Do right-wingers want to make us more stupid?

96 posts / 0 new

Thu, 2006-04-20 02:27

Sven

quote:

Originally posted by jester:
[b]This sneering condescension of a large part of Canadian society goes a long ways in explaining why leftists are not taken seriously-why they are always( to their amazement)on the outside looking in.[/b]

Progressive thinking has been the root of much good, jester. For example, the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s was established, not by conservatives who fought it every step of the way, but by "progressives". There are countless examples of "progressive" ideas that were, at the time, rejected by status quo conservatives. That is no doubt the case with many "progressive" ideas being debated today.

And, I think the condescending "sneering" is often from both sides of the political spectrum.

Thu, 2006-04-20 02:30

#53

Sven

quote:

Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]I have met and talked and corresponded with hundreds of atheists, and I have never met one who claims to be able to prove that God does not exist.[/b]

That is quite right. The burden of proof is on those who positively claim the existence of God. I don't think one can prove a negative (but I'm no logician so I can't say that with any certainty).

Thu, 2006-04-20 02:40

#54

Sven

On the other hand, No Yards, if someone claims that there are translucent green beings who walk about only in places and at times when no one will see them while they listen to Johnny Cash music on their portable "music machines" and eat raw hot peppers, would you say that the person who strongly believes that such beings don't exist is on shakier grounds, logically, than a person who simply says, "I don't know--they might or they might not exist"?

Thu, 2006-04-20 02:40

#55

Papal Bull

The only proofs are negatives when pertaining to God. Thank you Mediaeval philosophy!

Thu, 2006-04-20 02:45

#56

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

quote:

Originally posted by Sven:
[b]I suppose in the sense that an athiest believes that God does not exist. It is, perhaps, [i]that[/i] belief that is held dogmatically?[/b]

What does "dogmatically" mean? If all beliefs are dogmas then the word loses its meaning.

I believe that God does not exist, because the evidence for its existence is insufficient, and I refuse to accept its existence on the basis of faith alone. If anyone can come up with convincing proof I will become a believer in God. Same goes for Bigfoot, Cadborosaurus, leprechauns, the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Jolly Green Giant, Zeus, and Vishnu. Is that being dogmatic?

Thu, 2006-04-20 02:49

#57

Sven

quote:

Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]Is that being dogmatic?[/b]

From my perspective, no. I'm an agnostic but if I [i]had[/i] to choose either "God exists" or "God does not exist", I would choose the latter for the very reasons you noted (i.e., no evidence of God's existence and lots of evidence that God doesn't exist (at least not a benevolent, loving God).

Thu, 2006-04-20 10:26

#58

No Yards

quote:

Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]What does "dogmatically" mean? If all beliefs are dogmas then the word loses its meaning.
I believe that God does not exist, because the evidence for its existence is insufficient, and I refuse to accept its existence on the basis of faith alone. If anyone can come up with convincing proof I will become a believer in God. Same goes for Bigfoot, Cadborosaurus, leprechauns, the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Jolly Green Giant, Zeus, and Vishnu. Is that being dogmatic?[/b]

Refusing to accept, and believing that they don't exist, are two different things. If you're going to try and fight to keep the meaning of "dogma" relevant, then please let's give the same respect to the meaning of atheist and agnostic shall we?

Refusing to accept is "agnostic", believing in the nonexistence is "atheistic". "Strong" and "weak" when referring to Atheism means about the same as being a "strong" or "weak" theist ... it speaks more about the person than it does the "belief".

If "refusing to accept", or "not believing because there is not sufficient proof to entice your belief" is "Atheist, then what do you consider "Agnostic"? Seems to me you've discounted the meaning of that word altogether.

Thu, 2006-04-20 10:45

#59

Sanityatlast

The word agnostic implies two diverse concepts in our culture. One is that there may be 'something' out there...an enigmatic force or existence that has some influence over the Universe, etc.

