Re: FW: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] [POLITICS] interesting article from a former Bush supporter

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Fri, 19 May 2006, Rick wrote:

> This brings to mind an interesting article I came across that referred 
> to, in addition to the "normal" modes of evolution that we can see and 
> measure, parental evolution. The concept being that certain traits are 
> more desirable to a parent, and therefore that offspring would receive 
> more care from the parent, increasing the likelihood that it would 
> thrive. The example it discussed (according to my hazy memory) was of 
> primitive humans and child rearing, and how a child that was quieter or 
> looked a certain way was in some way more attractive to the parent or 
> community, so that child would be more likely to picked up in the event 
> of danger, or fed when food was short.

The sound of a baby crying is very aversive.  This is because people who 
were not bothered by the sound of the crying might not care for the baby 
to stop it from crying.  Such people would lose more babies and leave 
behind fewer progeny.  Babies with an aversive cry are more likely to be 
cared for and survive.  Thus, evolution works both on the sensory system 
of the parent and on the vocal cords of the offspring to create a 
relationship that promotes the fitness of both parent and offspring.


> > I don't think so.  I don't believe we've had much to say about Clinton 
> > except that he "had sex with that woman" (or didn't do it by some 
> > obscure legal definitions) and I didn't give a damn.
>
> I'm not going to rehash this same old argument, but for a refresher, one 
> could start here: 
> http://mlug.missouri.edu/list-archives/discussion/2006-01/msg00250.php3

We don't disagree about what happened, but we disagree about whether it 
matters at all.  Clinton's approval wasn't affected much.  It was all a 
political ploy.  Nobody really cares who is having sex with whom.  Think 
about it.  What in the future of our country depends on who the president 
slept with?!  It is irrelevant.  War, taxes, legislation, policy, Supreme 
Court appointments and the separation of powers are entirely different 
matters.


> Anyway, as I've clearly stated in the past, I believe *all* politicians, 
> with a very few exceptions, to be compromising, self-serving jackasses.

But there are huge differences in their effects on our country.  They are 
forced to be somewhat self-serving by the system we use to elect them. 
You can hate them all, but someone will win an election and someone will 
lose.  Therefore, it is wise to focus on the differences between 
candidates and to pick the better candidate, or the lesser of two evils, 
if you like.


> > It happens.  Check out this book:
> >
> > http://www.ffrf.org/books/lfif/
> > Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist
> > by Dan Barker
> >
> > Dan Barker went from one extreme to the other.  He was a devout 
> > Christian and minister from a religious family who wrote religious 
> > music.  Now he is a leading atheist at the Freedom From Religion 
> > Foundation.  I think his reasons for changing were very nicely 
> > explained in his book.
>
> But, how often?

I don't know, but if you look at history you will see that religion 
changes and moves around the world in various ways.  We aren't just stuck 
where we are.  We can do things to make the world better!

Mike

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion