I know.Jaekus wrote:
It's politics and media, it happens all the time.War Man wrote:
Probably made up bullshit by people that really hate her.Jaekus wrote:
tbh I hadn't read properly into it, I had just read that somewhere.
NO SHIT? You haven't mentioned Obama. MY POINT EXACTLY!! You choose to focus on someone that doesn't even matter.Jaekus wrote:
For the millionth time, I never mentioned Obama. Do try to keep up for once.lowing wrote:
No, the counter argument is your selective criticism and your priorities in thinking Palins creationism opinion is worse than Obama's cover ups, his opaque administration, and unethical, unscrupulous and morally corrupt associations and their actions within our govt.Jaekus wrote:
She's an easy target for the media because she has set herself up to be one.
As much as you carry on about her being targeted in the media I haven't noticed anyone actually saying she is intelligent or hasn't said and believes in dumb things. At most the counter argument has been "but... other people have said dumb things... and other people believe in religion"
Weak.
I find when talking to you I repeat myself a lot, which is something I don't need to do when discussing with other posters. Are you truly that dense?
I just think in general Palin isn't intellectually suited to be POTUS. She lacks critical thinking skills and whilst she's charming, it's in a bit of a bimbo way. Certainly not leadership material.
She resigned as Governor, no? Obviously couldn't handle that job so to think she could take on something much larger is ridiculous.
If I want to talk about Obama, I'll do it in an Obama thread.lowing wrote:
NO SHIT? You haven't mentioned Obama. MY POINT EXACTLY!! You choose to focus on someone that doesn't even matter.Jaekus wrote:
For the millionth time, I never mentioned Obama. Do try to keep up for once.lowing wrote:
No, the counter argument is your selective criticism and your priorities in thinking Palins creationism opinion is worse than Obama's cover ups, his opaque administration, and unethical, unscrupulous and morally corrupt associations and their actions within our govt.
I find when talking to you I repeat myself a lot, which is something I don't need to do when discussing with other posters. Are you truly that dense?
I just think in general Palin isn't intellectually suited to be POTUS. She lacks critical thinking skills and whilst she's charming, it's in a bit of a bimbo way. Certainly not leadership material.
She resigned as Governor, no? Obviously couldn't handle that job so to think she could take on something much larger is ridiculous.
-Sh1fty- wrote:
Dr. Hovind theory bro
Why don't you read Origin of Species and just maybe you might have a bit of understanding.War Man wrote:
Believing in evolution is like believing lizard people exist on Earth. In fact, why aren't there more diverse species that exist. Why do we humans exist when we are weak physically compared to say... a gorilla. How come we exist still when natural selection would of taken us when we were vulnerable and without technology? I want fucking dragons and lizard people.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
lol, ignoring the fact that that is just not true, how is that any different than you automatically accepting the teachings of a novel as fact?
And that's bad science. Good science is skeptical, and needs to be supported by scientific findings (found using the scientific method) before being accepted as fact.
Not believing in evolution is like not believing in gravity, frankly.
I'm approaching it from a completely different perspective, lowing. Can you not see that? It's not that I'm simply not saying she's "retarded" because I find the term offensive. I'm not saying it because it's not the point I'm trying to make. I don't necessarily think she's stupid (vice "retarded"...see, it's just as easy to use a word that doesn't malign those with mental disabilities). I think she lacks a key skill called critical thinking. It's not something innate, it's something one develops with experience. She has shown on several occasions (the "dinosaurs and man" being one such occasion) that her critical thinking skills are not up to the level necessary to hold the highest office in the land. As you have stated, Obama has shown through his own actions while holding that same office that he's not qualified, either.lowing wrote:
C'mon FEOS, you have read the argument that she is retarded because she believes men and dinosaurs lived at the same time. Fine if you wanna say she lacks critical thinking skills instead of saying "retarded", fine, still, it ridiculous to think that belief equates to WW3 and "pushing the button".FEOS wrote:
Lacking critical thinking skills =/= "retarded"
An example of someone believing in something that has loads of scientific evidence against the position taken--such as humans and dinosaurs coexisting--is an example of flawed critical thinking skills. Not a problem with her belief in creationism. Creationism does not teach that man and dinosaurs lived simultaneously. Creationism teaches that God created the universe. There is a difference between those two positions, and that difference is empirical evidence and critical thinking. To fault her ability on the latter does not in any way fault her belief in creationism writ large.