The second concept is leaving the door open for the existence of established mythological beings like Jesus, Alah, wood spirits and so on to exist.

In my earlier days I would have considerd myself an agnostic of the first type (above). To others, however, I would have called myelf and atheist because folks often think by 'agnostic' one means unsure about the existence of Jesus, Alah, etc. The door is 'open'. When, in fact, from the age of 10, I dismissed Jesus as a god with no more of a reality than Caspar the Ghost.

Today I'm a solid atheist. I see no evidence of any existence outside of the physical properties of matter and energy.

Thu, 2006-04-20 12:17

#60

No Yards

quote:

Today I'm a solid atheist. I see no evidence of any existence outside of the physical properties of matter and energy.

So you don't believe love exists, right?

Thu, 2006-04-20 13:40

#61

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

quote:

Originally posted by No Yards:
[b]Refusing to accept, and believing that they don't exist, are two different things.[/b]

If I refuse to accept the existence of something, how is that not equivalent to believing (at least provisionally, and without purporting to be able to prove a negative) that it does not exist?

It's not I who am violating the laws of logic, but rather people who claim to be "agnostics", who agree they have no basis for believing in God, but who refuse to draw the obvious conclusion (or, if you don't like the word "conclusion", how about "operating assumption") that there is no God.

I think the distinction between agnosticism and atheism is a false one, invented to save some people from having to actually confront the fact of their own disbelief in God.

Thu, 2006-04-20 14:11

#62

Sanityatlast

quote:

Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]If I refuse to accept the existence of something, how is that not equivalent to believing (at least provisionally, and without purporting to be able to prove a negative) that it does not exist?
It's not I who am violating the laws of logic, but rather people who claim to be "agnostics", who agree they have no basis for believing in God, but who refuse to draw the obvious conclusion (or, if you don't like the word "conclusion", how about "operating assumption") that there is no God.
I think the distinction between agnosticism and atheism is a false one, invented to save some people from having to actually confront the fact of their own disbelief in God.[/b]

True. Most of us grew up in a European-white-Christian culture and 'believing' is as much in our blood as Hockey Night in Canada. We all 'want' to believe that whatever team scores a goal has meaning to it but when we step back we can laugh that it's still a bunch of grown men chasing a chunk of rubber around the ice. Easier to get caught up in the emotion of the game as it's easier to 'cling to' some thread of supernatural power 'out there'.

Thu, 2006-04-20 14:22

#63

Papal Bull

So, the horse died about 10 posts ago.

M. Spector, Sanityatlast...Why did you keep beating it?

Thu, 2006-04-20 14:24

#64

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

I think that last post should be addressed to No Yards.

Thu, 2006-04-20 14:38

#65

No Yards

I see, so then let's take a real example from science shall we.

In science, when you shine a light through two relatively closely placed slots, the light pattern that fall on a screen on the other side of those slots shows an interference pattern (ie. some brighter and darker areas where the two separate sources of light coming through the slots cross over each other and defending upon where and how they meet, some areas show a strengthening effect, and some areas shown a cancelling effect. So if both slots are open and you shine your light through these slots, they show this effect, if you close off one of these slots, then the light shows an expected dispersal pattern, brighter in the middle, darkening as you move outwards.

Now, when you take the same two slots and shoot single photons (single discrete "packets" of light "particles") through one of those those slots, a strange thing happens ... since there is only one particle being passed though one slot at one time, one would assume it whether the other slot covered or not would have no effect on the single photons gong through the other un opened slot ... but strangely enough it does make a difference ... if the slot is opened, then the single photons are more likely to hit in the areas where a wave would have predicted a strengthening effect, and less likely to hit in areas where a wave would have shown a cancellation effect ... when the second slot is closed, the photons strike in a pattern showing reflecting the probability shown by a wave of light going though a single slot.

[url=http://www.tcd.ie/Physics/Schools/what/atoms/quantum/duality.html]http:/...

