ParanoiA

No kidding. Global warming is now a gimme position. Everybody's going to claim they're on board to some capacity to mark it off of their checklist. Kind of like "the children" ...you have to be for something if it's for "the children".

Well, by humanitarian military action, I meant as in some kind of relief effort, like food or disaster recovery, as opposed to killing people and breaking stuff. So, to me that line is simple. I agree. When I hear GWB give speeches about "spreading" democracy, I curl up inside. Spreading democracy? Then I hear this bull about fighting for our freedom...in Iraq. Fighting for our freedom? Poetry.... When you open the door to policing the world, it's not that far of a stretch to go from a noble action to imperialism. "Spreading democracy" is a great start to that end. Romanticizing how freedom and the american dream of liberty should be given to all...blah blah blah...roll the tanks, we're "saving" the people... Which always reminds me of those serial killers that "save" others by killing them and sending them to god. Getting in the middle of wars and so forth is like stepping in the middle of a fight between your next door neighbors. You'll be thanked and you'll be hated at the same time. How about just being nothing, and let them fight it out themselves? But then, on the other hand, what about WWII? What about the arguments of appeasement and allowing Hitler to develop? What about the Japanese? Could we have stopped those situations from happening, and still NOT be the world police? Because those superpowers would have focused on America once their work was done in Asia and Europe.

Well, in practice, this couldn't be 100%. We do have obligations to maintain. Yes, I'd like to withdraw forces from all over the globe, but that's not realistic. There's humanitarian concerns as well, since we use our military forces for more than just killing people. I would like to see us much more introverted and proud, self sufficient. We're way too global. We've been allowing big business to sell out our country with outsourcing - as unpatriotic as that is. We're becoming more and more a nation of consumers - fat consumers. From my perspective, it looks more like the world is simply feeding the piggies - biding their time until we get so fat and dependent we can't do anything on our own. Or are we already there?

Well yeah, but I don't want them to wage an honest war. War isn't about fairness. I don't know that I'd consider any sneaky actions by CIA or what not as hypocritical. Or maybe it is, but doesn't matter? We're hypocrites about nuclear arms possession but it doesn't therefore make all legislators dishonest, nor does it change the fact that rogue states can't be trusted with nuclear weapons. Just an example. Point taken though, I had to wrestle with that one a bit. Irrelevant. I didn't say I agreed with the world's perceptions at all, I said their perceptions matter. Right now, I believe there is some stock in anti-american sentiment around the globe. I also believe there is class envy and self oppression, propaganda, human nature to externalize blame, etc.. It's not black and white. We are not great people serving the world. Neither is anyone else. We are all driven by self interest. I make no apologies for outperforming nations that insist on backwards, archaic governments, broken theocracies and etc. We would also be lying to ourselves if we didn't admit we take advantage of poor countries - we help, no doubt, but we also take advantage. We do this militarily and economically. Both are resented by the citizens of the middle east and welcomed by their governments...well at least the money anyway. Irregardless of our intent, or anyone else's, we still have to accept our perception in considering our fate. If you're going to go "global" and topple and install governments and etc, then you DO have responsibility and blame to share. This is why I prefer non-intervention in other country's affairs. Perhaps this is also why Ron Paul won't back off on the 9/11 comment. I don't want to be responsible for the fall of Saigon. I don't want to be responsible for Sudan. It wouldn't disappear, but we wouldn't be the focus of it and the excuse for it. What's with this argument? I've heard people ask this before as if there's a point to be made. As if it doesn't matter whether or not our behavior is ethical or righteous, only if it will yield a certain outcome. It matters that we don't screw people over. If we don't lose a single enemy, but we can stop screwing someone over, we should. Do you disagree with that? I think we can maintain superpower status just fine without dotting the globe with our war toys. Or ALL will continue to suffer - that's how your last sentence should have read. Because your answer is to keep feeding the terror machine. You can make excuses and complain how unfair it is all you want, but that's not going to stop poor, war torn, terror conditioned little kids from aspiring to blow us all up. They can't and won't deal with them internally. Time to take our business elsewhere. They have not demonstrated a level of maturity necessary to integrate with other humans. Not wild at all. They haven't declared war on the 194 countries in the world - just the west - which does comprise of a nice list nonetheless. They don't bomb Mexico last I checked... I was just wrapping up some thoughts on the matter. The war on terror has been unfairly pitted against us, in my opinion. Seems we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. However, we seem to be too much on the defensive and too inclined to "stay the course" on every military decision, that we have lost the ability to simply regroup and try other things.

