PDA

View Full Version : Propaganda in our schools



dgtxpride
04-06-2010, 10:05 PM
This is something that really ticks me off. The purpose of education is to give students enough knowledge so that they can figure out for themselves what to believe in. This teacher in San Antonio is clearly trying to indoctrinate her students into believing that conservatism is somehow associated with the devil. Lady...you are the devil! The handout she passed out to her class is at the bottom of the post.



http://texasgopvote.com/blog/school-propaganda-warped-discussion-liberals-vs-conservatives-high-school-government-class-04013

ralph wiggum
04-06-2010, 10:33 PM
That's just horrid. I can't believe ANY teacher would hand that crap out.

fettpett
04-06-2010, 10:35 PM
wow...those first two paragraphs are a load of horseshit.

Novaheart
04-06-2010, 10:45 PM
The conservatives on the ussc have trashed the 4th amendment. Discuss.

wilbur
04-06-2010, 10:53 PM
From the article:



....

How can the Republican Party possibly compete with this kind of secretive indoctrination?

....


Oh how they try. Texas is the long-standing fulcrum of seemingly never-ending struggles to get all kinds of science bashing, pro-creationism material into the classrooms - because in Texas, legitimate science is apparently a liberal/atheist conspiracy.

fettpett
04-06-2010, 11:26 PM
From the article:



Oh how they try. Texas is the long-standing fulcrum of seemingly never-ending struggles to get all kinds of science bashing, pro-creationism material into the classrooms - because in Texas, legitimate science is apparently a liberal/atheist conspiracy.

shut up, dumbass, nobody is trying to throw out legit science, all it is, is about presenting an opposing Theory

Rockntractor
04-06-2010, 11:37 PM
The conservatives on the ussc have trashed the 4th amendment. Discuss.

UNITED STATES SPIRITIST COUNCIL, U.S. Satellite Corporation, United States Stove Company, Utah Shooting Sports Council, UNDERGRADUATE SCHOLASTIC STANDARDS COMMITTEE ?

wilbur
04-06-2010, 11:41 PM
shut up, dumbass, nobody is trying to throw out legit science, all it is, is about presenting an opposing Theory

Oh please - if you earnestly believe that, more's the pity. Its 'The Wedge' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy) in action.

Novaheart
04-06-2010, 11:52 PM
UNITED STATES SPIRITIST COUNCIL, U.S. Satellite Corporation, United States Stove Company, Utah Shooting Sports Council, UNDERGRADUATE SCHOLASTIC STANDARDS COMMITTEE ?

Horsepoopism

Novaheart
04-06-2010, 11:53 PM
shut up, dumbass, nobody is trying to throw out legit science, all it is, is about presenting an opposing Theory

Yeah, the magic fingersnap theory

fettpett
04-06-2010, 11:58 PM
Oh please - if you earnestly believe that, more's the pity. Its 'The Wedge' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy) in action.

Why are Evolutionist so opposed to another Theory? why do they act like little playground bullies at hearing when Creationist and ID supporters are presenting their Evidence? Why are Evolutionist so afraid of having both Views taught side by side and allowing kids to make their own choices, isn't that what Schools and teaching is all about? to question and search for their own answers? if not than that explains a hell of a lot about our society and people demanding instant gratification and wanting the Government to support their asses from cradle to grave.

Creationist/ID supporters don't have any issues with the scientific process, nor with science it's self. What they are trying to say is that there is something that we can't explain that started everything. The Wedge strategy isn't anything more than trying to bring some form of Morality/Ethics back to teaching.

fettpett
04-07-2010, 12:00 AM
Yeah, the magic fingersnap theory

much better than the "oh it happened by accident with no rime or reason" that gives us no real meaning to anything.

Novaheart
04-07-2010, 12:40 AM
much better than the "oh it happened by accident with no rime or reason" that gives us no real meaning to anything.

If you recognize that your motivation is to feel like life has immortal meaning, then aren't you actually liberated from that ?

Novaheart
04-07-2010, 12:42 AM
Why are Evolutionist so opposed to another Theory? why do they act like little playground bullies at hearing when Creationist and ID supporters are presenting their Evidence? Why are Evolutionist so afraid of having both Views taught side by side and allowing kids to make their own choices, isn't that what Schools and teaching is all about? to question and search for their own answers? if not than that explains a hell of a lot about our society and people demanding instant gratification and wanting the Government to support their asses from cradle to grave.

Creationist/ID supporters don't have any issues with the scientific process, nor with science it's self. What they are trying to say is that there is something that we can't explain that started everything. The Wedge strategy isn't anything more than trying to bring some form of Morality/Ethics back to teaching.

Because it's not a theory, it's mythology. Mythology that is no more grounded in reality than Scientology; the only difference is that Scientology hasn't been around long enough for us to forget who made it up.

Novaheart
04-07-2010, 12:46 AM
Creationist/ID supporters don't have any issues with the scientific process, nor with science it's self. What they are trying to say is that there is something that we can't explain that started everything. The Wedge strategy isn't anything more than trying to bring some form of Morality/Ethics back to teaching.

Then adding mythology to the curriculum will not solve the problem because neither Evolution nor mythology explains how you get something from nothing. Whether you are talking about the big bang or god, you have to explain how the beginning came to exist. Simply declaring that god or the black box had always existed doesn't do the trick.

And frankly, it doesn't matter how you get something from nothing or how the universe started. God damn it, we are completely out of the cave except for this persistent bullshit called religion. I'm sick of it.

Wei Wu Wei
04-07-2010, 01:11 AM
shut up, dumbass, nobody is trying to throw out legit science, all it is, is about presenting an opposing Theory

Except "Theory" means something specific in legitimate science, and unfortunately this anti-evolution nonsense totally undermines this basic principle of the scientific method

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-07-2010, 01:19 AM
much better than the "oh it happened by accident with no rime or reason" that gives us no real meaning to anything.

Why does everything have to have meaning?

Wei Wu Wei
04-07-2010, 01:20 AM
Why are Evolutionist so opposed to another Theory?

Because a Theory is a specific thing, to be more specific it's required that a Theory be falsifiable, which Intelligent Design is not.

Not falsifiable, not science.

It's so simple and yet so sad that people don't get this. A sign of our failing science education and no wonder why 37% of PhD holders in the United States are actually foreign born.



why do they act like little playground bullies at hearing when Creationist and ID supporters are presenting their Evidence?

Because deconstructive criticism, while being an important aspect of science, is not actually evidence or a theory for anything. It's simply and only criticism, and serves to strengthen real theories.


Why are Evolutionist so afraid of having both Views taught side by side and allowing kids to make their own choices, isn't that what Schools and teaching is all about? to question and search for their own answers?

No it's not. We don't teach holocaust denial in history class and just let the kids decide on their own. We don't let the kids vote on which elements to include in the periodic table.


if not than that explains a hell of a lot about our society and people demanding instant gratification and wanting the Government to support their asses from cradle to grave.

Creationist/ID supporters don't have any issues with the scientific process, nor with science it's self. What they are trying to say is that there is something that we can't explain that started everything. The Wedge strategy isn't anything more than trying to bring some form of Morality/Ethics back to teaching.

1. Evolution isn't a theory concerning cosmic origins, it's a theory concerning biological change.

2. The idea that something outside of nature influences nature is 100% unscientific. The scientific method is based ONLY on natural events, there is a very strict epistemology and method to science, and supernatural forces simply aren't part of it.

This can be discussed in a philosophy class, and I highly encourage that, but it's not science.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-07-2010, 01:21 AM
much better than the "oh it happened by accident with no rime or reason" that gives us no real meaning to anything.


Then adding mythology to the curriculum will not solve the problem because neither Evolution nor mythology explains how you get something from nothing. Whether you are talking about the big bang or god, you have to explain how the beginning came to exist. Simply declaring that god or the black box had always existed doesn't do the trick.

And frankly, it doesn't matter how you get something from nothing or how the universe started. God damn it, we are completely out of the cave except for this persistent bullshit called religion. I'm sick of it.

The alternative: Hinduism. The universe is a continuous cycle, as is life in general. This is supported by recent scientific theories that postulate there other universes before this one and will be others after this one ends.

Wei Wu Wei
04-07-2010, 01:21 AM
much better than the "oh it happened by accident with no rime or reason" that gives us no real meaning to anything.

you're right, that gives us no real meaning to anything. stop expecting an existential handout and make your own meaning.

Speedy
04-07-2010, 01:34 AM
Except "Theory" means something specific in legitimate science, and unfortunately this anti-evolution nonsense totally undermines this basic principle of the scientific method


Yeah, like your silly theory about Global Warming. That science sure blew up in your face once the facts got out.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-07-2010, 02:10 AM
Yeah, like your silly theory about Global Warming. That science sure blew up in your face once the facts got out.

Science is wrong! The Earth is flat! Science is just Satan's handiwork!

Speedy
04-07-2010, 02:43 AM
Science is wrong! The Earth is flat! Science is just Satan's handiwork!

The Earth is round. It is a fact and if every scientist on Earth formed a consensus that it was not, the Earth would still be round. If that consensus of scientists rejected contrary research, if they refused to admit it, the earth would still be round.

The same with Global Warming. Their consensus means nothing if the facts say other wise. There is plenty of research showing that the earth stopped warming a decade ago. And you know how that theory was formed? Science! So fuck you!

MrsSmith
04-07-2010, 06:53 AM
From the article:



Oh how they try. Texas is the long-standing fulcrum of seemingly never-ending struggles to get all kinds of science bashing, pro-creationism material into the classrooms - because in Texas, legitimate science is apparently a liberal/atheist conspiracy.

It's funny how terrified people are of telling children ALL the facts instead of just the currently-PC-approved versions. Kids in private Christian schools are taught both sides of the evolutionary debate, and end up some of the highest scoring college students in the US...mostly because they are taught instead of brainwashed into marching in lockstep. :D

PoliCon
04-07-2010, 09:00 AM
The conservatives on the ussc have trashed the 4th amendment. Discuss.

ussc? Did you mean to say SCOTUS?

PoliCon
04-07-2010, 09:02 AM
That's just horrid. I can't believe ANY teacher would hand that crap out.

Believe it. believe that MOST would hand that crap out.