Now, using your definition of Atheism vs agnosticism , I must either say that because the effect is happening, and that the happening is conclusive evidence, then I must believe the effect is true, and that photons have the intelligence to somehow look over and see the slot is open and make intelligent adjustments, or I must believe that the there is no evidence at all to suggest that a photon is capable of knowing when the other slot is open, that the whole things is just some kind of trick and the effect does not exist even though I seem to see it with my own eyes .... you are suggesting that if I say, "well, it is obvious that the effect is real, but since there is other no evidence that photons are intelligent, can see, and know statistics, then there must be some other explanation beside the "theist" and "Atheists" views, of "Photons are intelligent" and "Even though I see it, I know of no proof to explain this, so it must not exist". If I then say that there is no enough proof either way to say that photons are somehow intelligent, or that the experiment is just some kind of big nonexistent hoax ... so scientists are somehow "coping out" by not dismissing the whole thing for lack of sensible evidence?

Thu, 2006-04-20 14:41

#66

Naci_Sey

quote:

Originally posted by Sanityatlast:
[b]Most of us grew up in a European-white-Christian culture and 'believing' is as much in our blood as Hockey Night in Canada. We all 'want' to believe that whatever team scores a goal has meaning to it but when we step back we can laugh that it's still a bunch of grown men chasing a chunk of rubber around the ice. Easier to get caught up in the emotion of the game as it's easier to 'cling to' some thread of supernatural power 'out there'.[/b]

I'm a product of the 50s and I've never believed in the existence of God (or the Tooth Fairy, the Easter bunny, or Santa Claus). However, it wasn't for lack of my mother trying to instill that belief in me or society's pressure to have everyone conform to the majority view.

I felt the societal pressure so strongly that I didn't 'come out' as an atheist until the early 1990s. I was studying philosophy as an undergraduate at the time. What an amazing experience! Finally, there was a place where it was permitted, even encouraged, to question 'common sense', 'first principles', and the like.

It wasn't until that experience in university that I got a sense of belonging. The pressures from family and society made it a very lonely childhood actually.

Thu, 2006-04-20 14:48

#67

jester

quote:

Originally posted by Sven:
[b]
Progressive thinking has been the root of much good, jester....
And, I think the condescending "sneering" is often from both sides of the political spectrum.[/b]

I'm not disputing the contributions progressives make to society,Sven. I also do not dispute that the sneering is mutual.My point is that by polarising leftist issues into us and them,the left alienates potential supporters who could be convinced by reason but not coerced by ideological preaching.Many so-called right wingers are merely cautious people who resist change due to fear of the unknown rather than ideologically driven rightists.

Nister has enlightened me with the view that to some leftists,a refuge is required from the bullying of the right.A place where there is mutual support.

Perhaps,I am misconstruing this inward projection of mutual support into an outward projection of condescension.

I'm not much of a refuge seeker but I will try to be more sensitive to the words of those who are.

Thu, 2006-04-20 15:03

#68

jester

fat fingery again..sorry

[ 20 April 2006: Message edited by: jester ]

Thu, 2006-04-20 15:50

#69

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

quote:

Originally posted by No Yards:
[b]... If I then say that there is not enough proof either way to say that photons are somehow intelligent, or that the experiment is just some kind of big nonexistent hoax ... so scientists are somehow "coping out" by not dismissing the whole thing for lack of sensible evidence?[/b]

I don't accept your dichotomy. The choice is not between believing that photons are intelligent and denying the existence of the observed phenomena of their behaviour. Accepting that the phenomena exist (as we must, since it is replicable in scientific experiments) does not require us to believe in the intelligence of photons.

It is no more logical to conclude from an experiment in quantum mechanics that photons possess intelligence than it is to conclude from the examination of the human eye that it is the product of intelligent design.

