The meme-ready "I'm not a scientist, man" and the later "I'm not a scientist. I don't think I'm qualified to answer a question like that" may serve as convenient dodges, but they also indicate that Rubio thinks that science, as opposed to a theology, is the right way to answer the question, which it has.ADDED: Rubio's answer reminds me of Obama's "above my pay grade" maneuver when asked about the humanity of the unborn. Both men said it's not my job to avoid conflict with religious people.
November 22, 2012
"Marco Rubio’s Deceptively Pro-Science Answer on the Age of the Earth."
"Though asserting that science and theology disagree on the age of the earth... Rubio's opinion on the matter does slip through."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
205 comments:
1 – 200 of 205 Newer› Newest»In any event, it would probably be best to leave it to a scientist to explain how we measure the activity of hydrogen ions in a solution.
Daniel Foster, writing in the National Review Online:
"On the Right, there is at least as much discussion of the fact that Rubio was asked this elephant trap of a question at all as there is of the details of his answer. And that’s good. But a better question might be, why wasn’t [Rep. Tulsi] Gabbard [D-Hawaii]asked it? Or President Obama, or [Mormon] Senator Harry Reid or [Muslim] Representative Keith Ellison? After all, Gabbard’s espoused Hinduism, like Obama’s espoused Christianity or Ellison’s espoused Islam or Harry Reid’s espoused Mormonism, entails a range of commitments to claims that are, prima facie, at odds with the empirical record. But there isn’t a cottage industry in interrogating Democrats on their faith the way there is with religious conservatives.
...
"They aren’t asked such questions because the proximate purpose of asking such questions isn’t to start a conversation about metaphysics, it’s to get conservatives to say odd, politically damaging things. Asking Richard Mourdock about abortion in the case of rape wasn’t aimed at starting a theo-philosophical debate about whether the dignity of human life is contingent on the circumstances of its creation. It was about exploiting Todd Akin’s idiocy to generate politically advantageous sound bites. Likewise, asking Marco Rubio about the age of the universe was an invitation to out himself as an anti-scientific rube, not an invitation to reflect on the intersection of religious and scientific truths."
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/333830/old-time-religion-daniel-foster
At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all.
M. Rubio
At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all.
I was unaware that science had nailed, to a tee, the age of the Earth and that no dispute over the age was present.
Thanks for the update.
Can you give me the EXACT age of the Earth, o Science Wizard?
Funny enough, that smartypants George W. had a great answer to this question.
But let's blame the person asking the question, not the stupid answer by the person who wants to put their face on the magazine cover.
Sorry, but Rubio stepped in it.
"I'm not a scientist, man"
Wonderful.
What did George W say?
Age of the earth is equivalent to when life begins? And Obama's dodgy wussy answer, in a presidential debate, was equivalent to Rubio's response to a gotcha question posed by a partisan magazine?
Age of the earth is equivalent to when life begins? And Obama's dodgy wussy answer, in a presidential debate, was equivalent to Rubio's response to a gotcha question posed by a partisan magazine?
Lots of luck selling that.
Did they ask these questions of Obama? I don't like the press playing gotcha with the other party when they don't vet their own in the most sensible way for the job that man was running.
I was unaware that science had nailed, to a tee, the age of the Earth and that no dispute over the age was present.
Then you are pretty damn ignorant. The age of the earth, and the age of the universe, are established with a high degree of certainty. You could say they are scientific facts.
Q: Senator, if one of your daughters asked you—and maybe they already have—“Daddy, did god really create the world in 6 days?,” what would you say?
A: What I've said to them is that I believe that God created the universe and that the six days in the Bible may not be six days as we understand it … it may not be 24-hour days, and that's what I believe. I know there's always a debate between those who read the Bible literally and those who don't, and I think it's a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I'm a part. My belief is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth on which we live—that is essentially true, that is fundamentally true. Now, whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible: That, I don't presume to know.
Ans provided by Sen Barack Obama
To repeat: "My belief is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth on which we live—that is essentially true, that is fundamentally true."
B. Obama
Link for the Rubio / Obama response comparison:
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/11/rubio_and_obama_and_the_age_of_earth_politicians_hedge_about_whether_universe.html
Freder: "Then you are pretty damn ignorant. The age of the earth, and the age of the universe, are established with a high degree of certainty. You could say they are scientific facts."
Freder, instead of being snarky you could have drilled down a bit and asked damikesc to define "to a tee" prior to proceeding with your response since "to a tee" is a term that is, to put it mildly, a bit "imprecise".
"I'm not a scientist, man."
Man? Can we all agree there should be near scientific certainty about the beginning of time, but we really can't say for sure whether a person with a cock and balls is a man or not depending on how he or "she" feels at the time?
Do dems REALLY want to make themselves the anti religion party. A lot of people we hold in high esteem also believe in the man in the sky. Like say, Martin Luther king. Do you think a reporter would ever try to belittle his religious beliefs by trying to ask him a gotcha?
As per usual, the gotcha question rebounds on the dems.
So, now lets hear all the subtle differences of Obamas belief in the man in the sky is somehow not a sign of his idiocy/anti science belief in superstitions.
By the way, for all the atheists looking down their nose t religious rubes,,let it be known tht there has yet to be a self described atheist in the White House.
Meaning, every single'presidemt has views that conform roughly .to Mark Rubio's/ Obama's opinion on God.
Freder: "You could say they are scientific facts."
Spoken like a true "non scientist" or even an individual who is not remotely involved with working with "uncertainty".
If I were asked this question I would say that the current, broadly and/or generally accepted "rough" age (I'll be happy to discuss "rough" if you like) of the universe by scientists which is based on our current level of understanding and technology yields an age equal to approximately.........
Does that sound as if it's full of caveats?
It should.
It's an odd answer. Are candidates really afraid of offending "young earth" folks?
Here's how he should have responded:
Q: How old is the earth.
A: Old. But what really matters to the American people is...(and then go on with whatever substantive point he wants to make).
jr565: "Do dems REALLY want to make themselves the anti religion party."
Not quite yet as we, as a culture, are not quite to the place where the dems can be assured of a sufficient electoral majority by being openly anti-(traditional/conservative) religious.
The mask does slip every now and again.
However, given the trajectory of where our culture is headed (think western europe), it really is only a matter of time.
BTW, happy Thanksgiving everyone.
Fr Martin Fox: "A: Old. But what really matters to the American people is...(and then go on with whatever substantive point he wants to make)."
He did just that.
Q: How old do you think the Earth is?
A: I’m not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/11/rubio_and_obama_and_the_age_of_earth_politicians_hedge_about_whether_universe.html
I am a scientist and at one time I taught freshman-level Physics and Astronomy in college. Science evolves; new truths are uncovered everyday. Science tells us that the Earth is about 4.6 billions years old. That figure is not likely to change much anytime soon - but it might change if some surprising discovery is made.
So the best answer to any such question is to say "Science tells us..."
The problem with an answer like "I'm not a scientist..." is that the next question might be a relevant question about economics, or history, or constitutional law, and unless the politician is an economist and an historian and a constitutional lawyer he will have just disqualified himself from answering any of those questions, too.
There are plenty of excellent and very readable books that explain science. If anyone is interested, begin with Chet Raymo's delightful "Soul of the Night". It's available through Amazon.com. (And it makes a great Christmas gift.)
