Seems pretty easy to find a problem with “God created life” just by asking “Is God alive?” As best I can tell, this leads to concluding:
A) There is an infinite regress of gods creating lesser gods; or
B) Life can indeed arise from something nonliving.
Forget trying to apply science, the concept stumbles when hit with basic logic.
Evolution is entirely different from abiogenesis. Evolution describes how life adapts and changes, generation after generation. Abiogenesis describes the beginning of life.
The account of Genesis in the bible has, in fact, been disproven, at least as much as such claims can possibly be disproven. There is overwhelming evidence that the world was not created in six days, and that modern life on Earth did not come about in the manner described in Genesis, and that the Earth is billions of years old.
“trendy justice warriors”
I was excited when I saw this thread existed, but unfortunately it’s mostly about people I don’t like (Peterson, Rubin) or have never heard of (Alexander). Ah well.
That’s interesting and more than a little surprising, but “two wrongs don’t make a right”.
You are perfectly entitled to disagree with Maddow on this point. I think you’re on shaky ground to do so, given all the evidence from the various indicted/convicted figures around Trump, his private convo with the Russian ambassador, his moves in Syria and Helsinki, and his many years of Russian entanglements as documented by Jonathan Chait. But you can certainly believe it’s all smoke and no fire. To dismiss it as prima facie lunacy? That’s not supportable, and I’m surprised no one has called you on it.
I’m as hardcore a materialist atheist as you will ever meet. But one of my best friends is a chemistry professor who is also a devout Christian and who does believe in creationism, albeit not of the “young Earth” variety. He often cites a book by Francis Collins, the head of the Human Genome Project, whose intelligence is beyond dispute. So although I personally struggle to understand it, it’s clear that very intelligent people do believe in creationism.
The most recent Joe Rogan podcast with Jonathan Haidt is pretty fascinating. He was explaining about how people are often playing different games, a debate game and a warfare game. One side will be trying to define terms to reach conclusions, and the other side is simply trying to define terms in a way that will maximize their advantage.
This was in the context of racial discussion, but it really popped out at me that this has become more and more a standard way that discussions are had in the age of Trump. I think discussion has always had this element of some people who are not really trying to debate information to reach a conclusion, but to “win”, but as someone who has discussed politics for years, it’s really blown up in the last few years.
Blah blah blah. They care about it when it’s someone else, so why not? They’re shit.
Relevant video:
[quote=“Jragon, post:147, topic:827193”]
Relevant video:
[/QUOTE]Obviously I don’t care for how it was framed as an exclusively right-wing phenomenon, but that wasn’t a terrible video.
I remember when the Papadopoulos plea deal dropped way back when, and after reading it, I argued that it didn’t actually show that it was an attempt to collude. That all it said in the plea deal was that he was offered stolen information in a legal meeting not set up for that purpose, lied to Mueller about when it was offered, and nothing else. Not that he accepted it, arranged to procure it, coordinate about it, nothing.
Oh the “controlling the conversations” that were had about that, let me tell you.
Well, there might be something as he said recently.
But speaking of controlling, the talk of “no collusion” ‘so this is nothing’, is used to control the narrative:
[QUOTE=John Oliver] But it is important to remember: Muller wasn't tasked with finding proof of collusion, the word collusion doesn't even appear in his appointment letter; in actuality he was tasked with looking into links and coordination between the Russian government and anyone associated with the Trump campaign as well as any matters that rose or may arise directly from the investigation.That’s a pretty broad mandate, so saying the investigation has to shut down if there’s no collusion is like saying a game of Scrabble has to end because you fit all the letters in your mouth… Well, congratulations! But those aren’t really the rules that we agreed to and that is far from the only diversionary tactic here…
[/QUOTE]
[quote=“GIGObuster, post:149, topic:827193”]
But speaking of controlling, the talk of “no collusion” ‘so this is nothing’, is used to control the narrative:
[/QUOTE]Well the people I was talking to were shouting from the rooftop that this was finally proof of collusion. I was rebutting that, simply explaining that it didn’t amount to that. I’m open to it, but this plea deal doesn’t detail that.
“He shouldn’t have even been at the meeting,” “It’s not normal to have these meetings,” “Where there’s smoke there’s fire,” these were the kinds of responses I received which were akin to the arguments skewered in your video.
I’m still open to it, and we’re all awaiting the report from Mueller, but no matter what, declaring that the Papadopoulos plea deal demonstrated proof of collusion was a false claim. And for the life of me I couldn’t get anyone to agree to that simple fact. Again, I just got the run around with the same kinds of tactics in your video. And it didn’t use to be this way. Something changed in political conversation, and I don’t know if I’m ready to blame Trump or point to Trump as a severe symptom.
Dacien, have you read this? What If Trump Has Been a Russian Asset Since 1987?
I have now. Weaves an interesting tale, and I was often accused in Trump-Russia discussions of focusing on missing the forest for the trees, explaining facts that while ultimately may be true, failed to take into account the broader picture. The first time I ever had any kind of tinge of doubt that this might actually be an elaborate conspiracy, the kind mocked in print and derided as fantasy, was when Mifsud disappeared. He simply disappeared, and only a close associate to this day says, “He’s fine,” a declaration to be treated with skepticism if there ever was one.
That’s why I await Mueller’s findings. I find the investigation to be endlessly fascinating and I loved talking about it, but I’m just an electrician with a political side-hobby. I don’t know a fraction of what’s known behind closed doors, particularly Mueller’s. So we’ll see.
I mean, he specifically said “everybody does this sometimes” and then goes on to mention that it’s just that the alt-right, in particular, has a tendency to use it as a primary mode of discourse.
“Exclusively” was an erroneous term. The video focuses it’s ire at the right wing as prime progenitors of the phenomenon.
The point was though that the talking point about collusion is really a tactic to undermine all other accusations, like when a desperado says that he did not shot the deputy when he actually shot the sheriff.
For many it works and keeps many stuck on the angle that Trump and others want to concentrate about because it is the angle where the spin is easy to make, it is less likely to get their supporters to pressure their senators to get rid of Trump if evidence is found for collution as escape hatches for Trump are already there. Not saying here that it will work in a court of law, the intention is to influence people into not demanding the obvious political solution on how to get rid of Trump. But declaring before hand that there is no crime for collution is a bit of a liefrom Trump and his minions.
[Snip]
IMHO it was the growth of FOX news, talk radio and now the internet that turns conspiracy theories into plausible narratives that results into confusing and dividing many.
That’s an odd example to use, given that the “desperado’s” primary defense was that he shot the sheriff in self defense.
Dave Rubin, a gay man, went on a Brazilian propaganda network to stump for Bolsonaro, who would rather kill gay people.
Discussion/warfare is not a good distinction in political conversations. If we come in with differing views, of course we’re going to be trying to convince the other that we are correct. That’s not two people trying to find the truth, but two people who are fighting against each others’ ideologies. This is normal, and has not changed.
I think the distinction they are trying to get at is more about honest and dishonest debate, using fair or unfair tactics. Hence the idea of defining words in a way to win an argument, rather than to simply find the definition. And, yes, this does happen.
On the left, you have the attempts to redefine racism to mean racism with power. There’s nothing inherently wrong with discussing racism with power, but you can’t make that into just the definition of racism. You have attempts to redefine whiteness to mean something like “racial defaultism” or “white normativity.” These are, again, legitimate concepts, but you can’t redefine things.
But the right does it, too. There are so many attempts to redefine racism to mean some sort of hatred, and to define away smaller aspects of racism. And then there’s the whole SJW, PC, virtue signaling, etc. The interesting thing is that the right will coin a term that seems to have a legitimate meaning.
Despite being a liberal myself, I much more often encounter the right wing version. I’m around left-wingers a lot more often, and even have political conversations with them, but I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve encountered this. But, whenever I see anyone making right wing claims, this stuff is all over it. All these redefined words.
And it is part and parcel of this “IDW.” Heck, I’ve heard this exact argument about discussion vs warfare used in this way, redefining what they are doing as discussion and what their opponents do as warfare. Because that’s what this movement is about. It’s not about intellectual honesty. That way was losing, so the alt-right started getting tricky.
I continue to encourage people to watch this “The Alt-Right Playbook” series on YouTube. These are the tactics we are up against by the IDW.
(And, note, he does say that none of this is exclusive to the alt-right, just that they use it a lot, and that other right wingers see it working and pick up on it.)
I just recently read about a gay couple who became Trump supporters because they called to talk to Chelsea Clinton and were told she was busy, but immediately got in talking to the Trump kids.
People in positions of privilege just don’t care. Rubin won’t be killed by Bolsonaro, so he doesn’t care. And that couple is rich enough that they think they can bribe themselves into good treatment.
Rubin sucks HARD, so I’m not terribly surprised. But how is that so different from a left winger like Glenn Greenwald, who is both gay and Jewish? Greenwald can always be counted on to scream “bigot” and “Islamophobe” at Sam Harris or anyone who criticizes Islam, despite the fact that he wouldn’t last a month (and that’s generous) in most predominantly Muslim countries, if he were open about his religion and sexuality? :dubious: