Credulity [kruh-doo-li-tee] –noun:
Willingness to believe or trust too readily, esp. without proper or adequate evidence; gullibility.
One of the peculiar sins of the twentieth century which we've developed to a very high level is the sin of credulity. It has been said that when human beings stop believing in God they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse: they believe in anything.
-- Malcolm Muggeridge
Malcolm Muggeridge was a British journalist and editor of the humor magazine "Punch". He found Christ late in life and turned his acerbic wit on the ignorant, materialistic culture he saw taking root in Western Christendom. To make his point, he famously pondered the result of bringing an African witch doctor to a modern Western country and subjecting him to television advertising. He posited that the shaman would be green with envy.
In Africa, he had to peddle his dubious potions to a poor, skeptical public by going door-to-door and town-to-town. Here in the Western world, the most highly educated, the most progressive, the most advanced part of the earth, there is a reservoir of credulity beyond his wildest dreams.
So true. Back in the old days, people were much more skeptical. If someone leveled an allegation or posited a point of view without proof or reason he would be laughed out of town and marginalized.
Nowadays, it's a 24/7 party in Kooksville, where crackpots on 500 channels and multifarious media outlets peddle unsubstantiated drivel to a gullible public:
Obama is a Muslim, Hillary is a lesbian, Sarah Palin had an affair, George Bush was in on the 9/11 conspiracy, Bush-Cheney-Halliburton invaded Iraq to steal their oil...
Each of these could be true, but there is no credible supporting evidence.
A related malady is the global warming hysteria. There is still credible scientific disagreement on this issue. Regardless, our government is willing to bet trillions of taxpayer money that Al Gore is right.
I'm incredulous...
For a more in-depth discussion that completely guts the arguments of the Environmental left, visit Ontological Angst...
19 comments:
"There is still credible scientific disagreement on this issue."
There isn't really, but leaving that aside, may I draw the little chart again:
Action and we are wrong about gw, we spent a lot of money to waste (except there is less smog, and we don't have to rely on the middle-east so much for oil). That would still suck; no doubt.
Inaction and we were right about gw, human life ends.
You know the other two options, but you also know that based on this model (which is as logical as it gets) inaction is not a serious option.
Preemptive attack! I agreed with it on afghanistan and iraq and now I agree with a preemptive attack against nature (we being part of the natural world as well).
Explain how you can be for pre-emptive war with premises that turned out to be false, and yet against this although the premises are far more credible?
People with PhDs who study this stuff do not agree. That is credible disagreement.
Just because the Stalinists on the left have anathematized all who disagree with them, that doesn't make the debate go away. This isn't a communist country yet.
You of all people should recognize that tactic: Discredit your opponents through propaganda attacks so you don't have to rebut their argument.
The models, especially the hockey stick, are pathetic and have been discredited.
I was against the Iraq invasion.
You have much to learn, grasshopper.
I don't care if you were against the invasion, I'm telling you you wer wrong because the risk was too great.
Tell me HOW the model I've presented to you has been discredited. You tell me gw is still debatable, but can't explain how the "do somthing" "do nothing" "results if wrong" "results if right" model is wrong.
I've brought this up before and you have yet to give me a coherent answer.
I'm tired of your nonsense. You said model, I thought you meant mathematical modes of the atmosphere.
Your model involves a great opportunity cost, as I have explained to you before. Lom Bjorborg or whatever his name is explains it very well. We blow trillions on this chimera and that is trillions that won't be spent feeding poor people and cleaning up dirty water supplies.
This is an economic and political question separate from the scientific issue. My having to explain all of this to you just shows that you are incapable of understanding this complex issue.
We're spending trillions feeding the poor and cleaning up dirty water supplies?
You frame it as a purely scientific issue and I just tried to explain based on your own premises why your ideas are unscientific.
If you want ot change the rules in the middle of the game that's fine, but just keep me posted.
The opportunity cost is great, but that doesn't mean it's not worth it. The worst case scenario is that you're wrong and I'm right and we're all screwed.
What you mention is only the second worst case scenario and not really even comparable to the worst case scenario. So, I'm still right.
But how would you like to frame the issue so that you can be right?
You have explained nothing, especially regarding science.
You've disgraced yourself, and then you top if off by declaring yourself right.
Oh, if the real world only worked that way...
See, you've literally explained nothing. I've actually explained how my model works whether you consider economic, political and/or scientific consequences of gw.
You've dismissed it without even attempting to mount an argument against it.
Also, address the question of whether we are spending trillions to feed poor people in foreign countries and clean their water supplies now so that gw prevention would get in the way of that.
That was your argument wasn't it? Since we're spending so many trillions now to help impoverished people all around the world we will have to stop all that and focus those funds towards preventing gw.
I'm not sure even if we are spending those trillions helping poor people, why we would have to cut into that to help stop gw.
Wait a minute. Is it possible you're talking out of your ass and forming bs/illogical arguments?
The developed world spends billions every year on everything from medicine to aids, to food and yes, potable water. If you take out a calculator and add up all those yearly tens of billions (which will no longer be available), you will end up with a very big number with 12 zeros after it.
CP: You should travel. There are demagogic despots looking for naive people like you.
Well, we're talking about America. Also, where exactly have you gotten the "tens of billions" figure (your ass)?
Aside from which, why would countries in the developed world stop giving aid to the less developed countries if they had another expense all of the sudden?
Also, perhaps they will make it on their own-save help from people and gov'tss which can afford to help.
I mean, you're just guessing that the most horrible thing possible will happen and that as a result of developing gov't regulations on emmissions of certain gases, people in the developing world will automatically be starving and dieing at higher rates than ever before.
Maybe getting the Coca-Cola company to stop buying all the water in certain parts of Africa to make coke and selling their water back to them in the form of a sugar filled, teeth-rotting, unhealthy carbonated beverage would help...
But no, we can't get the gov't involved in industry.
It seems like you only start caring about how our way of life effects the developing world when it favours a position you support.
Of course you already follow a demagogic despot, except he's been dead for a while or may have never existd in the first place; "Jesus Christ" as you call him, or as I call him, the central protagonist (in some of the latter stories) of an old book of Jewish fairy tales.
Global Warming's Missed Opportunities
You still invited for a good old ass kicking pragie boy.
Come over here you god-damn pussy. I'll fight you if you don't carry your fake cock (I mean gun around with you).
How many guns do you have? To think that one dick would suffice.
555 East 10th North Van BC Canada
Come and get me bitch. That's my real address.
Don't re-route me to my answer Silverfiddle. Actually defend yourself, your starting to really get pathetic.
Slow down killer...
He started it, and I'll finish it.
I'll take you to Jesus. I'll crucify you, you retarded-red-neck bastard.
CP way to go this proves you have something under your skin besides jello under that liberal skin. You do have passion besides quoting that liberal canadain bullshit.
Damn- I always thought myself as an asshole and not a bastard. You might have me confused with some one else.
This should tell you something-Stay the fuck in canada. Your politics is as screwed up as ours.
I have friends up in Canada and will drop by when I get on my feet and go see them again. So your invitation is accepted.
Truth here-I do respect Canada's military they took some heavy hits in Afaghistan as compared to some of our balless NATO allies. I hope do the same on that-turely do.
Oh God Bless the of the US and Canada military and their vets. Wtihout them we wouldn't be having this conversation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8h3Uvpq_Ac
Watch this Ron. "The Christian Mafia".
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.