I’ve been hanging onto this awhile, but I knew it would come up: the Anti-Defamation League has condemned Expelled for using the tragedy of the Holocaust in service of an anti-science agenda.
Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people and Darwin and evolutionary theory cannot explain Hitler’s genocidal madness.
Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry.
It’s initially bizarre to see creationists—who are largely fundamentalist Christians—hide behind Holocaust accusations on this issue, since the major factor that led Jews to be the scapegoated group was centuries of Christians scapegoating Jews, accusing them of killing Jesus and of course reserving them the place of the especially not-saved, ideas that would pretty much die if fundies didn’t keep them alive. But it’s not actually that big a surprise to anti-choice movement watchers like myself, because the Holocaust allusions are big with the anti-choice nuts.* And in the annals of wingnuttery, abortion (and birth control for some) and evolutionary theory are like the same thing pretty much, so of course they’re going to use the same language to describe them. The two get conflated all the time, like in this trailer for Expelled.
Right away, you have a fetus in the embryo as some sort of counterpoint to the idea that we evolved from other species. Those who understand embryonic development at all should laugh with bitter irony, because it’s such a rich source of evidence for evolutionary theory. Of course, pointing out that it’s not a fully formed baby the second the sperm leaves the penis is just going to create the same existential crisis that links these twin anxieties into one in the wingnut mind.
It’s an ego thing, the need to believe that your unique self was inevitable in the face of all the statistical probability against it, I think. It’s why wingnuts are impressed with the ridiculous “what if you were aborted?” question. Stein says it in the video; the argument against evolutionary theory isn’t about science, but an appeal to your egotistic need to believe that you’re too damn special to be the result of a biological process. In fact, both the anxiety about pregnancy and about evolution speak to the same deep need to believe that your presence here is something farted out by the Divine rather than created in the mess and muck of biology. Pregnancy—especially the fact that it can be terminated without any real moral quandaries because fetuses are not conscious beings (unlike even your major housepets)—sex, and evolution make us face up to the fact that we are animals. You’d think the daily shit would also serve as a reminder of this fact, but for all I know, the Wingnutteria is all on Atkin’s and has minimized that source of existential crisis.
Too bad. I think facing up to reality is freeing, because it makes you realize life is what we make of it, and if we spend our time trying to improve the world instead of worrying what an imaginary god has planned for us, we’ll be a lot more effective at genuinely making life better for humanity. But it’s also true that believing in god might seem like a relief from the responsibility of thinking for yourself.
*The need to make Holocaust allusions causes the wingnuts to trip over their own lack of logic. After all, reproductive rights opponents are often motivated by getting white girls that get into trouble into maternity homes where their babies can be taken and given to worthy white couples, instead of allowing them to abort or to prevent the pregnancy in the first place. There’s also the side benefit of getting women to have so many babies that working becomes too much trouble, restoring the idyllic 50s of their imagination. Claiming that pro-choicers are waging genocide on WASPs is a stretch even for the ‘nuts—though Mark Steyn does try to claim this in his overwrought demographic winter op-eds—so there’s a few lame attempts to imply that abortion is a double secret way to get at minority populations, though all races use the much-hated birth control.
72 Responses to “But I have to be special, it says so on my T-shirt”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
I generally hate to have this kind of over-confidence in my own beliefs, but I have a feeling that if we were to sit creationists down and explain to them slowly what evolution truly is, emphasizing that their is nothing random (and thus frightening) about it, that they’d say “Oh, that’s what it was? Huh. I guess we were throwing a fuss over nothing.” Then we’d all go out and drink milkshakes.
Obviously the ones on the lunatic fringe will still clamp down on their beliefs, but the average people who believe in creationism mostly because they haven’t been exposed to the right information will change their minds.
I know that worked on me as a kid when I was scared shitless that a hurricane would blow into my Central Ohio town and kill us all.
Oh noes! My academic credibility was rejected because I published an article with the scientific veracity of a fairy tale!
I might lose my job for watching this film? Talk about ego.
I love that IDers implicitly admit that they believe in god because the alternative–a meaningless, secular, completely unspecial existence–just doesn’t seem friendly enough to them. They prefer fictitious answers over factual uncertainties.
