Posted on 09/19/2005 6:01:22 PM PDT by gobucks
LOL! Now, just take deep, slow breaths. You will be fine...
What indeed?
gobucks, I read the TNR article you posted 3 times through, trying to work out for the life of me how this piece says anything which isn't utterly damning to the case you generally make in these threads--but nope, just couldn't see it.
I have now tried, also 3 times, to follow your argument in your posted reply to jennyp--but nope again, I just can't follow your reasoning here at all. I pretty much lose you somewhere around the 'shows like South Park are all the rage' part.
You appear to be claiming some sort of elaborate 'entryism' into the GOP by--well, by whom exactly is one of the things I honestly can't work out from your posting. My best guess is that "the 'conservative' Christian-haters" are meant.
As a conservative, as a Christian, and as one persuaded by the scientific arguments of Darwinian evolutionary theory, I would probably find both the characterisation and the allegation here objectional--except that it is not even intelligible
You appear to be claiming some sort of elaborate 'entryism' into the GOP by--well, by whom exactly is one of the things I honestly can't work out from your posting. My best guess is that "the 'conservative' Christian-haters" are meant.
Close - I just wouldn't call them conservative. I would call them 'deliberately false-flagged-conservatives'. But, how is this confusing? How is it not obvious? This thread already provides total PROOF of what I am stating...
TNR if filled chock full w/ looney leftists. But, amazingly, the 'rightists' evo types here at FR LOVE this article!! Patrick 'song-in-my-heart' Henry is nearly drooling!!!! Somebody help me here....; SeaLion has read it 3 times, and still doesn't get it...
The guy reading the letter keeps saying: "I believe it. I believe it!"
Their main similarity is in an appeal to authority, the State in one case and God on the other. When the two mix, disaster occurs.
Your statement is self-refuting.
Cordially,
Here's the cause of some of the confusion. It seems that The New Republic isn't your father's Oldsmobile. From this source: The New Republic, From Wikipedia:
In 1975, the magazine was bought by Harvard lecturer Martin Peretz, who transformed TNR into its current incarnation. Peretz was a veteran of the New Left who had broken with that movement over its support of various Third World liberationist movements, particularly the Palestine Liberation Organization. Under Peretz TNR has advocated both strong U.S. support for Israel and a muscular U.S. foreign policy. During the 1980s the magazine generally supported President Reagan's anti-Communist foreign policy, including provision of aid to the Contras. It has also supported both Gulf Wars and, reflecting its belief in the moral efficacy of American power, intervention in "humanitarian" crises, such as those in Bosnia and Kosovo during the Yugoslav wars. ... Domestically, TNR supports policies first associated with the Democratic Leadership Council and such "New Democrats" as former-President Bill Clinton. These policies, while seeking to achieve the ends of traditional social welfare programs, often use market solutions as their means, and so are often called "business-friendly".In other words, they're still liberal, but not flaming, kool-aid drinking insane liberal. Kinda like John Kennedy liberals, is how I see it (but they could be worse than that). Anyway, they're capable of publishing an intelligent article from time to time.
Ah ... thanks. The accurate version is still applicable.
True, true, but c'mon, work with me here. This is what I've got so far:
[1] TNR, a leftist rag, publishes and article which, inter alia, acknowledges that the conservative case against mindless 'relativism' is, in fact, correct--just as we have long pointed out.
[2] The TNR article goes on to highlight the irony that the Creationist/ID bunch, who profess conservatism, have in fact adopted a classic (and discredited, even in the eyes of TNR) liberal 'relativistic' stance in order to attempt to introduce non-science into the science curricula of state schools.
[3] I, while marvelling at the source, applaud the argument of the TNR article
[4] Gobucks offers his ergo: there "are leftists indeed hidden inside a horse"
Boy, that's cleared that up.
Except I still don't get the part about South Park
...Hang on! Are you trying to illustrate for the world what passes for logic in the Creationist camp?
Ok, now I get it!
Cheers!
If the old lady floats, burn her--she's a witch.
If she sank and drowned, she was innocent.
Got it
:-)
Thanks for the update--I've been away longer than I realised. I thought New Republic was way out there, with Ramparts (anyone else remember them? How the mighty are fallen!)
I'm even old enough to remember a far distant time when the GOP didn't embrace the Inquisitors of Faith...but don't get me started on that one!
"You pro evo's really get me....your quote of me was taken out of context so as to mean something completely different than what I said...go back to my original post."
It is EXACTLY what you said. Period, end of discussion--your refutation of the statement "intelligent design is not science" was to site ID's proponents' assertions to the contrary.
The Discovery Institute is based in...Seattle
The Thomas Moore Center is based in...Ann Arbor
And Philip Johnson operates out of...Berkeley. BERKELEY!
And within the scientific community, the most famous opponets of Neo-Darwinian theory are Richard Lewontin and Steve Rose...avowed Marxists who let ideology cloud their views the same way the IDers let theology cloud theirs. Yes, creationuts and the left are not-so-strange bedfellows. In fact, they were made for each other.
Thank you for providing yet more empirical evidence to prove my statement correct. :)
American conservatism is inherently rational at its intellectual base. No one can read the writings of Jefferson, Franklin, and the other Founders without immediately coming to that conclusion. Any assault on rationality is therefore anti-conservative. And anti-American too.
What he's saying is that even if TNR publishes an article that says "liberalism sucks, conservatism rules" (basically this article), it's still wrong since it comes from TNR and therefore those agreeing with such an article must be 'liberals in disguise'.... and ironically, coming from a guy who had to have a subscription to TNR in order to be able to get the text to post! :-)
fizziwig, I misread the statement in your original post in precisely the same way BeHoldAPaleHorse did, and thought he had made an appropriate reply. It was your re-direct to the original post that made me look again--and to see, I think, where the problem is. Here's the original again:
"You folks who dismiss ID as science rejecting are not very well informed. In fact, ID supporters assert that it is established science which is "science rejecting" when the issue of first causes (and evolution) is raised."
The sense that I and BAPH first read this as was something like:
1. You claim that ID is not science
2. But ID scientists assert that ID is established science--Q.E.D.
3. Moreover, ID is a particular form of science which rejects norms of science when issues of first causes are concerned
All of which I thought, as BeholdAPaleHorse did, was rather foolish and open to challenge
But from your answer to his challenge, I can now see that your intended sense was something like:
1. You claim that ID is not scientific
2. IDers claim that so-called "established science", when confronted by some issues (such as evolution) does not behave as 'science.'
In other words, fizziwig didn't make the nonsense claim that "ID is an established science, because ID proponents assert that is." But he certainly did appear to make that claim, because it is, frankly, a somewhat tangled pair of sentences. Does that make sense?
Sorry if my intervention here is either wrong and/or unwlecome (flame me instead, in that case). It just struck me that you guys have an interesting point of difference in position to consider, but that got lost in a mini-flame session over some confusing syntax
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.