| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
29 Sep 2006 01:04:50 PM |
| Object: |
Cheney's One Percent Doctrine and Religion |
In case you haven't heard of it and how it applies to the mess we're
in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_One_Percent_Doctrine
Of course, it's insane, juvenile, a complete break from the adult
statesmanship since World War II, and even before, but it is a
connection between Cheney and Religionists.
Even though I don't believe there's a religious cell in Cheney's body,
much less bone, I think he does have their style of thinking down pat:
if there is even a fraction of a percent chance that our religion is
true, we must act as if we are one hundred percent certain that it is
true, damn the consequences.
Which is why arguing with them about anything that impinges upon their
faith is useless. I think a better way to set a good example for the
possible lurkers is to start positive new threads addressing subjects
raised by these idiots. These great posts I keep seeing would get
greater visibility if they were at least close to the start of a thread
and you wouldn't be wasting time on people whose minds can't be
changed, particularly not from outside.
Sorry if the cross post is bad form, but I felt the message applied to
both groups, and while Suskind's book has been mentioned in alt.atheism
recently, the possible fact that religious people might think the same
way about their religion wasn't brought up.
.
|
|
| User: "jcon" |
|
| Title: Re: Cheney's One Percent Doctrine and Religion |
29 Sep 2006 03:23:32 PM |
|
|
wrote:
In case you haven't heard of it and how it applies to the mess we're
in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_One_Percent_Doctrine
Of course, it's insane, juvenile, a complete break from the adult
statesmanship since World War II, and even before, but it is a
connection between Cheney and Religionists.
Even though I don't believe there's a religious cell in Cheney's body,
much less bone, I think he does have their style of thinking down pat:
if there is even a fraction of a percent chance that our religion is
true, we must act as if we are one hundred percent certain that it is
true, damn the consequences.
For religion, this is known as "Pascal's Wager", after 17th century
mathematician
Blaise Pascal. At some point in life, he reasoned that it was "a
better bet"
to believe in God because no matter how small the probability that He
actually existed, it would at least marginally increase his chances of
getting into Heaven, and if he were wrong, it wouldn't matter anyway.
The argument would *almost* make sense if there were only one religion
on the table, but of course it completely falls apart in a world filled
with jealous gods - some of whom would get more upset about worshipping
the wrong god than no god at all.
This is yet another weighty philosophical issue addressed by South
Park:
Kyle: But the guys said if I don't confess my sins and eat
crackers, I'm gonna go to hell.
Sheila: Oh noooo, that's just Catholics. Us Jews don't believe
in hell.
Kyle: We don't? But what if we're wrong?
Sheila: Well, Kyle, they could be wrong, too.
Kyle: Yeah, but if they're wrong, no big deal. If we're
wrong,
we burn in hell.
You *could* do a complex risk analysis and pick the religion
that maximized your chances of getting to heaven based on it's
own beliefs and its standing relative to all the others, but by the
time
you were half way through, it would probably dawn on you that you'd
lost your mind.
-jc
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Cheney's One Percent Doctrine and Religion |
29 Sep 2006 05:16:45 PM |
|
|
jcon wrote:
For religion, this is known as "Pascal's Wager", after 17th century
mathematician
Blaise Pascal. At some point in life, he reasoned that it was "a
better bet"
to believe in God because no matter how small the probability that He
actually existed, it would at least marginally increase his chances of
getting into Heaven, and if he were wrong, it wouldn't matter anyway.
The argument would *almost* make sense if there were only one religion
on the table, but of course it completely falls apart in a world filled
with jealous gods - some of whom would get more upset about worshipping
the wrong god than no god at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
Which covers the pros and cons fairly well. There's also the Atheist's
Wager:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist%27s_Wager
It didn't seem to be addressed directly but there's the survivial
problem: believing that God will save you when he doesn't exist is
suicide. If a problem requires direct action, but that is seen as bad
faith, and God doesn't exist, then belief in him is a demonstrably bad
thing. On the other hand, this is more a matter of the type of
religious person in control. The more secular church goers of the GI
generation never had a problem with taking direct action rather than
letting God handle it.