Astro: "Science tells us that the Earth is about 4.6 billions years old. That figure is not likely to change much anytime soon - but it might change if some surprising discovery is made."
Astro, I'm afraid that there many, like Freder, who don't seem to understand this basic and commonsensical observation.
Drago:
Yes, but when I said he should say it's "old" and say nothing else about the age of the earth, I meant that literally. A one word answer: "old." He went on and on about theology and not knowing.
The Dems will continue to portray themselves as pro-religion, staunchly against the evangelical / fundamentalist agenda. I predict they'll continue to do this with success.
Republicans will continue to be embarrassed by that part of their base that insists on making prayer in school and the teaching of creationism priorities for everyone.
When I was a kid, our solar system had nine planets. Now there are eight. WTF, science men?
The problem with an answer like "I'm not a scientist..." is that the next question might be a relevant question about economics, or history, or constitutional law, and unless the politician is an economist and an historian and a constitutional lawyer he will have just disqualified himself from answering any of those questions, too.
But what kind of a question is that? It is gotcha question. Why should any politician remember such trivia in their heads? Rubio did the best he could to diffuse it by saying what he said. I think he should have called the interviewer to mat about what that has to do with governing and running for office. The media whores are known to do this to the righties and the righties should have a way by now to counter this kind of thing. In that respect Rubio's answer was less than satisfactory. Study what they did to Palin.
Funny thing.
Without the church there would be scientific method. There would be no tradition of inquiry. Western civilization as we know it would not exist.
Since we hire our commander and chief to ponder the age of the earth and stuff...
All while the democrat party ruins our economic future.
One counts on people to know this, but alas, maybe that's unwise...
Speaking for Catholics, there is no conflict between science and theology about the age of the earth. After all, even among Creationists, most take no issue with the earth being billions of years old.
And, even if you believe (which I do not) that God created the Cosmos, say, 10,000 years ago, there's a coherent answer you can give (coherent in the sense that if your premises are right, the conclusion is): that God, in creating the world in a sudden burst of energy, created a world that, to our measurement, seems old. In other words, time is pretty relative when God is acting.
And if that's what you believe, you can be a "young earther" and also say, "it's really old, as far as we can measure it."
It's a conversation about moron voters, on both sides.
phx -
George W, when asked about creation and evolution said "I think that God created the earth, created the world; I think the creation of the world is so mysterious it requires something as large as an almighty and I don't think it's incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution."
He added, "I happen to believe that evolution doesn't fully explain the mystery of life"
You don't have to discuss how many days, don't have to come off as some super-literalist to have strong valid religious views.
Frankly, if I look at the remarkable story of 4.54 billion years on Earth and how we came to exist on it - it looks more like the work of an all-knowing, unknowable supreme intelligence than some 7 day story where everything just beamed into existence. If God wanted to create beauty, working in mysterious ways ... do you think he'd just animate a bunch of clay like a child's idea, or he would have the most brilliant and beautiful method of getting there?
Going Bible literalist denies others beliefs - unlike George W, who might have a wishy-washy answer but manages not to tell anyone `your views are wrong' like Rubio's answer did.
As for this being a `setup' ... tell me what part of Rubio's official duties or campaign having an interview with GQ is a part of? Sure seems like he chose this bed, he shouldn't complain about having to lie down in it.
Here's why I think the reporters are doing this.
They know that, in addition to being more or less a Catholic, Senator Rubio spent some time as a Mormon, and has been attending an Evangelical church.
If he were just a straight-up Catholic, they wouldn't mess around with "how old is the earth?" because Catholics' answers to that question will almost certainly be boring.
I think he should have called the interviewer to mat about what that has to do with governing and running for office.
What's that have to do with running for office?
"I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all."
THAT'S exactly what it has to do with running for office.
A: I’m not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States.
My answer would have been:
Tell me how that question is relevant to how I will govern when I am elected president. If you are trying to gauge how smart I am, I will show you my college transcripts. If you are trying to trap me with my religious beliefs, shame on you.
ADDED: Rubio's answer reminds me of Obama's "above my pay grade" maneuver when asked about the humanity of the unborn. Both men said it's not my job to avoid conflict with religious people.
the difference, is that one deals with questions that are almost unanswerable. Why are we here. We can theorize scientifically, or come up with a religious explanation or some combination thereof, but unless someone comes up with a time machine and goes back in time and proves something definitively it will always remain a mysterious thing. whereas, abortion is a question that will effect people in the here and now. If you don't think a fetus has humanity then you William end that fetuses life.
And his answer is actually morally evil. Because if you weren't sure, then you should err on the side of not destroying a fetus. Because, you might be wrong. if they had humanity, and you allowed hundreds of millions to be killed what would justify that policy? And because the policy in place actually answers the question as if it was not above his or any other presidents pay grade.
If a president tries to appoint judges that will overturn roe v wade, it's not above his pay grade, nor is it when you try to appoint judges that defend the principle.
"Theere once was a great mountain, as high as Mount Everest. Every thousand years a little bird would come and sharpen its beak on the top of that mountain, and when the mountain was worn down to sea level, one second had passed in Heaven."
I agree that's a pretty good response from George W.
Rubio's answer is like a chew toy for libs.
Phx wrote:
"I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all."
THAT'S exactly what it has to do with running for office.
so you think no one should be taught what Christian's or Muslims believe anywhere in this country?
Your only reference is a public school? what about at a catholic university? what about at a Muslim school? They can't teach what they believe? you are sounding like an absolute fascist.
In other words, time is pretty relative when God is acting.
That's the whole point isn't it . father.
Time is a condition we impose on our view of the Universe.
Is there scientific evidence that Obama ever took a hard science or economics class in college?
I am sorry to see Sen. Rubio get caught in this game; but these guys need to learn to play in the big leagues.
If only Mr. Akin and Mr. Mourdock had learned how.
@jr565 I don't have a problem with private schools teaching what they like. I think this is Rubio's blunder of trying to obscure his answer so he could hide behind a rejoinder like yours.
We have a right to expect him to clarify his position for himself - not to take your word or other wingers word for what Rubio means.
I have no problem learning what Hindus think about the beginning of life, nor Muslims, nor Christians, nor Mormons, nor any other belief. Do you PHx?
If you said the ONLY thing that can be taught, is Hinduism, then I can see there being a problem, unless you were going to a school that was teaching you how to be a Hindu.
But what's wrong with having the ability to learn what other people think about the universe and philosophy? that's what education is all about.
@jr565 Sure in a world history class for example.
I think what everyone is wondering, and Rubio and everyone else knows it, what does he think should be taught in biology class?
And, on the basis of his answer, everyone has every right to speculate that he wants to allow creationism to be taught until or unless he clarifies his position.
But go ahead and be sophomoric with you4 "You can't prove he wasn't talking about Comparative Religion class."
" Mitchell the Bat said...
In any event, it would probably be best to leave it to a scientist to explain how we measure the activity of hydrogen ions in a solution."
Don't get me going on pH...
This issue is of exactly zero importance in the selection of public representatives.
Zero!
The Democrats running for office aren't exactly sharp tacks when it comes to science either.
Nor are most of the Dems who come here. Watching leftist documentaries on Nat Geo and going to the propaganda movies is not exactly doing science.
Much ado about nothing!
Phx where does he say that theological arguments should be taut in biology class. You are inferring A hell of a lot based on your bias. Things that he never said, or even implied.
