On Gore, Coulter, and Intelligence

Just because you're a smart ass doesn't mean you're good

from JoeUser Forums
With palms together,

Good Morning Everyone,



This morning I read that Al Gore and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won the Nobel Peace prize. Congratulations to both winners. I also read an interview with Ann Coulter. In it she said her dream for the United States is that everyone would be Christian and therefore Jews should be perfected by converting. So, there you have it, a liberal and a conservative. You choose.



It is such an interesting time. Anyone can have an opinion and broadcast it to the world.



Discerning readers can choose.



In the interview with Ms. Coulter, Mr. Deutsch (the interviewer) kept repeating, 'but you're an intelligent woman, you can't possibly believe that.' Oh yes, she can and does. Intelligence does not make for reasoned, nor cultured, nor even civilized. We liberals often elevate intelligence to a lofty place assuming a smart person will exercise reason, but this is plainly and clearly, not so. Moreover, we assume reason necessarily leads to morality and civilized behavior



While, as contemporary researcher Howard Gardner has pointed out, there are a number of intelligences, it is also important for us to remember that just because we are intelligent in any one or more of these areas, it does not mean we are necessarily good people nor even that we strive to be good people. Goodness is something else again. Even Gardner has considered expanding his original seven intelligences to nine to include a moral intelligence, existential/spiritual intelligence, and naturalistic intelligence.



Our concern in Zen Buddhism is the will to good which we say is the manifestation of Buddha-nature. We achieve this through our introspective practice of Zazen and our socially engaged practice in the Sangha and the greater world. We express these in our Three Pure Precepts: Cease doing Evil; Do Good; and Bring About Abundant Good for all Beings. Our lives should be both informed and directed by these vows.



Intelligence without a reasoned, moral context, is dangerous as Coulter herself demonstrates.



Be well.
religion
16,085 views 169 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Maybe this will make Moderate Man like the crazy lady a little less . . .
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
nope still like the crazy lady, just do not agree with her on this one, matter of fact think she is so far out of the ball park she is sitting in a building across the street from the ballpark. She is just another example of a religious nut taking things to far. All religious nuts that think their way is the only way is screwed in the head no matter what religion they profess. I Know you think I am some kind of conservative, but my voting record in the real world, where it counts makes me a moderate, at best, I vote for thinks like stem cell research, I believe in welfare to a point, to be used as a helping hand, not a life long way of life. Only recently have I become pro-life and that was after reading about selective abortion, IE: mothers killing their babies because they we not the right sex. Every stupid test I have taken puts me almost dead center in politics. I could just as easy be a conservative democrat Ala Joe Lieberman.
Sins of a Solar Empire II
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
In it she said her dream for the United States is that everyone would be Christian and therefore Jews should be perfected by converting.


Hello So Daiho,


Ann's is a wonderful dream and there is nothing wrong with dreams. It is precisely the same as mine. As far as Jews being perfected by converting, she's telling the truth in charity. In this sense, she's not only smart, she is wise. Wise, that is, not according to man's wisdom, but in the wisdom of God.

+ Peace +


Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
MM: Thank you very much for your reply and I am pleased to hear you are more centrist than right wing. Not that right winger are all bad, mind you, but in the msain they do tend to get stuck in the past and want to impress the future with it.

And Lula, nice of you to write, as well. I'm not so certain of her "charity" It is hardly charitable to suggest a whole people abandon a faith given to them (in their perspective) by God just to get on what she refers to as "the fast track" (i.e., Christianity). . Moreover, she is also quoted as suggesting Jews are slimy. As long as Christians and Muslims hold their supremacist views, they will fail.

Be well.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
So, there you have it, a liberal and a conservative. You choose.

Choose as what? And are you saying Gore is the total representation of "liberal" and Coulter is the same for "conservative"? What exactly is your point here?

There are kooks on all sides. I am personally a fiscal conservative and social liberal (to a point of course). I consider myself conservative over all but am not religious so I don't relate to Coulter on her religious beliefs. She likes to say shocking things to keep her in the limelight too. You are eating right out of her hand.

