Please keep in mind that, if you are a teacher of any sort, you have no standing to issue requirements of any sort on my answer. Just...a friendly reminder. Your air of superiority really is a turn-off.
You might want to work on your reading comprehension. I "required" nothing. I asked you a question, and I requested (with a "please") that you be specific in your answer. So why are you falsely accusing me of "requiring" anything from you?
And why are you babbling about this only being applicable "if I am a teacher"? Does this mean I *do* have standing to require things from you if I am *not* a teacher? Because if not, your entire "if you are a teacher" clause is pointless... Try to remain coherent, Dave.
You ask why I say "unfortunately." I think it is "unfortunate" from a perspective of PR/public opinion to have DUers on your side.
Ah, right, because valid science is about *public relations*... I forgot. Thanks for the reminder.
And why exactly is it "bad PR" that a few posters on DU happen to appreciate the validity of PatrickHenry's material? Just how simple-minded are you? Are you truly so knee-jerk as that? Would it be "bad PR" if the tables were turned, and someone on DU said something sensible for a change, and someone on FR commented favorably on finding a DUer with his head screwed on straight?
In any case, WE'RE not the ones who dragged DU into this discussion, *YOU* are. It's not like *we* brought up the fact that a few folks over at DU appreciate PatrickHenry's science resources in a bizarre attempt to sway anyone towards the validity of evolutionary biology. No, *YOU* and "wallcrawlr" are the one who felt the need to drag DU into the discussion in a bizarre attempt to smear science through the fact that (gasp!) some liberals happen to recognize comptenecy in science when they see it, as if that invalidates the science itself.
YOU guys -- you anti-evolutionists -- are the ones playing the "DU card" in a cheap, sleazy attempt to propagandize against science by playing to political prejudices instead of addressing the science. So don't try to lecture *me* on the "PR/public opinion" perspective when YOU guys are the ones who are trying to flog the PR angle for all it's worth and brought up the whole DU thing in the first place.
Personally, I don't give a s**t what anyone on DU has to say. If I'm right, I'm right, and if I'm wrong, I'm wrong, whether anyone at DU might agree with me or not. To me it's the facts, the evidence, that matter. Only to someone as shallow as an anti-evolutionist, like you and "wallcrawlr", would be so obsessively concerned with what some liberals think to go running over to DU and root around to see if you can find some DU poster, somewhere, who might have mentioned any of us in any way, then come running triumphantly back here gibbering about how this somehow reflects badly on sciene, when anyone with a working brain would realize that it doesn't matter squat.
Hey, why don't I go running over to DU and find some post where someone over there happens to think the same thing that you or "wallcrawlr" do on some issue, so that I come back here and "tut tut" about how "unfortunate" it is for you from a "PR perspective"? Then maybe you'll finally get through your thick skull just how STUPID and CHILDISH this kind of idiocy is. I'd say that this behavior is beneath you, but really, it's not, and that's just freaking sad.
I'd go on more in an attempt to penetrate the fog that fills your skull by explaining just how stupid you're being, but it turns out that "stacytec" did a marvelous job of summing it and putting it better than I can manage:
I for one could care less what some idiot on the DU thinks of a discussion here on the Free Republic. I bet there are some (few) pro-lifers and some free traders on the DU too, how lame would it be to include their perspective on similar topics posted here to attack a position? Its a Red Herring (Guilt by Association) at best. Let them muddle in their own muck.Bravo, stacytec.
Dave, would you care to apologize for your lame attempt to smear science and/or science-literate Freepers via the sleazy but transparent (and laughably childish) tactic of trying to play "guilt by association", as if the fact that some DUer recognizes good science when he sees it somehow "invalidates" the science?
Or would you like to keep playing these lame games and demonstrate that like all too many anti-evolutionists, you have no honor whatsoever?
You seem to think that members of Democrat Underground supporting the cause of evolution is "competence in science" that can be "recognized and appreciated regardless of party affiliation".
No, that's not what I said. Again, you might want to work on your reading comprehension. I said that competence in science (in this case, in a Freeper) can be recognized and appreciated by people regardless of party affiliation, and asked you why you described this as an "unfortunate" thing. Your bizarre attempt to re-paraphrase has described almost the exact opposite situation of what I actually said. This is not the first time you have done such a thing. Do you do it because you're unable to read and grasp simple English prose, or because you enjoy grossly misrepresenting what someone has said?
You do not find it telling as to the political and philosophical nature of Darwinism,
No, I don't, because I do not subscribe to the same sort of bizarre knee-jerk kind of non-thinking you do, *AND* because I am well aware of the actual "nature of Darwinism", unlike your own misconceptions about its alleged "political and philosophical natures".
