[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dan: I like it. Not sure the Mother Church would appreciate your jesting, but I do.

I’d go for more of the Country Dick and the Beat Farmers kinda thing.

Has anyone noticed that it seems like Johnny Cash’s “When the Man Comes Around” is getting a lot of airplay on various TV shows? It’s like the song du jour or something.

Nazis aren’t right wing. They’re socialists. Deal with it.[/quote]

Re Johnny:
You’re talking about the season finale of the Sarah Connor Chronicles as well as Generation Kill.
Dude.
How much of the same shit do we watch?

Re Nazis:
I stand by what I said. While I believe (as I suspect you do) that the political spectrum is best mapped in a circle, most basic poli sci courses teach it as linear with Facism and National Socialism to the right. I am saying I agree with you but that the model used in this thread is not as nuanced. I think that is a reasonable assertion.

Re some shit you never brought up:
If you like that song and are raised in the order of Jesus, get your hands on “The Origin of Satan” by Pagels. Seriously. Its a trace of Satan as a character going back to the Judaic and even pre Judaic Babylonian roots. Very good read.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dan: I like it. Not sure the Mother Church would appreciate your jesting, but I do.

I’d go for more of the Country Dick and the Beat Farmers kinda thing.

Has anyone noticed that it seems like Johnny Cash’s “When the Man Comes Around” is getting a lot of airplay on various TV shows? It’s like the song du jour or something.

Nazis aren’t right wing. They’re socialists. Deal with it.[/quote]

Re Johnny:
You’re talking about the season finale of the Sarah Connor Chronicles as well as Generation Kill.
Dude.
How much of the same shit do we watch?

Re Nazis:
I stand by what I said. While I believe (as I suspect you do) that the political spectrum is best mapped in a circle, most basic poli sci courses teach it as linear with Facism and National Socialism to the right. I am saying I agree with you but that the model used in this thread is not as nuanced. I think that is a reasonable assertion.

Re some shit you never brought up:
If you like that song and are raised in the order of Jesus, get your hands on “The Origin of Satan” by Pagels. Seriously. Its a trace of Satan as a character going back to the Judaic and even pre Judaic Babylonian roots. Very good read.

[urbanrealtor]

And what kind of music were you thinking?
Maybe some kind of gospel-oriented rockabilly?
Sort of Bastards Sons of Johnny Cash covering Reverend Horton Heat?

I dunno.

[urbanrealtor]

And what kind of music were you thinking?
Maybe some kind of gospel-oriented rockabilly?
Sort of Bastards Sons of Johnny Cash covering Reverend Horton Heat?

I dunno.

[urbanrealtor]

And what kind of music were you thinking?
Maybe some kind of gospel-oriented rockabilly?
Sort of Bastards Sons of Johnny Cash covering Reverend Horton Heat?

I dunno.

[urbanrealtor]

And what kind of music were you thinking?
Maybe some kind of gospel-oriented rockabilly?
Sort of Bastards Sons of Johnny Cash covering Reverend Horton Heat?

I dunno.

[urbanrealtor]

And what kind of music were you thinking?
Maybe some kind of gospel-oriented rockabilly?
Sort of Bastards Sons of Johnny Cash covering Reverend Horton Heat?

I dunno.

[urbanrealtor]

Look you Jesuit Hillbilly MF!!!!

Stop posting and go back to praying for me.

Seriously,
I was trying to dumb it down and deal with the silly little political spectrum the thread author was throwing down.

Have you read my previous posts about nationalism and socialism?

My wife (the one with an MA in political theory) disagrees with me on this. Our last encounter on this particular topic ended in a shouting match (probably fueled by the 2buck chuck we were drinking). Bear in mind I hit on her after a discussion on Foucauldian power structures (at a bar). Our son is going to be one nerdy, nerdy baby.

But yes you are right in the grand sense, however, in the context of this debate (which strongly implies a 1/1.5 dimensional linear political spectrum) you are out of bounds.

Fair?

(For those not realizing, I am being playful with Allan. This disclaimer brought to you by the last set of scolding I got.)

[urbanrealtor]

Look you Jesuit Hillbilly MF!!!!

Stop posting and go back to praying for me.

Seriously,
I was trying to dumb it down and deal with the silly little political spectrum the thread author was throwing down.

Have you read my previous posts about nationalism and socialism?

