«   |   »

14 Elements of Fascism

by Ben Hoffman

Dr. Lawrence Britt analyzed the following regimes: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s Indonesia. While, they constitute a mixed bag of national identities, cultures, developmental levels, and history, they all followed the fascist or protofascist model in obtaining, expanding, and maintaining power. Further, all these regimes have been overthrown, so a more or less complete picture of their basic characteristics and abuses is possible.

Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power. These basic characteristics are more prevalent and intense in some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level of similarity.

  1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.
  2. Disdain for the importance of human rights.
  3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.
  4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.
  5. Rampant sexism.
  6. A controlled mass media.
  7. Obsession with national security.
  8. Religion and ruling elite tied together.
  9. Power of corporations protected.
  10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.
  11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.
  12. Obsession with crime and punishment.
  13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.
  14. Fraudulent elections.

Source

Posted on January 20, 2012 at 12:46 PM in Economy, Education, Entertainment, Environment, HealthCare, Military, Politics, Religion, Science, Technology, U.S. News, World News   |  RSS feed |   Reply   |   Trackback URL

74 Comments to “14 Elements of Fascism”

    
  1. Frank
    January 20, 2012 at 4:28 PM

    Funny, this list looks a lot like America…oh wait.

    Great list my friend.

    Reply
  2. Alan Scott
    January 20, 2012 at 5:24 PM

    Frank ,

    Looks like Obamamerica .

    Reply
    • Frank
      January 20, 2012 at 7:01 PM

      Actually, Obamanation is catchier, but I can’t even pick on him too much. He actually hasn’t really done anything.

      Besides, he’s only continuing what Bush started, proving my point that neither side is right. Sadly, I don’t think Ron Paul would be any better. Where’s General Smedley Butler when we need him?

      It makes me sad alan, luckily, my hope is not of this world. Hopefully, I can share that with others, and do my best to live right.

      Ben, to save you trouble, I know you’ll say I’m crazy. 😀

      Reply
      • Ben Hoffman
        January 20, 2012 at 8:14 PM

        Frank, if you’re against those things, how could you possibly vote Republican? That’s exactly what they stand for!

      • Frank
        January 21, 2012 at 9:31 AM

        Exactly, I don’t vote repub anymore.

        My habit for the last few elections has been to vote against whoever the incumbent is. This coming up one, I don’t know.

      • Frank
        January 21, 2012 at 9:40 AM

        Let me rephrase that, I am no longer deceived that republicans are the patriotic (or right answer to vote for as a Christian), and on the other hand dems on the whole seem better in regards to not screwing the people over (for the most part) but they have things I don’t like I as well.

        So the only way I typically vote repub is to get rid of an incumbent. When possible, I’ve voted constitution but even that is looking unattractive.

        Maybe this year I’ll vote for Nader. Otherwise, as I’ve said I’ll write in Capt. America as a protest against the puppet show. It won’t accomplish anything, but at least I’ll feel better.

      • Ben Hoffman
        January 22, 2012 at 10:50 AM

        What specifically don’t you like about Obama? I’d bet I have more disagreements with his actual polices than most right-wingers since most of their complaints are based on propaganda. They’ve been brainwashed into thinking Obama is a “Socialist,” yet the Republican party has done more to advance socialism than anybody by supporting China and granting them “most favored nation” status in our trade policies, which led to the flood of our manufacturing jobs to China. American factories can’t compete with those in China because China owns the factories and pays for their construction as well as the machinery. Many of their employees are paid less than $17 a day and live in dormitories at the factory. There have been mass suicides by Chinese workers because their lives suck and they see no way to improve their lives, yet the “pro-life” crowd doesn’t have a problem with exploiting those workers as long as they can get their cheap products.

      • Frank
        January 23, 2012 at 8:17 AM

        I actually have very little beef with Obama. I did vote for him thinking he could bring change, and I think he sincerely wanted to do great things for us. However, I believe the powers that be told him he needs to play ball with their game, continuing Bush’s policies.

        The only specific things I don’t like is the whole Libya thing, which Bush did the same thing with Iraq. I was not smart enough then to denounce that, though it made me slightly uncomfortable at the time. I also don’t like the fact that Obama’s on board with killing US citizens abroad with no trial, etc. I’m sure there’s other things he has done I’m not cool with, but they elude me at this time. Maybe that’s a post for you some time, things Obama’s done that you didn’t like and things he did that you did like and I’ll chime in on that.

        My obamanation was more to share with Allen a catchier version of his “obamamerica” that i’d heard elsewhere.

      • Frank
        January 23, 2012 at 8:18 AM

        Agreed on the republican job angle also.

  3. Alan Scott
    January 21, 2012 at 7:56 AM

    Mr. Hoffman ,

    And you are the unbiased authority . I actually like number 13 as a description of the current situation .

    Reply
  4. Luke Haskins
    March 9, 2012 at 2:20 PM

    I laugh every time I see this, because I see something even more insulting and uninformed every time I come back to it. So, Ben, I think it’s about time someone comments on this. I’ll break the bonds you seem to be making between fascism and conservatism one by one, so here we go.

    1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism – There is an idea that we used to support as Americans called honor. Doing the right thing, as a country, doesn’t make us fascist scumbags. It makes us smart, and just because other countries are jumping off of the economic cliff doesn’t mean we should too. Who knows, maybe they’ll actually look up to our good choices and better results, and work towards actually imitating us. I bet, though, that that’s fascist too, being people of character. Shame on us.

    2. Disdain for the importance of human rights – Wait, let me make sure I read that right. This is probably the most comical things I’ve ever seen, this quite made my night. So, let me see if I’ve got this right. You spend lots of time and energy trying to save our mother earth, and the trees, and whatnot, while we try to save the children of America from a silent baby Holocaust. But we – WE, US, CONSERVATIVES, THAT US – actually are the ones neglecting human rights. Let’s start with the right to Life, shall we? That’s a small one, but I thought at least worth mentioning.

    3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause – Tolerance is not always the best option, Ben! Sometimes, people actually have to pay for the consequences of their actions, so if you mean that we are unfairly mean to the criminals, then I’m sorry that makes me a Nazi. If you mean ANYTHING else, anything at all, please let me know.

    4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism – George Washington, a Nazi and hater of all nations, said this before he died: “To be prepared for war is one of the most effective ways of preserving peace.” The idea that the man who breaks into my house will totally sit down and have a cup of tea with me while we talk about our differences is kind of becoming a joke that has been repeated so many times I can’t even laugh at it anymore. Let’s not pretend that having a backbone and being a man is Nazi-like in any way. Hail, Washington!

    5. Rampant sexism – Liberals are the sexists! They act like being a woman is a weakness, and that the role that they were created for is somehow inferior to a man’s, like being the keeper of the home somehow means that they CAN’T work. I don’t think that they can’t do it, I think that they were created that way, made for that role. Neither is above the other. So feminism (women saying being a woman is a weakness) isn’t the way that I think. Is it the way that you think?