Furthermore, only the most simple-minded would be able to "find" anything "telling" in something as trivial as the fact that at least one or two DUers can recognize PatrickHenry's competence in science. Only someone devoid of any ability to actually reason or reflect would use this as a springboard to go, "aha! If any DUer likes something, it MUST perforce be fraught with "political and philosophical" implications!"
Look, Dave, I'm sure a number of DUers like roller coasters, too, but I regret to inform you that this is not "telling", it doesn't say anything meaningful about the "political and philosophical nature" of roller coasters...
Be careful of that jerking knee, won't you?
and you seem to be out of touch with how this comes across to true conservatives.
Ah, yes, "true conservatives" being those who are predisposed to automatically hate anything that any liberal at all might like...
Does the phrase "common ground" or "things which transcend political positions" mean anything to you? Or does, say, car repair divide across liberal/conservative lines in your view as well? Not *everything* is political, Dave, although some self-styled "true conservatives" seem to be unaware of that fact.
And once again I'd like to defer to "stacytec" for making a point better than I could:
Last I checked, your name wasn't next to the definition of conservatism in the dictionary. So spare us with the " out of touch with true conservatives" jive and recognize your own condescending attitude in that very statement.You know, Dave, it's pretty hilarious that you would arrogantly designate yourself a "true conservative" and imply that I'm not one in the same post that you sneer about my alleged "air of superiority". Hey Dave, your "more-conservative-than-thou" crap "really is a turn-off". Maybe you might want to work on that.
So am I not a "real conservative" in your empty-headed view, Dave? Why exactly would that be? Is it because I actually understand science and can spot the bulls*** shoveled out by the anti-evolutionists? Is spewing manure out of your mouth on science issues the hallmark of a "true conservative" in your view? Inquiring minds want to know. Because I can't think of many other topics on which my positions are significantly different from those generally considered to be "truly conservative".
I think as far as PR goes, it looks awful to have DUers supporting the pro-evolution members of Free Republic.
That's because you're being really silly. Quick, how about this equivalent assertion: "I think as far as PR goes, it looks awful to have DUers supporting the pro-physics members of Free Republic." Yeah, looks pretty moronic, doesn't it?
Dave, I don't give a crap what the DUers say, although *YOU* obviously obsess over it to a great degree, and read all sorts of Great Portents into their posts, as you've made very clear in this post of yours.
If anything, you should be *glad* that some of them have come to the conclusion that not all conservatives are morons and that some conservatives actually have a brain. This could be the crack in the door which might eventually lead them to consider that conservative positions or conservatism in general might not be as ridiculous as they had previously believed. Many people have come to eventually become conservatives themselves via such a road. But no, rather than take that as a potentially good thing, the first thing *you* can think of is to come running back here to beat some of your fellow conservatives over the head with it, in an attempt to excommunicate us from the flock and drive us out as not being "real" conservatives, begone foul posers who consort with demons! Wow, way to make friends and influence people, jerkwad. Not only do you want to demean the few liberals who have found at least one reason to respect some conservatives, but you want to attack the conservatives whom they admire and denounce them! Now *that's* a recipe for disastrous PR!
I'd ask if you have thought this through, but I already know the answer -- "thought" had nothing to do with how you arrived at your boneheaded strategy.
Few on FR tend to think of the DUers as a very scientific bunch;
Some are, some aren't -- just like here (*cough*).
this is the same board threatening Michelle Malkin by posting her name and address.
...and *this* (the one we're posting on) is the same board where numerous people frequently threaten to commit mass genocide on the entire Muslim world, via nuking hundreds of millions of people. Now would you care to return to the subject at hand, or run off on yet more irrelevant tangents? And although I was not previously aware of the action you mention (when I said I don't give a crap about what happens at DU, I meant it), your comment made me curious (I reflexively fact-check the claims of anti-evolutionists, because long experience has taught me that they're masters at gross falsehoods, misrepresentations, half-truths, and selective omissions), so I did some research on it just now, and I note that you have sort of "forgotten" to mention that this was in response to Michelle Malkin posting other people's personal contact information herself first (more details here). There's enough blame to go around on that one. You also "forgot" to mention that the DU moderators removed the member post that contained Malkin's information, and in its place provided a link to the DU rules which prohibit such behavior. Was that very honest of you?
In any case, again this whole issue is irrelevant to your lame attempt to play "guilt by association". Even if DU is Hitler reincarnated, the fact that someone at DU happens to recognize scientific competence when they see it in no way impugns the target, as you and "wallcrawlr" try mightily to assert. Heck, even Hitler himself tried to get people to stop smoking -- does that automatically make all anti-smoking efforts a *bad* thing?
Yes, there are a lot of true nutballs at DU. Granted. Sadly, we have a bunch here as well. Such is the nature of the internet (or any large gathering of people anywhere).