As for Al, I just got done blogging about how I've lost all respect for the nobel prize. He used his celebrity to spread the word about a theory...big deal. Is there any data showing he's brought about a change of any kind? He didn't gather data and formulate a theory himself. He goes around and talks about it.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hello Jilluser,

Neither is a total representative of anything. Nothing could be. However, Mr. Gore has done an incredible service to this planet and its people by bringing into clear focus a world environmental crisis that only kooks disagree is happening. Moreover, activists "go around and talk about" issues of importance. Its what they do. Moreover, he is donating the proceeds from this prize to one of the foundations he is on the Board of Directors of: the alliance for Climate Protection. Gore has been an advocate for the environment for thirty years. He served as VP of the US for eight years. He is also on the Board of Apple Computers. He graduated with honors from Harvard. I'd say he has done a bit more than "use his celebrity" and shame on you for denigrating his service.

Coulter on the other hand has used her rather prolific and foul mouth to bash about everything in view, from the widows of 9/11 to Vietnam veterans to anyone not a Christian. She is in my view, a characature of conservatism and to the extent that she is supported by her minions and not chastised by the mainstream right, she will go on being a poster girl, as well as an example of the in-sensitive religious right's conservative thinking.

I just thought it was an interesting juxtaposition in the news.

Be well.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
LW, Yes, I agree Gore takes himself seriously, yet it is a serious topic. Coulter I don't give much attention to other than the fact she is much like my ex-wife: pretty, glib and wrong.

Be well.

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
LW,

An intriguing POV. I agree humans cannot act unnaturally because as soon as they act in any way, it is from their nature. That said, we can and do choose to do evil, including evil to the planet itself. Just so, we could choose to do good. Environmental initiatives have made a difference, even Bush acknowledged that. And while Mother Nature can throw us curves, its not so much her curves I worry about, but rather our complacency and smugness toward them as they come.

Be well.

BTW, I see in our local paper we are having a pagan festival in our local Veteran's Park this weekend. Sounds interesting.

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
This morning I read that Al Gore and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won the Nobel Peace prize.


The key word is "peace" in Nobel Peace Prize. Please tell us what has AlGore done to deserve the "peace" prize. I can see him winning some kind of environmental award, but the Nobel PEACE prize for working in climate change, c'mon? The someones who made this decision have lost their sensibilities. Sorry, I just can't respect this decision.

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
The key word is "peace" in Nobel Peace Prize. Please tell us what has AlGore done to deserve the "peace" prize. I can see him winning some kind of environmental award, but the Nobel PEACE prize for working in climate change, c'mon? The someones who made this decision have lost their sensibilities. Sorry, I just can't respect this decision.


Lula: If you see a train heading for a crash and try your best to stop it before it crashes I would say you are preventing a catastrophe. As our planet warms we will encounter global changes in land boundaries, resources, and all manner of things. Scarce resources, high population densities, and shifts in resource allocation will create major global conflict. It has already with asome of the water transfer issues we are encountering.My sense is, that if a person works to avert these conflicts they are working not only for the environment, but for a peaceful environment, as well. Thus, the prize. Of course, strict constructionists, like most conservatives, have a rather difficult time getting out of their box. So, its hard for them to see these things

Be well.

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
As our planet warms we will encounter global changes in land boundaries, resources, and all manner of things.


I would say you are preventing a catastrophe.


So Daiho,

So that's how you look at AlGore's down in the dumps, doom and gloom movie....as preventing a catastrophe? Said as a true-blue, lock-in-step environmental humanist cool-aid drinker... and you think I'm the one in a box!   

Do you know that in the 70s, the science community told us the planet was cooling? Yes, it's true. Time Magazine dedicated an issue, front page and all, to global cooling!

Imagine that...winning a prize for turning natural climate change into preventing a future "catastrophe". It boggles the brain what people will foolishly believe. Will wonders of this kind ever cease?

I hope so. Do you think the main stream media will report that a British judge has ruled that Al's movie contains 9 critical scientific mistakes?

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Lula:

Is it really such a big deal to give a damn about the environment?

Is it gonna hurt if we try to take better care of things here?
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Dear Lula,

I am aware of that ruling. You should kno, however, that Judhe Burton made his ruling using his own, unscientific opinion: "Judge Burton also called claims that sea levels could rise by 20 feet in the near future “distinctly alarmist.”