    6. A controlled mass media – Uhh, how is media even remotely favorable to conservatives? And even if it is, how are conservatives CONTROLLING it? Conspiracy theorist much? Could you please explain how this ninja-news has gotten past me, because I’ve seen no trace of this happening? Or do you mean it’s controlled by cynical leftists who can’t think, only laugh? I think we’re on the same page if that’s what you mean.

    7. Obsession with national security – See number 4.

    8. Religion and ruling elite tied together – You can’t completely separate religion and government. Why, you ask? Because government is made up of people, who all have a religion. It’s very hard (if not impossible) to be a human being and not have a religion. Remember what the separation of church and state is there for. Britain had forced us to believe what the king believed as far as religion is concerned, and the Founders didn’t want that to happen again. That’s why they created that separation, to prevent one from controlling another. That doesn’t mean that religion and government should be separate. I’m sure that your atheistic religion makes you think of life differently than I do.

    9. Power of corporations protected – Yep. I guess the freedom to make good and bad choices (the pursuit of Happiness) makes me fascist. Yes, corporations actually earn the maniacally unlimited power to make a profit and earn money and whatnot WITHOUT the government. The government just slows down progress, and has made our national debt worse. Stop trying to fix what you can’t fix, government, and maybe we can get somewhere.

    10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated – Please clarify how this mimics conservatism in the slightest.

    11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts – Who do we look down on, exactly? Einstein? Newton? We in no way show disdain on the intellectuals – those that are truly intellectuals, anyway. You give me some Carl Marx and tell me that HE’S an intellectual, then I’m sorry, but I’m going to say that his views are anti-productive and always fail to produce the desired effect. I don’t have a problem with his book being in America, for everyone and their mothers to read, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to nod my head like a moron and say, “Well, everyone else agrees, so I should too. Who needs to think when you can be a communist, right?”

    12. Obsession with crime and punishment – We are not obsessed, but you have to agree it is a great book.

    13. Rampant cronyism and corruption – What, am I throwing off your perfect vision of hell on earth?

    14. Fraudulent elections – Like what? Is fraudulent just any time your man doesn’t win an election? Or do you mean fraudulent, as in calling anyone who doesn’t vote for Barack Obama “racist,” thereby scaring people towards a certain candidate? Please enlighten me, Mr. Kenobi.

    Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      March 9, 2012 at 6:30 PM

      I laugh every time I see this…

      Right-wingers have the weirdest sense of humor. 🙂

      Reply
      • Tanner Brumbarger
        March 10, 2012 at 1:24 PM

        Ben, as I can see, Luke has put some effort into his comment. He pointed out what he believed and expressed his idea fluidly. Not to mention, he pointed out WHY he believes them, along with factual evidence. If you cared about your readers, surely you could put some effort into a retort. That does not send a good message to your readers. Let’s be candid here, you posted the elements, you are going to defend them, right? I would hope you would speak about why you believe them.

        Spam me, I dare ya.

      • Ben Hoffman
        March 10, 2012 at 6:27 PM

        Luke supports fascism. That’s his right, I guess, but it’s anti-American.

      • Luke Haskins
        March 18, 2012 at 8:19 AM

        Anti-American. I see. You let me go ahead and prove that I’m not a fascist, then you ignore my points, wait long enough, and try to use the same accusation? Even so, there’s much more I can say about socialism. Both Stalin AND Hitler were for total government control. That’s what moves us towards all of the above that you seem to be trying to blame on those who just want a life free from such government tyranny.

    • The Arbourist
      April 6, 2012 at 11:01 AM

      It makes us smart, and just because other countries are jumping off of the economic cliff doesn’t mean we should too.

      Unless you are lemming #1 then its great? – As “leader” of the most recent economic meltdowns, due mostly to the excesses of unregulated capitalism, considering alternate economic policy isn’t a bad thing.

      Let’s start with the right to Life, shall we? That’s a small one, but I thought at least worth mentioning.

      Mentioning the Forced Birth Manifesto that American conservatives generally support is a prescient tell on how this ideology thinks of women and their rights.

      Tolerance is not always the best option,[…]

      What a lovely paraphrase of “You are either with us or the terrorists”. Nuance be damned, watch out evildoers etc. Tolerance is the mark of civilized nations, not a quality to be lightly sneered at and casually dismissed.

      “To be prepared for war is one of the most effective ways of preserving peace.”

      Having the shiniest military on the block is fine. Having the shiniest military while your society is slowly collapsing inward on itself, not so good.

      I don’t think that they can’t do it, I think that they were created that way, made for that role.

      Just like Negroes were made for work in the fields? Your privilege as well as your misogyny is showing.

      So feminism (women saying being a woman is a weakness) isn’t the way that I think. Is it the way that you think?

      Wow, way to strawman feminism. I’m not sure if you’re deliberately ignoring the facts, or just stupid. Try starting a with a real tenet of Feminism, a simple one like: Women are people too and deserve to be treated as thus.

      A controlled mass media – Uhh, how is media even remotely favorable to conservatives?

      Ah, you answered my question for me, and doubled down, both ignorant and stupid. I can see why Ben mostly ignored this post. Start your enlightenment here. (or here if you’re text averse)

      It’s very hard (if not impossible) to be a human being and not have a religion.

      Hmm how about stating “I don’t believe in fairy-tales”. Seems easy enough to me.

      You need to read more, find out what Feminism, Socialism, Communism actually are as opposed to the twisty-conservative-funhouse versions you currently seem to hold dear.

      Reply
      • Luke Haskins
        April 8, 2012 at 8:54 PM

        Due mostly to the excesses of unregulated capitalism? Really? Are you sure it has nothing to do with excessive GOVERNMENT spending under Obama and Bush? Or GOVERNMENT-created money-wasting entitlement programs that actually hurt this country? Or GOVERNMENT controlling of the businesses that ruin the idea that the people make their own livings, not depend on anyone else. The conservative capitalist mindset is that of limited government, which are there only to protect the inalienable rights, so that gets rid of all of the above.

        A woman’s rights do not extend to the living being inside of her. It’s a very stupid argument for 2 reasons. First of all, whether or not the child is alive or not, and I do believe that it is, but even if it isn’t, it still directly takes away the child’s RIGHT to Life. Winning. The other point that we obviously have against those pro-choice people is that it’s stupid to say that because the child is inside of you that it is “your body” and you can do what you want with it because of that. It’s like saying that you can poison your Siamese twin and not be charged for 1st degree murder because they were a “part of your body,” and so you killing them wasn’t really murder at all, and it’s very intrusive for the government to control what you do with your body. What’s next, the government starts convicting THIEVES?!? The government is regulating what is going on IN YOUR HOUSE! Better watch out for that…

        Tolerence is the mark of civilized nations? That’s a joke. Honor is the mark of civilized nations. This is quite funny, actually, and let me take your logic for a minute to its end. What you are saying is that being tolerant of all groups of people is the answer to all problems. Let’s go back to World War II for just a second. So what you are implying is that if we had become really nice and loving to Hitler, that he would have stopped the Holocaust? Or what about this, if we had all put our guns down at Pearl Harbor, the Japanese would have landed their planes, put down their bombs, and given us all hugs, making us their buddies forevermore! That is a very cute thought, but let’s get back to reality for a minute or two.

