Restored from 1965. Paul Harvey, if I were the Devil

The rest of the story......like how he was able to get an early discharge from his military obligation, and then the infamous fairy tale at Argonne labs.......

Wordslinger wrote:Fortunately Paul Harvey is still dead.

Congratulations, we know how proud you are of that statement!

Keep up the good work.

If I were the Prince of Darkness I would want to engulf the world in the darkness of ignorance; I would use this ignorance to cause divisiveness among men, and my success would give me control of every nation in the world.

First, I would invent religion. Not just one religion, but many religions, and I would delude the followers of each into believing that theirs was the “one true faith.” In so doing, I would promote an attitude among mankind that the followers of religions other than their own must do so only through ignorance or the primitiveness of their culture. And I would promote an attitude among them all that those who refuse to accept any religion are delusional, arrogant, or evil;

I would have families indoctrinate their children into their particular religion prior to an age at which the children could understand or question the concepts of that religion. I would know that children are trusting of their parents and very few will ever consider that their parents could possibly be wrong about a topic of such consequence;

I would have everyone believing that anything they ever experienced that might be beyond their personal understanding must be rooted in supernatural causes;

With the cunning of a fox, I would make them believe that I was the Creator of mankind, the earth and the entire universe. I would have them believe that their achievements could only happen under my guiding hand, and that any tragedy that befell them happened at my will for reasons beyond their capability or need to understand;

I would convince some of them that failure to worship and love me would result in their having an eternal punishment following the end of their already wretched earthly lives;

If religion were not fully sufficient to cause divisiveness between men, I would teach them to weave flags and create borders between lands, and I’d give those born within each border a feeling that they are more deserving of the resources within their own borders than those who aren’t;

I would fool some of them into including religious symbols or oaths into their currency and nationalistic pledges in such a way that any who took offense would be seen as unpatriotic.

My closest disciples would work to pass laws subjugating all men who reside within certain borders to live according to the religion most prevalently followed within those borders;

I would convince humanity that men who lived in earlier times were inherently wiser and more pure of heart;

If some of the people began to study, unlock and understand the realities of nature I would have them branded as blasphemers; If these blasphemers attempted to educate others about the true nature of the universe, I would have my disciples fight tooth and nail to stop them;

If I were the devil I would make men believe that they are superior to women; that work performed by a woman is not worthy of the same pay as that performed by a man; and that laws should be passed to deny women from controlling their part in reproduction;

I would make humans think that they are my favorite form of life and that other animals need not be treated with respect or compassion;

I would make euthanasia a crime so that I could enjoy watching the terminally ill writhe in agony or spend their final days in a drug-induced stupor;

I would persuade people that sexuality comes solely from personal choice, and that those who are not heterosexual are sinners not entitled to the rights of other citizens.

I would infiltrate the wealthiest of corporations and instill in their leaders the idea that they and only they are entitled to live in comfort and I’d tell them that those who labor on their behalf are not worthy of pay or benefits that would enable them to live without having to worry about having to choose between paying the electric bill or the water bill, or between buying groceries or buying school supplies;

I might even pose as a professional essayist and get paid to read my propaganda to millions of radio listeners in a neighborly, persuasive voice.

If I were the devil I would do all of these things and more because I would take delight in the immeasurable suffering caused by ignorance and intolerance.

But I’m not the devil, nor do I believe in the existence of such a hideous being, any more than I believe in the existence of gods, unicorns, leprechauns or dragons.

… and that’s the rest of the story. Good day!

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/10/13/a-rebuttal-to-paul-harveys-if-i-were-the-devil/

Sal wrote:

I might even pose as a professional essayist and get paid to read my propaganda to millions of radio listeners in a neighborly, persuasive voice.

lol

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/94-false-dilemma

FALSE DILEMMA
(also known as: false dichotomy*, the either-or fallacy, either-or reasoning, fallacy of false choice, fallacy of false alternatives, black-and-white thinking, the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses, bifurcation, excluded middle, no middle ground, polarization)

Description: When only two choices are presented yet more exist, or a spectrum of possible choices exists between two extremes. False dilemmas are usually characterized by “either this or that” language, but can also be characterized by omissions of choices. Another variety is the false trilemma, which is when three choices are presented when more exist.

Logical Form:

Either X or Y is true.

Either X, Y, or Z is true.
Example (two choices):

You are either with God, or against him.
Explanation: As Obi Wan Kenobi so eloquently puts it in Star Wars episode III, “Only a Sith deals in absolutes!” There are also those who simply don’t believe there is a God to be either with or against.

Example (omission):

I thought you were a good person, but you weren’t at church today.
Explanation: The assumption here is that bad people don’t go to church. Of course, good people exist who don’t go to church, and good church-going people could have had a really good reason not to be in church -- like a hangover from the swingers' gathering the night before.

Exception: There may be cases when the number of options really is limited. For example, if an ice cream man just has chocolate and vanilla left, it would be a waste of time insisting he has mint chocolate chip.

It is also not a fallacy if other options exist, but you are not offering other options as a possibility. For example:

Mom: Billy, it’s time for bed.
Billy: Can I stay up and watch a movie?
Mom: You can either go to bed or stay up for another 30 minutes and read.
Billy: That is a false dilemma!
Mom: No, it’s not. Here, read Bo’s book and you will see why.
Billy: This is freaky, our exact conversation is used as an example in this book!
Tip: Be conscious of how many times you are presented with false dilemmas, and how many times you present yourself with false dilemmas.

