|
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us. Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
|
I'm voting for Ron Paul, How about you?
Posted on: January 3, 2008 - 4:52am
 Offline
I'm voting for Ron Paul, How about you?
From what I've seen he looks like a great guy even though he's a christian.
|
|
Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2021.
|
Neither of those were my argument. Just refer back to one of the many threads you've argued at length with Hamby in.
Then where did 'No True Scotsman' come from?
You accused me of pushing a No True Scotsman, and I would like to see where I have, as you accused me of doing.
Vote? HA HA
Ron Paul? HA HA HA HA
No thank you, that guy is a tool. I don't agree with just about anything he stands for.
Here's some charming quotes from the wonderful Doctor Paul.
"We now know that we are under assault from thugs and revolutionaries who hate Euro-American civilization and everything it stands for: private property, material success for those who earn it, and Christian morality."
"The cause of the riots is plain: barbarism. If the barbarians cannot loot sufficiently through legal channels (i.e., the riots being the welfare-state minus the middleman), they resort to illegal ones, to terrorism."
"The criminals who terrorize our cities--in riots and on every non-riot day--are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to "fight the power," and to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible. Anything is justified against "The Man." And "The Woman.""
"Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin."
"Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action....I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
“It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.” - Voltaire
Next time you're walking down the street, take a look around at the other people and ask yourself honestly if you want to live in world populated by people who have been educated by those people. At least half the time, the very prospect should cause you to run to the nearest school and kiss a public school teacher.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
Strike one.
The US is hated in a lot of Middle Eastern areas where no one has ever seen an American or been meddled with in the slightest. Why? Because US support for Israel has been a convenient straw man for middle eastern dictators for years.
Disasters such as becoming and remaining the single most powerful economy the planet has ever seen. Oh, the humanity.
Why not do both? After all, if the government provides services, it has a lot less work to do protecting freedoms.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
I think you are confusing the obsessive data mining of conspiracy-theory cranks as "research." Both these posters that you approve so highly of would be right at home in a Michigan militia.
Oh, and Magilum is right: you have been doing a no-true-scotsman thing around the boards for a while now. Every time someone points to theists behaving badly, you are jumping in there with a fistful of red herrings as to why the bad behaviour has nothing to do with them being theists. I don't care about the point enough to go back and find examples so don't bother challenging me to provide any. I'll just watch for it in the future.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
Those words are horrifying, however, I suspect he was behind the times (i.e. his thinking was like that of the culture that he lived in when he grew up). Forgive me if this does not see like a relevant question, but is there any proof that he still believes this, such as any material within the last 10 years? People can and do change. Their was still a little racism where I grew up, and I got past it, but not before being influenced by it myself. I hardly want to be judged now for what I was raised in. I extend the same curiosity to others, as many atheists do not look down on their former theist (current atheist) friends.
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. ..." -- Thomas Jefferson
What? So anyone who actually researches into Ron Paul's voting record would 'data mining'?
I would say that's a pretty good place to start.
If they 'data mine' than they are also being dishonest, and shouldn't base there decision on that.
From wikipedia article 'No True Scotsman'
Fallacy
Flew's original example may be softened into the following [1]:
This form of argument is an informal fallacy if the predicate ("puts sugar on porridge" or "does such-and-such an act [as committing a sex crime]"
is not actually contradictory of the accepted definition of the subject ("Scotsman"
, or if the definition of the subject is silently adjusted after the fact to make the rebuttal work.[2]
I never said they weren't Theists or true Theists, which would be a NTS fallacy.
I never brought any of this up in this thread, my point is to accept/reject a candidate based on political issues, not personal.
For example take two arguments A and B:
A) Ron Paul is a creationist, so I'm not voting for him.
B) Ron Paul is not for seperation of chruch and state, so I'm not voting for him.
B, is valid seeing how this will affect his policy making.
A is for a personal reason. While it may be true that some creationists don't want seperation of church/state, it doesn't imply that Ron Paul would. Ron Paul, could very well be for seperation of church/state or could not be, you can not simply tell by the argument presented in A.
Maybe if you are talking about our older economy. But this statement is laughable concerning our current economy. It is nothing to be proud about. The US is in debt because wall street has repackaged about every form of debt to give to the rest of the world in exchange for the world's savings. That is what has been financing our standard of living for the past 10 or more years. This is how our country has got by with importing more than it exports. As we enter a recession due to our deteriorated manufacturing base and additional difficulty to pile on more debt, our companies will be bought up by more wealthy foreigners who have manufacturing and savings. America will be on sale. Parts of it already are, such as our financial industry (which I have had the pleasure of shorting for the past four months.)
http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2001599023738470889
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. ..." -- Thomas Jefferson
Data mining. The distinction from sincere research, AFAIK, is the context of the data, and its relation to the preponderance of data overall. I have no opinion on whether data mining has been committed, I only offer the definition.