PoliCon
04-07-2010, 09:10 AM
I like how wilbur has managed to hijack another thread into a discussion of his favorite topic. :rolleyes:

IN THE MEAN TIME, IN THE REAL WORLD . . . .The vast majority of teachers - including history teachers slant left and if you DARE to challenge their orthodoxy, you're guranteed a bumpy ride.

ralph wiggum
04-07-2010, 09:21 AM
Believe it. believe that MOST would hand that crap out.

I know or knew a lot of teachers, as the former Mrs. Wiggum is one. And I still can't imagine how stupid you'd have to be hand that out. None of the lib teachers that I knew would dare pull that crap.

Don't get me wrong - I wouldn't want a teacher to hand out right-wing propaganda either.

wilbur
04-07-2010, 09:28 AM
I like how wilbur has managed to hijack another thread into a discussion of his favorite topic. :rolleyes:


I just think it rather amusing that one lone case of a liberal teacher run a muck is lifted up an an example of classroom ideological abuse - in Texas, of all places - where literally it has been a never ending struggle to stave off hordes of conservative ID'ist and Creationist propagandists, with much more gluttonous ambition than this single lone teacher could possibly have with her silly handouts - as they try to redefine science curricula for the state, en masse, so that everyone's child to sit through a government mandated Christian theology lesson. To date, their efforts have only just been narrowly averted. But the battle continues.

Rockntractor
04-07-2010, 09:34 AM
Science is wrong! The Earth is flat! Science is just Satan's handiwork!
Yes it's flat and hotter then a pancake ask Wilbur!

wilbur
04-07-2010, 09:40 AM
It's funny how terrified people are of telling children ALL the facts instead of just the currently-PC-approved versions. Kids in private Christian schools are taught both sides of the evolutionary debate, and end up some of the highest scoring college students in the US...mostly because they are taught instead of brainwashed into marching in lockstep. :D

Uh, there are many reasons why kids in private school might score higher in colleges, and I'm pretty sure absolutely none of them really has to do with not "marching in lockstep", whatever that is supposed to mean. High at the top of the list, is probably the fact that private schools get to choose who they teach.

Novaheart
04-07-2010, 10:01 AM
The Earth is round. It is a fact and if every scientist on Earth formed a consensus that it was not, the Earth would still be round. If that consensus of scientists rejected contrary research, if they refused to admit it, the earth would still be round.

The same with Global Warming. Their consensus means nothing if the facts say other wise. There is plenty of research showing that the earth stopped warming a decade ago. And you know how that theory was formed? Science! So fuck you!

However, there are Creationists who believe that the science which proves that they earth is billions of years old and that life on this planet predates the Biblical timeline by millions of years is indeed false. They believe that the fossils and sedimentary layers were placed there by ........... wait for it......... S A T A N, for the purpose of confusing us and placing doubt in the mythology of the Bible.

fettpett
04-07-2010, 10:23 AM
However, there are Creationists who believe that the science which proves that they earth is billions of years old and that life on this planet predates the Biblical timeline by millions of years is indeed false. They believe that the fossils and sedimentary layers were placed there by ........... wait for it......... S A T A N, for the purpose of confusing us and placing doubt in the mythology of the Bible.

and there are very FEW of those that believe that. Then there are those at say Carbon dating is unreliable past a couple thousand years, do to how carbon breaks down, and most scientist agree.

PLUS there is the circular reasoning of a strata of rocking being millions of years old because of the fossil's in the rocks and THEN saying the fossil's are millions of years old based on the rock it was found it. On top of that, the Rock strata isn't evenly distributed in the same region let alone across the world, and they aren't talking about movements of rocks, they are pointing to the actual layering of rocks that are smooth between the layers that show NO evidence of erosion.

If you guys feel that you don't have to have a meaning to your existence, than good for you, you live very empty, materialistic lives. THAT is the point of teaching the other Theories.

Creationism is just as much of a theory/myth as evolution. No right minded person denies that micro and macro evolution happens, it's Mega evolution that people have the problem with.

PoliCon
04-07-2010, 10:31 AM
I know or knew a lot of teachers, as the former Mrs. Wiggum is one. And I still can't imagine how stupid you'd have to be hand that out. None of the lib teachers that I knew would dare pull that crap.

Don't get me wrong - I wouldn't want a teacher to hand out right-wing propaganda either.

I've seen very similar stuff. I'll have to dig through my files to see if I saved the one hand out my co-operating teacher when I was student teaching passed out about democrats and republicans . . . the long and short of it will always be: Democrats = God-like. Republicans = evil scum.

PoliCon
04-07-2010, 10:33 AM
I just think it rather amusing that one lone case of a liberal teacher run a muck is lifted up an an example of classroom ideological abuse - in Texas, of all places - where literally it has been a never ending struggle to stave off hordes of conservative ID'ist and Creationist propagandists, with much more gluttonous ambition than this single lone teacher could possibly have with her silly handouts - as they try to redefine science curricula for the state, en masse, so that everyone's child to sit through a government mandated Christian theology lesson. To date, their efforts have only just been narrowly averted. But the battle continues.

FUCKTARD - the topic is political propaganda not evolutionary propaganda. :rolleyes: Do you think for once you might just TRY to focus on something other than your pet issues? Like it or not - the world is not just all about you.

PoliCon
04-07-2010, 10:35 AM
Uh, there are many reasons why kids in private school might score higher in colleges, and I'm pretty sure absolutely none of them really has to do with not "marching in lockstep", whatever that is supposed to mean. High at the top of the list, is probably the fact that private schools get to choose who they teach.

Damn straight. When little Wilbur starts acting like a fucktard and disrupting the class discussion about Political propaganda with bullshit about evolution - well they get to tell him to sit down and shut the fuck up. And if he doesn't - they can kick his ass to the curb.

wilbur
04-07-2010, 10:52 AM
Fett, you seem earnest, but you really need to go back to the drawing board here - lots of very confused, false, misinformation in your post:


and there are very FEW of those that believe that. Then there are those at say Carbon dating is unreliable past a couple thousand years, do to how carbon breaks down, and most scientist agree.

Carbon dating is accurate far past a "couple thousand" years- more like tens of thousands of years. *All* scientists agree. Does this pose a problem for the dating of fossils, the earth, or strata? Well, certainly it does, if you attempt to measure the age of these things using carbon dating.

But, as it so happens, carbon dating is not used to date things that old. Radiometric dating is used instead.



PLUS there is the circular reasoning of a strata of rocking being millions of years old because of the fossil's in the rocks and THEN saying the fossil's are millions of years old based on the rock it was found it.

Strata and fossils are dated by numerous methods, including radiometric dating. A further problem for your view, is that strata were being catalogued and dated even before the TTOE.



On top of that, the Rock strata isn't evenly distributed in the same region let alone across the world, and they aren't talking about movements of rocks, they are pointing to the actual layering of rocks that are smooth between the layers that show NO evidence of erosion.


Nobody assumes the strata would be evenly distributed - that simply isnt a problem.



If you guys feel that you don't have to have a meaning to your existence, than good for you, you live very empty, materialistic lives. THAT is the point of teaching the other Theories.


Well, if that is the point of teaching other "theories", then that is exactly the problem. Contrary to what you seem to believe, evolution is quite compatible with theistic friendly philosophies of objective meaning, and even things like dualism. Teaching evolution does not negate them.



Creationism is just as much of a theory/myth as evolution. No right minded person denies that micro and macro evolution happens, it's Mega evolution that people have the problem with.

Whoa - "mega" evolution?!? WTF is that? I would agree, however, that no right minded person denies micro or macro evolution - but that describes evolution in its entirety. There is no such thing as "mega" evolution.

Wei Wu Wei
04-07-2010, 02:27 PM
I like how wilbur has managed to hijack another thread into a discussion of his favorite topic. :rolleyes:

IN THE MEAN TIME, IN THE REAL WORLD . . . .The vast majority of teachers - including history teachers slant left and if you DARE to challenge their orthodoxy, you're guranteed a bumpy ride.

A lesson PoliCon learned in 10'th grade, when after getting an F for writing a paper entitled "The Holocaust: Greatly Exaggerated, or Simply a Myth?" he dropped out.

The rest is history.

NJCardFan
04-07-2010, 02:56 PM
Science is wrong! The Earth is flat! Science is just Satan's handiwork!

Typical liberal response; to dredge up something from several hundred years ago. It's like when you people always bring up the Crusades. We're in the 21st century now and most people(aside from a few kooks) know that the Earth is round. This is irrefutable because it is backed up by physical evidence that anyone can verify. And by verify means getting in a boat and travel east until you reach the point of origin. Evolution cannot. It's a theory. A theory, putting it in layman's terms, is someone's idea about something. Theories can be refuted or proven false. In fact, several dinosaurs that were first thought to exist but were later found to be mistakenly put together from the bones of several different species. The irony is that the theory of evolution is constantly evolving, changing. The fact is, we will never know. So, based on that, there is nothing wrong with giving all sides. Anyone who has ever taken an economics course knows that it is common practice to look at things from all perspectives. Why this can't be in discussing this is beyond me. And aren't liberals supposed to be for the free exchange of ideas?

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-07-2010, 03:02 PM
Typical liberal response; to dredge up something from several hundred years ago. It's like when you people always bring up the Crusades. We're in the 21st century now and most people(aside from a few kooks) know that the Earth is round. This is irrefutable because it is backed up by physical evidence that anyone can verify. And by verify means getting in a boat and travel east until you reach the point of origin. Evolution cannot. It's a theory. A theory, putting it in layman's terms, is someone's idea about something. Theories can be refuted or proven false. In fact, several dinosaurs that were first thought to exist but were later found to be mistakenly put together from the bones of several different species. The irony is that the theory of evolution is constantly evolving, changing. The fact is, we will never know. So, based on that, there is nothing wrong with giving all sides. Anyone who has ever taken an economics course knows that it is common practice to look at things from all perspectives. Why this can't be in discussing this is beyond me. And aren't liberals supposed to be for the free exchange of ideas?

I think the problem with creationism alongside evolution is it wouuld be much too time consuming. And most of those who want creationism taught, when stripped down to it, only want Christian creationism taught. There's dozens and dozens of different ideas, ranging from modern religions to ancient religions' ideas of what happened. If we're going to ''give a free exchange of ideas'', than all forms of creationism must be taught. Or if not that, then only a very basic version of it without getting into any specific religions.