…the Holocaust allusions are big with the anti-choice nuts.
Not least among the Catholic clergy, which is especially outrageous given the craven silence with which the Vatican dealt with Hitler at the time.
I drink your milkshake! Sorry, had to be done.
It’s not quite true that there’s nothing random about evolution. Mutation is definitely random, but selection for favorable mutations and selection against harmful mutations is anything but random (although imperfect). Since there is certainly no guarantee that we would accumulate all the neat mutations that make us human, we are very improbable beings. I think that is what makes us special. I’ve never understood why IDiots think that in order to be special you had to be a certainty.
However, I am willing to consider whether Ben Stein is some sort of especially noxious cosmic fart.
Ever since I installed this new adblocker, I’ve had to click to YouTube to watch embedded video.
All I can say is the comments over there are truly frightening. Or saddening. Or both.
That trailer is hilarious. The recent popular notion of the conservative rebel always seemed absurd enough to be mostly funny to me. Where does that shit come from?
I could name certain peer-reviewed journals in which this wouldn’t be a drawback at all…
Let’s try that again:
Oh noes! My academic credibility was rejected because I published an article with the scientific veracity of a fairy tale!
I could name certain peer-reviewed journals in which this wouldn’t be a drawback at all…
Aman:
It comes from the same desperate egotism that Amanda mentioned (as well as a complete inability to process cosmic, situational and/or historical irony). The “conservative rebel” meme is what happens when people who believe that they are axiomatically incapable of being wrong realize, deep down, that they are in fact wrong.
Jonathan, I think there’s a real point to that. The sheer numbers of people who doubt evolution in this country versus other countries screams “lack of education”. In fact, the reason that education is the battleground in creationist activists agree with you that education would change people’s minds, which is why they want education to stop.
Hanna, if the adblocker is AdBlock Plus on Firefox, go into “options” and unselect “show tabs on Flash and Java”.
If it’s some other adblocker, then never mind.
Hanna, if the adblocker is AdBlock Plus on Firefox, go into “options” and unselect “show tabs on Flash and Java”.
If it’s some other adblocker, then never mind.
Thanks, Jay. I knew there was a way to do it, I just hadn’t gotten around to figuring out how.
This will prevent me from having to endure things like people praising Ben Stein and his movie in the future. A very noble gesture. [/end threadjack]
Jonathan, I think there’s a real point to that. The sheer numbers of people who doubt evolution in this country versus other countries screams “lack of education”. In fact, the reason that education is the battleground in creationist activists agree with you that education would change people’s minds, which is why they want education to stop.
On that note, although Orlando hasn’t barred teaching evolution yet, I’ve heard horror stories from a couple of High School teachers up here (that came to talk to our local Free Thought meeting) many of whom are running scared over getting any unwanted attention from righty parents.
One science teacher who would teach astronomy would never give any specific dates for things happening, other than that the universe was created a “really long time” ago.
A lot of other of them choose to save teaching evolution to either after or before the Spring semester or the end of the year so they can rush through it during a time student’s aren’t paying attention.
Dr. House’s line in a recent episode was pretty funny, especially considering that the writers were able to put it in the mouth of Hugh Laurie…
Basically what Ben Stein is saying is that since believing in evolution led to the killing of the Jews, we should stop teaching evolution even if it is true. Stein, apparently, would rather go through life not knowing anything that might be dangerous to know.
Of course, Mein Kamp includes this quote:
1926 Hitler Xmas speech:
I generally hate to have this kind of over-confidence in my own beliefs, but I have a feeling that if we were to sit creationists down and explain to them slowly what evolution truly is, emphasizing that their is nothing random (and thus frightening) about it, that they’d say “Oh, that’s what it was? Huh. I guess we were throwing a fuss over nothing.” Then we’d all go out and drink milkshakes.
I’m not so sure that creationists would be okay with evolution if they understood it- the process of evolution doesn’t require an omnipotent God to occur, and also places humans firmly within the domain of other animals. Evolution may not teach that we evolved from apes, per say, but it does teach that we evolved from the same process as apes and are basically the same thing. Furthermore, it requires time scales that are a stumbling block to some of the more deranged of their number. While evolution may not be random, strictly speaking, the processes behind it are cold and impersonal enough to be truly frightening to people used to the God-loves-you-and-has-a-special-plan-for-you version of the universe.
