Don't want to be an American Idiot

[iNow]

Pathetic.

 

 

 

I seem to remember the death of when facts mattered.

 

 

 

From Jerry Coyne, "No, it’s not half of Americans that hold an anti-scientific belief about evolution. It’s more than 3 out of 4—78%, to be exact. God-guided evolution is just as antiscientific as the idea that God guides photons and electrons—or chemical reactions. It’s time to stop saying that the beliefs of theistic evolutionists are in harmony with science."

[Xittenn]

If Science wants itself to be represented as an alternative ideology it will be required to involve itself 'freely' within the greater community. If Science does not want itself to be viewed as an ideology, then I am unclear as to how you would expect to persuade members of a long standing ideology to suddenly relinquish their methods. Being part of the community doesn't mean volunteer work, it means reaching out to a public, 90% of whom hold no degree and who have incredibly simple views of the discoveries of science.

 

American's aren't dumb iNow, they are hard pressed to get by. They work to make due, they drink their pop and watch their TV's when the day is done. Most barely have the energy to go to church at the end of their week, but you expect them to learn why they must believe in evolution, a concept which wasn't even understood until within the most recent human history by the most brilliant of minds. People are genetically inferior biological entities who have no superior to stand against so that they might know better.

 

If you wish to hand out pamphlets iNow I will gladly do the graphic design work and lay them out for you. I will not however stand in front of the Skytrain Station at Central City handing them out . . . . or Metrotown Station either! But honestly iNow you are slamming people who can barely understand what the hell they are doing here and what they might want from their personal existence. They can think, they are just not inclined to do so when there are far more pressing issues like how much the telephone bill is, in contrast to how did we get here.

 

If my reply is a little too weak for your liking I might suggest that you ignore it . . . . unless you might prefer to educate me on my wrongs :/

Edited June 2, 2012 by Xittenn

[immortal]

Science can't say much about beliefs which doesn't have positive evidence against them. I wouldn't ask or force people to stop believing and promote science as an ideology but atleast people should update themselves and withdraw those beliefs which are contrary to the available evidence. I wonder how many people still believe that the earth is flat.

[timo]

Radical atheist attitudes have risen by 67% within the last 12 years! If this trend continues the US will be void of honest religious people within ~50 years (and also of dishonest religious people). Might this extrapolation foretell the date of Armageddon? Sinners repent!

 

(brainfucked by trying to sell similarly convincing data to a bunch of referees)

[iNow]

American's aren't dumb iNow, they are hard pressed to get by.

I didn't realize these were opposite ends of the same spectrum, Xittenn. Oh wait, that's right... They're not. American's ARE getting dumber on average using pretty much every known metric, and that's only peripherally related to the economic duress so many people are feeling right now. Even our congressional speeches have dropped a full two grade point averages in just the last 7 years as the tea party has taken more positions of power.

 

Am I really out of line for being incredibly disheartened by the ignorance that is so rampant in our culture? Am I really some sort of monster for prizing education and reason?

[dimreepr]

In England, as in America, it is an example of; governance by accountancy, in that education and many other aspects of society is defined by numbers, which if manipulated well enough can show just how well our society is doing. Intelligence hasn’t changed, in general, but the numbers sure do make it seem like they have.

 

 

[Xittenn]

Am I really out of line for being incredibly disheartened by the ignorance that is so rampant in our culture? Am I really some sort of monster for prizing education and reason?

 

No, you are out of line for bitching about it, instead of actually doing your country a service and remedying the situation--my apologies if you actually do spend time confronting the public on this matter. I'm sure the public generally avoids this site, so if this is a plea to the many it may be misplaced.

 

Again, the lack of concern on the public's part with regards to issues that you feel are important is not proof of their stupidity. Comparing the public to their government is far from a rational choice as well. You wouldn't believe how incredibly meticulous people are with the tasks that are required of them, such as butchering your dinner and not poisoning you in the process. The fact that you purposefully neglect their talents and focus on their inability to write prose is not proof of fact, especially when you've decided which language that prose should be in.

 

 

Radical atheist attitudes have risen by 67% within the last 12 years! If this trend continues the US will be void of honest religious people within ~50 years (and also of dishonest religious people). Might this extrapolation foretell the date of Armageddon? Sinners repent!

 

(brainfucked by trying to sell similarly convincing data to a bunch of referees)

 

I guess I fall under this category, being an advocate of moving on as opposed to moving forward and all . . .. . . I apologies to the population for being a prick, it was never my primary intention :/

 

** this was my way of saying I'm like the kettle and all .. . .

Edited June 2, 2012 by Xittenn

[zapatos]

Even our congressional speeches have dropped a full two grade point averages in just the last 7 years as the tea party has taken more positions of power.

By linking the two in this statement you are implying causation. Is there indeed causation?

 

Pathetic.

I had no idea. Pathetic was the perfect word to describe this situation. I don't run into these people much so I guess that is why I'm so flabergasted.

[Phi for All]

By linking the two in this statement you are implying causation. Is there indeed causation?

It seemed irrational (idiotic? I guess, considering such a large movement) for the Tea Party to form and immediately start griping about taxes at a time when middle class taxes had just been reduced. Why didn't they start the party under Bush? And they've done some other fairly idiotic things, like putting together lists of things the Obama administration is spending money on without understanding the expenditures in context. If it sounds pointless, it must be pointless, right?

 

I felt the same way about neo-conservative Republicans. How can you be a small government Republican who doesn't want us to be the world's police and be a neo-conservative at the same time without seeming idiotic?

 

Mitt gives me no hope either. "Planned Parenthood, we're going to get rid of that." Seems idiotic, but I guess it will make a lot of money for those privatized prisons his buddies want to build.

[iNow]

By linking the two in this statement you are implying causation. Is there indeed causation?

You decide.

 

http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2012/05/21/congressional-speech/

 

 

I had no idea. Pathetic was the perfect word to describe this situation. I don't run into these people much so I guess that is why I'm so flabergasted.

Are you at least familiar with the frequent attempts to legislate that we teach the controversy? We may as well teach the stork theory of childbirth, too.

[zapatos]

You decide.

 

http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2012/05/21/congressional-speech/

 

Sho nuff. You're just full of good news today. I think I'll just go back to bed...

 

Are you at least familiar with the frequent attempts to legislate that we teach the controversy? We may as well teach the stork theory of childbirth, too.

Kansas is my next door neighbor. I'm grateful everyday that I don't have to claim their legislators as mine. Although I must admit that Missouri legislators are not much better.

 

It seemed irrational (idiotic? I guess, considering such a large movement) for the Tea Party to form and immediately start griping about taxes at a time when middle class taxes had just been reduced. Why didn't they start the party under Bush? And they've done some other fairly idiotic things, like putting together lists of things the Obama administration is spending money on without understanding the expenditures in context. If it sounds pointless, it must be pointless, right?

 

I felt the same way about neo-conservative Republicans. How can you be a small government Republican who doesn't want us to be the world's police and be a neo-conservative at the same time without seeming idiotic?

 

Mitt gives me no hope either. "Planned Parenthood, we're going to get rid of that." Seems idiotic, but I guess it will make a lot of money for those privatized prisons his buddies want to build.

I've always been independent but tended to vote conservative. I alway thought anyone who voted a straight party line lacked the ability to think for themselves. During Bush I started voting more liberal, and the last few elections, with only minor exceptions, I've voted straight party line-Democrat. Not that I'm particularly thrilled with Democrats, I just couldn't stand the Republican form of hypocrisy, which included taking in less money while spending more, knee-jerk support of those least in need of it, and calling for less intrusive government while getting more and more involved in people's personal lives.

 

I say in all seriousness that I started voting Democratic because I felt they were more conservative than the Republicans.