This is yet another weighty philosophical issue addressed by South
Park:
If we let TV in, there's an episode of Stargate SG-1 I've thought about
in religious terms:
http://www.stargate-sg1-solutions.com/wiki/3.19_%22New_Ground%22_Transcript
The key sentence that resonated for me is the first sentence here:
RIGAR
I am sure because we have not spent our lives praying to a god who does
not exist and many of our people have not lost their lives fighting a
meaningless war. I won't accept that. I have studied the book of
Nefertum word for word, cover to cover. It is the truth.
******************
Nobody is responsible for what their ancestors did and you can't undo
your past actions even if you can try to make up for them. You CAN
control all your future actions and seems to be what religious people
can't understand. In this case, the character is going to have many
more of his people killed in the future because he can't stand the idea
that they may have wasted their lives in the past, and not a few real
people have had the exact same logic.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wf3h" |
|
| Title: Re: Cheney's One Percent Doctrine and Religion |
01 Oct 2006 03:33:54 PM |
|
|
wrote:
In case you haven't heard of it and how it applies to the mess we're
in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_One_Percent_Doctrine
Of course, it's insane, juvenile, a complete break from the adult
statesmanship since World War II, and even before, but it is a
connection between Cheney and Religionists.
Even though I don't believe there's a religious cell in Cheney's body,
much less bone, I think he does have their style of thinking down pat:
if there is even a fraction of a percent chance that our religion is
true, we must act as if we are one hundred percent certain that it is
true, damn the consequences.
ronald bailey, the science editor of 'reason' magazine wrote an article
about the neocons and their view of religion. strauss figures large in
their philosophy and, according to bailey, there are different 'truths'
for different people. religion is useful to keep the masses in
line...so, according to bailey, the neocons push it...whether or not
they believe it is another matter.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Cheney's One Percent Doctrine and Religion |
29 Sep 2006 01:43:14 PM |
|
|
Hey, you're right. This quote from the wikipedia article that you
posted-
"Cheney observed that the US had to confront a new type of threat, a
"low-probability, high-impact event" as he described it."
-pretty much describes Pascal's wager down to a tee.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Auntie Lib" |
|
| Title: Re: Cheney's One Percent Doctrine and Religion |
29 Sep 2006 09:27:54 PM |
|
|
Mark_Reichert wrote:
<snip>
Which is why arguing with them about anything that impinges upon their
faith is useless.
This is exactly why it is such a bad idea to mix politics and religion.
Faith is non-negotiable and unchanging. It is not open to reason or
logic and facts just make the faithful nervous. Politics, at its best,
MUST be negotiable. It must be fluid and must change with the times
and must grow with the needs of the governed. ALL of the governed, not
just a select few.
Any attempt to turn any one segment of society's narrow religious
beliefs into law will be met, ultimately, with failure. Since
believers can't even agree with any cohesiveness on what those beliefs
are and how they should be codified, how can the law be expected to
include those beliefs in any way that will stand up to inevitable
challenges by the majority outside that narrow segment of society?
While I am dismayed that so many of our elected representatives are so
willing to pander to their more vocal constituents in such
short-sighted ways, I also know that such short-sightedness invariably
comes back to bite them in the *****. Usually by job loss. My fellow
human beings (religious and not-so-much) have a way of coming to the
realization that turning anybody's religous beliefs into law means that
one of these days those beliefs are gonna be somebody else's and not
theirs.
What can I say, I'm a born optimist. When asked what I DO have faith
in if not some sort of deity, I say that I have faith in my fellow
human beings; in their inherent goodness and fairness and empathy for
the feelings and needs of others as well as the good of society as a
whole, not just the tiny part they happen to inhabit.
elizabeth (or... maybe it should be Pollyanna)
aa#2098
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"I was born with a skeptical mind. Now I ask you, is that fair?