NJCardFan
04-07-2010, 03:06 PM
I think the problem with creationism alongside evolution is it wouuld be much too time consuming. And most of those who want creationism taught, when stripped down to it, only want Christian creationism taught. There's dozens and dozens of different ideas, ranging from modern religions to ancient religions' ideas of what happened. If we're going to ''give a free exchange of ideas'', than all forms of creationism must be taught. Or if not that, then only a very basic version of it without getting into any specific religions.

Oh so the solution is to teach only one side as long as it's the liberal side. Boy you libs are so hypocritical it's sad.

Wei Wu Wei
04-07-2010, 03:06 PM
Typical liberal response; to dredge up something from several hundred years ago. It's like when you people always bring up the Crusades. We're in the 21st century now and most people(aside from a few kooks) know that the Earth is round. This is irrefutable because it is backed up by physical evidence that anyone can verify. And by verify means getting in a boat and travel east until you reach the point of origin. Evolution cannot. It's a theory.

Yes, it is a Theory. A Scientific Theory which means something specific.


A theory, putting it in layman's terms, is someone's idea about something.

Except we're not teaching kids "layman's terms" in science, and we shouldn't, otherwise we'll end up seeing more posts like this from the next generation.



Theories can be refuted or proven false.

Yes, this is exactly right. Theories are able to be proven false, if a theory is not falsifiable, it is not a scientific theory. ID is not falsifiable, therefore it is not a scientific theory.


In fact, several dinosaurs that were first thought to exist but were later found to be mistakenly put together from the bones of several different species. The irony is that the theory of evolution is constantly evolving, changing.

That's hardly ironic, theories are supposed to change and evolve, that is exactly how science works.


The fact is, we will never know. So, based on that, there is nothing wrong with giving all sides.

No. We can never know exactly how many died in the holocaust but that doesn't mean we should teach "it was just a myth" because "it's just another theory!"

We shouldn't teach "the south won the civil war" because "well that's just how I believe it happened, let's teach ALL opinions!"


Anyone who has ever taken an economics course knows that it is common practice to look at things from all perspectives. Why this can't be in discussing this is beyond me. And aren't liberals supposed to be for the free exchange of ideas?

Science buddy. Science.

Wei Wu Wei
04-07-2010, 03:08 PM
My god this is a perfect example of what is wrong with our education system. No one here seems to have any clue what a Scientific Theory is, what Falsifiability is, and how the Scientific Method works.

These are the very basics of science and are crucial to having even a minimal understanding of science.

PoliCon
04-07-2010, 03:14 PM
A lesson PoliCon learned in 10'th grade, when after getting an F for writing a paper entitled "The Holocaust: Greatly Exaggerated, or Simply a Myth?" he dropped out.

The rest is history.

:rolleyes: Would someone please buy Wee Wee a clue? :rolleyes:

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-07-2010, 03:24 PM
Typical liberal response; to dredge up something from several hundred years ago. It's like when you people always bring up the Crusades. We're in the 21st century now and most people(aside from a few kooks) know that the Earth is round. This is irrefutable because it is backed up by physical evidence that anyone can verify. And by verify means getting in a boat and travel east until you reach the point of origin. Evolution cannot. It's a theory. A theory, putting it in layman's terms, is someone's idea about something. Theories can be refuted or proven false. In fact, several dinosaurs that were first thought to exist but were later found to be mistakenly put together from the bones of several different species. The irony is that the theory of evolution is constantly evolving, changing. The fact is, we will never know. So, based on that, there is nothing wrong with giving all sides. Anyone who has ever taken an economics course knows that it is common practice to look at things from all perspectives. Why this can't be in discussing this is beyond me. And aren't liberals supposed to be for the free exchange of ideas?


Oh so the solution is to teach only one side as long as it's the liberal side. Boy you libs are so hypocritical it's sad.

1) I have said it before, I will say it again. I am not a liberal, progressive, marxist, communist, etc. I am a moderate. The username is what it is for a reason.
2) I never said that's the solution but if we're going to teach creationism alongside evolution, why not all kinds of creationism besides Christian Creationism, or simply ignore specific religious aspects (As in, don't just mention Christian creationism and leave out others) of creationism and just talk about intelligent design in a general way--for example, state something like:

"Creationism is an idea put forth by many theists and some scientists as an alternative, or in some cases as an explanation of evolution. Creationism puts forth the idea that the universe came about through the machinations or design of a superior being(s) (called God or Gods or other forms of deities) or force, usually of supernatural or metaphysical origin, and many different religions have throughout history offered and continue to offer different variations of their own through creationism to explain the origins of the universe and life on Earth.''

wilbur
04-07-2010, 04:00 PM
Oh so the solution is to teach only one side as long as it's the liberal side. Boy you libs are so hypocritical it's sad.

The second someone develops a scientific theory that is a viable competitor to evolution... well, then we can teach it. Till then, there is only 'one side' to teach.

PoliCon
04-07-2010, 04:10 PM
The second someone develops a scientific theory that is a viable competitor to evolution... well, then we can teach it. Till then, there is only 'one side' to teach.

SO SAYETH THE GOREACLE!

wilbur
04-07-2010, 04:11 PM
SO SAYETH THE GOREACLE!

Your obsession with that guy is really unhealthy.

Chuck58
04-07-2010, 04:12 PM
:rolleyes: Would someone please buy Wee Wee a clue? :rolleyes:

The holocaust happened. That can't be denied. Why focus only on the holocaust, though?

Favorites of the left these days seem to be Stalin, Mao and Che Guevara.

Stalin is responsible for the death of 20-30 million Russians, his own people.

Mao murdered tens of millions.

Che, that icon of liberty and well known freedom fighter, who now appears on T shirts, jewelry and in other places, was a racist. Read his diary. His comments are all there about blacks (negroes to him, Mexicans and others).

Wei Wu Wei
04-07-2010, 04:19 PM
The holocaust happened. That can't be denied.

HOLD ON THERE!

It sure can be denied, in fact many people deny it. There are hundreds of books and websites dedicated to Holocaust "Revisionists" as they call themselves.

With so many people believing this and so many books and papers written about it, isn't it ONLY FAIR that we teach BOTH sides? I mean we can present some of their evidence in history class and let the students decide for themselves.

THAT'S WHAT EDUCATION IS ABOUT.

Chuck58
04-07-2010, 04:31 PM
HOLD ON THERE!

It sure can be denied, in fact many people deny it. There are hundreds of books and websites dedicated to Holocaust "Revisionists" as they call themselves.

With so many people believing this and so many books and papers written about it, isn't it ONLY FAIR that we teach BOTH sides? I mean we can present some of their evidence in history class and let the students decide for themselves.

THAT'S WHAT EDUCATION IS ABOUT.

By revisionists, of course. That isn't what I meant. The fact that many of the German records are available, films of the death camps made by German camera crews, photos by Allied forces, etc are fairly conclusive evidence.
Or, is this another form of political correctness? Teach everything. It would, in a way, be preferable to today's teach nothing school curriculum.

Speedy
04-07-2010, 04:51 PM
HOLD ON THERE!

It sure can be denied, in fact many people deny it. There are hundreds of books and websites dedicated to Holocaust "Revisionists" as they call themselves.

With so many people believing this and so many books and papers written about it, isn't it ONLY FAIR that we teach BOTH sides? I mean we can present some of their evidence in history class and let the students decide for themselves.

THAT'S WHAT EDUCATION IS ABOUT.

You hypocritical son of a bitch. Yeah, the Holocaust can be denied because there is an alternative view according to you. And students can make up their own mind. But you screech and shreak and wail about your stupid Global Warming science being taught as anything less than absolute truth.

There is no "maybe" it happened in history. The Holocaust happened that is a fact and you do not teach that some people "believe" it happened.

I am a Christian and I believe in the Earth being formed billions of years ago. How do I square that? What is a day to God is not a day to us. Who is to say that the first day was not billions of years?

Wei Wu Wei
04-07-2010, 05:26 PM
You hypocritical son of a bitch. Yeah, the Holocaust can be denied because there is an alternative view according to you. And students can make up their own mind. But you screech and shreak and wail about your stupid Global Warming science being taught as anything less than absolute truth.

Please, go through my post history, in fact here's the link: http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/search.php?do=finduser&u=2017

and show me where I ever even MENTIONED global warming, let alone "screech and shreak".

Until then shut up and stop arguing with yourself.


There is no "maybe" it happened in history. The Holocaust happened that is a fact and you do not teach that some people "believe" it happened.

I am a Christian and I believe in the Earth being formed billions of years ago. How do I square that? What is a day to God is not a day to us. Who is to say that the first day was not billions of years?

The Earth was formed billions of years ago. How you reconcile that with your personal faith is your business, not the business of science. Such things could even be discussed in philosophy but not science.

Speedy
04-07-2010, 06:03 PM
My thoughts exactly regarding Global Warming. It is a philosphy not a science and should be trated as such.

NJCardFan
04-07-2010, 10:05 PM
No. We can never know exactly how many died in the holocaust but that doesn't mean we should teach "it was just a myth" because "it's just another theory!"

We shouldn't teach "the south won the civil war" because "well that's just how I believe it happened, let's teach ALL opinions!"



Science buddy. Science.

Not only are you an idiot but you're an asshole as well. Um, there is no theory that the South won the American Civil War because it's results are concrete. Same with the holocaust as it did happen as the results are concrete aside from kooks like Ahmadinnerjacket says. To compare these subjects makes you an asshole. As for evolution, the reason why so many people believe in intelligent design is that there is simply no logical way life happened on earth due to a series of accidents happening at the right time. How these accidents led to an amoeba which led to billions of life forms ranging from bacteria to a species who eventually figured out how to fly to the moon. The science you keep pushing is not concrete. No matter what you say.

Novaheart
04-07-2010, 10:15 PM
...... the reason why so many people believe in intelligent design is that there is simply no logical way life happened on earth due to a series of accidents happening at the right time. .........

