(Originally posted Feb. 15th, 2011)
When we last visited Bill O’Reilly, I called into question his understanding of basic logic. His seemingly erred concept of existence and natural balance left him at odds with things most of us understand as scientific truth. But he has kept flapping his gums since, and has led me to a deeper understanding of his abashed tenor. Not only does he misunderstand reason in a simple, scientific form, he has a deep disdain for it.
You can’t argue that O’Reilly is a harsh competitor by nature. In being so, he understands the mentality of a prison inmate, which is to attack the biggest, nastiest rival on the cell block, obviously. In the case of reason versus ignorance, the 300 lb Aryan doing life for a double murder would be Stephen Hawking. I’m not saying Stephen Hawking is an Aryan, I just-- you get it.
If per chance, you’re not entirely familiar with Hawkings’ work, go wiki him. I could spend all day describing the absurd, mind-blowing things he’s discovered about our universe and our subsequent existence, but you owe it to yourself to learn about it first-hand.
Less to say, Hawking has a pretty good understand of things like tides and moons and stuff. If anyone could possibly sway a man like O’Reilly with his impressive savvy, it would be this gentleman. But Bill’s stubbornness knows no bounds and shows no mercy. So a line in the sand was drawn, and O’Reilly provoked decades upon decades of painstaking research with his crumbling monkey brain, and spewed out this.
“Well, you know, if Mr. Hawking and tell us how the Earth got here, why the sun comes up and goes down without interruption. Why the tide goes in and out, no miscommunications ever…you know, if he wants to explain how all that happens I am ready to receive him—but of course, he can’t. Look I, I don’t have any beef against people like Hawkings and Maher and uh, the other guy, the British guy who makes a fortune being an atheist. If they want to, if they want to be non-believers, I don’t care, that’s up to them. But it’s just as much of a stretch to be an atheist than it is to believe in God. Because there’s just no explanation of how the planet got here. And Hawkings doesn’t have it.”
-In response to the question, “What are your thoughts on Stephen Hawkings assertion that science can explain everything without the need of deity?”
Mind you, the theory of the sun revolving around the Earth was disproven centuries ago. A whole bunch of centuries, in fact, by people fond of leeches and reckless phlebotomy as healthcare. But Bill takes it a step further, and questions why that, in conjunction with the impressively consistent tides, happens without any miscommunication. If only Stephen Hawking would be a man and explain it all in the No Spin Zone (to be ridiculed, vilified, derided and eventually tried for witchcraft). However, it seems Hawking is drawing nearer to death at an exponential rate, and doesn’t have time to be treated like a numbskull by a man who was pushed over the edge by the demands of Inside Edition. Go on, youtube it.
So what to do about Bill? If one of the most brilliant minds of our time can’t explain something as elementary as planetary orbit, gravity, and other geeky evidence-y things, who can? Well, no one. O’Reilly is the Houdini of loquaciousness, in that he will ask a line of concentrically stupid questions until you give up, much like a 3 year old child? Ever try to explain the principles of planetary orbit to a toddler? If you’re at all like me, you know that its way over their heads, and their typical reaction is to change the topic to something they understand, which is often rocks or horsies. That is the secret to O’Reilly’s perpetual smugness. His argumentative success is a product of his ability to dumb the argument down. It’s easier to argue oceans and sunsets as opposed to tackling the long process of decarbonization of the atmosphere, Precambrian abiogenetic studies, and all that ballyhoo. I’d like to point out that Bill O’Reilly actually has a degree in history. I’d like to see Hawkins explain that with all his science.
When we last visited Bill O’Reilly, I called into question his understanding of basic logic. His seemingly erred concept of existence and natural balance left him at odds with things most of us understand as scientific truth. But he has kept flapping his gums since, and has led me to a deeper understanding of his abashed tenor. Not only does he misunderstand reason in a simple, scientific form, he has a deep disdain for it.
You can’t argue that O’Reilly is a harsh competitor by nature. In being so, he understands the mentality of a prison inmate, which is to attack the biggest, nastiest rival on the cell block, obviously. In the case of reason versus ignorance, the 300 lb Aryan doing life for a double murder would be Stephen Hawking. I’m not saying Stephen Hawking is an Aryan, I just-- you get it.
If per chance, you’re not entirely familiar with Hawkings’ work, go wiki him. I could spend all day describing the absurd, mind-blowing things he’s discovered about our universe and our subsequent existence, but you owe it to yourself to learn about it first-hand.
Less to say, Hawking has a pretty good understand of things like tides and moons and stuff. If anyone could possibly sway a man like O’Reilly with his impressive savvy, it would be this gentleman. But Bill’s stubbornness knows no bounds and shows no mercy. So a line in the sand was drawn, and O’Reilly provoked decades upon decades of painstaking research with his crumbling monkey brain, and spewed out this.
“Well, you know, if Mr. Hawking and tell us how the Earth got here, why the sun comes up and goes down without interruption. Why the tide goes in and out, no miscommunications ever…you know, if he wants to explain how all that happens I am ready to receive him—but of course, he can’t. Look I, I don’t have any beef against people like Hawkings and Maher and uh, the other guy, the British guy who makes a fortune being an atheist. If they want to, if they want to be non-believers, I don’t care, that’s up to them. But it’s just as much of a stretch to be an atheist than it is to believe in God. Because there’s just no explanation of how the planet got here. And Hawkings doesn’t have it.”
-In response to the question, “What are your thoughts on Stephen Hawkings assertion that science can explain everything without the need of deity?”
Mind you, the theory of the sun revolving around the Earth was disproven centuries ago. A whole bunch of centuries, in fact, by people fond of leeches and reckless phlebotomy as healthcare. But Bill takes it a step further, and questions why that, in conjunction with the impressively consistent tides, happens without any miscommunication. If only Stephen Hawking would be a man and explain it all in the No Spin Zone (to be ridiculed, vilified, derided and eventually tried for witchcraft). However, it seems Hawking is drawing nearer to death at an exponential rate, and doesn’t have time to be treated like a numbskull by a man who was pushed over the edge by the demands of Inside Edition. Go on, youtube it.
So what to do about Bill? If one of the most brilliant minds of our time can’t explain something as elementary as planetary orbit, gravity, and other geeky evidence-y things, who can? Well, no one. O’Reilly is the Houdini of loquaciousness, in that he will ask a line of concentrically stupid questions until you give up, much like a 3 year old child? Ever try to explain the principles of planetary orbit to a toddler? If you’re at all like me, you know that its way over their heads, and their typical reaction is to change the topic to something they understand, which is often rocks or horsies. That is the secret to O’Reilly’s perpetual smugness. His argumentative success is a product of his ability to dumb the argument down. It’s easier to argue oceans and sunsets as opposed to tackling the long process of decarbonization of the atmosphere, Precambrian abiogenetic studies, and all that ballyhoo. I’d like to point out that Bill O’Reilly actually has a degree in history. I’d like to see Hawkins explain that with all his science.
No comments:
Post a Comment