[Moontanman]

 

 

Kansas is my next door neighbor. I'm grateful everyday that I don't have to claim their legislators as mine. Although I must admit that Missouri legislators are not much better.

 

 

 

 

You should try NC legislators... dumb as stumps... hateful as a grizzly bear with syphilis... seriously, some of the political ads I've seen lately are better than SNL comedy routines... except they are seriously scary...

[Phi for All]

I've always been independent but tended to vote conservative. I alway thought anyone who voted a straight party line lacked the ability to think for themselves.

I agree completely. I tend to be more conservative with regard to fiscal policies, more liberal with social issues. In fact, I think a more conservative approach to spending on social issues would probably be a more representative approach than either major party has currently.

 

Not that I'm particularly thrilled with Democrats, I just couldn't stand the Republican form of hypocrisy, which included taking in less money while spending more, knee-jerk support of those least in need of it, and calling for less intrusive government while getting more and more involved in people's personal lives.

Oooh, I forgot about that one. I think it's a sorry attempt to corral the religious vote when Republicans try to legislate all this personal intrusion into our lives. It's hard to reconcile that stance with the platform Eisenhower and Reagan ran on.

 

I say in all seriousness that I started voting Democratic because I felt they were more conservative than the Republicans.

That's a very interesting perspective. If they'd grow a spine and stop vacillating on smart, effective use of funds I could almost agree with you. I still want a different voting system so more perspectives can be represented. I'm tired of two-sizes-fits-all.

[Xittenn]

Are you at least familiar with the frequent attempts to legislate that we teach the controversy? We may as well teach the stork theory of childbirth, too.

 

So you anticipate a time when the government you are voting into office has it in mind to 'educate' the public, or essentially establish a system such that ignorance is abolished? This would be as an alternative, I suppose, to actually reaching out to your community yourself. But your governments actions seem to be quite in contrast to these aspirations, and in fact their actions seem to be motivated more closely with sabotaging the future of the general American public. Ironically enough many throughout the globe fear a potential insurgence by the American government towards military rule, both home and abroad. I mean these are just my observations, and these ideas may not immediately contradict the original hypothesis--I believe that they do! I still see your initial argument as confused at best.

 

Who is voting in who? What are the American public to do about it? Is 'the controversy' really your immediate threat, or is it a smoke screen that you are simply too blind to see through? I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but the actions of the American government these days seems rather subversive. Who has that bull by the horns? Let's say hypothetically for a moment that America is borderline dumb as a rock on a greater whole . . . . ** Thor smash, me hungry ** <== far less worried about how much the American public feels about creationism, [math] \lnot [/math] please enjoy a nice tea party guys :/

[iNow]

So you anticipate a time when the government you are voting into office has it in mind to 'educate' the public, or essentially establish a system such that ignorance is abolished?

No, not sure how you've gathered that from my comments. I do, however, hope for a time when personal enrichment, education, and enlightenment are prized in the same way that faith in stupid myths and fairy tales are today.

 

Seriously... Look at the OP. 3 out of 4 people don't even accept the truth of evolution. How paramecium-level 15 kiloton thermostupid do we plan on letting ourselves get as a people?

 

And please, xittenn... would you please shut up about me not participating in my community or educating those around me. You have no idea what I do when I'm not online, nor how I involve myself in enriching the lives of people... and I'm tired of your continued assumptions about me and what do or don't do in an attempt to make things better.

Edited June 3, 2012 by iNow

[Xittenn]

And please, xittenn... would you please shut up about me not participating in my community or educating those around me. You have no idea what I do when I'm not online, nor how I involve myself in enriching the lives of people... and I'm tired of your continued assumptions about me and what do or don't do in an attempt to make things better.

 

No iNow, I will shut up only because I have nothing else to say. All you do here is complain about the faults of others, so and so is too this, American people are paramecium. I already made note that I do not know what you do in your spare time, but if your activities here reflect your daily life discourse I'm sure it's accurate to say that all you do is complain. People are not yours for the judging . . . . . are there problems in America, I'm pretty sure the answer is yes. Are the American people paramecium-level 15 kiloton thermostupid? Probably not! Maturity . . . .