Phx - I'm glad you dropped that whole "Really, I'm a moderate!" pose. I could tell keeping it up was a strain.
I hate to think what the questioning would be if Rubio were a jew.
jr565 As soon as Rubio says "I was talking about Comparative Religion classes!," fine, no big deal.
When politicians are asked in a public forum questions about how evolution/creationism/age of the earth should be taught, everyone knows they are talking about science class.
But by all means, continue to assert he could have been talking about Global History for example. Who will believe you?
Paco Wave I'm as moderate as it gets.
Phx wrote:
And, on the basis of his answer, everyone has every right to speculate that he wants to allow creationism to be taught until or unless he clarifies his position.
But go ahead and be sophomoric with you4 "You can't prove he wasn't talking about Comparative Religion class."
You're the one being sophomoric. You have every right to speculate whatever you want, but you're putting words in his mouth and then damning him for it. Was Baracks statement a suggestion that creationism should be taught in school? It's essentially the same argument.
And by the way, I actually reject your entire premise. Because it suggests that you don't think creationism should be taught IN ANY context. (And if I'm putting words in your mouth, I' have every right to speculate about your position) I have no problem with creationism being taught in schools for those that want to learn about it.
He separates theology from science and he says he's neither, and that both sides have answers , neither of which are in fact relevant to what his job would entail.
You seem REALLY keen on turning him, based on this answer into some knuckle dragged who is going to force your kids to only learn creationism in the place of biology.when that is exactly what he is not saying.
phx,
Rubio is a U.S. Senator.
You think this position has an impact on what is taught in high school biology classes?
The age of the earth, and the age of the universe, are established with a high degree of certainty
A high degree of certainty? We've got several models for the age of the universe that differ on the order of plus or minus a billion years. And all of those differing models are making the assumption that the final reconciliation of dark matter, dark energy, general relativity, and quantum mechanics doesn't do something weird.
Come down to earth, boys.
I know that you all get your feathers ruffled up over how scientific you are.
But, this entire subject is bullshit.
Tell me how any of this is relevant to Rubio's job.
Then, tell me about the incredible "scientific" underpinnings of the Democratic Party.
In other words, quit bullshitting. Well, go ahead, since it's Thanksgiving. That's sort of what Thanksgiving is for.
What time is it?
I'm not a clock, man!
pm317 said... But what kind of a question is that? It is gotcha question. Why should any politician remember such trivia in their heads?
Yes, it's a gotcha question. But a politician needs to have a better reply than Rubio's indecisive blather. Newt Gingrich would have been able to give the 'science says 4.6 billion years answer' and the historical-religious answer and then would have made the reporter look like a fool for asking the question.
Phx wrote:
When politicians are asked in a public forum questions about how evolution/creationism/age of the earth should be taught, everyone knows they are talking about science class.
he wasn't asked questions about how the question of the age of the earth SHOULD BE TAUGHT. Where, In the question asked of him is there the word TEACH?
This is a stupid topic. What we need is someone to blow open the scandal of an execution despite a presidential pardon--by Obama!
AJ Lynch said...
Is there scientific evidence that Obama ever took a hard science or economics class in college?
Yes, Chevy Volts are selling like hot cakes.
Well, the bottomline is that the lefty media whores want to try to make every Republican candidate into an Akin or a Murdoch. The Republicans should find a way to cleverly circumvent that trap set by the liberal media. It also means educating the Akin and the Murdoch supporters about what century we live in.
he wasn't asked questions about how the question of the age of the earth SHOULD BE TAUGHT. Where, In the question asked of him is there the word TEACH?
LOL fine, have it your way! The following quote is completely innocuous. This shouldn't be a problem for Rubio at all.
"I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all."
- M. Rubio
Rubio missed a perfect opportunity to point out more Liberal cognitive dissonance - this time, they are both FOR and AGAINST having science inform public policy.
Here's an example.
Science keeps moving the estimates of the age of the earth and the universe, further and further into the past. OK, fine. Good to know. We should teach that, exclusively.
It also keeps moving fetus viability further and further back towards conception. Is that also good to know? Can you think of some policy that should be affected by that?
"I think what everyone is wondering, and Rubio and everyone else knows it, what does he think should be taught in biology class?"
The besetting sin of "liberals;" they just cannot conceive of anyone holding a belief without intending that it should also be imposed on everyone else.
Yes, Obama is about as full fledged a scientific illiterate as can be imagined.
Zero scientific education. Zero job experience in any way related to science.
The closest Obama has gotten to science is Critical Legal Race Theory.
Yes, it's a gotcha question. But a politician needs to have a better reply than Rubio's indecisive blather. Newt Gingrich would have been able to give the 'science says 4.6 billion years answer' and the historical-religious answer and then would have made the reporter look like a fool for asking the question.
Agree completely.
As an aside, why don't they hire Gingrich for a consultant. Just adopt his brain since he himself can't win an election. I thought Romney had a chance and went with him. In hindsight I wish Newt was the nominee and it would have been great to see him clean the media whores' clock.
phx,
Rubio is a U.S. Senator.
You think this position has an impact on what is taught in high school biology classes?
ST congress people weigh in on these questions all the time, and it's going to effect how they stand in the polls. They control purse strings related to education, science, social policy. You imply you favor creationism being taught in school, you're going to have a problem.
Go ahead and blame me for that situation.
At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all.
If all are taught that is not at the exclusion of the other is it. Not is it saying one is more definitive than the other. Nor is it saying that theology would be taught in a science class or science in a theology class. Its saying that people should be allowed to teach (and learn) the varying theories
I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says.
Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that. It's one of the great mysteries.
Creationists don't think this question is a mystery. Do they? So then, it sounds like he is NOT making the creationist argument. He's saying, that's one I twerp retain, amongst many, and is largely a debate for the theologians and the scientists. What does it have to do with his tax policies?
"Science keeps moving the estimates of the age of the earth and the universe, further and further into the past."
Not always. A lot of scientists a century ago thought that the age of the universe was infinite.
Mark Halperin noted that the "left-wing Freak Show" -- his term -- was already targeting Rubio, trying to define him as Not One Of Us, a guy beyond the pale, the scary Other. All of those terms have a long pedigree in the annals of propaganda, and have an equally long history in being successful in destroying the targeted individuals or groups. The idea is to turn Rubio (like Romney, like Palin, like Quayle, like Cheney ...) into a freakish monster.
At base, the Freak Show works by defining the acceptable norm and relying on a conformist instinct to make it stick (anyone who dissents is by definition part of the uncool team). In many departments in American universities, that's been standard practice for a while. Who was that Chicago guy who wrote a how-to handbook about this stuff -- Saul something?
Unfortunately, it's not a joke. Attacking the source of the power behind this tactic requires a willingness to contest control over the larger culture -- the Jon Stewart part of the world that conservatives have often just given up on. But that's where the battle of ideas gets turned into cultural norms, the kind of propositions (like those being used to define Rubio as an unacceptable weirdo) that Everyone Like Us Knows To Be True.
Rubio and any other conservative seeking office can expect to be on the receiving end of the same thing. If conservatives want to win back the country, they're going to have to engage the fight on those terms. It's not just about the next election.
phx,
If you read the Constitution, you'll discover that the House is in charge of taxing and spending. Right?
I actually have worked for the past several decades in a field that is decidedly scientific. I just completed a project that focused on the clinical trials of a new drug. While my job is more on the media end, I am educated in pharmacology, anatomy and physiology and basic clinical and scientific processes. I'm also a high level programmer.
