|
Chunk posted:Someone just sent this to me, saying that as a Catholic, I should be very afraid. red19fire posted:The Catholic Church finally pardoned Galileo in 1992 for proposing Heliocentrism. That should tell you everything you need to know about "modern" Catholicism.
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2012 22:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 12:59 |
|
|
euphronius posted:I am not aware of any "infallibility" statements from the Pope re birth control. I believe the last one was about Mary. Yeah, I'm looking around and I don't think any Pope has ever actually made an infallibility statement about birth control. The closest thing I can find is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanae_Vitae, but that was not made ex cathedra
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2012 22:09
|
|
|
ts12 posted:Yeah, I'm looking around and I don't think any Pope has ever actually made an infallibility statement about birth control. The closest thing I can find is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanae_Vitae, but that was not made ex cathedra Infallible decrees are reserved for theological matters and are few and far between.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2012 22:17
|
|
|
The number of times the GPA examples have shown up makes me wonder if just gathering up all the various rebuttals that have been done and putting it in the OP of a new thread on crazy emails when we need one wouldn't help in refuting this poo poo. People could just copy and paste the pages of why the example is a lovely one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2012 22:33
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:The number of times the GPA examples have shown up makes me wonder if just gathering up all the various rebuttals that have been done and putting it in the OP of a new thread on crazy emails when we need one wouldn't help in refuting this poo poo. People could just copy and paste the pages of why the example is a lovely one. A new thread with a big OP on comman (read: 4 repeating) emails and awesome goon rebuttles would be great!
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2012 22:38
|
|
|
Chunk posted:Infallible decrees are reserved for theological matters and are few and far between. Yeah, I'm aware, I just misread something earlier and thought there had been a decree on it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2012 22:47
|
|
|
Bombadilillo posted:A new thread with a big OP on comman (read: 4 repeating) emails and awesome goon rebuttles would be great! I'm just going to second this. On a related (but old) note, does anyone have rebuttals to the anti-Snopes e-mails, rebuttals that don't come from Snopes? I'm sure they've been posted, but this is a long-rear end thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2012 22:52
|
|
|
Do you really want to expend that much energy on someone who is being intellectually disingenuous
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2012 23:16
|
|
|
Cynnik posted:Do you really want to expend that much energy on someone who is being intellectually disingenuous I think that's why creating a common list of rebutles is a good idea. It's one thing to sit down and hammer out something from scratch each time. It's something else if we have a list we can just copy and paste from.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2012 23:32
|
|
|
Most if not all have rebuttles, but you also need good nonconfrentational rebuttles if you want to actually convince people. The snopes one is extremely important because a quick link to snopes does the trick a lot of the time, but theres been some poisoning the well there so some people just think snopes is LIBERAL MEDIA or some such other nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2012 23:35
|
|
|
Soylent Pudding posted:I think that's why creating a common list of rebutles is a good idea. It's one thing to sit down and hammer out something from scratch each time. It's something else if we have a list we can just copy and paste from. Additionally most discussions don't take place in a vacuum. While you may not change someones mind in one given instance, you may give them something that they will consider at a later date when the issue is raised again in their mind. Beyond that, where instances of Facebook and other social media is concerned you are often holding such a discussion before an audience. Even if you don't convince the person opposite your position, you may convince individuals within the audience who hadn't seen a coherent argument against what is being proposed. At times it can feel like you're not making much ground in such discussions, but consider that even then they can be valuable to you. In rebutting such arguments (or reading through rebuttals of arguments) you may increase your understanding of the situation or correct misinterpretations you didn't know you had. You may find your information is dated and newer, more accurate information is available to better serve your argument. The benefit to a source of common rebuttals is that it saves some of the leg work, but the common rebuttals should be revisited and rechecked over time to ensure they still make sense. It's why resources like Snopes are useful: it contains informational rebuttals for common misconceptions or false articles; Snopes tends to focus primarily on attributions to authors that are false rather than political or economic arguments that are simply bad analogies for complex systems.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2012 23:44
|
|
|
King Dopplepopolos posted:I'm just going to second this. Just use the sources quoted on Snopes and put it in your own words if you think they'll automatically dismiss anything snopes-related.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 00:27
|
|
|
Anyone got any neat responses to this gem?quote:These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read...