If God gives me a skeptical nature and you an accepting one, then
you're going to be a believer and I'm not. If belief is a ticket to
eternal happiness, I'm definitely handicapped. God gives me a mind
capable of asking questions and what? I'm damned if I use it?"
F. Paul Wilson "The Haunted Air"
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "CreateThis" |
|
| Title: Re: Cheney's One Percent Doctrine and Religion |
29 Sep 2006 01:44:48 PM |
|
|
On 29 Sep 2006 06:04:50 -0700, wrote:
In case you haven't heard of it and how it applies to the mess we're
in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_One_Percent_Doctrine
Of course, it's insane, juvenile, a complete break from the adult
statesmanship since World War II, and even before, but it is a
connection between Cheney and Religionists.
Even though I don't believe there's a religious cell in Cheney's body,
much less bone, I think he does have their style of thinking down pat:
if there is even a fraction of a percent chance that our religion is
true, we must act as if we are one hundred percent certain that it is
true, damn the consequences.
Which is why arguing with them about anything that impinges upon their
faith is useless. I think a better way to set a good example for the
possible lurkers is to start positive new threads addressing subjects
raised by these idiots. These great posts I keep seeing would get
greater visibility if they were at least close to the start of a thread
and you wouldn't be wasting time on people whose minds can't be
changed, particularly not from outside.
Sorry if the cross post is bad form, but I felt the message applied to
both groups, and while Suskind's book has been mentioned in alt.atheism
recently, the possible fact that religious people might think the same
way about their religion wasn't brought up.
This Administration applies the One Percent Doctrine only to those
risks they like. They certainly wouldn't apply it to imminent
potential catastrophes like global warming or runaway executive power.
CT
.
|
|
|
| User: "AL" |
|
| Title: Re: Cheney's One Percent Doctrine and Religion |
29 Sep 2006 03:17:38 PM |
|
|
CreateThis wrote:
On 29 Sep 2006 06:04:50 -0700, wrote:
In case you haven't heard of it and how it applies to the mess we're
in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_One_Percent_Doctrine
Of course, it's insane, juvenile, a complete break from the adult
statesmanship since World War II, and even before, but it is a
connection between Cheney and Religionists.
Even though I don't believe there's a religious cell in Cheney's body,
much less bone, I think he does have their style of thinking down pat:
if there is even a fraction of a percent chance that our religion is
true, we must act as if we are one hundred percent certain that it is
true, damn the consequences.
Which is why arguing with them about anything that impinges upon their
faith is useless. I think a better way to set a good example for the
possible lurkers is to start positive new threads addressing subjects
raised by these idiots. These great posts I keep seeing would get
greater visibility if they were at least close to the start of a thread
and you wouldn't be wasting time on people whose minds can't be
changed, particularly not from outside.
Sorry if the cross post is bad form, but I felt the message applied to
both groups, and while Suskind's book has been mentioned in alt.atheism
recently, the possible fact that religious people might think the same
way about their religion wasn't brought up.
This Administration applies the One Percent Doctrine only to those
risks they like. They certainly wouldn't apply it to imminent
potential catastrophes like global warming or runaway executive power.
CT
Bad examples. Global warming has no possibility of being controlled
with a national budget. No one can control the oceans temperature. If
there's a shot at finding and taking out the guy in a stadium of 10,000
with a bomb capable of evaporating the stadium we ought to try.
Especially if he's inviting his bomber friends to the party. BYOB.
The problem lies in the emmensity of potential human suffering relative
to the probability of effective mitigation of the risk.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jcon" |
|
| Title: Re: Cheney's One Percent Doctrine and Religion |
29 Sep 2006 04:01:58 PM |
|
|
AL wrote:
CreateThis wrote:
On 29 Sep 2006 06:04:50 -0700, wrote:
In case you haven't heard of it and how it applies to the mess we're
in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_One_Percent_Doctrine
Of course, it's insane, juvenile, a complete break from the adult
statesmanship since World War II, and even before, but it is a
connection between Cheney and Religionists.
