Re: PZ Myers: a rising star in the liberal blogosphere?

Glend wrote:
> chris.linthompson@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > Glend wrote:
> > > chris.linthompson@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > Glend wrote:
> > > > > Cyde Weys wrote:
> > > > > > Haha, okay, did you like the title?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anyway, DarkSyde (no relation), now a regular blogger on DailyKOS, has
> > > > > > published another front page story on PZ Myers. You might want to
> > > > > > check it out. It has a long interview with PZ.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *Sigh*, I remember way back when PZ was "just" a regular on
> > > > > > talk.origins. My, things have changed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/6/95138/89017
> > > > >
> > > > > Much of his blog reminds me of the standard complaints about pundits
> > > > > and politicians sticking their nose into science: He's sounding off on
> > > > > religion and politics without really having much knowledge of those
> > > > > subjects. I know, just like bloggers across the political spectrum,
> > > > > but isn't that the problem?
> > > >
> > > > I'm curious as to why you said this. Would you care to provide some
> > > > evidence that he doesn't know much about religion? Did he come out and
> > > > write something like "Jesus must have been Mexican, look at the name."
> > > > I see PZ talking about religion where it impinges on his personal
> > > > world- where religion starts to affect science and science teaching. In
> > > > that interview, he's asked for his *person* opinion about religion and
> > > > he provides it. Is that a running theme through his blog? I don't think
> > > > so.
> > >
> > > He manifestly lacks much knowledge of religious psychology, generally
> > > denigrates religion, and fails to understand the role religion plays in
> > > the lives of people and in society.
> >
> > "Religious psychology"? What on earth is that?
>
> Look it up, numbnuts. God, are you so stupid that you thought I was
> referring to a "branch of psychology"? Clearly English is not
> something you understand, idiot.

Temper, temper. A little ad hom goes a long way.

> That's certainly no
> > branch of psychology I've heard of. Do you mean why people need
> > religion in their lives? I think he understands it quite well, and
> > that's *exactly* what he doesn't care for. It's superstition, and it
> > gets in the way of rational assessments of the universe.
>
> It's more than superstition, but I wouldn't expect someone as
> uneducated and dim as you to understand it.

Well, no, it's not much more than superstition. But suppose you tell
me which parts are we supposed to accept at true- the flying chariots
part or the earth standing still part?

> > > Here's what he wrote about the
> > > Bible recently:
> > >
> > > "State the plain truth -- that it's got some brilliant bits, it's got
> > > some long ghastly stretches, and overall, if it weren't for a
> > > near-universal pattern of indoctrination, it would be panned as a
> > > sloppy mish-mash of crazy thinking--and people start talking about
> > > chewing their arms off."
> > >
> > > If that's all he gets from the Bible, he doesn't have much excuse to
> > > write about it.
> >
> > Oh, horse***. You're on and on about this, and you need to figure
> > something out- there's a lot of people out there who just. do. not.
> > care. about. your. bible.
>
> I don't have a Bible, liar. You just assume and lie any time someone
> knows something beyond your ignorant little life.

Now now, Glen. Did I make a mistake? Are you an atheist? Not a
christian at all? If so, I apologize for insulting you by calling you a
christian, since you seem to have taken offense at it.

> > Read that part again, ok? Take a deep breath and let it sink in.
>
> What a fuckhead you are.

Gracious, as always.

> > > This was my response:
> > >
> > > "I know what you're saying, but I do have more respect for ancient
> > > writings than that. One reason is simply that it is ancient, and often
> >
> > Old things are interesting to be sure. That's why we have museums. But
> > you don't see people trying to find an inner meaning to a worm trail
> > from the Devonian, do you?
>
> Just a projection of your misunderstandings. Morons like you are who I
> oppose, regardless of religion or irreligion.

Ah, now that's your idea of data, I presume?

> > > writings from certain times and places are rare. Another is that the
> > > Bible contains historical information that cannot be gained from any
> >
> > The Bible contains virtually no historical information of any use. That
> > which has not been refuted by modern archaeology cannot be confirmed.
>
> Well, that's your lie. Take a course, dumbass.

I thought college profs were mostly ignorant?

> > > other source, though it is true that dealing with such evidence is
> > > dicey and difficult. Even as simply a snapshot in time (probably around
> > > the period of Babylonian captivity) of what Jewish scholars thought
> > > important, it is of interest. Culturally it is important, of course,
> > > with a need to know the Bible to really understand Shakespeare and many
> > > other writers well.
> >
> > The Bible as literary reference? Of course. It has had an enormous,
> > often deleterious, effect on western culture. I agree: Know your enemy.
> >
> It's ignoramuses like you who can't recognize the Bible as an often
> neutral source of language and imagery, but have to turn it into a
> diatribe every time.

