational beliefs or disbeliefs.
Let's move on to something else.

514 BARACK THE VOTE  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:45:01pm

re: #513 Spare O'Lake

I think we are pretty much done with this argument. You told me what your beliefs are, not me. To me, it seems so easy once one gets past one's irrational beliefs or disbeliefs.
Let's move on to something else.

515 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:46:05pm

re: #512 Jimmah

Nicely crystallised, Sal.

Well, my BA is in philosophy, and my MA is in humanities interdisciplinary, with philosophy as its major track, so I should be able to restate abstract ontological contentions succinctly...;~)

516 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:46:32pm

re: #505 iceweasel

The atheist isn't tasked with proving there is no God. One can't prove a negative. The atheist has an absence of belief in god.

NO! The agnostic has an absence of belief in G-d.

If you do not accept that then how do you classify the beliefs, or lack thereof of the agnostic?

The Atheist believes that G-d does not exist - as in belief, that the negative condition obtains. This is the definition of the word and the reason we have a different word for it than agnostic.

Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity[Link: www.merriam-webster.com...]

517 Ayeless in Ghazi  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:49:02pm

I do not believe in any supernatural entities; in fact I don't regard the supernatural as a valid category at all. My view on the soul is captured nicely by this quote:

"Yes, we have a soul, but it’s made of lots of tiny robots"

Giulio Giorello

518 Gus  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:49:06pm

re: #509 LudwigVanQuixote

For me the soul is consciousness. The soul, or memory relies on biology, neurology, nutrition, health, etc. It is the result of biological functions. The soul is also a negative and unprovable. However, biology proves the functions required for memory, brain functions, etc. I have thought that if there was "a soul" one could overcome brain injuries that affect the psyche quite readily. This "soul" would be ever present and there would be no need for a "switch" to turn it on if this were true.

519 BARACK THE VOTE  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:50:10pm

re: #516 LudwigVanQuixote

Yes. A disbelief in god is not the same as a positive belief in No-God.

520 Spare O'Lake  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:50:12pm

re: #504 Jimmah

So you keep asserting. To you it doesn't matter what the word actually means or what atheists say they believe/don't believe. This is obviously an article of faith for you - arguing further would seem to be a waste of time.

Arguing with you is a waste of time because you lack the courage or honesty to admit the uncertainty of your professed non-belief.

521 Gus  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:50:49pm

re: #517 Jimmah

I do not believe in any supernatural entities; in fact I don't regard the supernatural as a valid category at all. My view on the soul is captured nicely by this quote:

"Yes, we have a soul, but it’s made of lots of tiny robots"

Giulio Giorello

It's made of squishy "meat like" components.

//

522 BARACK THE VOTE  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:51:08pm

re: #518 Gus 802

For me the soul is consciousness. The soul, or memory relies on biology, neurology, nutrition, health, etc. It is the result of biological functions. The soul is also a negative and unprovable. However, biology proves the functions required for memory, brain functions, etc. I have thought that if there was "a soul" one could overcome brain injuries that affect the psyche quite readily. This "soul" would be ever present and there would be no need for a "switch" to turn it on if this were true.

In other words, you'd say that this thing other people call a 'soul' is basically what other people call a 'mind'.

523 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:51:15pm

The current overwhelming cognitive science consensus is that 'minding' is what the brain does; in other words, that dynamically recursive conscious self-awareness arises and emerges from the superGodelian product of the number of brain cells and the massive yet meticulously patterned profusion of their synaptic, dendritic and axonal connections.

524 Gus  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:51:35pm

re: #522 iceweasel

In other words, you'd say that this thing other people call a 'soul' is basically what other people call a 'mind'.

Yes.

525 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:51:44pm

re: #511 Salamantis

Yep, Descartes famously opined that immaterial souls commanded machinelike bodies via etheric transmissions received by the pineal gland. He chose the pineal gland for this function because, unlike most other cortical stuctures, there is only one of them per brain.

We've come a ways since then.

Absolutely, however one can take the basic premise and make it more subtle. I am absolutely certain that both of us could go round and round on it forever and get nowhere. I am certain you would make a very good and well constructed set of arguments.

However, we would prove nothing as per a scientific definition of proof.

The fact that no such scientific proof either way could be obtained is the real crux of my argument.

Again, can we not do Cartesian Dualism or any of it's modern descendants and say we did?

526 BARACK THE VOTE  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:52:46pm

re: #520 Spare O'Lake

Arguing with you is a waste of time because you lack the courage or honesty to admit the uncertainty of your professed non-belief.

Downding for impugning Jimmah's courage and honesty-- both of which i assure you he has-- and for your continued and idiotic insistence that you know better than Jimmah what he believes.

Piss off. You're the one who wanted to drop this topic, remember?

527 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:53:53pm

re: #524 Gus 802

Yes.

and you can form a consistent definition of it that way. It is not however the only way to from a consistent definition.

528 Gus  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:54:34pm

re: #527 LudwigVanQuixote

and you can form a consistent definition of it that way. It is not however the only way to from a consistent definition.

It is provable.

529 Spare O'Lake  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:55:14pm

re: #506 Salamantis

An absence of a belief in a presence is not the same thing as the presence of a belief in an absence.

Correct. But the absence of belief allows for the rational possibility of the existence of the subject matter of the belief.

530 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:56:07pm

re: #259 Killgore Trout

Sing about President Biden, of course.

"He's not the first white president,
Probably won't be the last,
But he's a cool dude...la la la la la la."

Huh. It could use some more cowbell.

531 BARACK THE VOTE  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:56:55pm

re: #523 Salamantis

The current overwhelming cognitive science consensus is that 'minding' is what the brain does; in other words, that dynamically recursive conscious self-awareness arises and emerges from the superGodelian product of the number of brain cells and the massive yet meticulously patterned profusion of their synaptic, dendritic and axonal connections.

Not quite. There's an ongoing debate in cogsci and elsewhere as to whether consciousness is materialistic or functional. There is and long has been a consensus that thinking is what the brain does-- it's an activity or process. The mind is the software of the brain, basically.

As to self-consciousness, that is a much higherlevel cognitive activity. We don't know how far down on the phylogenetic scale it appears, nor are we even sure how (in the absence of language) to detect it. There is far from a consensus about how to explain it even in humans. Dennett would more or less endorse something like what you're suggesting, though.

532 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:57:01pm

There are heart transplants, kidney transplants, lung transplants, but there is no such thing as a brain transplant, because the self is generated by the brain. To shift a brain from one body to another would be more correctly described as a body transplant. It is the single case where it is far better to be the donor than the recipient.

533 Ayeless in Ghazi  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:57:52pm

re: #520 Spare O'Lake

Arguing with you is a waste of time because you lack the courage or honesty to admit the uncertainty of your professed non-belief.

I have been absolutely clear and straightforward about my beliefs/non beliefs and uncertainties thereof. Hard to see how I could possibly have been clearer. You are just upset because I refused to accept your bollocks definitions.

Seriously:

Image: lolcatsdotcomttbwex6me2ieahcu.jpg

534 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:58:29pm

re: #529 Spare O'Lake

Correct. But the absence of belief allows for the rational possibility of the existence of the subject matter of the belief.

But a possibility that isn't even considered one way or another - which is what the phrase 'absence of belief' denotes.

535 BARACK THE VOTE  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:58:30pm

re: #529 Spare O'Lake

Correct. But the absence of belief allows for the rational possibility of the existence of the subject matter of the belief.

No, it does not-- any more than my absence of belief in the Tooth Fairy means that there is a rational possibility that it exists, or that I must acknowledge such.

536 Ayeless in Ghazi  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 6:59:17pm

re: #521 Gus 802

It's made of squishy "meat like" components.

//

I like to call it "wetware" :)

537 Gus  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:01:44pm

re: #529 Spare O'Lake

Correct. But the absence of belief allows for the rational possibility of the existence of the subject matter of the belief.

I can't argue with that belief. However, the mind functions as the soul throughout the duration of the lifespan of human beings. Neurology forms the science of the mind along with cognitive research, psychology, etc. It is based on real life observations and the mass of science and math. It is a the result of material interactions. Otherwise, one could ascribe the mind to something other than a "soul" and have it interact with anything. The one could say "the soul is controlled by an intelligent being." If it can't be proven therefore is true?

538 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:02:28pm

re: #531 iceweasel

Not quite. There's an ongoing debate in cogsci and elsewhere as to whether consciousness is materialistic or functional. There is and long has been a consensus that thinking is what the brain does-- it's an activity or process. The mind is the software of the brain, basically.

As to self-consciousness, that is a much higherlevel cognitive activity. We don't know how far down on the phylogenetic scale it appears, nor are we even sure how (in the absence of language) to detect it. There is far from a consensus about how to explain it even in humans. Dennett would more or less endorse something like what you're suggesting, though.

You might also check out I Am A Strange Loop, by Douglas R. Hofstadter (the fellow who wrote Godel, Escher, Bach: The Eternal Golden Braid) where he goes into the Godelian-threshhold-breaching basis of human self-conscious awareness, and check out Roger Sperry for his model of integrated bottom-up/top-down control.

539 BARACK THE VOTE  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:02:35pm

re: #532 Salamantis

There are heart transplants, kidney transplants, lung transplants, but there is no such thing as a brain transplant, because the self is generated by the brain. To shift a brain from one body to another would be more correctly described as a body transplant. It is the single case where it is far better to be the donor than the recipient.

Sal, have you read Dennett's Where Am I? Excerpt here, for all those interested in this question and issues about self and personal identity.

[Link: philosophersrant.blogspot.com...]

540 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:02:51pm

re: #278 avanti

I don't support the choice to have the kids sing the song. My guess is someone was a bit to caught up in her joy of a black POTUS and went overboard. She screwed up, no question.

I agree. Poor judgement call.

541 BARACK THE VOTE  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:03:27pm

re: #538 Salamantis

You might also check out I Am A Strange Loop, by Douglas R. Hofstadter (the fellow who wrote Godel, Escher, Bach: The Eternal Golden Braid) where he goes into the Godelian-threshhold-breaching basis of human self-conscious awareness, and check out Roger Sperry for his model of integrated bottom-up/top-down control.

I'm familiar with both, cheers.

542 BARACK THE VOTE  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:04:21pm

re: #536 Jimmah

I like to call it "wetware" :)

i do too! :)

543 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:04:26pm

re: #539 iceweasel

Sal, have you read Dennett's Where Am I? Excerpt here, for all those interested in this question and issues about self and personal identity.

[Link: philosophersrant.blogspot.com...]

This sums it all up in a nutshell...

544 Ayeless in Ghazi  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:04:32pm

re: #535 iceweasel

No, it does not-- any more than my absence of belief in the Tooth Fairy means that there is a rational possibility that it exists, or that I must acknowledge such.

Go on iceweasel - prove there's no teapot orbiting Jupiter! Can't, can you?/

545 Spare O'Lake  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:04:56pm

re: #526 iceweasel

Downding for impugning Jimmah's courage and honesty-- both of which i assure you he has-- and for your continued and idiotic insistence that you know better than Jimmah what he believes.

Piss off. You're the one who wanted to drop this topic, remember?

I was and am through arguing the point with you.
Jimmah's got my heated response by projecting his own faith meme onto me.

546 Gus  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:05:36pm

re: #544 Jimmah

Go on iceweasel - prove there's no teapot orbiting Jupiter! Can't, can you?/

I can't.

Therefore there is a distinct possibility that there is a teapot orbiting Jupiter!

//

547 Throbert McGee  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:06:18pm

re: #383 iceweasel

Bollocks, buzz. You're the one slandering all atheists as having 'unfortunate personality quirks'. You'll notice I haven't felt the need to slander all people who believe in God. If someone here is exhibiting an 'unfortunate personality quirk' I reckon it's you: exhibiting bigotry and intolerance.

No, he didn't, and it's a dishonorable debate tactic to turn "many" into "all."
On the other hand, if you want to attack his phrasing "many atheists" and argue that he should have instead said "some atheists," that's entirely fair.

548 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:06:19pm

re: #539 iceweasel

Sal, have you read Dennett's Where Am I? Excerpt here, for all those interested in this question and issues about self and personal identity.

[Link: philosophersrant.blogspot.com...]

Yep; I've read everything by Dennett I can find, and own all his books.

Maybe you'd like to read a paper I wrote on the subject:

Gurwitsch, Piaget, and Recursive Equilibration
[Link: blogs.myspace.com...]

Or maybe not; it is rather long and technical.

But it does include much original-with-me thought.

549 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:06:27pm

re: #294 CapeCoddah

Jeeze, Mandy, Prayers here... hope he is OK, and you as well. Anything we can do, just ask.

Be well, and keep the Kid hydrated. Love and prayers coming his way.

550 BARACK THE VOTE  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:06:46pm

re: #545 Spare O'Lake

I was and am through arguing the point with you.
Jimmah's got my heated response by projecting his own faith meme onto me.

You're through all right-- you've lost. Hence your desire to fling poo at Jimmah.

Sorry; do that and you're taking me on too.

551 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:09:02pm

re: #544 Jimmah

Go on iceweasel - prove there's no teapot orbiting Jupiter! Can't, can you?/

Except that a teapot is an inherently physical object. It is thus subject to the laws of physics and direct observation that allow you to make the probabilistic argument you are driving at.

However, for something purely spiritual, no such probabilistic argument can be made. Therefore you can not dismiss the possibility of the spiritual in the same manner you dismissed the possibility of a teapot going round Jupiter.

Therefore, you are confabulating apples and oranges and your argument ceases to obtain.

552 Gus  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:09:04pm

Our ancient ancestors came to Earth on interstellar rockets that looked similar to DC-9s. You cannot prove this is not true.

Therefore, the possibility of it being true is?

553 Ayeless in Ghazi  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:09:23pm

re: #545 Spare O'Lake

I was and am through arguing the point with you.
Jimmah's got my heated response by projecting his own faith meme onto me.

Care to try to substatiate that, moron?

554 BARACK THE VOTE  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:10:04pm

re: #544 Jimmah

Go on iceweasel - prove there's no teapot orbiting Jupiter! Can't, can you?/

re: #546 Gus 802

I can't.

Therefore there is a distinct possibility that there is a teapot orbiting Jupiter!

//

heee. I love you guys.

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time

BTW, my all time fave Russell quote: Upon being asked by some society chick at a dinner party why he'd given up philosophy, he responded

"Because, Madam, I found that I preferred fucking."

555 Sloppy  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:10:19pm

Getting back on topic for a second: The Glenn Beck kerflufle makes me wonder why so many devote so much time and attention to such a silly person.

556 Throbert McGee  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:10:25pm

re: #532 Salamantis

There are heart transplants, kidney transplants, lung transplants, but there is no such thing as a brain transplant, because the self is generated by the brain.

M mmm mm mmm, mmm M mmm mmm!

557 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:10:28pm

re: #552 Gus 802

Our ancient ancestors came to Earth on interstellar rockets that looked similar to DC-9s. You cannot prove this is not true.

Therefore, the possibility of it being true is?

Except that a rocket DC-9 is an inherently physical object. It is thus subject to the laws of physics and direct observation that allow you to make the probabilistic argument you are driving at.

However, for something purely spiritual, no such probabilistic argument can be made. Therefore you can not dismiss the possibility of the spiritual in the same manner you dismissed the possibility of a rocket DC-9

Therefore, you are confabulating apples and oranges and your argument ceases to obtain.

558 Spare O'Lake  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:11:40pm

re: #546 Gus 802

I can't.

Therefore there is a distinct possibility that there is a teapot orbiting Jupiter!

//

We have a universe.
It had to have a beginning.
We do not know how it began.
A higher intelligent power might have created it in the beginning.
Or maybe not, but science has no better explanation.
Therefore, only an idiot would deny the possibility.
I am peaceful and secure in the honest uncertainty of my agnosticism.

559 BARACK THE VOTE  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:11:54pm

re: #552 Gus 802

Our ancient ancestors came to Earth on interstellar rockets that looked similar to DC-9s. You cannot prove this is not true.

Therefore, the possibility of it being true is?

Therefore, you must admit the rational possibility of it being true.

/

560 Gus  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:12:36pm

re: #557 LudwigVanQuixote

Except that a rocket DC-9 is an inherently physical object. It is thus subject to the laws of physics and direct observation that allow you to make the probabilistic argument you are driving at.

However, for something purely spiritual, no such probabilistic argument can be made. Therefore you can not dismiss the possibility of the spiritual in the same manner you dismissed the possibility of a rocket DC-9

Therefore, you are confabulating apples and oranges and your argument ceases to obtain.

Flaming chariots are physically possible too. And the Earth could have been flat.

I'm not speaking of the technical possibilities.

561 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:14:16pm

re: #380 LudwigVanQuixote

They also have little respect for their own culture or any of the good things done by religion.
.

Dunno about religion, but my experience of Europeans is that that they have an almost idolatrous regard for their own culture.

562 Gus  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:14:29pm

re: #558 Spare O'Lake

We have a universe.
It had to have a beginning.
We do not know how it began.
A higher intelligent power might have created it in the beginning.
Or maybe not, but science has no better explanation.
Therefore, only an idiot would deny the possibility.
I am peaceful and secure in the honest uncertainty of my agnosticism.

We are still learning. The Dark Ages were only 500 years ago. That is a mere speck in time line of man. There is the Higgs boson, particle acceleration, and so on.

563 BARACK THE VOTE  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:15:26pm

re: #558 Spare O'Lake


I am peaceful and secure in the honest uncertainty of my agnosticism.

If that were indeed the case, you wouldn't be so threatened by the existence of atheists, and so determined to recategorise them as 'agnostics', and so determined to insist that your position is the only one that is 'honest'.

It's generally a mark of intellectual insecurity to be threatened by the existence of opposing points of view. It's odd that you're arguing for adopting a postion of uncertainty, as the only honest position, yet not being able to tolerate others who don't share your views.

Why is it that you don't consider the religious to be 'dishonest', i wonder?

564 Gus  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:16:49pm

re: #563 iceweasel

If that were indeed the case, you wouldn't be so threatened by the existence of atheists, and so determined to recategorise them as 'agnostics', and so determined to insist that your position is the only one that is 'honest'.

It's generally a mark of intellectual insecurity to be threatened by the existence of opposing points of view. It's odd that you're arguing for adopting a postion of uncertainty, as the only honest position, yet not being able to tolerate others who don't share your views.

Why is it that you don't consider the religious to be 'dishonest', i wonder?

Need we explain what the lurkers must be thinking now? The answer is obvious. ;)

565 Ayeless in Ghazi  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:17:30pm

re: #551 LudwigVanQuixote

Except that a teapot is an inherently physical object. It is thus subject to the laws of physics and direct observation that allow you to make the probabilistic argument you are driving at.

However, for something purely spiritual, no such probabilistic argument can be made. Therefore you can not dismiss the possibility of the spiritual in the same manner you dismissed the possibility of a teapot going round Jupiter.

Therefore, you are confabulating apples and oranges and your argument ceases to obtain.

In other words it is at least concievable that such an object might exist, since the ontological status of the category of thing to which it belongs is not outrageously controversial, to say the very least. Unlike the unicorn, the tooth fairy, and the supernatural soul.

566 Spare O'Lake  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:18:21pm

re: #562 Gus 802

We are still learning. The Dark Ages were only 500 years ago. That is a mere speck in time line of man. There is the Higgs boson, particle acceleration, and so on.

By all means. And as soon as science figures it all out I will believe.

567 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:18:33pm

re: #560 Gus 802

Flaming chariots are physically possible too. And the Earth could have been flat.

I'm not speaking of the technical possibilities.

But you are missing my point entirely.

Any physical thing must obey physical laws that allow you to talk about the probability of it physically being there or happening. Something out side of the physical, by definition can not be measured, and you can not say anything at all about it's probability bay applying physical arguments to it.

The chance that a souls is everywhere is the same as the chance the it orbits Jupiter, is the same as the chance that it does not exist at all from a purely physical basis, because you would never be able to tell, by definition.

However, by physical definitions, teapots around jupiter, based on what we know about teapots and Jupiter seems very very unlikely and hence you can call the probabilities absurd. But that is because both teapots and Jupiter are physical objects subject to physics which allows you to make the estimation in the first place.

With the spiritual, there is nothing that you can estimate about. You simple have no data, and the point that I keep making again and again is that no data only means no data. It does not mean nothing is there, it does not mean something is there, it does not imply a probability based on other data. The fact is that there is no data, so you do not know and you can not know, much less make a probability argument.

568 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:19:02pm

re: #558 Spare O'Lake

We have a universe.
It had to have a beginning.
We do not know how it began.
A higher intelligent power might have created it in the beginning.
Or maybe not, but science has no better explanation.
Therefore, only an idiot would deny the possibility.
I am peaceful and secure in the honest uncertainty of my agnosticism.

This argument is susceprtible to reductio ad absurdum by means of irreduceable complexity.

A being with the will and power to create the universe would have to be more complex than they universe itself, and hence require even more explanation. And IT'S creator would have to be more complex still, and require still MORE explanation. And IT'S creator...ad nauseum ad infinitum.

569 Gus  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:19:35pm

re: #568 LudwigVanQuixote

What you're saying then is that anything can exist.

570 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:19:40pm

re: #566 Jimmah

In other words it is at least concievable that such an object might exist, since the ontological status of the category of thing to which it belongs is not outrageously controversial, to say the very least. Unlike the unicorn, the tooth fairy, and the supernatural soul.

NO! they are in totally different categories, the physical is something by definition different than the spiritual! See my 568.

571 BenghaziHoops  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:21:22pm

re: #459 swamprat

No longer true. The communists pulled ahead in this century.

Really? 19 young men in the the name of god brought us the nightmare of 911...Since that moment...Since noon of that day..How many have died in the name of God? This isn't no play school...Even Obama is holding on to the side of the pool for dear life...19 men changed the world in the name of god...It's always been that way...That's what I got out of reading the Bible..

572 Ayeless in Ghazi  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:21:25pm

re: #561 SanFranciscoZionist

Dunno about religion, but my experience of Europeans is that that they have an almost idolatrous regard for their own culture.

So true. Even our punk bands payed homage to Royalty you know :)

573 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:21:34pm

re: #570 Gus 802

What you're saying then is that anything can exist.

No not at all, what I am saying is that if something is outside of the physical then by definition the physical basis of reason we would apply to it does not obtain. Suppose I claimed that the soul cased your ass to glow blue... That is physical and observable and disprovable. Saying it exists outside of the physical, which is exactly what Judaism says it does, is not observable or disprovable.

574 Ayeless in Ghazi  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:23:08pm

re: #571 LudwigVanQuixote

NO! they are in totally different categories, the physical is something by definition different than the spiritual! See my 568.