But denying that photons have intelligence is not the same as denying the existence of the strange and observable behaviour that they sometimes exhibit. The fact that a certain observed behaviour cannot be fully explained in terms comprehensible to the layman, or that it may be the subject of conflicting scientific explanations, does not justify anyone saying that the observations or the behaviour themselves are non-existent.

If the scientific question is "do photons possess intelligence?" then the analog of the atheist would be the scientist who says "There is insufficient evidence to establish such an extraordinary proposition, and until there is further evidence, I must continue on the provisional assumption that the proposition is false. To assume the contrary proposition would amount to substituting faith for evidence; and to carry on as if there is some doubt about the matter would put much of hitherto accepted knowledge about other scientific matters into such doubt that further scientific progress would be unjustifiably hindered."

What would the "agnostic" scientist say? "I can't decide whether photons are intelligent or not, so I will carry on doing science while believing that photons are neither inanimate nor sentient beings"?

Guess which scientist I would agree with.

Thu, 2006-04-20 18:06

#70

Papal Bull

Man, this is like arguing with a particularly stubborn two year old! M. Spector, my commendations for allowing your mind to magically regress whenever matters such as this are presented to you! Truly, you have transcended and shattered the shackles of logic, intelligence and good analogy!

[img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

Thu, 2006-04-20 18:28

#71

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Would you care to join the argument, or are you happy just to make comments from the sidelines?

Thu, 2006-04-20 18:30

#72

Papal Bull

quote:

Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]Would you care to join the argument, or are you happy just to make comments from the sidelines?[/b]

I've always had great respect for good sports commentators. I believe I'll sit on the sidelines and note to others that your contributions amount to little more than my own bullying [img]frown.gif" border="0[/img]

Thu, 2006-04-20 18:41

#73

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Am I bullying someone?

I'm having difficulty understanding your irritation with my posts. Should I just concede defeat to No Yards, even when he poses a direct question challenging my position? Am I being unfair in my debating tactics?

I'm not a great debater, by any means, and I welcome any constructive criticism if I'm not doing it right. But I'm not sure I can tell from your disapproving comments whether there's anything I can do to express myself better, or whether it's just that you disagree with what I am saying.

Thu, 2006-04-20 19:12

#74

Naci_Sey

quote:

Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]Am I bullying someone?[/b]

Not that I can tell. I'm enjoying the debate. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

Thu, 2006-04-20 20:17

#75

jester

fat fingery...posted trying to correct previous upfork.

[ 20 April 2006: Message edited by: jester ]

Fri, 2006-05-05 19:05

#76

BlawBlaw

I was having a similar discussion with a friend that resulted in two memorable quotes:

"An agnostic is someone who when they die, God says 'I just don't know what I'm going to do with you.'"

"Hey, don't make fun of my deeply held conviction that when I die I will be surprised!"

But getting back to the original topic..

The voting patterns of high school students (in Stedent Vote, etc.)tend to resemble that of their left-leaning public school teachers rather than the public at large. This leads to one of two conclusions: 1) Public school teachers actively indoctrinate students with their left wing politics or 2) left wingers have the political maturity of a bunch of teenagers.

Fri, 2006-05-05 19:27

#77

jeff house

quote:

The voting patterns of high school students (in Stedent Vote, etc.)tend to resemble that of their left-leaning public school teachers rather than the public at large

I don't think that is true at all. As I recall, high school students tend to vote like their parents.

But maybe my info is out of date? Maybe you could provide some factual basis for your slur?

Fri, 2006-05-05 19:32

#78

Boom Boom

I had conservative parents, very conservative brothers, mostly very conservative teachers, and I was very left wing and radical when much younger than I am today. I still consider myself on the progressive left on most matters, although I'm 56 now and slowing down a bit.

Fri, 2006-05-05 20:17

#79

Sanityatlast

quote:

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
[b]I had conservative parents, very conservative brothers, mostly very conservative teachers, and I was very left wing and radical when much younger than I am today. I still consider myself on the progressive left on most matters, although I'm 56 now and slowing down a bit.[/b]

My parents were very orthodox Catholcs. 4 out of 5 their children are atheists. My German brother-in-laws father was a Naxi in WW2...my brother-in-law is a lefty liberal. Etc., etc.

