Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   My universal theory of everything
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 1 of 8 (720354)
02-22-2014 12:44 AM


For years, I've struggled to understand why conservatives think they can behave like this is the 1920s when things were great for white men and sucked for everyone else... and white christian men could act all racist and homophobic all they wanted. In fact, I think people like buzsaw get a boner every time they fantasize about returning back to the good ole days when christian moral was king and white christian men could be open bigots against everyone else.
So, recently it occurred to me that the only way to explain away the conservative mindset is to seek out the help of science.
Why are areas concentrated by conservatives are red on the political map? I've found the answer.
Those aren't actually red areas. They're red shifted. Conservatives are accelerating away from reality so much so that they are red shifted. This would also explain why conservatives think they can treat other people like back in the 20s. They're stuck in the time dilation resulting from the acceleration away from reality.
So, my theory of everything uses science to explain christian conservative bigotry and behavior.
What do you think? Does my theory of everything hold water?

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Phat, posted 02-22-2014 2:37 AM Taz has replied
 Message 5 by ringo, posted 02-22-2014 11:35 AM Taz has not replied
 Message 6 by Omnivorous, posted 02-22-2014 11:42 AM Taz has not replied
 Message 7 by ramoss, posted 02-22-2014 7:53 PM Taz has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


(1)
Message 2 of 8 (720355)
02-22-2014 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
02-22-2014 12:44 AM


Everything??
perhaps not so much a theory of everything so much as a theory of their thing. As for Buzzsaw...he is deceased so I doubt he gets a rise out of anything. The conservatives would do much better were they logical conservatives...like jar. As it now stands, the volatile mixture of money,conservatism, and christianity is a bit like gasoline, imbeciles and matches.
It holds water...but keep in mind that many of us prefer fantasy over reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taz, posted 02-22-2014 12:44 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Taz, posted 02-22-2014 9:48 AM Phat has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 3 of 8 (720367)
02-22-2014 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Phat
02-22-2014 2:37 AM


Re: Everything??
Define deceased. Decease as in he's banned from this place or deceased as in he's with god now so he can leave us the hell alone?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Phat, posted 02-22-2014 2:37 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Phat, posted 02-22-2014 10:10 AM Taz has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 4 of 8 (720368)
02-22-2014 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Taz
02-22-2014 9:48 AM


Re: Everything??
Deceased as in died...so out of respect, leave his name out of your theory of everything.
What the heck is this theory anyway? Are you simply bashing the far(out) Right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Taz, posted 02-22-2014 9:48 AM Taz has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 5 of 8 (720376)
02-22-2014 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
02-22-2014 12:44 AM


Taz writes:
Does my theory of everything hold water?
No.
First, it's not a theory. It's hardly even a hypothesis.
Second, it doesn't cover everything.
Third, Americans are colour-blind. Radicals are red, conservatives are blue; reactionaries would be ultraviolet. They may cause cancer but if they're red-shifted it's only toward the blue, not all the way to the red.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taz, posted 02-22-2014 12:44 AM Taz has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3977
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


(3)
Message 6 of 8 (720377)
02-22-2014 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
02-22-2014 12:44 AM


blood, water and Occam's razor
Taz writes:
What do you think? Does my theory of everything hold water?
Mine's simpler: It's the blood in the water.
It explains everything from the red state convention to Christian mean. The American working/middle classes are enduring the death of a thousand cuts: lost jobs, limited opportunities, stagnant wages, vanished pensions, ruinous medical costs: the infrastructure of the U.S. is crumbling around us; many schools are high-security holding pens.
So there's definitely blood in the water.
The complementary color in my theory is green, as in all the above apply because all the money's gone, and we all know where all the money went. But the right can't go there, because conservative Christians made a Faustian pact with wealth in the Republican party. Now the mainstream, corporate right can no longer compromise to govern, and their partners, the religious right, must abandon any pretense to social and economic justice. So things get worse, the water more red.
People are bleeding out here, but they're holding hands with the folks who cut them. Still, they're furious, and they have to turn on someone...
It's the blood in the water, theirs and ours.

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taz, posted 02-22-2014 12:44 AM Taz has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 611 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


(2)
Message 7 of 8 (720406)
02-22-2014 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
02-22-2014 12:44 AM


42

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taz, posted 02-22-2014 12:44 AM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by dwise1, posted 02-22-2014 8:00 PM ramoss has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(2)
Message 8 of 8 (720407)
02-22-2014 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by ramoss
02-22-2014 7:53 PM


Back in 1996, newspapers reported that the value of the Hubble Constant had been calculated to be ... 42.
http://www.independent.co.uk/...se-really-is-42-1351201.html -- Google for more stories.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by ramoss, posted 02-22-2014 7:53 PM ramoss has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024