Even though I don't believe there's a religious cell in Cheney's body,
much less bone, I think he does have their style of thinking down pat:
if there is even a fraction of a percent chance that our religion is
true, we must act as if we are one hundred percent certain that it is
true, damn the consequences.
Which is why arguing with them about anything that impinges upon their
faith is useless. I think a better way to set a good example for the
possible lurkers is to start positive new threads addressing subjects
raised by these idiots. These great posts I keep seeing would get
greater visibility if they were at least close to the start of a thread
and you wouldn't be wasting time on people whose minds can't be
changed, particularly not from outside.
Sorry if the cross post is bad form, but I felt the message applied to
both groups, and while Suskind's book has been mentioned in alt.atheism
recently, the possible fact that religious people might think the same
way about their religion wasn't brought up.
This Administration applies the One Percent Doctrine only to those
risks they like. They certainly wouldn't apply it to imminent
potential catastrophes like global warming or runaway executive power.
CT
Bad examples. Global warming has no possibility of being controlled
with a national budget.
Getting your "facts" from Ann Coulter again?
Actually, it's an excellent example because the administration *is*
using
the 1% doctrine - except they're applying it in the wrong direction, ie
"If there's even a 1% chance the global warming isn't a worry, we will
do ABSOLULTELY NOTHING".
-jc
.
|
|
|
| User: "AL" |
|
| Title: Re: Cheney's One Percent Doctrine and Religion |
29 Sep 2006 06:00:29 PM |
|
|
jcon wrote:
AL wrote:
CreateThis wrote:
On 29 Sep 2006 06:04:50 -0700, wrote:
In case you haven't heard of it and how it applies to the mess we're
in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_One_Percent_Doctrine
Of course, it's insane, juvenile, a complete break from the adult
statesmanship since World War II, and even before, but it is a
connection between Cheney and Religionists.
Even though I don't believe there's a religious cell in Cheney's body,
much less bone, I think he does have their style of thinking down pat:
if there is even a fraction of a percent chance that our religion is
true, we must act as if we are one hundred percent certain that it is
true, damn the consequences.
Which is why arguing with them about anything that impinges upon their
faith is useless. I think a better way to set a good example for the
possible lurkers is to start positive new threads addressing subjects
raised by these idiots. These great posts I keep seeing would get
greater visibility if they were at least close to the start of a thread
and you wouldn't be wasting time on people whose minds can't be
changed, particularly not from outside.
Sorry if the cross post is bad form, but I felt the message applied to
both groups, and while Suskind's book has been mentioned in alt.atheism
recently, the possible fact that religious people might think the same
way about their religion wasn't brought up.
This Administration applies the One Percent Doctrine only to those
risks they like. They certainly wouldn't apply it to imminent
potential catastrophes like global warming or runaway executive power.
CT
Bad examples. Global warming has no possibility of being controlled
with a national budget.
Getting your "facts" from Ann Coulter again?
Actually, it's an excellent example because the administration *is*
using
the 1% doctrine - except they're applying it in the wrong direction, ie
"If there's even a 1% chance the global warming isn't a worry, we will
do ABSOLULTELY NOTHING".
-jc
If theres even a one percent chanCDe that a solar flair will fry the
earth we will also do NOTHING. (: Seems reasonable to me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jcon" |
|
| Title: Re: Cheney's One Percent Doctrine and Religion |
29 Sep 2006 09:43:05 PM |
|
|
AL wrote:
jcon wrote:
AL wrote:
CreateThis wrote:
On 29 Sep 2006 06:04:50 -0700, wrote:
In case you haven't heard of it and how it applies to the mess we're
in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_One_Percent_Doctrine
Of course, it's insane, juvenile, a complete break from the adult
statesmanship since World War II, and even before, but it is a
connection between Cheney and Religionists.
Even though I don't believe there's a religious cell in Cheney's body,
much less bone, I think he does have their style of thinking down pat:
if there is even a fraction of a percent chance that our religion is
true, we must act as if we are one hundred percent certain that it is
true, damn the consequences.
