ext_76887 (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
readherring.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
talkpolitics2010-04-21 09:50 pm
readherring.livejournal.com) wrote in talkpolitics2010-04-21 09:50 pm
Bigotry at the Tea Party Protest
Given some of the discussions generated from my last post, I wanted to share with you one last picture from the April 15 Tea Party protest.
But first, I wanted to thank everyone for all of the positive comments. I was trying very hard to be open minded and fair, and I am genuinely happy that people found my post to be so. I am even more happy that people from "both sides" liked it for that reason. This is an incredibly positive political sentiment - that we have a common preference for fair and balanced presentation. It gives me some hope that this hyper-polarized climate might collapse one day.
I also wanted to apologize for not being on line much after posting - I'm on limited internet these days.
Anyway, I hope this doesn't destroy the fair and balanced vibes, but a lot of the commenters believed that the Tea Party is a bigoted movement. Not only do I insist that this is wrong, but I also believe that making this wrongful accusation needlessly pushes Tea Partiers and their liberal counterparts further away from ever listening to each other, or making any compromise. I therefore wish that I could say that I saw no evidence of bigotry at the Tea Party, but I can't. Here's the last picture:
This is one of the counter-protesters. Her shirt reads "F*ck your God". I didn't intentionally leave this out of the original post because I was embarrassed by it, although I am embarrassed by it. I only left it out because in choosing from my hundred photos to post, this one was just va poor quality shot.
I'm not trying to make liberals look bad with this picture. I'm just trying to show that while there are people with ugly beliefs on both sides, these ugly beliefs don't define those sides. The Anti-Tea-Party movement (or Coffee Party, or whatever) isn't an anti religion movement, even if some members of the Atheist Takfiri show up in the crowd. The same goes for racists (of which I saw none) or anti-abortionists (of which I saw the nutter truck driver - his rear billboard was all about fetuses) who show up for an anti-tax movement. The movement isn't about those other things, even if some of the participants go way off message.
Sorry if this post doesn't offer much new information over the last one, but given that there was such a strong belief in Tea Party racism in the first set of comments, I felt that I had done everyone a disservice by leaving this picture out.
But first, I wanted to thank everyone for all of the positive comments. I was trying very hard to be open minded and fair, and I am genuinely happy that people found my post to be so. I am even more happy that people from "both sides" liked it for that reason. This is an incredibly positive political sentiment - that we have a common preference for fair and balanced presentation. It gives me some hope that this hyper-polarized climate might collapse one day.
I also wanted to apologize for not being on line much after posting - I'm on limited internet these days.
Anyway, I hope this doesn't destroy the fair and balanced vibes, but a lot of the commenters believed that the Tea Party is a bigoted movement. Not only do I insist that this is wrong, but I also believe that making this wrongful accusation needlessly pushes Tea Partiers and their liberal counterparts further away from ever listening to each other, or making any compromise. I therefore wish that I could say that I saw no evidence of bigotry at the Tea Party, but I can't. Here's the last picture:
This is one of the counter-protesters. Her shirt reads "F*ck your God". I didn't intentionally leave this out of the original post because I was embarrassed by it, although I am embarrassed by it. I only left it out because in choosing from my hundred photos to post, this one was just va poor quality shot.
I'm not trying to make liberals look bad with this picture. I'm just trying to show that while there are people with ugly beliefs on both sides, these ugly beliefs don't define those sides. The Anti-Tea-Party movement (or Coffee Party, or whatever) isn't an anti religion movement, even if some members of the Atheist Takfiri show up in the crowd. The same goes for racists (of which I saw none) or anti-abortionists (of which I saw the nutter truck driver - his rear billboard was all about fetuses) who show up for an anti-tax movement. The movement isn't about those other things, even if some of the participants go way off message.
Sorry if this post doesn't offer much new information over the last one, but given that there was such a strong belief in Tea Party racism in the first set of comments, I felt that I had done everyone a disservice by leaving this picture out.
no subject
Some parents do. And when their children get older, they find out about the actual process of reproduction. Do you get uppity about parents reading fairy tale books to their children, too?
There is more value in getting it right. There is actually a correct answer.