America should remove ourselves from the title of world police. We should trade with all nations in order to secure friendly relations. Let the consumer market forces make the political statements. Shouldn't we ditch the UN? Why should we allow an external entity to dictate military policy? I have never liked the idea of foreign powers compelling our countrymen into combat. We should never pre-agree on anything like that - particularly armed conflict. There's a line between alliances with other nations and pre-arranged alignments with a dynamic entity. Particularly when the interests served are more about business livelihood than humanity. We can buy our oil from a variety of sources, why must we be so concerned with theirs? Why not pay more, a whole lot more for oil, than fight for it? Especially when we should and are so much smarter and resourceful than that... I think we have to hang our heads in shame if we really believe we are dependent upon the finite resources of a 3rd world country in order to maintain...what kind of superpower is that? At this point, I would like to see the american government go into a non-intervention status with the rest of the world, and let our markets seal our friendships. We have no duty to police the world or interfere with the progress of other governments unless threatened. Anything we do proactively, should be done out of view and disavowed. If the american people want war, let them vote for it.

Maybe I'm just a little grittier? I don't care for sugar coating, nor exacerbating the truth - just say it. I don't understand why this obsessive focus on 9/11 and this "blame" exists. I would associate what he said with every terrorist act we've suffered. It's not about whether or not we deserved it, it's about whether or not we should have expected it. The world – with military bases and operations and American business. And when their ideology, or religion names an infidel, rightly or wrongly, and this infidel roles tanks in their neighborhoods with shiny shoe businessmen nosing into their governments and economies then they’re going to feel threatened – period. That’s obvious. This feeds the terror machine. Is that rational? Of course not, they could be using us for a lot of aid right now and just drain the hell out of us with welfare…but maybe that’s not rational either… Anyway, perception is reality and that allows a very black and white, good versus evil depiction that compliments the nature of their religion quite well. Now, I’ve always argued the superpowers get the blame more by being a superpower than actual responsibility, but that doesn’t erase the duty of critically thinking out how we are perceived by our friends and foes. It’s a strategic necessity, to say nothing else. We won't be the focus of their hatred when we're not integrating ourselves with their markets and governments. They're not up for it. Their governments are not up to the challenge of controlling their people, or their people are not up to the challenge of controlling their own, in order to keep from breeding and raising terrorism. The only reason why we give a crap is because of oil. And while I realize the reality and impact of oil on my life, I still think it's crappy and I'm wishing for a huge energy revolution in the coming years...and a fishing boat... War sucks, our toys weren’t designed for this. People are more and more appalled by killing, particularly collateral damage. This is a cool sign of humanity really, in my opinion. Let’s regroup and fight this a different way. I’ve always wondered why they didn’t make a video of Osama making a deal with Cheney or somebody, using digital engineering, something disgraceful that would discredit him and take away from the movement. I’d like to see more fighting like that.

Why is this your final post? Surely not because of this thread, after all, we're here to discuss and constructively argue and debate - not to agree on anything really, that would be boring. You have some interesting points of view in your posts, I hope you'll change your mind.

I'll take truth over politics any day. If he believes what he says is true, why shouldn't he stand up for it regardless of politics? Isn't that what we call a backbone? No it's not simply looking at 9/11 and assuming we did something wrong, it's looking back on decades of meddling and directly, as well as indirectly causing the deaths of thousands, if not millions of people in the middle east. Then coupling that with their irrational political theocracies that have amazing control over their people. Not to imply there aren't plenty of other guilty parties here, including their own governments. And what about the obvious point that we would also behave the same way if incrementally invaded by other countries? If nothing else, it's the mere recognition that to not consider how your behavior is perceived is to your own perile. How does that not make sense? No it doesn't. It's the common sense analysis that we will likely anger somebody when we mess with them - particularly when messing with their country's politics and leaders. If you punch some guy in the face you have to expect him to hit you back. That's what Ron Paul is saying. If you don't want to have to block punches, then stop punching. That's not to say there isn't a time or place for punching, but you would still measure and anticipate getting hit back. Again, why does that have to be controversial? I'm sorry, that part wasn't directed at you. That's why I mentioned the Giuliani bit. I get to rambling on...

Why does it matter? I mean, you're right in that people are and will make a big deal out of it, but why deny reality? He's exactly right about what he said and it needs to be said and understood. It's like 9/11 is considered so "sacred" that it's blasphemy to even ponder otherwise. That's all emotion. Nothing but an emotional appeal. Look at Guiliani jumping on the "offensive" bandwagon - like he speaks for all who were offended at the notion that the great America could be responsible for anything less than total love and admiration.