* Staying true to the definitions, the false dilemma is different from the false dichotomy in that a dilemma implies two equally unattractive options whereas a dichotomy generally comprises two opposites. This is a fine point, however, and is generally ignored in common usage.

*********

Great site, BTW.

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:That clip was not from 1965. Mr. Harvey mentions two things that did not come until later. Drug sniffing dogs were not used until the 1970s; and metal detectors in schools did not happen until the 1990s.

WOW, you really do come under the description of Progressives made famous by Jonathan Gruber.

I'll try to type slowly so you can follow.

THAT'S THE POINT of this sound bite, all the way back to 1965 intelligent, Conservative people knew what was coming way back then.

ONCE AGAIN, my far left Progressive good friend proves that Progressives do NOT look forward or for change, they simply demand CONTROL.

Markle wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:That clip was not from 1965. Mr. Harvey mentions two things that did not come until later. Drug sniffing dogs were not used until the 1970s; and metal detectors in schools did not happen until the 1990s.

WOW, you really do come under the description of Progressives made famous by Jonathan Gruber.

I'll try to type slowly so you can follow.

THAT'S THE POINT of this sound bite, all the way back to 1965 intelligent, Conservative people knew what was coming way back then.

ONCE AGAIN, my far left Progressive good friend proves that Progressives do NOT look forward or for change, they simply demand CONTROL.

That piece was originally published in 1964. It was re-written and changed in 1996. The 1996 version is the one that semi-demented poster Markle put on the forum. He failed to reveal this to us. The content of the 1996 version was changed from the 1964 version. I was correct in my assertion that there were no drug sniffing dogs or metal detectors in schools in 1965.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/devil.asp

Markle,

For all these years I never could fully comprehend where your head's at.
It was only after you really shot back at me whenever I said anything negative about Bill O' Reilly that it began to sink in.  
And now,  after this,  it's all getting clear to me.

These folk are to you,  what Louis C.K. is to Sal.  lol

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

Markle wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:That clip was not from 1965. Mr. Harvey mentions two things that did not come until later. Drug sniffing dogs were not used until the 1970s; and metal detectors in schools did not happen until the 1990s.

WOW, you really do come under the description of Progressives made famous by Jonathan Gruber.

I'll try to type slowly so you can follow.

THAT'S THE POINT of this sound bite, all the way back to 1965 intelligent, Conservative people knew what was coming way back then.

ONCE AGAIN, my far left Progressive good friend proves that Progressives do NOT look forward or for change, they simply demand CONTROL.

That piece was originally published in 1964. It was re-written and changed in 1996. The 1996 version is the one that semi-demented poster Markle put on the forum. He failed to reveal this to us. The content of the 1996 version was changed from the 1964 version. I was correct in my assertion that there were no drug sniffing dogs or metal detectors in schools in 1965.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/devil.asp

Oh well, it was a good story. I check things that are more important but this one sounded fun.

Bob wrote:

These folk are to you,  what Louis C.K. is to Sal.  lol

To me, Louis C.K. is an entertainer who has often hilarious and sometimes brilliant insights on modern life.

To Markle, the moldy corpse of Paul Harvey is some sort of Nostradamus and a moral compass.

It's all too unsurprising that you can't see the distinction.

lol

Sal wrote:

Bob wrote:

These folk are to you,  what Louis C.K. is to Sal.  lol

To me, Louis C.K. is an entertainer who has often hilarious and sometimes brilliant insights on modern life.

To Markle, the moldy corpse of Paul Harvey is some sort of Nostradamus and a moral compass.

It's all too unsurprising that you can't see the distinction.

lol

By attempting to correct me,  you inadvertently contradicted yourself.  And it's all too unsurprising.  lol
That's because Markle sees Harvey as giving "brilliant insights" on life same as you see C.K. as giving "brilliant insight"s on life.  Which is just another way of stating exactly what I did.

I never heard of anybody taking a nap at 8 in the morning.  That would be some REALLY serious sleep disorder. lol

Paul Harvey was a radio commentator. This particular piece is filled with false associations and logical fallacies.

Louis C K is a comedian. He may try to sway public opinion, but his main purpose is entertainment.

Floridatexan wrote:
Paul Harvey was a radio commentator.  This particular piece is filled with false associations and logical fallacies.  

Louis C K is a comedian.  He may try to sway public opinion, but his main purpose is entertainment.  

"Paul Harvey is a radio commentator"

"Louis CK's... main purpose is entertainment"

Paul Harvey is just another putrid example of Limbaugh. They're both a "radio commentator" and an "entertainer". Just like CK is a commentator and an entertainer.
That's how a normal human mind sees it.

But you and Sal and Markle are not normal human minds. You see something as commentary and entertainment ONLY when you agree with it.
As I've said before, the three of you have so much in common. lol

Bob wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:
Paul Harvey was a radio commentator.  This particular piece is filled with false associations and logical fallacies.  

Louis C K is a comedian.  He may try to sway public opinion, but his main purpose is entertainment.  

"Paul Harvey is a radio commentator"

"Louis CK's... main purpose is entertainment"

Paul Harvey is just another putrid example of Limbaugh.  They're both a "radio commentator" and an "entertainer".  Just like CK is a commentator and an entertainer.  
That's how a normal human mind sees it.

But you and Sal and Markle are not normal human minds.  You see something as commentary and entertainment ONLY when you agree with it.
As I've said before,  the three of you have so much in common.  lol

And, as I've said before, "Stuff it."