Richard Dawkins on Republicans

[ITR_champion]

@Wesley_Clark

Education doesn’t have to mean credentials, the article accuses them of ignorance and a lack of education. Which they do have, they are not educated about basic facts of biology irrelevant of their credentials. Uneducated seemed like a metaphor for uninformed rather than lacking credentials in that article.

And the GOP does want candidates who are uninformed when being informed means you don’t subscribe to party orthodoxy. Saying ‘the science supports evolution and climate change’ will count against you with many GOP voters who see evolution as undercutting their religion and climate change as a liberal conspiracy.

I already replied to this in my previous post.

[Locrian]

With Bachmann making the retarded comment about the earthquake and hurricane being a message from god to politicians in Washington, THEN claims she was only joking, makes Dawkins’ “study” more realistic, eh??

Only kidding? Guess her god was kidding on the 26 deaths.

Dawkins should include more bible influenced violence among the repubs in his follow up essasys.

[Frylock]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

No, it’s not, as you said, “bullshit”. It’s a well known scientific fact that all humans begin their lives at conception (this is really sixth grade biology and something known since the late 19th century).

How many lives begin when a conception occurs?

[Lobohan]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

No, it’s not, as you said, “bullshit”. It’s a well known scientific fact that all humans begin their lives at conception (this is really sixth grade biology and something known since the late 19th century). As it is, there was a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee report about 30 years ago on this very thing where both sides of the abortion debate were invited to bring forth witnesses to testify as to when [a human’s] life begins, with their only being one individual arguing human life doesn’t begin at conception.

Of course, that’s not really the point. The point I was making is that both parties are anti-intellectual when it suits them in order to win brownie points with their bases. Neither is better than the other. If it’ll garner them votes in an election, politicians will tell people what they want to hear. Let’s not pretend otherwise.

You’re misstating the issue.

It’s not life that matters. A braindead person can be alive, in that their metabolism is converting food to poop. What gives a person value is their mind.

A clump of cells doesn’t have a mind. It has no consciousness. It’s as empty and unthinking as a clam.

[Omg_a_Black_Conservative]

@Princhester

If you keep engaging OMG on his abortion thang this thread will derail. His “point” has been hashed over in (very) long threads before. Nothing except hijack will come of it.

Not really since, unlike some others, when I say my piece, I say piece and leave it at that. For every post afterwards, it just proves my initial point. Both parties are anti-intellectual when it suits them, and both will go to extreme lengths to try to prove they’re not.

(Unlike some others here, I don’t hold some kind of pretense of one party being smarter, more educated or just generally all-around “better” than the other.)

[Princhester]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

Not really since, unlike some others, when I say my piece, I say piece and leave it at that.

Right. So the long threads on abortion in which you actively participated for page after page of argument just don’t exist? You know this is a message board and we can look things up, don’t you? Do you really want to make me link?

[elucidator]

Post modernist irony. Subtle stuff.

[Onomatopoeia]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

Both parties are anti-intellectual when it suits them, and both will go to extreme lengths to try to prove they’re not.

Really? Republicans today seem to go out of their way to distance themselves from intellectuals. They use the terms intellectual and elite as insults. Not since William F Buckley have I heard a Republican embrace intellectualism and use it effectively against his or her opponent.

[Omg_a_Black_Conservative]

@Princhester

Right. So the long threads on abortion in which you actively participated for page after page of argument just don’t exist? You know this is a message board and we can look things up, don’t you? Do you really want to make me link?

Yes, really. I didn’t say they didn’t exist. I said I say my piece and leave it at that. I stay for as long as I have something to add to the topic. If it gets to the point where we’re just rehashing the same points, I leave, because then it’s just a waste of my time. But since you feel the need to do so, go and check those topics if you please and see who was the one to get “the last” word in. You’ll notice it’s not me

[Princhester]

Uhuh. Right. That’s what you meant when you said “when I say my piece, I say piece and leave it at that”. You just meant you let others have the last word at the end of a massive multipage thread in which you were an extremely active debate participant. I see. Sure. That certainly makes sense. Particularly in the context of my initial comment. Now excuse me, I have to go back through the looking glass. The real world is beckoning.