OK, but is Intelligent Design or Divine Design really the next logical step in considering an alternative explanation to Evolution? To me, that rather like a forest service worker theorizing the cause of a fire saying, "It was probably someone smoking." and someone else saying, "Well it might have been the thrusters from an alien spacecraft." There is just so much in between a tossed cigarette and a Vulcan probe that the leap is too far.

Rockntractor
04-07-2010, 10:18 PM
OK, but is Intelligent Design or Divine Design really the next logical step in considering an alternative explanation to Evolution? To me, that rather like a forest service worker theorizing the cause of a fire saying, "It was probably someone smoking." and someone else saying, "Well it might have been the thrusters from an alien spacecraft." There is just so much in between a tossed cigarette and a Vulcan probe that the leap is too far.
Continuity, divine design has been handed down for generations We have a history going back to the origins of written language backing our beliefs, so the gap is not as wide as you think.

wilbur
04-07-2010, 10:29 PM
Not only are you an idiot but you're an asshole as well. Um, there is no theory that the South won the American Civil War because it's results are concrete. Same with the holocaust as it did happen as the results are concrete aside from kooks like Ahmadinnerjacket says.
To compare these subjects makes you an asshole. As for evolution, the reason why so many people believe in intelligent design is that there is simply no logical way life happened on earth due to a series of accidents happening at the right time. How these accidents led to an amoeba which led to billions of life forms ranging from bacteria to a species who eventually figured out how to fly to the moon. The science you keep pushing is not concrete. No matter what you say.

Given genetics, heredity, the fossil record, biogeograhy, speciation (observed real time in labs, and in the fossil record), among other things - sorry pal, evolution is damn concrete.

Rockntractor
04-07-2010, 10:31 PM
Given genetics, heredity, the fossil record, biogeograhy, speciation (observed real time in labs, and in the fossil record), among other things - sorry pal, evolution is damn concrete.

Your brain is damn concrete!:rolleyes:

Naddapig
04-07-2010, 10:33 PM
Your brain is damn concrete!:rolleyes:

You should talk rock for brains and stop picking on fruity pebbles, he is new here, be nice!:rolleyes:

Novaheart
04-07-2010, 11:57 PM
Continuity, divine design has been handed down for generations We have a history going back to the origins of written language backing our beliefs, so the gap is not as wide as you think.

Enter context. "Our beliefs" , assuming that you are not a western asian person, are not Christianity or Judaism or their creation myths. Our best known beliefs are Norse mythology and what we speculate might have been the mythology of our British ancestors. They are the context for the exotic beliefs system borrowed and assimilated by our culture. The age of these beliefs adds no credibility whatsoever, in fact it adds to the context for their origins which are clearly primitive understandings or desires to understand nature in general and thunder in particular.

BSR
04-08-2010, 01:18 PM
This is why my kids will be going to a private school. These people will not get their claws into my children. Plus, they will actually get a quality education which will help them get into a good college.


Its a win/win.

Novaheart
04-08-2010, 01:28 PM
This is why my kids will be going to a private school. These people will not get their claws into my children. Plus, they will actually get a quality education which will help them get into a good college.


Its a win/win.

LOL. Any private school worth paying for is probably uber liberal. The Episcopalian, Catholic, Quaker, and nonsectarian schools all super liberal.

I went to a rural Catholic school which taught Evolution in Science class and Creation in Religion class.

Chuck58
04-08-2010, 01:47 PM
My kids went to a private school. It wasn't easy on a cop's salary, but we scrimped and did without. It was worth it. Both are doing well; both strong Conservative and both are almost as right wing as I am.

Now, my youngest graduated in 1988. Then, they were educated in that school, not indoctrinated. I don't know what it's like these days.

Jfor
04-08-2010, 02:04 PM
HOLD ON THERE!

It sure can be denied, in fact many people deny it. There are hundreds of books and websites dedicated to Holocaust "Revisionists" as they call themselves.

With so many people believing this and so many books and papers written about it, isn't it ONLY FAIR that we teach BOTH sides? I mean we can present some of their evidence in history class and let the students decide for themselves.

THAT'S WHAT EDUCATION IS ABOUT.

You really are an ignorant fuck to even bring that up. We have seen pictures and documentaries of the shit your liberal kind did to other human beings. I have seen first hand Dachau concentration camp. I have seen the fucking ovens, Nazi pictures of the experiments they did on those poor souls. You really are an asshole through and through. At least we got the 3 stooges here keeping us laughing. Wilboe, Weewee, and dumbassinthemiddle.

NJCardFan
04-08-2010, 02:04 PM
OK, but is Intelligent Design or Divine Design really the next logical step in considering an alternative explanation to Evolution? To me, that rather like a forest service worker theorizing the cause of a fire saying, "It was probably someone smoking." and someone else saying, "Well it might have been the thrusters from an alien spacecraft." There is just so much in between a tossed cigarette and a Vulcan probe that the leap is too far.
Is ID such a leap? You think that a bee having a stinger as a defense mechanism while a common house fly does not happened by accident? My thing is that there is just too much going on to just say it happened by accident. And Wilbur, if it was so concrete, why is it called the Theory of Evolution and not the Law of Evolution? We have the laws of physics and the law of gravity, don't we? Well, if evolution is so damned irrefutable, why isn't it considered a law?

But of course, to you, global warming was concrete as well and we all saw how that turned out. :rolleyes:


At least we got the 3 stooges here keeping us laughing. Wilboe, Weewee, and dumbassinthemiddle.
You besmirch the Stooges again and you and me are gonna go round and round.

Jfor
04-08-2010, 02:57 PM
You besmirch the Stooges again and you and me are gonna go round and round.

LOL... I would call them Aqua Teen Hunger Force but they would probably take that as a compliment.

Wei Wu Wei
04-08-2010, 07:03 PM
Is ID such a leap?

Yes. Because Intelligent Design invokes an Intelligent Designer. This is left totally unexplained or simply written off as "supernatural". Both of those are absolutely unscientific.

That's not how a theory works. "someone did it" isn't a theory.


You think that a bee having a stinger as a defense mechanism while a common house fly does not happened by accident?

Yeah.


My thing is that there is just too much going on to just say it happened by accident. And Wilbur, if it was so concrete, why is it called the Theory of Evolution and not the Law of Evolution? We have the laws of physics and the law of gravity, don't we? Well, if evolution is so damned irrefutable, why isn't it considered a law?

Ladies and Gentlemen: Exhibit A on our Failed Science Education System

Scientific Laws are mathematical formulas that directly predict or describe some natural phenomenon. The "Law of Gravity" is just the mathematical equation that describes how objects with mass interact with each other, there is a Theory of Gravitation and that theory is very incomplete.

Laws of Physics are simple equations that describe how mass and energy interact.

A THEORY is something different, it's a falsifiable larger system of explanation and analysis that describes a network of phenomenon and offers predictions for future hypotheses.

It's not a hierarchy of "truth" that goes - hypothesis then theory then law. That is NOT how it works. Each of those things are distinct and separate things, you don't progress from one to another.

The Theory of Evolution will always be a Theory no matter how much evidence and how many details we unravel. Same with the Theory of Gravitation.

This is EXACTLY what's wrong with teaching ID as a theory in science class, it totally undermines the very basics of science and you end up with a bunch of adults who don't even understand how the scientific method works, and we wonder why more and more of our top scientists are foreign-born.

PoliCon
04-08-2010, 07:19 PM
Yes. Because Intelligent Design invokes an Intelligent Designer. This is left totally unexplained or simply written off as "supernatural". Both of those are absolutely unscientific.

That's not how a theory works. "someone did it" isn't a theory.



Yeah.



Ladies and Gentlemen: Exhibit A on our Failed Science Education System

Scientific Laws are mathematical formulas that directly predict or describe some natural phenomenon. The "Law of Gravity" is just the mathematical equation that describes how objects with mass interact with each other, there is a Theory of Gravitation and that theory is very incomplete.

Laws of Physics are simple equations that describe how mass and energy interact.

A THEORY is something different, it's a falsifiable larger system of explanation and analysis that describes a network of phenomenon and offers predictions for future hypotheses.

It's not a hierarchy of "truth" that goes - hypothesis then theory then law. That is NOT how it works. Each of those things are distinct and separate things, you don't progress from one to another.

The Theory of Evolution will always be a Theory no matter how much evidence and how many details we unravel. Same with the Theory of Gravitation.

This is EXACTLY what's wrong with teaching ID as a theory in science class, it totally undermines the very basics of science and you end up with a bunch of adults who don't even understand how the scientific method works, and we wonder why more and more of our top scientists are foreign-born.
http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii27/mivvysmacros/Fail/roflbotulpnjb1.jpg

Rockntractor
04-08-2010, 09:05 PM
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/gander1.jpg?t=1270775010
Proper Gander (actually proper drake)

Constitutionally Speaking
04-09-2010, 06:11 AM
From the article:



Oh how they try. Texas is the long-standing fulcrum of seemingly never-ending struggles to get all kinds of science bashing, pro-creationism material into the classrooms - because in Texas, legitimate science is apparently a liberal/atheist conspiracy.


Texas was more about actual HISTORY than the made up versions the left has tried to pass off as real.

PoliCon
04-09-2010, 08:30 AM
Texas was more about actual HISTORY than the made up versions the left has tried to pass off as real.

Wilbur and Co. don't care about history. They only care about the attacks on their 'one true faith.':rolleyes:

Novaheart
04-09-2010, 10:33 AM
Is ID such a leap? You think that a bee having a stinger as a defense mechanism while a common house fly does not happened by accident?

Yes, it is such a leap. If for no other reason because it is too complex. Moreover, it's not even truly a slippery slope to Creationism because it is so complex as to suggest that if a god had designed such a thing, he was dealing with laws and contingencies beyond his control. Otherwise, you wouldn't have food competition and defense mechanisms, some animals would simply be food for others and the reproduction cycles would be timed to ensure balance. So the fact that it is neither good science nor good theology means that it's an otherwise worthless idea which exists merely to irritate, better known as a political wedge.

If an omnipotent being had designed the Earth, he would have done a better job of it.

