Those photos from The Pledge To America

[elfs]

Darryl challenged me to show that DailyKos had not cropped or elided the photos in the Republican Pledge To America to skew the results. So I extracted every photo that had people in it. You're welcome to look closely; the images embedded in the document are much higher resolution than in the Kos montage. The numbers are not sequential because some images were just hand-kerned text or photos of buildings and monuments. If you still doubt the veracity, you can read the document yourself.

The America that the Republican party is pledging to "bring back" is overwhelmingly one in which only white people do the important things. In whitewashed wooden buildings under sunny Midwestern skies. And on horses.

But Kos was wrong. There was one more person of color, unfairly cut from the photo set.



How dare they exclude Orange-Americans!

Comments

[doodlesthegreat.livejournal.com]

Having dealt with Mr. Exline off and on for the best part of two decades, I would uncharitably state that anything trying to suck his soul might find themselves with naught but empty calories.

[elfs.livejournal.com]

Hmm, no. I try not to be cruel. Taunting, but not outright cruel.

Besides, the evidence is against any of us having one (http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/from_divided_minds_a_specious_soul/).

[dv-girl.livejournal.com]

Of course, any religious wank will take this article as proof they DO have a soul.

See, we science types can't see it for the same reason that woman couldn't recognize her own arm. Our brain is autocompleting that we are mere machines without souls because we are lost little sheep. If we merely bow down and nibble on the godhead until he comes into us, we'll regain our ability to see our souls just like this woman was able to regain use of her arm.

[mikstera.livejournal.com]

And what evidence could you present to support your assertions?

[tagryn]

Or valid instrumentation, for that matter. Without the right instruments, any "scientific" observation is invalid. For example, trying to prove or disprove the existence of ghosts using things like motion and heat detectors isn't valid: the instruments aren't designed for the job they're being employed to perform. Just because we can't come up with or even conceive the proper instrumentation for such work (at least not yet) doesn't mean that using invalid tools are OK, either; more likely, its just a representation of our own lack of sophistication and understanding at the present time.

I suspect in another 100-200 years, what we know today about how the brain operates will be mostly considered as stupidly barbaric as what we now consider the 1800s' ideas of craniometry. And they'll be right. Trying to use what is at best incomplete info, and much of that probably wrong, to attempt and settle once and for all anything about larger debates which have gone on for centuries, such as spirituality, is likely futile, however much fun it is.

[dv-girl.livejournal.com]

Evidence? I've known plenty of religious wankers and many of them will warp any bit of information to fit their preconceptions. They'll probably say something irksome like "How do you describe color to a blind man?"

Read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason if you'd like to see a fairly sophisticated version of this sort of wankery. You'll find Kant bandied about by the more self-assured religious sorts. Several later philosophers have ripped huge gaping holes in Kant's argument, notably, Karl Marx. Of course, if you quote Marx, you're a god-hating commie.

Now if you're asking if I can prove the non-existence of souls? Perhaps I can, perhaps I can't. The odds of any proof I provide actually changing the view of the faithful are near zero and the value of proving it to them is pretty low anyhow, so why bother? Besides. I'm not actually conceited enough to believe I know beyond question. I just find it rather unlikely.

[darrelx.livejournal.com]

Way to go, Steve. Spoken like a clueless S.A. Goon who can't even understand why furries would hate him for that.