        I obviously agree that society slowly collapsing inward on itself is not good. That still doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that having a good military is not a bad thing, and can actually be quite helpful in order to defend yourself and fight against evil (WWII), as long as you’re not using it to foolishly attack other countries.

        I misspoke as far as my feminism point, especially in that sentence. My views on men and women are as follows: Men and women, gays and homosexuals, blacks and whites should ALL have equal rights, and equal opportunities to succeed. I don’t think that any have more or less ability to succeed than any of the rest. My point about men vs. women roles was that I believe that men are specifically called to be providers. In other words, it irks me to see men who stay home and get fat playing video games and eating chips while forcing their wives to being the ONLY providers for their families. I have nothing against working mothers, my call is more towards men: Guys, prove to the world that chivalry is not dead! Women can work, or they can choose not to, that much is a family-to-family decision, and who are you or I to say otherwise?

        You said: Women are people too and deserve to be treated as thus. Exactly. If you honestly think that conservatives are the “women belong in the kitchen” type of people, then you are sadly mistaken, and desperately need to read the above paragraph once or twice more.

        I’m sorry, I’m talking about how media works in AMERICA. I’m talking about how we knew NOTHING about President Obama when he came into office, but every ghost in the Republican candidates’ closets came out. I’m talking about how the majority of America laughs at all 5 times that Fox News has messed up on minor technicalities fact-wise, but religiously devotes itself to ALL other news stations, mainly liberal, with completely illogical conclusions. That’s what I’m talking about. It’s much easier for a group of people that promises to give people free stuff, even if it’s not truly free, and the media has picked up on that, and has refused to actually think for a minute or two as to how this will affect the greater good of America.

        Just to be that annoying Christian who knows what he’s talking about, here are some definitions:
        Religion: A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.
        Faith: Firm belief in something for which there is no proof.
        And guess what, since both of our beliefs are just guesses, we really can’t prove it either way, we can only see that observational science favors Creationism over macroevolution.
        So what does that make atheism, I wonder?

        And yes, I understand what Socialism and Communism are, too, and just for the fun of it, I’ll respond to this. Socialism concerns that big government regulates industry and business, and Communism is just Socialism with a gun to your back.

    • Mike@UsneakydevilU
      May 18, 2012 at 8:48 AM

      Ben, I second all that Luke wrote. Democrats are todays Nazi’s, ignoring their obvious big government, silence religious speech, government mandates, kill the babies attitudes is just putting your head in the sand. Great answer Luke, weak try Ben. Oh yeah be sure to eat your veggies, our dictators wife mandates it.

      Reply
  6. Jared P.
    March 11, 2012 at 4:13 PM

    Ben, Luke just spent 15 paragraphs explaining why he wasn’t fascist. Simply saying he supports it and pretending that makes it better isn’t even logical. Show me the evidence, Poirot.

    Reply
  7. Kate Willmore,Esq.
    March 16, 2012 at 10:38 AM

    “When facsim comes to America, it will be draped in a flag and carrying a bible.” Sinclair Lewis cc. 1930

    Great list-
    Kate Willmore

    Reply
    • Moe
      April 2, 2012 at 10:10 AM

      Kate – that’s the best descriptor and one of my favorite quotes. And he was dead right,

      Haven’t read it in a while, but there’s a blog called Orcinis – goes deep into these topics. Often a bit wonky, but good stuff.

      Reply
  8. americanliberaltimes
    April 6, 2012 at 12:19 PM

    First of all: Thanks for following my blog– I am now following the Drudge Retort. This list of Fascist agenda itgems gives me a great idea for a couple of posts of my own. This blog you are doing is one of the “Priceless” ones that not only entertains but inspires as well. Thankx and keep up the good work.
    John Liming
    http://americanliberaltimes.com

    Reply
  9. The Arbourist
    April 9, 2012 at 7:34 AM

    Due mostly to the excesses of unregulated capitalism? Really?

    Yes, really. Deregulation has been, and will continue to be a nightmare until legislation like the Glass-Steagall Act is brought back. Hey, don’t take my word for it, just enjoy the next speculative bubble that will further erode your place in the world and further exacerbate the social and economic inequality that is endemic in the the US.

    Or GOVERNMENT controlling of the businesses that ruin the idea that the people make their own livings, not depend on anyone else. The conservative capitalist mindset is that of limited government,

    People make their “own livings” in the context of a society, governments that seesto a just, equitable distribution of wealth for its citizenry makes for a successful country.

    Reply
    • Luke Haskins
      April 15, 2012 at 6:38 PM

      Deregulation shouldn’t be handled by the federal government. If you REALLY want overregulation and unfairness, give it to the individual states, not the feds. Even so, government is not there to violate the right to property, and in case you didn’t take your government 101 class, it’s there to PROTECT it. The redistribution of wealth is the very definition of unfair, people need to find their own livings. If they can’t, then the government needs to encourage (but not force) those around them to help their brothers and sisters out, only with a morally righteous country can we uphold this system of government. And the people are good people, who want the best for their fellow citizens, so they will answer the call. As I said, encouraged – but not legislated – morals can save America.

      Reply
      • Moe
        April 20, 2012 at 12:15 PM

        Luke, Adam Smith, who friggin’ invented capitalism, warned of the dangers of unregulated capitalism. He said that ‘naked capitalism’ is ‘destructive’ of an economy.

  10. The Arbourist
    April 9, 2012 at 8:02 AM

    Luke H: A woman’s rights do not extend to the living being inside of her.

    Oh wow, your membership in the forced birth brigade is noted. Full marks for treating women as incubators with legs, your disdain for women and their autonomy is evident.

    First of all, whether or not the child is alive or not, and I do believe that it is, but even if it isn’t, it still directly takes away the child’s RIGHT to Life.

    Anyone, even my child, does not have the right to my kidney even if it would save their life. It is part of me and thus my decision to give it or not to give it to someone else. By those same principles of basic bodily autonomy, I have the right to decide what goes on in my uterus as well. You do not get a say in that, period.

    The other point that we obviously have against those pro-choice people is that it’s stupid to say that because the child is inside of you that it is “your body” and you can do what you want with it because of that.

    The blastocyst/fetus/embryo is deriving its existence, parasitically I might add, at great cost to a woman’s body and health. It is her decision whether or not to bear that burden.

    It’s like saying that you can poison your Siamese twin and not be charged for 1st degree murder because they were a “part of your body,” and so you killing them wasn’t really murder at all, and it’s very intrusive for the government to control what you do with your body.

    Poisoning your Siamese twin would be akin to poisoning yourself, as Siamese twins often share vital organs and bodily systems. Poor example aside, I find it ironic you want the government out of the business messing with the economy, but when it comes to the reproductive systems of women, you are all for more “big government” intervention.

    What’s next, the government starts convicting THIEVES?!?

    The government does convict thieves. This gibberish is not helping your argument.

    The government is regulating what is going on IN YOUR HOUSE! Better watch out for that…

    ? – The government does regulate what goes in my house, to a certain extent, and yours as well. What are you going on about in this particular tangent?

