Using Technology to Deepen Democracy, Using Democracy to Ensure Technology Benefits Us All

Sunday, February 10, 2008

"McAncient"

It isn't exactly good news for the McCain Presidential campaign -- which some bad, bad, bad people are already christening the "McAncient Campaign" -- that according to a much-discussed poll from last year undertaken by the Gallup organization 42% of people polled admitted that they would not vote for a candidate 72 years of age or older.

A slightly higher 43% admitted they wouldn't vote for a "homosexual" (I'd probably already suspect anybody who would use the rather awkward and clinical term "homosexual" to describe queer or, if we must, gay folks like me in the first place wouldn't be too eager to vote for one, one regrets that Gallup didn't poll the terms "homophile" or "psychic hermaphrodite" or "Urning"). And, highest of all, over half of those people polled, a full 53%, admitted they wouldn't vote for an atheist.

Given my atheism and faggotry -- thank heavens they didn't poll about vegetarians or democratic socialists or pacifists or theoryheads -- I'm starting to think I don't have much of a chance to become America's President after all, despite the assurances I received to the contrary by the well-meaning adults who raised and educated me. Why, in thirty years' time, I'll be 72!

13 comments:

De Thezier said...

Two questions about your atheism:

1. Why are you an atheist rather than an agnostic?

2. Would it be more accurate to describe you as an ignostic?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

Dale Carrico said...

1. Why are you an atheist rather than an agnostic?

Because I really don't believe in God. Also: Without God

2. Would it be more accurate to describe you as an ignostic?

No. Another idiotic neologism for philosophy boys to circle jerk when the want to talk about, whoa, like, why is there something rather than nothing, and like if God is like everything then like is God the Universe so like is there a difference between theism and atheism like hey pass me that spliff dood is the last thing the world needs now. Although, it just occured to me it would be funny to call me a "Speghnostic" because I am fond of the people who make fun of dogmatic religiosity by claiming to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

De Thezier said...

Because I really don't believe in God. Also: Without God

So you don't share the view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of God, gods, deities, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or inherently unknowable due to the nature of subjective experience perceived by that individual?

No. Another idiotic neologism for philosophy boys to circle jerk when the want to talk about, whoa, like, why is there something rather than nothing, and like if God is like everything then like is God the Universe so like is there a difference between theism and atheism like hey pass me that spliff dood is the last thing the world needs now. Although, it just occured to me it would be funny to call me a "Speghnostic" because I am fond of the people who make fun of dogmatic religiosity by claiming to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Uh, whether or not you find this word is a useful contribution to theological discourse, I don't think Rabbi Sherwin Wine, logical positivist philosopher Sir Alfred Jules Ayer, secular humanist advocate Paul Kurtz, and philosopher of religion Theodore Drange can be dismissed as pot-smoking existential philosophy students.

Dale Carrico said...

I don't believe in God. The jury isn't out for me. I'm fairly cheerfully nonjudgmental on these questions, and don't consider another's declaration of religious belief a disqualification of that person from the realm of reasonableness like some atheists I know. As I've said many times before, I consider these claims more usually to be matters of aesthetics or moral identification than epistemology when all is said and done in the first place. But none of that changes the fact that for me, I don't believe in God, and this non-belief isn't a matter of shilly shallying the question. I'm bored by this conversation now.

Also, I don't care if some perfectly worthy non crackpots claim to use the term "ignostic." You've gotta be fracking kidding me. It isn't a term that has caught on, and I predict it never will. (Unlike "frack," which I'm a big booster for.)

I hereby declare my intention to continue to make fun of people who use this term, however eminent they may be otherwise. :)

De Thezier said...

Also, I don't care if some perfectly worthy non crackpots claim to use the term "ignostic." You've gotta be fracking kidding me. It isn't a term that has caught on, and I predict it never will. (Unlike "frack," which I'm a big booster for.)

I hereby declare my intention to continue to make fun of people who use this term, however eminent they may be otherwise. :)


The issue for me is not whether a term will catch on since I predict most terms you use or have coined never will. ;)

The issue is whether or not the *definition* of a term better describes your philosophical stance on a given issue.

If it doesn't and you explain to me (without indulging in bombastic rhetoric) why it doesn't, it helps me better understand your stance but always hastily focusing on how awkward, silly, idiotic or unpopular a term is doesn't help me. It's the latter that I find boring. ;)

Dale Carrico said...

Use "ignostic" all you want, obviously. Live it up. And if you're bored with this conversation why are you continuing it? Go contribute to the wikipedia entry for "ignosticism" or something.

De Thezier said...

Use "ignostic" all you want, obviously. Live it up. And if you're bored with this conversation why are you continuing it? Go contribute to the wikipedia entry for "ignosticism" or something.

*sigh* I just explained to you that the use or non-use of the term "ignostic" is irrelevant.

I was simply interested in knowing whether or not you hold the view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed.

I would never find a conversation about that boring since I am the one who wants to start it with you and your readers.

The only thing I find "boring" is getting distracted by the phonology of a term rather than debating the value of the view it is meant to define.

Dale Carrico said...

Somebody, please kill me.

De Thezier said...

Somebody, please kill me.

uh, Dale, perhaps I'm missing something (and please forgive me if I am) but I don't understand your attitude and frustration.

A simple "No. I don't hold this view and I don't have anything more to add to this conversation" would have sufficed.

Anyway, no ill feelings but I guess this will be my last exchange with you on this particular issue. :)

Martin said...

Those numbers are down considerably from the numbers that are often quoted on the Internet, which came from a poll in the 1990s. At that time, it was something like 50% wouldn't vote for a gay person, and 70% wouldn't vote for an atheist.

Dale Carrico said...

That's encouraging. Maybe by the time I actually reach 72 the whole trio of prejudices in question will have diminished faster and faster and vanished altogether in a grand tolerance convergence after which I will be elected President of the United States after all. I propose that we denote this moment of grand convergence by the phrase, "The Singularity." I don't think that term's taken, is it?

gf said...

I just wanted to add:

I'm also a big proponent of frack, fracking, and frackers.

Something about that bit of science fiction, crackers and the theft of language is delicious.

Dale Carrico said...

There really is something satisfying about frack, isn't there?

Feldercarb, not so much.