“Then we’d all go out and drink milkshakes.”
As long as you don’t go bowling . . . .
(just to say: now I have not only There Will Be Blood - a movie that made me wish for a long hot shower to wash away the sense of clinging moral filth - floating around my head, but also that horrible milkshake song involving boys and yards. Crap.
Of course, Mein Kamp includes this quote:
For teh last time, there is no evidence that Hitler was gay!
Basically what Ben Stein is saying is that since believing in evolution led to the killing of the Jews, we should stop teaching evolution even if it is true. Stein, apparently, would rather go through life not knowing anything that might be dangerous to know.
Of course, Mein Kamp includes this quote:
Therefore I believe that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews, I am fighting for the Lord’s work.
1926 Hitler Xmas speech:
“Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews … The work that Christ started but could not finish, I — Adolf Hitler — will conclude.”
From wikipedia;
“Hitler was raised by Roman Catholic parents, but after he left home, he never attended Mass or received the sacraments,[78] Hitler often praised Christian heritage, German Christian culture, and professed a belief in Jesus Christ.[79] In his speeches and publications Hitler even spoke of Christianity as a central motivation for his antisemitism, stating that “As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice”.[80][81] His private statements, as reported by his intimates, are more mixed, showing Hitler as a religious man but critical of traditional Christianity.[82] However, in contrast to other Nazi leaders, Hitler did not adhere to esoteric ideas, occultism, or neo-paganism,[82] and ridiculed such beliefs in Mein Kampf.[83] Rather, Hitler advocated a “Positive Christianity”,[84] a belief system purged from what he objected to in traditional Christianity, and which reinvented Jesus as a fighter against the Jews.”
I take that as meaning that he was christian in the Ann Coulter sense; never goes to church, most likely never prayed since her college finals, but still considers herself christian in order to continue fighting on her side of the culture war.
Dan S., burrowing owl
You know that Johnny Worker kid, the kid that delivers papers
in the neighborhood. He’s a fine kid. Some of the neighbors
say he smokes crack, but I don’t believe it.
Anyway, for his tenth birthday, all he wanted was a Burrow Owl.
Kept bugging his old man. “Dad, get me a burrow owl. I’ll never
ask for anything else as long as I live.” So the guy
breaks down and buys him a burrow owl.
Anyway, 10:30, the other night, I go out in my yard, and there’s
the Worker kid, looking up in the tree. I say, “What are
you looking for?” He says “I’m looking for my burrow owl.”
I say, “Jumping Jesus on a Pogo Stick. Everybody knows
the burrow owl lives. In a hole. In the ground. Why the hell do you
think they call it a burrow owl, anyway?”
Johnathan, I’m not particularly inclined to give Christians a benefit of the doubt with a No True Scotsman defense.
Christians, as a whole, are the people who self identify as Christian. A side effect of the whole faith alone thing, if you say you are, you are. The quality of that is debatable, but that’s a theological argument of internal interest to christians, not external ontological interest to the heathens.
You can draw what is the behavior a christian will typically exhibit based on historical example of what it’s used to argue in support of. That Jesus would reject behaviors conducted in his name are rather irrelevant to the conversation, and rather unfortunately means that people who use their Christian faith to justify forgiveness, charity, good will and open mindedness get grouped in with the people who use their christianity to justify the opposite set of beliefs.
“Real” Christians rather firmly can make up both sets. that their beliefs which are ostensibly identical drive them to opposite behaviors is curious, but it doesn’t render one group as the fake christians. you’re better off not working in that line of thought, as you’re just as likely as they to end up the one no longer Christian.
I’m drunk right now, so my rebuttal to your argument is this; Christianity is for stupid people who suck, Hitler wasn’t sincerly a Chiristian, but his killing of Jews had nothing to do with evolution and stuff like that. Yeah, take that, I win!