The labels at the personal level less and less meaningful. Farmers in Alberta and Sask. vote right wing...those in rural Quebec BQ...I doubt they are really all that different from each other. They probably both support the death penalty, support public health care, want criminals locked up longer, don't like the Feds, etc.

Joe sixpack votes Liberal in Newfoundland and moves to Alberta and votes Conservative. He's the same guy. His brother moves to Vancouver and votes NDP. Same parents.

Fri, 2006-05-05 21:18

#80

BlawBlaw

From the 2005 BC election

[url=http://www.studentvote.ca/bc/results/SVBC_Provincial_Summary.pdf]Student Vote[/url]

[url=http://www.elections.bc.ca/elections/sov05/polpart.htm]Actual Results[/url]

Students voted 34% NDP, 28% Liberal and 23% Green. That results in 45, 24 and 7 MLAs respectively.

The registered voters actually voted 46% Liberal, 42% NDP and 9% Green. That resulted in 46 Liberals and 33 NDP MLAs.

In short, students are only 2/3 as likely to vote Liberal and over twice as likely to vote Green. Looking at it another way, if the Student Vote carried the day, the Liberals would have basically half as many seats in the provincial legislature, a result the BCTF would be rather happy about I would suspect.

The same analysis is fairly consistent in other comparisons of Student Vote to the actual results.

Sat, 2006-05-06 19:48

#81

sidra

You want to see an example of a hard-working stupid right winger ?

The -rhetorical- question.

quote:

Originally posted by No Yards:
How many progressives believe that the world is 6000 years old and that man walked with dinosaurs?

The reply

quote:

Originally Posted by Sanityatlast
How many 'progressives' believe Jesus was a god and rose from the dead?...

Apparently science and spirituality are the same thing to right-wingers.

[ 06 May 2006: Message edited by: sidra ]

Sat, 2006-05-06 22:08

#82

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

“I am an atheist, out and out.

It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic.

I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time.”

- Isaac Asimov

Tue, 2006-05-16 22:29

#83

Schop

If someone says "I believe that God exists," they are (typically) making the claim that the world is constituted in a certain way and in that world, a being which they refer to as God exists.

In that case, the theist is making a claim about the make up of the world

If someone says "I don't believe that God exists," they are (typically) making the claim that the world is constituted in a certain way and in that world, a being which they refer to as God does not exist.

In this case, the atheist is making a claim about the make up of the world.

It really doesn't matter that one is affirming an existence and the other is denying an existence. They are both making claims about the nature of the world. (On the typical/accepted meaning of atheist, anyway.)

The agnostic looks at the situation and says "I have no reason one way or another to adopt either position. I have no empirical verification either way, and the logical arguments drawn up in support of either position are insufficient. Therefore, I'm going to withhold judgment until such time as I have empirical evidence or a logical argument to lead me to one conclusion over the other."

The difference between an atheist and an agnostic, then, is that the atheist says "God does not exist," and the agnostic says "I have no basis for an opinion either way."

I don't see how refusing to accept an existence can in any way be construed as denying an existence. In the agnostics case, shouldn't the refusal to deny the existence also be construed as affirming an existence? So now we have the claim that agnostics are both denying and affirming the existence of God....???

Wed, 2006-05-17 01:21

#84

Fidel

Yes, Scott, right wingers are afraid of wide spread literacy, and fearful that the masses will access higher education and learn to think for ourselves. I didn't see anything in your piece mentioning the gutting of post-secondary funding with college and university tuitions skyrocketing in North America though. 13 social democracies in the world and Cuba HAVE NO UNIVERSITY TUITION FEES! Meanwhile, our military idiots skulk around campuses trying to lure Canadian kids into joining the army with education expenses paid! [img]mad.gif" border="0[/img] That's creeping fascism!

quote:

The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness.-- Albert Einstein

I would think it more difficult to develop a serious sense of wonder while having to pack a rifle and wonder if your legs will still be attached to your body in months to come in exchange for the basic human right to an education.