Which is why arguing with them about anything that impinges upon their
faith is useless. I think a better way to set a good example for the
possible lurkers is to start positive new threads addressing subjects
raised by these idiots. These great posts I keep seeing would get
greater visibility if they were at least close to the start of a thread
and you wouldn't be wasting time on people whose minds can't be
changed, particularly not from outside.
Sorry if the cross post is bad form, but I felt the message applied to
both groups, and while Suskind's book has been mentioned in alt.atheism
recently, the possible fact that religious people might think the same
way about their religion wasn't brought up.
This Administration applies the One Percent Doctrine only to those
risks they like. They certainly wouldn't apply it to imminent
potential catastrophes like global warming or runaway executive power.
CT
Bad examples. Global warming has no possibility of being controlled
with a national budget.
Getting your "facts" from Ann Coulter again?
Actually, it's an excellent example because the administration *is*
using
the 1% doctrine - except they're applying it in the wrong direction, ie
"If there's even a 1% chance the global warming isn't a worry, we will
do ABSOLULTELY NOTHING".
-jc
If theres even a one percent chanCDe that a solar flair will fry the
earth we will also do NOTHING. (: Seems reasonable to me.
You really are an extremely stupid person, aren't you? Were your
parents stupid, or were you dropped?
-jc
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "CreateThis" |
|
| Title: Re: Cheney's One Percent Doctrine and Religion |
29 Sep 2006 06:26:30 PM |
|
|
On 29 Sep 2006 11:00:29 -0700, "AL" <aavery6801@yahoo.com> wrote:
jcon wrote:
AL wrote:
CreateThis wrote:
On 29 Sep 2006 06:04:50 -0700, wrote:
In case you haven't heard of it and how it applies to the mess we're
in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_One_Percent_Doctrine
Of course, it's insane, juvenile, a complete break from the adult
statesmanship since World War II, and even before, but it is a
connection between Cheney and Religionists.
Even though I don't believe there's a religious cell in Cheney's body,
much less bone, I think he does have their style of thinking down pat:
if there is even a fraction of a percent chance that our religion is
true, we must act as if we are one hundred percent certain that it is
true, damn the consequences.
Which is why arguing with them about anything that impinges upon their
faith is useless. I think a better way to set a good example for the
possible lurkers is to start positive new threads addressing subjects
raised by these idiots. These great posts I keep seeing would get
greater visibility if they were at least close to the start of a thread
and you wouldn't be wasting time on people whose minds can't be
changed, particularly not from outside.
Sorry if the cross post is bad form, but I felt the message applied to
both groups, and while Suskind's book has been mentioned in alt.atheism
recently, the possible fact that religious people might think the same
way about their religion wasn't brought up.
This Administration applies the One Percent Doctrine only to those
risks they like. They certainly wouldn't apply it to imminent
potential catastrophes like global warming or runaway executive power.
CT
Bad examples. Global warming has no possibility of being controlled
with a national budget.
Getting your "facts" from Ann Coulter again?
Actually, it's an excellent example because the administration *is*
using
the 1% doctrine - except they're applying it in the wrong direction, ie
"If there's even a 1% chance the global warming isn't a worry, we will
do ABSOLULTELY NOTHING".
-jc
If theres even a one percent chanCDe that a solar flair will fry the
earth we will also do NOTHING. (: Seems reasonable to me.
You got that exactly backwards, doofus.
CT
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Clayton" |
|
| Title: Re: Cheney's One Percent Doctrine and Religion |
29 Sep 2006 02:56:34 PM |
|
|
CreateThis wrote:
On 29 Sep 2006 06:04:50 -0700, wrote:
In case you haven't heard of it and how it applies to the mess we're
in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_One_Percent_Doctrine
Of course, it's insane, juvenile, a complete break from the adult
statesmanship since World War II, and even before, but it is a
connection between Cheney and Religionists.
Even though I don't believe there's a religious cell in Cheney's body,
much less bone, I think he does have their style of thinking down pat:
if there is even a fraction of a percent chance that our religion is
true, we must act as if we are one hundred percent certain that it is
true, damn the consequences.