I'd like to see the numbers to back that up. If there are more white people than black people, then it stands to reason you would have that same ratio in power and wealth. I'm not stupid, I know it's going to be a higher ratio than 7:1, which is the last white to black ratio I've seen and that was years and years ago. And what you don't understand is that white people don't have that sense of unity that you do. That's our weakness. You have had to struggle, together, to fight for you rights so your sense of comradery dwarfs any sense of brotherhood that may exist with white people. Be proud of that, but also understand that is why we don't "get it" when you claim white people hold all the power. To us, it's like saying all people who chew bubble gum have the power in the country...we're thinking...so what? We don't feel that sense of brotherhood for that to have any meaning. The top 1% of wage earners hold the power and wealth for the most part, in my opinion. And that group is getting more diverse everyday. I doubt you know what it's like for your sister to get hit by a train, but that doesn't mean you can't empathize with me. It doesn't mean you can't tell me to knock it off and get it together if I spend years and years of my life depressed over it. It's not that I think you're being overly dramatic, it's that you're allowing it to continue to hold you down. Why? Don't give them the power. Sure, easy for me to say...and you should appreciate that because those who are NOT in your shoes are more objective. Your parents and their parents had to fight for the rights they got. Now, what are you going to do? I didn't judge you. But I've heard this whiny "american dream" complaint my whole life, and forgive me if this offends you but, it always seems to come from black people. As if all white people got their dream, only black people don't get theirs. That's asinine. We've all got no one to blame but ourselves. You can blame others in terms of them out performing you in pursuit of their american dream, but then that's just being a sore sport. No one is debating that, but rather debating how significant that is still. There are so many specialized institutions for minorites now, that don't exist for white folks. We don't bitch, we understand. If you're white, you have no excuses. No one is crying for you and no one is helping you either. 'You're white - you don't need any help'. We all suffer from the past. You might look at our struggle and laugh, but as you know, it's very real when you experience it. We don't think it's great and equal - we think it's about as great and equal as can reasonably be expected - and in my opinion, remarkably so. You can't force people's hearts and minds to change. And considering in-group / out-group psychology, we're battling nature here. And we're winning! The older generations are littered with the racists, or at least the prejudice so strongly felt 40 years ago. They're almost out of the picture in terms of power and wealth. Things are looking really good, but we have to go through the motions and allow time to do its thing. Those who don't recognize that, are going to lead bitter, frustrated lives.

Well, keep in mind that many of us believe the constitution is timeless. And there is a thin line between evolution and mangling. In fact, the erosion of the constitution is supposed to trigger alarm. Consider the controversial gun rights. The removal of those rights would be a logical first step of any government heading towards oppression. Oppression is not an evolutionary step from freedom - it's the opposite. Could you provide an example of where the constitution needs to evolve? Also, the idea that the abolishing any current tax structure as a radical idea is not very well thought out. Tell me what is sensible about having taxes spread all over the conceptual playing field to the point that people can actually make a living just interpreting it? If a politician declares he lowered taxes, it would take a team of CPA's to determine whether or not he really did, and then it would still be debatable. This is absolutely ridiculous. This is also how you hide money. This is how you create a corrupt system - you make it so complicated and convoluted that no one can figure it out. I could go on and on, but it should be obvious to everyone that a complicated tax structure is BAD BAD BAD! A flat sales tax, or any other consolidated, single point of reference type system will fix a ton of problems.