Constitutionally Speaking
04-09-2010, 08:32 PM
Yes, it is such a leap. If for no other reason because it is too complex. Moreover, it's not even truly a slippery slope to Creationism because it is so complex as to suggest that if a god had designed such a thing, he was dealing with laws and contingencies beyond his control. Otherwise, you wouldn't have food competition and defense mechanisms, some animals would simply be food for others and the reproduction cycles would be timed to ensure balance. So the fact that it is neither good science nor good theology means that it's an otherwise worthless idea which exists merely to irritate, better known as a political wedge.

If an omnipotent being had designed the Earth, he would have done a better job of it.

And yet it works beautifully.

Wei Wu Wei
04-09-2010, 08:33 PM
If an omnipotent being had designed the Earth, he would have done a better job of it.

Hah, like you're in the position to judge God's work.

PoliCon
04-09-2010, 09:13 PM
Hah, like you're in the position to judge God's work.

http://www.funnyforumpics.com/forums/GTFO/1/Go-Away-Pig.jpg

Novaheart
04-09-2010, 10:03 PM
And yet it works beautifully.

And utterly pointless.

Novaheart
04-09-2010, 10:04 PM
Hah, like you're in the position to judge God's work.

I judge god's work every day. Contrary to popular opinion, He made a lot of junk.

Rockntractor
04-09-2010, 10:36 PM
I judge god's work every day. Contrary to popular opinion, He made a lot of junk.

You know I got up in an awful mood this morning, but after working a few hours on top of the hill with a view of the Arkansas river stretched out in front of me for thirty miles as far as I could see it reminded me there is something out there much bigger than us. I wish you could feel that way, you are caught in constant loneliness and pessimism and I don't blame you. I would be too if there was no God.

Novaheart
04-10-2010, 11:27 AM
You know I got up in an awful mood this morning, but after working a few hours on top of the hill with a view of the Arkansas river stretched out in front of me for thirty miles as far as I could see it reminded me there is something out there much bigger than us. I wish you could feel that way, you are caught in constant loneliness and pessimism and I don't blame you. I would be too if there was no God.

The difference between me and a real Buddhist would be that the real Buddhist would smile at you and nod, completely confident that your belief quite possibly would manifest for you exactly the way you have been taught to imagine it.

Rockntractor
04-10-2010, 11:30 AM
The difference between me and a real Buddhist would be that the real Buddhist would smile at you and nod, completely confident that your belief quite possibly would manifest for you exactly the way you have been taught to imagine it.
You have little to smile about and are exactly what I expect.

Novaheart
04-10-2010, 12:21 PM
You have little to smile about and are exactly what I expect.

I feel certain that I would be a happier person if I imagined myself to be the personal interest and object of affection of a mythical murdering monster. I'll take Zeus, if you don't mind sharing him.

Rockntractor
04-10-2010, 12:46 PM
I feel certain that I would be a happier person if I imagined myself to be the personal interest and object of affection of a mythical murdering monster. I'll take Zeus, if you don't mind sharing him.

Be my guest, plenty to go around! I would have guessed you for a Bacchus man!

Novaheart
04-10-2010, 03:30 PM
Be my guest, plenty to go around! I would have guessed you for a Bacchus man!

Zeus is hotter and has a bigger....... statue.

FlaGator
04-10-2010, 05:29 PM
I feel certain that I would be a happier person if I imagined myself to be the personal interest and object of affection of a mythical murdering monster. I'll take Zeus, if you don't mind sharing him.

I am glad that the God who created me and whom I worship isn't a murdering monster. He is God.

Novaheart
04-10-2010, 05:58 PM
I am glad that the God who created me and whom I worship isn't a murdering monster. He is God.

That would be news to His innocent victims in Egypt and Sodom. Not to mention that he murdered 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the world's population in a flood.

PoliCon
04-10-2010, 06:08 PM
That would be news to His innocent victims in Egypt and Sodom. Not to mention that he murdered 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the world's population in a flood.

you are so fucking clueless. Innocent? :rolleyes:

Novaheart
04-10-2010, 06:15 PM
you are so fucking clueless. Innocent? :rolleyes:

Children? :rolleyes: And spare me the apologetics.

PoliCon
04-10-2010, 06:16 PM
Children? :rolleyes: And spare me the apologetics.

So you believe that children are innocents? Are you for or against abortion?

Novaheart
04-10-2010, 06:39 PM
So you believe that children are innocents? Are you for or against abortion?

I believe that you are challenging my characterization of G_d/Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah as a murdering monster. Therefore, my position on abortion is no more relevant to the discussion than my eye color. I myself could be a murdering monster and it would not make god less of one.

FlaGator
04-10-2010, 07:05 PM
That would be news to His innocent victims in Egypt and Sodom. Not to mention that he murdered 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the world's population in a flood.

What definition do you use to define innocent? Do you define it by your standards or by God's?

As for the flood, God judged the world guilty of unbridled wickedness and passed sentence on them. If good is guilty of murder on that account then every judge who sentenced someone to death is guilty of murder.

FlaGator
04-10-2010, 07:09 PM
I believe that you are challenging my characterization of G_d/Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah as a murdering monster. Therefore, my position on abortion is no more relevant to the discussion than my eye color. I myself could be a murdering monster and it would not make god less of one.

Sure it does. Poli is absolutely right. If God is guilty of killing innocent people then then you should stand against abortion because we kill the innocent in mass.

FlaGator
04-10-2010, 07:11 PM
Children? :rolleyes: And spare me the apologetics.

If you don't want apologetics then you shouldn't raise questions that require apologetic answers.

Novaheart
04-10-2010, 07:18 PM
What definition do you use to define innocent? Do you define it by your standards or by God's?

Normally I give credit for something being "worth a try" but this really wasn't worth a try on your part. All of this line of questioning was dispensed with by post #90.

But just for fun, let's use the ten commandments. Which of those has an infant broken? Oh, that's right, God hadn't bothered to give the ten commandments yet when he killed the sons of Egypt, everyone in Sodom, and 99.99X% of the population including ALL OF THE CHILDREN OF THE WORLD in the Great Flood. The babies were innocent, except in the eyes of a monster or mentally ill person.

At least Thor was sexy not to mention native to our people. Isn't it enough that we drive Asian cars and use Asian made computers? Do we really need Asian gods as well?

Rockntractor
04-10-2010, 07:22 PM
Normally I give credit for something being "worth a try" but this really wasn't worth a try on your part. All of this line of questioning was dispensed with by post #90.

But just for fun, let's use the ten commandments. Which of those has an infant broken? Oh, that's right, God hadn't bothered to give the ten commandments yet when he killed the sons of Egypt, everyone in Sodom, and 99.99X% of the population including ALL OF THE CHILDREN OF THE WORLD in the Great Flood. The babies were innocent, except in the eyes of a monster or mentally ill person.

At least Thor was sexy not to mention native to our people. Isn't it enough that we drive Asian cars and use Asian made computers? Do we really need Asian gods as well?
You are such a charmer! Has any thread you have participated in ever stayed on topic?

FlaGator
04-10-2010, 07:26 PM
Normally I give credit for something being "worth a try" but this really wasn't worth a try on your part. All of this line of questioning was dispensed with by post #90.

But just for fun, let's use the ten commandments. Which of those has an infant broken? Oh, that's right, God hadn't bothered to give the ten commandments yet when he killed the sons of Egypt, everyone in Sodom, and 99.99X% of the population including ALL OF THE CHILDREN OF THE WORLD in the Great Flood.

At least Thor was sexy not to mention native to our people. Isn't enough that we drive Asian cars and use Asian made computers? Do we really need Asian gods as well?

We are born with an understanding of the law.


(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)
Romans 2:14-15

So no one is without excuse.


For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
Romans 1:20-23

No one is without sin so all are guilty. We are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners.

Before you start an criticize the use of scripture, you opened the door with the Ten Commandments.

PoliCon
04-10-2010, 08:28 PM
I believe that you are challenging my characterization of G_d/Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah as a murdering monster. Therefore, my position on abortion is no more relevant to the discussion than my eye color. I myself could be a murdering monster and it would not make god less of one.

Oh yes it is. If you believe that children are innocent - whether or not you support abortion is indeed relevant.

PoliCon
04-10-2010, 08:29 PM
What definition do you use to define innocent? Do you define it by your standards or by God's?

As for the flood, God judged the world guilty of unbridled wickedness and passed sentence on them. If GOD is guilty of murder on that account then every judge who sentenced someone to death is guilty of murder.

FIXORATED FOR YOU ;)

FlaGator
04-10-2010, 08:31 PM
FIXORATED FOR YOU ;)


Thank you! :-)

Wei Wu Wei
04-10-2010, 08:42 PM
Sure it does. Poli is absolutely right. If God is guilty of killing innocent people then then you should stand against abortion because we kill the innocent in mass.

This comes down to what defines a Person, and how do we put that into law.

I'm not sure how to feel about the abortion debate. I don't like it, but my personal opinion of it doesn't always match my policy preferences. It comes down to what you define a person to be. I don't know what where to draw the defining line of personhood, but I recognize it's a very sensitive topic that shouldn't be taken lightly.

As for legislation, it's even tricker, because laws must be a little less ambiguous in their definitions than people do.

Novaheart
04-10-2010, 08:42 PM
You are such a charmer! Has any thread you have participated in ever stayed on topic?

Why son, when I started doing "bulletin boards" each post had a title and they were expected to have only the most cryptic relationship to the topic.

Novaheart
04-10-2010, 08:45 PM
Oh yes it is. If you believe that children are innocent - whether or not you support abortion is indeed relevant.

If you want to talk about abortion you will have to do it with someone else. Seriously, I don't talk about it. There is nothing new on the subject to be discussed.

Rockntractor
04-10-2010, 08:47 PM
If you want to talk about abortion you will have to do it with someone else. Seriously, I don't talk about it. There is nothing new on the subject to be discussed.
Seriously where this guy is making his deposits there is little chance he will ever father a child Poli!

FlaGator
04-10-2010, 08:55 PM
This comes down to what defines a Person, and how do we put that into law.

I'm not sure how to feel about the abortion debate. I don't like it, but my personal opinion of it doesn't always match my policy preferences. It comes down to what you define a person to be. I don't know what where to draw the defining line of personhood, but I recognize it's a very sensitive topic that shouldn't be taken lightly.

As for legislation, it's even tricker, because laws must be a little less ambiguous in their definitions than people do.

