Free Republic

I thought this was a powerful question. In a time of deep divisions over the election, Iraq, etc., President Bush was given an opportunity to reach out to voters on the other side. The meat of the question was, "Is there any issue on which (with the benefit of hindsight) you think the other side might have been right?"

If he had choosen to say, "Yes, there were some things we did wrong. I wish our actions had not so distanced us from our allies. But it was still the right choice at the time." He could have mended fences. In one fell swoop he could have won over moderates, undecides, and maybe even some democrats.

I want a President who will to listen to all the people in this country. I want a President who is willing to examine his actions, and if he makes a mistake, to own up to it. After all, you can do something for all the right reasons and still have it turn out to be a mistake. That's what hindsight is for.

Thanks for this advice. If you're respectful, you'll leave people with a good impression of yourself and the cause you're advocating. Even if you don't convince them, they'll be more receptive to the same message from other sources.

the bilious, hate filled vitriol of the left...

...these evil hate mongers who want to destroy our entire way of life (and yes, I mean the Demoncraps, Mooselimbs, Michael Mooreon, the Toilet Twins and all the other minions of Satan).

It's funny to see these two statements in such close proximity. You're not really raising the level of discourse any. I'd suggest being calm, interested, and understanding. Try seeing things from their point of view. Then use logic to explain to them why they're wrong. But be prepared to listen to responses as well.

You might only convert one person at a time, but even if you don't convince them, it will have one noticable benefit: they will be far more respectful the next time they talk politics with you. With luck they might even listen to what you have to say.

What we see is a willful ignorance that can only be explained by supernatural forces.

I will admit that C.S. Lewis' The Screwtape Letters came closer to driving me to God that anything else ever has, because it's an excellent and pointed satire of this very ignorance.

However, Lewis did not answer this fundamental question: why should we lend any weight to what is written in the Bible? Why should the words in that book be more important than any other book? (please keep in mind that arguments involving the infallibility of God and the divinity of Jesus are insufficient, as they require an assumption of the point in question).

Easy questions: man created the scientific method. Using the scientific method, he discovered what was already there. Using his discoveries, he rearranged old things to create new things that had never existed before, like digital wrist watches.

As for where ideas come from, that's a tougher question. I'll have to think about it. Maybe I'll read a book, or talk it over with some friends. Then I'll consider various possibilities, playing around with them in my head. After a bout of serious mulling, and perhaps a cup of tea, I might notice a trend, or connection, or simple answer that no one has noticed before. Then again, it might just come in a dream! Heh.

Of course it does! It pushes the dilemma back to the question of "What is God? How did He have the power to create matter?" But this is well-traveled ground, and is only meaningful to those who already believe, and have assumed the conclusion from the start.

I could come up with a thousand stories explaining the beginning of the universe - people have throughout history. The Judeo-Christian creation myth isn't the first, and it won't be the last.

Not so hard. Look at artifical life and genetic algorithms. All you need to set up are some preconditions: time, competition for limited resources, an ability to reproduce, and random mutation.

Run the simulation for a few million generations and attach the output to a gene printer (when such a thing exists!). Voila! Creation of life out of randomness -- given some inital preconditions. No intelligence necessary.

Isn't this similar to protecting people from discrimation based on religion? That's a choice too, isn't it? Can you prove I wasn't a Christian a moment ago? Can you prove I am one now?

It is written...

Be wary of religion, it's proven to be a very effective meme. "Believers will be saved! (carrot) Non-believers will perish! (stick) The Bible is the Word of God! (codified memotype to resist mutation)"

You don't have to believe everything that is written. It has only survived this long because it's effective at generating believers (parents convert children, evangelists convert adults, and the destitute convert themselves). It's a massive chain-letter for the soul.

I'm afraid I must disagree: the Bible is not necessary to teach morality. For that, you can read Kant's Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, and consider the meaning of the categorical imperative.

Or you can listen to your parents, who, when they bounced you on their knees, said, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

A whole lot of hogwash about God and sin isn't necessary to learn how to treat other people with decency and respect.

Whereas it is an individual's right to do as they damn well please where it does not impinge on others' rights;

Whereas Americans will be held to the standards of other countries and peoples just as we hold them to ours;

Whereas the United States is part of a larger global community, and we are each an ambassador to it;

Whereas it is in the interest of peace and harmony to be polite and respectful of others' opinions, even when we firmly disagree with them;

Resolved, that I--

(1) am glad that the Supreme Court Justices are willing to make decisions as if the entire world would be asked to live by them.