Religion is the Scotsman in question: No true Scotsman would ever influence a person negatively. If a person does something bad, they would have done it anyway; they only used religion to rationalize their actions, but weren't ever informed by it. That's what your argument has come across as in several threads.
Once again, we in the States have the precedent to consider both valid criteria. Where the teaching of evolutionary theory is an actual political topic, his views on the issue are relevant. He's just being dishonest, and talking out both sides of his mouth again, if he's pretending it isn't. There are enough rubes in the public, and there have been enough politicians to pander to them, to make this an actual issue.
Which countries have we not screwed with? Anyway, Paul will pull support from Israel as well as support for the military dictators that we support over there, which amounts to 3 times the amount we send to Israel.
We have a powerful and creative economy, but it's not strong enough to sustain a worldwide empire and the welfare state, so we've been printing money and borrowing from the Chinese to sustain this. The defecit has grown from $20 trillion to $52 trillion under Bush. The Chinese only take our money because it is backed by the full faith and credit of our government, but eventually they are going to wake up to how bad the situation is for our government in terms of our monetary situtation and things could get very bad. The Soviet Union was destroyed this same way. It can happen to us.
Not at all. The goverment by giving you services provides conditions that you may not have dealt with had you retained your own money and spent it as you chose. And when the government takes your money to (in theory) provide things for you, what they first do is give it to their buddies. That's just human nature. Keep your money and spend it as you choose, rather than give it to the government and have them tell you how to live.
That is completely different then the logic you presented. Knowing that somebody horrible might get elected if you don't vote a certain way is different then saying "I am not going to vote for this guy because he won't win." Well Kerry didn't win! A primary is also different then the national election.
"Those who think they know don't know. Those that know they don't know, know."
That's still not 'no true scotsman'.
When you point to a problem to do with a theist does he claim that the person in question isn't a true theist? That would be 'no true scotsman'.
Sounds to me that he's simply accusing you guys of a non-sequiter.
"This theist did this."
"Very well. But was this person's theistic beliefs a genuine contributor to the action or was it just coincidental? Please back up the implication that you are trying to make here."
I'm referring to theism itself, not the believer. Pineapple arbitrarily identifies theism with some qualities ("wonder" ), and dissociates it with other ones (theistic politics). It's like "No true representation of theism would influence politics, so theism didn't influence this person." A person could explicitly justify their actions via theism, and it wouldn't be enough because there's got to be a "true" theism somewhere, somehow.
We've got several threads of back and forth on this already, but he snuck it into this one as well.
I said, it's a result of wonder, not that it causes wonder.
[edit]
that is the fundamental difference. The Theism, didn't cause the wonder, it is a result of it. The Theism is added on to the wonder.
Same goes for purpose. Theism could result from a search for purpose.
[/edit]
I didn't 'sneak' this in.
All I posted is that when making a decision to vote, what should matter is the candidate's political stance, not his/her personal ones.
Fine, you associate it with wonder, and dissociate it with politics.
My characterization may be unkind, but the broader premise you're applying is disputed (elsewhere, and at length).
This all hinges on demonstrating that no politician is informed by his personal beliefs (not just theistic ones, but any of them, according to your wording). I don't think this is remotely plausible, or even possible intellectually. If a politician chooses to, for instance, recognize the validity of including Special Creation in biology classes, he or she does so ostensibly because of his or her personal/religious views. Whether this is done out of genuine piety or out of pandering to a demographic; and whether that demographic genuinely believes or is doing so for tradition's sake, etc., is not relevant. We have no means to distinguish between genuine and counterfeit beliefs, and the two stances are functionally identical from the public perspective.
I've not been reading all his posts so I might have his claims wrong, but as far as I can see he's pointing out theism is a belief in some kind of God. Now, how this belief in God will affect a persons beliefs will depend on other beliefs, whether they belief that this God wants anything from them. Even when I flirted with theism, the only God I could make sense of would be one who kept a secular morality anyway. If I'd kept that kind of theistic belief then I'd have been a theist will none of the downfalls that this board tend to associate with theism.
People on this board often use the word theist as a synonym for fundamentalist. Heck, I've been hanging around you guys so long now I've picked it up myself like a bad habit!! I think that's what Pineapple is rebelling against here.