My wife (the one with an MA in political theory) disagrees with me on this. Our last encounter on this particular topic ended in a shouting match (probably fueled by the 2buck chuck we were drinking). Bear in mind I hit on her after a discussion on Foucauldian power structures (at a bar). Our son is going to be one nerdy, nerdy baby.

But yes you are right in the grand sense, however, in the context of this debate (which strongly implies a 1/1.5 dimensional linear political spectrum) you are out of bounds.

Fair?

(For those not realizing, I am being playful with Allan. This disclaimer brought to you by the last set of scolding I got.)

[urbanrealtor]

Look you Jesuit Hillbilly MF!!!!

Stop posting and go back to praying for me.

Seriously,
I was trying to dumb it down and deal with the silly little political spectrum the thread author was throwing down.

Have you read my previous posts about nationalism and socialism?

My wife (the one with an MA in political theory) disagrees with me on this. Our last encounter on this particular topic ended in a shouting match (probably fueled by the 2buck chuck we were drinking). Bear in mind I hit on her after a discussion on Foucauldian power structures (at a bar). Our son is going to be one nerdy, nerdy baby.

But yes you are right in the grand sense, however, in the context of this debate (which strongly implies a 1/1.5 dimensional linear political spectrum) you are out of bounds.

Fair?

(For those not realizing, I am being playful with Allan. This disclaimer brought to you by the last set of scolding I got.)

[urbanrealtor]

Look you Jesuit Hillbilly MF!!!!

Stop posting and go back to praying for me.

Seriously,
I was trying to dumb it down and deal with the silly little political spectrum the thread author was throwing down.

Have you read my previous posts about nationalism and socialism?

My wife (the one with an MA in political theory) disagrees with me on this. Our last encounter on this particular topic ended in a shouting match (probably fueled by the 2buck chuck we were drinking). Bear in mind I hit on her after a discussion on Foucauldian power structures (at a bar). Our son is going to be one nerdy, nerdy baby.

But yes you are right in the grand sense, however, in the context of this debate (which strongly implies a 1/1.5 dimensional linear political spectrum) you are out of bounds.

Fair?

(For those not realizing, I am being playful with Allan. This disclaimer brought to you by the last set of scolding I got.)

[urbanrealtor]

Look you Jesuit Hillbilly MF!!!!

Stop posting and go back to praying for me.

Seriously,
I was trying to dumb it down and deal with the silly little political spectrum the thread author was throwing down.

Have you read my previous posts about nationalism and socialism?

My wife (the one with an MA in political theory) disagrees with me on this. Our last encounter on this particular topic ended in a shouting match (probably fueled by the 2buck chuck we were drinking). Bear in mind I hit on her after a discussion on Foucauldian power structures (at a bar). Our son is going to be one nerdy, nerdy baby.

But yes you are right in the grand sense, however, in the context of this debate (which strongly implies a 1/1.5 dimensional linear political spectrum) you are out of bounds.

Fair?

(For those not realizing, I am being playful with Allan. This disclaimer brought to you by the last set of scolding I got.)

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=larrylujack][quote=urbanrealtor]

Religious science and creationism are examples of attempts to explain quantifiable known data through the use of a model of the unknowable.
Putting that differently, you can’t explain quantifiable data with metaphysics and you can’t deny faith in a deity through astrophysics.

So Larry, I really think you are all wet on this. [/quote]

Why does there need to be an “explanation” per se of what is currently unknowable?[/quote]
I don’t there needs to be (in fact, “explaining” the unknowable sounds like and exercise in irony (or a Gary Larson cartoon).I was suggesting that apprehending the unknowable (which to me is akin to building a conceptual interface to deal with it) is a way of describing the role of religion.
[quote=larrylujack] And, what is unknowable changes over time: clearly what was unknowable 100 years ago is knowable now, as evidenced by the DNA as the genetic code, particle physics, to name a few. What is knowable 100 years from now, assuming the human race survives, will certainly be within the sphere of what is considered unknowable now. [/quote]I think this is intuitive and obvious.
[quote=larrylujack] What I think I am reading, is that the absence of proof of non-existence of a deity viz astrophysics can in a sense be used to support existence of a deity? [/quote] No. I was not asserting that. I don’t want this to turn into a lower-division philosophy/rhetoric class but that sounds like an “either/or” fallacy. My point was that the domain of one is squarely outside the domain of the other. Science cannot meaningfully answer questions of “why am I here” (I mean other than threadjacking and selling condos). Similarly, Religion is a crappy model for studying primitive achuelean tool industry (or neutrinos, or geophysical phenomena).
[quote=larrylujack]If my interpretation of your convoluted prose is accurate, I and most others in science would say that this is not a meaningful “model” to attempt to answer the unknowable if the goal is to actually seek knowledge: it is akin to throwing in the towel.
[/quote] Well if I were presenting it as a model to answer the unknowable, then you might have a point. Throwing in the towel only applies in a fight. I don’t see this as a fight.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=larrylujack][quote=urbanrealtor]

