Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 12: Line 12:     
Not that I expect anything to change, but I have to protest ASchlafly's removal of my edit regarding Dick Cheney as "liberal claptrap".  The topic is "Deliberate Ignorance", not "Liberal Deliberate Ignorance", and in the interest of balance it's appropriate to have cited examples that show the characteristic to be universal, and not just a liberal one.  Cheney's insistence in 2005 that the Iraq insurgency was in its last throes was deliberately ignorant of the situation on the ground and the opinions of the military leaders whose observations are supposed to be given the most weight.  Cheney had daily access to public and classified intelligence that warned of the trend towards destabilization (which eventually required the surge policy to reverse), so his statement was clearly a case of cognitive dissonance with regard the the facts at his disposal, or in this case, Deliberate Ignorance.  I'm requesting an academic refutation of this view, and if non is received I'll restore the Cheney example.  I cannot speak on behalf of the other deletions.  --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:33, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
 
Not that I expect anything to change, but I have to protest ASchlafly's removal of my edit regarding Dick Cheney as "liberal claptrap".  The topic is "Deliberate Ignorance", not "Liberal Deliberate Ignorance", and in the interest of balance it's appropriate to have cited examples that show the characteristic to be universal, and not just a liberal one.  Cheney's insistence in 2005 that the Iraq insurgency was in its last throes was deliberately ignorant of the situation on the ground and the opinions of the military leaders whose observations are supposed to be given the most weight.  Cheney had daily access to public and classified intelligence that warned of the trend towards destabilization (which eventually required the surge policy to reverse), so his statement was clearly a case of cognitive dissonance with regard the the facts at his disposal, or in this case, Deliberate Ignorance.  I'm requesting an academic refutation of this view, and if non is received I'll restore the Cheney example.  I cannot speak on behalf of the other deletions.  --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:33, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
== Evolution of whales ==
 +
 +
It just isn't true to say that "evolutionists refuse to address the lack of a plausible evolutionary path for the whale...".  See [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_05.html here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans here], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lx079oEgKKs here] and [http://darwiniana.org/landtosea.htm here] for example.  And there are many more where they came from.  Evolutionists say that they already have a plausible evolutionary path for the whale so why would they be addressing the lack of such a path?  Is there some self-evident reason that the suggested path is implausible in evolutionary terms?  --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 16:47, 3 March 2011 (EST)
21

edits

Navigation menu