*sigh*
When I see someone pushing for Creation/ID in place of evolution I know that it's them trying to push their religous views on others.
Now, how can I say that and, for example, Bush didn't invade Afganistan/Iraq, because he's Christian, or that various terrrorists aren't doing it because they're religious? Because of the various secular motives which overshadow the religious ones.
Otherwise, how would I tell the difference between Bush and say Martian Luther King, both said God is driving their actions?
How could I possibly say that Bush was influenced by Christianty, but say that Martian Luther King wasn't and not be a complete hypocrite?
Well and good, but academic and hypothetical to American politics. Two informal categories here seem to be a nominal theism that doesn't find itself at odds with things like science and social progress, and either a genuine piety or a willingness to pander to a pious demographic. As was discussed in prior threads, it's always possible to derive a stance through some other contorted logic, but in the wild, stances against abortion rights, gay marriage, embryonic stem cell research; and for the teaching of abstinence-only in sex-ed, and Special Creation in biology classes, tend to be justified by solely religious reasons.
I liked how Nero responded to a "sigh," by "drumming his fingers, and otherwise indicating that the conversation was just as trite and pedestrian" to him.
That's an interpretation, and it may (or may not) be one supported by evidence. But there are other interpretations that are equally important politically, and evidence is of trifle concern to them. If a segment of the population supports, against their own interests in terms of economics, preservation of American lives, etc., a war justified by an implied proliferation of their own values (religious, cultural, etc.), then those are their motives, sound or not. It doesn't have to make sense when broken down, it only has to work as an ad hoc.
Again, either could be argued on the basis of evidence or religious rhetoric (with differing results), and some politicians favor the latter. There are issues that are argued mainly on the basis of the latter.
Where did Nero go anyway? I miss his sarcastic manner.
Good, why didn't you note it the other times I said it? I believe I said that in another thread.
Or for that matter to you know why I said that?
Noted.
So if I bring up the evidence, or in some cases 'evidence', they're using and even ulterior motives, then that would be acceptable?
Personally telling the world's children, one by one, there's no Santa.
I assumed for contrast with your latter questions/conclusions, but I'm no Uri Geller.
I don't know what you mean.
You mean theres no santa?!?!?!?!?
BTW Pick a Winner!
I'm voting for Ralph Wiggum because he has been a good Boy.
Right. We have a name for the latter type - fundamentalist.
If you were to use the word fundamentalist there would be no confusion of this sort and Pineapple would have nothing left to complain about. I reckon he'd even agree with you.
Again, characteristics of fundamentalism.
There are other flavours of theism that aren't like this.
Not merely 'hypothetical possibilities' but I'd wager that this represents the majority of theists. Especially outside America.
I think he means providing evidence that Bush had secular motives to invade Iraq would prove his point. Although I don't think his religious beliefs motivated the idea to go to war, I think it influenced his going along with it once the idea was in his head. Rather than think objectively he started seeing himself as a crusader with the "us good, them evil!!" perspective.
I think the point that Pineapple wants to make, and one I think I agree with, is that the problem isn't with theism. Sure, theistic beliefs can be bad but the bad elements can be separated from the theism. All the bad elements of supernaturalism can be seen in 'atheistic' ideologies also. I'm giving this as a reason to 'get theism off the hook' or anything. As you are probably thinking, many of the worst ideologies around at the moment are of a theistic flavour and attacking theism in general is an effective way of attacking them. However, we should recognise that these attacks on theism are a pragmatic way of taking down these ideologies rather than than start to think that the problems of these ideologies are the problems of theism.
To tie this in with Pineapple's defence of Ron Paul, although the old fella might have fundamentalist beliefs that aren't healthy, if he trully believes faith to be a personal thing then he won't try and force these person beliefs on others. Although I think you guys have a good point too - when his personal beliefs are thus, a lot depends on him sticking to the 'religious belief is personal' line. Is that the kind of line that we can reliably trust someone to stick to and fight for? A president without fundamentalist beliefs would have the same likelihood of not sticking to it, but without those fundamentalist beliefs there wouldn't be so much riding on them sticking to it in the first place,
It's not necessary to be a fundamentalist to make religiously-motivated political choices.
I don't think a hard distinction exists. We're straying into Pineapple's pet debate as I'd feared. This has fuck-all to do with Ron Paul's Creationist ass.
