>> ^shinyblurry:

...snip...

Thank you for providing this example of your irrationality and intellectual dishonesty by, among other things, completely ignoring the counterpoints to the few studies I was able to get to.

There is a classic false argument of saying that being intolerant of intolerance is actually intolerance. If you want to classify my refusal to allow your intolerant claims to stand unabated in that manner, so be it. I do apologize that I didn't make myself more clear about not thinking you were a homophobe, but the simple fact is that I look at people's actions and speech instead of why they say they are doing something. Your actions of condemnation are the same end result and that is what I meant to draw the parallel too, but I had to leave for work and unfortunately didn't make that point clearly.

It irks me that you dismiss what I say as trying to undermine only part of your evidence. (To be more honest, I think that irksome feeling is more tied into your utter refusal to address those points of contention… which was expected, but still frustrating.) I didn't have enough time to go through all of your provided evidence. I had to leave for work soon and while writing is lovely, it is a laborious action for me - it takes a while for me to write anything surpassing cursory. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, is that I actually was reading and thinking about the studies. So while you were able to throw together quite a few apparently supporting studies for your viewpoint in an hour, I was much slower because I read those studies beyond the headline and skimming the abstract. Congratulations, you succeeded in becoming skillful on the quantity side... perhaps now it is time to focus on the quality side.

Please in the future, respond after reading/viewing any evidence provided. This is similar to all the comments I see here asking you to actually watch the video before announcing that (shock!) what you thought was right was still right because you saw something that you disagree with in the first couple of minutes. If you don’t have the evidence or that evidence is something is the hazy distance of memory, just leave a comment that you need to refresh your memory on those resources. I completely understand this situation as I voraciously and nomadically spelunk into various intellectual subjects. On a semi-regular basis and depending on the subject, I will have to re-find that research that I faintly remember. I know that my writing style can come off as hyper-aggressive and be a little off-putting (especially when coupled how people have responded to you here on videosift.) I can only speak for myself, but if your response to my initial comment said simple that you had read it in some research long ago, that was hazy, and you needed to find those sources – this conversation could have went a very different route.

Hah, lying is called tactical dishonesty. Nice.

>> ^Barseps:

Written article on this video.

Fairly? Media Research Center is pointing out liberal bias, aka plain old intellectual dishonesty.

In 2008, high gas prices were an easy way to blame Bush. The shills wouldn't DARE do it to the guy their one-sided reporting helped elect and covers for now.

Liberal "journalism" = agenda first, facts, distorted or not at all.

>> ^messenger:

Have you read those articles? They're not written fairly. They say things like, "[In 2008,] On gasoline specifically, reporters have routinely showed photos of extreme pump prices despite lower national averages." For that to be meaningful and show a media bias, it would have to be true that in 2012 reporters are NOT routinely showing photos of extreme pump prices, which of course they are, because it still makes a better photo to accompany the story. This is biased journalism.
Also, choosing the peak month of gas price reporting in 2008 and comparing it only with the most recent month of reporting isn't a fair comparison.
Finally, in 2008, it was a bigger story because price spikes were a relatively new thing, and it was still easy to scare people with horror stories of the world collapsing. But now we're used to them, and we know they drop off after a month or few, so it's just not as attractive to journalists any more.
In other words, those numbers may be accurate, but they don't represent that that article says they represent. Same goes for the handful of other articles I read there. They were all written with their agenda first, facts second, just like how Santorum selectively chooses his facts about College reducing faith.>> ^quantumushroom:
...here's all the liberal "news" bias you can eat.

>> ^aurens:

I was making no judgment of Sam Seder's accusation, nor did I ever call it baseless; >> ^aurens:
When you accuse someone of something as serious as racism, it's best to present, along with your claim, the facts that back up your claim. Sam Seder did not do this.

I didn't make a judgment about Sam Seder's accusation, I only made a judgment about Sam Seder's accusation.

>> ^aurens:
When you accuse someone of something as serious as racism, it's best to present, along with your claim, the facts that back up your claim. Sam Seder did not do this. In reposting his video without any additional information, you did not do this. That, to me, is worthy of criticism; it suggests a certain kind of opportunism which I find unhelpful on lots of levels.
...
I noticed a number of glaring inaccuracies and biases after the first few sentences, which I made aware to you in my next post. I suggested that the post was amateurish and, at a minimum, certainly not fact-checked. I've been waiting to find more reputable news sources reporting on this issue and as yet have found none.

