Jesus was a Liberal
- Thread starter Serryah
- Start date
You mean we really are made in the image of God and can do god stuff like create? The musty 3500 year old book was right after all? Huh! Who knew?
Uh, no, no confusion at all.
Seen plenty of non-holy roller conservatives freak out when science has pushed past "their beliefs on science".
Like what? Arent lefties supposed to be dead by now from climate change?
Science, or lefty dogma?
There is also the problem that science is almost never settled. Often everyone has difficulty believing what they have been told for decades is all of a sudden wrong.
I think that’s a perspective thing. Humans tend to reject guidance/knowledge that goes against their “belief system” or first hand experiences, etc…both ‘right’ & ‘left’ politically leaning.
The ‘right’ will see it more as a ‘left trait’ & the ‘left’ will see it more as a ‘right trait’ but it’s a human trait. Your statement of:
…just shows where you perceive yourself on the political spectrum I believe.
Personally, I think the more interesting part of this (which could also be a perspective thing) is debate (or the dismissal there of) on a political (or religious…two different but sometimes intersecting things) basis of scientific conclusions…knowing that science is a culture of doubt itself and is suppose to be questioned in a constant testing of theories to obtained evidence, or newly obtained (or observed) evidence.
Take OOPArt (Out Of Place Artifacts) for example. If the science says they shouldn’t exist, but they do….is the artifact wrong (?) or does the current scientific theory need to be re-examined? “Dogs & Foxes can’t possibly mate….except here’s one” doesn’t make that critter not exist, but does create a position for scientific theory to be re-examined.
Yeah, what he said.
.Regardless of their political or religious (or lack there of) leanings. Dogma can become entrenched for many reasons beyond political or religious leanings too, like social acceptance or financial motivation among a myriad of other motivating factors.
We are going to have to change the whole right/left thing. Traditionally, left wing has meant socialist, but there are many on what we call left that are far closer to fascist than socialist. I'm thinking of the globull warming truthers, maskers, and the race baiters, that are demanding criminal sanctions for anyone questioning their version of truth.
You asked if I was confusing right wing with the holy rollers.
Only confusion seems to come from you.
If only the right wingers would get that.
True nuff
Again, likely true.
Depends on a few things I think, regarding the art. Questions like exactly where was it found, the condition it was in, the dating of the artifact in relation to where it was found... that kind'a thing.
There has been instances of artifacts being moved to try and "Prove X is true". It's harder to do now, but it does still happen.
In the case of the dog/fox, the assumption that they couldn't mate was because they have been believed to be different species. Dog and fox Chromosomes don't match up and though both are still from the canine tree, they split apart millions of years ago. That there is now proof of a dog/fox hybred, means the science does need to be looked at and re-evaluated.
Yeah, what he said.
Regardless of their political or religious (or lack there of) leanings. Dogma can become entrenched for many reasons beyond political or religious leanings too, like social acceptance or financial motivation among a myriad of other motivating factors.
True.
If someone is so far 'left' that they've gone from socialist to fascist, that's not a change in a position on the left, that's the person changing TOTALLY from the left to the right side of the spectrum.
Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words
The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!
www.dictionary.com
I mean, even the Germans during the 30's knew fascism was not socialism. The Nazi's were dead against the Socialists.
The problem is people aren't educated on what any of these means anymore. IMO it's one reason I think political science needs to be taught in high school, so kids learn what socialism, fascism, authoritarianism, totalitarianism and all the other 'isms' means.
You think they're what, fascists or socialists?
Or as an example or this, as opposed to seeking a label:
Or this:
Opinion: Criminalizing climate change dissent an abuse of power | Juneau Empire
What issues matter the most to you this election?If you’re like most Americans, climate change either isn’t on the list or it comes in last. And that
Criminalizing Climate Change Denial - NeuroLogica Blog
Here is a non-controversial topic - some attorneys general in the US are exploring the idea of criminal charges against certain climate change deniers. This round of the climate debate was triggered by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman who issued a subpoena to ExxonMobil for financial...
theness.com
…& I was considering the Fox/Dog Hybrid as an OOPArt itself….not necessarily just archeological discoveries that don’t fit the accepted academic dogma.
Like this:
Critter being the Fox-Dog thing…that exists.
…but not if it’s illegal to question the dogma. I “think” that’s where Taxslave2 was going…
Scientists tend to say "incomplete" rather than "wrong," but your point is well taken, it amounts to the same thing in any practical sense. Only the trivial can be considered settled, but what's trivial changes over time too. It's now considered trivially true that Earth orbits the sun, for instance, but it's not really very long ago that that was a highly controversial claim. Science is ultimately self-correcting, but it might take a long time, as a human enterprise science suffers from all the same weaknesses any human enterprise does: ego, received wisdom, authority, dogma, vested interests, fashion, etc. Isaac Asimov once wrote something to the effect that people once thought the world was flat, then they thought it was a sphere, both are wrong, but anyone who thinks the latter idea is just as wrong as the former is more wrong than both. Some philosopher of science (Thomas Kuhn I think it was) once observed that new scientific theories don't so much supplant old ones, what he called a paradigm shift, as that the old guard dies off and is replaced by younger folks who grew up with the new ideas. Einstein, for instance, never accepted quantum mechanics and put much effort into trying to find holes in it, to no avail. That's perfectly legitimate scientific activity, it's a culture of doubt as Ron remarked, but a lot of people have trouble thinking that way, they want an answer, and sometimes any answer seems better than no answer, while the scientific attitude is okay with not knowing something, it gives scientists something to do and justifies continuing the enterprise. I think it was Richard Feynman who once said that he'd rather not know than believe something that isn't true.