Evolution may not teach that we evolved from apes, per say, but it does teach that we evolved from the same process as apes and are basically the same thing.
Actually Evolution teaches that we are apes. So there
I agree that explaining Evolution to creationists won’t make them feel it’s inoffensive; anything that doesn’t involve divine micromanagement qualifies as “random” to them.
It’s initially bizarre to see creationists—who are largely fundamentalist Christians—hide behind Holocaust accusations on this issue, since the major factor that led Jews to be the scapegoated group was centuries of Christians scapegoating Jews, accusing them of killing Jesus and of course reserving them the place of the especially not-saved, ideas that would pretty much die if fundies didn’t keep them alive.
There’s nothing bizarre about it, fundamentalists are very good at forgetting any unpopular position their religion used to believe in. That, or those positions were all the fault of Catholics and other Not Real True Christians.
It’s pure doublethink and misinformation.
I was horribly amused by the “if we lived in the time of Gallileo” bit, because, you know, he was only nearly convicted of heresy and murdered by the church. It’s hilarious that they’re actually trying to depict themselves as being on the same side as the scientists who fought against religious doctrine. (But also a bit scary that they might get away with it in the minds of most people watching the movie…)
No, but Hitler was a eugenicist, and eugenics is a misapplication of evolutionary theory (just like Evo Psych). So insofar as eugenicists found evolution convenient to their fascist goals they appropriated it, but that’s not evolutionary theory’s fault.
What’s interesting is that the Nazis relied far more on Christian beliefs than the newly hatched eugenics theory to convince people of the rightness of the Final Solution, and yet for some reason, that doesn’t mean that we have to throw out Christianity and religion altogether.
What gets me confused, of course, is that evolution and the actual, important doctrines of Christianity are in no way exclusive. So, you can me a monster of depravity, and God still loves you, but if you’re descended from apes, She won’t? WTF? Jesus died for your sins, but it only works of the universe is under 10k years old? Not to mention the full and rich metaphors that a literal reading of lots of Scripture robs you of.
Said it before, say it again: Creationism isn’t just bad science, it’s not very good religion, either.
Am I the only one who thinks its sad that after pouring so much money into this movie, they don’t actually have anything new to say?
Eugenics is not a misapplication of evolutionary theory.
Evolution is concerned with heritability of traits, yes. It is also concerned with mutation, and mechanisms of natural selection. Importantly, evolutionary theory is incomplete without all three factors: mutation, heritability, natural selection.
Eugenics is not concerned with mutation, nor with the mechanisms of natural selection. Eugenics is based upon the artificial selection that thousands of generations of livestock farmers already understood, and on basic Mendelian models of heritability.
Those farmers did not rely upon Darwin. Neither did Mendel.
Eugenics is a misapplication of animal husbandry.
thousandshundreds of generationsI would say my favorite part was when he said people who believe in evolution think humans are “nothing more than mud.” Ummm…? Talk about a strawman argument.
Not to mention that it’s the creationists who think the first human was literally sculpted out of dirt.
Lauren,
A strawman AND hypocrisy, since the Bible sez God made man out of dirt…
“Nothing more than mud” because they haven’t the breath of God.
(Ignoring the fact that theists comprise the majority of people who accept evolution.)
Actually, it’s not surprising that fundamentalists raise the Holocaust. I’ve personally heard more than one claim that the anti-Semitism which created the fertile ground for the Holocaust was a result of the Catholic Church.
Equally stupid and offensive, but par for the course.
I believe in both evolution and intelligent design. However, my gods are the ancient astronauts of Sumer and Egypt, my religious beliefs are based on historical facts, and my “bible” is the works of Temple, Sitchin and Von Daniken. If the creationists want to teach their religion in school, I wonder how they would deal with teaching mine? Or would they just run screaming in horror from any opinion that doesn’t match theirs? It would be a lot of fun to watch the ACLU sue them on my behalf….
Yeah. It’s not fair to cheat Lutherans out of their due.
*sigh*
Care to elaborate on why Earthlings could not have evolved without extraterrestrial manipulation?
Did Sharonsj say they could not have, or that [she] believes they did not?