Um. Please read for comprehension next time, ok?

> > > "Most, perhaps all, of the books are not sloppy as individual works.
> >
> > Bull. Where they are not internally contradictory, they are mutually
> > contradictory.
>
> You don't even have an inkling of how stupid you are, do you? I'd
> prefer any intelligent theist to a sewer dweller like yourself.

More data, I presume? Examples to back up your assertions?

> >
> > [snip more of the same apologetics]
>
> It's not apologetics, but then you're too stupid not to recognize my
> lack of religion anyhow.

Whether or not you are religious, those were apologetics. Thought you
like plain talk?

> >
> > > "I write this because I do not think we should antagonize the religious
> > > when it is not warranted, though I think we should be willing to do so
> > > whenever it is."
> >
> > Who decides? You seem to want to make that decision for others.
>
> It's a recommendation. I guess that you understand almost nothing of
> the English language.

You might think upon this for a moment: you seem to be saying to a
great many people that they don't understand English. If everyone
around you is having difficulty perceiving your message, the correct
answer usually is not "I'm surrounded by people who don't understand
English!"

> > > The exchange may be found here:
> > >
> > > http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/in_praise_of_godless_science/P25/
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > So sure, he's got as much right to say whatever he wants as the others
> > > > > do. And at least he gets the scientific issues done right, for the
> > > > > most part. Couldn't we just once have a blogger writing about politics
> > > > > who also understands the relevant disciplines (history, sociology,
> > > > > psychology, poly-sci) in depth?
> > > >
> > > > Again, what makes you think he does not underestand issues?
> > >
> > > Because I see no genuine discussion of the issues in his writings on
> > > Pharyngula, except perhaps when it gets into the nexus of politics and
> > > science. His viewpoint is bourgeois, unsympathetic to the feelings of
> > > lower class individuals--particularly if they're religious, and it all
> > > sounds canned, like it came from lefty soundbites.
> >
> > And you provide exactly *zero* examples to substantiate your
> > complaints.
>
> Read Pharyngula. Actually, I'm sure you have, but you're too damn
> stupid to recognize boilerplate when you see it. Trouble is, dealing
> with you is like dealing with a creationist, you lack the background to
> understand anything. If you did understand politics at any depth you'd
> know that what I say is true. And no, I can't pack in enough knowledge
> even for someone intelligent, unlike yourself.

Oooh. More "You're dumb, I'm not!" That makes for a convincing
argument.

> > You know, evidence?
>
> Yeah, I know, you just demand what cannot be provided in such a venue.
> Your dishonesty shows again.

No dishonesty. I asked for an example and you replied with insults.
That generally leaves me unconvinced.

> Proof? You sound like one of the
> > right-wing goons who tries to apply a veneer of reason over your smarmy
> > attacks on anyone not toeing the conservative christian line.
>
> What a fuckup. All you can do is attack, and make false claims about
> myself and what I say. Apparently you have no expertise in anything,
> including English usage.

Ah, little irony there I take it?

>
>
> > Like what you write here:
> >
> > > I've read good leftist writings, and if I'm not especially one to
> > > espouse them I find them to be valuable critiques, unlike most anything
> > > to be found in "liberal" or "conservative" writings (some stuff on the
> > > right gets good, again, at least in portions). Now it's true that I
> > > tend to prefer writings not allowed to be "relevant" today, however I
> > > fail to see where blather between "liberals" and "conservatives" is
> > > going to do anything other than to slightly alter the present skew
> > > toward the rich and the well-connected.
> >
> > Well, all you have to do is look at the income earned with jobs created
> > under the last Democratic administration and those created under this
> > administration.
>
> Which has absolutely no relevance to what I said. I never fail to be
> amazed at how retarded you are.

So, what you wrote has nothing to with economics under liberal vs.
conservative governments? Are you using your secret decoder ring again?
You should let people know that words like:

"...where blather between "liberals" and "conservatives" is going to do
anything other than to slightly alter the present skew toward the rich
and the well-connected."

don't have anything to do with a discussion of the merits people see in
the opposing philosophies of governments.