Both parties are full of shit when they try to apply this "scientific" tag to themselves. The Dems are worse because they seem to take their "scientific" pretensions seriously. That dangerous.
It's laughable crap. I guess it has some impact on people, but I can't understand why.
Phx, this is a true statement:
"I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all."
Are you suggesting that any other theory should not be taught by anyone anywhere in this country by snyone? In any context? That seems to be your suggestion.
Rubio and any other conservative seeking office can expect to be on the receiving end of the same thing. If conservatives want to win back the country, they're going to have to engage the fight on those terms. It's not just about the next election.
Where have you been?
jr565 I don't have a problem with you sticking to your legalistic interpretation of what Rubio meant. Get it out there!
I don't think anyone buys it, however.
phx: "Republicans will continue to be embarrassed by that part of their base that insists on making prayer in school and the teaching of creationism priorities for everyone."
Too many strawmen to even begin dealing with today.
There is only 1 religion that today is actively seeking to move us back to the 7th century and that is islam...and that just so happens to be the one religion that the left is very very very protective of.
phx: "I don't think anyone buys it, however."
Still waiting to hear the defense of obama's statement relative to rubio's.
Not going to hold my breath however.
Halperin nailed it.
Phx wrote:
jr565 I don't have a problem with you sticking to your legalistic interpretation of what Rubio meant. Get it out there!
I don't think anyone buys it, however.
you don't buy it, but you are merely floating the latest dem tslking points pretending that its not a complete bullshit argument and a strawman designed to turn Rubio into the knuckle dragger you think all republicans are.
You are completely disingenuous here. But keep pretending like you're non partisan.
YOU don't buy it. But then again, you're the one making the argument that is a strawman. So why would you?
But keep pretending like you're non partisan.
I have never, ever said I was non-partisan. Is that why you've been all over my dick lately?
Geez, get a wife.
Shouting Thomas: "Both parties are full of shit when they try to apply this "scientific" tag to themselves. The Dems are worse because they seem to take their "scientific" pretensions seriously. That dangerous."
The dems try to pretend they represent scientific socialism (without calling it as such), but like all leftist they are (and could never be anything but) utopian socialists.
Their theories are not falsifiable and their poilices only fail due to the counterrevolutionaries in their midst.
Politicians should answer thses questions with specificity. One billion six hundred and three years twenty days and eighteen hours and sixteen seconds and counting. Gregorian. Would you like the Mayan long count answer as well?
The dems try to pretend they represent scientific socialism (without calling it as such), but like all leftist they are (and could never be anything but) utopian socialists.
19th and 20th century thinking for Republicans living in the 21st century. And good luck with that!
Actually, this is the kind of question that could offer some insight on the workings of a man's (or woman's (hey, Ann,...)) mind, but no, the people who tell us they believe in "science" and, especially, "evolution" (even though they haven't got the foggiest idea about either) just want a vapid answer like Zero gave.
Me, I'd say, "Carl Sagan told me it was billions and billions of years old, my father told me it was millions and millions of years old, and the Bible says it's about 5000 years old. Pick which one you like best".
And if my argument is legalistic, maybe that's because I'm dealing with someone I ferrying words they are reading completely wrongly, either unintentionally or Intentionally (in your case it's ABSOLUTELY intentionally) and inferring that what Rubio says means something that is not in the words he says. If you don't like Obmam being treated iPhone fairly why do you insist on treating conservatives that way?
phx: "19th and 20th century thinking for Republicans living in the 21st century. And good luck with that!"
LOL
It's your side that keeps trying to implement it and you think it's the folks who notice it that are the problem!
LOL
If you don't like Obmam being treated iPhone fairly why do you insist on treating conservatives that way?
STOP. RIDING. MY. DICK.
I never once said anything about the obama phone either. That's Oh for Two, chump.
GET. A. CHICK.
Phx wrote:
have never, ever said I was non-partisan. Is that why you've been all over my dick lately?
Geez, get a wife.
so then your reading of this is not in fact a reading that is either fair or even handed, but based on your partisan agenda. Exactly. So, I will take it as such.
Merely asking the question of the age of the universe with respect to religion just goes to show exactly how utterly ignorant and ill-informed the questioner is.
Not only does it betray a complete lack of knowledge and understanding as to how to interpret the Creation accounts, a complete lack of knowledge and understanding as to what the Catholic Church, for example, teaches, but it also proves the stupidity of the questioner in not realizing that the person who posited the Big Bang Theory, showing the universe to be billions of years old, was a Catholic priest, Georges Lemaître.
How old is the universe exactly? Why don't we ask the folks at the Vatican Observatory? The Catholic Church has been deeply involved in astromony and cosmology for many many centuries.
How old is the universe? Slightly less old, I would say, than these sniveling, juvenile, and tedious attempts at "gotcha" that have become so routine and boring.
It's your side that keeps trying to implement it and you think it's the folks who notice it that are the problem!
And you're another. C'mon Drago. Pick up yer game.
phx: "And you're another. C'mon Drago. Pick up yer game."
That's really all you have, isn't it?
Sad.
LOL! No that's all YOU have.
Drago: No, that's all YOU have.
ME: No, that's all you....
Yes, yes, yes. My arguments are sad and pathetic.
The iPhone word in my sentence is a typo (which makes no sense in the sentence as it stands) that should say unfairly. Not iPhone fairly (sorry I'm typing on my iPad, and sometimes the type ahead gives me some weird combos).
So, I never was suggesting that you did say anything about an iPhone.
And if you want me to stop riding your dick stop arguing like a dick. Embrace your bias and stop pretending you're not choosing sides.
phx, we get it, you're tapped out.
Let it go.
Or get off someone's dick, or something like that.
So, I never was suggesting that you did say anything about an iPhone.
LOL! Well that's funny! I thought you were trying to drag the Obama phone into this or something. You're welcome to but I never commented on Obama phones (to the best of my recollection which is pretty trustworthy in this case) and I ever said I was non-partisan. I do rag on partisans, sometimes (but not always) by qualifying it with "intense" or "extreme" partisans.
I continue to maintain my free-agent and moderate status as always.
Let it go.
Or get off someone's dick, or something like that.
Exactly. I can't keep up this furious pace of foolishness indefinitely without a grownup entering the argument.
phx: "Exactly. I can't keep up this furious pace of foolishness indefinitely without a grownup entering the argument."
And yet you do.
Even though iPhone is a typo, iPhone does not mean nor is spelled the same way asObama phone, does it? My guess is, obama phones were not iphones (at least i hope so, as iphones are expensive)yet there youare reading into what you think conservatives are saying and of course getting it wrong and then constructing your straw man arguments.
Might I suggest, that just as you got the iPhone reference wrong and converted it in your mind into an attack on Obama phones, so too are you misconstruing and misinterpreting what Rubio was saying and drawing conclusions that weren't even implied.
Catholics' answers to that question will almost certainly be boring.
Catholics' answers to most questions are pretty damn boring.
Young Earth creationists are happy to tell you that that's what they are.
Any answer that seems unclear indicates the speaker is not a young Earth creationist and would like to avoid their wrath.
Any answer that seems unclear indicates the speaker is not a young Earth creationist and would like to avoid their wrath.
Yes. That makes sense. That's clear. Dems and libs are obviously going to hold his feet to the fire until he clarifies. There's nothing heinous or unjust about it. Fair is fair.