For purposes of this discussion I am operating on what I believe defines a person but what you have pointed out is a common problem to a lot of issues. Defining the issue and reaching a consensus on terminology. Take evolution for example. Evolution can mean a lot of things to a lot of people and sometime when we debate evolution each party is operating on different definitions of evolution. Generally hilarity ensues.

PoliCon
04-10-2010, 08:58 PM
If you want to talk about abortion you will have to do it with someone else. Seriously, I don't talk about it. There is nothing new on the subject to be discussed.

I do not intend to debate the topic. Just answer the question. Do you support abortion on demand with one breath and then claim that children are innocents with the next? If so you are a hypocrite. I'll go out on a limb here and bet that you support animal rights as well. Correct?

wilbur
04-10-2010, 09:12 PM
Sure it does. Poli is absolutely right. If God is guilty of killing innocent people then then you should stand against abortion because we kill the innocent in mass.

C'mon now.... you have to know by now this isnt true.

Most pro-choice beliefs are predicated on the view that a fetas (at least up to a certain stage of development) is not the moral equivalent of a person. So a pro-choice person can be entirely consistent with their own beliefs, while both criticizing the God of the OT for his atrocities, and believing that abortion is morally permissible.

If you haven't wrapped your head around this simple point, then you really haven't understood anything I have said to you on the topic of abortion, despite our pages long discussions in the past.

wilbur
04-10-2010, 09:18 PM
I do not intend to debate the topic. Just answer the question. Do you support abortion on demand with one breath and then claim that children are innocents with the next? If so you are a hypocrite. I'll go out on a limb here and bet that you support animal rights as well. Correct?

I do - see my last post.

You can't really call someone a hypocrite for not maintaining consistency with your own worldview, with which they probably vehemently disagree.

Rockntractor
04-10-2010, 09:21 PM
I do not intend to debate the topic. Just answer the question. Do you support abortion on demand with one breath and then claim that children are innocents with the next? If so you are a hypocrite. I'll go out on a limb here and bet that you support animal rights as well. Correct?
Now that there is a great avatar! Beats the shit out of the busted bell!:cool:

FlaGator
04-10-2010, 09:33 PM
C'mon now.... you have to know by now this isnt true.

Most pro-choice beliefs are predicated on the view that a fetas (at least up to a certain stage of development) is not the moral equivalent of a person. So a pro-choice person can be entirely consistent with their own beliefs, while both criticizing the God of the OT for his atrocities, and believing that abortion is morally permissible.

If you haven't wrapped your head around this simple point, then you really haven't understood anything I have said to you on the topic of abortion, despite our pages long discussions in the past.

I understand the pro-choice point thoroughly and have rejected it as anti-human and self-centric. In order for one to deny their responsibility in the premature death/murder of another they must conclude that life does not begin at conception or any point before the time they choose to have an abortion. They have no choice if they intend to ignore the blood that is on their hands.

wilbur
04-10-2010, 09:54 PM
I understand the pro-choice point thoroughly and have rejected it as anti-human and self-centric. In order for one to deny their responsibility in the premature death/murder of another they must conclude that life does not begin at conception or any point before the time they choose to have an abortion. They have no choice if they intend to ignore the blood that is on their hands.

OR - perhaps you can refrain from presuming to have the ability to peer inside the psyche of folks you have never even met, and maybe just entertain the idea that their beliefs aren't predicated on some deep shame, because beneath it all they must really agree with you and know their hypocrisy.

I think that's just common courtesy.

Constitutionally Speaking
04-10-2010, 09:57 PM
C'mon now.... you have to know by now this isnt true.

Most pro-choice beliefs are predicated on the view that a fetas (at least up to a certain stage of development) is not the moral equivalent of a person. So a pro-choice person can be entirely consistent with their own beliefs, while both criticizing the God of the OT for his atrocities, and believing that abortion is morally permissible.

If you haven't wrapped your head around this simple point, then you really haven't understood anything I have said to you on the topic of abortion, despite our pages long discussions in the past.


That is because the Pro-Choice people don't give a crap about science and seek to de-humanize their victims with such twaddle as "fetus".

It is an independent HUMAN child. Not a parasite, Not cluster of cells .


It is alive, it's DNA is HUMAN, and it's DNA is unique from the mother's.

Wei Wu Wei
04-10-2010, 10:03 PM
For purposes of this discussion I am operating on what I believe defines a person but what you have pointed out is a common problem to a lot of issues. Defining the issue and reaching a consensus on terminology. Take evolution for example. Evolution can mean a lot of things to a lot of people and sometime when we debate evolution each party is operating on different definitions of evolution. Generally hilarity ensues.

Yes. I would argue that most if not all of the arguments that end up with both sides just seeing the other side as out of it stems from them using the same word with different definitions (or better put, the same signifier but different signified).

It's ironic that you mention evolution, because evolution (on a biological and also cosmic scale) is the essence of this mismatch. Evolution of any type threatens predefined ideas, and when one is attached to those ideas, evolution brings to attention that the definition is empty and arbitrary, which causes what I consider the primordial anxiety that breeds all future anxiety.

Rockntractor
04-10-2010, 10:08 PM
Yes. I would argue that most if not all of the arguments that end up with both sides just seeing the other side as out of it stems from them using the same word with different definitions (or better put, the same signifier but different signified).

It's ironic that you mention evolution, because evolution (on a biological and also cosmic scale) is the essence of this mismatch. Evolution of any type threatens predefined ideas, and when one is attached to those ideas, evolution brings to attention that the definition is empty and arbitrary, which causes what I consider the primordial anxiety that breeds all future anxiety.
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/hearts18stoned.jpg?t=1270951650

Wei Wu Wei
04-10-2010, 10:09 PM
I understand the pro-choice point thoroughly and have rejected it as anti-human and self-centric. In order for one to deny their responsibility in the premature death/murder of another they must conclude that life does not begin at conception or any point before the time they choose to have an abortion. They have no choice if they intend to ignore the blood that is on their hands.

I cannot call myself pro-choice at the moment because the idea of abortion is so repellent to me, but the most convincing pro-choice argument ive heard was as follows:

1. Definition of Person: has certain properties, consciousness, communication, reasoning, self-motivated behavior, and self-awareness.

2. The status of a fetus is still undefined, perhaps "pre-person" "potential-person", ect. but a fetus does not meet the definition of a Person

3. In the conflict of rights between a Person and non-Person (the right of the mother to own her own body vs the rights (if any) the fetus has to life) , the rights of the Person take precedence.



Seems to be the best but I'm hesitant to define a Person so explicitly.

wilbur
04-10-2010, 10:18 PM
That is because the Pro-Choice people don't give a crap about science and seek to de-humanize their victims with such twaddle as "fetus".


Absurd on its face - I'm quite fond of science.



It is an independent HUMAN child. Not a parasite, Not cluster of cells .

Quite frankly, we are all just clusters of cells - some clusters of cells have moral significance, others don't.



It is alive, it's DNA is HUMAN, and it's DNA is unique from the mother's.

The presence of DNA is absolutely morally insignificant to me. Scientifically demonstrate that this is incorrect - go ahead, give it a shot.

Rockntractor
04-10-2010, 10:23 PM
I cannot call myself pro-choice at the moment because the idea of abortion is so repellent to me, but the most convincing pro-choice argument ive heard was as follows:

1. Definition of Person: has certain properties, consciousness, communication, reasoning, self-motivated behavior, and self-awareness.

2. The status of a fetus is still undefined, perhaps "pre-person" "potential-person", ect. but a fetus does not meet the definition of a Person

3. In the conflict of rights between a Person and non-Person (the right of the mother to own her own body vs the rights (if any) the fetus has to life) , the rights of the Person take precedence.



Seems to be the best but I'm hesitant to define a Person so explicitly.
I hope you chose wisely Wei!

PoliCon
04-10-2010, 11:19 PM
I do - see my last post.

You can't really call someone a hypocrite for not maintaining consistency with your own worldview, with which they probably vehemently disagree.
that's exactly what she is doing. :rolleyes:

Sonnabend
04-10-2010, 11:24 PM
Absurd on its face - I'm quite fond of science.

But you dont actually HAVE any degrees in science, now do you? Yet you are a self proclaimed expert on Global Warming :rolleyes:

Constitutionally Speaking
04-10-2010, 11:56 PM
Absurd on its face - I'm quite fond of science.



Quite frankly, we are all just clusters of cells - some clusters of cells have moral significance, others don't.



The presence of DNA is absolutely morally insignificant to me. Scientifically demonstrate that this is incorrect - go ahead, give it a shot.


So you morally judge against science. DNA PROVES both species and individuality - scientifically factual and undisputed.

Therefore you MUST just dismiss it.


So your first statement in your post is a lie (well, you might love it, but you don't believe it). All humans are significant clusters of cells.

fettpett
04-11-2010, 11:13 AM
That would be news to His innocent victims in Egypt and Sodom. Not to mention that he murdered 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the world's population in a flood.

you really don't understand what that was about. God follows His rules, otherwise there would be no point to anything. God destroyed those people for a reason. They were given opportunity after opportunity to face the truth, yet they didn't.

We're not talking about a few days that Moses was in front of the Pharaoh, but the 300 years that the Hebrew people lived in Egypt. they were given an example, yet they didn't change. Also the plagues on Egypt wouldn't have happened if Pharaoh had simply let them go.

the Antediluvian's had access to a nearly perfect world, as well as Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden as well as other examples, and yet rejected God.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-11-2010, 11:41 AM
you really don't understand what that was about. God follows His rules, otherwise there would be no point to anything. God destroyed those people for a reason. They were given opportunity after opportunity to face the truth, yet they didn't.

We're not talking about a few days that Moses was in front of the Pharaoh, but the 300 years that the Hebrew people lived in Egypt. they were given an example, yet they didn't change. Also the plagues on Egypt wouldn't have happened if Pharaoh had simply let them go.

the Antediluvian's had access to a nearly perfect world, as well as Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden as well as other examples, and yet rejected God.

And how does God having the same morals (Obey or die; won't even spare the lives of babies) as that of a sociopath really justify or place meaning or a point on anything?

fettpett
04-11-2010, 11:42 AM
Normally I give credit for something being "worth a try" but this really wasn't worth a try on your part. All of this line of questioning was dispensed with by post #90.