[iNow]

So, for the sake of clarity, are you arguing that we should be complacent and accept the status quo? Does not fixing the problem happen only after it's noticed and pointed out? Help me understand what you're after... Do you just not want people expressing honest emotions about what they see around them? Do you feel that the time I spend venting about it is for naught? Do you think raising awareness in others in all places I interact is futile?

 

Seriously... What exactly are you driving at?

[Xittenn]

I think that you can approach problems like this by raising awareness. I don't think that involving your own emotions in the problem will help any. My personal opinion, and why I keep bringing up community outreach, is that there are not enough healthy alternatives to religion to offset the gap that the church currently provides. Do you see what I did there, or better yet, what I didn't? I didn't say that people are stupid. I made note of a problem and I suggested a place in where solutions could be found. Is the American government currently an issue that needs to be addressed? This could very well be, but the government of America is not the American people. Voting may not be adequate in solving the problems with American government, these problems may require a more intense solution or more active participation in moving key players into office that would change the way things are done. Key players may be required for that matter. People who call people stupid are rarely key player material iNow!

[iNow]

I don't think that involving your own emotions in the problem will help any.

We disagree then. Emotion is what gathers people to your cause. Logic helps, but passion is the true catalyst of change.

 

My personal opinion, and why I keep bringing up community outreach, is that there are not enough healthy alternatives to religion to offset the gap that the church currently provides.

I think this is a valid point, and we largely agree. There is a communal effect of religious gathering that is central to the lives of many, and quite hard to replace. There are, however, a multitude of of secular ways people can group and aggregate, and it's not required that collective willful ignorance be the central glue of any community.

 

People who call people stupid are rarely key player material iNow!

Do you honestly believe my driving motivation here is to call people stupid? Am I that poor of a communicator that you're misunderstanding my true intentions so profoundly?

[Xittenn]

I can see you as someone with well guided objectives, but your choice of words often leaves me wondering what is your motivation. I'm not trying to disrupt your thread iNow, I just felt the OP was skewed in a way that was both malicious and misguided. Misguided because of the choice of words, maybe if it had been posed differently your meaning might have been more clear to me. I also advocate for the working man, who despite having low literary ability can often prove to be rather perceptive--even in light of their possible belief in a maybe less favorable concept.

 

I apologize if I have sidetracked your discussion, do continue as it seems to be very important to you. I will watch from over there ==>

[zapatos]

Oooh, I forgot about that one. I think it's a sorry attempt to corral the religious vote when Republicans try to legislate all this personal intrusion into our lives. It's hard to reconcile that stance with the platform Eisenhower and Reagan ran on.

And speaking of the conservative Eisenhower, he reduced military spending and federal deficits, opposed Joseph McCarthy, expanded Social Security, sent federal troops to Little Rock to enforce school desegregation, signed civil rights legislation to protect people's right to vote, created the department of Health, Education and Welfare while expanding benefits to an additional 10 million people, and implemented desegregation in the armed forces, saying ""We have not taken and we shall not take a single backward step. There must be no second class citizens in this country." All the while dealing with our enemies with a strong hand.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower

 

That is my kind of conservative. In today's world if I had to pick the party more likely to treat its country and citizens in that manner, it would be the Democrats. I know it is a bit of a simplification, but that is why I say the Democrats are more conservative than the Republicans.

[iNow]

I can see you as someone with well guided objectives, but your choice of words often leaves me wondering what is your motivation. I'm not trying to disrupt your thread iNow, I just felt the OP was skewed in a way that was both malicious and misguided. Misguided because of the choice of words, maybe if it had been posed differently your meaning might have been more clear to me.

You got all of that from my choice of the word "pathetic?" Whoa... Others even before you told me it was the perfect word to describe the data, and yet now here you're telling me it was "skewed in a way that was both malicious and misguided."