You have misread me if you thought I was disputing that. That was not my point at all.

575 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:23:31pm

re: #574 LudwigVanQuixote

No not at all, what I am saying is that if something is outside of the physical then by definition the physical basis of reason we would apply to it does not obtain. Suppose I claimed that the soul cased your ass to glow blue... That is physical and observable and disprovable. Saying it exists outside of the physical, which is exactly what Judaism says it does, is not observable or disprovable.

What CAN be said is that, scientifically, empirically speaking, the God Hypothesis is unnecessary to explain why the universe is the way that it is and people are the way that they are.

576 BARACK THE VOTE  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:23:47pm

re: #571 LudwigVanQuixote

NO! they are in totally different categories, the physical is something by definition different than the spiritual! See my 568.

But you've yet to give a definition of the spiritual, other than to say 'not-physical'. And while you are asking us not to talk about Cartesian dualism, you yourself are endorsing a form of it. And like all forms of Cartesian dualism, you're stuck with the problem of interaction.

Not to gang up on you, Ludwig, but I do love this topic, sometimes...

577 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:23:52pm

re: #575 Jimmah

You have misread me if you thought I was disputing that. That was not my point at all.

Then I did not get your point. Please explain to me.

578 Gus  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:24:52pm

re: #574 LudwigVanQuixote

No not at all, what I am saying is that if something is outside of the physical then by definition the physical basis of reason we would apply to it does not obtain. Suppose I claimed that the soul cased your ass to glow blue... That is physical and observable and disprovable. Saying it exists outside of the physical, which is exactly what Judaism says it does, is not observable or disprovable.

You present an inarguable argument. Seems like a culturally constructed logical trap of sorts.

579 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:25:14pm

re: #452 Spare O'Lake

An atheist believes with moral certainty that no higher intelligent power created anything.
Atheists believe the opposite.
Neither can be proven or disproven by current science.

I suppose that depends on how you define 'atheist'. My husband defines himself as an apathetic agnostic. He doesn't know if there's a God, and he doesn't really care. Moral certainty doesn't enter into it.

580 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:25:28pm

re: #576 Salamantis

What CAN be said is that, scientifically, empirically speaking, the God Hypothesis is unnecessary to explain why the universe is the way that it is and people are the way that they are.

In other words, the God Hypothesis lies on the wrong side of Occam's Razor.

581 BARACK THE VOTE  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:26:39pm

re: #576 Salamantis

What CAN be said is that, scientifically, empirically speaking, the God Hypothesis is unnecessary to explain why the universe is the way that it is and people are the way that they are.

Which is exactly why I proposed way upthread the idea of faith as a separate epistemic mode of access, to a distinct realm of facts.

Not because I believe it, but because it is the only way for the believer to argue. And I'll take any side in a debate for the sake of making the argument. Any argument, that is. :)

582 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:27:03pm

Dostoyevsky was correct on at least one point; arguments for the existence of God tend to come down to appeals to Magic, Mystery or Authroity.

583 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:27:05pm

re: #459 swamprat

No longer true. The communists pulled ahead in this century.

Doubt that. Religion has a long, long head start.

584 Ojoe  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:29:40pm

re: #583 Salamantis

Dostoyevsky was correct on at least one point; arguments for the existence of God tend to come down to appeals to Magic, Mystery or Authroity.


Not in Thomas Aquinas, though.

585 Ayeless in Ghazi  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:30:24pm

My point is that the soul belongs in the same category as toothfairies. It really doesn't help to point out that you can't by definition ever find evidence for such things in establishing the credibility of such purported entities.

586 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:31:11pm

re: #577 iceweasel

But you've yet to give a definition of the spiritual, other than to say 'not-physical'. And while you are asking us not to talk about Cartesian dualism, you yourself are endorsing a form of it. And like all forms of Cartesian dualism, you're stuck with the problem of interaction.

Not to gang up on you, Ludwig, but I do love this topic, sometimes...

NO, of course I am implying a form of Cartesian Dualism with the soul. I said so explicitly.

What I asked is something that we all know to be true... which is if you are good at these arguments, and you are very good and so is Sal, and so am I, we will go all night on it and prove nothing.

If you really want to refine belief in soul and hammer out a definition you like, we also know full well that any such definition will include that it is not physical..

For the arguments I am making, the condition of non-physicality is not only sufficient, but in fact the whole point.

If it is not physical there can be no data. If there is no data possible, even in principle, which the definition of non-physical or of physical origin assures, then no data means no data and we are done. We are done because there is no data to make the argument either way on it's existence, and hence any statement as to it existing or not existing as a positive or negative statement is a statement of belief in that which has no proof. Again, that is the definition of faith.

The only purely scientific stance is that of the agnostic which says, I don't know because I have no data.

Done.

587 medaura18586  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:31:45pm

re: #568 LudwigVanQuixote

Consciousness is a Pandora's box. Now we're entering into Philosophy of Mind--one of my favorite subjects. Before I go any further, I want to strongly recommend two mind-blowing lecture series from the Teaching Company: "Philosophy of Mind," by John Searle, and "Consciousness and Its Implications," by Daniel N. Robinson. No matter how vast your knowledge of philosophy, you'll come out of them enlightened, having learned much that was new. The two professors are heavy weights in their fields.

Anyway, I am convinced that Cartesian Dualism sums up the nature of consciousness acurately overall. The realm of physical reality is ruled by physical laws. Its features are empirical, measurable, reductionist. The mind is another realm entirely. What makes the colors you see right now what they feel like? What makes pain feel like pain? You could learn all there is to know about neurological networks and interactions in the brain, understand the central nervous system inside and out,.. yet that knowledge doesn't account for any of our feelings and mental processes, in the unique way we experience them. I do not mean to suggest that consciousness is independent of physical reality--if you lobotomize me, my consciousness will wither. But its ontological nature belongs to a different category than the physical world does. No one can run experiments on what goes on in your mind, nor than anyone scientifically test whether you DO have a mind... I can perfectly imagine a zombie, physically and functionally similar to myself, yet devoid of consciousness. Only the thinking, feeling, conscious mind directly knows its own existence--and I don't mean to sound solipsistic about the issue.

588 Ojoe  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:33:19pm

re: #569 Salamantis

A being with the will and power to create the universe would have to be more complex than they universe itself

Why, necessarily?

Some think God is very simple.

Aquinas again.

Well, Back Later ...

589 Spare O'Lake  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:33:30pm

re: #563 iceweasel

If that were indeed the case, you wouldn't be so threatened by the existence of atheists, and so determined to recategorise them as 'agnostics', and so determined to insist that your position is the only one that is 'honest'.

It's generally a mark of intellectual insecurity to be threatened by the existence of opposing points of view. It's odd that you're arguing for adopting a postion of uncertainty, as the only honest position, yet not being able to tolerate others who don't share your views.

Why is it that you don't consider the religious to be 'dishonest', i wonder?

I am not threatened by you or your beliefs Iceweasel.
And I would consider the religious believers to be dishonest too if they pretended that their belief system was not faith based.
But I, unlike you, cannot have my cake and eat it too - either I believe, disbelieve, or am not sure.

590 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:33:48pm

re: #585 Ojoe

Not in Thomas Aquinas, though.

Thomas Aquinus basically said that God is defined as a being greater than which none can be conceived, and since existence is necessary to the conception of such a being (since it would not be as big if it did not exist as it would be if it did), it must therefore exist.

But one cannot semantically define an entity into existence.

591 baier  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:35:06pm

/Glenn Beck exaggerating and lying? Don't buy it.

592 medaura18586  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:35:23pm

re: #588 medaura18586

It's interesting that John Searle rejects Dualism while Daniel Robison endorses it. I must agree with Robinson. But Searle is a genius too.