>> ^aurens:

NetRunner, you're doing it again. "Disparage the poster"? "Attacking the messenger"? Suggesting that I called you "dishonest" and "slanderous"? I never accused you of dishonesty, nor did I accuse you of slander, nor have I "attacked" you. And I certainly don't think my comments were disparaging.

Definition of slander: "a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report"

I'm not accusing you of slander, I just think you're presenting a malicious, false, defamatory report.


Definition of disparage: "to bring reproach or discredit upon; lower the estimation of"

I'm not disparaging you, I'm just accusing you of slander, opportunism, and generally being unhelpful.

I'm not personally attacking you, I just was calling you out by name and saying your moral character leaves a lot to be desired.

>> ^NetRunner:

Sure [...]


"So to unpack that, you think Sam Seder is spreading a baseless accusation, and that I deserve to be scolded for repeating it by posting the video. My response was to ask why you were directing your ire at me personally, while giving you the additional details you ostensibly wanted."

Glad you cleared that up (and there's your first—and very telling—misinterpretation).

I was making no judgment of Sam Seder's accusation, nor did I ever call it baseless; I think it remains to be seen whether or not it has merit. I was, however, making a judgment of the *presentation* of his accusation. When you accuse someone of something as serious as racism, it's best to present, along with your claim, the facts that back up your claim. Sam Seder did not do this. In reposting his video without any additional information, you did not do this. That, to me, is worthy of criticism; it suggests a certain kind of opportunism which I find unhelpful on lots of levels.


I responded to the "lack of detail" comment by providing a link which includes the actual e-mail that Anonymous found.

Yes, and I noticed a number of glaring inaccuracies and biases after the first few sentences, which I made aware to you in my next post. I suggested that the post was amateurish and, at a minimum, certainly not fact-checked. I've been waiting to find more reputable news sources reporting on this issue and as yet have found none. One of the reasons, I assume, is that they're looking to confirm some of these accusations, the confirmation of sources being a foundation of trusted journalism.


IMPORTANT: NetRunner, you're doing it again. "Disparage the poster"? "Attacking the messenger"? Suggesting that I called you "dishonest" and "slanderous"? I never accused you of dishonesty, nor did I accuse you of slander, nor have I "attacked" you. And I certainly don't think my comments were disparaging.


It's hard to deal with people saying nasty things about your hero, but this whole strategy of attacking the messenger doesn't change anything.

Who said Ron Paul is my "hero"? I certainly haven't. This from one of my replies to dystopianfuturetoday:

"Ron Paul doesn't have me in some trance-like state of manipulation. I didn't vote for him in the last election, and I don't plan to vote for him this time around. There are *lots* of things about his platform that I outright disagree with, and there are a handful of things that I disagree with so fundamentally (his positions on abortion, climate change, evolution, his religiosity, among others) that I often question why I even bother keeping up with his politics. (The reason: because there are lots of his positions that I *do* agree with, in particular positions that no one else seems even to address.) But this whole racism thing really just peeves me. I mean, for magical Christ's sake, if he's a racist, and if he's in cahoots with white supremacists and Neo-Nazis, then I, more than anyone else, want to read some credible, vetted news stories on the matter, so I can put the issue to bed once and for all. But instead, I keep seeing videos like this one which purport, rather dramatically, so "expose" him in all his shameful glory ... only to be disappointed by the content of the video."

Hardly sounds like hero-worship to me.


Have you read the e-mail yet? Do you have an opinion on the evidence Anonymous uncovered?

I read some of them. In short, I'm skeptical when I see attribution tags like "Here Are Some Emails From Kelso Regarding Racists Working For Ron Paul’s Campaign" and "Here Is An Email From Someone In Ron Paul’s Campaign To Kelso." Who are these supposed campaign workers? How are they connected to Ron Paul? Are they low-level campaigners who work independently of him? Are they his trusted advisors? All of these things matter in the interpretation of this situation. As of now, I've seen no articles that provide enough context to the e-mails, or enough detail about the senders and recipients of the e-mails, to make a judgment one way or the other.