But just for fun, let's use the ten commandments. Which of those has an infant broken? Oh, that's right, God hadn't bothered to give the ten commandments yet when he killed the sons of Egypt, everyone in Sodom, and 99.99X% of the population including ALL OF THE CHILDREN OF THE WORLD in the Great Flood. The babies were innocent, except in the eyes of a monster or mentally ill person.

At least Thor was sexy not to mention native to our people. Isn't it enough that we drive Asian cars and use Asian made computers? Do we really need Asian gods as well?

ohhh....so you're going to say that just because the Commandments weren't WRITTEN down they weren't applicable. thats a load of crap. Lucifer's argument against God was that he wasn't fair or just. Lucifer was trying to say that the Creator couldn't follow His own rules. Yet all God would have had to do was wipe EVERYTHING in exsistance out and start over. yet he didn't. He wanted to let Lucifer prove his point, that he could do a better job than God could. The first Lie was Satan telling Eve that She would be LIKE God, to know everything and not die, yet she did. everything since has died.

God knows the hearts and minds. He knew that letting a people continue on a path would lead to greater suffering than if they weren't cut off. However that doesn't mean he won't let a person/people continue on. There are many more examples of God staying his hand than destroying.

you bring up Sodom. read the story, God was going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, yet Abraham asked God to spare both cities if 10 people could be found that followed God. Lot's family in of it's self had to have been bigger than 10 people, yet only 4 made it out, and 3 lived. Lot's wife would have stayed in Sodom if Lot hadn't taken her away. But even his two daughters didn't trust that God would provide, so only 1 person believed and trusted in God.

Look at the story of Jonah. most people get hung up on the whole "fish" part of the story, yet never look at the reason why Jonah didn't want to go to Nineveh. the Assyrians were the enemies of the Hebrew people, he despised those people, and yet God wanted to save them. He sent Jonah to tell them that they would be destroyed if they didn't stop sinning. Jonah ran, not because he was scared to tell them, but he WANTED them to be destroyed. After the whole fish incident, Jonah went and preach to the people, and went to wait for God to destroy them, yet he didn't. Jonah cared more for the dumb plant than for the people of the city, Where God was more concerned with the people of the city.

fettpett
04-11-2010, 11:52 AM
And how does God having the same morals (Obey or die; won't even spare the lives of babies) as that of a sociopath really justify or place meaning or a point on anything?

they are completely different. God gave them a chance to repent, to come back to Him. You make it sound like Obeying him is hard. it's not. a Sociopath will make you do things that are harmful to yourself or others. God wants you to live full happy lives.

what is harder, cheating on your spouse and all the lies and hurt that come with, or being faithful and staying with your spouse.

what is harder, stealing from your neighbor and trying to cover it up, or just asking to barrow from them.

people think that there is some difficulty in following God, to trust him. That he doesn't want you to have fun. but thats far from the truth. if He didn't, why would He have created us to experience all the range of emotions, pleasure and such. But at the same time He allows us the freedom to choose Him or not. He doesn't have a gun to our heads, but allows us to live with the consequences of our actions

Novaheart
04-11-2010, 12:22 PM
ohhh....so you're going to say that just because the Commandments weren't WRITTEN down they weren't applicable. thats a load of crap. Lucifer's argument against God was that he wasn't fair or just. Lucifer was trying to say that the Creator couldn't follow His own rules. Yet all God would have had to do was wipe EVERYTHING in exsistance out and start over. yet he didn't. He wanted to let Lucifer prove his point, that he could do a better job than God could. The first Lie was Satan telling Eve that She would be LIKE God, to know everything and not die, yet she did. everything since has died.

God knows the hearts and minds. He knew that letting a people continue on a path would lead to greater suffering than if they weren't cut off. However that doesn't mean he won't let a person/people continue on. There are many more examples of God staying his hand than destroying.

you bring up Sodom. read the story, God was going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, yet Abraham asked God to spare both cities if 10 people could be found that followed God. Lot's family in of it's self had to have been bigger than 10 people, yet only 4 made it out, and 3 lived. Lot's wife would have stayed in Sodom if Lot hadn't taken her away. But even his two daughters didn't trust that God would provide, so only 1 person believed and trusted in God.

Look at the story of Jonah. most people get hung up on the whole "fish" part of the story, yet never look at the reason why Jonah didn't want to go to Nineveh. the Assyrians were the enemies of the Hebrew people, he despised those people, and yet God wanted to save them. He sent Jonah to tell them that they would be destroyed if they didn't stop sinning. Jonah ran, not because he was scared to tell them, but he WANTED them to be destroyed. After the whole fish incident, Jonah went and preach to the people, and went to wait for God to destroy them, yet he didn't. Jonah cared more for the dumb plant than for the people of the city, Where God was more concerned with the people of the city.


Thor.

Rockntractor
04-11-2010, 12:24 PM
Thor.

Sodomite.

Novaheart
04-11-2010, 12:27 PM
they are completely different. God gave them a chance to repent, to come back to Him. You make it sound like Obeying him is hard. it's not. a Sociopath will make you do things that are harmful to yourself or others. God wants you to live full happy lives.

what is harder, cheating on your spouse and all the lies and hurt that come with, or being faithful and staying with your spouse.

what is harder, stealing from your neighbor and trying to cover it up, or just asking to barrow from them.

people think that there is some difficulty in following God, to trust him. That he doesn't want you to have fun. but thats far from the truth. if He didn't, why would He have created us to experience all the range of emotions, pleasure and such. But at the same time He allows us the freedom to choose Him or not. He doesn't have a gun to our heads, but allows us to live with the consequences of our actions

You know, the Egyptian version of Exodus reads quite differently and it's written in stone, literally. It also makes a lot more sense.

Hebrew version: We were really nice and didn't do anything wrong, and they were mean to us and wouldn't let us go, so God punished them and they not only told us to leave, but gave us their money and jewelry and stuff on the way out.

Egyptian version: We let them move here during the drought, and sure they were good for business at first but then they got pushy and we told them to leave, and they wouldn't , so we sent the army to drive them out and they stole everything which wasn't nailed down on their way out.

Sorry, but a lifelong study of human nature says smart money is on the Egyptian version.

djones520
04-11-2010, 12:28 PM
You know, the Egyptian version of Exodus reads quite differently and it's written in stone, literally. It also makes a lot more sense.

Hebrew version: We were really nice and didn't do anything wrong, and they were mean to us and wouldn't let us go, so God punished them and they not only told us to leave, but gave us their money and jewelry and stuff on the way out.

Egyptian version: We let them move here during the drought, and sure they were good for business at first but then they got pushy and we told them to leave, and they wouldn't , so we sent the army to drive them out and they stole everything which wasn't nailed down on their way out.

Sorry, but a lifelong study of human nature says smart money is on the Egyptian version.

You realize your summarization for both is the basically the same thing? Each side cries victim. So how does that make your point?

fettpett
04-11-2010, 04:48 PM
You know, the Egyptian version of Exodus reads quite differently and it's written in stone, literally. It also makes a lot more sense.

Hebrew version: We were really nice and didn't do anything wrong, and they were mean to us and wouldn't let us go, so God punished them and they not only told us to leave, but gave us their money and jewelry and stuff on the way out.

Egyptian version: We let them move here during the drought, and sure they were good for business at first but then they got pushy and we told them to leave, and they wouldn't , so we sent the army to drive them out and they stole everything which wasn't nailed down on their way out.

Sorry, but a lifelong study of human nature says smart money is on the Egyptian version.

you were missing the entire point of my post. If you can't figure that out, well guess it's your problem

wilbur
04-11-2010, 06:17 PM
So you morally judge against science. DNA PROVES both species and individuality - scientifically factual and undisputed.

...

So your first statement in your post is a lie (well, you might love it, but you don't believe it). All humans are significant clusters of cells.


Nobody disputes the scientific facts, and I assure you - I am fully aware of the scientific facts, and do "give a crap about science". Your accusation in that regard is totally ridiculous.

There is an absurdly large chasm separating the actual scientific fact from your conclusion that "All humans are significant clusters of cells" - this is most certainly not supported by scientific fact, and is governed completely by highly unscientific moral philosophies and worldviews. The scientific facts of the matter are simply incapable of crossing that chasm.

Species membership, in my view, fares just as poorly as an indicator of moral significance, as the existence of DNA does. Both totally absurd, nonsensical, and arbitrary criterion to delineate what deserves moral concern, and what does not.

So again I pose the challenge - demonstrate scientifically, why species membership confers moral significance.*





*Hint: you can't

Rockntractor
04-11-2010, 06:25 PM
Nobody disputes the scientific facts, and I assure you - I am fully aware of the scientific facts, and do "give a crap about science". Your accusation in that regard is totally ridiculous.

There is an absurdly large chasm separating the actual scientific fact from your conclusion that "All humans are significant clusters of cells" - this is most certainly not supported by scientific fact, and is governed completely by highly unscientific moral philosophies and worldviews. The scientific facts of the matter are simply incapable of crossing that chasm.

Species membership, in my view, fares just as poorly as an indicator of moral significance, as the existence of DNA does. Both totally absurd, nonsensical, and arbitrary criterion to delineate what deserves moral concern, and what does not.

So again I pose the challenge - demonstrate scientifically, why species membership confers moral significance.*





*Hint: you can't

The only "absurdly large chasm" exists between your ears! Awe relaxation!:)


Someone quote this so the little bitch has to read it!

fettpett
04-11-2010, 09:46 PM
The only "absurdly large chasm" exists between your ears! Awe relaxation!:)


Someone quote this so the little bitch has to read it!

no problem :D:cool:

Novaheart
04-11-2010, 09:49 PM
you were missing the entire point of my post. If you can't figure that out, well guess it's your problem

No, I'm not missing what you believe to be a point. I am insisting on a rational approach.

PoliCon
04-11-2010, 09:52 PM
Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
Nobody disputes the scientific facts, and I assure you - I am fully aware of the scientific facts, and do "give a crap about science". Your accusation in that regard is totally ridiculous.

There is an absurdly large chasm separating the actual scientific fact from your conclusion that "All humans are significant clusters of cells" - this is most certainly not supported by scientific fact, and is governed completely by highly unscientific moral philosophies and worldviews. The scientific facts of the matter are simply incapable of crossing that chasm.