However, experts from a variety of studies are suggesting sea levels are rising at 1-2 cm per year. This may not appear to be much, but you might want to look at the EPA environmental impact projections for its cost to the US. Burton suggested adverse sea level rises could happen “only after, and over, millennia.” National Geographic has a pretty good article suggesting otherwise, as do most studies I am aware of at this writing, suggesting catasrophic costs wuithin a hundred years, haredly a millenia.

I am also aware that science is built on error, not success. It is not a theory that the climate is warming, it is a fact. There are many theories that suggest a causal link between a variety of causes, but few argue that sea levels are not rising. If you review the studies, scientists are always attempting to refute their hypothesis, something Csrl Sagan points out religious true believers typically refuse to do. This is what I mean by thinking out of the box.

Zen Buddhism, along with Tibetan Buddhism, both Mahayane strains of the practice, hold that if science were to disprove a Buddhist religious assertion, we would abandon that assertion. Zen Buddhists have lent themselves to scientific study on countless occasions. We see science as a partner in our exploration of our world, not our foe.

As to your last comment re the MSM, in fact it did. Please see the NY Times article on the subject and there you have it.

See ya.





Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Lula, a humanist defined by the dictionary:

hu·man·ism (hym-nzm)

NOUN:

A system of thought that centers on humans and their values, capacities, and worth.
Concern with the interests, needs, and welfare of humans: "the newest flower on the vine of corporate humanism" (Savvy).
Medicine The concept that concern for human interests, values, and dignity is of the utmost importance to the care of the sick.
The study of the humanities; learning in the liberal arts.
Humanism A cultural and intellectual movement of the Renaissance that emphasized secular concerns as a result of the rediscovery and study of the literature, art, and civilization of ancient Greece and Rome.




___________
You got something against human beings?

See ya!
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gore has been an advocate for the environment for thirty years. He served as VP of the US for eight years. He is also on the Board of Apple Computers. He graduated with honors from Harvard. I'd say he has done a bit more than "use his celebrity" and shame on you for denigrating his service.


What does being on the board of Apple Computers or graduating from Harvard have to do with anything? I'm not denigrating his service, I'm questioning the merit of his award for peace. He sure is and activist but if he were a true advocate, he would be doing a lot more personally than living his BS "carbon neutral" life style while jetting around the planet living it up while preaching to others who they should be living.

You're a liberal so you chose a Nobel Prize winner to represent your side and you pick a religious right wing kook to represent conservatives...shame on you. You also didn't answer "Choose for what?"

Lula, I was thinking very similar things except I didn't know about the mistakes in the movie because I haven't seen it. We were preparing for the next ice age in the 70s. The FACT of the matter is, we don't know that this isn't just a part of the normal pattern for our planet.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Lula:

Is it really such a big deal to give a damn about the environment?

Is it gonna hurt if we try to take better care of things here?


It sure is a big deal to care about the environment not only in my back yard but everywhere...and I do, truly I do. I'm from the old days when caring for the earth was called conservationism. Indeed, we are called to be good stewards of the earth as Genesis 1:26-31 tells us. I'm conservationally frugal. I don't litter or waste much of anything. I use both sides of paper and even cut up used envelopes into note size pieces for scrap paper. I reuse plastic and recycle as much as possible. I don't buy into the materialist/consumerist culture. I'm all for workable solutions and concrete policies that focus on mitigating environmental degradation, but at the same time I treasure people more than living space as our most important resource.

This is where environmental humanism goes berserk. AlGore, big important environmental leader and now peace prize winner, would rather hypocritically protect the planet than protect the innocent child in the womb. He's got his priorities backwards and sadly so do most of "the earth is going to burn us alive" theorists. For years, we've been hearing and kids in high schools are being taught that we have a world problem, an environmental crisis of horrific proportion, created for one, by world over-population causing this global warming.

Radical environmentalists, working in tandom with the United Nations, more interested in protecting the planet and curbing global warming is pushing "population control" onto countries
around the world. Abortion, birth control and sterilization and other horrible crimes against God's laws are being put into place all in the name of protecting the planet and curbing global warming.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Jilluser, this is what you said:
He used his celebrity to spread the word about a theory...big deal. Is there any data showing he's brought about a change of any kind? He didn't gather data and formulate a theory himself. He goes around and talks about it.