For clarification's sake, and for future reference, which part of my posts are you considering a "personal attack"? Was it this: "Great video, @NetRunner"? (Surely that's not an inappropriate level of sarcasm.) Or my explanation of why I take issue with your posting of an uninformative video (which many other people took issue with) under the title you chose to give it? Or something from another of my posts? Or maybe my use of a Ron Paul quote to call you, humorously, "overly sensitive"?

Sorry, but I don't see anything there that could be construed as a "personal attack." Please don't accuse me of something like that without adequate reason for doing so.>> ^NetRunner:

@aurens Your first problem was that you leveled a personal attack against me for posting a video you didn't like. I didn't make the video, and even the title comes from YouTube.
Your point about the video lacking details was legitimate, but the implicit accusation of dishonesty on my part wasn't. I did provide you with a link to more info so you'd have the sources that back this up, and hopefully get you to cool off a bit.
Your response? Repeating the personal attack, and dismissing the link.
I get it, it's hard when people say nasty things about your personal hero. But you really ought to think long and hard about what's going on with Ron Paul and white supremacists. Lashing out at the messengers doesn't make the problem go away, it's just a way of digging in and refusing to look at what's really bothering you.

@aurens Your first problem was that you leveled a personal attack against me for posting a video you didn't like. I didn't make the video, and even the title comes from YouTube.

Your point about the video lacking details was legitimate, but the implicit accusation of dishonesty on my part wasn't. I did provide you with a link to more info so you'd have the sources that back this up, and hopefully get you to cool off a bit.

Your response? Repeating the personal attack, and dismissing the link.

I get it, it's hard when people say nasty things about your personal hero. But you really ought to think long and hard about what's going on with Ron Paul and white supremacists. Lashing out at the messengers doesn't make the problem go away, it's just a way of digging in and refusing to look at what's really bothering you.

>> ^bmacs27:

What they're probably acting on is the positive correlation between dollars spent enforcing copyright, and profit per publication. Does that suffice for you?

I don't buy that either, the data on litigation shows that it cost more than it brings in.

If you could show that litigation produces less pirating, again the data a few years ago showed the inverse correlation, then you might have something, but I want to see the data.

The entire MP/RIAA PR campaign against "piracy" is based on their claim that they are loosing money, which has not only not been demonstrated, but in fact appears to be the opposite of what is happening.

Copyright has become a broken social convention, because the copyright conglomerates have sought to extend it indefinitely, and to use strong arm tactics and dishonesty to enforce their power grab.

I'm in favor of a sane copyright system, but if we don't have one I can't really blame anybody for ignoring it.

(This is part two as mentioned in my previous comment)

I’ve read and re-read your arguments over the weekend and for a portion of today. I’ve done a lot of research into what you’ve said and I found something particularly interesting which lead me to a significant question. “Where is all of this guy’s information coming from?”

So I did a little experiment. I did a Google search for all of the quotes that you’ve replied with and can you guess what I found? All of your arguments can be taken nearly verbatim or just reworded from creationist websites. Can you honestly expect anyone to believe that you’ve done your own research or read any real books on the subject of thermodynamics or biological evolution? How can you even take yourself seriously if you haven’t spent the time putting in the work to understand what the source material says for yourself?

The problem with your theory is, I have done the research, and I do know what the source material says. I understand the theory of evolution better than most atheists I have met. I use the quotations because they are hostile witnesses to my position which gives the argument even more force. It doesn't matter where I've gotten them from; that is irrelevent. The evidence I am presenting is what is relevent.

If someone has objections about the bible, would you take them seriously if you discovered that they hadn’t actually read it? No, of course not, so how can you expect to be taken seriously if you haven’t read the source material yourself? It’s just an attempt to try to discredit something that you haven’t actually studied yourself which I find to be a bit on the disingenuous side of things.

Most atheists I've spoken to who criticize the bible haven't actually read it. I've already told you my background so you don't have an argument. I have studied these things.

I know that you’re expecting this because every creationist website prepares creationists for this criticism but you’re idea of how thermodynamics works is entirely misinformed and you won’t know by how much until you do yourself a favor and listen to a course in thermodynamics or read a book on it. If you have iTunes, go to iTunes U and search for thermodynamics, spend 12 hours learning and then you’ll see that classical thermodynamics has nothing to say about biological systems. I suspect that you probably read a lot of articles from the Institute for Creation Research website.