Good point. Noted. Since when has the "professionals" that "fact check" included the links to their citations? The sentences you took issue with had direct links to their source - multiple sources for one fact, no less. I've never seen that in any media source until Wiki. Though I admit, I have never consciously looked for media source that does. Never forget, the professionals make money at getting you to read their stuff. How do you do that delivering the humble truth? You don't. You have to sensationalize, exaggerate and many times flat out misrepresent the facts to accomplish that. How many times have you seen a headline that immediately grabbed your attention, only to then read the story and find out it wasn't what it was made out to be? That's your professionals at work. Truth doesn't pay the bills, your business does. I know you said you were just kidding, but I do have a lot of faith in humanity's intentions. And note I used the word "intentions". Not at all. Limited personal experience and analysis of motive. I recognize news media as the business it is - just like Wal-mart, AT&T and Best Buy. Do you trust Best Buy to give you the honest answer about which hard drive is the best, even if it isn't a brand they carry? There's a reason we all grow up with a healthy distrust of business. I'm just not sure why we seem to give the news media business immunity. I'm not looking for a "technical win". 'Primary proponents' and 'Most advocates' are two different things. Words mean things, and those were carefully placed, with citations following each. That wasn't an accident or careless editing. However, I agree in that I don't think the Wiki article is unbiased. I'm using it with a grain of salt, like all biased sources. I like Dak's link better, personally. But that could also be because it was easy for me to absorb. For a deeper understanding, none of these sources are really adequate anyway. Because the idea is older than the institute hijacking it. Many have made the case that they are misrepresenting ID and flooding the label with creationism in disquise. If that's true, then Discovery should be our last resource for this definition. Irrelevant. I only referenced that because that's the source for the Wiki article you had such an issue with. I didn't say I agreed with it or otherwise. In a 139 page decision, Judge John E Jones III concluded that ID did actually promote that the designer was the christian god. Again..I'm not saying I agree with any of this. Only that the Wiki article did have sources that check out. When's the last time the New Yorker provided their sources? Well, that was my intent with the former. That god created evolution, but has no need to interfere. I just presumed this would assume all life, not just humans, in all of its complexity is not random, but merely appears that way. I have no problem with that at all, because it doesn't really change the nuts and bolts of natural selection, rather just provides a gee whiz kind of prequel. Am I wrong here? I completely agree, but that wasn't what I was getting at. I meant, if there's little more than a few sentences and an essential disclaimer, then I have a hard time believing this is what everyone is fighting over. There must have been more to the ID agenda than that to receive this kind of backlash from the scientific community. I need to read more about the details of the Kansas issue I guess. I guess that makes sense, except I thought science didn't really have anything to say about god. I thought the idea was that god couldn't be proven or disproven any more than unicorns, so what's to talk about? But I've also noticed a pattern of atheism in scientists, and I'm sure that bleeds over in the classroom. I know I've tried to keep from doing that with my kids, to let them form their own opinion, yet I repeatedly catch myself making atheist comments in front of them.

Deism 1. belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism). 2. belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it. How does that exclude evolution? Evolution could have been invented by a designer. Science doesn't have anything to say about the origins of the natural selection processes we observe does it?

I think you are exactly right, on both counts. You have been consistent on this, and I have to agree with you here. But I thought deistic creation wouldn't really be at odds with evolution, since it doesn't change the science. I mean, no one knows what started everything, so deistic creation is as good as any other guess right? I guess I'm not sure why it would conclude a disbelief in evolution.

That is an interesting link. That clears a few things up for me too. Although ID creationism remains as muddied as before. Especially if all the various creationists are united under that title...which is weird since they already have a title according to this Mark Isaac - "creationist".

Perfect. How about the belief that god still interferes?

Woah, that's what I've been going on and on about Phil. Exactly that. I've got the distinction down just fine, what I don't have is what to CALL that distinction. All of my posts are replied to with various forms of label contentions, which validates the point that wormwood has been making about the ambiguity of the term. Is this the definition you're talking about? I did google "define: Intelligent Design", but all I got was one McGraw source and two Wiki sources. Per this definition, ID attempts to bunk natural selection with supernatural explanations that aren't the least bit testable, let alone provable. By definition, ID guts the dynamics and implications of natural selection. That's a huge chunk of evolution, proven with the scientific method, cast aside for faith alone. Actually that's its strength. That's why it has potential to be the most unbiased resource, because anybody can edit. It's not there yet, I know. The idea is that most people want accuracy and truth and will ultimately prevail over those who wish to enter they are the supreme ruler of the universe. Oh I see your logic now. Better to go with those who profit at it, rather than those driven solely by non-profit interest. Because we all know how the media is so accurate, fair and balanced right? Sorry, but the only thing worse than corporate media is politicians. I'll trust the freedom driven wikipedia over private business of information any day. People who stand to profit, stand to lose. Although, I doubt the definition of ID is on their list of propaganda, I'll give you that. Well, splitting hairs maybe, but after reading it... "Its primary proponents" is different from "Most ID advocates". Primary proponents are leaders. "Most ID advocates" is a percentage of the total pool of ID advocates. See, Wiki actually notes the difference. The New Yorker leaves this out. So much for professionals... So, you apparently didn't check the sources for those comments on ID on Wiki. I did. They reference articles from the New York Times, the ACLU's website, the Discovery Institute itself, AAAS, and etc. I'm not saying this is gospel and Wiki is completely accurate without bias at all, in fact all of those sources except for the discovery institute are biased sources. I include news media as biased sources since their living depends on news and how we react to it. However, each of those sources did repeatedly point out that Discovery is leading the charge, including Discovery. And of all the figures most focused on, they all seem to be affiliated with Discovery. The Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., ruling is where this comes from. Quite disputable, but not trumped up rhetoric. Everybody has different ideas on what ID means and everyone claims to have found their source. I'm not sure how this thread can progress at this point and still maintain any sense of integrity. We're all just going to argue semantics and never really get anywhere. There's nothing to gain until definitions are cleared up. If ID is truly as simplified and all encompassing as "god created the universe" - then we need a new term to partition and reference "god created the universe, and continues to meddle with it and natural selection is bunk". And can I ask a stupid question? If ID makes no specifics and doesn't attempt to alter the scientific understanding of evolution and natural selection...then what is there to teach? How do you teach ID, when it's nothing more than a sentence to throw in the intro chapter to evolution? If the interpretation of ID is merely the believe that these system were created by a designer, then the mere mention of the possibility in the news has taught us all - class dismissed! Next thread...