Does that sufficiently explain what you're missing?
What points? She is a "retard" or now, has no "critical thinking skills" because she believes in creationism and men and dinosaurs co-existing, and this leading to WW3? THAT is your fuckin' point? Wow great point. and my point is, your inconsistent and selective criticisms is incredibly noticeable and transparent. Get back with me when you decide you will judge opinions based on the opinion and not whose opinion it is...Jaekus wrote:
If I want to talk about Obama, I'll do it in an Obama thread.lowing wrote:
NO SHIT? You haven't mentioned Obama. MY POINT EXACTLY!! You choose to focus on someone that doesn't even matter.Jaekus wrote:
For the millionth time, I never mentioned Obama. Do try to keep up for once.
I find when talking to you I repeat myself a lot, which is something I don't need to do when discussing with other posters. Are you truly that dense?
I just think in general Palin isn't intellectually suited to be POTUS. She lacks critical thinking skills and whilst she's charming, it's in a bit of a bimbo way. Certainly not leadership material.
She resigned as Governor, no? Obviously couldn't handle that job so to think she could take on something much larger is ridiculous.
Point is you can't address the points made about Palin without mentioning Obama, and then when you do you say I've mentioned him.
Get your facts straight.
Go buy it for me if you want me to read it.Jaekus wrote:
Why don't you read Origin of Species and just maybe you might have a bit of understanding.War Man wrote:
Believing in evolution is like believing lizard people exist on Earth. In fact, why aren't there more diverse species that exist. Why do we humans exist when we are weak physically compared to say... a gorilla. How come we exist still when natural selection would of taken us when we were vulnerable and without technology? I want fucking dragons and lizard people.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
lol, ignoring the fact that that is just not true, how is that any different than you automatically accepting the teachings of a novel as fact?
And that's bad science. Good science is skeptical, and needs to be supported by scientific findings (found using the scientific method) before being accepted as fact.
Not believing in evolution is like not believing in gravity, frankly.
I already gave it to you. Now, do you have anything REAL to base your opinion on? Like how she handled being mayor, or a governor? Or is the man vs dinosaur it?FEOS wrote:
I'm approaching it from a completely different perspective, lowing. Can you not see that? It's not that I'm simply not saying she's "retarded" because I find the term offensive. I'm not saying it because it's not the point I'm trying to make. I don't necessarily think she's stupid (vice "retarded"...see, it's just as easy to use a word that doesn't malign those with mental disabilities). I think she lacks a key skill called critical thinking. It's not something innate, it's something one develops with experience. She has shown on several occasions (the "dinosaurs and man" being one such occasion) that her critical thinking skills are not up to the level necessary to hold the highest office in the land. As you have stated, Obama has shown through his own actions while holding that same office that he's not qualified, either.lowing wrote:
C'mon FEOS, you have read the argument that she is retarded because she believes men and dinosaurs lived at the same time. Fine if you wanna say she lacks critical thinking skills instead of saying "retarded", fine, still, it ridiculous to think that belief equates to WW3 and "pushing the button".FEOS wrote:
Lacking critical thinking skills =/= "retarded"
An example of someone believing in something that has loads of scientific evidence against the position taken--such as humans and dinosaurs coexisting--is an example of flawed critical thinking skills. Not a problem with her belief in creationism. Creationism does not teach that man and dinosaurs lived simultaneously. Creationism teaches that God created the universe. There is a difference between those two positions, and that difference is empirical evidence and critical thinking. To fault her ability on the latter does not in any way fault her belief in creationism writ large.
Does that sufficiently explain what you're missing?
I don't know where you're getting these leaps in logic, but they are your own, not mine.