You haven't offered any criticism of my position and you haven't demonstrated any actual knowledge of this subject, except that which is patently false. The laws of thermodynamics apply to everything, including biological systems. Evolutionists attempt to weasel out of that by declaring that they are 'open systems' and thus immune to entropy because of the energy from the sun, but as I showed this does nothing to show where information comes from, so you cannot explain it away.

I've read a lot of science textbooks, and a lot of scientific literature. When I was agnostic, I read volumes and volumes of it, and I stay abreast of the latest discoveries. Your accusations all ring hollow, especially considering you have failed to show you understand the subject on your own.

If that is the case and you do frequent ICR then here is something to think about: (Taken directly from the conclusion to their article “Does Entropy Contradict Evolution”)

“If science is to be based on fact and evidence, rather than metaphysical speculations, then entropy does not explain or support evolution at all. In fact, at least until someone can demonstrate some kind of naturalistic comprehensive biochemical predestinating code and a pre-existing array of energy storage-and-conversion mechanisms controlled by that code to generate increased organized complexity in nature, the entropy law seems to preclude evolution altogether. The marvelously complex universe is not left unexplained and enigmatically mysterious by this conclusion, however. It was created by the omnipotent and omniscient King of Creation! If evolutionists prefer not to believe this truth, they can make that choice, but all the real facts of science - especially the fundamental and universal law of entropy - support it.”

Let’s suppose for a moment that the majority of this article is correct and that the 2nd law does indeed contradict evolution. This final conclusion from the article does something very interesting. It jumps from saying that evolution cannot have happened because it violates the 2nd law to it was created by a god. How the heck are they coming up with that conclusion!? By what evidence can they make that leap let alone make the claim that the creator is both omnipotent AND omniscient? This is my problem with how you are arguing; you are doing the same thing. You are suggesting that the math doesn’t add up and that your answer is better but you aren’t providing the math to suggest why your answer is better; you’re just telling us that it’s the answer.

What you're doing is using a logical fallacy known as a strawman argument. You're absolutely right, that is a terrible argument. That isn't the type of argument I have made. When I brought up thermodynamics, I was responding to this comment:

"The notion of design is for people who cannot understand what it means for systems to assemble from the bottom-up because, to them, it makes more intuitive sense that things are designed from the top down. This is not critical thinking and it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the findings of science."

I showed it was your position that was betraying a fundamental misunderstanding of the findings of science. My argument was rational, well founded, and based on solid evidence, yet you have taken the low road of trying to assasinate my character, or outright say that I don't actually know what I am talking about. Again, it is you who have failed to adaquately demonstrate knowledge of the subject matter. Instead of addressing my argument, you have made the argument about me, as you have admitted to, and that is what is dishonest here.

Whether or not you resonate with that that snippet from their article or not, it illustrates how egger some people are to praise some scientific findings when those findings don’t contradict their beliefs and in the same breath, criticizes other scientific findings which do contradict their beliefs. If you encounter something that seems to contradict what you already believe to be true, it is wise to question whether what you believe to be true is actually true rather than searching for information that confirms what you believe.

It's called confirmation bias. A good example of this is looking at the question of the origin of life and believing it must have evolved despite having no actual evidence that it did.

The thing is that I know that you’re going to say that “science” has an agenda, and it does, but not like you think it does and you’ll never understand that agenda until you actually study it for yourself. You believe that it’s all about disproving god, or maintaining naturalism but it’s not.

Science is an institution run by individuals with individual beliefs and goals. Over 40 percent of biologists, astronomers and mathematicians believe in God. Belief in God is not incompatible with doing good science, nor is science in and of itself something bad. There is however a concerted effort, on the part of evolutionists, to push their version of origins on the rest of us, and they have often used legal means to do so. Evolution is pushed on the public like it is a proven fact and it is not.

You are arguing against a set of misunderstandings that you hold about what you believe the science is saying. Everything that you think you know about these matters is either a straw man, a red-haring or blatant misinformation. It would be very hard to impress on you how exactly that is true without you being educated on the source material. This is why we cannot have a conversation regarding these issues. You will just need to start reading the source material instead of going to interpretive websites; its far more interesting that way anyway.