Okay then, Mr. Wizard. Explain how the Earth came to be from the Atheist-approved, scientific perspective. Keep in mind that the Laws of Thermodynamics state that ENERGY cannot be created or destroyed, and keeping in mind that our Sun is essentially a big mass of ENERGY. Go!
no subject
Would you want to see a doctor who believed that the stork brought babies?
There is more value in getting it right. There is actually a correct answer.
Okay then, Mr. Wizard. Explain how the Earth came to be from the Atheist-approved, scientific perspective. Keep in mind that the Laws of Thermodynamics state that ENERGY cannot be created or destroyed, and keeping in mind that our Sun is essentially a big mass of ENERGY. Go!
Science is an infinitely superior tool for discovering our place in the universe than religion ever could hope to be. The reason for this is that in science, people do not actually "choose what they want to believe", you follow the evidence. This is a clear distinction and illustrates the fault with your assertion that we should "choose what we want to believe". No! We must follow evidence. That will lead to understanding. That will improve medicine. That will help us.
Choosing what we want to believe will not make your glasses work.
no subject
There has never been evidence of any animal as a species that has had a transitionary organ or non-functioning sensory apparatus that speaks for the WHOLE species. For example, the blind fish that you see in caves can mate with fish who can see. What ends up being produced primarily is a fish who can see (when raised in an environment where they're exposed to light), much the same way as most fish. Therefore Evolution is an unprovable hypothesis.
Religious beliefs and lessons are something you take on FAITH. Science is based on evidence, that which is seen. There is NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE in Evolution. There is no explanation which obeys the Laws of Thermodynamics that can explain the creation of the universe or the generation of life. To believe in the Big Bang theory, you'd have to believe in something that exists outside of natural laws. That would be FAITH!
no subject
You are woefully ignorant of the subject you are attempting to debunk.
Here, big up yo-self (http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271962174&sr=8-1). Or maybe this (http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1416594787/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271962260&sr=1-1).
To believe in the Big Bang theory, you'd have to believe in something that exists outside of natural laws
Why do you think natural laws prevent a universal orgin? You ever heard of multiverse theory?
No, you're right, god did it, is a much simpler answer.
no subject
In his 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker, he argued against the watchmaker analogy, an argument for the existence of a supernatural creator based upon the complexity of living organisms. Instead, he described evolutionary processes as analogous to a blind watchmaker.
You can't claim that something doesn't exist and then base your argument on THE THING YOU'RE CLAIMING DOESN'T EXIST! That's as illogical as a dictionary definition which includes the word you're trying to define.
no subject
You are having a conversation with someone who has actually read The Blind Watchmaker. Have you?
Why are you discussing things you know nothing about and acting like an authority? You realize how ridiculous that is?
I don't know who wrote the sentence you quoted, but it wasn't Dawkins. It was poorly worded, but essesially accurate. He explains how evolution can accomplish the result that has the appearance of a watchmaker, ie a BLIND watchmaker. Presumably god could see what he was doing, but evolution doesn't.
no subject
no subject
("The Blind Watchmaker" is more a book strictly about evolution science, so its not in there.)
I think your question can be summed up by asking if god has a belly button. IE, who created god?
To say "god did it" is always way too easy, answers nothing, and begs the question, "then who/what created god?".
no subject
no subject
no subject
Did you make it to the part about how 'evolvablity' evolved?
no subject
no subject
If you believe in irreducible complexity, then I cannot agree.
no subject
no subject
That made me chuckle. That's better than saying, I've consulted myself for a second opinion and I agree with myself....
no subject
Whenever scientists actually take time from their mounds of work and pay attention to these kinds of nitpicks, and provide answers and information, the denialists just move the goalposts and create some even more convoluted and specific threshold that must be met or obviously the entire theory is bunk!
How do you explain the fact that all fossil evidence, all dna evidence, and everything we know about biological processes are consistent with the idea that lifeforms evolved over a long period of time from simpler to more complex? The fact that we can draw out this tree of life in pretty great detail, and we see the correspondence between fossil timelines, dna similarities, and physical manifestations? Sure there are gaps, but how long can you hold on to the "god of the gaps"?
What's the alternative theory? The creator just made it this way to confuse us? To test our faith?
no subject
Our known universe started with a large supply of energy. We don't know where it came from, but that doesn't mean that the earth isn't billions of years old and biological evolution is false.