593 Coracle  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:35:40pm

re: #590 Spare O'Lake

But I, unlike you, cannot have my cake and eat it too - either I believe, disbelieve, or am not sure.

I believe I disbelieve, but I'm not sure.
I get two cakes.

594 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:37:00pm

re: #587 LudwigVanQuixote

NO, of course I am implying a form of Cartesian Dualism with the soul. I said so explicitly.

What I asked is something that we all know to be true... which is if you are good at these arguments, and you are very good and so is Sal, and so am I, we will go all night on it and prove nothing.

If you really want to refine belief in soul and hammer out a definition you like, we also know full well that any such definition will include that it is not physical..

For the arguments I am making, the condition of non-physicality is not only sufficient, but in fact the whole point.

If it is not physical there can be no data. If there is no data possible, even in principle, which the definition of non-physical or of physical origin assures, then no data means no data and we are done. We are done because there is no data to make the argument either way on it's existence, and hence any statement as to it existing or not existing as a positive or negative statement is a statement of belief in that which has no proof. Again, that is the definition of faith.

The only purely scientific stance is that of the agnostic which says, I don't know because I have no data.

Done.

The mind or soul can be cognitively defined as the dynamically recursive electrochemical pattern flowing through the neurons and synapses of the brain. It is thus dependent upon the existence of that brain for its own existence.

Emergentist Monism is by far the dominant paradigm in contemporary cognitive science.

595 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:37:16pm

re: #588 medaura18586

Consciousness is a Pandora's box. Now we're entering into Philosophy of Mind--one of my favorite subjects. Before I go any further, I want to strongly recommend two mind-blowing lecture series from the Teaching Company: "Philosophy of Mind," by John Searle, and "Consciousness and Its Implications," by Daniel N. Robinson. No matter how vast your knowledge of philosophy, you'll come out of them enlightened, having learned much that was new. The two professors are heavy weights in their fields.

Anyway, I am convinced that Cartesian Dualism sums up the nature of consciousness acurately overall. The realm of physical reality is ruled by physical laws. Its features are empirical, measurable, reductionist. The mind is another realm entirely. What makes the colors you see right now what they feel like? What makes pain feel like pain? You could learn all there is to know about neurological networks and interactions in the brain, understand the central nervous system inside and out,.. yet that knowledge doesn't account for any of our feelings and mental processes, in the unique way we experience them. I do not mean to suggest that consciousness is independent of physical reality--if you lobotomize me, my consciousness will wither. But its ontological nature belongs to a different category than the physical world does. No one can run experiments on what goes on in your mind, nor than anyone scientifically test whether you DO have a mind... I can perfectly imagine a zombie, physically and functionally similar to myself, yet devoid of consciousness. Only the thinking, feeling, conscious mind directly knows its own existence--and I don't mean to sound solipsistic about the issue.

Love your post! We are on the same page.

I also love the debate in general.

Sal and Ice and Jimmah and Gus, you got a lot of fun points to go around with!

Even though you are all heretics, and I must stone you now... :)

596 medaura18586  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:38:24pm

I wish I hadn't missed most of the discussion--had to go get groceries. You guys let me know how much longer you plan to keep it up tonight, so I may adjust my intake of caffeine accordingly.

597 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:40:43pm

re: #595 Salamantis

The mind or soul can be cognitively defined as the dynamically recursive electrochemical pattern flowing through the neurons and synapses of the brain. It is thus dependent upon the existence of that brain for its own existence.

Emergentist Monism is by far the dominant paradigm in contemporary cognitive science.

Point is taken. I should have stated the point about belief in soul being non physical is the standard theistic definition we would agree on (as the theistic but not only possible definition).

It is held that the soul is immortal for instance. If it were a construct of physical patterns, then it ceases to exist when the brain goes away.

598 Gus  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:41:21pm

Anyway. Existence and science cannot be based on something that cannot be disproved because to do so is impossible. Life and science is based on realism and materialist fact that we can observe and quantify. Everything else is just literature.

599 Spare O'Lake  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:41:30pm

re: #569 Salamantis

This argument is susceprtible to reductio ad absurdum by means of irreduceable complexity.

A being with the will and power to create the universe would have to be more complex than they universe itself, and hence require even more explanation. And IT'S creator would have to be more complex still, and require still MORE explanation. And IT'S creator...ad nauseum ad infinitum.

You mean if there is a God he HAD to have had a MOMMY?
Sorry, I don't see that as a logical requirement.
But I would by willing to grant you that possibility for argument's sake, if you want to go with it, which would presumably lead to the possibility of an infinite number of Gods and an infinite number of universes. All of which merely reinforces my agnosticism.

600 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:42:32pm

re: #588 medaura18586

Consciousness is a Pandora's box. Now we're entering into Philosophy of Mind--one of my favorite subjects. Before I go any further, I want to strongly recommend two mind-blowing lecture series from the Teaching Company: "Philosophy of Mind," by John Searle, and "Consciousness and Its Implications," by Daniel N. Robinson. No matter how vast your knowledge of philosophy, you'll come out of them enlightened, having learned much that was new. The two professors are heavy weights in their fields.

Anyway, I am convinced that Cartesian Dualism sums up the nature of consciousness acurately overall. The realm of physical reality is ruled by physical laws. Its features are empirical, measurable, reductionist. The mind is another realm entirely. What makes the colors you see right now what they feel like? What makes pain feel like pain? You could learn all there is to know about neurological networks and interactions in the brain, understand the central nervous system inside and out,.. yet that knowledge doesn't account for any of our feelings and mental processes, in the unique way we experience them. I do not mean to suggest that consciousness is independent of physical reality--if you lobotomize me, my consciousness will wither. But its ontological nature belongs to a different category than the physical world does. No one can run experiments on what goes on in your mind, nor than anyone scientifically test whether you DO have a mind... I can perfectly imagine a zombie, physically and functionally similar to myself, yet devoid of consciousness. Only the thinking, feeling, conscious mind directly knows its own existence--and I don't mean to sound solipsistic about the issue.

The so-called "hard problem' of the subjective consciousness of qualia vs. the objective attributes of phenomena can be reduced to a difference between internal vs. external perspective.

601 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:45:02pm

re: #599 Gus 802

Anyway. Existence and science cannot be based on something that cannot be disproved because to do so is impossible. Life and science is based on realism and materialist fact that we can observe and quantify. Everything else is just literature.

This is a true statement, but I would take the sting out of it and merely call it belief. Provided that you do not let your faith cause you to believe the absurd and disprovable, then you are not in danger of running afoul of science.

602 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:45:52pm

re: #600 Spare O'Lake

You mean if there is a God he HAD to have had a MOMMY?
Sorry, I don't see that as a logical requirement.
But I would by willing to grant you that possibility for argument's sake, if you want to go with it, which would presumably lead to the possibility of an infinite number of Gods and an infinite number of universes. All of which merely reinforces my agnosticism.

It is logically inconsistent to maintain that the universe had to have a creator, but that creator itself didn't have to itself have a creator. And the consequence of that argument is turtlegods all the way down an infinitely deep pit.

Or one could just say that bangs happen.

603 Spare O'Lake  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:46:20pm

re: #580 SanFranciscoZionist

I suppose that depends on how you define 'atheist'. My husband defines himself as an apathetic agnostic. He doesn't know if there's a God, and he doesn't really care. Moral certainty doesn't enter into it.

Moral certainty is not for agnostics - it is for believers and atheists.
Your husband is no fool, I see.

604 Spare O'Lake  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:48:02pm

re: #599 Gus 802

Anyway. Existence and science cannot be based on something that cannot be disproved because to do so is impossible. Life and science is based on realism and materialist fact that we can observe and quantify. Everything else is just literature.

