| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/23 |
| 2007/10/12-15 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:48298 Activity:high 52%like:48303 |
10/11 Clearly, the Nobel Peace Prize has a well known liberal bias.
\_ Truth has a well known liberal bias as well.
\_ Despite all the evidence!
\_ http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
\_ Arafat won a peace prize too.
\_ Arafat was a liberal?
\_ No, Arafat was the kind of brutal killer a certain brand
of liberals love to fawn over for some weird reason.
\_ You know that Arafat did not actually win the peace
prize himself, right? You do understand that it was
shared with Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin. Why, do
you imagine, the Nobel Comittee would award a peace
prize to a group of three people like that?
\_ Oh of course. I have to wonder what Gore has actually done for
peace. He made a movie with significant factual errors? Wow.
\- i'm not a big fan of ALGOR but he's a better choice than that
dumb tree planting woman or rigoberta menchu, massive liar.
the should have co-awarded it to BLOMBORG for "spearheading
a debate on environmental change".
\_ What does GW have to do with peace?
\_ Let's time travel back to 1973 and have this discussion about
Kissinger's award, mmmmmkay?
\_ Name one war Gore stopped.
\_ It is your opinion that the movie contains significant
factual errors. A majority of climate scientists would
disagree with you. It is pretty much impossible to make
a documentary without any piddling errors. Do you believe
in Creation Science, too?
\_ Or in Al's case very serious errors.
\_ I notice you are avoiding the question.
\_ If you look at the list of NPP winners over the last 30-40 years
you'll find so many idiotic decisions that it is difficult for a
rational person to take them seriously anymore. It just doesn't
matter.
\_ Many rational people take them seriously. Perhaps you think
that the Nobel Prizes don't matter, but if you do, you
would be wrong.
\_ Uhm yeah. Well said. Next up: I know you are but what am I?
\_ 'Regular' Nobel prizes are very prestigious. The Nobel Peace
Prize became a joke when Arafat won. -- ilyas
\_ The conventional Nobel prizes are very prestigious. The
Nobel Peace prize was a joke ever since Arafat won. -- ilyas
\_ In your opinion, which of course everyone in the whole
wide world shares. Do you honestly believe that your
opinions are mainstream, ilyas? -ausman
\_ "That's like, your opinion, man." Why did you even
write that post? -- ilyas
write that post? No content. -- ilyas
\_ There is a very small group of pro-war people,
mostly people who despise any non-violent effort
at conflict resolution and whose livelihood depends
on warfare, who think that the Nobel Peace Prize
is "a joke." To the overwhelming majority of
humanity, it is a very presitigious award, perhaps
humanity, it is a very prestigious award, perhaps
the most prestigious award a human being can win.
There, is that better? -ausman
\_ Surprisingly, it is actually possible to
not take the Nobel Peace prize seriously, and
also NOT hate kittens. The Nobel committee gave
the award in question to a known butcher, without
bothering to check if the 'agreement' would hold,
in the face of decades of similar agreements
failing to work. Naturally, the 'peace' didn't
take, but you know. Who cares about peace.
Would you support giving Kim Jong Il the Peace
prize? The fellow runs a nightmare gulag state,
but I am sure he can sit down for a peace accord
too. Especially if there is no requirement that
he keep his word. Incidentally, did you know
that at least one Nobel committee member resigned
over Arafat?
P.S. Are you familiar with Larry Ellison's phrase
'Bozo explosion?' It's a way in which startups
\_ Yes case in point Google. Start shorting
man, you'll thank me for it.
eventually succumb to inertia as they grow and
mature. 'Bozo explosion' is a general phenomenon,
it affects not just corporations but traditions
(consider the Olympic games corruption scandals),
non-profit orgs (consider what happened to LA's
Griffith Observatory), and apparently even
prestigious prizes. -- ilyas
\_ You know, I am a pretty careful student of
Middle Eastern history and I have never before
heard of a Palestinian-Isreali peace treaty
heard of a Palestinian-Israeli peace treaty
that was signed by leaders from both sides
before. Can you give me some more information
about this treaty? As for your confused notion
about constitutes a prestigious or important
prize, I will say that historical figures almost
always seem more important after they are dead.