Which is why arguing with them about anything that impinges upon their
faith is useless. I think a better way to set a good example for the
possible lurkers is to start positive new threads addressing subjects
raised by these idiots. These great posts I keep seeing would get
greater visibility if they were at least close to the start of a thread
and you wouldn't be wasting time on people whose minds can't be
changed, particularly not from outside.
Sorry if the cross post is bad form, but I felt the message applied to
both groups, and while Suskind's book has been mentioned in alt.atheism
recently, the possible fact that religious people might think the same
way about their religion wasn't brought up.
This Administration applies the One Percent Doctrine only to those
risks they like. They certainly wouldn't apply it to imminent
potential catastrophes like global warming or runaway executive power.
Or economic dependence on a resource controlled by countries with
ideologies radically contrary to our own...
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"During wars laws are silent." -- Cicero
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeffrey Turner" |
|
| Title: Re: Cheney's One Percent Doctrine and Religion |
29 Sep 2006 10:02:35 PM |
|
|
Richard Clayton wrote:
CreateThis wrote:
On 29 Sep 2006 06:04:50 -0700, wrote:
In case you haven't heard of it and how it applies to the mess we're
in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_One_Percent_Doctrine
Of course, it's insane, juvenile, a complete break from the adult
statesmanship since World War II, and even before, but it is a
connection between Cheney and Religionists.
Even though I don't believe there's a religious cell in Cheney's body,
much less bone, I think he does have their style of thinking down pat:
if there is even a fraction of a percent chance that our religion is
true, we must act as if we are one hundred percent certain that it is
true, damn the consequences.
Which is why arguing with them about anything that impinges upon their
faith is useless. I think a better way to set a good example for the
possible lurkers is to start positive new threads addressing subjects
raised by these idiots. These great posts I keep seeing would get
greater visibility if they were at least close to the start of a thread
and you wouldn't be wasting time on people whose minds can't be
changed, particularly not from outside.
Sorry if the cross post is bad form, but I felt the message applied to
both groups, and while Suskind's book has been mentioned in alt.atheism
recently, the possible fact that religious people might think the same
way about their religion wasn't brought up.
This Administration applies the One Percent Doctrine only to those
risks they like. They certainly wouldn't apply it to imminent
potential catastrophes like global warming or runaway executive power.
Or economic dependence on a resource controlled by countries with
ideologies radically contrary to our own...
Why do you think the U.S. now controls the country with the second
largest proven reserves of light crude? Wouldn't want to be dependent
on any other country.
--Jeff
--
"The fetters imposed on liberty at home have
ever been forged out of the weapons provided
for defence against real, pretended, or
imaginary dangers from abroad."
James Madison
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Clayton" |
|
| Title: Re: Cheney's One Percent Doctrine and Religion |
29 Sep 2006 10:05:17 PM |
|
|
Jeffrey Turner wrote:
Richard Clayton wrote:
CreateThis wrote:
On 29 Sep 2006 06:04:50 -0700, wrote:
In case you haven't heard of it and how it applies to the mess we're
in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_One_Percent_Doctrine
Of course, it's insane, juvenile, a complete break from the adult
statesmanship since World War II, and even before, but it is a
connection between Cheney and Religionists.
Even though I don't believe there's a religious cell in Cheney's body,
much less bone, I think he does have their style of thinking down pat:
if there is even a fraction of a percent chance that our religion is
true, we must act as if we are one hundred percent certain that it is
true, damn the consequences.
Which is why arguing with them about anything that impinges upon their
faith is useless. I think a better way to set a good example for the
possible lurkers is to start positive new threads addressing subjects
raised by these idiots. These great posts I keep seeing would get
greater visibility if they were at least close to the start of a thread
and you wouldn't be wasting time on people whose minds can't be
changed, particularly not from outside.
Sorry if the cross post is bad form, but I felt the message applied to
both groups, and while Suskind's book has been mentioned in alt.atheism
recently, the possible fact that religious people might think the same
way about their religion wasn't brought up.
