I recently came across some old fractal memes in my files, and decided to do an update to Three Postulates of Moonbat Conspiracy Theories and three followup posts Here, Here, and Here. I thought it would be fun to give them facelifts and reformulate them in light of current understanding. In all truth, the original memes could have looked better, and been much easier to read…
I do not call them laws, much less name them after myself, as I think that presumptuous.
These memes will read as dismissive, and that is exactly as intended. Claims offered with no evidence beyond illogical connections of invisible dots are well-deserving of being dismissed without needing evidence against them. Hitchens’ dictum, my peeps.
Yes, conspiracies do sometimes happen, but the vast majority that frequent the Internet and make the rounds in chain emails and 24 hour political news cycles ought to be called out as what they are: baseless nonsense and propaganda, spread with a paranoid fervor to deliberately misinform and mislead.
So here they are, the Four Postulates of (Moonbat) Conspiracy Theories, using better images and new fonts.
As of this morning, I’ve finished all but two study units with a review of all completed units (12 of them) to follow this final week of July. There’re a few things that need to get done, but with the current rate of activity, those should be of little worry.
I’ve been tackling tasks without a to-do list and mostly without timers, a thing I wish was the case with my now-defunct blogs…
…Those were fun experiments, but my health and energy-levels at the time were not up to the task of maintaining them at any reasonable level of quality.
In any case, the last few weeks of posting since the end of my most recent blogging hiatus look very promising, and I’ll endeavor to maintain a decent posting schedule at least for this blog, and soon the others I own.
There is much to that can be said for one’s stamina when opportunities for regular exercise are available and taken.
May you all that a fantastic new week and end of this July. I hope what follows is at least as good as it has been so far, or is that just an appeal to inductive reasoning?… 😉
One does not simply exercise their Constitutional rights without any consequences befalling them. Nowhere in the Consitution does it say, nor even imply, that the rights contained in the Bill of Rights are absolute or without limit.
Rights carry with them responsibilities, including that to bear the consequences of what we say and do. Our rights and freedoms to not allow us to infringe on the rights and freedoms of others. Your rights end where another’s begin.
One of the tasks of any governing body in a free society is to protect those in society unable to protect themselves from others in that society who would impose upon or harm them. Democracy is not just about majority rule, but also minority rights.
You are not being persecuted when others get the same rights you have always enjoyed. You do not get to scream ‘PERSECUTION!!’ when you are part of a privileged majority and people are criticising you — and exercising THEIR rights — for what you say and do.
No more free pass, no more ‘get out of jail’ Card, Orson Scott.
Nowhere in the Bill of Rights is there any such thing as immunity to criticism. If you cannot bear the consequences of what you say and do, then you should do the ONLY thing that will get you no criticism from anyone — say and do absolutely nothing.
Don’t like that? Tough sh*t. Welcome to reality.
You are not being persecuted, Orson. If you don’t like hearing what people say, then STFU yourself. After all, it’s a choice, isn’t it?
You’re not being persecuted, Mr Scott Card, just being a privileged whiner who can’t take criticism and doesn’t want to face responsibility for your antiquated notions of sexual orientation.
Congratulations for being on the wrong side of history. The notion that you should have rights and special privileges and bear no responsibility for the consequences of using them isn’t concern for your liberty — It’s f**king childish.
G’day. I’m engaged in a little project right now on the various forms of creationism, including intelligent design creationism, and while reading up on the latter, I couldn’t help but notice how intellectually bereft it is, even though it’s got a nice shiny coat of sciencey-sounding language to dress it up.
For example, there’s meaningless jargon like ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘specified complexity’ terms used by ID proponents to disquise arguments from ignorance, more candidly expressed as, “I don’t understand how the complexity of life could have come about by natural processes, therefore no one can, therefore ID.”
The idea of ID is that whatever we don’t currently understand about the origin and diversity of life, it’s impossible to understand at all, so that we may as well not even ask the question, much less look for answers.
It implies that ID proponents are somehow wiser than those closed-minded Darwinian theorists and know the future state of knowledge better than anyone else.
It implies impossibly certain knowledge of what we can ultimately understand for all time — and this strikes me as an incredibly arrogant and presumptuous line of thinking, especially by non-scientists and would be so even if they were somehow scientists.
ID teaches those who accept it to fatalistically give up any form of meaningful inquiry, not just in biology, but in every field of science, for the basic premise of ID, that the mysteries of the universe are forever unsolvable, would cripple scientific work.
To paraphrase the character of a friend of mine in a Call of Cthulhu many years ago, it seems “cowardice in the face of Reason.”
I consider it a surrender to ignorance, a failure of intellectual nerve. I find it to essentially say, “Science isn’t as easy as just invoking a god to fill that gap in our current knowledge, so let’s just give up on it.”
My view is that it is the latest misguided attempt by perfectly intelligent, educated people to justify their religious views in a modern world, and though the marketing campaign for ID has claimed the fight with Evolution is about fairness and ‘teaching the controversy,’ it’s really not…
…but a politicized conflict between science and antiscience.
Nothing more, no matter how slick the packaging and presentation to the public is.
Sunday Evening Commentarium is a regular installment posted at 6:00 PM Eastern Time each Sunday, on a question or matter bringing itself to my attention during the previous week.