For the same reason Dvorkin wrote about Terry Gross' interview of Bill O'Reilly long after the fact. Because enough people disagreed with what the media outlet did, and complained about it, that it elicited -- even necessitated -- a response. That's a good practice.

"You ever see liberals smile about anything?" he asked.

"Mandrake, have you ever seen a commie drink a glass of water?"

Lol! It's obvious -- nearness to the ocean confers resistance to flouride contamination of the drinking water. We're the only unaffected ones! ("Mandrake, have you ever seen a commie drink a glass of water?")

I am not convinced that Krugman is intentionally deceiving anyone. For that to be the case, he would have to know one thing to be true, but argue for the opposite. I think he is simply arguing in support of his beliefs, the same as Luskin.

It is obvious that Luskin and Krugman disagree on certain issues (for instance, the impact of Ronald Reagon's fiscal policies). Krugman is arguing for his point of view by providing facts that back up his interpretation of events. Luskin (and others) are doing likewise for the opposite point of view.

The only thing that makes Krugman appear deceptive is that he is arguing for in a point of view that Luskin disagrees with. For actual deception to be taking place, either (a) one must assume that Luskin is correct in all of his beliefs (in which case Luskin's own statement, "Krugman dares to hold his own opinions so sacred that to differ with them is in fact to lie," becomes relevant), or (b) that Krugman knows he is lying.

Personally, I do not think that Krugman is lying (giving false facts with intent to deceive). The anecdotal evidence for this is the very point that so perplexed Luskin: "Strangely, Krugman would say precisely the same thing about himself. He would argue that he is exposing President Bush's lies, and then revealing the motives behind them." Krugman believes in his point of view just as strongly as Luskin believes in his own, so there's no intent to deceive.

As far as I can see, Luskin's argument is at best on Krugman's level, and at worst lacking in Type C arguments.

One question that this article does not seem address is that of intent.

If you accept the assertion that Paul Krugman argues from incorrect facts (the article above provides only statements to this effect, not proof), then you have to decide whether he's being intentionally misleading (making Type D arguments), accidentally misleading (didn't know the facts were wrong; unlikely if it's a recurring pattern), or simply chosing the facts that best support his arguments.

If it's the latter -- which I suspect it is -- then Krugman is just presenting the facts which best support his arguments. In that case, the only reason these could be called Type D instead of C arguments is that Krugman has told the truth, but not the whole truth.

Donald Luskin, while making his own Type M argument in this paper, does not mention this possibility. Thus, his Type M argument is just a much a Type D as Krugmans'. This puts Luskin in a jam -- either he has to show proof that Krugman is intentionally and with foreknowledge presenting false data, or he has to admit that his argument is equally deceptive through ommitance.

IMO, at least Krugman is at least trying to make Type C arguments. Luskin's paper appears entirely Type M.

Note: I have not read other of Luskin's papers, so perhaps I'm seeing a skewed view because of one Type M opinion piece. Pointers to his articles would be appreciated!

I think someone needs to come up with a Democrat doll that screeches "Bush Lied", "Quagmire", "Another Vietnam" and various other phrases of the lefties.

Great! We'll put it on the shelves right next to the George W. Bush action figure!

All of these practices lead to moral decline and anarchy because they are all against God's laws.

I'm sorry, but I think your post would make just as much since if you replaced all instances of 'Darwinism' with 'Christianity'. For instance:

Christianity, is their religion and they have succeeded in eliminating all references to the fact that it is merely an unproven theory.

Our children are being taught Christianity as fact.

Have you brought your children up in the Christian faith? If so, have you explained to them that there are many different religions, which disagree about how everything started, where everything is going, and what we should be doing in the meantime? And that there is no conclusive proof for any of them over the others?

Or, did you teach them that your faith was the one true faith, and that all the others were wrong?

I say, leave it to parents to teach faith and morality, through good parenting and by setting good examples. The domain of schools should be theory -- that which can grow, change, adapt, and be replaced in the light of evidence. I do not count religion as part of the latter category.

"Abortion should be illegal as there are over 1,000 affidavits on file at The Justice Foundation and the Dallas Federal Court now from women whose lives have been disrupted from legal abortion..."

While this may be trivial beside the "abortion as murder" issue, why should an act be made illegal just because people have filed affidavits asserting that it disrupted their lives?

Many people have had their lives disrupted by car accidents, but I don't see any calls to make driving illegal. I can't begin to imagine the emotional toll of having an abortion, but right now it's the woman's decision -- caveat emptor.

"...but they would still be wrong, for God is."

But we'd finally have proof that God is a scientist.