Monday, August 15, 2005

The definition of Irony

From time to time, right wingers will lose every last semblance of sanity and drag out the old "you liberals are supposed to be all about tolerance, but you're against this that and the other thing." Funny that the very same right wingers who are trying to outlaw gay marriage, civil rights and the teaching of evolution would even dare to try to call somebody else intolerant, yet every now and then they actually try to use that lame ass argument. Well another San Francisco liberal, Chronicle columnist Mark Morford, wrote this brilliant rant about just that.


Blogger Dus10 D said...

You assume that right-wingers want to ban evolution. I think you are way off base. I think right-wingers would like for religion to not be forced into the deepest place we can find. That is true. Liberals keep screaming that we are going to become a theocracy. We had more religion in our everyday lives 60 years ago, and it was certainly not a theocracy. What makes you think that it would be now, when religion has been shackled?

Right-wingers can make the intolerance argument all they want. Liberals make a claim about being tolerant, but they are only tolerant to people who share their views. That is hypocritical. The right-wingers are not making these crazy claims and doing the opposite.

8/16/2005 09:02:00 AM  
Blogger Liberal Traitor said...

Perhaps I exagerated, but that's my style. I stand by the fact that under this current administration science is under attack by religious fundamentalism. And 60 years ago religion may have been more in everyday life, but it was most definitely less in politics.

And go ahead, call us liberals intolerant. Frankly my dear, we don't give a shit. We're intolerant of intolerance and stupidity. We're tolerant of your right to exist and hold your opinions, but we will not stand idly by while you try to turn it into law.

8/16/2005 09:39:00 AM  
Anonymous Greyangel said...

I just wrote the authour of the article and asked him to calmly explain his apparent hatred for the Design stance.

Since you know me from MySpace, and our cool discourses (re: film making and music and writing...etc.), I hope your friend will be as cool as you.

If not, I hope not to lose faith in the integrity of Left-wingers over Rightists (being rather dorsal, and anarchist myself).

Anyhoo, "Bill O' " needs to write more on MySpace, man. I love reading your stuff there under that moniker.


8/16/2005 04:23:00 PM  
Blogger Liberal Traitor said...

I wouldn't call the author a friend of mine. In fact, I don't know him at all. I just stumbled upon that particular column and really liked the tone. I know that my problem with the design stance is that since it's based in religion rather than science, it should not be taught as a scientific theory in public school. That said, I think that there is a place for religion in public school and that would be in a philosophy or social studies class. Religion is an important part of the lives of many people on the planet, and it's good for kids to have an understanding of different beliefs.

Bill is definitely still running amok on MySpace. He's been terrorizing the George W. Bush, Republicans are Better in Bed, and the Christian Martyrs Brigade groups. And there might be a story about him and I in an upcoming anarchist publication. More on that later if it happens.

8/16/2005 06:49:00 PM  
Anonymous Greyangel said...


Are you a biochemist, or an astronmer, or a geologist?

If not, then you are gettiong your info from folks that set themselves up as Popes of their sect of religion, which is often confused for Science these days.

In reality, the Big Bang has been defrocked by virtually every Astronomer who has seen the Hubble photos, and I'm not talking about religious individuals, but secularists.

Radio carbon dating requires that the strata of rock in which the sample was found be named, so that the results can be calibrated to meet the current time-period-value assigned to that stratta. In reality, however, there are many examples where stratta are found running through intact fossils, as well as simply inverted, thus eliminating that methodology as a 'sure' means of objectively dating samples based on that data.

The laws of thermodynamics preclude higher-order life arising out of inert chemicals. This is irregardless of time, circumstance, or luck.

Reexamine the data being fed to you, with the same critical eye thaty you apply to media. You will be surprised by what you find in your investigations.

Design doesn't always include a monotheistic, or even theistic premise. There is a branch of examination called telleology and its adjuncts (to which i personally don't subcribe) which suggest that humanoids arose simply because they had not option but to arise, and that our sentience and dominance are actually factors in the way we perceive the structure and nature of reality, and not dictated by those forces. It is a sort of 'pulling oneself up by ones bootstraps' idea, but is held by many pro-evolutionary, non-theistic 'experts' in various disciplinnes and fields. That has an alternate, and at times interesting place in the textbooks, but since there is big money in propogating old-hat Big Bang, Origin of the Species textbook sales, they don't change. A lot of the astronomical data knocking BB on its arse is over a decade old, and it simply doesn't find itse way into the textbooks. Now there is a conspiracy for you to investigate and blow the lid off of.

So, the pat answer that Design is a religious subject is lame, dude. Step up to the plate, investigate the new data, and stop bashing what has every right to be taugh alongside the 'current' HYPOTHESIS of macroevelotion (quantum or otherwise) in our school system.

Are you and others affraid that open education will advance the theocratic revolution? I thought Education was the goal, not censorship?

BTW, GWB is far from a Christian, and his ill brood using it to justify their insane schemes ought to be challenged by those who know their religious writings. To further this the Left ought to foster said expose of GWB's fallicious claims -- but instead, anyone of Judeo-Cristian faith is essentially demonised, instead. Big mistake.

I'll tell you. All of the left's whining about policy isn't dpoing a damn thing to stop the administration, and often only alienates middle-camp folk who could otherwise be persuaded by rational discussion and data. The Left is just playing the game the right wants it too, and the Right has far more 'compelling' speakers than the Left ever manages to muster.

When is that going to change?

Spooging on Ann Coulter's face, however shock-jock-funny and avant garde it may be, does nothing but play into the Right's hand.

Okay, I've said my piece.

Viva la revolucion (oh, sorry I diodn't mean to wake the masses...)

Best to you and yours,
-Greyangel / etc.

8/17/2005 09:17:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry for the spelling errors, BTW.

8/17/2005 09:18:00 AM  
Blogger Liberal Traitor said...

My problems with intelligent design is that it's not being pushed by the scientific community but by the religious community, and in particular the wingnut religious right. I don't hear a peep about it coming from the progressive faith based circles. Once real scientists start examining this data objectively, I'd be more than willing to be more open to it, but right now the folks who are pushing it have a very specific and nefarious agenda for pushing it and I do not think their agenda is for the advancement of science but rather the further weakening of the division between church and state.

By your description, it still sounds like more of a philosophical thing than science, and I have no problem with it being taught as such.

But by all means, if this is a viable scientific theory (of which I remain highly skeptical), it should be tested. And I have no problem with it being mentioned in a science class in the context that there are some people who are currently working on this theory.

Now, on to shaming the Coulters and O'Reillys!

8/17/2005 09:50:00 AM  
Blogger Liberal Traitor said...

You'd think Blogger could find a way to add spellcheck to their comments since they have it for posting!

8/17/2005 11:13:00 AM  
Blogger VirusHead said...

I blogged that too. Yes, it was over the top (some people seem a little tone-deaf to language) - but very witty and with more than enough truth to it to make it work. Humor. Truth plus exaggeration.

8/17/2005 04:18:00 PM  
Anonymous Greyangel said...


Sounds good re: Design.
Now... What about the rest of what i said, re: Coming up with better presentors of the Left's side, and not alienating the cenreists?


8/19/2005 09:15:00 AM  
Blogger Liberal Traitor said...

GreyAngel, there's plenty of people who are better at reaching out to the centrists, but that's just not my style. I prefer playing to the base with sarcasm and wit.

8/19/2005 10:25:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home