    Reply
    • Luke Haskins
      April 15, 2012 at 7:07 PM

      Disdain for women? Your lack of valid point is showing. You want to stop calling me names, I’ll be here.

      Your kidney does not have life. If your kidney owned the right to Life, I’d disagree with you, and say that you can’t choose to kill it, only it can choose to give up its own rights. And no, saving life does not count as a part of the right to Life, violating a right is direct violation, such as murder.

      It IS a woman’s decision whether or not she wants to bear that burden. Either stop having sex if you don’t want the natural consequences of it, or have the child and give it up for adoption.

      I enjoy reading that you say that it is OK, then, for you to murder your Siamese twin. I’ll keep that in mind for the rest of the debate. You gave no reason it was a poor example, if you have one, by all means, I won’t mind if you explain yourself. Protecting the right to Life doesn’t mean “big government,” and once again, your ignorance could not be more clear. Regulating the economy so that everyone wins no matter whether or not they play fair is stupid. I’d love to play liberal chess with you sometime, I am willing to bet you wads of money that you will lose every time, when the government starts regulating that if one side makes a bad move and loses its queen, that the other team HAS to give up its queen as well, or they are disqualified.

      My point about convicting thieves, meaning government regulating what goes on IN YOUR HOUSE, was sarcasm, based on your annoying “Republicans in your uterus” babble. Just because the government is doing its job by protecting rights doesn’t mean it’s being intrusive.

      Reply
      • The Arbourist
        April 15, 2012 at 9:46 PM

        Disdain for women?

        I would propose that not treating them as fully autonomous human beings would qualify as “disdain” and probably a whole lot more.

        You want to stop calling me names, I’ll be here.

        Cupcake, I haven’t even begun to call you names…*whoops*. Anyhow, your fetus fetish automatically qualifies you for membership in the forced birth brigade, its one of those two for one specials.

        It IS a woman’s decision whether or not she wants to bear that burden. Either stop having sex if you don’t want the natural consequences of it, or have the child and give it up for adoption.

        Oh, well regulating sex would seem to be out of the purview of such an ardent defender of freedoms. But certainly, let’s put an end to all recreational sex. Sounds like a feasible, rational plan to me.

        Either stop having sex if you don’t want the natural consequences of it [and be forced to give birth, yes your anti-woman cred is definitely growing], or have the child

        I enjoy reading that you say that it is OK, then, for you to murder your Siamese twin. I’ll keep that in mind for the rest of the debate. You gave no reason it was a poor example,

        This is what I said: “Poisoning your Siamese twin would be akin to poisoning yourself, as Siamese twins often share vital organs and bodily systems. Poor example aside,… ”

        Hopefully you read it now that it is all by itself… But to explain my point further, your example fails because comparing a Siamese twin to a embryo is a category failure. The relationship between a woman and the embryo is parasitical, while the Siamese twins share can share a complimentary or exclusive set of organs. Furthermore, the better formed Siamese twin is often separated from the lesser formed one at the cost of the lesser formed life. It is a decision made by the family and the medical professionals, their choice so to speak; and no, no one goes to jail for murder.

        Protecting the right to Life doesn’t mean “big government,” and once again, your ignorance could not be more clear.

        No, it actually means disempowering women and stripping them of their basic rights to decide what goes on in their body.

        Regulating the economy so that everyone wins no matter whether or not they play fair is stupid.

        Egalitarian societies fare significantly better than those that are less equal. Ensuring that people are not destitute and have a reasonable chance in society, is not only more humanitarian, but more efficient as well. The burgeoning prison population, among other factors, is indicative of the inequality that is present and doing damage to US civil society.

      • Luke Haskins
        April 16, 2012 at 2:47 PM

        Regulating sex is not what I said, you seem to enjoy taking what I said out of context. Whenever there is a problem in the world, liberals always ask themselves how I could possibly want to fix it with the government… Guess what, I don’t. What if there was this magical concept called personal responcibility, that governed a person’s morals that made them stop and think before they did something stupid. I’m sorry that the natural responcibility that comes with sex is too much, and that the answer is 1st degree murder, but I think that recreational sex and then covering it up by killing the concequences isn’t the answer.

        I heard you the first time, I know what you said. I don’t really care whether or not protecting life is a parasitic relationship or not. Life is life. You are now getting even more sick by suggesting that the lesser formed person is any less of a human being than you or I, as that he should be killed in order to seperate the two. Equality for all, isn’t that what you liberals claim to be for? So what makes him any less a person? Putting people down like animals is now legal? Really? How about finding a way where BOTH survive, and if not possible, the doctors can’t do anything more if they know that they will be killing one in the process. It’s called protecting human life. Including human life of the weaker, the poorer, the dark-skinned, the women, etc. I say this before you go all “classic liberal” on me, and I got to the punchline first.

        You said: “No, [protecting Life] actually means disempowering women and stripping them of their basic rights to decide what goes on in their body.” By ignoring my “convicting criminals on private property” point, you have successfully made this an unanswered point. Please go back and re-read what I said. Again.

        I hate that the playing field is too equal as well, but this is the U.S., the land of equality, and I really don’t care whether or not you think that a fundemental lack of equality would give this country a boost, which is obviously not the case for reasons I have mentioned already (the awful liberal chess game where no one wins). Where is the responcibility for a person’s actions? Where is the honor (sorry, the dreaded conservative h-word)?

  11. The Arbourist
    April 9, 2012 at 8:43 AM

    Tolerence is the mark of civilized nations? That’s a joke. Honor is the mark of civilized nations.

    Tell that to surviving members of the Afghan families whose members were murdered by the honourable US military. There is nothing honourable about warand the murder associated with it.

    What you are saying is that being tolerant of all groups of people is the answer to all problems. Let’s go back to World War II for just a second. So what you are implying is that if we had become really nice and loving to Hitler, that he would have stopped the Holocaust?

    You don’t get to make a straw man of my argument and then beat that argument down. This is what I said:

    “Tolerance is the mark of civilized nations, not a quality to be lightly sneered at and casually dismissed.

    Tolerance is not appeasement. Reflect on that for a moment. The whole slippery slope you’ve constructed fails because you cannot seem to differentiate between those two terms.

    You’ve already Godwined the thread, but consider that for much of the world, WW2 was not a struggle between good and evil, but rather a struggle between two competing forms of imperialism and it was choice between the lesser of two evils.

    That still doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that having a good military is not a bad thing, and can actually be quite helpful in order to defend yourself and fight against evil (WWII), as long as you’re not using it to foolishly attack other countries.

    And how is that “not foolishly attacking other countries” working out for the US so far? I’m pretty sure the people of Iraq and Afghanistan appreciate how well they’ve been defended to death as of late.

    Eisenhower said it very well when he said – “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.[…]”

    Imagine, if the US actually had a military that was actually just for defence instead of war and the projection of power to further its geopolitical/imperialist ambitions. Consider how much could be done in a civil society not enslaved to the military industrial complex – universal medical care, first rate education, a clean environment….there are so many possibilities.