This Administration applies the One Percent Doctrine only to those
risks they like. They certainly wouldn't apply it to imminent
potential catastrophes like global warming or runaway executive power.
Or economic dependence on a resource controlled by countries with
ideologies radically contrary to our own...
Why do you think the U.S. now controls the country with the second
largest proven reserves of light crude? Wouldn't want to be dependent
on any other country.
For some values of "control."
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"During wars laws are silent." -- Cicero
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Cheney's One Percent Doctrine and Religion |
29 Sep 2006 10:21:47 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 22:05:17 GMT, in talk.origins
Richard Clayton <rZIGeclaZIGyton@verizon.net> wrote in
<xMgTg.158$If3.104@trnddc07>:
Jeffrey Turner wrote:
Richard Clayton wrote:
CreateThis wrote:
On 29 Sep 2006 06:04:50 -0700, wrote:
In case you haven't heard of it and how it applies to the mess we're
in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_One_Percent_Doctrine
Of course, it's insane, juvenile, a complete break from the adult
statesmanship since World War II, and even before, but it is a
connection between Cheney and Religionists.
Even though I don't believe there's a religious cell in Cheney's body,
much less bone, I think he does have their style of thinking down pat:
if there is even a fraction of a percent chance that our religion is
true, we must act as if we are one hundred percent certain that it is
true, damn the consequences.
Which is why arguing with them about anything that impinges upon their
faith is useless. I think a better way to set a good example for the
possible lurkers is to start positive new threads addressing subjects
raised by these idiots. These great posts I keep seeing would get
greater visibility if they were at least close to the start of a thread
and you wouldn't be wasting time on people whose minds can't be
changed, particularly not from outside.
Sorry if the cross post is bad form, but I felt the message applied to
both groups, and while Suskind's book has been mentioned in alt.atheism
recently, the possible fact that religious people might think the same
way about their religion wasn't brought up.
This Administration applies the One Percent Doctrine only to those
risks they like. They certainly wouldn't apply it to imminent
potential catastrophes like global warming or runaway executive power.
Or economic dependence on a resource controlled by countries with
ideologies radically contrary to our own...
Why do you think the U.S. now controls the country with the second
largest proven reserves of light crude? Wouldn't want to be dependent
on any other country.
For some values of "control."
Hey, it's hard work, you know. The US controls the Green Zone and the
Airport, mostly, and a few other places, and, as long as we stand up for
the Kurds, we're even welcome in that part of the country (strangely,
the part where we have the fewest troops).
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt" |
|
| Title: Re: Cheney's One Percent Doctrine and Religion |
29 Sep 2006 03:24:47 PM |
|
|
Richard Clayton wrote:
CreateThis wrote:
On 29 Sep 2006 06:04:50 -0700, wrote:
In case you haven't heard of it and how it applies to the mess we're
in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_One_Percent_Doctrine
Of course, it's insane, juvenile, a complete break from the adult
statesmanship since World War II, and even before, but it is a
connection between Cheney and Religionists.
Even though I don't believe there's a religious cell in Cheney's body,
much less bone, I think he does have their style of thinking down pat:
if there is even a fraction of a percent chance that our religion is
true, we must act as if we are one hundred percent certain that it is
true, damn the consequences.
Which is why arguing with them about anything that impinges upon their
faith is useless. I think a better way to set a good example for the
possible lurkers is to start positive new threads addressing subjects
raised by these idiots. These great posts I keep seeing would get
greater visibility if they were at least close to the start of a thread
and you wouldn't be wasting time on people whose minds can't be
changed, particularly not from outside.
Sorry if the cross post is bad form, but I felt the message applied to
both groups, and while Suskind's book has been mentioned in alt.atheism
recently, the possible fact that religious people might think the same
way about their religion wasn't brought up.
This Administration applies the One Percent Doctrine only to those
risks they like. They certainly wouldn't apply it to imminent
potential catastrophes like global warming or runaway executive power.