If any substantial segment of the population found the propagation of specific values to be a justification, I would also consider it a possible effect of a theistic disposition. It's possible a secular ideology, like democracy, could have the same effect, but I don't have the numbers.
My concern is that you guys are treating "theism" as an actual belief, rather than a broad category representing many specific beliefs adhered to with varying degrees of passion and literalness. If religion meant only that people were sometimes awestruck, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I wouldn't want to support them either.
I don't disagree with this generally, but I think we're stuck in a technical disagreement on certain points.
Plus, anyone who's played to the end of Bioshock will know that Libertarian ideology will only produce a subaquatic city vulnerable to organized crime.
I don't think there are any major candidates for president worth voting for, nor will there be as long as this country maintains its inbred, malignant, polarizing two-party system (we need coalition governments, like in most modern industrial nations). However, speaking broadly, I would rather vote for a Democrat than a Republican because of the election-promise-keeping habits of both; Democrats tend to break more election promises (how about all those candidates for Congress who were going to pull us out of Iraq ASAP?), while the Republicans keep more of their promises - but their promises these days are directed towards the radical religious element of society. Democrats act in their own self-interest; Republicans act as tools of the special interests that help get them elected. And since the Democrats' self-interest coincides with mine at least in the very broadest sense (re: not blowing up the planet), and the Republicans' special interest backers' agenda does not (re: ACTUALLY blowing up the planet, ushering in the glorious reign of the invisible zombie jew as foretold by ignorant desert farmers on an acid trip a couple thousand years ago), I trust the dems to do nothing more than exploit the political process for their own benefit, which is incomparably better than being led into global thermonuclear war to satisfy the death-lust of the evangelical base currently steering Republican party politics.
The lesson of history is that we do not learn the lessons of history.
Well, when it comes to 'atheist ideologies' there's the classic examples of Russia's communist facism and the usual 'atheist' examples that apologists like to try and daemonise atheism with.
These examples show that all the evils of theocracy can come about in a secular ideology too.
There's also examples of theism without the problems.
Outside America, there are small pockets of Chrisitan fundamentalism but they are minority/extreme sects and are considered to be cultish by mainstream theists.
Even on this take with theism our point stands.
The catagory 'theism' doesn't imply the elements that have the negative influence on politics. The negative influences have their own catagories that are completely separable from theism.
Such is debate!
Libertarian, is he?
If I was President I'd probably be a libertarian.
"Alright... minimal government needed so I'll just collect my wage and leave you all to it.
That's the thing: "theism" can mean anything because it doesn't mean anything.
If we pick a specific religion, we're still screwed because, unless we want to argue theology, the debate becomes impenetrable. It's more obvious an issue in dealing with "fundamentalists," but we're always ultimately taking theists at their word unless their concept of god plays no part in their arguments (or rhetoric, which is just as important to politics). That's no guarantee they're not religiously motivated, but at least they can provide a tangible justification.
Technically in some cases, but I'd not say so practically.
Some fundamentalists support separation of church and state. They don't want the government controlling their faith. It is possible that Ron Paul falls into this camp.
I was under the impression that Ron Paul was a libertarian, but the more I find out about him the more he seems a bit looney. His "Fair Tax" is regressive, not fair, as lower income earners have less disposable income and so a use tax isn't as much of a burden for top tier earners.
My Artwork
hey RationalSchema,
I am so pissed at the system, Bush should never have won.
Why do we go along with this unfair system ?
I want Dennis Kucinich, but I know better than to vote for him, ..... the system is lame and retarded, .... outdated .....
So what is the force, that keep us slaves ?
Eat the Rich , no more rich , not one left , never more !
Atheism Books.
These concerns are a lot more than 10 years old. The US has run a huge capital account deficit with the rest of the world for decades. Yet somehow it has survived and even prospered. And a lot of people who, in aggregate, are a lot smarter than either of us keep finding reasons to do business in the US, with Americans.
As for your foreign investment concerns, well, everything in Canada is owned by someone somewhere else and right now we have a healthier economy than you do.
At any rate, my comment was pertaining to an older economy. But it is just as true today. Choking off the money supply like the gold-standard people want to do is a much more laughable position than anything I said.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
*sigh* I don't know how I always get dragged into these tussles with arch-libertarian anarchists but here goes again...
Tell you what, since you made the initial statement that the US has meddled with Middle Eastern countries, why don't you give the examples that you have in mind. Then I will simply point out that if ask anyone on the street in those countries, their complaints about the US will have nothing to do with the meddling to which you are referring.
Pull support from our only democratic ally in the area (unless you count Turkey). Good idea.