Ah Gus, you are such a romantic.
/

605 medaura18586  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:49:10pm

re: #596 LudwigVanQuixote

Dealing with consciousness and physical reality require different epistemological tools too. Skeptical empiricism is my outlook to the physical world. If any assertion about matter, energy, or the architecture of the universe is made, it must be falsifiable, and even if it passes the falsification test, that, in and of itself, does not constitute proof. Nothing can be proved with any epistemological certainty---but they can be disproved. So the direction of epistemology is skewed toward knowing X is false with a certainty and against knowing X is true with certainty. But this is a systematic layering of certainty, works almost like a recursive algorithm: "test, if falsified throw out hypothesis or amend it; if not falsified, keep testing."--ad infinitum.

With consciousness, the scientific algorithm has no material to work with. How do you feel red? Is your red the same as my red? Does chicken taste the same to you? I love pickled ginger, my husband hates it. He must taste it differently, because if he could taste what I taste, he'd love it. How does loneliness feel, what does it do to you? How do you think of mathematical problems? What does Daniel Tammet see in his mind's eye? I have no clue, and all matters of consciousness I take on faith, cloaked as empathy. Mind is not reducible to thinking atoms. Consciousness is one big continuous mess, unique to each of us. It is not the domain of science,.. at least not of any existing branch of science.

606 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:50:06pm

I have a friend with a PhD in the history of ideas from the University of Miami who describes himself as a 'retired agnostic', meaning that he 'doesn't know and doesn't give a damn any more.' Because, either way, it doesn't affect one whit the fact that he still must act as if he is responsible for his own decisions and their consequences.

607 medaura18586  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:50:27pm

re: #601 Salamantis

The so-called "hard problem' of the subjective consciousness of qualia vs. the objective attributes of phenomena can be reduced to a difference between internal vs. external perspective.

Yes, but that explanation is no satisfactory explanation at all. It does not allow me to experience your qualias. Check out those lectures I linked to. They are amazing.

608 Gus  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:50:37pm

re: #602 LudwigVanQuixote

This is a true statement, but I would take the sting out of it and merely call it belief. Provided that you do not let your faith cause you to believe the absurd and disprovable, then you are not in danger of running afoul of science.

True. And like I said earlier. I am not here to convert others to non-belief. That is a task I care not to engage in. My time here (in life) is short.

609 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 7:58:40pm

re: #608 medaura18586

Replied to the Jewish question you asked...

610 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 8:00:19pm

re: #606 medaura18586

Dealing with consciousness and physical reality require different epistemological tools too. Skeptical empiricism is my outlook to the physical world. If any assertion about matter, energy, or the architecture of the universe is made, it must be falsifiable, and even if it passes the falsification test, that, in and of itself, does not constitute proof. Nothing can be proved with any epistemological certainty---but they can be disproved. So the direction of epistemology is skewed toward knowing X is false with a certainty and against knowing X is true with certainty. But this is a systematic layering of certainty, works almost like a recursive algorithm: "test, if falsified throw out hypothesis or amend it; if not falsified, keep testing."--ad infinitum.

With consciousness, the scientific algorithm has no material to work with. How do you feel red? Is your red the same as my red? Does chicken taste the same to you? I love pickled ginger, my husband hates it. He must taste it differently, because if he could taste what I taste, he'd love it. How does loneliness feel, what does it do to you? How do you think of mathematical problems? What does Daniel Tammet see in his mind's eye? I have no clue, and all matters of consciousness I take on faith, cloaked as empathy. Mind is not reducible to thinking atoms. Consciousness is one big continuous mess, unique to each of us. It is not the domain of science,.. at least not of any existing branch of science.

"If a friend and I are standing before a landscape, and if I attempt to show my friend something which I see and which he does not yet see, we cannot account for the situation by saying that I see something in my own world and that I attempt, by sending verbal messages, to give rise to an analogous perception in the world of my friend. There are not two numerically distinct worlds plus a mediating language which alone would bring us together. There is - and I know it very well if I become impatient with him - a kind of demand that what I see be seen by him also. And at the same time this communication is required by the very thing which I am looking at, by the reflection of sunlight upon it, by its color, by its sensible evidence. The thing imposes itself not as true for every intellect, but as real for every subject who is standing where I am."

Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Phenomenology of Perception

611 Achilles Tang  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 8:00:37pm

re: #587 LudwigVanQuixote

The only purely scientific stance is that of the agnostic which says, I don't know because I have no data.

Done.

Not so; what you know is what data you have. What you don't know is in your imagination. Some call it faith.

612 Spare O'Lake  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 8:02:44pm

re: #603 Salamantis

It is logically inconsistent to maintain that the universe had to have a creator, but that creator itself didn't have to itself have a creator. And the consequence of that argument is turtlegods all the way down an infinitely deep pit.

Or one could just say that bangs happen.

I don't say the universe HAD to have a higher intelligent creator. I say it MIGHT have. And apparently many great scientific minds haven't seen scientific evidence of a better explanation. I just don't have a fucking clue whether there is a God or not.

613 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 8:03:22pm

re: #608 medaura18586

Yes, but that explanation is no satisfactory explanation at all. It does not allow me to experience your qualias. Check out those lectures I linked to. They are amazing.

It is not necessary for me to see the color red through your eyes to know that when we use the word 'red', we are referring to the same quality. All we have to do is look at an apple (well, some kinds), or blood, or any number of red things, and we will agree between us that they are indeed what we mean when we say 'red.'

614 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 8:05:05pm

re: #613 Spare O'Lake

I don't say the universe HAD to have a higher intelligent creator. I say it MIGHT have. And apparently many great scientific minds haven't seen scientific evidence of a better explanation. I just don't have a fucking clue whether there is a God or not.

Einstein didn't embrace a theological explanation. Neither have the vast majority of seminal theoretical physicists, up to and including Garrett Lisi.

615 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 8:07:49pm

re: #612 Naso Tang

Not so; what you know is what data you have. What you don't know is in your imagination. Some call it faith.

So when there was no data for electrons were they not real? The distinction is between the physical and the spiritual, not just the known and the unknown.

616 swamprat  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 8:09:07pm

re: #584 SanFranciscoZionist

You are certainly welcome to your beliefs. The numbers are available. Do the research and come to your own conclusions. I can't post easily past 400 because the page loads too slowly and when I am logged in, scrolling and posting are bogged.

617 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 8:09:09pm

re: #616 LudwigVanQuixote

So when there was no data for electrons were they not real? The distinction is between the physical and the spiritual, not just the known and the unknown.

Electron In Motion:

618 medaura18586  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 8:09:26pm

re: #614 Salamantis

It is not necessary for me to see the color red through your eyes to know that when we use the word 'red', we are referring to the same quality. All we have to do is look at an apple (well, some kinds), or blood, or any number of red things, and we will agree between us that they are indeed what we mean when we say 'red.'

Yes, but you take that on faith. There are strange conditions like that of Daniel Tammet. His brain is wired differently, and perceives different things. he "sees" numbers, for example. As colors, sounds, feelings, symbols... he's drawn a picture of the number Pi. For run-of-the-mill qualities like "red," we can take it for granted that we each perceive them similarly. But there are many other higher functions that are experienced uniquely by each person. And what about how a bee or a bat sees "red." And the bat's radar and the ant's mental map of an ant's nest? It's more complicated than the way you put it.

619 Achilles Tang  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 8:11:06pm

re: #614 Salamantis

It is not necessary for me to see the color red through your eyes to know that when we use the word 'red', we are referring to the same quality. All we have to do is look at an apple (well, some kinds), or blood, or any number of red things, and we will agree between us that they are indeed what we mean when we say 'red.'