> >
> > > You don't
> > > > need a degree in economics (you forgot that one by the way) to tell
> > > > that accruing massive debt while voluntarily reducing your income will
> > > > lead to problems at some future time- whether you're a government or an
> > > > individual.
> > >
> > > I didn't forget the degree in economics precisely because one doesn't
> > > need it for the obvious facts, like the problems of huge deficits. The
> >
> > Blahblahblah. You don't need degrees in the fields you DO mention,
> > either.
>
> Apparently you do believe that, indeed. Which is why you're so stupid.
> Anyhow, I didn't say people need degrees in the subjects, only that
> they need to know them. Liar.

You toss that "liar" word around an awful lot, you know that? In my
experience, the people most free with that insult are themselves
prevaricators.

>
> The implications in modern culture are apparent to anyone who
> > takes a moment to observe.
>
> For someone as stupid as you, I'm sure that makes sense.

More of what you consider data, I presume?

> > > problems of capitalist economies, otoh, require far more knowledge if
> > > they are going to be addressed and properly handled, rather than simply
> > > faulting the Republicans for being slightly more republican than the
> > > Democrats. And "economics" as a discipline is not necessarily going to
> > > equip anyone to deal with these issues, rather this gets more into
> > > poli-sci and sociological matters.
> >
> > Except they're probably all lefties anyway, aren't they? And atheists
> > to boot.
>
> Only you'd be so stupid as to suppose that I think those are problems.
> Cretin.
> >
> > > He seems to have a well-reasoned political philosophy and
> > > > he's articulate when he expresses it.
> > >
> > > First off, I really only took this opportunity to note the low level of
> > > political and religious discourse in the blogosphere, trying not to
> > > single out PZ for criticism. He probably does as well as 95% out
> > > there, and it may very well be that in any case it's good for another
> > > liberal voice to counter the conservatives.
> >
> > Damning with faint praise is too transparent.
>
> You lack the intelligence to recognize the use of an example.

You call this an example? You quote nothing, you relay nothing of what
he said, you cite some statistic that is utterly meaningless- this is
an example? Here's a free clue: this is NOT an example. This is a
paragraph of assertions for which you present no evidence. The two are
not synonomous.

> > > Secondly, PZ's comments on politics sounds like herd thought to me.
> > > It's the kind of boilerplate that The Nation complains about in The New
> > > Republic, though The Nation sometimes admits that they're not saying
> > > much any more either. If he reasoned it out at all, I fail to see it.
> >
> > Again, where's some evidence? No particular cites? Your assertions are
> > pretty meaningless without some actual incidents to back them up.
>
> Learn something. I can't even begin to tell a dolt like you what is
> missing in PZ's political writings.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but when someone asks for an
example, telling them they're too dim to understand the answer usually
wins you few adherents.

Actually, it makes you look like an ass.

> > > Sounds like it was adopted wholesale from the twaddle emitted by most
> > > (petty bourgeois) college professors (as opposed to the few really
> > > knowledgeable profs).
> >
> > I thought you needed college degrees to be able to talk about this
> > stuff?
>
> I didn't say that, you just projected your idiocy.

No, your original post proclaimed the need for bloggers to have an
understanding of politics, sociology, and a few other subjects. If you
once again are using code, you should let people know. Otherwise,
readers will just assume you mean what anyone else would mean, and that
a person should attend university to gain competence in such matters.

> Now most people with the highest degrees aren't knowledgeable?
> > You're as internally consistent as the bible.
>
> The bourgeoisie are biased. But you're too stupid to know that, as
> well.

Thanks for treating us to an example of an open mind.

> > > You know, the "qualifications"
> > > > for talking about politics in this country are rather less than the
> > > > qualifications for talking about science.You pretty much have to be a
> > > > citizen of the US, or of some other country (I haven't noticed the lack
> > > > of citizenship stopping anyone around here, anyway:)
> > >
> > > I think that was implied fairly strongly in my post: "The odder thing
> > > about politics is that not knowing the relevant facts and concepts
> > > actually does not exempt one from the responsibility to do something
> > > about politics and society--thus the whole mess of bloggers
> > > out there." But I don't care if one has responsibilities that one may
> > > not be adequately equipped to handle, that's no excuse just to blunder
> > > along without learning a good deal more.
> > > >
> > > > But you seem to contradict yourself anyway. Blogs are the perfect
> > > > example of a 'free market'.
> > >
> > > Who said ANYTHING about free markets? Apparently you're falling into
> >
> > I did. I am saying you are totally free to read- or not read- PZ's
> > blog.
>
> Which has nothing to do with what I wrote.
> >
> > > the mistake that I believe PZ makes, of mostly just blaming the other
> > > guy without even thinking about what he might be saying. I happen to
> >
> > Nonsense. Let me be clear here: Very little of what you say is right.
>
> Even if it were so, you're too stupid to know either way. Fuckwit.
> Take some courses in political philosophy. I did.