I am sure the award to MLK was pretty
about what constitutes a prestigious or
significant prize, I will say that historical
figures always seem more important after they
are dead. I am sure the award to MLK was pretty
controversial in 1964, as well. -ausman
\_ Are you comparing Arafat to MLK now? Wow.
Prizes are a social signal, nothing more.
The process by which prizes are awarded is
a noisy one. If this process gets so noisy
that 'obviously bad people' get the prize,
the prize is no longer a meaningful signal,
e.g., "This prize recipient is a good
person/productive contributor, etc. ...
unless we happened to fuck up and the person
is actually a murderer/thug/moocher/
political stooge." Bad award decisions
reflect on the award, I am afraid. -- ilyas
\_ I notice you are unable to provide me with
any similar peace treaty, in spite of your
earlier claims to the contrary. You are
aware that the Nobel Peace Prize is an
international prize, right? And you are
aware that Arafat is one of the most
highly regarded people ever in the Arab
world, right? I personally do not regard
Arafat as on the level of MLK, but would
not be surprised if he is by most people
in twenty or thirty years: it all depends
on how the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
works itself out. I think that Rabin and
Arafat took great personal and political
risks to come to an agreement, which they
should be commended for. Rabin was
assassinated for it, as was Sadat a decade
earlier, for daring to come to a similar
accord. Remember, there are still a bunch
of fanatical peace hating extremists on
both (many?) sides in the ME, who are
willing to kill leaders on their own
side who try to come to a peaceful accord.
Did you approve of the assassination of
Rabin and Sadat? Want Arafat and Peres
assassinated?
\_ Let's see: Linus Pauling, Martin Luther King, UNICEF,
Andrei Sakharov, Amnesty International, Anwar Sadat &
Menachim Begin, Mother Teresa, Lech Walesa, The UN
Peacekeepers, Nelson Mandela & Fredrik De Klerk,
Medecins Sans Frontieres. What a worthless bunch!
\_ Yeah, we need a Nobel War Prize, so some Republicans can win some.
\_ What I find sad about this is that there *had* to be someone out
there who has actually done something about making the world a
more peaceful place instead of turning the prize into a political
award for correct behavior. How many truly worthy people were
passed over to give Al a hat tip?
\_ Name one.
\- BTW, it's not only the Peace prizes with a mixed record.
The Lit prize is criticized for poor choices too. |
| 5/23 |
|
| www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm The Gallup Organizations periodically asks the American public about their beliefs on evolution and creation. They have conducted a poll of US adults in 1982, 1991, 1993 and 1997. By keeping their wording identical, each year's results are comparable to the others. Results for the 1991-NOV-21 to 24 poll were: Belief system Creationist view Theistic evolution Naturalistic Evolution Group of adults God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation. Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. Note the massive differences between the beliefs of the general population and of scientists: Belief system Creationist view Theistic evolution Naturalistic Evolution Group of adults God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation. Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. Everyone 44% 39% 10% Scientists 5% 40% 55% The "scientist" group would presumably include biologists and geologists. But it would also include persons with professional degrees in fields unrelated to evolution, such as computer science, chemical engineering, physics, etc. Political science professor George Bishop of the University of Cincinnati published a paper in 1998-AUG listing and interpreting 1997 poll data. "Bishop notes that these figures have remained remarkably stable over time. These questions were first asked about 15 years ago, and the percentages in each category are almost identical. Just as when these questions were first asked 15 years ago, creationists continue to be older, less educated, Southern, politically conservative, and biblically literal (among other things). Women and African-Americans were more likely to be creationists than whites and men. Meanwhile, younger, better educated, mainline Protestants and Catholics were more likely to land in the middle as theistic evolutionists." A late 2006 poll by CBS showed that: "Americans do not believe that humans evolved, and the vast majority says that even if they evolved, God guided the process. Support for evolution is more heavily concentrated among those with more education and among those who attend religious services rarely or not at all." Everyone 55% 27% 13% The creationist view seems to have received increasing support, perhaps because of the elderly who represent a gradually increasing part of the US population. At the same time, support for naturalistic evolution has also increased. The nation is becoming more polarized as belief in the compromise position -- that evolution happened , but under God's guidance -- has dropped. By any measure, the United States remains a highly