I don't think it makes any difference what a candidate believes about this issue.
I'm more concerned with the aggressive ignorance about basic economics that is rampant in Washington.
The President shouldn't have any say in what the schools are teaching. Sure, he could suggest, just like anyone can suggest, but he should have no authority there. That should be up to states and communities, I think.
All members of the GOP should answer questions like these with the following statement:
"I agree with President Obama on this issue."
"Next question." "...Can we talk about something pertaining to economics now?"
The Republicans should find a way to cleverly circumvent that trap set by the liberal media.
I hesitate to answer about the age of the Earth because American listeners will be shaken by a number so low when they process and realize how minuscule compared to 16.2 trillion dollars national debt. A little abacus-in-the-brain thing happens and they'll realize they're a whole group of beads over and go at once, "oh shit."
It's called the bully pulpit, which you know. Presidents are evaluated on their use of the bully pulpit, it weighs into an overall evaluation of job performance for most voters I think.
You and I could disagree on what importance should be placed on a President's theological beliefs or beliefs in evolution/age of earth etc. But having someone who actually believes in creationism or is an evangelical is not inconsequential to the country. Of course both sides will try to exploit these issues.
Freeman wrote:
Young Earth creationists are happy to tell you that that's what they are.
Any answer that seems unclear indicates the speaker is not a young Earth creationist and would like to avoid their wrath.
that's how I read this. Creationists don't say, there are multiple interpretations and an almost impossible question to answer. They would say 7 days.
The important thing is that phx is now certain Rubio will take away his tampons.
The important thing is Republicans are losing ground to women and Hispanics.
phx, I'm an evangelical. Also, I think the Earth is about four and a half billion years old. (And I am in good company there in evangelical circles.) What does evangelical have to do with it? Or do you mean evangelical as a separate issue?
phx - who said this?
"What I’ve said to them is that I believe that God created the universe and that the six days in the Bible may not be six days as we understand it … it may not be 24-hour days, and that’s what I believe. I know there’s always a debate between those who read the Bible literally and those who don’t, and I think it’s a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I’m a part. My belief is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth on which we live—that is essentially true, that is fundamentally true. Now, whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible: That, I don’t presume to know."
Obama was pushed over the edge by low information voters and 18-26 year olds.
Phx wrote:
The important thing is Republicans are losing ground to women and Hispanics.
whatever, Inga.
By the way, Rubio is Hispanic.
What your point has to do with the topic at hand, I'm not sure.
@Freemen, yes I mean even as separate issues those matters and other theological matters influence elections, some more some less.
Many people on both sides will go full throttle on them to score points or advance their agenda.
Obviously Dems aren't going to let anyone campaign only on the economy.
By the way, Rubio is Hispanic.
What your point has to do with the topic at hand, I'm not sure.
Yes, and Rubio just gave an opening for Dems to say he's not necessarily the solution to your Hispanic problem. Not that he could have really avoided it.
Obama was pushed over the edge by low information voters and 18-26 year olds.
People who wanted gifts.
Phx, you have yet to respond to Obamas statement. Please do so.
How is it fundamentally different than Rubio's.
After many stops and starts, trials and tribulations, western religious thought gave us the world we live in. In time it brought democracy, human rights, and yes even science.
Republicans should talk about when dust from the solar nebula condensed to form our planet, but not about how Democrats were responsible for slavery and segregation because that was a long time ago.
If you had one dollar for every year of the earth's existence, you could cover the spending deficit caused by Obama's government for a day.
Phx wrote:
Yes, and Rubio just gave an opening for Dems to say he's not necessarily the solution to your Hispanic problem. Not that he could have really avoided it.
what you say reveals more about dems bigotry than about anything Rubio's extreme views. "Not that he could have avoided it", indeed. Since we know that the dems will make the disingenuous argument. And how bigoted are you? Are dems not aware that not all Hispanics think like liberals?
Ist here a litmus test for dems on how "Hispanics" must think? and why were Obamas views somehow something that would invalidate OBama in the eyes of dems both as a dem and a black person?
Obama says that he believes the world was created by god, only that the seven days it took to make the world may not correspond to the seven days as we define days. Would that invalidate him for,dems if he were speaking as a black conservative? How about as a dem.
And speaking of Hispanics, most Hispanic people,I know are in fact very religious.
The problem with your side, phx is that you have a fundamental disconnect with those who don't beleived in god and those that do. Those that don't attribute religious intolerance to the other party. All that religious intolerance is a "conservative thing". All that anti science is a conservative thing. Only there is a disconnect within people in our own party. Blacks by and large are deeply religious. As are Hispanics (by and large).and things defense of traditional marriage are, u til VERY recently also democratic positions. Bill Clinton passed DOMA. Obama said, until right before the election, that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Phx, you have yet to respond to Obamas statement. Please do so.
How is it fundamentally different than Rubio's.
I don't know. I don't care. I'm not defending Obama here.
Without reading it I guess that Obama didn't say he favored teaching everyone's theory of how the universe is created in school.
Jesus @jr565 tl/dr. If you're going to burn me do it concisely or no one's going to read it.
Without reading it I guess
Because that's how they do things in the pro-education party.
Well, the math stuff I was fine with up until 7th grade. But Malia is now a freshman in High School and I’m pretty lost. It’s tough.
He's real good with science though.
Because that's how they do things in the pro-education party.
No. We're just not doing YOUR syllabus.
Shhh. It's time for Alice's Restaurant.
"Yes. That makes sense. That's clear. Dems and libs are obviously going to hold his feet to the fire until he clarifies. There's nothing heinous or unjust about it. Fair is fair."
Really?
Fair is fair? And what value to the nation? It's all just a game and fair is fair? If you can destroy, personally, those running on the other side when they say EXACTLY the same things as the people on your side then fair is fair and it's about winning?
What maybe entirely misses the truth that people who tried to make this last election about the economy and about the debt weren't making "fair is fair" attacks on the President about the economy, but honestly believe we're in for another four years of growing debt and the new normal rate of unemployment and miniscule growth.
But it explains a whole lot if all criticisms of Obama are viewed as opportunistic attempts to win by making shit up.
Because fair is fair.
We should all understand then, that this is a game and it doesn't matter to the nation who wins only that we get our guy in so we can crow about it. Which makes sense of all those helpful suggestions that Republicans become Democrats because it's not about ideas or reality it's about freaking teams.
My team. Your team. And who wins in a "fair-is-fair" contest of destruction.
This canard that people on the right, conservatives, or republicans are anti-science is a bullshit farce that has percolated to modern mythology by the left.
phx said...
At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all.
M. Rubio
Your point is what? Even withing the cosmological/astrophysics community there are diverging points of view that the universe wasn't even created via the big bang. So again, what's your point here? Are you trying to be clever?
My team. Your team. And who wins in a "fair-is-fair" contest of destruction.
Okay, fine. It's NOT fair for anyone to ask Rubio how old he thinks the earth is, and it's NOT fair to ask any follow up questions based on his answer.
What was I thinking?
Kid, I want you to over and sit down on that bench that says Group W. NOW kid!
phx wrote: "Republicans will continue to be embarrassed by that part of their base that insists on making prayer in school and the teaching of creationism priorities for everyone."
Most Evangelicals think priorities for everyone should be reduction of the national debt to protect our children and reduction of unemployment to improve our economy and the well being of our people.
