Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
On Belief, or, How to Answer Stupid Questions
I am a Vegan. For what ever reason, many of my lefty acquaintances assume that makes me a lefty as well. I never hide my gun-toting harsh libertarians ways; but the combination of being an Indian woman and vegan carries some assumptions on other people’s part – left and right.
Some of my lefty friends consider themselves to be environmentalists. I think I am one too. However I was always suspicious of the Global warming alarmist. The assumption that I am lefty continues, of course, because I have a whole house solar system. My motivation is perhaps not the same as that of others. I live in Florida, have lived through many a hurricanes, and I also buy zombie killer ammo and hoard grains – but I digress…
So, when people ask me: “Do you believe in Global Warming?” my response is always: “I did not think it was a matter of belief.” I leave it at that and let them build their stories around it.
Am I saying that climate changes? One would be a complete moron to think that climate does not change. Am I saying that we should create Government programs to do something about it? A resounding No!
So, when I see Republican politician after another being asked stupid questions like “Do you believe in evolution”? I am troubled. Why not answer “Is it a matter of belief?” Really is it? I am not one of Claire’s silent ladies, so my response probably would be more confrontational; but taking this whole “belief” question to task NEEDS to be done – by someone.
The problem with these questions is that they are not about any real policy or concern – they are about a belief system – it is a litmus test question – it is a “are you in or out” question. IMHO, these questions themselves need to be challenged. They are stupid at best, and vicious at worst. So, they must be treated like a stupid question and should be challenged on their validity.
In my facebook dialogues, I often ask (regarding bills and policies) – how many degrees will this bill reduce the Earth’s temperature? Or will evolution stop if we all hold hands and shout “I don’t believe”? Will the national debt go down if we do? Or – will the national debt go down if we all held hands and shouted “I believe in evolution”?
I know, I am silly. After all, I buy zombie ammo.
Published in General
As well you should. I’m only concerned with media hysterics over shooting someone with “zombie” ammo. BS concern of course, but since when has the media been less than hysterically stuupit over guns?
Every conservative candidate must think ahead about the climate, evolution, abortion in cases of rape, and other gotcha questions that he knows are coming his way.
I was very upset when Paul Ryan, in his debate with Joe Biden, didn’t have an answer when Biden charged him with hypocrisy for being against the stimulus while also seeking to get stimulus funds for Wisconsin. He should have thought about that question ahead of time. (Obvious answer: Wisconsin taxpayers are forced to pay for it, they might as well get their fair share of it. But it would be better to leave the money in Wisconsin in the first place.)
Climate change? It will be much more effective to adapt to the changes that occur than to try (and fail) to prevent those changes. If you (the alarmist questioner) care so much about future generations, and what sort of climate they will have, why don’t you care about how impoverished your anti-industrial climate alarmism will make them? Why don’t you care about whether those future people are even allowed to be born, rather than killed in the womb? If you think that “the science is settled,” you don’t really understand science. If you think that everything that happens proves global warming, you don’t really understand science.
Evolution? I accept what science teaches us. The history of science shows that we should work with the theory that explains the known facts in the most complete and simplest way. Currently, that is the theory of evolution. But just as classical mechanics, relativity, and quantum mechanics are great theories in their time, they are susceptible to be replaced by theories with more explanatory power. So is Darwinian evolution, though currently the prevailing theory, subject to being replaced by a better theory. If you don’t think so, you don’t really understand science. Now I have a question for you. What do you think caused the Big Bang to happen?
Abortion in the case of rape? Rape is a great horror. So is killing a baby in the womb. People of good will can differ as to which of these is the greater horror. As president, I won’t have anything to do with trying to reconcile these difficult issues. I will promise, however, to appoint judges and Supreme Court Justices who will exercise judicial restraint.
Boxers or briefs? I’ll answer that question after I hear the answer that Hillary gives about her underwear.
My Ricochet subscription expired 4 months ago. I kept telling myself “I don’t have time to renew.” Not because the renewal process is time-consuming, but because Ricochet is like an addictive drug. I’ve been clean for 4 months, subsisting only on The Daily Shot, but this post knocked me off the wagon.
It was the question “How many degrees will this bill reduce the Earth’s temperature?” that got me. I knew immediately that I needed to add it to my List of Questions Libs Won’t Answer.
So, I first renewed my Rico subscription, then I added it to my list.
Rob and Peter, if you pay commissions, Barkha deserves one.
Anyway, great post, BH.
Great post and comments.
You really hit on the electoral nub of the matter. When it comes to these matters (e.g. Climate Change Alarmism), instead of debating on the facts (which are solidly against anthropogenic climate change), our politicians should instead focus on the effect on priorities.
This would be along the lines of: we can’t do everything, and if we try we’ll probably not accomplish anything. I am worried about what gets missed. If we spend resources tackling a possible problem that most evidence shows is highly uncertain and beyond the ability for DC policy to effect, we’ll not be able to spend those resources on problems for which there is evidence that we know how to solve. I realize for some people this is a really important matter, but I have to think about the issues that effect all citizens not a vocal sub-set.
Yeah, you can avoid the digs if you want, but the basic premise is:
I would just add to the above, that based on the scientific and historical record I conclude that mankind has, at best, a microscopic effect on global climate. However, instead of confronting the apostles of climate change with a rebuttal of their beliefs, I have found it most beneficial to instead discuss the enormous piles of clear scientific evidence of the sun’s cycles and those recorded effects, as well as the shifting of the magnetic poles and other naturally occurring phenomena. By walking through the pre-historical and historical record and such scientific evidence it is much easier for someone to climb down from the ledge of anthropogenic climate change.
I don’t believe in zombies, so I buy regular ammo. But my 19 year old son told me he can’t wait until this “zombie fad” passes then we can buy up all the zombie ammo on close out.
I enjoyed your post.
Stad:
A guy I know who served in Iraq said that they referred to getting shot as “high speed lead poisoning”.