Well it's only radical when you don't consider the decades of incremental erosion of the constitution and exploitation of taxation. But perception is reality, so I'm sure you're right.

Yeah, and I didn't think the anthropic principal required a designer. But at this point, my head is spinning about all of it.

You know, so many people shake their heads and make the argument that an Independent president would be ineffective, not having any Independent legislators to support him. But I wonder if it would be exactly the opposite. Couldn't an independent president compliment a divided house and promote bipartisanship better than either party can? I mean, if he isn't on either team, then it's not like one side is "giving in" to the other.

Well it sounds like we're contending the same result but differing on the logistics. Again..back to the OP...the reason why this matters is because if I understand him right, the OP isn't concerned with the half of the ID'ers that believe in the clock maker version, rather is concerned about the half of ID'ers that believe he still interferes. That is not science, but they want it taught that way. I agree with the OP in that regard, but for various reasons I don't believe they are a true majority of any significance. We both seem to agree with this. Not sure how Wiki is biased, but I'm sure you'll explain... I can appreciate the intention of its ambiguity in the political process too. I made a similar point earlier in the thread, minus the intention, in that people who believe in god and evolution as it is scientifically proven, might be inclined to answer as "IDist" because they believe in god - not realizing that ID actually carries with it conclusions they may not agree with at all. Like me labeling myself a conservative on a phone poll because "I conserve my personal resources", not knowing that I've just implied a ton of ideology that I don't agree with at all. You're kind of arguing a similar direction except to say that it's intentionally that way, politically. Am I right? Anyway, I really don't see how we can go any further until we nail down what ID really is and what it isn't. I thought I knew, now I'm not sure. It appears to be Wiki vs. McGraw.

Then by this logic, all who believe in god also believe in ID. Then you have removed the partition from those who believe god is interfering continuously and those who believe he does not. This is a major point of contention because the OP established concern with those who believe the supernatural is still meddling with evolution. I don't believe your definition of ID is correct within the context of political and scientific discussion. Rather it's misleading, lacks the required complexity to distinguish various beliefs who's dynamics are quite impacting. You're basically glossing over it all and dismissing it. Isn't that what science is doing? Where is this definition? I abuse wikipedia and have not seen it defined so simply. With a definition this loose, what's the point? Now we need some term of reference to distinguish those who generally agree god had some part in our existence from those who theorize specifics and advocate a rejection of a process that has been proven by the scientific method. That's a huge difference. Is that maybe where creationism comes in?

Nice one.

You shouldn't. But you shouldn't teach 1, 2 or 3 until you know via the scientific method.

As I understand it, no. You'd have to scoff at natural selection and insist, by faith alone, that god or the supernatural is guiding the process we interpret as evolution. But it's not since intelligent design rejects natural selection, implying that the hand of god is continuous, or at least interferes regularly rather than the proverbial snowball scenario where god just invents it, and from there it propagates on its own. Definitely semantics. I agree that the phrase "intelligent design" sounds quite simply like a belief in god' date=' that created the universe. If god is truly omnipotent and responsible for the universe, then it stands to reason that kind of unfathomable intelligence would elude man's pathetic reasoning skills in contrast. But it's now the new label for a theory. Maybe we need look into "creationists" and see what the difference is, because there certainly is one. Maybe these "gee whiz" Levin type ideas are more like generalizations that don't impact the teachings and proofs of natural selection. Can you say that J. Levin's quote changes anything we teach in science today? I don't see how. And that's the difference here. Most simply assign god some role in evolution without specifics, retaining the science of evolution and natural selection. No I haven't. Sounds interesting though...