Democrats don't seem to be embarrassed by the fact that these things do not appear to be among their priorities.
Rubio doesn't want to unnecessarily offend his constituents.
Obama doesn't want to unnecessarily offend his constituents.
Fair is fair would be treating them both the same way instead of promoting hypocrisy.
This is the sort of thing that journalists and news media should call shenanigans on. But they won't. They should be there making sure that either side doesn't get away with spinning and destroying and attacking for things they do themselves. But they won't.
Though Slate pointing out Obama's quote is a slightly encouraging sign. It may be that now that he's reelected the media will find they have, as Obama famously said about himself, more flexibility.
"Okay, fine. It's NOT fair for anyone to ask Rubio how old he thinks the earth is, and it's NOT fair to ask any follow up questions based on his answer."
Relevance, not fairness, is the issue.
There seems to be a basic misunderstanding by folks like Rubio's interviewer as to just how common across the US political spectrum a belief in creationism is.
Democratic talking heads like to believe that there's no religious boofers in their midst, but, oh, there are many. They seem especially blind to the fact that theologically, black fundamentalists & evangelicals are indistinguishable from their white counterparts. That includes a belief in creationism.
A closer experience with the black street is probably what led Obama to be so circumspect in his response on the subject quoted in this thread.
Democratic talking heads like to believe that there's no religious boofers in their midst, but, oh, there are many. They seem especially blind to the fact that theologically, black fundamentalists & evangelicals are indistinguishable from their white counterparts. That includes a belief in creationism.
That seems fair. The question then is, who's better at balancing those forces in their midst? IMO the Republicans are failing at it.
I don't know. I don't care. I'm not defending Obama here.
and this is why I shouldn't even bother responding to you here. You don't argue logically or honestly, but then call others out for their lack of honesty.
Read his statement, and respond to it. If the fact that Obamas statement is roughly the same, but it invalidates Rubio for voters when he says it but you don't care when Obama says it, nor will you defend or attacks his remarks, show that the ONLY reason you are making the attack is because you're trying to score partisan points, not arguing out of principle.
Do scientists know how old the earth is? They are backdating every couple of years, and can't agree on universe, multiverses either.
So the question was a stupid trap, the criticism was contrived when the trap failed to trap.
My answer will be I don't know how old the earth is, but my universe is as old as me.
and this is why I shouldn't even bother responding to you here. You don't argue logically or honestly, but then call others out for their lack of honesty.
Read his statement, and respond to it.
Who asked you to? Look at you, "Read his statement, and respond."
Hey, pal. Talk that way to your wife and kids. I won't take take orders from you.
@phx,
You actually think that the Democrat's sheperding of the black community is a success story?
Phx, forgive me for the ad hominem, but have gone batshit insane? Is there any community in the US that has been more poorly served by its leadership? I could just post oodles & oodles of links of some sorry way that American blacks are at the bottom of the ladder, but we all know them, so what's the use.
phx wrote: "Republicans will continue to be embarrassed by that part of their base that insists on making prayer in school and the teaching of creationism priorities for everyone."
Public school is mandatory under threat of arrest for parents unless they wealthy enough and can buy their way free of the state.
Citizens have the right not to have their religion forcibly infringed upon by compulsory state indoctrination of their children.
If it offends you that creationism in school applies to *everyone* then you've got a handle on the problem, you're just refusing to turn it around to see that what is being currently imposed on everyone by the state is an infringement on their constitutionally protected 1st Amendment right to NOT have their religious faith interfered with by the state.
Vouchers and school choice would solve this problem immediately and, like Solomon's ruling that the baby be split in two, we can see clear and unequivocable evidence of which side of this issue is interested in imposing their way on everyone else.
BTW, the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old, our solar nebula started forming some 5-ish billion years ago, and the current thought on the age of the entire universe is that it is about 14 billion years old.
So, truly, one dollar for every day our solar system is old gives us what we go into debt every single day, and our national debt differs from the age of the entire universe by a magnitude greater.
But whatever, it's about who's team wins and Republicans could win if they just were more like Democrats and thought it was okay to lock the children of the poor into government indoctrination and a future of unimaginable debt.
Phx, forgive me for the ad hominem, but have gone batshit insane?
De nada, nothing to forgive. Fair use here. But no, I haven't gone batshit insane. Probably not.
Is there any community in the US that has been more poorly served by its leadership? I could just post oodles & oodles of links of some sorry way that American blacks are at the bottom of the ladder, but we all know them, so what's the use.
This strikes me as a pretty good argument for Republicans to make. Unfortunately they will undoubtedly undercut themselves with some more 47% talk or "we lost because of gifts."
Note I'm not weighing in on the right or wrong of the 47% or "gifts" argument - here I'm just saying they are losing arguments for Republicans regardless.
Phx wrote:
Without reading it I guess that Obama didn't say he favored teaching everyone's theory of how the universe is created in school.
where did Rubio mention schools? And your absolutism on this position is such whereby you would probably have an issue if those varying theories even if they weren't taught in a biology class.
Which is what i take from your statement when I hear you use the word "school" instead of science class.
In school there are classes, see. And in those classes, different subjects are taught. Some science, and some potentially theological. Also in this country there are things other than public schools. There are catholic schools, there is home schooling. So when you say these theories shouldn't be taught in school, aren't you suggesting that its invalid to teach these theories anywhere? under any circumstance?
there's more than one way to look at the founding of the world. Why couldn't these alternate theories be taught within the context of theology, for those tht wished to learn that?
I'm thinking some people here, because they had the day off, sat around drinking too much caffeine and ate too much sugar, and ARE EXTREMELY HYPER!!!
Phx wrote:
Is there any community in the US that has been more poorly served by its leadership? I could just post oodles & oodles of links of some sorry way that American blacks are at the bottom of the ladder, but we all know them, so what's the use.
This strikes me as a pretty good argument for Republicans to make. Unfortunately they will undoubtedly undercut themselves with some more 47% talk or "we lost because of gifts."
Note I'm not weighing in on the right or wrong of the 47% or "gifts" argument - here I'm just saying they are losing arguments for Republicans regardless.
actually you kind of are.
You actually think that the Democrat's sheperding of the black community is a success story?
I actually said Dems do a better job than Repubs in balancing the creationists in their base.
But misquote me however it suits your arguments.
We're just not doing YOUR syllabus.
You're not up to the task of doing MY syllabus, you sad little party hack.
Look at you, "Read his statement, and respond."
fux is seconds away from using "reader" as a slur.
C O F F E E ! ! !
phx said...
jr565 I don't have a problem with you sticking to your legalistic interpretation of what Rubio meant. Get it out there!
I don't think anyone buys it, however.
Where was your journolistic rigor when reverend Wright was the subject.
You're not up to the task of doing MY syllabus, you sad little party hack.
You win. Best. argument. evah.
Phx, you previously indicated you would not abandon all principles to win.
But here, you justify being as absolutely uncharitable as possible in your comprehension of your opponents, and justify it by pointing to the anticipated propaganda efforts of your peers.
So, which is it? If you want to claim you are above the sleazy tactics of some of your colleagues, you can't use them as justification for your own personal churlishness.
"That seems fair. The question then is, who's better at balancing those forces in their midst? IMO the Republicans are failing at it."
It's not "balancing" those forces, it's ignoring them.
Obama says gays shouldn't marry or that god made the world and those who want to vote for him think he's lying and approve of his lying.