    Reply
    • Luke Haskins
      April 15, 2012 at 7:40 PM

      There is nothing honorable about war and the murder associated with it? MURDER? Really? ‘Cause, see, I thought that when the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor that defending our country was the obvious answer. The same when we were attacked on 9/11. That’s not murder. Murder is premeditated unprovoked and illegal killing of another person, and I don’t see the connection between that and when I go and kill a person in the middle of the night. Defense is not murder.

      If tolerance in war is not appeasement, I urge that you explain what it does mean.

      Hmm, the U.S. vs. the Holocaust. I see how that was a struggle between forms of imperialism, and good against evil was not involved. I mean, it’s not like the Jews were human beings, right (pro-choice reference)? Who was the U.S. to get involved? What you said about the lesser of two evils is sick. Please explain yourself.

      Haha, I knew you’d miss the “foolishly” part of that phrase, “not using it to foolishly attack other countries.” DEFENSE IS STILL NOT MURDER, it’s a part of that honor that liberals seem to hate mentioning.

      Keep the Washington quote in mind that I mentioned earlier. Did we take anything in WWII for U.S. expansion? We were for defending ourselves, and fighting against what was evil, TRULY evil. Keep your free health care, unless you want to do that seperate from the federal government. Go right ahead, and ruin your own state, not the whole country. I want the people to have a good basic education, and a clean environment, and all of that is possible and more with capitalism, good morals, and small government.

      Reply
  12. The Arbourist
    April 9, 2012 at 9:11 AM

    Luke M: Just to be that annoying Christian who knows what he’s talking about,

    It has been my experience that those two qualities rarely appear simultaneously in individuals who argue for belief in magic and the mythical.

    Religion: A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.
    Faith: Firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

    And guess what, since both of our beliefs are just guesses, we really can’t prove it either way,

    One should not attempt to flippantly equate religious and atheistic beliefs, as they do not share a similar basis. As one endorses delusion and magic and the other most succinctly does not.

    we can only see that observational science favors Creationism over macroevolution.

    Really? What is the evidence that Science(?) favours creationism over macroevolution? Considering the voluminous amount of evidence that says evolution is correct, please state your case and provide the evidence on how creationism provides a more accurate and sound picture of reality.

    So what does that make atheism, I wonder?

    Probably the usual, a more useful and accurate way to work with the world and the concepts contained within it. 🙂

    Reply
    • Luke Haskins
      April 15, 2012 at 8:14 PM

      I have an alternate theory about how the universe began. Once there was a tree. Don’t mind the fact that I haven’t explained how it got there, it probably has always been there, or was planted by an outside force, but not a person, since that is rediculous and should be disregarded. Now, this tree sits on a hill. It was struck by lightning, and began rolling down this hill. It hit so many other trees that it chopped itself up into tiny little pieces, it hit metal on the way down, don’t ask why, and arranged itself into a chair. That chair is so sturdy, that it has survived millions of years of sitting under a roof where it can’t be damaged, or be weakened by so many people sitting on it over the years, or termite damage.

      So you are correct, when you very wisely say: “…one endorses delusion and magic and the other most succinctly does not.”

      First of all: The bible is the most reliable book in existance, both historically and scientifically, as it predicted the rain cycle, the fact that the sun is constantly moving through the universe, and several civilizations once thought to be myth that were discovered. The first 11 chapters of the Bible answers the majority of the questions about why the world is the way it is, one of the biggest being a worldwide flood. So many of the layers and the layers of the stratosphere that can be explained away by your magical millions and millions of years can be explained through the event of a catastrophe, as was proven by the eruption of Mt. Saint Helens. It’s silly to say that millions of years is the only answer. The Cambrean explosion showed there to be “advanced” species even close to the beginning of time, as creation suggests. Not to mention the fact that not a single legitamate missing link has ever been found. Your biggest crux for your belief system is that dogs turn into dogs, which turn into dogs. Science shows that all people come from one race, back to Adam and Eve, meaning that there are no such things as “races,” only equal human beings. Carbon dating is based on very big assumptions that are chosen BECAUSE it supports your religion, atheism. Even logic falls in atheism, finite intellegence only comes from more intellegence. No one’s ever heard of an example where the otherwise is true. Go right ahead, mock my creationism. You have nothing to stand on.

      Science is knowledge, and if you want to explain natural events for those that were clearly of design, then I won’t stop your beliefs in blind faith and wishful thinking. Just don’t say I didn’t warn you.

      Reply
      • The Arbourist
        April 15, 2012 at 10:12 PM

        The bible is the most reliable book in existance, both historically and scientifically,

        You should really read more books. The only way one could make the claim you state is if you’ve only read *one* book. Of course, that does a explain a great deal about where your argumentation and assertions come from.

        It’s silly to say that millions of years is the only answer.

        Actually, it is the claim supported by the evidence. Unlike yours.

        The Cambrean explosion showed there to be “advanced” species even close to the beginning of time, as creation suggests.

        Please provide the evidence that the “creation myth” is a more plausible explanation as to the Cambian Explosion. I’m betting you cannot provide reasonable evidence other than “my magic book says so”…. So tackle your ignorance on the matter with some good ole fashioned wikipedia reading. Enjoy the link.

        Your biggest crux for your belief system is that dogs turn into dogs, which turn into dogs.

        Checkmate athiests! Because dogs most certainly did not descend from wolves. Your shining example has us evilutionists quivering in our boots.

        No one’s ever heard of an example where the otherwise is true.

        I’m sure in your fun-house-crazy reality no one has.

        You have nothing to stand on.

        Other than empirical evidence, nope not a thing.

        I think we should probably stick to arguing about other topics, I sense we won’t have much to offer each other by continuing this one.

      • The Arbourist
        April 15, 2012 at 10:28 PM

        Just in case you would like a clue with regards to what evolution actually is.

      • Luke Haskins
        April 16, 2012 at 8:17 PM

        I’m done with the retarded insults that come from your Jr. High level debating skills. I’ll address the arguments when you actually come against them.

        How about the organisms that were found from the Cambrian Explosion were there BECAUSE “advanced” organisms have always been there from the beginning of time? Doesn’t that support creationism.

        This leads me to your point about wolves, which made my entire life. Were you being sarcastic saying that dogs came from wolves? Because, I learned this from my 1st grade animal class, but wolves are actually a type of… wait for it… DOG!!! I know that dogs came from a wolf-like ancestor. Dogs still come from dogs. Which by the way, come from more dogs.

        Otherwise, you never actually refuted any of my arguments just more insults.

        The video, on the other hand, was very interesting. You are right, you will never find a poodle from a long time ago. That is called microevolution, and yes, that is an obvious scientific law. Things change within their species from generation to generation. This certainly does not encourage monkeys-to-man macroevolution. By the way, just a side note: if we started with wolves and ended up with poodles, and that was monkeys-to-man evolution, we’d definitely be in trouble, since that’s a noticable downhill change. Now on the other hand, there have been many cave drawings and artifacts indicating what seem to very distinctly be dinosaurs. Meaning that the people had to have had at least a basic understanding of what dinosaurs were. Not to mention that two animals mentioned in the bible, Bohemeth and Laviathan, both of which seem to have dinosaur-like features. So we see from this, along with the Cambrian Explosion, and the fact that no legitimate missing links have been found, show that the bible and order does come out on top.