Or economic dependence on a resource controlled by countries with
ideologies radically contrary to our own...
Some of whose citizens have flown planes into our buildings...
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"During wars laws are silent." -- Cicero
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Moran" |
|
| Title: Re: Cheney's One Percent Doctrine and Religion |
29 Sep 2006 05:36:25 PM |
|
|
On 29 Sep 2006 08:24:47 -0700, Matt <matthew.james.neil@gmail.com> wrote:
Richard Clayton wrote:
CreateThis wrote:
[snip]
This Administration applies the One Percent Doctrine only to those
risks they like. They certainly wouldn't apply it to imminent
potential catastrophes like global warming or runaway executive power.
Or economic dependence on a resource controlled by countries with
ideologies radically contrary to our own...
Some of whose citizens have flown planes into our buildings...
Excuse me? Canada may supply more oil than any other country and we certainly
have radically different ideologies but our citizens don't fly airplanes
into your buildings. :-)
(Middle East countries supply about 15-18% of America's oil. Saudi Arabia is
currently in fourth place behind Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela.)
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm
Larry Moran
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kermit" |
|
| Title: Re: Cheney's One Percent Doctrine and Religion |
29 Sep 2006 02:56:43 PM |
|
|
CreateThis wrote:
On 29 Sep 2006 06:04:50 -0700, wrote:
In case you haven't heard of it and how it applies to the mess we're
in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_One_Percent_Doctrine
Of course, it's insane, juvenile, a complete break from the adult
statesmanship since World War II, and even before, but it is a
connection between Cheney and Religionists.
Even though I don't believe there's a religious cell in Cheney's body,
much less bone, I think he does have their style of thinking down pat:
if there is even a fraction of a percent chance that our religion is
true, we must act as if we are one hundred percent certain that it is
true, damn the consequences.
Which is why arguing with them about anything that impinges upon their
faith is useless. I think a better way to set a good example for the
possible lurkers is to start positive new threads addressing subjects
raised by these idiots. These great posts I keep seeing would get
greater visibility if they were at least close to the start of a thread
and you wouldn't be wasting time on people whose minds can't be
changed, particularly not from outside.
Sorry if the cross post is bad form, but I felt the message applied to
both groups, and while Suskind's book has been mentioned in alt.atheism
recently, the possible fact that religious people might think the same
way about their religion wasn't brought up.
This Administration applies the One Percent Doctrine only to those
risks they like. They certainly wouldn't apply it to imminent
potential catastrophes like global warming or runaway executive power.
What on Earth makes you think the current US administration would
consider runaway executive power a "risk"?
CT
Kermit
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: Cheney's One Percent Doctrine and Religion |
30 Sep 2006 08:40:45 PM |
|
|
In article <1159541803.237394.222500@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Kermit" <unrestrained_hand@hotmail.com> writes:
What on Earth makes you think the current US administration would
consider runaway executive power a "risk"?
I can already hear them squealing when some other party gets to wear
the hat.
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Siemon" |
|
| Title: Re: Cheney's One Percent Doctrine and Religion |
30 Sep 2006 09:07:09 PM |
|
|
In article <hDATg.11849$7I1.7597@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
(Bobby Bryant) wrote:
In article <1159541803.237394.222500@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Kermit" <unrestrained_hand@hotmail.com> writes:
What on Earth makes you think the current US administration would
consider runaway executive power a "risk"?
I can already hear them squealing when some other party gets to wear
the hat.
But, but, but... they think they can rig it so that never happens...
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Cheney's One Percent Doctrine and Religion |
29 Sep 2006 03:21:43 PM |
|
|
Kermit wrote:
CreateThis wrote:
[snip]
What on Earth makes you think the current US administration would
consider runaway executive power a "risk"?
Of course there's no risk. Everyone knows these guys can be trusted.
Abusing their wealth and power is absolutely unheard of from them. And
it's not like they play with American lives by using the military to
achieve their short-term monetary gains, oh no no no! There's a reason
why they are called *good*-ol' boys!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