Buy it yourself if you don't want to make any more stupid posts.War Man wrote:
Go buy it for me if you want me to read it.Jaekus wrote:
Why don't you read Origin of Species and just maybe you might have a bit of understanding.War Man wrote:
Believing in evolution is like believing lizard people exist on Earth. In fact, why aren't there more diverse species that exist. Why do we humans exist when we are weak physically compared to say... a gorilla. How come we exist still when natural selection would of taken us when we were vulnerable and without technology? I want fucking dragons and lizard people.
Guess you will have to deal with my "stupid posts," then.Jaekus wrote:
Buy it yourself if you don't want to make any more stupid posts.War Man wrote:
Go buy it for me if you want me to read it.Jaekus wrote:
Why don't you read Origin of Species and just maybe you might have a bit of understanding.
Last edited by War Man (2011-06-21 20:25:51)
Her critical thinking IS real, lowing. There are many examples of her poor critical thinking (bridge to nowhere endorsement before not endorsing it anyone?). Choosing to quit the office the people of her state had elected her to execute. They did not elect her to do nation-wide bus tours and reality TV shows in order to "reach more people with her message." Those "real" enough for you, or will you choose to view them as "unreal" because they support someone else's argument?lowing wrote:
I already gave it to you. Now, do you have anything REAL to base your opinion on? Like how she handled being mayor, or a governor? Or is the man vs dinosaur it?FEOS wrote:
I'm approaching it from a completely different perspective, lowing. Can you not see that? It's not that I'm simply not saying she's "retarded" because I find the term offensive. I'm not saying it because it's not the point I'm trying to make. I don't necessarily think she's stupid (vice "retarded"...see, it's just as easy to use a word that doesn't malign those with mental disabilities). I think she lacks a key skill called critical thinking. It's not something innate, it's something one develops with experience. She has shown on several occasions (the "dinosaurs and man" being one such occasion) that her critical thinking skills are not up to the level necessary to hold the highest office in the land. As you have stated, Obama has shown through his own actions while holding that same office that he's not qualified, either.lowing wrote:
C'mon FEOS, you have read the argument that she is retarded because she believes men and dinosaurs lived at the same time. Fine if you wanna say she lacks critical thinking skills instead of saying "retarded", fine, still, it ridiculous to think that belief equates to WW3 and "pushing the button".
I don't know where you're getting these leaps in logic, but they are your own, not mine.
Well, her support for the bridge got her elected by the voters in Alaska. She then canceled the project after receiving the money. Good for Alaska, bad for the federal government, but she was working for Alaska at the time. Her resignation was explained away that she would not be seeking re-election and she was still wrapped up in a wrongful termination investigation that was costing her and the taxpayers money. So, she resigned and ended that burden. That may be a bit of sugar coating, but all explainable.FEOS wrote:
Her critical thinking IS real, lowing. There are many examples of her poor critical thinking (bridge to nowhere endorsement before not endorsing it anyone?). Choosing to quit the office the people of her state had elected her to execute. They did not elect her to do nation-wide bus tours and reality TV shows in order to "reach more people with her message." Those "real" enough for you, or will you choose to view them as "unreal" because they support someone else's argument?lowing wrote:
I already gave it to you. Now, do you have anything REAL to base your opinion on? Like how she handled being mayor, or a governor? Or is the man vs dinosaur it?FEOS wrote:
I'm approaching it from a completely different perspective, lowing. Can you not see that? It's not that I'm simply not saying she's "retarded" because I find the term offensive. I'm not saying it because it's not the point I'm trying to make. I don't necessarily think she's stupid (vice "retarded"...see, it's just as easy to use a word that doesn't malign those with mental disabilities). I think she lacks a key skill called critical thinking. It's not something innate, it's something one develops with experience. She has shown on several occasions (the "dinosaurs and man" being one such occasion) that her critical thinking skills are not up to the level necessary to hold the highest office in the land. As you have stated, Obama has shown through his own actions while holding that same office that he's not qualified, either.
I don't know where you're getting these leaps in logic, but they are your own, not mine.