Species membership, in my view, fares just as poorly as an indicator of moral significance, as the existence of DNA does. Both totally absurd, nonsensical, and arbitrary criterion to delineate what deserves moral concern, and what does not.

So again I pose the challenge - demonstrate scientifically, why species membership confers moral significance.*





*Hint: you can'tThe only "absurdly large chasm" exists between your ears! Awe relaxation!:)


Someone quote this so the little bitch has to read it!

You want me to do what?

fettpett
04-11-2010, 10:59 PM
No, I'm not missing what you believe to be a point. I am insisting on a rational approach.

right, the Egyptians were the Superpower of the time. They could have forced anyone out or kept them in. I'd also like a link to the Egyptian view of the Exodus.

The Egyptian's very easily came up with that narrative as a way to save face, particularly as they had just lost a HUGE part of their labor force, as well as the Pharaoh. there are records of the Egyptian's having to buy a Large amount of Horses at the time as well which correlates with the Exodus account.

you can believe what you want though

Constitutionally Speaking
04-12-2010, 05:56 AM
There is an absurdly large chasm separating the actual scientific fact from your conclusion that "All humans are significant clusters of cells" - this is most certainly not supported by scientific fact, and is governed completely by highly unscientific moral philosophies and worldviews. The scientific facts of the matter are simply incapable of crossing that chasm.



First off, that was not my conclusion nor even my statement. The statement I made that resembled (though the meaning was quite different) was merely an aside to your statement saying we all are clusters of cells.



Give me a scientific answer that denies my three main points.

A "fetus" is alive

A "fetus" is human as demonstrated by DNA

A "fuetus" is an individual living being with DNA unique from it's mother.


Refute those points.

wilbur
04-12-2010, 08:24 AM
Give me a scientific answer that denies my three main points.

A "fetus" is alive

A "fetus" is human as demonstrated by DNA

A "fuetus" is an individual living being with DNA unique from it's mother.

Refute those points.

I don't care too, because I do not dispute them. See there? I fully recognize the scientific facts of the matter. The only thing I might object too, is the use of the term "individual", since some might take it to suggest that I concede that the fetus is somehow a person, when I actually believe it is a non-person. "Distinct" would probably cause less confusion. Once again, I will point out how absurd your initial charge was - that pro-choice folk "don't give a crap about science".

But how can I remain pro-choice, while acknowledging these facts, you say? Because you can't scientifically demonstrate the value of a fetus. These facts do not "scientifically" compel one to consider a fetus as one who has moral significance, at all. Your belief to the contrary, that these beings do have moral significance, is a belief that remains unsupported by any of these scientific facts.

When I sit back and really think about why I treat other beings in this world with ethical concern, I find it has nothing at all to do with whether that being has unique DNA, or it just so happens to be a member of a particular species. I find it quite mysterious and puzzling that anybody would suggest that ethics or rights should have anything to do with those things, actually. And there isnt any scientific fact that says this is wrong.

So its not that I "don't give a crap about science" or that I ignore it... its that you are not properly recognizing the distinction between scientific facts, and your own philosophies about morals and value.

fettpett
04-12-2010, 05:02 PM
let me ask you where you get your ethics.

then chalenge you to read CS Lewis Mere Christianity. A book writen by a man that was an atheists and converted.

PoliCon
04-12-2010, 06:21 PM
let me ask you where you get your ethics.

then chalenge you to read CS Lewis Mere Christianity. A book writen by a man that was an atheists and converted.

Ethics? He don't need no stinkin ethics. He has the GOREACLE!:rolleyes:

fettpett
04-12-2010, 06:55 PM
Ethics? He don't need no stinkin ethics. He has the GOREACLE!:rolleyes:

LMFAO:eek:

Constitutionally Speaking
04-12-2010, 07:47 PM
I don't care too, because I do not dispute them. See there? I fully recognize the scientific facts of the matter. The only thing I might object too, is the use of the term "individual", since some might take it to suggest that I concede that the fetus is somehow a person, when I actually believe it is a non-person. "Distinct" would probably cause less confusion. Once again, I will point out how absurd your initial charge was - that pro-choice folk "don't give a crap about science".

But how can I remain pro-choice, while acknowledging these facts, you say? Because you can't scientifically demonstrate the value of a fetus. These facts do not "scientifically" compel one to consider a fetus as one who has moral significance, at all. Your belief to the contrary, that these beings do have moral significance, is a belief that remains unsupported by any of these scientific facts.

When I sit back and really think about why I treat other beings in this world with ethical concern, I find it has nothing at all to do with whether that being has unique DNA, or it just so happens to be a member of a particular species. I find it quite mysterious and puzzling that anybody would suggest that ethics or rights should have anything to do with those things, actually. And there isnt any scientific fact that says this is wrong.

So its not that I "don't give a crap about science" or that I ignore it... its that you are not properly recognizing the distinction between scientific facts, and your own philosophies about morals and value.

So you agree that it is alive and it is human and it is a "distinct" human being. That means abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human being.

That is the definition of murder. It does not matter if YOU value that life or not. A psychopath does not value the lives he takes either, but it is still murder.

wilbur
04-12-2010, 09:25 PM
I take it I've quashed your initial accusation that "pro-choice doesn't given a crap about science"... now on to this further whopper of a misunderstanding.


So you agree that it is alive and it is human and it is a "distinct" human being. That means abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human being.


Whoa there buddy... "innocent"?!? "Human being"?!? I never said such things. I think its incoherent to call it murder when a fetus is destroyed intentionally, I certainly think its incoherent to call a fetus "innocent". Both terms necessarily imply some sort of person-hood, which a fetus simply does not have - and without person-hood, those terms are nonsensical.



That is the definition of murder. It does not matter if YOU value that life or not. A psychopath does not value the lives he takes either, but it is still murder.

Nice try, but its based on a grave (and unfortunately *very fundamental*) misunderstanding about the person-hood position, so your point here is *extremely* moot.

Constitutionally Speaking
04-12-2010, 09:28 PM
I don't think it IS a misunderstanding.


You claim it isn't a person --- simply because you don't want to deal with the consequences of it being human - which BY DEFINITION it is.

If it is human, then abortion is murder. PERIOD.

fettpett
04-12-2010, 09:31 PM
so then, at which point do you consider it a person?

Constitutionally Speaking
04-12-2010, 09:38 PM
so then, at which point do you consider it a person?

The instant the DNA is unique.

Big Guy
04-12-2010, 09:47 PM
so then, at which point do you consider it a person?

In most cases it is a person at conception, but in some cases, (FET PET< WEE WEE< WILBUR) most likely never. :D

wilbur
04-12-2010, 09:48 PM
I don't think it IS a misunderstanding.

Oh, but it is - and its huge.



You claim it isn't a person --- simply because you don't want to deal with the consequences of it being human - which BY DEFINITION it is.


No, I claim it isnt a person, based on my reflections about why I treat some entities with with moral regard, and why others... I don't. I don't care about the insects I squash, but I do care about my dog - and even stray dogs. I care about the suffering of many animals, but find that I care little when a weed is killed, or even when a rose bush is uprooted. I'm absolutely merciless when a cockroach tries to escape the harsh weather, and decides to invade my home - but for the bird who does the same, he gets much nicer treatment.

I feel bad when a human being suffers or is killed, but find that I care little when an embryo is destroyed - unless of course, that destruction causes real anguish for a living person.

Can it suffer? Can it feel? Does it in some way desire to survive? If not, then I find I can care little for its welfare. And I bet, when it comes right down to it, most of you act in the same manner, most of the time.



If it is human, then abortion is murder. PERIOD.

Even with such an all-capitalized and stern reassurance to us all, that what you have to say, is all there is to say... I can only assure you - it isnt.

There are plenty things that are human, but that are not persons; the organ on ice for a transplant is human, a corpse can be human, an embryo can be human - but none are persons.

I don't consider "human" and "person" to be the same thing. A person is, to me, an entity that requires some ethical regard, and can even theoretically be something non-human. Perhaps we develop a sentient AI one day, that has independent thoughts and feelings. Certainly not human, but something we should treat ethically, nonetheless.

wilbur
04-12-2010, 09:49 PM
so then, at which point do you consider it a person?

We cannot know for sure - but there is a line where we can definitively say "No person exists". That is roughly week 20 (being conservative) in pregnancy, when the cerebral cortex begins to function.

wilbur
04-12-2010, 09:54 PM
The instant the DNA is unique.

You do realize, there is no such instant? We can literally pull this "instant" apart into hundreds of various chemical reactions that take place over a significant period of time. There is no magic poof.

Rockntractor
04-12-2010, 09:56 PM
I don't consider "human" and "person" to be the same thing. A person is, to me, an entity that requires some ethical regard, and can even theoretically be something non-human. Perhaps we develop a sentient AI one day, that has independent thoughts and feelings. Certainly not human, but something we should treat ethically, nonetheless.
What do you consider ethics "human" and where do you get them from?:rolleyes:

wilbur
04-12-2010, 10:09 PM
let me ask you where you get your ethics.

Partly moral intuition, partly reason - I can't say I'm a firm follower of any exact ethical theory - since I really have only begun my research on them. I can only really say that at the present time, I'm a species of consequentialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism)



then chalenge you to read CS Lewis Mere Christianity. A book writen by a man that was an atheists and converted.

OK, I'll bite - I figured I'd have to read this one eventually, just because of the sheer numbers of believers who think its such a bullet proof, atheist destroying apologetic masterpiece.

But how bout you return the favor, and read something I pick? Hmmm, what to choose....

fettpett
04-13-2010, 01:09 PM
Partly moral intuition, partly reason - I can't say I'm a firm follower of any exact ethical theory - since I really have only begun my research on them. I can only really say that at the present time, I'm a species of consequentialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism)



OK, I'll bite - I figured I'd have to read this one eventually, just because of the sheer numbers of believers who think its such a bullet proof, atheist destroying apologetic masterpiece.

But how bout you return the favor, and read something I pick? Hmmm, what to choose....

good, it's not bullet proof, nothing is, however it is a very very good argument. I'm up to the challenge, however it might take me more time as I've got a very busy schedule atm with 2 school.