What you're doing is jumping to a bunch of unfounded conclusions and drawing extremely weak inferences about what I have or haven't done, and then extrapolating that to a bunch of highly prejudiced judgements against me personally, and doing so in a haughty way, as if you are talking to a child. You have completely failed to include anything of substance in this reply. It is all just a sad attempt to write me off without actually addressing any of my arguments. Until you actually address the meat of my reply with a point by point refutation, this entire reply can be chopped up to one gigantic ad hom.

I am sorry to say that I find a degree of intellectual dishonesty in your method of arguing against these ideas by primarily pulling information and quotes from these sources without having done the work yourself. You are representing yourself as personally knowledgeable about the subject when you are doing nothing more than copy and pasting in quotes to support you. Besides this being a type of an argument from authority, it shows to me that you have no regard for the context in which the original quote was written. That is the definition of cherry picking and to me; it makes me think that you are more interested in maintaining your beliefs than being honestly interested in expanding your knowledge.

Or you have completely mischaracterized me, as I have demonstrated. Again, you want so badly for this to be about me. Even if I was doing everything you said I am doing, my arguments, if they were accurate, would still stand. You haven't moved one inch closer to disproving anything I've said. It doesn't matter where I've gotten the information, what matters is if it is correct or not. Regardless, I do understand the subject matter, and demonstrably better than you do thus far.

I don’t expect to change your mind. You seem deeply rooted in creationism and as you’ve said, you believe in the biblical god and that you feel that your life was transformed by him. That is a very powerful feeling, one that is very hard to overcome because it is something personal that you probably relate to. Perhaps you feel that your stability rests on the idea that a god exists and that your view of that god must be the correct one based on your personal experiences; I don’t know. I have nothing more to say other than to suggest that you read the source material so that way you can at least honestly say that you know what you’re talking about.

You aren't going to change anyones mind with this low grade excuse for an argument. This isn't about me, it's about the evidence. You say my evidence is invalid because I don't understand the subject matter, which is fallacious. The evidence is valid whether I understand it or not. However, I do understand it, and the problem here is you have no basis to criticize me because you're the one who hasn't demonstrated any understanding. You have even demonstrated the wrong understanding. However, the difference between you and I is that I will give you enough credit to assume you are a reasonably intelligent person who isn't just pretending to understand it. I am still waiting for you to prove it, however. Your attempt to make this argument about me has failed, because I have shown all of your claims about me to be false, and it is logically fallacious in the first place. If you want to continue, address my arguments directly and prove you actually know something. If my arguments are incorrect, feel free to show me why, at any time.


>> ^IAmTheBlurr:

@Diogenes, by "whitewash" I mean he's trying to make ugly antipathy towards blacks look like altruistic behavior towards blacks through dishonesty.

And while I largely agree with longde, I do have to point out that a big part of the proper context is that Newt was asked about the criticism he's receiving for saying:

"I’m prepared if the NAACP invites me, I’ll go to their convention and talk about why the African American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps."

Newt then translates this into being attacked for "citing statistics," which is total hogwash. Specifically, hogwash that he's using to whitewash what he'd really said.

And I'll gladly cop to saying hyperbolic-sounding things, but that's because we're in a situation where outright insanity and hatred from a Presidential candidate gets them a standing ovation from the crowd, and most people think there's nothing to be concerned about.

Oh, and @bobknight33, it's racist to pretend that the NAACP (and black voters generally) are only demanding food stamps, and hadn't even considered the idea of demanding jobs.

Visit the NAACP website, you tell me, does it look like they're just looking for government handouts?

In case you're curious, here's what the NAACP said in response to Newt.

(This is part two as mentioned in my previous comment)

I’ve read and re-read your arguments over the weekend and for a portion of today. I’ve done a lot of research into what you’ve said and I found something particularly interesting which lead me to a significant question. “Where is all of this guy’s information coming from?”

So I did a little experiment. I did a Google search for all of the quotes that you’ve replied with and can you guess what I found? All of your arguments can be taken nearly verbatim or just reworded from creationist websites. Can you honestly expect anyone to believe that you’ve done your own research or read any real books on the subject of thermodynamics or biological evolution? How can you even take yourself seriously if you haven’t spent the time putting in the work to understand what the source material says for yourself?