        His second prediction is silly, because we don’t actually HAVE any extra unnecessary body parts. Chickens DO have a tooth, they use it to hatch out of its shell, and it falls out afterwards. That’s a useful thing to have, without it, we’d have no chickens. People used to think that the appendix was an unnecessary organ until they found out how useful it is for fighting infection, surprisingly quite recently. Again, evidence and science belong to the creationists.

        Finally, molecular biology is the nail in Macroevolution’s coffin, as shown by the 99% of data ignored for the 1% that DOES support it. Which defeats the purpose of science, making his last point invalid and untrue.

      • Ben Hoffman
        April 16, 2012 at 9:44 PM

        Wolves are not a type of dog. You can breed dogs from wolves, but you can’t breed wolves from dogs.

      • Luke Haskins
        April 17, 2012 at 9:11 AM

        Ben, I don’t want to spend an otherwise productive day showing atheists that wolves are dogs, not specifically domestic, but canines in general. Here is the “canine” family. Wolves can be found within, enjoy. It makes sence, though, that wolves were the original dogs, which breeded, making the different kinds we have today.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canid

      • Ben Hoffman
        April 17, 2012 at 9:53 AM

        Luke, you seem to have a problem with logic. A dog is a subspecies of wolves. A wolf is not a dog.

      • Luke Haskins
        April 17, 2012 at 10:17 AM

        I’M TALKING ABOUT CANINES, BEN. The dog family. You seem to be talking about the domestic dog, I’m not.

        Dog – any carnivore of the dogfamily Canidae, having prominent canine teeth and, in the wild state, a long and slender muzzle, a deep-chested muscular body, a bushy tail, and large, erect ears. Compare canid.

        It disturbs me that I have to define the word “dog” to a grown adult, even when I have already said, “wolves are dogs, NOT SPECIFICALLY DOMESTIC, but canines in general.”

      • Ben Hoffman
        April 17, 2012 at 11:05 AM

        Dog – “a despicable man or youth.”

        Using that definition, all conservatives are dogs.

      • Moe
        April 20, 2012 at 12:17 PM

        Everything Arb said. All of it.

  13. Alan Scott
    April 16, 2012 at 4:11 PM

    The Arbourist ,

    You guys are sure long winded . Amazing how you went from fascism to the Bible ( your favorite topic ), to creation, to evolution.. I think Atheism is an evolutionary dead end . You guys simply do not reproduce enough . Religious people , no matter what their creed have large families . It’s been God’s plan since he set off the giant firecracker, that sinners should carry around diaper bags and baby bottles .

    Atheist do not believe in a God who says be fruitful and multiply . They do not even believe in the law of nature that it is every creature’s purpose to get their genetic material into the next generation . If you guys accidentally spawn, you then destroy your own offspring . You are extinct, you just are not aware of it .

    Reply
  14. Alan Scott
    April 16, 2012 at 7:43 PM

    The ultimate insult is to call someone boring . Only you would insult gay people by calling them mathematicians .

    Reply
  15. The Arbourist
    April 16, 2012 at 10:46 PM

    I know that dogs came from a wolf-like ancestor.

    This is one of the first intelligent remarks you’ve made this argument.

    How about the organisms that were found from the Cambrian Explosion were there BECAUSE “advanced” organisms have always been there from the beginning of time? Doesn’t that support creationism.

    No, and if you would have read the wikipedia article linked you would know why.

    because we don’t actually HAVE any extra unnecessary body parts.

    Sadly, wrong again.

    Finally, molecular biology is the nail in Macroevolution’s coffin, as shown by the 99% of data ignored for the 1% that DOES support it.

    Must be a conspiracy. 🙂

    Reply
    • Luke Haskins
      April 17, 2012 at 9:37 AM

      Yes, I understand what the article said about the Cambrian Explosion, because the rate of evolution began excelerating faster than 500 million years ago. But when they found the “advanced” species, they really didn’t know what to think, they were confounded. It was a very large abnormality in science. It has both simple and complex living at the same time. Today, of course, they have altered the theory so that it agrees with what we see today, as always. That’s what makes evolution so sickly foolproof. Because whenever we find a contradiction, we can just make slight changes to the hypothesis that no one will notice, no matter how anti-science the theory becomes. Again, creationism explains it just as easily, without needing to “adjust” the Bible.

      We don’t have any unnecessary body parts. The major parts in the link you brought up said, “But it does help with this aspect of life, even though it’s not completely required for life.” And I don’t really care if the ears on a baboon are pointy and ours aren’t, it’s stupid and nitpicking. And I don’t really know if it matters how our ears work better for humans rounded, not pointy, I’m not an ear expert. You know that if your belief was true, that there would be plenty of body parts that would actually either hinder life, or would just be completely non-useful.

      And no, not a conspiracy (per se). Just ignorance and stubbornness.

      Reply
      • The Arbourist
        April 17, 2012 at 9:05 PM

        Cupcake, you cannot formally refute an opinion or a belief, in other words statements that are not facts. It may be your opinion that chocolate is the best flavour of ice-cream, and you are entitled to that. However, if you say, that the moon is made of blue cheese you can believe that as much as you’d like, but you’d be wrong; what you are not entitled to are facts.

        If you posit something then you will need to cite your sources so others can deduce the quality of your claim. Because learning from others does not seem to be your strong suit, let me show you how this works with one of your many erroneous claims.

        This is you speaking out of your ass: Luke: How about the organisms that were found from the Cambrian Explosion were there BECAUSE “advanced” organisms have always been there from the beginning of time? Doesn’t that support creationism.

        Which organisms? How do you define advanced? How do you know that they have always been there from the beginning of time. You need to CITE YOUR SOURCES because your opinion on evolution and science is simply that, just that an opinion.

        Performing basic google-fu I found links to two internet sites that happen to espouse the creationist bullcookery that you are rattling on about in this thread. Notice that they are both Islamic sites and are also attempting to insert god into the perceived gaps in our knowledge about evolution and history; witness that it isn’t just your particular delusional cause that is attempting to emulate credible scientific inquiry.

        More to the point, whining about your claims not being refuted is just stupid when you do not actually make a reasonable claim. Not being able to recognize this basic fact bodes ill for any further intellectual ventures.

        I am more than willing to change my views if you can give me one REAL argument against creationism.

        Creationism as a theory has no predictive power, it is based on bronze age mythology and has little to do with the real world or the evidence present within said real world. Put another way – Allegations that are made without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

        So far, I have seen no evidence in favour of creationism.

        Addressing the Cambrian opinion you seem to hold –

      • The Arbourist
        April 17, 2012 at 9:19 PM

        That’s what makes evolution so sickly foolproof.

        You mean that dogmatic adherence to a belief system is a bad thing? That is certainly a good argume…oh wait…you already subscribe to one, nevermind :).

        Because whenever we find a contradiction, we can just make slight changes to the hypothesis that no one will notice, no matter how anti-science the theory becomes.