I’m pretty sure we’re arguing against those who are trying to dictate the opinions of others, not those who have opinions of their own.
To say that you believe in intelligent design is to say that you have some reason to believe in intelligent design.
Whatever this reason is, it must not be accounted for by evolution. If it were accounted for by evolution, then it would be evidence of evolution, not evidence of intelligent design.
So to assert intelligent design is to assert that evolution is insufficient to account for all the data, and to assert that intelligent design accounts for that remaining data.
Further, I’m pretty sure that whenever a person makes unsubstantiated assertions, I can ask for substantiation.
Further, I’m pretty sure that whenever a person makes unsubstantiated assertions, I can ask for substantiation.
Except that the poster didn’t make an “unsubstantiated assertion” in any way that can be construed as a premise. The point of the post was to say that the Reichwingers would shudder to have to teach THAT poster’s version of a “creation” story, so they need to STFU.
WHY the poster believes there is a “creation” at all is beside the point. Unless you just wanna be a condescending jerk.
In other words, yes you can ask…but what’s the point?
Intelligent design is true, and this is supported by historical facts (which might, presumably, be discoverable by archeology in Sumeria and Egypt).
Asking someone “why do you believe in a creation event” is just a call to dialog. Yes, god forbid we have conversations. I’ll just go mumble to myself at the bus stop.
And I just conceded too much. In fact I did not ask “why do you believe in a creation event”, nor “WHY the poster believes there is a “creation” at all.”
I asked why evolutionary theory is supposedly insufficient.
Intelligent design is true, and this is supported by historical facts (which might, presumably, be discoverable by archeology in Sumeria and Egypt).
uh…she didn’t say this. At all. She only said “i believe in intelligent design and evolution.” She mentioned her other beliefs in ANOTHER CONTEXT. So… not sure what your point is.
And you weren’t looking to “call to dialogue” or you wouldn’t have bothered entering the SIGH. You were looking to express your disapproval at the outset, and to mock. I’ma stick with condescending.
or in other words, what Auguste said.
There was this film, I believe it was called “The Nasty Girl” and it dealt with the glee with which good christians fulfilled their anti-Semitism.
Catholics have had centuries of pogroms and ‘cleansings’. Wonder why Jews have had a fetish for transportable wealth? Look to the good christians. It used to be safer to be Jewish in Muslim areas than in christian as the Muslims were less likely to burn you alive.
Eugenics has a factual basis but can be more than morally repugnant. You essentially have to breed humans like kine. Think slavery and that we did have a breeding program. Some were bred for field work, some for brothels, some for skilled tasks. Easy to do, horrible to contemplate. Gahan Wilson did a short comic about this.
Care to elaborate on why Earthlings could not have evolved without extraterrestrial manipulation?
Because Stargate was a KICKASS movie. Did you SEE that Pyramid Ship explode? Shit was SO CASH.
seriously though, is anyone else annoyed beyond belief that they keep saying “the age of Darwin” as if it’s actually a doctrine, as if not just Evolution, but DARWINS MODEL is the one where we stone you if you disagree. I know it’s the whole premise of the movie for morons, but Darwin wasn’t actually the first person to think of evolution, and he wasn’t the end point, or we wouldn’t have the phrase “punctuated equilibrium.”
I know it’s so much scarier for them when it’s some atheist european dead white guy with a beard from the 19th century to blame some heathen dogmatic unthinking stormtroopers on, same with Marx, but you can’t actually do that with evolution because that’s not fucking how science works even a little.
Grammar RWA, I think the assertion was “I believe” not “this happened.” At least that’s how I read it, There’s no need to mumble to yourself, but the world-weary sigh and the implication that “expression of opinion” equals “dogmatic assertion” seemed less than respectful.
I see your point on the “my religious beliefs are based on historical facts” but I read that to be a contrast to traditional Christian beliefs (which have something less of historical provenance in some cases (not all)) rather than a contrast to the information we have from science.
It’s not. As long as Sharonsj accepts evolutionary theory, there’s no necessary restriction on additional philosophical postulation. I can express my belief in a pure solipsism and, as long as my neurons choose to develop the world via observed evolutionary mechanics, who am I hurting?