religious nation, compared to other developed countries. For example, the percentage of adults who believe that "the Bible is the actual word of God and it is to be taken literally, word for word" is 5 times higher in the US than in Britain. Church attendance is about 4 times higher in the US than it is in Britain. In the spring of 2007, following an all-candidates meeting of ten Republicans seeking the presidency, three denied a personal belief in evolution. This promoted the Gallup Organization to ask American adults between 2007-MAY-21-24: "Do you, personally, believe in evolution or not." This is one of the poorest polling questions that we have ever seen, because people generally hold one of three beliefs concerning origins: bullet Naturalistic evolution: Evolution happened according to purely natural forces and processes without any divine guidance. bullet Theistic evolution: Evolution happened and was/is guided by God. bullet Creationism: Species were created separately by God. When a person is asked if they believe in evolution, they might interpret the question as belief in naturalistic evolution only. Alternately, they might consider it as asking whether one believes in either naturalistic or theistic evolution. Sometimes they do not handle questions well where there are three discrete positions. Also, some people regard evolution as covering only the development of life forms from the first one-celled animal to the present diversity of plants and animals. Others include the origins of the universe, the development of galaxies, stars, planetary systems, development of mountain ranges, continental drift, etc. The results, for what they are worth are a statistical draw: bullet 49% believe in "Evolution;" As expected, more highly educated adults believe in "evolution:" bullet 74% of people with post-graduate degrees believe in "evolution," as do: bullet 48% of college graduates bullet 50% of adults with some college bullet 41% of adults with high school or less. More frequent attendance at religious services correlated with a lack of belief in "evolution:" bullet 24% of those who attend weekly believe in evolution, as do: bullet 52% of those who attend nearly weekly or monthly, and bullet 71% of those who attend seldom or never. As expected, political affiliation reflects a difference of opinion on origins: bullet Only 30% of Republicans believe in "evolution;" The five main reasons why people say they do not believe in "evolution" are belief Jesus Christ, belief in God, due to my religion or faith, not enough evidence, and belief in the Bible. They listed two responses which more or less agree with the Creationist, and Theistic Evolution beliefs. Their third response, that Evolution is a fact, would probably have received the votes of most believers in Naturalistic Evolution. Their final option would probably have been selected by some creationists who believe that students should be exposed to all belief systems, and by others who are undecided. Results were: Belief system Creationist view Theistic evolution Naturalistic Evolution (probably) Neutral Group of adults Evolution is an unproven theory, contrary to God's revealed truth. Evolution was simly the means God chose to create life on this planet. Evolution may be an unproven theory, but it is important enough to merit study in our school systems. Everyone 27% 15% 50% 8% These results are based on 2904 votes. Needless to say, Internet surfers are are not necessarily typical of the general public. horizontal rule Sponsored link: horizontal rule Beliefs among conservative Christians: In 1999-NOV, Focus on the Family, a Fundamentalist Christian agency, concluded a poll of their web site visitors concerning their beliefs about creation and evolution. Author's note: The poll is not particularly well designed; The first three options concern when the world came into existence and assumes that God created it. The fourth response concerns evolution of life on earth. A participant in the poll might well believe that God created the world billions of years ago and that life evolved on its own. They would believe in two options, but could mark only one. The participants in the poll are self-selected from among the visitors to the Focus web site. They probably are mainly Fundamentalist or other Evangelical Christian believers. horizontal rule Beliefs elsewhere in the world: Belief in creation science seems to be largely a US phenomenon among countries the West. A British survey of 103 Roman Catholic priests, Anglican bishops and Protestant ministers/pastors showed that: bullet 97% do not believe the world was created in six days. bullet 80% do not believe in the existence of Adam and Eve. The Wichita Eagle and the Kansas City Star, surveyed 604 respondents on 1999-OCT-22 to 26. Kansas had been a target of much interest and some ridicule after the state Board of Education dropped the necessity of teaching evolution in its public schools. interpretation of the Bible: bullet Auctioneer Gary Corwin said: "I believe that the Lord God created everything, just like the Bible says, I dont think we came from apes." Author's note: 95% of scientists support evolution and have reached a consensus... |