And on the dog-fox hybrid thing, we should just be aware that the taxonomy that puts dogs and foxes into different species, and thus they should be incapable of breeding with each other (that's pretty much the definition of a species), are merely categories imposed on nature by humans as an aid to understanding and classification, not hard distinctions imposed by nature itself, which is a good deal more fluid than that. If we go far enough back in our own family trees eventually we'll get to creatures we could not breed with, but where that line actually is cannot really be specified with any precision, nature doesn't draw sharp boundaries like that. All it really means is that there's more to find out about genetics and reproduction and evolution, which would gladden any scientist, more to find out is what they live for.
Some of them, aye, they sure as shit act 'fascist', or at least authoritarian.
But behind a socialist fog? Can't be that good a fog if it's recognizable.
Sure, socialism is supposed to be about common good, equality among people and no classes.
Which is why China, Cuba, North Korea and Russia are not "Socialist" countries, or even communist. They're Fascist or Authoritarian Dictatorships.
As for your "the globull warming truthers, maskers, and the race baiters, that are demanding criminal sanctions for anyone questioning their version of truth." you do have proof, I suppose, that these people are taking over and making it a criminal offence to question theories or positions on a subject? Last I checked, you can still deny global warming, still refuse masks and, well... the race thing is complicated. You'd have to clarify what you mean by race baiters.
Sure, just as crazy wackadoo...
None of those types are socialists though.
Like Bills C-10 (now called C-11) and Bill C-18 (Trudeau’s Big Daddy decides what’s misinformation or cisinformation or disinformation and can censor accordingly Bill). Proof like those (?) or the push to even question that Residential Schools Mass Unmarked Graves becoming a criminal offence push (?) or something else?
Yes, currently, that’s still the way it is. Bill C-11 passed April 27th, 2023 and it’s coming. Bill C-18 isn’t in effect yet, but the “within 180 days of June 22nd, 2023” clock is already ticking.
Damn sneaky bastard Right Wingers & their Right Winginess with those censorship bills. They’re even framing it so it looks like the left wingers are bringing these down on Canadians, ‘cuz choices…& political winginess’s (plural?).
Well first off I'd say that despite the bills, there's nothing to prevent another Government for amending the amendments, which a fascist government wouldn't do.
As for the bills themselves. C18 isn't a censorship bill, unless you want to side with the big tech companies who are whiney bitches about paying news places for news. Now, personally, I don't like it, nor do I like the retaliation for the bill passing, as it lets out even less info than before, but calling it a censorship/misinformation/disinformation bill is a stretch.
" The definition of what counts as a news business according to the legislation is an “individual or entity that operates a news outlet in Canada,” and a news outlet is any entity whose “primary purpose is to produce news content.”
The legislation states that news businesses are considered eligible as long as they fall under certain requirements, including:
- producing news content of “public interest”;
- employing two or more journalists in Canada;
- operating in Canada; and
- following the code of ethics of a recognized journalistic association or its own code of ethics that aligns with journalistic integrity.
An eligible news business also must produce news content “that is not primarily focused on a particular topic such as industry-specific news, sports, recreation, arts, lifestyle or entertainment,” according to Bill C-18, suggesting that lifestyle magazines and similar publications may not be affected by Google and Meta blocks."
Seems to me that people who play in misinformation/disinformation can still put their shit out there, just big tech companies now have to pay for it or work something out to get that content on the platform.
Again, not totalitarian.
As for C-11:
I don't like C-11 for the potential harm it could do, regardless of the "It won't..." assurances.
But like C-18, there's nothing that says it's now a criminal offence to question theories or positions on the subject. You obviously dislike both bills. I have issues with C-18, yet here we are, discussing opposition to them, and so far no cops have come to arrest me.
As for the Residential School Mass Grave issue, I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean questioning that they exist under the schools and no one knew, or just questioning that it happened at all?
Because the later is definitely worthy of a... not so good response that I won't say, and the former is close to the same answer.
But until you clarify what you mean, I won't comment on it beyond that.
It is.
And if the Cons or someone else get in the Fed Government do you think they'll remove both bills/amend them to make them limper than Blackie's dick? Or do you think they'll keep them in because of "reasons"? If the former, then you've nothing to complain about. If it's the later, then apparently people didn't give a shit enough to vote people in to change it.
... are you okay there Ron? You're talkin' nonsense that has nothing to do with the point made to Tax.