        Scientific hypothesis evolve over time. If they are fundamentally incorrect then they are discarded as the model replacing them more accurately describes the physical reality presented. You attempt to discredit science by attacking what science and the scientific method fundamentally are. This is supernovae-grade ignorance.

        Again, creationism explains it just as easily, without needing to “adjust” the Bible.

        The Bible is also for slavery, obviously no need for *any* readjustment there.

        The bible is a story written by mostly ignorant, mostly scared men who understood little of the world around them. It was a text that fit their primitive time, it certainly has no place in the 21st century, other than in the ‘fiction section’.

      • Luke Haskins
        April 24, 2012 at 10:30 AM

        Yes, I believe in the bible, because I can’t simply edit the bible if it’s disproven. I hold fast to it because I have found nothing errant about it.

        I don’t think that it is truly using the scientific method when your belief system has been disproven time after time, and yet you manage to let it slide and continue on in your foolishness. That’s not science, THAT is dogmatic adherance to a worldview.

        You continue to call the bible fiction, yet still have nothing to say about it. In that light, I will give you a similar reason why I don’t believe in macroevolution: It’s wrong. Also, it’s false. It may be further explained to be incorrect, as well. And then you wonder why I hold so fast to Christianity, and not listening to such informative bits such as: “The bible belongs in the fiction section.”

      • Ben Hoffman
        April 24, 2012 at 4:24 PM

        Luke, you really believe that the earth was created in 7 days, and that some guy 2,000 years ago was born from a virgin mother, and that after he died, three days later he rose from the grave? That’s stuff only a child or someone with the mentality of a child could believe. Or maybe insane people.

  16. The Arbourist
    April 16, 2012 at 11:04 PM

    Otherwise, you never actually refuted any of my arguments just more insults.

    Firstly, if I took the time and energy necessary to address all of the erroneous and fallacious material you’ve presented, Ben would need to start a second blog.

    Secondly, given your uncharitable attitude and lack of willingness to read outside the information that informs your particular point of view, would refuting a an argument made by you make any difference?

    Thirdly, I am not your teacher and therefore do not feel it is my duty to provide you with basic scientific knowledge that you should have learned in school or ignored due to your religious delusions.

    But as a primer for the next argument – If you make a claim, it is reasonable to expect that for it to be true it must be back by evidence that is testable and falsifiable. The nature of the claim, if large and far reaching must also have a great deal of evidence to support it. Past that, in said debate you need to be able to admit when you’re wrong and change your worldview to match the established pattern of facts in the world if you want to abide by the reality we live in; something I don’t think you are ready to do quite yet.

    Reply
    • Luke Haskins
      April 17, 2012 at 9:49 AM

      Firstly, I’m calling bull.

      Secondly, give me something, then, that specifically REFUTES my point of view. I dare ya.

      Thirdly, more insults based on no facts. I must meet you, you seem like quite the intellectual. You seem like you could be the ideal teacher.

      I am more than willing to change my views if you can give me one REAL argument against creationism. I will debate you, just as you do with me, if you give me something stupid like “Why are bats called birds?” Just because something doesn’t seem consistant on the surface level doesn’t mean I’m going to be stupid and not actually do research on the subject to confirm the validity of the point.

      Reply
  17. Alan Scott
    April 20, 2012 at 3:25 PM

    Ms. Holland ,

    ” We don’t ‘accidentally’ spawn Alan. We plan our spawning. ”

    Oh yea, , , , , , , let me think, I know there is something. What is it ? Some really big issue that Americans have been fighting about like , , forever . Wait, wait, now I remember, they call it abortion . If that is not the answer to an accidental spawning, what is it ?

    Reply
    • Moe
      April 20, 2012 at 6:15 PM

      I was of course speaking of elite godless liberals . . . we, as I said, PLAN our spawn. The word I beleive you were actually looking for is ‘birth control’

      Reply
  18. Alan Scott
    April 21, 2012 at 9:06 AM

    Ms. Holland ,

    elite Godless liberals probably live forever. That’s why there are so many in the US Senate . They don’t need heaven because it is here on earth, in liberal Europe anyway . If your hero manages to Bull Scheiß the American people again, the rest of us who are done spawning will wait for the grizzil bear to put us out of our misery . Maybe when the next generation swims up the rivers they will be smarter . They definitely will be poorer .

    Reply
  19. The Arbourist
    April 28, 2012 at 8:58 AM

    Luke said: Yes, I believe in the bible, because I can’t simply edit the bible if it’s disproven.

    Oh wow. Have you taken the time to actually read what the bible says?. The bible is rife with contradictions and inconsistencies. Just because you refuse to acknowledge them does not mean that they do not exist.

    I hold fast to it because I have found nothing errant about it.

    Then I suggest your reading of said work was (is) uncritical and superficial at best.

    I don’t think that it is truly using the scientific method when your belief system has been disproven time after time, and yet you manage to let it slide and continue on in your foolishness.

    Are you really going there? Science is bad because it is science? Science is science precisely because theories and ideas get updated ALL the time when new information is discovered and tested. Do we still hold as fact that the earth is flat? No, we have found a body of evidence that says the earth is spherical and thus have built a clearer picture of how things actually are in the universe. Our knowledge is built on the ruins of theories that have been disproven or replaced with others that more accurately describe the reality we live in. This process is a good thing, as it means we are always striving to improve our knowledge and understanding of how the world works and the empirical reality that we exist in.

    You continue to call the bible fiction, yet still have nothing to say about it.

    You’re defending a work written by scared, ignorant people who knew essentially nothing about the world. The bible is provably false and amazingly inconsistent (linking again to the skeptics annotated bible here in case we get the “I have nothing to say about it line again”)

    So, if you’d like one point of contention to talk about, please tell me how snakes talk. Please bring evidence and show me how snakes can carry on a conversation with a human being. While you are at it please also show how burning bushes can talk and impart wisdom to people. The problem for you is that you don’t get to use the following phrase – “The bible says its true…” Have fun with that.

    I don’t believe in macroevolution: It’s wrong.

    You don’t have to believe in anything cupcake, the facts don’t care about your crazy religious delusions and flights of fantasy. Macroevolution (Evolution Theory) is the best factual explanation of the observable evidence gathered so far. The amount of evidence for evolution is overwhelming, if you read anywhere outside of your closed circle of christian inanity you would see that. Again, playing the ignorance card does not improve the strength of your position.

    I hold so fast to Christianity, and not listening to such informative bits such as: “The bible belongs in the fiction section.”

    Most likely your parents raised you and indoctrinated you to believe the nonsense you currently hold so dear. If you had been born in Afghanistan, we’d be arguing about how Allah is the one true god instead of Jebus. Same religious bullshite, same reality based counter arguments that tear the delusion to shreds.

    So when you can make a convincing argument for religion to those who value empirical reality over magical stories, let me know.

    Reply
    • Luke Haskins
      July 1, 2012 at 4:34 PM

      Here I am thinking you didn’t respond to my last post when you did, back a while ago. Sorry I haven’t responded, let’s fix that, shall we?