If someone has objections about the bible, would you take them seriously if you discovered that they hadn’t actually read it? No, of course not, so how can you expect to be taken seriously if you haven’t read the source material yourself? It’s just an attempt to try to discredit something that you haven’t actually studied yourself which I find to be a bit on the disingenuous side of things.

I know that you’re expecting this because every creationist website prepares creationists for this criticism but you’re idea of how thermodynamics works is entirely misinformed and you won’t know by how much until you do yourself a favor and listen to a course in thermodynamics or read a book on it. If you have iTunes, go to iTunes U and search for thermodynamics, spend 12 hours learning and then you’ll see that classical thermodynamics has nothing to say about biological systems. I suspect that you probably read a lot of articles from the Institute for Creation Research website.

If that is the case and you do frequent ICR then here is something to think about: (Taken directly from the conclusion to their article “Does Entropy Contradict Evolution”)

“If science is to be based on fact and evidence, rather than metaphysical speculations, then entropy does not explain or support evolution at all. In fact, at least until someone can demonstrate some kind of naturalistic comprehensive biochemical predestinating code and a pre-existing array of energy storage-and-conversion mechanisms controlled by that code to generate increased organized complexity in nature, the entropy law seems to preclude evolution altogether. The marvelously complex universe is not left unexplained and enigmatically mysterious by this conclusion, however. It was created by the omnipotent and omniscient King of Creation! If evolutionists prefer not to believe this truth, they can make that choice, but all the real facts of science - especially the fundamental and universal law of entropy - support it.”

Let’s suppose for a moment that the majority of this article is correct and that the 2nd law does indeed contradict evolution. This final conclusion from the article does something very interesting. It jumps from saying that evolution cannot have happened because it violates the 2nd law to it was created by a god. How the heck are they coming up with that conclusion!? By what evidence can they make that leap let alone make the claim that the creator is both omnipotent AND omniscient? This is my problem with how you are arguing; you are doing the same thing. You are suggesting that the math doesn’t add up and that your answer is better but you aren’t providing the math to suggest why your answer is better; you’re just telling us that it’s the answer.

Whether or not you resonate with that that snippet from their article or not, it illustrates how egger some people are to praise some scientific findings when those findings don’t contradict their beliefs and in the same breath, criticizes other scientific findings which do contradict their beliefs. If you encounter something that seems to contradict what you already believe to be true, it is wise to question whether what you believe to be true is actually true rather than searching for information that confirms what you believe.

The thing is that I know that you’re going to say that “science” has an agenda, and it does, but not like you think it does and you’ll never understand that agenda until you actually study it for yourself. You believe that it’s all about disproving god, or maintaining naturalism but it’s not.

You are arguing against a set of misunderstandings that you hold about what you believe the science is saying. Everything that you think you know about these matters is either a straw man, a red-haring or blatant misinformation. It would be very hard to impress on you how exactly that is true without you being educated on the source material. This is why we cannot have a conversation regarding these issues. You will just need to start reading the source material instead of going to interpretive websites; its far more interesting that way anyway.

I am sorry to say that I find a degree of intellectual dishonesty in your method of arguing against these ideas by primarily pulling information and quotes from these sources without having done the work yourself. You are representing yourself as personally knowledgeable about the subject when you are doing nothing more than copy and pasting in quotes to support you. Besides this being a type of an argument from authority, it shows to me that you have no regard for the context in which the original quote was written. That is the definition of cherry picking and to me; it makes me think that you are more interested in maintaining your beliefs than being honestly interested in expanding your knowledge.

I don’t expect to change your mind. You seem deeply rooted in creationism and as you’ve said, you believe in the biblical god and that you feel that your life was transformed by him. That is a very powerful feeling, one that is very hard to overcome because it is something personal that you probably relate to. Perhaps you feel that your stability rests on the idea that a god exists and that your view of that god must be the correct one based on your personal experiences; I don’t know. I have nothing more to say other than to suggest that you read the source material so that way you can at least honestly say that you know what you’re talking about.

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^vaire2ube:

Dr. Paul has the brains and dedication to become a physician, and the drive to become a statesmen.


He has the brains to become a physician, and the intelectual dishonesty to refuse evolution as scientific fact. I wouldn't let a doctor like that prescribe me aspirins.