It's no more complicated than that.
Point it out and it's fingers in the ears and la-la-la can't hear you.
But here, you justify being as absolutely uncharitable as possible in your comprehension of your opponents, and justify it by pointing to the anticipated propaganda efforts of your peers.
If you're refering to the meaning of Rubio's comments, I think I've said more than once that he could also clarify his statement.
You win.
I know.
Best. argument. evah.
It just looks that way to you because I'm so much smarter than you are, fux. Really it was only about a thousand times better than your strongest rhetorical point, "get off my dick", so not very good at all on an absolute scale.
At least once I said he could clarify himself on this matter, but that's his obligation to do so. We didn't create any ambiguity - he did.
That's as charitable as I need to be.
Of course he could. What's your point? Because he could have been clearer, you're entitled to draw the worst possible meaning you can from his statements?
Logically, yes.
Ethically, no.
Which brings us back to the original point: do you have principles or not? Are you really actually willing to not abandon them to win?
If it were obvious Rubio didn't mean we should teach creationism alongside of evolution in science class, then it would be incumbent to charitably accept that as an explanation.
Instead, Freeman Hunt's interpretation is the likely one. He was deliberately obfuscating to avoid the wrath of some of his constituents. I'm not under any "charitable" obligation to help him do that.
I'm sorry if I'm out of step, but the original subject doesn't seem to justify the acrimony.
Science is a faith necessarily limited to a constrained frame of reference. Events outside of that frame, including the origin of the Earth or species, are matters of religious or, more charitably, philosophical concern.
As for the age of the Earth, there is physical evidence which demonstrates passage of time is not linear, which precludes accurate inferences, in addition to that event occurring outside the frame where a hypothesis can be tested and reproduced. The only consensus we can legitimately construct is based on social or political interests supported by inconclusive emergent patterns.
If someone is obviously arguing a preposition in good faith but has expressed themselves poorly, then yes, principles say help them out and interpret preposition in the manner s/he intended.
That is so not the case here. And if you argue it was, all we can do is say fine, we disagree. Don't ask ME to buy that horseshit though, even if you do.
Sorry Father.
Instead, Freeman Hunt's interpretation is the likely one. He was deliberately obfuscating to avoid the wrath of some of his constituents. I'm not under any "charitable" obligation to help him do that
Yes, but, that's not the point you were making above. You were not criticizing Rubio for being mealy-mouthed and avoiding the question. You were trying to argue he said a certain thing, which is not supported by a reasonable reading of his statements.
It's counterproductive even from your standpoint, because if you had made the former point, you would have a solid point. But since only the people who already agree with you on everything else would agree with your latter interpretation of his remarks, you end up persuading nobody, except maybe yourself.
Phx:
No apology necessary; relax! It's a beautiful day--at least, here in Ohio--watch some football! Eat snacks! Enjoy life!
Phx wrote:
Who asked you to? Look at you, "Read his statement, and respond."
Hey, pal. Talk that way to your wife and kids. I won't take take orders from you.
I never said you did. But we're having a discussion here. Either respond honestly, or stick to your talking points. I have no interest in listening to our talking points. And will ride you for making those talking points.
The point was made that the statement Oama was made was similar to that which Rubio made.
You made the point that Rubio's statement was such that it would invalidate him from election from non extremists (ie he doesn't solve the republicans Hispanic problem). Yet when asked about Obamas position, which is roughly the same, you say you don't care. And aren't defending OBama. BUt you are attacking Rubio.
For basically the same position. Therefore, WHY ARENT YOU ATTACKING OBAMA FOR THAT SAME POSITION.
Therefore, either you are a moron, or your attack is completely partisan. And as such there's no reason we should give a shift what you have to say. Because its not a principled argument.
Example - being against gay marriage is bigoted. Clinto passed DOMA and Obama until the eve of the election said marriage was between a man and a woman. So wait, are they not bigoted for holding those positions? why are libs voting for them and calling repubs racist for holding the same position?
If your bigoted standard only applies to the side you're voting against, even though the position being argued is the same, then you hold different standards for the same position based on who's making the argument. That is arguing fraudulently.
You write:
Any answer that seems unclear indicates the speaker is not a young Earth creationist and would like to avoid their wrath.
Yes. That makes sense. That's clear. Dems and libs are obviously going to hold his feet to the fire until he clarifies. There's nothing heinous or unjust about it. Fair is fair.
fair is fair eh. Dems are going to hold his feet to the fire until he clarifies. But there is no need to even read Obamas statement or defend his similar statement because, why? Are you holding Rubio's feet to the fire and demanding clarification because of the nature t
Of the statement, or simply because you want to hold Rubio's feet to the fire because he's a republican and your a partisan. It sure sounds like the latter.
Knowing that, why should I go along with your attempted character assassination because you have a partisan agenda.
It's a very common rhetorical tactic on the left to avoid and claim ignorance of any comment or statement by any other dem/lib that renders problematic the liberals attack on a conservative/R comment.
You see this alot on the talk shows.
It goes something like this:
Host/Interviewer: "how can you criticize X (R) for saying (Y) when Z(D) has said basically the same thing?"
Dem/lib: "I'm not familiar with what Z said so I don't want to comment on that, but back to X's extreme remark....."
Etc.
phx has simply provided another example of that today.
In many ways you can understand why the left does it: the major media outlets let them.
For instance, how often do you hear discussed a certain Dem's remarks that having too many people on the island of Guam could cause it to tip over or capsize?
LOL
Asking phx to rationalize obama's statement with rubio's is never going to happen.
It seems the "airing of grievances" has begun...do we get to "feats of strength" after this, or did I miss it?
Fair is fair eh. Dems are going to hold his feet to the fire until he clarifies. But there is no need to even read Obamas statement or defend his similar statement because, why? Are you holding Rubio's feet to the fire and demanding clarification because of the nature
What makes this fair is that you have the same option of not responding. I can't help it if the consequences won't be equal.
It's not that bad, is it Father? A simple dispute over Rubio's answer to an interview question.
Let's all have a beer and fahgettaboudit. Happy Thanksgiving to all my friends on Althouse.
edutcher: Me, I'd say, "Carl Sagan told me it was billions and billions of years old, my father told me it was millions and millions of years old, and the Bible says it's about 5000 years old. Pick which one you like best".
Except Sagan didn't say that.
To help viewers of Cosmos distinguish between "millions" and "billions", Sagan stressed the "b". Sagan never did, however, say "billions and billions". The public's association of the phrase and Sagan came from a Tonight Show skit. Parodying Sagan's affect, Johnny Carson quipped "billions and billions".[2] The phrase has however now since become a humorous fictitious number—the Sagan.
Source.
Hubris and mendacity are sins, maybe Father Fox can start hearing some confessions. If you're heartily sorry, it will stick.
I, for one, would like to see potential nominees screened for the proper use of apostrophes.
What's an apostrophe, and is it a sin?
phx said: The question then is, who's better at balancing those forces [black religious fundamentalists/creationists] in their midst? IMO the Republicans are failing at it.
Is telling them they're all going to be put "back in chains" if Republicans win part of what you call "balancing those forces"?
Of course Rubio is pandering to the Evangelical whack-jobs by saying Creationism is just a valid as science and should be taught in schools. That is why he's disqualified from being the President.
Then you are pretty damn ignorant.
Then feel free to provide the exact age. I'll anxiously await your input.