I'm sure you know about synthesists. They do not necessarily "see" red, nor do color blind people, but they deduce a commonality from other cues, unless it happens to be a Grannie Smith apple.

I have deduced that our children did not have the same tastes as their parents, and I have come to believe that broccoli can genuinely taste like crap to some.

Our entire perception of the universe is based on a presumption that others share what we feel and think, see and smell, touch and feel. However if that were true LGF would be the only blog in the galaxy, if not the universe.

620 Achilles Tang  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 8:14:56pm

re: #616 LudwigVanQuixote

So when there was no data for electrons were they not real? The distinction is between the physical and the spiritual, not just the known and the unknown.

And if a bear shits in the woods and nobody smells it, was there a crap or not?

If there was nobody to count, is there anything more than zero?

This is word play.

What you know is real. Spirituality is what drives you to know. What that is has 6 billion interpretations today.

621 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 8:17:34pm

re: #619 medaura18586

Yes, but you take that on faith. There are strange conditions like that of Daniel Tammet. His brain is wired differently, and perceives different things. he "sees" numbers, for example. As colors, sounds, feelings, symbols... he's drawn a picture of the number Pi. For run-of-the-mill qualities like "red," we can take it for granted that we each perceive them similarly. But there are many other higher functions that are experienced uniquely by each person. And what about how a bee or a bat sees "red." And the bat's radar and the ant's mental map of an ant's nest? It's more complicated than the way you put it.

He's a synaesthete. Their tendency to cross up perceptal modalities is thoroughly documented.

And the perception of magnetic fields or polarized ligh or echolocation are just additonal perceptual modalities available to particular species.

The rule is this: all discrete perceptions of X are consequences of the way X is in itself, and how that means that it is perceived when it comes in contact with differentperceptual modalities (x for us, or at least for perceiving other-than-x). All of these differing perceptions must be amenable to noncontradictory resolution as parts or aspects of X and its in-itself-determined means of interrelation with its surrounding world, including various perceivers utilizing sundry modalities.

622 [deleted]  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 8:19:36pm
623 Bagua  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 8:21:13pm

Just watched the video, Beck's explanation was even more inane and childish than his idiotic stunt, simpering fool.

624 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 8:21:43pm

re: #623 redstateredneck

First you say that it isn't about Charles, and then you rant at him.

Self-contradict much?

625 Achilles Tang  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 8:22:11pm

re: #623 redstateredneck

Oh dear. Bet that hangover is gonna hurt tomorrow.

626 Achilles Tang  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 8:24:32pm

re: #622 Salamantis

Love you Sal, but this late I have to think you over analyse. My philosophy is KISS.

627 Bagua  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 8:24:43pm

re: #623 redstateredneck

Another bad seed from the class of 2004 disappears into the either after posting bold faced lies. Pitiful and childish, not unlike Beck.

628 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 8:26:16pm

re: #628 Bagua

Another bad seed from the class of 2004 disappears into the either after posting bold faced lies. Pitiful and childish, not unlike Beck.

You missed a heck of a philosophical excursion buddy... You may like it.

629 Bagua  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 8:26:47pm

re: #629 LudwigVanQuixote

Warmings?

630 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 8:28:43pm

Oh, btw; I don't take that agreement on what objects possess which colors on faith; I check it out with others, and they corroborate that particular colors are inherent in particular objects. That's what 'agreement' means.

Now they may be seeing what I would call green when they say red, but everything they see as what they call red I also see as what I call red.

And this red-green contention is highly doubtful, considering that vision is constrained within a single octave doubling of light frequency, centering around the color green. If we perceived light in multiple doublings, then we would see multiple colors from the same area, making line difficult to distinguish, with obvious negative evolutionary consequences.

631 Ojoe  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 8:29:50pm

re: #628 Bagua

Wow, 5 years & 20k comments, poof!

632 Achilles Tang  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 8:30:28pm

re: #628 Bagua

I scanned the recent posts. None for a few weeks, but prior seemed civil enough. I think it's some kind of B movie virus. Swine flu perhaps?

633 medaura18586  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 8:31:27pm

re: #622 Salamantis

I'm not sure I can wrap my head around what that means.

634 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 8:31:58pm

re: #620 Naso Tang

I'm sure you know about synthesists. They do not necessarily "see" red, nor do color blind people, but they deduce a commonality from other cues, unless it happens to be a Grannie Smith apple.

I have deduced that our children did not have the same tastes as their parents, and I have come to believe that broccoli can genuinely taste like crap to some.

Our entire perception of the universe is based on a presumption that others share what we feel and think, see and smell, touch and feel. However if that were true LGF would be the only blog in the galaxy, if not the universe.

Individual human brains develop as variations upon the general human brain theme.

635 Achilles Tang  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 8:36:59pm

re: #635 Salamantis

Individual human brains develop as variations upon the general human brain theme.

Hmmm. I'm waiting for the rest of the story...

636 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 8:37:45pm

re: #630 Bagua

Warmings?

No ontology vs. epistemology.

637 Bagua  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 8:38:12pm

either ether.

Were is that cranky grammarian Cato when I need his help?

/
re: #632 Ojoe

Yea, I noticed the 20k bit, but the class of 2004 was a tip off, many of those models have some sort of auto-destruct sequence built into their code.

re: #633 Naso Tang

This one is in the group that primarily saw the blog as a sort of chat room substitute for a pub, they feel offended because they want to talk smack and feel part of a group with a very narrow world view. But oh dear, now that the Gaffer allowed girls into the pub they take their toys and go home. Childish.

638 Achilles Tang  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 8:39:23pm

re: #638 Bagua

very insightful

639 medaura18586  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 8:39:56pm

re: #631 Salamantis

The question on how different minds perceive the color red was a very vulgar oversimplified example I gave for the sake of illustration. But even if we all could shares experiences perfectly--that is, if your red is my red, your taste of ginger my taste of ginger, your intelligence my intelligence, etc--what are those things? What is the relationship between elementary particles in my brain, configured a certain way, and the qualias--whether they are unique across different minds or not.

640 Spare O'Lake  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 8:40:10pm

Colours have been objectively defined by reference to certain ranges of light wavelengths and frequencies. Sounds too have been objectively defined with reference to certain lengths, frequencies and amplitudes of sound waves.
The underlying assumption being that perception of these colours and sounds will be similar among people whose sense organs and brains possess sufficiently similar or "normal" characteristics.
Of course noone is truly normal in all respects. We all have our own individual quirks and abnormalities, which cause each of us to perceive the world more or less differently. People with gross abnormalities may therefore possess the capacity to perceive stimuli in ways which are entirely unremarkable by their own individual standards, but which to the rest of us may seem wonderful and unique.

641 Bagua  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 8:41:34pm

re: #637 LudwigVanQuixote

No ontology vs. epistemology.

Cheers, sounds interesting, I'll plod through once I finish up at the lab.

re: #639 Naso Tang

very insightful

Thanks, I've been observing the flouncers for a few weeks now.

642 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 8:48:03pm

re: #640 medaura18586

The question on how different minds perceive the color red was a very vulgar oversimplified example I gave for the sake of illustration. But even if we all could shares experiences perfectly--that is, if your red is my red, your taste of ginger my taste of ginger, your intelligence my intelligence, etc--what are those things? What is the relationship between elementary particles in my brain, configured a certain way, and the qualias--whether they are unique across different minds or not.

I gave the same example upstairs somewhere.

643 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 8:52:22pm

re: #634 medaura18586

I'm not sure I can wrap my head around what that means.

Let me try again.