      I find it amusing that you call out my critical reading skills, then give me a link with a couple of easy so-called “problems” that can be easily explained with the context or by thinking a little bit outside the box. This is the stuff that I research in my spare time, don’t think I don’t know my bible. Or my history, for that matter. No, I won’t waste your time by answering every single one of these, but you can do a little digging and find that most of these “inconsistancies” are shallow at best. Read an article from Answers in Genesis, they have several of your “inconsistancies” explained.

      As far as the scientific method goes, I never bashed the scientific method by any means. I bashed macroevolution because it didn’t fit with the scientific method. Big difference. I’m afraid that you’re are reading my posts about as well as you seem to be reading the bible.

      One of your points was a very good one, however. How do snakes talk? My guess is with a slight lisp, but don’t quote my on that. Haha, totally kidding there. The very utterly sad thing is, the bible doesn’t really explain it in great detail. I don’t know what life before the original fall of man looked like in great detail, and it would be difficult for me to try to explain it. So I’ll just say that no, I can’t explain that.

      Macroevolution does not have very impressive support, I’ve done my research, and have found that facts only support microevolution, and the question marks lie at the point where they supposedly evolved. It’s a little painful, actually. No actual solid evidence really actually points to macroevolution. What you have is this: http://www.rforh.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Dino-Chart-Small.jpg. Take a long hard look at your evidence, straight out of an actual macroevolution-biased book called Dinosaur Data Book: The Definitive, Fully Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs. It features some of the so-called real and strong evidence for macroevolution. I don’t think I need to explain how sad that is to you. And the more research you do, you keep finding more and more evidence for evolution… until it comes down to the macroevolution part.

      Reply
      • The Arbourist
        July 2, 2012 at 10:36 AM

        No, I won’t waste your time by answering every single one of these, but you can do a little digging and find that most of these “inconsistancies” are shallow at best.

        Like the endorsement of slavery or genocide? “Shallow inconsistencies” all the way. A barbaric book from a barbaric time is nothing to hold dear other than a guide of what not to do.

        I bashed macroevolution because it didn’t fit with the scientific method. Big difference. I’m afraid that you’re are reading my posts about as well as you seem to be reading the bible.

        Doesn’t fit? Are you still on about that? Proven with a chart?? You have no idea how science works do you?

        Take a long hard look at your evidence, straight out of an actual macroevolution-biased book called Dinosaur Data Book: The Definitive, Fully Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs. It features some of the so-called real and strong evidence for macroevolution.

        This is your gotcha? A childrens picture encyclopedia from 1990? Take that evolution? See the link up there, it is to google scholar. 3.4 million hits of scholarly work, based on, supporting and confirming evolution. Start there cupcake, not with debunking picture encyclopedias… Wait, lets append that notion, before you double down on the weapons grade ignorance you’ve become famous for – what theory do you propose that has better predictive and explicative power than evolution?

        Let me narrow the field down for you a bit – Creationism and Intelligent Design, one in the same, are off limits because they both been thoroughly debunked as bad science and religious wishful thinking.

      • Luke Haskins
        August 28, 2012 at 5:11 PM

        Slavery or genecide? By slavery, I assume you mean those people who gave themselves up to work as a servent to earn money (indentured servitude) or captured enemies (war criminals)? Even so, the bible is the first to even mention right treatment of “slaves.” It didn’t suggest that the people should have “slaves,” only that those who did should treat them right.
        Genocide has the conentation of being murderous without right reason. The people who God sent to destroy were completely lost and would never have actually turned from their ways, they were so far from right thinking. They were truly evil people, all of the groups God told the Israelites to destroy.

        Yes, I know how science works. People see facts from the present, and try to use them to explain what happened in the past to produce these facts. The problem, though, is that it is, indeed, just a story. The more we get into modern science, the less reliable the theory of evolution is becoming. Besides, evolution still doesn’t explain the beginning of the universe, though many would claim it to, they just explain how matter rearranged itself and made stuff.

        My point with the encyclopedia was that you guys have excellent picture books, but very little actual evidence? Where’s the missing link? I’m sorry, I don’t have enough faith to believe in that much missing fact.

        I simply propose a cause to an effect that we’ve looked at in-depth since the beginning of time. What logic is there to say that something is false because it sounds funny to some people? How “scientific” is that?

  20. The Arbourist
    April 28, 2012 at 11:30 AM

    More Zany Luke: You continue to call the bible fiction, yet still have nothing to say about it. In that light, I will give you a similar reason why I don’t believe in macroevolution: It’s wrong. Also, it’s false.

    Watch out Luke, creation science and real Science are coming together, unsurprisingly not on your side either.

    Reply
    • Luke Haskins
      July 1, 2012 at 5:07 PM

      AAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!! RABBITS! THEY’RE TURNING INTO MORE RABBITS?! HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE?! I just about fainted when I realized that their ears were different. Haha, the best was the end, with AiG founder Ken Ham’s little audio clip, admitting to your pleasure that dogs are dogs are dogs are dogs. It’s called microevolution, and I already addressed that.

      Reply
  21. americansecularist
    May 2, 2012 at 8:48 PM

    Wow, some heated arguments here – Luke, you definitely have taken the time to express your opinions here, and while I don’t agree with a lot of them, I applaud you for doing so – and I would fight to the death to preserve your right to believe any way you want, and to express those beliefs freely.

    I lived abroad from 1999 to 2009, and when I returned, it seems it had become common while I was away to brand anyone who disagreed with one’s own philosophy as ‘un-American’. This is absolute bullsh*&!. America has always been a pluralist society, or at least striven to become one. I don’t like to see terms bandied about indiscriminately – socialism, freedom, etc. But it doesn’t matter what you say – if you love this country and hope to see it succeed, no one should doubt your patriotism.

    As far as fascism goes – it comes from the Latin word fascia, which is a bundle of sticks. The idea comes from Italy and Germany, who found that they had unified their countries so late compared to France, England, and the US that they were at a competitive disadvantage. They noticed that the governments in those countries – in the 19th century – often worked to protect workers, often at the expense of big business. They decided that if their government could bind together with big business – like a bundle of sticks – instead of working against it, they could make up for lost time.

    So if there’s anything fascist about America, it’s the military-industrial-political complex – the far-too-cozy relationship between government and big business – bound together at the expense of you and me.

    Reply
    • Luke Haskins
      July 1, 2012 at 5:29 PM

      Thank you, I appreciate that. Though we may not agree on some things, I appreciate that you can have a civil conversation with us on a post so filled with tension. I agree that no one on this forum deserves to be called a fascist, but rather we should find a solution to the apparent problems in our country’s status quo.

      Reply
  22. mdc76082
    June 6, 2012 at 10:18 AM

    There is one thing that we all have in common with one another, and that is when we die, we will know the correct answer to our frivolous discussions and pain associated whilst trying to sway one another. It will put an end to the debate once and for all. All we have to do is—wait!

    Reply
  23. JL
    April 14, 2016 at 12:18 PM

    It’s always interesting to me how democrats excoriate fascism but write communism a complete pass. One must wonder…

    Reply
    

Leave a reply to Luke Haskins Cancel reply