ETA: 20 thousand is the number of Canadian kids they've press ganged into the military in recent years. Those kids either don't want to flip burgers for a living, or they don't desire to take on a quarter century worth of student loan debt sentence.

[ 17 May 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

Wed, 2006-05-17 09:16

#85

Maysie

quote:

Originally posted by Sven[b]There are countless examples of "progressive" ideas that were, at the time, rejected by status quo conservatives. That is no doubt the case with many "progressive" ideas being debated today.[/b]

Wow, I'm agreeing with Sven, what has the world come to? [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

Seriously, in my vast lefty travels in the world, I have come to believe that many inequities and oppressions that happen can be slowly reframed over time to be unacceptable to the mainstream. Through the work of various left-wingers and others.

Take the issue of drunk driving. Not even a generation ago, it was okay to leave a party and drive home while drunk. It was never thought to be the smartest thing to do, but it didn't carry the immense social stigma it does today. And of course, today, people still do it, so it hasn't been eradicated. But it's not "okay" anymore. That's huge. And that's the work of Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

It was argued, very far upthread, that right-wingers aren't concerned with issues that don't affect their lives directly. I would argue that this is true for most of us, not just right wingers. Yet how many of us, statistically, have been affected by a drunk driving tragedy? Rather small statistic, yes? But I still think it's wrong to do it and I would discourage anyone in my immediate circle from doing so. By any means necessary.

So, if it can be done for drunk driving, within a generation, it can be done for violence against women, racism, cutting social services to the poor, ongoing oppression of FN people, I could go on. Many lefties take a "it's good for the economy for everyone to be working/productive" approach. "And they will be more productive if they aren't suffering from (fill in name-of-oppression-here)" This isn't taking down capitalism, which is the one of a number of flaws in that tactic. But it can work for some people, and that's my take on social change, small steps. And never going back.

When (white) women fought for the vote during suffrage, many conservative and progressive men fought them back. Now it's (mostly) unthinkable in most circles, left or right, for all citizens not to have the right to vote in a democracy. Well, except the U.S. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]

Sun, 2006-05-28 16:11

#86

DrConway

Right-wingers don't want an education system that does anything other than provide taxpayer-subsidized training for corporations. It's not maliciousness on their part (at least part of the time); it's just the natural outgrowth of a narrowly-focussed outlook that emphasizes individuals over society.

Society benefits as a whole from a broader-based education system, but this leads to individuals often realizing they have obligations that extend beyond just immediate family.

In any case, the same trick that has worked on health care works on education.

1. Break the system.
2. Blame the people who try to make it work for the broken system in the first place, even though it wasn't their fault.
3. Lather, rinse, repeat.

So high school teachers get dumped on for trying to teach kids when the government's frozen per student funding and didn't account for inflation.

Let's use me as an example of how this sort of situation harms the education system, long-term.

I wanted to teach in high school. However, after the BC Liberals got in and made teaching a huge political football, I decided to shitcan that idea and go on for my doctorate, since that way even if I can't get a teaching position I can get a research fellowship.

Now, I am but one individual but you can bet that on a large enough scale, this kind of calculation and weighing of options means the best teachers will NOT be teaching high school, but will teach at university.

Conclusion: Teacher quality in high school will degrade slowly over time, and more people will either teach college/university or simply won't teach at all. As a result, students who would otherwise get taught by excellent teachers in high school and retain their interest through to university, won't.

As a post-script, if I DID wish to attribute malice rather than gross stupidity to the actions of right-wingers, I would have to say that their efforts at polarizing the distribution of income and the distribution of wealth goes hand-in-hand with their efforts to make education lousier for most people, and better only for those who have the money bags to handle it.