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 06:28
|
|
|
I've read this thread since near the beginning and I'm pretty sure there are only about fifteen unique forwards going around because I haven't seen anything new in donkeys ears.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 06:35
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Anyone got any neat responses to this gem? Number 4 shows that there's really not any point in responding to it. Unless this is someone you don't mind pissing off.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 06:37
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Anyone got any neat responses to this gem? Yeah, it's as much an argument against our current situation as it is against Marxism, ironically enough. That's what happens when you appeal to emotions and folk wisdom.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 06:41
|
|
|
You might just want to reply, "I didn't realize you're a Marxist". 1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. [Right, which is why we need full on revolution] 2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. [Bourgeois living off the labor of the Proletariat] 3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. [Taking is justified when government returns the fruits of one's labor] 4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it! [End private property!] 5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation. [See 2] I actually don't know that much about Marxism, but I figure whoever posts this poo poo knows even less.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 07:01
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Anyone got any neat responses to this gem? Accuse them of being a Marxist Communist Kenyan Muslim http://prahalathan.blogspot.com/2006/01/great-money-trick.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 07:20
|
|
|
Z-Magic posted:Accuse them of being a Marxist Communist Kenyan Muslim I think this raises a curious question: do conservative viewpoints hold a disproportionate share of crazy forwarded political email, or is it a selection bias and we just don't see the liberal viewpoints in crazy emails posted here? Does anyone have some examples of crazy liberal emails they got?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 20:36
|
|
|
I have no doubt that there were plenty during our previous president's tenure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 20:39
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:I think this raises a curious question: do conservative viewpoints hold a disproportionate share of crazy forwarded political email, or is it a selection bias and we just don't see the liberal viewpoints in crazy emails posted here? Does anyone have some examples of crazy liberal emails they got? I've seen a couple 9/11 truther Bush is illuminati ones. Do they count? I can't think of anything else.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 20:41
|
|
|
Nuclearmonkee posted:I've seen a couple 9/11 truther Bush is illuminati ones. Do they count? I can't think of anything else. No because John Birch Society adherents/Truthers consider Bush to be a part of an ongoing left-wing Communist police state conspiracy. The whole thing also boils down to a heap of anti-semitism as well, which this new resurgence just likes to overlook.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 21:09
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:I think this raises a curious question: do conservative viewpoints hold a disproportionate share of crazy forwarded political email, or is it a selection bias and we just don't see the liberal viewpoints in crazy emails posted here? Does anyone have some examples of crazy liberal emails they got? I used to wonder that to, but as far as I can find its not a selection bias. There really aren't many left wing emails going around. That being said there is an example of one from 2008. It involved a supposed list of books that Palin banned in Alaska. If you do a search on it, you'll find it on Snopes. But there really aren't many, and they don't seem to be passed around forever the way these ones are. As for the reason for this phenomenon; I'd like to think its because the right wing of the country has gone completely off their rocker, and the unfortunate ignorance and disconnect from reality makes them easy to mislead and rile up. But that almost certainly IS my bias showing, so I don't have a good answer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 21:28
|
|
|
It seems that the majority of emails Snopes debunks are right-wing ones, but again that could be bias on their end. I dunno EDIT: I should say, political emails. There's a lot of "omg did u see this pic" ones too obviously
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 21:47
|
|
|
If you can call US Democrats left-wing, I've seen a lot of Obama apologetics posts on Facebook that were quite ridiculous, as well as the jingoistic "Obama killed Osama" nonsense a few months ago, but it's not as forwarded emails, per se. Ditto on antisemitism posing as left-wing, or Stalinist apologetics (including someone repeatedly praising Lukashenko of Belarus for being a great anti-Imperialist hero). I usually get into arguments and get blocked before I can post them, either that or they're in Hebrew.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 22:14
|
|
|
By its very nature, being 'conservative' means you want to avoid change or you want to regress back to a previous way of doing things. I think this naturally lends itself to scare tactics, folksy parables, and building up lots of negative evidence (real or imagined) for what's wrong with these new ideas. In comparison, being 'liberal' means wanting to change the way things work. I think it's harder to create chain emails for this because while you might be able to write about how much the current system sucks, its hard to write about what should replace it or what the new idea should be and what its impacts will be. It's really easy to say, "I'm mad and we should get rid of xxxxx (Obama, gay rights, [b]welfare[b], etc.)", but it's more difficult to say, "I'm mad and we should institute a new policy of xxxxx (a three step process to gradually reduce our dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels that enacts a combination of renewable energy, more efficient energy utilization, and a modern power delivery system that will put us on par with other developed nations). It's kind of like a line from The American President, where the liberal president says that his conservative opponent, "is just shouting at the rain." It's easy to complain about bad weather and talk about when it wasn't raining, it's much more difficult to propose a plan forward, especially in a way that will result in 'FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:Thoughtful proposal on income disparities in urban areas.'