The age of the earth, and the age of the universe, are established with a high degree of certainty. You could say they are scientific facts.
EXACT date. Feel free to provide one.
The Democrats running for office aren't exactly sharp tacks when it comes to science either.
Let's never forget Hank Johnson's belief that Guam would CAPSIZE because too many people are on it. Or --- hell, anything Sheila Jackson-Lee has ever said in her life.
If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.
"Thanks for the update.
Can you give me the EXACT age of the Earth, o Science Wizard?:
While he's at it, he can explain the connection between mitochondria and Rickettsiae. Maybe even the relationship between Archea, Eurkaryotes and Prokaryotes. For a science genius, as all these lefties seem to be, that should be no problem. How about it, phx ?
That infinity number is pretty large huh?
I liked Sagan's disco hair and those lapels big enough to hang glide with.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/11/student-suspension/
Link to a story about a girl suspended for refusing to wear an electronic tracker at school.
The reasoning from her and her family is that this resembles the prophecy in Revelation about the sign of the Beast.
I don't know if it matters if someone believes that the prophecy is baloney, or if it simply describes a future reality where no one can go uncounted or have every single transaction counted or if one believes that the "sign" itself is damning.
The creationism issue wouldn't matter except that we allow our government to control our children, and the rfid wouldn't matter except that it's government compulsion and if we have to rely on religious lunatics (if that's what you think they are) to guard our basic liberty then God bless them, we need lunatics.
Except that we are NOT free, except that we exist in a state of subjection to the state, none of it would matter. It's all a fight over who gets to own the minds of children... because someone *does* own the minds of children. And if that's true, then it matters that it's ME. I can no longer afford to tolerate differences in opinion and religious belief because it's a winner take all game.
And someone thinks it's about the age of the Earth.
How adorable.
And Synova thinks she is bravely resisting tyranny by opposing the evil of required education. How adorable. Don't worry, Synova, no one wants to control your mind. You can think what you want anytime and do what you want after the age of 16 regarding education. As the famous jurist, Judge Smalls said in Caddyshack, the world needs ditchdiggers too.
Be comfortable with the power of the state. Just hope some nutter doesn't win an election.
But if you're always on the Right Side of History you'll never be on the losing side, never be a minority, never need protection from tyranny. Your religion will always be the one in power and your guy will always be President, or King or whatever.
It was good to be a Sunni in Iraq under Saddam. Too bad if you were a Marsh Arab, a Kurd or Shi'ite.
How adorable!
Rubio's answer reminds me of Obama's "above my pay grade" maneuver when asked about the humanity of the unborn. Both men said it's not my job to avoid conflict with religious people.
Big difference is the age of the earth is completely irrelevant in the federal scheme of things while Obama's answer could have significance as far as his position regarding a federal law, and for those women who think with their lady parts.
All tyranny is about having the right to impose on others on account of being Right. Right about politics, right about religion, right about social issues, right about who ought to rule. If you're right, you have the right, even obligation, to force it on others. No?
That's what the creation/evolution wars are about.
At the basis of it all it is about who gets to tell what to everyone else's children.
The solution is simple, almost trivial. Allow school choice and issue vouchers. Except that doing so means losing control over what is taught to everyone else's children.
Who opposes vouchers and school choice?
You're free to send your kids to private school, Synova. Oh, you can't afford it? Maybe you should work harder rather than ask the government to pay for it. There's some good conservative advice for you. But in any case, keep on fighting the tyranny of educational standards! I suspect you and those in your milieu find such bare minimums to be quite difficult to attain and thus quite oppressive.
"You can think what you want anytime and do what you want after the age of 16 regarding education. As the famous jurist, Judge Smalls said in Caddyshack, the world needs ditchdiggers too."
And before 16?
Before 16 you belong to the State? To the teacher's unions? To compulsory indoctrination? Or perhaps you're suggesting that it's only after 16 that people form their own opinions?
Truth... before 16 you think that it's right and good, on account of being right, to make sure to grab that opportunity to make sure kids learn what is right. Because it's right. And that using the government to do this is right. Compulsion for the sake of good.
And then you suggest that students taught differently end up digging ditches... an entirely unsupportable premise because there is no end to empirical evidence otherwise. There is no data supporting graduates of church schools as educationally stunted or limited to brawny labor rather than brainy labor.
If there was evidence, instead of just prejudice, we'd have it. There is none.
You can suspect anything you like. It just means you prefer your prejudices.
And that I can, could, and did buy my freedom and that of my children should upset you. Only the wealthy, well off, or those who can find a way, are privileged to raise their children apart from the state? What kind of attitude is that?
I'm more free than others in our society because I have money.
Isn't that glaringly, obviously, in-your-face *wrong*?
Amazing generalizations about teaching Other than the party line.
Rich people have more choices for goods than poor people. That's not wrong, that's the way the world works. It's also part of the incentive structure of capitalism. What, don't you like capitalism when it isn't something you can use as a rhetorical tool against those snobby liberals with their fancy degrees and arugula? In the end, it's all just rants and class resentment with you, Synova, which is predictable, though not adorable.
And as to the issue of schools, no, I'm not saying the state owns you until 16. I'm simply pointing out that there are some minimal standards that pass early in life. I'm also quite aware that people educated in private schools do well. I'm probably a lot more familiar with such schools than you are.
Keep on fighting those commie fascist truant officers, Synova!! Wolverines!
Rich people having more choices than poor people because they can afford different options is a separate matter than rich people being able to buy themselves out of legal obligations to the state.
There isn't any reason, accepting tax funded education of all children, that it has to be delivered through compulsory education in state run schools. It's just always been done that way. That's the sum-total of conservatism, isn't it? Keep with the way it's always been done?
But the way it's always been done creates a situation of winner takes all and the "all" is everyone else's children. But hearts are pure and motivations noble... doesn't make it less about control or more about freedom.
We end up as we are now, with struggles over who gets to have their way with textbooks that are uniform over half the nation. There's no diversity there, and who supposedly values diversity? We end up with California ranking the highest, getting an "A" in education... not because kids can read but because California teaches all the things that the people giving the score think they should... namely, evolution. Because the right ideas are more important than students who can succeed.
And I've always been on the libertarian side of control issues.
It doesn't bother me if rich people have more. It does bother me if what the rich have is freedom from the State and someone argues that there is not something fundamentally wrong with the fact that the poor do not have the means to purchase that liberty.
And I don't resent class, or even intellectuals, up to the point that someone thinks they know better than others what is good for them.
There is too much "I have the right to decide because I'm *right*" and that is as antithetical to liberty as the amazing notion that free speech only applies to what is not offensive speech. Until and unless someone has the freedom to be wrong, including teaching their children things that are wrong, they've got no freedom at all.
But if you're bound and never try to go past the length of your chains, why worry about being bound? So you're not free, but there's nothing you'd do different, so what does it matter? If you never want to speak in a way that offends, limits won't touch you so why care about the existence of limits? Police searches? Do you have something to hide?
Rich people (or anyone else) sending their kids to private school does not constitute buying their way out of a legal obligation. Either way, the kids are in school and private schools are another way of fulfilling the obligation to be in school up to a certain age. But otherwise, continue ranting.
Synova:
Your children belong to the state--unless you ransom them.
You are forced to pay to have them indoctrinated in whatever the gov't wants; if you want to have their education back, you pay twice.
Post a Comment