Thu, 2007-09-06 09:44

#87

Michelle

bump.

Thu, 2007-09-06 21:19

#88

Fidel

What doc said. I believe the defunding of Canada's PSE is a part of trade liberalization agenda since 1994 and on no particular time schedule, as in, corporate hirelings in government will introduce neoLiberal ideology to our economies little by little with Canada's two oldest political parties passing the torch of power to one another as the political fallout occurs. Canadian voters are very frustrated since FTA and NAFTA were pushed through against the majority of voter's wishes. I'm not sure what or if the feds have commited to giving up at Doha round of trade talks or what the trend is here. Obviously it looks as though Canada has been complying with WTO-GATs liberalization at a torrid pace since pulling $5 billion from PSE in the mid-1990's.

Essentially they work toward the corporate agenda using the formula of the three D's: 1. defund it 2. defame it 3. deregulate and privatize it Someone mentioned this in another thread, and it's exactly what they've been doing imo.

The global corporatocracy understands that economies based on oil and oil byproducts is a dead end. So the magic word is to liberalize anything and everything that can be made a market of, like publicly funded education. And the neoLiberalizing politicians have de-legitimized themselves and their second-hand Chicago School ideology by doing what they've been doing since FTA abd NAFTA, trade agreements signed by two phony majority governments in Ottawa in 1989 and 1994.

Except in those democratic countries which have resisted the dictates of the new corporate-friendly trade rules, very few laws governing international food safety standards, health care and education enacted after public participation and with public interests in mind have stood up to WTO rules favouring transnational agendas.

And they have been putting our public services on the table behind closed door WTO trade talks in ever more remote locations around the world to avoid public scrutiny, and to avoud all those wonderful and amazing anti-globalization protesters. We don't have democracy but we do have the power to stand up to them. And we should do by all means.

[ 06 September 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

Thu, 2007-09-06 22:33

#89

Scott Piatkowski Scott Piatkowski's picture

Since I wrote this piece, John Tory has said that it's OK for Ontario tax dollars to pay for children to be taught that the earth is only 6000 years old. The headline is sounding more and more like a rhetorical question.

Tue, 2007-09-25 12:57

#90

Sisyphus

Atheism is a belief, or at least it can be. Probably the last time I posted on this board on this topic, I self-identified as an agnostic and made the "Atheism-is-a belief-argument".

I'm can no longer call myself an agnostic; I'm an atheist and have been far longer than I realized.

Here's why: the god whose existence I previously maintained was undecideable was constantly being re-defined to as to increase its likelyhood of existence.

Decades ago it was the liberal, middle-class all-powerful-but-polite god of anglo-Canadian Anglicanism.

This morphed into the unitary consciousness that authored the Big Bang, spoke to humanity throught the various religions and spiritual traditions, inspired/incarnated Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Black Elk, the trees, subatomic particles, galaxies and each human being with a spark of the divine.

God's responsibilities lessened and She became Love and the laws of Nature.

Then just the laws of mass-energy...

Wait a minute! That lexical slot was already occupied.
It occurred to me that if I'm trying to make the case that we can't know for sure whether or not laws of physics exist, I'm not so much joining the ranks of agnostics so much as breaking with reality.

So, if God is not defined then I will concede that you can't prove the non-existence of something you can't say anything about. You also can't disprove the existence of an impotent God who influences nothing in the universe. In other words, you can't disprove the existence of a god whose effect on the Universe is indistguishable from that of a non-existent god, and if that's what you get your kicks worshipping, well, have fun.
However, if you believe in a god that influences the universe in a way only an omnipotent being who answers prayer in a way that produces different outcomes than predicted by chance, supersedes the laws of physics even occasionally, or whose Universe shows any differences from one having been prodcued without supernatural intervention, then we have the basis for a disproof.

It's a safe bet the the god of Matthew 18:

" Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. 20 “For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.”

does not exist, for example.