 

Can you help me understand what you mean? I've lost your intended meaning, I fear. Perhaps you wish I'd said, "Hey! Look at the opportunity we have for making things better! Yippeee gollly, this is such fan-diddly-tastic news folks!"

 

No. Despite the accumulation of evidence and despite the increased availability to information, acceptance of evolution has been flat to negative over the past several decades, and the data skews heavily by ideology. How is it malicious to point out a fact? How is it misguided to present data and share a one word response to it, "Pathetic?" I'd really like you to elaborate on that if you'd be so kind.

[Xittenn]

You got all of that from my choice of the word "pathetic?" Whoa... Others even before you told me it was the perfect word to describe the data, and yet now here you're telling me it was "skewed in a way that was both malicious and misguided."

 

I'm sorry iNow I don't argue with American idiots, especially arrogant individuals like yourself who are so proud to call the majority of their country pathetic, and most everyone else for that matter! You obviously have no respect for how people view you, and your callous nature will only ever serve to aggravate any matter which you may or may not intend to correct or other.

 

To paraphrase "Hello my name is iNow, I am surrounded by pathetic idiots, and here are my statistics to prove it. On the bright side we haven't reached paramecium-level 15 kiloton thermostupid yet, but we are obviously well on our way--I mean look at the statistics, people adopt religion!" Newsflash iNow, there has never been a time when the majority was your breed of intelligent, and I honestly pray to my cup of java that they never selectively choose your particular branding should they ever decide to move up the evolutionary ladder. I don't care how droll the title was intended to be, and I'm sure Green Day would find it an offensive use thereof. The Punk motto tends to be live and let die, not let's bash the Christian mindset because there is no scientific proof of it's validity. Get a line dude and stop smearing everyone's else!

 

Argue your points iNow, I've already given mine. Unless of course the epitome of your presentation is Americans are pathetic because they make a choice that you disapprove of and isn't well founded, in which case you have already stated that. I'm pretty sure that no one has forgotten the concept of evolution, nor will anyone forget it, regardless of choice in religion. And if they do, those of us who know better can either do something about it or not, that's really up to those individuals. What we are doing here is not doing something about it. Addressing the issues locally is a far better choice, especially when done in person. There are of course those in the thread who have actually discussed some finer more interesting points, I'm sure these points gave people things to think on.

 

 

Can you help me understand what you mean? I've lost your intended meaning, I fear. Perhaps you wish I'd said, "Hey! Look at the opportunity we have for making things better! Yippeee gollly, this is such fan-diddly-tastic news folks!"

 

My wishes are simply that if you are going to make a serious statement, that you might apply some class. By all means don't oblige, but don't get all blustered with me when I state my disapproval.

 

 

No. Despite the accumulation of evidence and despite the increased availability to information, acceptance of evolution has been flat to negative over the past several decades, and the data skews heavily by ideology. How is it malicious to point out a fact? How is it misguided to present data and share a one word response to it, "Pathetic?" I'd really like you to elaborate on that if you'd be so kind.

 

It's malicious to call people pathetic for enjoying their personal freedoms, and their traditions. This is especially true when the individual has a personal gripe against those he is contending with, and this holds for anybody and is a concept you apply often. I'm sure I've probably annoyed a few readers by now myself, so do I have permission to be excused now guy, or would you like to drag this through the mud until I get modulated? :/

[The Flaming Goldfish]

I think this thread is getting a tad sidetracked...everyone take a breath and calm down, please?

 

I understand your point, iNow, and I've actually had a number of discussions with my friends and family on the level of scientific awareness in the country, and it is disappointing. That said, I don't think that being unaware necessarily makes them bad people or stupid. It's not necessarily a good thing, and it would be better if they were more knowledgeable, but it doesn't make them stupid. After all, the level of exposure after leaving the school system is remarkably low. I think Xittenn's point is correct in that we need more community outreach. I had a discussion with my cousin on this, who's currently working on a PhD in English. He pretty much said that it would be nice if people were more aware, but also pointed out that scientists are remarkably uncommunicative when presenting things, and the news media needs to find a better way of presenting this information as well. What I'm getting at it is that it needs to be an all-round effort, not just one-sided.