@dystopianfuturetoday I respect this guy too, he's definitely a heavyweight in the field, that's why this threw me back so much. I would argue that Harris and Hitchens were merely attacking the faith of the Muslims as much as they attack the faith at home. Faith being so ingrained in the Muslim community I can see how this would be racist in a sense, it almost has to be. To say they are religious illiterates though... that smacks of saying they're illiterate only because they refuse to drink the kool-aid.
As far as Hitchens being a neocon, if he is an old school neocon a la Wolfowitz, I could kinda see why though I still don't like it. Since then the neocon doctrine was highjacked by the Bush administration and now is far less palatable obviously.

Edit: I also believe that no one of Hedges intellect can defend religion without 'vehement dishonesty'.

"You have figure like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris who are religious illiterates and bigots whose right wing policies do not differ in any way from the christian fundamentalists they attack. They're all chanting for war in the middle east and demonizing muslims in the name of western civilization rather than in the name of satan."

Wow... not sure what to say here.

Edit:
Just learned that Hedges is the only person that Sam Harris will no longer speak to or shake hands with, because of his vehement dishonesty and hatred for those who possess a difference of opinion. Again wow.

@quantumushroom If facts are so important to you, then why is it that you never employ them while making implausible comments like liberalism causes black people to have babies out of wedlock, or that gays don't want equal marriage rights, or that California is broke because of liberalism.

You proudly admit to getting your media from questionable, corporate funded sources that a) carry no credibility outside of hardcore sympathetic ideologues, and b) have been shown to be less effective at keeping you informed than no media at all. This should be a big red flag.

http://www.good.is/post/poll-finds-fox-news-is-worse-than-no-news-at-all/

Beyond all this, you support a political ideology that has been on the wrong side of history, from slavery to women's rights to civil rights, to labor rights, and continuing with campaigns against gays, Muslims and Mexicans, as well as a continuation of the prejudices of old.

Do you ever wonder how regular German citizens got sucked into supporting fascism? Well wonder no more.

Let's take a look at the 14 defining characteristics of fascism and see how you do....

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

CHECK

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

CHECK

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

CHECK

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread
domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

CHECK

5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

CHECK

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

CHECK

7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

CHECK

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

CHECK

9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

CHECK

10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

CHECK

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

CHECK

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

CHECK

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

CHECK

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

I've seen nothing to suggest you support fraudulent elections.

13 out of 14. NOT GOOD DUDE. NOT GOOD AT ALL. You are free to dispute which ever ones you like, but you've got years of incriminating comments on this site to back this up.

But of course if you could see it, then the Germans would have been able to see it too, and we wouldn't have had to fight that war.



In reply to this comment by quantumushroom:
My problem is only with intellectual dishonesty, whether it's via curable ignorance or deliberate deception is almost irrelevant.

I've been where you are now politically, only LONG ago. I worked my way UP from liberalism, wiped the slate clean with anarchism, aimed toward libertarianism and am now floating in the undefined, invisible world of 'conservatarianism'. I do not agree with liberal policies based on liberals' good intentions. As a taxpayer and citizen, I demand positive RESULTS, and anyone foisting social experiments on society better be ready to defend them when they fail. Do you know the stats on Black crime and births out of wedlock? "Racism" did not cause a 70% illegitimacy rate in the Black community, LIBERALISM did. Crazy Johnson's "Great Society" garbage. The results of holding Blacks to lower standards--including standards of behavior--is self-evident.

There is even a fair argument for gay marriage, but the gay "lifestyle" generally is a sad one, with rampant promiscuity and diseases. It's not established that most gays even want legal marriage. And though no one else cares to acknowledge it, AIDS is a behaviorally spread disease. Remember that the billions politically steered towards AIDS research could also have been spent on cancer research, and cancer affects FAR more people.

California is broke. It got that way due to liberalism. RESULTS. Not good intentions, RESULTS.

You have a right to your opinions, but no one has the right to their own facts. If I had to judge you, I would say you're highly intelligent but misguided, not because your political views don't mirror mine, but because you refuse to step back and view the entire picture.


>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

The bottom line is that your problem with gays, blacks and other minorities is just that: your problem. It's not their fault that they have ended up on the wrong side of your emotional development. It's something you need to come to terms with on your own.