(Actually, in the case of pure solipsism, the answer is inherently ‘no one.’)
Yes, she did. I’m not going to play the game that says “X is true” is different from “I believe that X is true.” The former reduces to the latter, and exempting the latter from public scrutiny means we cannot criticize any belief, ever.
Caught red-handed. But I wasn’t mocking yet. I am willing to listen to stories of alien astronauts, even if chances are good they’ll be as fanciful as all the others I’ve heard before. And one can still enter into dialogue even if one knows where that dialogue is headed.
To address the point Sharonsj wanted to make:
Intelligent Design propagandists love the “ancient astronauts” people. In Kitzmiller v. Dover, Michael Behe used Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel’s writings on directed panspermia to argue that ID was not necessarily a supernatural claim, and thus its teaching in public schools did not violate the First Amendment.
Sharonsj, Rael, and the like are indispensable allies of the Creationists, at least in the USA’s legal system.
The sigh was less than respectful. If you’re perhaps concerned that I’m turning away readers, I can try to do a better job of concealing my disdain.
Not all assertions are dogmatic. But expressions of opinion are assertions, except in the narrow range of popsicle flavors and other matters of pure taste.
Here I think you are mistaking “Intelligent Design” for “theistic evolution.” One imposes a restriction, one does not.
Theistic evolution is a claim of compatibility:
Evolution, plus God.
Intelligent Design is a claim of incompatibility:
Not-evolution, therefor God(s or godlike aliens).
Specifically:
Yes, she did.
i like how you link to YOURSELF to show what ANOTHER PERSON apparently said.
speaking of solipsism.
And one can still enter into dialogue even if one knows where that dialogue is headed.
if one really likes wasting one’s time in intellectual wankery. Which oddly, most don’t, especially when said wanker is already behaving disrespectfully. (*sigh*)
If you’re perhaps concerned that I’m turning away readers, I can try to do a better job of concealing my disdain.
Yeah, ‘cause it’s all about Teh Web Hits. It can’t be that we actually disapprove of your attitude… You’re permitted to disdain whomever you want. We’re permitted to call you out on it when you try to pass it off as “just calling to dialog”.
Yeah, because one thing we don’t get enough of at Pandagon is readers [claiming to be] turned away.
All I’m saying is, there’s a disconnect between “just a call to dialog” and “less than respectful.”
As for my error of theistic evolution vs. ID, I have no love for ID, so I’m more than willing to accept my error.
That should be read as “you, Grammar RWA, are unlikely to say anything that would make me worry about that” and not “dear god, we have to stop driving readers away.”
I can see it going either way, but the intention was to point out that I’m unlikely to use “save the readership” as an argument tactic.
I don’t really care what you think about my attitude. But if Auguste (or Amanda or Pam) is concerned that I may impact readership, I’ll pay attention to that concern.
Jeez, I already said you caught me red-handed. Do you want a gold star too?
You’re welcome to show how “I believe in intelligent design” somehow means “I don’t really believe in intelligent design.”
You’re welcome to show how “I believe in intelligent design” somehow means “I don’t really believe in intelligent design.”
and you’re welcome to show how an interpretation is somehow the same thing as a direct quote. I never said the poster doesn’t “really” believe in it. I only said that the means, and the context, in which the poster stated the belief are NOT an assertion that the poster needs to defend to you.
There’s usually an inherent difference, and that inherent difference is that when one adds the “I believe” one acknowledges that others believe other things. Sharonsj isn’t trying to force her beliefs onto others, unlike the ID types. The whole point, if I am correct, was that creationists call for the equality of differing views in the classroom when really they only want preference for theirs.
Ah.
So certain things can be spoken in a “criticism-free zone” where they are immune to requests for evidence.
How can I invoke this rule for my own advantage? Or does it only work for theists and Raelians?
Aside: are you actually a vegan?
to reiterate: the poster was merely noting the narrowness of the “creationism” and “intelligent design” ideas that the Reichwing wants taught in lieu of, you know, science. That many “creation” stories would in fact horrify them, and they would fight to have them purged.
Acknowledging the existence of other beliefs does not eliminate the assertion that “X is true.” It may be socially lubricating, but it does not mitigate the claim.