 

Also keep in mind that the OP refers to one specific issue, which is heavily coloured by religion in this country; there are other issues in science beyond evolution. If we're going for scientific awareness of the public in general, the influence of religion in this particular issue makes it a poor gauge of scientific literacy (in my opinion, anyways). I'm sure that even though many churches might find the idea of evolution objectionable, they don't really have any problems with other scientific theories, like photosynthesis, gravity, etc. Point being, the fact that religion is involved makes it a heavily twisted issue. Even lifelong scientists sometimes have crises of faith when they try to reconcile their beliefs with their scientific knowledge; just because we spend our lives studying the natural world through the lens of the scientific method, doesn't mean that we aren't confused when we find two contradictory explanations for it.

 

Also, going back to what Xittenn said in her first reply to the OP:

If Science wants itself to be represented as an alternative ideology it will be required to involve itself 'freely' within the greater community. If Science does not want itself to be viewed as an ideology, then I am unclear as to how you would expect to persuade members of a long standing ideology to suddenly relinquish their methods.

 

I think a large part of the problem is that science isn't an ideology. Ideologies are usually static and very wide-ranging, and some lack observational support. Science is very dynamic and can change very quickly (when compared to religion, at least). It's very nature as a consensus on the best explanation for something means that new evidence provides new insight, and I think that if science were to be seen as a static ideology, it would be a distorted view of what science really is. I also have to agree with her, in that changing views isn't as easy for some people, especially if it's a view they've held on to for their entire lives. For some people, religion is a very deep-seated belief that provides hope and a foundation. It's not easy to just let go of all that in a flash. Even changing scientists' minds can take a long time with logic and experimental data. It took 20-some odd years for scientists to accept that DNA was the genetic material; even after it was shown so by an experiment, some still thought proteins carried genetic information.

 

Also, I'd keep in mind that not all religions are incompatible with science. Obviously the big one here is Christianity, because the majority of Americans are Christian. However, there are thousands of different systems of belief, and to say that they are all incompatible with science is wrong, because you can't know exactly what they preach. I think the issue of scientific literacy of the public is overshadowed by the war of two dogmas: one supporting evolution and stating that any who disagree with it are ignorant and backwards; and the other supporting the Biblical interpretation and casting any who agree with evolutionary theory as evil godless sinners. This perception of an America split along lines of atheist evolutionist vs. Bible-thumping hillbilly is counterproductive and wrong. I actually think that if we start working on the problem of general scientific literacy first, and then move on to the "controversial" topics of science, we may have a chance. If you're trying to educate someone on something, telling them that everything they've believed for their whole life is wrong will only irritate them and cause them to ignore you. Instead, if you introduce new information, concepts, and ways of thinking to them you may hook their interest. It's dually beneficial: 1) before you start delving into the controversies, you could impart a lot of knowledge, and 2) when you start talking to them about the controversial stuff, they would be more willing to listen, because you didn't start right out by attacking their system of beliefs.

 

I'm just throwing my opinion out there, feel free to add/correct/discuss/whatever, but please, let's keep it courteous, yeah?

(I know I'm not a mod or anything, but this thread does need a little de-escalation)

Edited June 3, 2012 by The Flaming Goldfish

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Xitten,

Emotion is fine, but be careful with how you express it. You're getting too personal with how you direct your words. Please try and stick to the actual topic, which (for the record) is not how iNow contributes to society.

I'm sure I've probably annoyed a few readers by now myself, so do I have permission to be excused now guy, or would you like to drag this through the mud until I get modulated? :/

And don't try blaming iNow. If you were able to predict you were going to get moderated for your actions, you are also able to take responsibility for them.