Like it or not, they are indicators of poor critical thinking on her part, just as taking the position that man and dinosaurs coexisted--even though all scientific data says otherwise and the Bible doesn't say anything about it, either--is the same. She has nothing to base that position on, yet she makes a statement like that, knowing it will cause a political shitstorm beyond her own platform, but she has nothing to justify the position--scientifically or theologically. Faulty critical thinking all the way around. Multiple other decisions on her part that can be dissected similarly.
She resigned, she has more publicity and more money now than ever before, sounds like sound thinking to me. You may not like WHY she did it, but it sure as fuck looks as if she knew EXACTLY what she was doing and it is undeniable it is paying off for herFEOS wrote:
Her critical thinking IS real, lowing. There are many examples of her poor critical thinking (bridge to nowhere endorsement before not endorsing it anyone?). Choosing to quit the office the people of her state had elected her to execute. They did not elect her to do nation-wide bus tours and reality TV shows in order to "reach more people with her message." Those "real" enough for you, or will you choose to view them as "unreal" because they support someone else's argument?lowing wrote:
I already gave it to you. Now, do you have anything REAL to base your opinion on? Like how she handled being mayor, or a governor? Or is the man vs dinosaur it?FEOS wrote:
I'm approaching it from a completely different perspective, lowing. Can you not see that? It's not that I'm simply not saying she's "retarded" because I find the term offensive. I'm not saying it because it's not the point I'm trying to make. I don't necessarily think she's stupid (vice "retarded"...see, it's just as easy to use a word that doesn't malign those with mental disabilities). I think she lacks a key skill called critical thinking. It's not something innate, it's something one develops with experience. She has shown on several occasions (the "dinosaurs and man" being one such occasion) that her critical thinking skills are not up to the level necessary to hold the highest office in the land. As you have stated, Obama has shown through his own actions while holding that same office that he's not qualified, either.
I don't know where you're getting these leaps in logic, but they are your own, not mine.
Like it or not, they are indicators of poor critical thinking on her part, just as taking the position that man and dinosaurs coexisted--even though all scientific data says otherwise and the Bible doesn't say anything about it, either--is the same. She has nothing to base that position on, yet she makes a statement like that, knowing it will cause a political shitstorm beyond her own platform, but she has nothing to justify the position--scientifically or theologically. Faulty critical thinking all the way around. Multiple other decisions on her part that can be dissected similarly.
Last edited by lowing (2011-06-21 20:58:50)
"Proven" is really a misnomer. Nothing can actively be "proven" since in order for such a designation to be given from a scientific standpoint something must be demonstrated in every possible iteration of said "thing", and since you can not actively measure every instance of a "thing" occurring, you can't "prove" anything. The best you can do is simply believe the most likely and the most evident(which by a far stretch is evolution" until something more evident or counter-evident comes along.War Man wrote:
Darwinism and creationism are 2 different theories that neither can really be proven.
She called the Paul Revere question a "gotcha type question" when all they did was ask her;13rin wrote:
I don't think she's any longer the victim of a leftist media, but she was during the last Presidential election. No other candidate received the amount of scrutiny as she did.Kmar wrote:
She quits her elected position, invites TV cameras in her home, joins fox news, stars in her own reality show, puts out a book, tours the nation in a giant bus with her name plastered across the constituttion. .. and she wonders why the media won't leave her alone?
She's trying to supplant her ignorance with sympathy. The fact that people actually buy this victim of the "lame stream" media act is amazing to me.
Reporter wrote:
"What have you seen so far today, and what are you gonna take away from your visit?"
Palin wrote:
"In a shout-out, gotcha type of question that was asked of me, I answered candidly. And I know my American history."
Sure they can, "God wills it", "God works in mysterious ways" etc....Spark wrote:
Let's just say you're not going to be working out why chloroquine isn't working any more based on creationist theory.
Or why flu vaccines designed in 2007 are basically useless now.