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 22:55
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:the jingoistic "Obama killed Osama" nonsense a few months ago I haven't seen anybody saying Obama killed Osama. On the other hand the very minute the news about Osama's death got out I started hearing conservatives blowing up about liberals supposedly saying Obama killed Osama. The same thing happened with the Tucson shooting, the very first thing I heard was conservatives freaking out about how liberals would use it as an excuse to ban guns. It seems to me like they've constructed such a vivid liberal strawman in their minds that it beats actual liberals to the punch on anything remotely controversial.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 23:17
|
|
|
Kosmonaut posted:I haven't seen anybody saying Obama killed Osama. On the other hand the very minute the news about Osama's death got out I started hearing conservatives blowing up about liberals supposedly saying Obama killed Osama. The same thing happened with the Tucson shooting, the very first thing I heard was conservatives freaking out about how liberals would use it as an excuse to ban guns. It seems to me like they've constructed such a vivid liberal strawman in their minds that it beats actual liberals to the punch on anything remotely controversial. Conversely, The first thing I heard after the Gifford shooting was "Holy poo poo a libertarian psycho took Limbaugh/Beck seriously and shot a politician." Might have been on HuffPo. I think the Achilles heel of liberalism/progressivism is that it takes a long view towards progress and change, rather than the politically expedient short view, as in the rain example above. Liberals want America to start exercising and eating better, while conservatives want America to get lipo and go back to Burger King. It's harder to take the high road, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 00:37
|
|
|
red19fire posted:Conversely, The first thing I heard after the Gifford shooting was "Holy poo poo a libertarian psycho took Limbaugh/Beck seriously and shot a politician." Might have been on HuffPo. quote:Her father Spencer Giffords, 75, wept when asked if his 40-year-old daughter had any enemies. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 08:57
|
|
|
So wait, people like actually just dismiss Snopes if you reply to a chain bullshit thing with it? drat. What about Politifact? It's a good, well sourced resource as well.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 09:53
|
|
|
Loving Life Partner posted:So wait, people like actually just dismiss Snopes if you reply to a chain bullshit thing with it? drat. They just quoted Cobert in the Conservapedia thread, "reality has a well-known liberal bias". If it disagrees, it must be a biased source.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 10:05
|
|
|
Loving Life Partner posted:So wait, people like actually just dismiss Snopes if you reply to a chain bullshit thing with it? drat. That's just not how our brains work. When confronted with data that contradicts their beliefs they reject the data, not their beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 10:33
|
|
|
Kosmonaut posted:I haven't seen anybody saying Obama killed Osama. On the other hand the very minute the news about Osama's death got out I started hearing conservatives blowing up about liberals supposedly saying Obama killed Osama. I assume he's referring to this sort of thing. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 10:50
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:It was the first thought in a lot of people's minds. Also there was this: B-b-b-but those are surveyor's symbols! Loving Life Partner posted:So wait, people like actually just dismiss Snopes if you reply to a chain bullshit thing with it? drat. Ehh, it tries too hard to find an equivalence. I fail to see how the Democrats' claim that the Republican Medicare plan would cost double that it actually would is a worse lie than Jon Kyl's not-intended-to-be-a-factual-statement about Planned Parenthood doing 30 times more abortions than it actually does.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 15:16
|
|
|
Combustible posted:I assume he's referring to this sort of thing. Yes. I had actual facebook friends acting in this way, not some strawmen invented by conservatives (unless strawmen have facebook accounts and have friended me, which is just rude).
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 16:52
|
|
|
Okay but "Obama killed Osama" which is a condensed version of "Obama was presented by his military advisors with several different options to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, chose one, and oversaw its successful execution, and I'm happy about that", is entirely different than "here's a parable I made up about some chalk that disproves evolution" or whatever
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 17:14
|
|
|
Not an email per se, but awhile ago there was a really good retort somewhere on these forums to the 'if you like socialism so much why don't you move to a socialist country you drat hippie' and I don't remember what it is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 17:35
|
|
|
I don't know the retort you're talking about but 1) which "socialist" country am I supposed to move to and 2) how is a poor person supposed to move overseas to a strange country where they don't know anybody and they don't know the language and improve their situation
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 17:38
|
|
|
Kosmonaut posted:I don't know the retort you're talking about but 1) which "socialist" country am I supposed to move to and 2) how is a poor person supposed to move overseas to a strange country where they don't know anybody and they don't know the language and improve their situation Not only that, but you have to actually be accepted by the foreign country, which is often difficult due to strict quotas on immigration per year. You could find your way in through other means, of course, but that'd be illegal immigration, and we all know how republicans feel about that...
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 17:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 12:59 |
|
|
Kosmonaut posted:I don't know the retort you're talking about but 1) which "socialist" country am I supposed to move to and 2) how is a poor person supposed to move overseas to a strange country where they don't know anybody and they don't know the language and improve their situation The answer, as always, is bootstraps my friend. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 17:44
|
|