I'd say this was denigrating his accomplishment as well as his life's work..."big deal" you say. Minimize it if you wish, but I think winning the Nobel, as well as his work history is a very big deal. Gore works tirelessly. And if Gore is a liberal and I am a liberal, I'd say, wonderful company. Coulter, on the otherhand is a well educated blowhard and is, moreover, an example of a sick rightist extreme.

Be well.

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Lest we forget what a liberal is...

The American Heritage Dictionary defines it thus:

Sponsored LinksBorders Book Stores
Get A Coupon For 20% Off the List Price of One Item. Find A Store.
www.VisitBorders.com

Email this page to a friend

< Liberace, liberal arts >



lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl) KEY

ADJECTIVE:


Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.

Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
I am also aware that science is built on error, not success.



SoDaiho,

Thank you for the good discussion.

Isn't it that science starts as hypothesis and advances only when the hypothesis is proven as fact?

We agree that at present we are going through a period of global warming to the tune of a percent of a degree or something like that. The problem is that AlGorite alarmists haughtily insist as settled their theory that mankind is causing global warming by over-population and by producing vast amounts of greenhouse gasses that are causing catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere.


AlGore and company went on to make his outlandish propaganda movie using scary stories about cities being flooded and polar bear stories asserting these as truth.

We know that none of this has been proven true science. It's much more likely that the earth is warmed and cooled by normal cyclical changes in our climate and that the heating is due to increased solar activity.

I am also aware that science is built on error, not success.


And we are painfully aware that AlGore's success was built on error.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
hu·man·ism (hym-nzm)

NOUN:

A system of thought that centers on humans and their values, capacities, and worth.
Concern with the interests, needs, and welfare of humans: "the newest flower on the vine of corporate humanism" (Savvy).
Medicine The concept that concern for human interests, values, and dignity is of the utmost importance to the care of the sick.
The study of the humanities; learning in the liberal arts.
Humanism A cultural and intellectual movement of the Renaissance that emphasized secular concerns as a result of the rediscovery and study of the literature, art, and civilization of ancient Greece and Rome.




___________
You got something against human beings?


No, not at all.

Humanism is any philosophy or religion which leaves out the supernatural. In this case I used the word "environmental" humanist meaning the environment is their religion.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Lula,

I am afraid you are incorrect here. Science advances from trial and error. Error yields fundamentally richer and more far reaching questions than success.

Al Gore's film is a wake up call. Much of the documentation is in line with mainstream science and there are established linkages between our pollution and global warming, not that the earth's natural millenia long cycles aren't at play. Reduction of chlorofluorocarbons has reduced the size of the hole in the ozone layer, for example, but recovery to 1980 levels isn't predicted until 2068 (Newman, P. A., Nash, E. R., Kawa, S. R., Montzka, S. A. and Schauffler, S. M (2006). "When will the Antarctic ozone hole recover?". Geophysical Research Letters 33: L12814. DOI:10.1029/2005GL025232.

Yet, as I understand it, some scientists are arguing that the severe environmental damage has already been done and our goose is cooked. I am not so sure, but I would not put my head in the sand either by claiming environmentalists are crack pots ready to drink Kool Aid.

You writ, "We know that none of this has been proven true science. It's much more likely that the earth is warmed and cooled by normal cyclical changes in our climate and that the heating is due to increased solar activity."

Where do you know this from? The IPCC report of February this year (a report based on the work of 2500 scientists from 130 countries) "concluded that humans have caused all or most of the current planetary warming." Quoted in a report in National Geographic). You might want to study their site: http://www.ipcc.ch/
Be well.




Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
Lula:
This is where environmental humanism goes berserk. AlGore, big important environmental leader and now peace prize winner, would rather hypocritically protect the planet than protect the innocent child in the womb. He's got his priorities backwards and sadly so do most of "the earth is going to burn us alive" theorists.

Daiho: Interesting. Isn't Christians who hold the next end of the world will be by fire?