Religious science and creationism are examples of attempts to explain quantifiable known data through the use of a model of the unknowable.
Putting that differently, you can’t explain quantifiable data with metaphysics and you can’t deny faith in a deity through astrophysics.

So Larry, I really think you are all wet on this. [/quote]

Why does there need to be an “explanation” per se of what is currently unknowable?[/quote]
I don’t there needs to be (in fact, “explaining” the unknowable sounds like and exercise in irony (or a Gary Larson cartoon).I was suggesting that apprehending the unknowable (which to me is akin to building a conceptual interface to deal with it) is a way of describing the role of religion.
[quote=larrylujack] And, what is unknowable changes over time: clearly what was unknowable 100 years ago is knowable now, as evidenced by the DNA as the genetic code, particle physics, to name a few. What is knowable 100 years from now, assuming the human race survives, will certainly be within the sphere of what is considered unknowable now. [/quote]I think this is intuitive and obvious.
[quote=larrylujack] What I think I am reading, is that the absence of proof of non-existence of a deity viz astrophysics can in a sense be used to support existence of a deity? [/quote] No. I was not asserting that. I don’t want this to turn into a lower-division philosophy/rhetoric class but that sounds like an “either/or” fallacy. My point was that the domain of one is squarely outside the domain of the other. Science cannot meaningfully answer questions of “why am I here” (I mean other than threadjacking and selling condos). Similarly, Religion is a crappy model for studying primitive achuelean tool industry (or neutrinos, or geophysical phenomena).
[quote=larrylujack]If my interpretation of your convoluted prose is accurate, I and most others in science would say that this is not a meaningful “model” to attempt to answer the unknowable if the goal is to actually seek knowledge: it is akin to throwing in the towel.
[/quote] Well if I were presenting it as a model to answer the unknowable, then you might have a point. Throwing in the towel only applies in a fight. I don’t see this as a fight.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=larrylujack][quote=urbanrealtor]

Religious science and creationism are examples of attempts to explain quantifiable known data through the use of a model of the unknowable.
Putting that differently, you can’t explain quantifiable data with metaphysics and you can’t deny faith in a deity through astrophysics.

So Larry, I really think you are all wet on this. [/quote]

Why does there need to be an “explanation” per se of what is currently unknowable?[/quote]
I don’t there needs to be (in fact, “explaining” the unknowable sounds like and exercise in irony (or a Gary Larson cartoon).I was suggesting that apprehending the unknowable (which to me is akin to building a conceptual interface to deal with it) is a way of describing the role of religion.
[quote=larrylujack] And, what is unknowable changes over time: clearly what was unknowable 100 years ago is knowable now, as evidenced by the DNA as the genetic code, particle physics, to name a few. What is knowable 100 years from now, assuming the human race survives, will certainly be within the sphere of what is considered unknowable now. [/quote]I think this is intuitive and obvious.
[quote=larrylujack] What I think I am reading, is that the absence of proof of non-existence of a deity viz astrophysics can in a sense be used to support existence of a deity? [/quote] No. I was not asserting that. I don’t want this to turn into a lower-division philosophy/rhetoric class but that sounds like an “either/or” fallacy. My point was that the domain of one is squarely outside the domain of the other. Science cannot meaningfully answer questions of “why am I here” (I mean other than threadjacking and selling condos). Similarly, Religion is a crappy model for studying primitive achuelean tool industry (or neutrinos, or geophysical phenomena).
[quote=larrylujack]If my interpretation of your convoluted prose is accurate, I and most others in science would say that this is not a meaningful “model” to attempt to answer the unknowable if the goal is to actually seek knowledge: it is akin to throwing in the towel.
[/quote] Well if I were presenting it as a model to answer the unknowable, then you might have a point. Throwing in the towel only applies in a fight. I don’t see this as a fight.

[Author]

Posts