Our perceptions are the result of a evolution of sensory systems, prompted by the survival value that more faithful representations of the environment would possess for mobile and purposeful organisms within it. Mobility is useless without apprehensible signs which one might employ to guide it. Even plants are sensitive to light (tropism), moisture, and gravity, and insofar as their growth is not arbitrary, it is in relation to these. Animals, possessing mobility independent of growth, require much more information, and the higher mammals, which exhibit purposeful behavior chains, need accurate and detailed information concerning their environs. One may thus state that although our perceptions do conform to objects, some aspects of objects also must conform to perceptions, and that the more purposefully mobile perceivers are, the greater is the amount of information they require from a wider swath of the objects' aspects.

A perceptual modality without a possible object of sense is a contradiction in terms, and one the modality of which was deceitful in the Cartesian sense would have negative survival value for its host, and hence for itself. Although the thing-in-itself is different than is the thing-for-us, the former must contain the latter as aspects of itself. In other words, it must exist within-itself in such a manner that its apprehension by our sensory modalities produces what we perceive when we apprehend it. Thus, objects of perception – insofar as they are objects of perception, that is, perceivable – must not only be perceivable by means of the perceptual means available to us, but also that our perceptions of them, as aspects of the objects (as well as of ourselves), may not contradict the object's other aspects which are not perceivable by us. The whole object-in-itself must, without internal contradiction, contain all of its constituent parts, including those that may be called the object-for-us, and where aspects of the object-for-us seem to conflict with each other, the whole object-in-itself must reconcile them. If it does not, it is either (a) not the whole but itself a part, or (b) the perceived aspects are not aspects of a single whole. Only on the basis of these considerations does it make sense for us to act in accordance with the information provided by our senses, and only on the basis of these considerations does it make sense that our senses evolved.

644 Bagua  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 8:53:06pm

re: #633 Naso Tang

I scanned the recent posts. None for a few weeks, but prior seemed civil enough. I think it's some kind of B movie virus. Swine flu perhaps?

Here's some musing on that observation from a prior thread:

We also see a sort of infantile regression, they are on best behaviour, sometimes for years on this forum, making friends, winning approval and such, and then they reveal their true uncouth nature, the beast within.

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

"In vino veritas"

645 Spare O'Lake  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 8:56:53pm

This stuff reminds me of one of my artsy fartsy 2nd year undergrad courses, which IIRC was called The Philosophy of Sound Perception. The textbook consisted of a slide whistle, and I remember one class where all we did was listen to the fluorescent bulbs (660 cps) which were a perfect "A" pitch.
Ah, those were the days.

646 medaura18586  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 8:57:27pm

re: #644 Salamantis

I've been sleep deprived for days, hence my sloppy writing on this thread. I just can't fully digest what you are saying. Will have to read it again tomorrow when I'm fresh from sleep. Caffeine can't redeem me at this point. Night all!

647 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 8:58:29pm

re: #640 medaura18586

The question on how different minds perceive the color red was a very vulgar oversimplified example I gave for the sake of illustration. But even if we all could shares experiences perfectly--that is, if your red is my red, your taste of ginger my taste of ginger, your intelligence my intelligence, etc--what are those things? What is the relationship between elementary particles in my brain, configured a certain way, and the qualias--whether they are unique across different minds or not.

They are the ways in which our perceptual modalities represent incoming sensory data to our evaluating mind, which then decides based upon sensory input and memory what reactions should be forthcoming, and initiates them. They are also evolutionarily efficacious, allowing for the rapid absorption of lots of information upon which can be based expedient, efficient, and reasonable responses - or else our species would be extinct.

648 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 9:02:55pm

Here's a clue: all I'm basically doing is adding Darwin to Kant.

649 Spare O'Lake  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 9:04:42pm

re: #648 Salamantis

They are the ways in which our perceptual modalities represent incoming sensory data to our evaluating mind, which then decides based upon sensory input and memory what reactions should be forthcoming, and initiates them. They are also evolutionarily efficacious, allowing for the rapid absorption of lots of information upon which can be based expedient, efficient, and reasonable responses - or else our species would be extinct.

IT DOES NOT COMPUTE, WILL ROBINSON.
*waves arms wildly*

650 Achilles Tang  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 9:19:20pm

re: #644 Salamantis

Without meaning to be flippant, or cruel, you seem to be describing what we call autism, when your conditions fail.

However I have run out of steam for the night; so 'till next time...

651 [deleted]  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 9:21:03pm
652 Charles Johnson  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 9:21:38pm

Adieu!

653 reine.de.tout  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 9:33:04pm

re: #647 medaura18586

I've been sleep deprived for days, hence my sloppy writing on this thread. I just can't fully digest what you are saying. Will have to read it again tomorrow when I'm fresh from sleep. Caffeine can't redeem me at this point. Night all!

No one I know can fully digest what Sal says.

(love ya anyhow, Sala)

654 Gus  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 9:55:02pm
655 Mauser  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 10:31:03pm

Blaming Charles for the heat over that stunt is just stupid. If there's anyone who really deserves to be jumped on, it's the guy who posted the video to YouTube and deliberately cut it to mislead the viewers (To great success if you read the comments and can stand the idiocy.) He actually made the excuse that he didn't mean anything by it because he put a question mark at the end.

Creating a "Question" and Controversy by cutting out pivotal facts is not Journalism. Well, maybe these days it is.

Seriously, it's okay to jump on Beck for the things he actually does. It's bad form to make stuff up with editing.

To sum it up. The stunt was dumb, and rhetorically ineffective. But Beck probably doesn't know any better. Editing the video to try to get people to think REAL animal cruelty occurred is despicable and dishonest, and the guy who did it knew what he was doing.

Hell, he even misled Charles for a while, but you'll note he updated when he had more facts available, which distinguishes him from everyone else involved.

656 johnnygriswold  Fri, Sep 25, 2009 5:13:31am

Glenn Beck is mentally irregular.

657 [deleted]  Fri, Sep 25, 2009 6:20:39am
658 eachus  Fri, Sep 25, 2009 6:35:10am

Sorry, I don't "get" the whole controversy. Is Charles really worried that children who might have watched this will suddenly start eating frog legs and escargot? It takes a lot more than that to turn a child into a cheese eating surrender monkey. Now if Glen Beck started trying to convince children to like Limburger and Roquefort cheeses, I'd start to worry--not!

659 scrubjay  Fri, Sep 25, 2009 9:39:43am

The Glen Beck:Frog Killer headline could have been a little different to match the body of the post.

Since you stated that your objection was to the staging and not the actual killing of a frog the headline would have better as Glen Beck:'Frog Killer' or Glen Beck:Frog Killer?.

In that way there would have been no way that anyone could have accused you stating that the killing of the frog was a fact.

660 Charles Johnson  Fri, Sep 25, 2009 10:28:13am

re: #660 scrubjay

The Glen Beck:Frog Killer headline could have been a little different to match the body of the post.

Since you stated that your objection was to the staging and not the actual killing of a frog the headline would have better as Glen Beck:'Frog Killer' or Glen Beck:Frog Killer?.

In that way there would have been no way that anyone could have accused you stating that the killing of the frog was a fact.

Yeah, I guess it's too much to expect anyone to actually read what I write.

Good grief.

661 scrubjay  Fri, Sep 25, 2009 10:42:23am

re: #661 Charles

I was referring to the way that Beck took advantage of you by doing a screen shot "blow-up" of only the headline. His viewer most likely never read the original post. This allowed him to mischaracterize your objection.

662 AtadOFF  Fri, Sep 25, 2009 3:21:59pm

re: #378 tradewind

Well has Glen Beck been diagnosed as bipolar...all the weeping and laughing and crying. It's like a roller-coaster.

663 AtadOFF  Fri, Sep 25, 2009 3:53:13pm

re: #663 AtadOFF

Either a question mark or an exclamation point belongs in there somewhere...


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
2 days ago
Views: 95 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 261 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1