Lula: you are mixing apples and oranges here. A person can simultaneously care deeply for the envirnment that sustains people (and thus care for people in context) and support a person's human reproductive rights. There is no "innocdent child" in a womb. There is a fetus. After birth it is called a child. But please let's not go there in this thread.


Lula: For years, we've been hearing and kids in high schools are being taught that we have a world problem, an environmental crisis of horrific proportion, created for one, by world over-population causing this global warming.

Daiho: It turns out we actually do have a problem and have had a mounting problem. The size of the problem is difficult to measure, but that there is a problem is difficult to refute. For example, rising sea levels. There are several ways to measure these and in some places it would seem sea levels are actually dropping, as in Alaska, but care must be taken as this may actually be a result of rising land masses, rather than a reduction in water volume. Sattilite altimeters are good sources of data, but are sometimes unreliable. Still, by an aggregate of sources, sea levels are rising and rising at a steady rate.


Lula: Radical environmentalists, working in tandom with the United Nations, more interested in protecting the planet and curbing global warming is pushing "population control" onto countries around the world. Abortion, birth control and sterilization and other horrible crimes against God's laws are being put into place all in the name of protecting the planet and curbing global warming.


Daiho: ...and rightfully so, as population control is a major issue. However, your linkage is questionable. Population control is not one of the mitigation factors in the IPCC report on greenhouse gas emmisions(http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/069.htm ). But there is a sustainability issue, as ell as an economic one. I asked you to check the EPA predictions for the cost of rising sea levels. Even modest changes will cost the US billions (go here and read on: http://epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentslc.html).

God's laws, thank God, are not enforcible across religious boundaries. He created a wonderfully diverse planet and I for one want to keep it that way.

Be well.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
You writ, "We know that none of this has been proven true science. It's much more likely that the earth is warmed and cooled by normal cyclical changes in our climate and that the heating is due to increased solar activity."


Where do you know this from? The IPCC report of February this year (a report based on the work of 2500 scientists from 130 countries) "concluded that humans have caused all or most of the current planetary warming." Quoted in a report in National Geographic). You might want to study their site: http://www.ipcc.ch/


You and I know that we can go back and forth and cite website after website. You can come up with support for you side and I can do the same with mine. Here you say that scientists have "concluded"..... Fact is there is no convincing scientific evidence that humans are causing or will cause global warming.

Al Gore's film is a wake up call.


Even though I don't share your faith in Algore's alarmism, I'm as open minded as can be and could be convinced with scientific facts, not scaremongering. I'd also find AlGore more credible if he'd walk the walk and not just talk the talk. He's out there telling the little people to cut back our energy consumption, why isn't he practicing what he preaches?

Blessed Mother Theresa, now a candidate for canonization, was a previous Nobel Peace Laureate. Of abortion she said, "Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion."

Mr. AlGore is a stark contrast. Not only has he been charged by a British judge with presenting flawed and manipulative arguments to support his apocalyptic climate change warnings but also upon receiving the award, he reportedly stated, "We face a true planetary emergency. The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity."

This is the same guy who promotes the violent nature of abortion ad nauseum.

This brings Saint Matthew to mind. "For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world and suffer the loss of his own soul?"
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top

However, Mr. Gore has done an incredible service to this planet and its people by bringing into clear focus a world environmental crisis that only kooks disagree is happening

Both your quotes are about people who have faith in a religion.

Gore has faith in a religion in which CO2 emissions are responsible for global warming. Coulter has faith in a religion that believes that a magical super being runs the universe.

The difference here is that Gore is being rewarded for his particular faith while you are dismissing Coulter because her faith differs from yours.

 

Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top

That said, we can and do choose to do evil, including evil to the planet itself.

What a fascinating thing to say. Evil to the planet. Who defines what is evil to the planet?

Is it really such a big deal to give a damn about the environment?

It is if one believes "caring" is defined as having a very narrow set of beliefs regarding the environment.

For instance, those who aren't convinced that human produced CO2 is producing global warming are told they don't "care" about the environment.  Sure, we might work tirelessly towards conservation of wetlands, clean water and air and protecting habitat and animals but none of that matters to the envirofascists who define being an evironmentalist as believing in their trendy, poorly evidenced CO2 global warming theory.