For ways in which the idea of a God who is active in the Universe contradicts logic and our current understanding of physics, I highly recommend
[i]God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist [/i] by physicist Victor Stenger.
Unlike the polemics by the always-entertaining Dawkins, the long-winded Dennett, self-absorbed Hitchens and sophomoric Harris, Stenger's book is humane, logical and dispassionate. Head and shoulders above the others in my opinion, and he puts to rest several miscguided notions on the rationalist side such as:
Science cannot investigate the supernatural (it has, and the latter has been found wanting).

Astrology is not a science (it is and has failed dismally as such).

To address the true subject of this thread: we should yank all funding for religious schools and put it into the public system.

Right-wingers and left-wingers both want us to be educated enough to agree with them.
Our corporate overlords want us to be betas and gammas: smart enough to work productively for them, but not smart enough to question the system.

[ 25 September 2007: Message edited by: Sisyphus ]

Tue, 2007-09-25 15:48

#91

Tommy_Paine

Well, there are many flavours of right wingers. I don't despise them all. Heck, my dad voted tory, I think, all his life. But that had little to do with ideology. He couldn't bring himself to vote for the party of Mackenzie King, because of the conscription crisis. He saw, first hand, what happens when you send under manned companies and platoons into battle. And what happens to the few volunteers that get rushed to the front with little or no training.
And of course, there was the whole commie thing with the NDP. So dad always voted tory. I suspect, towards the end, that he did vote NDP a few times.

My ex's parents were what I'd call grass roots tories. Small business people that couldn't figure out that the kind of business that the tories favour wasn't small business. They tend to be ideologically driven, too. And chruchy joes. In fact, my then father in law told me once, while leaving a Catholic church where one of my nephews and one of his Grand Children was being baptized that he'd "never set foot in a place of [i]idol whorship[/i] again. And I don't think he has.

But, back during the Gulf War, when I was pretty much all alone in opposition to it, I started in on them about it, assuming they'd be in lock step with the right wing. "We don't support the war." my then mother in law said, "We're not monsters, you know."

Your Tommy Paine was speechless, as people who know me would tell you was a moment to record.

So, "right wingers" are many and varied. The vast majority are not monsters.

The few who are tend to be people like John Tory.

John Tory is going around now, trying to divide, to appeal to the worst in people. But it isn't to make life easier for the small business people, or the factory worker who pulled himself up by the bootstraps and expects everyone else to give it a go.

It's to keep the tax dollars flowing from us lefties and the right wingers to the friends in the exclusive Family Compact.

Which, by no coincidence, is what Dalton McGinty is all about, too.

Here, there be monsters.

Fri, 2007-09-28 10:46

#92

fellowtraveller

quote:

Originally posted by No Yards:
[b]
How many progressives believe that the world is 6000 years old and that man walked with dinosaurs?[/b]

Did you mean other than Tommy Douglas?

Fri, 2007-09-28 10:47

#93

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

How do you know what Tommy Douglas believed? Been communicating with the dead?

Fri, 2007-09-28 11:08

#94

aka Mycroft

He's assuming that because Douglas was a Baptist minister he must have been a creationist. (Perhaps assuming that fundamentalist Southern Baptists and liberal social gospel Baptists are interchangable?)

Fri, 2007-09-28 12:12

#95

Michelle

Yep, not a very smart assumption. I was a Baptist for years and never knew any creationists - at least, not that I knew of. There ARE intelligent Baptists out there, and there are many, many different Baptist sects.

Fri, 2007-09-28 13:46

#96

kropotkin1951

I beleive that god is here on earth and interested in all human affairs that is why you see good christian atheletes praying after they win a game. God cares so much about them it fixes the games for them. I just wish I could get a clear line on which athelete has the best connection to the godhead bacause then I could make a fortune betting on the games.

[where is that tonque in cheek emotican]

Do right-wingers want to make us more stupid?

Pages