Now I'm impressed. How many semesters did it take for you to learn how
to spell "fuckwit"?

> > > think that free markets cause a number of problems, even if I think
> > > they're likely the best that we can hope for today. The latter caveat
> > > doesn't change the fact that free markets favor the privileged (get a
> > > Ph.D and any number of dolts fall all over themselves with awe), pander
> >
> > Who's supposed to give you that political and sociological training?
>
> It's difficult, since the petty bourgeois academia is biased. Like
> Nietzsche said, one must learn everything oneself.

Ah. You taught yourself everything you know. Why am I not surprised?

> > > mostly to the wishes and desires of the bourgoisie, and ought to be
> > > properly criticized and in some cases curtailed (not speech curtailed
> > > by gov't, though).
> >
> > By who then? Some private organization? You're a scary one, you know.
>
> The gov't, fuckhead. Christ, you're dense. And speech should be
> fought out in the fora.
> >
> > > They really are free. They compete for your
> > > > time and attention. You are absolutely free to read one or ignore it.
> > >
> > > Good ol' bourgeois freedom. We're all so damned free, unless, of
> > > course, we have something new to say.
> >
> > What does this mean? That people cannot say or publish new things? Um,
> > you're wrong.
>
> There's a whole discussion in Physics Today about the lack of freedom
> to research. Why don't you learn something?
> >
> > > The herd likes the old, the
> > > profs like what they have already said thousands of times, and the
> >
> > You've got your head someplace dark and sandy, methinks.
>
> I think you've never read anything intelligent, and can only attack,
> cocksucker.

More data.

Cutting to the chase:


> To morons I don't doubt it is. Btw, I'm through responding to this
> particular uneducated half-wit. He can't say anything intelligent, or
> even understand my positions on science and politics.

I am sure you've impressed at least one person with your erudite
response to my post. We are especially grateful for the lesson in
Anglo-Saxon monosyllabic invective, along with your consummate
exhibition of argument without evidence.

HTH

HAND

Chris

> Glen Davidson
> http:tinyurl.com/b8ykm
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > > >
> > > > > The odd thing about ID/creationism is that those who know the least
> > > > > about science and biology feel quite qualified to judge the matter.
> > > > > The odder thing about politics is that not knowing the relevant facts
> > > > > and concepts actually does not exempt one from the responsibility to do
> > > > > something about politics and society--thus the whole mess of bloggers
> > > > > out there. It sure would be nice if more people would recognize that
> > > > > they should learn something when they insist on their voices being
> > > > > heard.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm
> > > >
> > > > In one sense I agree with you. In another sense, I am reminded of a
> > > > photograph I once saw (and now kick myself for not saving) of the Nazis
> > > > marching in Skokie, Il. As you would expect, that one drew out
> > > > *everyone*. Longhairs and 58 year-old veterans of World War II were out
> > > > there screaming at the bastards. And the person standing in the street,
> > > > holding back one of the protesters who's getting carried away, making
> > > > sure that even bastards are allowed their say, is a black Illinois
> > > > State Trooper.
> > >
> > > Well it wasn't just one State Trooper. Also, the ACLU deserves credit
> > > for supporting speech in even that case.
> > >
> > > But guess what? I can and should complain about the level of discourse
> > > promoted by the Nazis. And although I would not in the least compare
> > > the general mess of bloggers I complained about to the Nazis, the
> > > principle that I should criticize boilerplate as not the ideal sort of
> > > speech is also one to which I cling. Are you trying to shut me up? I
> > > really didn't think so, yet if I went with your low standards of
> > > criticism I'd have as much reason to suggest that you're trying to
> > > stifle free speech as you have for your false implications about my
> > > purposes.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe, just maybe, there's something to this free speech stuff.
> > >
> > > Easy, and false, smear on your part.
> > >
> > > And
> > > > maybe you have to put up with the Nazis to make sure the James Madisons
> > > > and Alexander Hamiltons are heard.
> > >
> > > Should I try that out on The Nation the next time they're complaining
> > > about boilerplate from The New Republic? Naw, I think they'd see what
> > > a crock it is.
> > >
> > > Glen Davidson
> > > http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm
> > > >
> > > > Chris

.

Loading