If Christian Intelligent Design is taught in public schools, she will ask the ACLU to assist her in court to ensure that her own version of Intelligent Design is taught as well.
Merely a joke? Maybe. It’s a real tactic to some. We don’t know which it is to Sharonsj.
So certain things can be spoken in a “criticism-free zone” where they are immune
not immune. like i said, you’re free to ask. (dig,insult, mock, all the same right?) But she’s free to ignore your request, because the reasoning behind her beliefs was entirely tangential to the overall meaning of her post.
No, i’m not a vegan. It’s a reference to the No True Scotsman fallacy, which came up in a discussion of Skinny Bitch in the Kitch, once upon a time in Pandagonia.
Merely a joke? Maybe. It’s a real tactic to some. We don’t know which it is to Sharonsj
so naturally the solution is to a) assume the worst, and b) run her off with how world-weary her very breathing makes us.
If Christian Intelligent Design is taught in public schools, she will ask the ACLU to assist her in court to ensure that her own version of Intelligent Design is taught as well.
which sounds extraordinarily fucking valid to me. if the creationists are going to legally mandate that schools teach creationism, the obvious legal challenge (either to get rid of it entirely, or to at least show how absurd it is and hope the kids learn enough critical thinking to notice) is teaching EVERY creationist story. So if we have to acknowledge God stretching the earth over the sea as a possibility, then the students will ALSO have to learn the possibility of the oceans and rivers being the product of Marduk jacking off after slaying the moon dragon Tiamat.
If they don’t want their precious childrens exposed to ideas that contradict their old storybook, they’re then officially stuck in a catch 22.
karpad, it may be a useful tactic of last resort. I’m not discounting that possibility out of hand, though I hope it’s never necessary. My point was just that it is still the use of force.
TOTV:
omigosh. Have we just been arguing over whether or not Sharonsj “has to” answer me?
I never said as much. Don’t put words in my mouth.
I remember. So you’ve made mockery of vegans (specifically, fellow Pandagonians) into a screenname that you carry from thread to thread, and you call others condescending jerks.
Gold.
I remember. So you’ve made mockery of vegans
actually, i was defending veganism in that thread. and have done so in others. rather vehemently, in fact. i used to be a vegan, and had to stop only for health reasons.
(granted i really missed cheese and ice cream. but i consider this a personal failing. the weird dietary issues not so much a failing, but i really wish i were a creative enough cook to work around it…)
ad ex-veganam derailment aside,
omigosh. Have we just been arguing over whether or not Sharonsj “has to” answer me?
no. we were arguing (at least on my end) about whether your disdain was merited.
you seem to think i want a pat on the back for “catching” your disdain, as if it were even masked in the slightest…when really i brought it up because i considered it uncalled for. bullying people about their personal beliefs is what the OTHER SIDE does.
In that thread, you only mentioned “No True Scotsman” and criticized vegans you thought were employing it.
I’ll take your word as to your intention, but the effect is insulting. I never brought it up because it seemed an obvious insult and I expected to be laughed at, for lacking a sense of humor.
And all this time I thought you were just another obnoxious shithead. Suddenly I feel so alone in the world.
So if a kinder soul than me were to ask Sharonsj for some evidence, that would be okay?
Getting back on track:
Creationist loons are fond of presenting evolution as one big appeal to authority. I suspect that for many of them, having been exposed to dogmatic indoctrination from an early age, it is difficult to imagine any argument being anything but an appeal to authority. In this case the only problem with evolution is that it doesn’t appeal to the right authority.
It’s also possible that some of them just cynically realize it’s an effective tactic to grab people who don’t understand science. But the common fascination with the Lady Hope myth suggests the former explanation.
Either way I’m thinking middle schools should include basic logic in the curriculum. A lot of people are not well prepared for the philosophy of science when they start more complicated high school science courses.
Absolutely right.
Oddly enough, I would think a belief in fate and the divine as a reason to be less worried about “what if you were aborted?” Surely if some Power That Be really wanted you to exist, They’d just arrange for you to be born to someone else. But maybe that’s just some weird assumption of mine.