Comments on: When Is A Debate Not A Debate?

By: mario piperni

mario piperni — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 16:48:33 +0000

Read my post again. I made it clear that evolutionary theory does not speak of God.

And it’s not about dissuading anyone from believing what they want. It’s about not raising a bunch of idiots. Creationists wish to have creation taught as science in schools. They’ve conveniently changed the name to “intelligent design”. Same garbage. There’s a battle going on out there and it’s imperative that these people be called out for spreading nonsense and wanting it forced down the throats of your children. Everyone should be concerned.

By: Bill

Bill — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 16:37:28 +0000

Not what I said at all. I said your comments indicated an “implacability” in discussion or debate. (Just double checked Webster’s to make certain of the meaning. “Intractable” might have been slightly better. But I think “implacable” is probably the better fit.)

I don’t want to engage in a contentious discussion over issues that (in my opinion) have no clear cut side, so I’ll try to be brief.

To state the absolute concerning creation and evolution as you have, there has to be a level of disregard for evangelical (?) thinking and belief. There are many “in between” discussions, the most reasonable one, as I would see it, that “God” used evolution as a tool of Creation. I personally do not believe this, but I understand how a person struggling to be faithful to their belief in God and their religious strictures would look at it in this way. In cases like this, I respect one’s religious beliefs and simply agree to disagree, with certain caveats. My position on that discussion is why try to dissuade someone from a faith, that if tempered with reasonable restraint, is not necessarily a bad one?

As for “climate change” again, I think the issue and debate centers around mankind’s contribution. Many see it as negligible and the warming and cooling cycles of the Earth as more natural than anything else. “Global Warming” as a statement is more often than not taken to mean mankind is destroying the Earth and something needs to be done. This is a perfect example of what I’m saying. Many people have looked at the exact same data and reached different conclusions. And regardless what you assert, there is no precise or exact science to prove or refute either position. One thing is certain. I think many more people on the alarmist side have used it to enrich themselves than on the other. Another discussion.

Also, “99.9%” is a misleading statistic. Possibly a large segment of the “scientific” community would be correct re: Creation and Evolution. I think substantially less on mankind’s impact on Global Warming. But I would think it would be better to clarify the “scientific community” aspect as that percentage would drop precipitously when applied to people as a whole.

Good discussion. Good points. I “respect” yours, though I disagree in part. I trust you extend the same courtesy to me.

(Nostalgically listening to Billy Mayes hawking “Scratch Fix It” as I write. Hard to believe.)

By: mario piperni

mario piperni — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 16:00:00 +0000

@Bill

Reading my post and coming to the conclusion that I am stating in any way that I am always right, is to have misread the point I am making. In a nutshell, I am stating that not all debates/issues have a happy ‘truthfulness’ somewhere between the two extremes. Sometimes, the truth lies at either end. Sometimes, someone is wrong and the other is right. Sometimes.

I pointed out four examples. In two of them, the truth (or ‘rightness’, not sure what to call it) does lie in between. In the other two examples, there is a right or wrong. Evolution is either a truth or it is not. There is no rational in-between. God created humans or we’ve evolved. You cannot have both.

As for climate change, man is either a contributor to global warming or he is not. The Deniers claim that man is NOT a contributor to the phenomena and/or that global warming as a whole is a hoax. They are either right or wrong. They cannot be both.

I have looked at both sides of both issues and my conclusion (along with 99.99% of the scientific community) is that Creationists and Deniers are wrong. Now if you choose to interpret that last statement as me claiming that I am always right, whatever.

By: Bill

Bill — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 14:45:51 +0000

I haven’t commented on this thread as I have a much different and simpler stated take on this.

I’m always right. If you disagree with me, you are wrong.

Seriously. The fallacy (as I see it) in what you state is in how you assimilate and evaluate the information. There are few blacks and whites. On most any subject, there are many hues of gray.

Two people can assimilate and evaluate the information on many of these subjects and arrive at different conclusions. One needs to be prepared, if they are so inclined, to support and debate their position. Many times (and this is something I have trouble with and I suspect that more than one of you have the same difficulty) you simply need to respect the other person’s opinion and respectfully walk away, agreeing to disagree.

The fact that you (Mario) take the position of categorizing and labeling certain subjects that you feel are inarguable would seem to indicate your (or an) implacability in discussion or debate.

While this is a thoughtful (I’m impressed) and well written piece, I would tend to disagree with many of your premises. And with that said, would refer you to my second sentence in this comment.

By: Mario Piperni dot Com » Blog Archive » Birther Wars - The Video

Mario Piperni dot Com » Blog Archive » Birther Wars - The Video — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 00:46:25 +0000

[...] I wrote in my last post, the truth does not always lie in the middle or even close to it. The birthers are insane and [...]

By: Tommy Pane

Tommy Pane — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 22:36:18 +0000

@Lantos

Can you name the scientists? Have you actually read their writings? Neither of us are operating from facts. I’m cynical because I don’t trust the source of the information, from either side. So I don’t think we should jump off a cliff because someone with more money than me says we should.

By: Lantos

Lantos — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 22:21:29 +0000

@Tommy

That’s a cynical outlook you’ve got there and while it might be correct in many instances, I think you’ve got it wrong on climate change.

Answer me this; how is it, as pointed out in the post, that the scientific community worldwide is in agreement? Are you suggesting a worldwide conspiracy put together by tens of thousands of top-notch scientists in every country in the world?

By: Tommy Pane

Tommy Pane — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 22:15:48 +0000

Climate Change: Let’s face it, nobody really knows why our weather is changing. It’s been changing for as long as there’s been evolution.

But, a wiser person than me once said, “Follow the money”. As much as Exxon has a motivation to keep pumping fossil fuels, GE has a mission to make billions by selling windmill turbines, which by the way are a very inefficient way to generate electricity, not to mention ugly. Who’s really pushing the client change issue? I think it’s people with vested interests in the profits. We’re just the pawns.

By: Lantos

Lantos — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 22:13:05 +0000

@Virginia who writes: “why can’t the shysters and uninformed also be part of the truth end?”

Shysters, by the very definition of the word, would be at the untruthful end.

As for the uninformed, I could see them being at either end but you can bet your last dollar that many more would be at the wrong end. Educating oneself on the facts will usually steer you to the truth.

By: Melody Brynne

Melody Brynne — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 22:08:57 +0000

I would like to throw into the discussion a journalist’s point of view or perspective. When reporting, you go find facts, not opinions. Those are for the Op-Ed column. You rely on documented fact. Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite had it right. You tell the people what they need to know not just what they want to know. What we need are the facts. Just the facts. Each of us will then be able as adults to analyze and critique and make a choice as to whether or not we will base our opinions on fact or emotion. I have no tolerance for people who try to “debate” when it is obvious that they have not done their homework and are not in possession of any facts. They cannot document or support their opinions in reality.
When you view debate from the way one is taught in school, the debate team is always told to do their homework and garner the facts. No debate worthy of being called that will ever be devoid of facts and no debate team I have ever seen wins without the facts.
All of us, being human will have biases, prejudices, pre-conceived ideas, or will be just plain blind. We can overcome all this, however, when we stop and go do our homework and get grounded in the facts. When we do this, we become like Walter Cronkite who was trusted by all because he always looked for the facts and told it like it was without the embellishment of opinion. The one and only time he varied from that was when the useless deaths of too many young men he saw in Vietnam appalled him to the point of ending his broadcast with the one observation that we would not win in Vietnam. The people believed him because he had never led them astray before and they knew he always did his homework before speaking. I went into journalism because of him. His standards of factuality and truthfulness will be sorely missed.