But if you think that it's "unfortunate" or "telling" that someone at DU -- or *anywhere* -- happens to recognize scientific competence when they see it, it reveals a *whole* lot more about your own mindset than it does about ours. It shows that since *you* already falsely see evolutionary biology as primarily a "political or philosophical" issue instead of as a scientific one, you make the mistake of interpreting everything ever said about it in the context of "proving" your pre-existing prejudice. Like most anti-evolutionists, you base your *opposition* to biology on political/philosophical grounds, and as a result you incorrectly presume that people who *support* science must likewise do so for political/philosophical. Your mindset colors your thoughts and alleged reasoning process. You're reinforcing your personal presumptions.
When I asked the question of you, I predicted that the answer would be "very illuminating, a look into the mind of the anti-evolutionist". And I was right. The most thing "telling" about this exchange is what it says about yourself, Dave.
And what's with the massive ping list on your post? Are you under the impression that your cheap and transparently lame slurs against pro-science Freepers are avidly followed by your adoring fans? Or were you just desperately signalling for help as you flailed around? I only pinged a very few folks to my original question who had already seen your original comment and I thought they might be interested in your followup. What's *your* excuse?
So will we see an apology from you for your sleazy attempt at a cheap smear?
Ich, do you happen to live alone or are you married?
I mean...do you talk more than her?
When youre sitting in your house chatting...who gets a word in?
I've never seen a dude with so much to say.
That was a great post. I'm glad I was mentioned...I feel honored.
What's wrong with that?
Just kidding! :D~
Actually the argument "I think as far as PR goes, it looks awful to have DUers supporting the pro-NRA RKBA members of Free Republic." IS made over on DU a lot. And Yes it looks pretty moronic.
And anybody over there who argues "Look RKBA is the correct position, and I don't care if Freepsrs are agreeing with that or not" is called "Freeper Troll"
This could be the crack in the door which might eventually lead them to consider that conservative positions or conservatism in general might not be as ridiculous as they had previously believed.
Many people have come to eventually become conservatives themselves via such a road.
Worth repeating.
But no, rather than take that as a potentially good thing, the first thing *you* can think of is to come running back here to beat some of your fellow conservatives over the head with it, in an attempt to excommunicate us from the flock and drive us out as not being "real" conservatives, begone foul posers who consort with demons!
Wow, way to make friends and influence people, jerkwad. Not only do you want to demean the few liberals who have found at least one reason to respect some conservatives, but you want to attack the conservatives whom they admire and denounce them!
Now *that's* a recipe for disastrous PR!
A DUmmy saying anything positive about FR is amazing to me; I think we should look at a potential conservative. A little dissent over at DU is good, dividing FR is bad.
I'm surprised there aren't more CRIDers at DU. After all, their platform is affirmative action so that minorities don't feel dissed by the standard curriculum, and, AFAIK, there are many demographics in the D*m*cr*t*c camp that reject ToE. (eg over 65, women with no college)
You know what's ironic? That DU thread is dripping with delicious sight of liberals trying to make sense of cognitive dissonance - the cognitive dissonance of conservatives who are actually rational and argue from the facts. Someday - maybe - some of those DUers will be assaulted with more episodes of cognitive dissonance WRT conservatives, and will be forced to actually think critically about what they believe because of it. That DU thread only confirms to me that we FRevos are doing good for the country.
Nailed it. I've got an essay about this at my homepage: WHY DO WE HAVE SCIENCE AND EVOLUTION THREADS? Excerpt:
One of the great un-exploded myths of the 20th century is that the left is the natural home of intellectuals. The democrats -- notwithstanding their socialism, the Kyoto treaty, and countless other idiocies -- love to pose as intellectually superior. It's standard policy for them to claim that Republicans are morons, dunces, rednecks, etc. The "Republicans are anti-science" issue is one that the liberal media are eager to exploit. The presence of science threads on this website -- a very popular and highly visible website -- is beneficial in breaking down this absurd stereotype. We demonstrate that many conservatives are educated, literate, and deeply committed to the advance of science -- a rational enterprise which is a core value of Western Civilization.
You really need to evaluate the level of "commitment" you have to this one single obsession and see how it contributes to the reputation of evos as freaks. Look at the length of this! Few will bother to read something so obviously an endless rant.
FWIW, I would have NEVER signed up here if it weren't for the large evo contigent. FR helped revive my hope for conservatism, and reminded me that those who speak the loudest-be it on TV, radio or blogs-are not always representative of the party or movements they claim to represent.
"Yes, there are a lot of true nutballs at DU. Granted. Sadly, we have a bunch here as well. "
Ahem. We agree on at least one thing sting man! By the way, Dave, I appreciate your pings and energy. If Icky can't see the reality of the aid and comfort given to the DU crowd via the wholesale alignment of reason and rationality, as defined by them, not us, and justified by 'science', so-called, then so be it.
I would jump in more often, btw, but it is golf season. Geophysical poetry has an allure beyond what Freeperville provides.