Hello There, Guest!

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Obama Appoints VanAndel Scientist and Man of Faith
#11
And this goes back to my earlier questions elsewhere about why people who so often preach ethics feel it's necessary to lie, even though their deceptions can be so easily exposed -

http://scienceblogs.com/bioephemera/2009...ted_as.php

It's amazingly similar to anti-amway zealots, who constantly make s**t up in order to further their agendas.

The sad thing is, in both situations, so many people just believe what they read instead of researching further and thinking for themselves.
 Reply
#12
actually, I'll take some of that back. "zombie", the guy who did the original post that began this, didn't just "make stuff up" knowingly, from reading his comments in the post I linked to, he sincerely believes what he wrote.
 Reply
#13
Here is Holden's quote.


The Population Bomb by Anne and Paul Ehrlich and John P. Holdren
"it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."


Holden can hide behind the premise that this was not HIS conclusion and that this was only a hypothetical example of how the government could respond. But there is no doubt he was promoting the idea.

And I have not seen any scientist at this level in a Republican administration promote/consider/advance ideas as radical as these.

Holden also promoted/advanced the idea of a $100,000 cap on income.

Can you imagine the reaction of that peice of legislation being announced to 30,000 ibos at a Free Enterprise weekend?
 Reply
#14
I see you completely ignored my advice about thinking for yourself.

Try actually reading the link I posted before blindly reposting discredited dogma.
 Reply
#15
I thought it was funny you ignored Holden's own words and let some internet blogger to interpret them for you.

Regardless, you didn't prove your point that science has been harmed or hijacked by people of religion.
 Reply
#16
MichMan Wrote:I thought it was funny you ignored Holden's own words and let some internet blogger to interpret them for you.


And you still haven't read the link I provided have you? ...

If you had, you might try reading Holdren's and/or his co-authors words yourself, like I did, instead of just assuming I do what you quite clearly do.

Heck, you can't even get the name of the book right. I guess you "just let some internet blogger" get that wrong for you.

MichMan Wrote:Regardless, you didn't prove your point that science has been harmed or hijacked by people of religion.


.... not that you read what I write either ...
 Reply
#17
I know that Holden claims that the idea in the original quote was not his.

But Holden presented it and offered it to his readers as an idea to consider.

I guess the lesson to be learned is that if you are going to quote radical statements by someone in a book, you should be careful to distance yourself from them if you don't agree. Otherwise they will stick to you. Holden had a chance do distance himself from those comments. But he offered them to his readers as credible ideas to be considered.

I have never written a book. But Rich DeVos has.

And I cannot imagine Rich or any other credible author to allow a quote like this to go unchallenged in one of his books:

"it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."

(And yes, I do think of the book Population Bomb when I hear the name Paul Ehrlich. That book was manditory reading in college. I believed the guy was nutty back then. And we have even more reasons to conclude so today.)
 Reply
#18
MichMan Wrote:I know that Holden claims that the idea in the original quote was not his.


Couldn't get the name of the book right, still can't get the name of the person under discussion right. As for whether "the quote" is his or not, he was one of multiple authors on the book and the chapter in question is not his area of expertise, so it's incredibly likely he had nothing to do with "the quote". Even then, "the quote" is clearly referring to what someone else has concluded, namely John C Montgomery.

All of which you'd know if you bothered to read either the first link I provided, or the later link to the actual page of the book

Quote:But Holden presented it and offered it to his readers as an idea to consider.

Which is exactly what a college text book should do!

Quote:And I cannot imagine Rich or any other credible author to allow a quote like this to go unchallenged in one of his books:

"it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."

Really? So Rich is a constitutional lawyer now? The authors are reporting what has said been about the law, by a lawyer, about the topic. A lawyer is stating that the constitution would prevent no bar to these kind of "population controls". That is not an endorsement of it, that's what they are supposed to do. The authors are doing exactly what they should be doing in a text book - presenting information about a topic and leaving it for students to judge. But heck, I'm no expert on the US constitution - but clearly you (and Rich!) are, and I'm more than willing to hear how this assessment of the constitution is wrong. Well, not that willing actually, I'm not that interested in the topic.

Quote:(And yes, I do think of the book Population Bomb when I hear the name Paul Ehrlich. That book was manditory reading in college. I believed the guy was nutty back then. And we have even more reasons to conclude so today.)

I don't necessarily disagree with that. Well ... some nutty ideas perhaps. But then, I think you have some nutty ideas too Wink
 Reply
#19
Nutty?

He was the one who claimed that it was "concluded" that forced abortions and forced sterilization would be Constitutional under the right circumstances.

And btw, if he makes a statement like that, he has endorsed the idea.

If someone writes a book or a political blog and says that it has been "concluded" that the assassination of the President would be Constitutional under certain circumstances, how long before the Secret Service is knocking on his door. And do you think he could use the argument, "That wasn't my quote... It was somebody else's. And it was only a hypothesis! Besides, I only co-wrote the book!"

Regardless, Francis Collins seems like a good and smart man. Maybe he can balance out this guy.
 Reply
#20
MichMan Wrote:Nutty?

He was the one who claimed that it was "concluded" that forced abortions and forced sterilization would be Constitutional under the right circumstances.


Good god Michman, you can't even get your story straight. Two posts back you were claiming it was Holdren who said these things, now you're saying it' Ehrlich?

Quote:And btw, if he makes a statement like that, he has endorsed the idea.

If anything you are completely backing up my comments about the rabid right being anti-science etc. You are being anti- well ... anti- any kind of logic thought.

By your logic, a policeman stating a man was caught shoplifting means the policeman endorses shoplifting!

Quote:If someone writes a book or a political blog and says that it has been "concluded" that the assassination of the President would be Constitutional under certain circumstances, how long before the Secret Service is knocking on his door. And do you think he could use the argument, "That wasn't my quote... It was somebody else's. And it was only a hypothesis! Besides, I only co-wrote the book!"

Take it up with the lawyer, not me. The fact you believe that someone raising other people's comments on a matter means they believe them certainly explains a lot of the discussions we've had here!

You know what MichMan ... some commentators have concluded that Amway is an illegal pyramid.

I guess that means I believe Amway is an illegal pyramid! Better go tell JoeCool.

Quote:Regardless, Francis Collins seems like a good and smart man. Maybe he can balance out this guy.

They both seem good and smart men to me.
 Reply

 
Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)