That's the problem. We have enough self serving politicians in Washington. When you're elected to an office you are obliged to serve the people who put you there. With the precedent of laying down and quitting why would anyone support her again?lowing wrote:
She resigned, she has more publicity and more money now than ever before, sounds like sound thinking to me. You may not like WHY she did it, but it sure as fuck looks as if she knew EXACTLY what she was doing and it is undeniable it is paying off for herFEOS wrote:
Her critical thinking IS real, lowing. There are many examples of her poor critical thinking (bridge to nowhere endorsement before not endorsing it anyone?). Choosing to quit the office the people of her state had elected her to execute. They did not elect her to do nation-wide bus tours and reality TV shows in order to "reach more people with her message." Those "real" enough for you, or will you choose to view them as "unreal" because they support someone else's argument?lowing wrote:
I already gave it to you. Now, do you have anything REAL to base your opinion on? Like how she handled being mayor, or a governor? Or is the man vs dinosaur it?
Like it or not, they are indicators of poor critical thinking on her part, just as taking the position that man and dinosaurs coexisted--even though all scientific data says otherwise and the Bible doesn't say anything about it, either--is the same. She has nothing to base that position on, yet she makes a statement like that, knowing it will cause a political shitstorm beyond her own platform, but she has nothing to justify the position--scientifically or theologically. Faulty critical thinking all the way around. Multiple other decisions on her part that can be dissected similarly.
and yet, as it turns out everyone else was the "dumb ass". lolKmar wrote:
She called the Paul Revere question a "gotcha type question" when all they did was ask her;13rin wrote:
I don't think she's any longer the victim of a leftist media, but she was during the last Presidential election. No other candidate received the amount of scrutiny as she did.Kmar wrote:
She quits her elected position, invites TV cameras in her home, joins fox news, stars in her own reality show, puts out a book, tours the nation in a giant bus with her name plastered across the constituttion. .. and she wonders why the media won't leave her alone?
She's trying to supplant her ignorance with sympathy. The fact that people actually buy this victim of the "lame stream" media act is amazing to me.Reporter wrote:
"What have you seen so far today, and what are you gonna take away from your visit?"Palin wrote:
"In a shout-out, gotcha type of question that was asked of me, I answered candidly. And I know my American history."
Not quite. She was not entirely right. I explained this earlier.lowing wrote:
and yet, as it turns out everyone else was the "dumb ass". lolKmar wrote:
She called the Paul Revere question a "gotcha type question" when all they did was ask her;13rin wrote:
I don't think she's any longer the victim of a leftist media, but she was during the last Presidential election. No other candidate received the amount of scrutiny as she did.Reporter wrote:
"What have you seen so far today, and what are you gonna take away from your visit?"Palin wrote:
"In a shout-out, gotcha type of question that was asked of me, I answered candidly. And I know my American history."
Now that is a valid argument, calling her a "retard" or "lacks critical thinking", for the dumb fuck reasons listed, is not. But then again, she has not indicated she is seeking any appointments has she?Kmar wrote:
That's the problem. We have enough self serving politicians in Washington. When you're elected to an office you are obliged to serve the people who put you there. With the precedent of laying down and quitting why would anyone support her again?lowing wrote:
She resigned, she has more publicity and more money now than ever before, sounds like sound thinking to me. You may not like WHY she did it, but it sure as fuck looks as if she knew EXACTLY what she was doing and it is undeniable it is paying off for herFEOS wrote:
Her critical thinking IS real, lowing. There are many examples of her poor critical thinking (bridge to nowhere endorsement before not endorsing it anyone?). Choosing to quit the office the people of her state had elected her to execute. They did not elect her to do nation-wide bus tours and reality TV shows in order to "reach more people with her message." Those "real" enough for you, or will you choose to view them as "unreal" because they support someone else's argument?
Like it or not, they are indicators of poor critical thinking on her part, just as taking the position that man and dinosaurs coexisted--even though all scientific data says otherwise and the Bible doesn't say anything about it, either--is the same. She has nothing to base that position on, yet she makes a statement like that, knowing it will cause a political shitstorm beyond her own platform, but she has nothing to justify the position--scientifically or theologically. Faulty critical thinking all the way around. Multiple other decisions on her part that can be dissected similarly.