You don't have to. The US doesn't have a worldwide empire.
The US doesn't have one of those either.
Are we borrowing from the Chinese or lending to them?
If the Chinese think anything terminally bad is going to happen to the US economy any time soon, they are very, very wrong. Of course, their action show that they don't think that, as they have stockpiled billions of greenbacks and are continuing to hold them despite the recent plunge in value.
The deficit is the result of Bush's assinine, ideological tax cuts.
The Soviet Union lacked a real economy. Any comparison to the US is ludicrous.
The government takes a tiny amount of your money. Certainly not enough to make any life-changing difference for anyone. And if the government is giving it to their buddies instead of distributing it fairly, then that is corruption and you should be calling 60 Minutes instead of bitching on an internet forum. Stop whining and wallowing around in greed.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
Theism is fairly well defined as far as I can see.
If you look at the definition on WIki it supports the point I made, that theism on it's own does not affect politics, that for political motivation further theology is required. There are fundamentalists who believe that they should "render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar" and keep politics secular and separate from their personal relationship with God.
That's possibly because your experience of Christianity/theism is of fundamentalists. I grew up in a Catholic Community, went to church on Sundays and went to a Catholic School. If you'd asked me back then what a Christian's influence on politics would be then I'd've thought that it would make someone more generous, charitable and caring for the poor. This isn't something I was brought up to say, a propaganda slogan we were taught to repeat. It was simply my observation of the values of the religious folk I was in contact with.
It wasn't until I was 18 and started taking an interest in politics that I came across what a fundamentalist is, and they baffled me as they seemed to go against Christianity, as I understood it, stood for.
So when people use the label theism as synonymous with fundamentalist styles of theism, those of us with experience of other forms of theism will point out that this is incorrect.
Personal views/religious beliefs are the primary reason for our great country suffering the abuses of one of the worst Presidents in history. It's also why Mitt Romney stands absolutely no chance of being elected President and why Huckabee scares me.
While it would certainly be a beautiful world where politicians were selected based solely on their "political" views, beliefs and actions. We live in Reality Land and here we elect, or not, our politicians based on some of the stupidest reasons possible.
R/
Lenny
www.kaosium.org
Respectfully,
Lenny
"The righteous rise, With burning eyes, Of hatred and ill-will
Madmen fed on fear and lies, To beat and burn and kill"
Witch Hunt from the album Moving Pictures. Neal Pert, Rush
In short.
Hell NO!!!
Until Abraham Lincoln comes back from the grave, I'm done with the republican party.
R/
Lenny
www.kaosium.orgRespectfully,
Lenny
"The righteous rise, With burning eyes, Of hatred and ill-will
Madmen fed on fear and lies, To beat and burn and kill"
Witch Hunt from the album Moving Pictures. Neal Pert, Rush
Strafio, I'm very bored of arguing in these circles of diminishing significance. I began to respond, but the argument is so removed from anything relevant to politics and the point of the thread, I can't bring myself to bother.
More reasons not to vote for asshat Ron Paul - some of his votes and things he said. Notice most about abortion but read it all - he wouldn't allow use of the federal courts to get 10 commandments displays and such removed - bye bye separation of church and state!
I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.
link (Quote)
In 2005 and 2007, Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, which would define human life as beginning from conception, removing abortion from federal jurisdiction and effectively negating Roe v. Wade. Paul has also introduced a Constitutional amendment with similar intent. Such laws would permit states to declare abortion to be murder and to outlaw new fetal stem cell research and some contraception and fertility treatments. Also in 2005 and 2007, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would forbid all federal courts from adjudicating abortion as well as same-sex marriage, sexual practices, and government display of religious symbols. The Act would make federal decisions on those subjects nonbinding as state precedent, and would forbid federal courts from spending money to enforce their judgments.
link (Quote)
"In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094. The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle."
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
I still have to side with an 8 year old on The Simpsons named Ralph Wiggum when he was talking to lisa...
Lisa: All they wanna do is use you!!! (she is refering to both political parties)
Ralph: Maybe i wanna use them! Maybe we can talk with our words and maybe be friends with the rest of the world, and then the only Boom Booms would be in our pants!
(not an exact quote am trying to find a video to get it though!)
Who saw him on Leno last night?
Lol. Sometimes I think I have an 'auto reply' reflex, whereby once I get into a debate with someone I find it impossible to resist replying to each reply to mine. You might observe that even though you just ended the debate I still just couldn't help myself but get the last word.
Once in a while I meet another like me and the threads last for months...